A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c26.s3.28

v1.c26.s3.28

A.F.R. Hoernle 297 strongly objected to the views of J. Jolly. He advanced that the Suśrutasaṃhitā could not possibly be implicated, since its great antiquity conflicts with I-ching’s reference to a recent book and also because its title cannot be connected with I-ching’s epitome. The similarities between the lists of the aṅgas of āyurveda were reasoned away with unacceptable arguments. Moreover, Hoernle was wrong in giving much weight to the age of the Suśrutasaṃhitā, because the later version is concerned here; this later version, not the original, more ancient saṃhitā, may well be described as comprising all eight branches of medicine.