A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c26.s3.41

v1.c26.s3.41

C. Vogel³¹⁰ described Bhattacharyya’s opinion as purely hypothetical, rather far-fetched, and unsatisfactory. He argued that a book once so popular as to have been read all over India is not very likely afterwards to have fallen into complete oblivion. This is, however, not a strong point, first, because it gives too much credit to I-ching’s reliability, and, second, because many once popular medical works did get lost. Vogel’s second objection, namely that Vāgbhaṭa does not mention any such work among his sources, is even weaker with a view to the extreme paucity of the latter’s references to authors and works he borrowed from.