A History of Indian Medical Literature v2.c32.114

v2.c32.114

565 A.N. Pandey and V.S.S. Sastry (1975: 66) place him in the sixth–seventh century; P.V. Sharma (AVI 206; 1970a: 85) assigns him to the seventh century, being of the opinion that he was either a contemporary of Bhattarahariscandra or somewhat later. B. Rama Rao (1992: 300) is of the opinion that he lived in the seventh century. A. Rahman (STMI 218) claims that he flourished before the seventh or eighth century. G. Haldar (Vrddhatrayī 460) considered him to belong to the eighth or ninth century. 566 See Svāmidāsa. 567 The identity with Svāmidāsa is accepted by P.V. Sharma (AVI 206), A.N. Pandey and V.S.S. Sastry (1975: 66), and B. Rama Rao (1992: 300). 568 B. Rama Rao (1992): 300. This would imply that Svāmikumāra also wrote a commentary on the Suśrutasamhitā. 569 See A.N. Pandey and V.S.S. Sastry (1975): 65–68. 570 Gulabkunverba I, (21). B. Tripāthī (bhūmikā, 21, to ed. II of the Carakasamhitā). 571 B. Rama Rao (1992: 303). P.V. Sharma (AVI 207) claims that the Vaisnavas wrote a commentary on Caraka's treatise. Actually, the vaisnavah, referred to by Jejjata, are a school of interpretation of the Carakasamhitā. 572 Vrddhatrayī 465. 573 CC I, 373: Bāspacandra. NCC XIII, 309: Bāspacandra. 574 Called thus by Hemādri, Śrīkanthadatta in the Kusumāvalī, and Vopadeva. 575 Ad A.h.Sū.3.11–14; 6.112cd–113ab (on the difference between palāndu and grījana) and 122cd–125ab (quoted as a commentator on the Carakasamhitā). 576 Ad 2.243 (on palāndu and grījana). 577 Vāgbhatamandana 28, 65, 89, 97. 578 Ad Cakradatta, jvara 10–11; atīsāra 60; agnimandya 77; mūrchā 11–12; gulma 91; sthaulya 29; udara 51; bhagandara 5; kustha 8–12. 579 Ad Śivakośa 14 (on amlikā kanda) and 250 (on palāndu and grījana). 580 Ad māmsādivarga 1.6. 581 Ad Mādhavanidāna 33.7cd–12. 582 Ad Siddhayoga 1.36–37; 6.20; 9.31 (together with Candranandana in the compound Bāspacandranandana); 36.17; 51.24–28; 72.8; 81.41, 42, 46, 48, 51, 52, 56ab (the Bāspacandravyākhyā is quoted). 583 Ad Mādhavanidāna 2.39; 28.2 and 3; 33.7cd–12. 584 Ad Mādhavanidāna 1.1, 4, 5d–6, 8–9 (twice), 11–13 (twice), 15cd–18; 2.39; 28.2 and 3; 33.7cd–12. 585 Ad Siddhamantra 5, 25, 82, 83 (on amlikākanda), 92 (on palāndu and grījana), 122 (Bāspacandra disagrees with Jejjata), and 123 (Bāspacandra disagrees with Jejjata). 586 The list found in this treatise is based on that of the Madhukośa. 587 The only piece of evidence pointing in this direction is found in the Madhukośa ad Mādhavanidāna 1.5cd–6, borrowed from the Suśrutasamhitā, and said to have been explained in a particular way by Jejjata, Vāpyacandra, Mādhavakara, Kārttikakunda, and other commentators. P.V. Sharma (AVI 213) considers it probable that Vāpyacandra commented on the Suśrutasamhitā. A.N. Pandey and K. Raghunathan (1976b) are convinced of it. They base their opinion on the above reference and two quotations, also found in the Madhukośa on verses of the Mādhavanidāna which were taken from the Suśrutasamhitā (28.2 = Su.U.42.4, and 28.3 = Su.U.42.7cd–8ab). Their argument is unconvincing since the Madhukośa on one of these verses quotes Haricandra, who wrote