A History of Indian Medical Literature v2.c33.165.3

v2.c33.165.3

See on kavalikā: R.F.G. Müller (1949): 239. Compare on kavalikā: Ca.Ci.25.69; Su.Ci.3.30; A.S. U.12.19. Compare on vikeśikā: Kaiyadevanighaṇṭu 8.21 ab. 212 Cakra regards Sū.18.36–45 as not belonging to the original text and does not comment on these verses. Ḍalhaṇa says that Gayadāsa declared them to be anārṣa; Ḍalhaṇa follows Brahmadeva’s example in giving short explanations of these interpolated verses. Cakra is judicious in noticing that summarizing verses (saṃgrahaśloka) are not a feature of the Suśrutasaṃhitā. 213 The head end of the bedstead should be protected with a sharp instrument (śastra). Śastra may mean a weapon in this context, because swords are thought to ward off malevolent beings (see J.J. Meyer, 1937: I, 150–151). 214 Paśupati is also mentioned in the mythic story about the origin of fever at A.s.Ni.1.4. See about him: E. Hofstetter (1980). 215 The insalutary character is due to the effects of the combination (saṃyoga). Cf. Ca.Sū. 26.84. Dalhaṇa remarks that the list of Sū.20.13, although present in many manuscripts, is inauthentic, being not explained in earlier commentaries (nibandha). Cakra does not read Sū.20.9–16; he has a different list (appended to Sū.20.8), which shows many resemblances. 216 Compare Ca.Sū.26.84 and Cakra’s list; both include these items, called karmaviruddha in the Suśrutasaṃhitā. Compare Ca.Sū.26.92cd–93ab (saṃskāraviruddha). 217 These items, called mānaviruddha, are included in the list of Ca.Sū.26.84.