A History of Indian Medical Literature v2.c33.498

v2.c33.498

40 H. Zimmer (1948: 45–46) expressed the same opinion: "The legendary setting of the Suśrutasaṃhitā is intended to afford to Suśruta's compilation a suitable background through stressing the authority of its antiquity and divine origin; through the legendary framework it is presented as deriving directly from a mythical early period of the Vedic age, in which immortal sages and their sons were enabled through superior spiritual perfection to receive the revelations of the gods." R.F.G. Müller (1932: 796–797) regarded Suśruta's relation to Viśvāmitra as unhistorical and based on a late tradition. 41 Examples are Ambikādatta (Prākkhatan, 13, to ed. hh of the Suśrutasaṃhitā), G. Mukhopadhyaya (HIM III, 577), R. Śāstrī (1977: 352), V. Śukla (1977: I, 73), and Yādavaśarman (upodghāta, 10–11, to ed. cc of the Suśrutasaṃhitā). 42 The Kāśikāvṛtti and the Nyāsa are the only texts giving the explanation that sausruta means a pupil or a descendant of Suśruta. The Suśruta, expounded by Suśruta according to Kātyāyana, need not be the old version of the Suśrutasaṃhitā or another medical treatise. See also A. Weber (1857: 235; 1873: 462; 1914: 266), who already expressed himself very cautiously about the reference to the sausrutapārthavāḥ; he stressed that sausruta is derived from suśrut, not from suśruta (see also the quotation from the Padamañjarī, a commentary on the Kāśikāvṛtti, in Hemarājaśarman's upodghāta to the Kāśyapasamhitā, 34), which makes a connection with the medical Suśruta improbable. 43 See, for example, J. Filliozat (in L. Renou and J. Filliozat, 1953: 147), V.N. Pandey (1992: 235), and P.V. Sharma (Intr., V, to the 4th ed. of ed. cc of the Suśrutasaṃhitā). 44 Noticed already by J. Jolly (1913): 369. 45 J. Jolly (1901: 9–10; C.G. Kashikar 12) accepted a close relation between the laśunakalpa of the Bower MS and the Suśrutasaṃhitā. 46 Yādavaśarman's upodghāta to ed. cc of the Suśrutasaṃhitā, 10–11. 47 This assertion is wrong and misleading in combining two passages of the Upāyahrdaya which are not connected at all. Literal quotations will make this obvious: the first passage runs: oṣadhividyā ṣaḍvidhā: oṣadhināma oṣadhiguṇaḥ oṣadhirasaḥ oṣadhivīryaṃ saṃnipātaḥ vipākaś ceti bheṣajadharmāḥ; the second passage runs: yathā suvaidyako bheṣajakuśalena maitracittena śikṣakaḥ suśruta ity ucyate (see G. Tucci, 1976: retranslation of the Upāyahrdaya 7 and 14). The second quotation simply states that any good physician may be qualified as a suśruta; this interpretation is confirmed by the sentence that follows it: evam api yat kṛtasarvadharmaśakṣatkārair mahājñānair āryaiḥ śrutaṃ tat suśrutam ucyate. 48 See, for example, R. Śāstrī (1977): 350. 49 Examples are Hemarājaśarman (upodghāta 35–36), G. Mukherji (1926: 49–50), G. Mukhopadhyaya (HIM III, 356–399), and Yādavaśarman (upodghāta, 13–14, to ed. cc of the Suśrutasaṃhitā). 50 R. Śāstrī (1977: 354) demonstrates that Suśruta was Śālihotra's son, not merely one of his pupils. 51 This evidence has no weight at all. See, e.g., Ca.Si.11.19–22; Hāritasamhitā III.2.26. See also Su.Sū.13.12. More references are found in G.J. Meulenbeld (1990): 1. 52 See, for example, AVI 53. 53 R. Śāstrī (1977): 354. P.V. Sharma (Intr., VII, to the 4th ed. of ed. cc of the Suśrutasaṃhitā). K.R. Srikanta Murthy (1992a: 197–198). V. Śukla (1977: I, 73–74). Vṛddhatrayī 163. 54 The pupils mentioned by name (Su.Sū.1.3) are Aupadhenava, Vaitaraṇa, Aurabhra, Pauṣkalāvata, Karavīrya, Gopurarakṣita, and Suśruta; this list is incomplete, for it ends with ‘and others’ (prabhṛtayaḥ); these others are Bhoja, etc., according to Cakrapāṇi and Dalhaṇa. Dalhaṇa remarks that some read Gopura and Rakṣita instead of Gopurarakṣita, and add four more pupils: Nimi, Kāṅkāyana, Gārgya, and Gālava. Aupadhenava, Aurabhra, Suśruta and Pauṣkalāvata are mentioned again at Su.Sū.4.9. A group of pupils of Dhanvantari is referred to at Su.Ka.1.3 and U.39.4.