A History of Indian Medical Literature v2.c30.945

v2.c30.945

530 Ad Ca.Ci.3.210–214; 30.127cd–132. Jejjaṭa refers to the kāśmīrābhiṣajaḥ and the kāśmīrakaḥ. 531 Ad Cakradatta, jvara 256–257; arśas 49–50; raktapitta 66–73; gulma 41–42 (twice); udara 14–15 and 57; kuṣṭha 6–7 and 8.12; nasya 1. 532 Ad Ca.Sū.3.3; 5.49cd–51ab. Śivadāsa refers to the kāśmīrakaḥ and the kāśmīrasammataḥ pāṭhaḥ. 533 Ad Siddhayoga 74.16–17 (kāśmīrāḥ). 534 Ad Mādhavanidāna 2.18–23 (kāśmīrapāṭha); 10.5 (kāśmīrāḥ) 535 Ad Mādhavanidāna 2.18–23 (kāśmīrapāṭha); 5.27cd–30, 10.5 and 14.2 (kāśmīrāḥ). 536 Ad Cakradatta, kuṣṭha 8–12. Ad Ca.Sū.3.3. 537 Variously interpreted by the translators: consisting of three limbs (K.M. Ganguli), interrupted by three bulges (Gulabkunverba), having three knots (R.K. Sharma and Bhagwan Dash), having three pouches (P.V. Sharma). 538 Ad Mādhavanidāna 2.18–23. 539 Jejjaṭa and Cakrapāṇi call the fevers described in these verses prakṛtisamasamavāyārabdha, which means that their symptoms are in tune with those of the doṣas involved. 540 Ad Mādhavanidāna 10.5 = Ca.Ci.8.52. 541 The Kāśyapasamhitā is the only other treatise mentioning atattvābhiniveśa. See on this disease: G.J. Meulenbeld (1997). 542 Ad Cakradatta, udara 14–15. 543 Ad Cakradatta, udara 57. 544 Ad Mādhavanidāna 5.27cd–30 = Ca.Ci.14.171–174. 545 Cakra says that the Kāśmīras read the already mentioned mustādika in the passage beginning with hapuṣārdhakudavo. 546 Ad Cakradatta, nasya 1. 547 Ad Siddhayoga 74.16–17. 548 Ad Cakradatta, arśas 49–50. 549 See: recipes ascribed to Maṇibhadra in: Authorities associated with formulae. 550 Scholars regarding the Kāśmīrapāṭha as Dṛḍhabala's version of the Carakasamhitā are the Gulabkunverba team (I, 98–99), A.F.R. Hoernle (1908a; 1909: 890–891; 1978: 3), O.P. Jaggi (IV, 14), and P. Kutumbiah (1969: XXIX, XXXV). S. Dasgupta (1975: II, 430, 434) refers to Hoernle, whose views do not convince him, and concludes that Dṛḍhabala's text and the Kāśmīrapāṭha are not one and the same. G. Mukhopadhyaya (HIM III, 637) criticizes Hoernle and expresses as his own opinion that the Kāśmīra recension may have been the work of a Kāśmīra physician, whose name is lost to us, and who possibly has been a different individual altogether, neither Caraka nor Dṛḍhabala. P.V. Sharma (1968: 339; 1992d: 187) repudiates Hoernle's arguments and considers the Kāśmīrapāṭha to be one of the regional versions of the Carakasamhitā. 551 P. Cordier (1903b: 329–330) described an old MS of the Carakasamhitā, the text of which might, in his view, represent the Kāśmīrapāṭha. Haridattaśāstrin (page ba of the upodghāta to ed. ee of the Carakasamhitā) records a MS that is said to agree with the Kāśmīrapāṭha; this MS forms part of the collection of the Śrī Lālcand Library, Lahore. Ca.Ci.3.91–102, verses belonging to the Kāśmīrapāṭha, are absent from some of the MSS (see A.F.R. Hoernle, 1908a: 37). 552 Ad Śārṅgadharasamhitā I.7.105–115ab: = Ca.Si.9.12–14ab (the ardhaśloka placed between brackets in the edition is left out); III.3.14; 3.30: = Ca.Si.1.11cd–12ab; 4.26cd–33: