A History of Indian Medical Literature v2.c30.973

v2.c30.973

659 NCC XI, 89–90. Patañjali is an incarnation of Śeṣa in the Patañjalicarita (see Vettam Mani 583; Winternitz III, 390) and in the living tradition (see J.Ph. Vogel, 1972: 266–267); his Mahābhāṣya is known as the Phaṇibhāṣya (HIM III, 779–780). The Tibetan tradition agrees; he is called nāgarāja Vāsukiputra Śeṣa (L. Chimpa and A. Chattopadhyaya, 1970: 112). Caraka is an avatāra of Śeṣa in the Bhāvaprakāśa (I.1.57–62). Compare Gulabkunverba I, 94–95. See on Śeṣa in general: Dowson; K. Karttunen (1989): 190–191; M.A. Mehendale (1993); D.D. Shulman (1980): 120; Vettam Mani; J. Ph. Vogel (1972); D.G. White (1996): 215–216. 660 J. Filliozat (1975): 20. In support of this view, J. Filliozat points to a late tradition, which calls Kātyāyana, the author of the Vārttikas on Pāṇini’s grammar, Punarvasu, a name also given to the Ātreya of the Carakasamhitā. 661 P.V. Sharma (1992d): 181. The same author (Intr. to his edition and translation of the Carakasamhitā, IX and XII) suggested that the identification of Patañjali and Caraka may have been facilitated by their similar activities; Patañjali’s Bhāṣya on Pāṇini resembles Caraka’s enlargement by means of annotations (bhāṣya) of Agniveśa’s work in sūtra style; he added that the Mahābhāṣya, Yogasūtra and Carakasamhitā belong to the same period, which contributed to the confusion regarding their authors. Many Indian scholars do not accept the identity of Patañjali and Caraka (see, for example, ed. hh of the Carakasamhitā, 10–11; Y.K. Tripāṭhī, 1987: 25–27). 662 See J. Filliozat (1975): 18–20. Patañjali is represented as a snake (see H. Krishna Sastri, 1916: 82, 84, 85). 663 See, for example, the elaborate discussion in R. Śāstrī (1977): 505–510 and 519–520. 664 Gaṇanātha Sena (1924): I, 7–10. 665 HIM III, 611–612, 615, 778–785. 666 G.P. Srivastava (1954): 80–83. R.K. Sharma and Bhagwan Dash (Preface XXXVIII to their edition and translation of the Carakasamhitā) hold that it is likely that both Caraka and Patañjali were authors of treatises on yoga, grammar and medicine. 667 S. Dasgupta (1975): I, 230–238. 668 See Winternitz III, 460. 669 See L. Renou (1940); Winternitz III, 460. 670 S.K. Ramachandra Rao (1985): 45. 670a H. Jacobi (1911d). 671 J.H. Woods (1966): Intr. XV–XVII. The arguments adduced by Woods were criticized and rejected by S. Dasgupta (1975: I, 230–238); see Winternitz III, 651. 672 See, for example: J.N. Farquhar (1967): 131–132; A.B. Keith (1949): 69–70 and (1973): 490; G.J. Larson and R.S. Bhattacharya (1987): 22. See, in particular, L. Renou (1940), who criticized B. Liebich’s view, and convincingly argued that the vocabulary of the Yogasūtra, being radically distinct from that of the Mahābhāṣya, points to a considerably later date of the former work. See also M. Eliade (1960): 363; M. Winternitz III, 460. 673 ABI 474–475. 674 P.V. Sharma (1970a): 23–43; (1992d): 181–182. 675 K.R. Srikantamurthy (1968): 40–42. 676 See Winternitz III, 460. 677 J. Filliozat in L. Renou et J. Filliozat (1953): 45–46. 678 Upodghāta (pages tha–da) to ed. ee of the Carakasamhitā. 679 Upodghāta (44–48) to the Kāśyapasamhitā. Hemarājaśarman concludes that Caraka and Patañjali are not identical at all, but remains undecided on the identity of the authors of Yogasūtra and Mahābhāṣya. Haridattaśarman expressed a similar view. 680 M. Müller (n.d.): 313–314. 681 S. Radhakrishnan (1951): II, 341. 682 Sūramcandra (1978): 285–286. 683 AVI 96–99. P.V. Sharma (1970a): 23–43; (1992d): 181–182. See also: Gulabkunverba I, 91–92; Y.K. Tripāṭhī (1987): 26–27.