A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c26.s3.95

v1.c26.s3.95

A.F.R.Hoernle³⁵⁰ expressed as his opinion that this relationship is less certain than that with the Carakasaṃhitā because the Suśrutasaṃhitā is never actually quoted, but that, still, numerous indications point to a decided posteriority of the Saṃgraha to its revised and completed version, suggested, for example, by the treatment of the eye diseases, which follows the outline as found in Suśruta’s Uttaratantra. He also points to the division of the Saṃgraha into the same sections as the Suśrutasaṃhitā. Hoernle’s additional remark that the Indian tradition makes in the same direction cannot be accepted as a valid argument. His assertion that the Suśrutasaṃhitā is never actually quoted is far from the truth, but the presence of the same sections in Suśruta’s work on the one hand and Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya on the other, is a valid point, worthy of consideration.