A History of Indian Medical Literature v2.c31.9

v2.c31.9

159 Bhagwan Dash and Lalitesh Kashyap (Toḍara II, 5–6). HIM II, 475: it may be the Śaunakatantra. Gananātha Sena (1924): I, 36: Śanakasamhitā (or Śaunakasamhitā?). Gulabkunverba I, 146. Śanāq is more probably the Arabic equivalent of Cāṇakya according to: C. Dwarkanath (1991): 21–22; J. Jolly (1914); A. Müller (1880); M. Ullmann (1978). The first to propose the equivalence of Śanāq and Cāṇakya was Gildemeister (1838: 96), followed by H.H. Wilson (see his additions to W. Cureton, 1841: 119). A. Müller (1880) defended that Śanāq’s treatise is a fake, not deriving from an Indian author, although influenced by the Suśrutasamhitā. J. Jolly doubted whether the book, which shows relationships with Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra (sometimes considered to be a work by Cāṇakya), goes back to a Sanskrit original (see on this problem J. Filliozat’s review of B. Strauss, 1934: JA 1936, 173–174).