A History of Indian Medical Literature v2.c30.938

v2.c30.938

292 The chapter colophons mentioning Dṛḍhabala are absent from part of the editions. 293 See the end of his comments ad Ca.Ci.25. 294 Gulabkunverba I, 101–105. 295 See HIM III, 624–629. 296 See G. Mukhopadhyaya (HIM III, 626–628) on Birajācaraṇ Sengupta's criteria. B. Sengupta, who was convinced that quotations from Caraka with the case-ending of the instrumental refer to the author himself, pointed to a quotation in the Madhukośa ad Mādhavanidāna 35.21–22c (on a variety of udara). Śrīkaṇṭhadatta's citations in his commentary on this chapter begin, however, several times with yad uktam carake, which invalidates the reasoning, since the use of the locative, according to B. Sengupta's presuppositions, indicates that the Carakasamhitā (as revised by Dṛḍhabala) is the source. B. Sengupta suggested that part of the chapter on udara, in particular the verses on surgical treatment, might be additions of Dṛḍhabala to Caraka's text. 297 See, for example: AVI 107; P.V. Sharma (1992d): 187; Yādavaśarman's upodghāta, 11–12. Birajācaraṇ Sengupta concludes that the authorship of the chapters on unmāda, apasmāra, kṣatakṣīṇa, and śvayathu cannot be settled with certainty (see HIM III, 629); the Gulabkunverba team (Gulabkunverba I, 105) infers that it remains doubtful who wrote the chapters on unmāda, apasmāra, kṣatakṣīṇa, śvayathu, udara, kāsa, and chardi. 298 See, for example: Gulabkunverba I, 104–105; A.F.R. Hoernle (1908); R. Śāstrī (1977): 481–419; P.V. Sharma (1992d): 186–187. P. Cordier (1903b: 328–329) concluded that Jīvānanda reproduces the original classification of Dṛḍhabala. 299 This table (Ca.Sū.30.36–68) covers all the sections of the Carakasamhitā; it may be one of Dṛḍhabala's additions. 300 The last three chapters of the Nidānasthāna deal with soṣa (= rājayakṣman), unmāda and apasmāra. 301 The commentators give arguments for the sequence of the chapters. Cakrapāṇidatta's list of the chapters due to Caraka himself may have been the source of Jīvānanda's serial order; this list (see Cakra ad Ca.Ci.30.289–290) comprises Ci.1–8, and the chapters on arśas, atīsāra, visarpa, dvivraṇīya and madātyaya; Jīvānanda reversed the order of the chapters on madātyaya and dvivraṇīya. Cakrapāṇi's arrangement in this list need not mean that the chapters are enumerated in their original order, because he defends the current series at the beginning of his comments on each chapter. 302 D. Chattopadhyaya (1979: 30) asks himself whether it could be that the contempt for physicians expressed by the Indian lawgivers had anything to do with the neglect and loss of a very substantial portion of Caraka's work. P.V. Sharma (1970a: 53–61) suggested that Caraka's treatise did not become current and was partly lost because Caraka was a Śaka physician. See on the legal position of physicians in India: A.L. Basham (1976): 36–39; L. Sternbach *(1945), (1948), (1949), (1965). 303 The earliest representative of the tradition that Caraka left his work half-completed by reason of his untimely death is Indu (paribhāṣā 25 at the end of A.s.Ka.8). 304 R. Śāstrī (1977: 419) assumes that Dṛḍhabala could dispose of fragments of the lost parts, which can be detected thanks to their superior style. 305 It is called Kalpopaniṣad. 306 For example, at Sū.15.5; Ci.5.102, 132, 161. 307 P. Cordier (1903b: 328–329) was convinced that the table was rewritten by some later redactor. The same view is expressed by the Gulabkunverba team (I, 105). P.V. Sharma (AVI 106) considers it to belong to the original Carakasamhitā.