A History of Indian Medical Literature v2.c33.567

v2.c33.567

148 Bāpālāl Vaidya (1968): prastāvanā 29. 149 Vaidyakaśabdasindhu, Preface 5. 150 P.S. Sankaran (1976): 6–7. 151 R. Śāstrī (1977): 368–373. 152 J. Filliozat in L. Renou and J. Filliozat (1953): 147. 153 J. Filliozat (1979: Intr. to the Yogaśataka) also defended the hypothesis that he was the Buddhist philosopher, but he was more cautious in other publications (1975: 9–11). 154 O.P. Jaggi (1966): 188–189. 155 AVI 55–56. Intr. (IX) to the 4th ed. of ed. cc of the Suśrutasaṃhitā. 156 P.V. Sharma assigns the Arthaśāstra to the third century A.D. Compare on the date of this work, for example: S.R. Goyal (1985): 1–20; K. Karttunen (1997): 13; A.B. Keith (1973): 458–462; M.A. Mehendale (1968): 285–287; H. Scharfe (1968); Th.R. Trautmann (1971). 157 K.R. Srikanta Murthy (1992a): 200; (1992b): 295. 158 Vṛddhatrayī 159–160 and 181–194. 159 Compare the views of G. Hāldār on the layers of the Carakasaṃhitā and their authors. 160 See his Intr. (70) to the Rasayogasāgara. 161 See the introductory parts (8) of ed. gg of the Suśrutasaṃhitā. 162 See the upodghāta (56–57) to his ed. of the Kāśyapasaṃhitā. 163 Colophons saying ‘nārjunapratisaṃskṛta’ are absent, while the Carakasaṃhitā has ‘carakapratisaṃskṛta’. 164 I have already set forth that such a Suśruta is absent from the Upāyahr̥daya. 165 See Hemarājaśarman’s upodghāta, 34. 166 See the upodghāta (20) to ed. cc of the Suśrutasaṃhitā. 167 Harivaṃśa I.29.27 (ed. Poona). 168 A variant, recorded by Dalhaṇa, mentions only śalya, as the foremost branch of the medical science. 169 Sūramcandra (1978): I, 259–261. 170 See the Intr. (3–7) to his translation. 171 See also U.66.3, where Divodāsa is called aṣṭāṅgavedavidvas. 172 The same line of reasoning, in almost the same words, is found in Satya Prakash (1965): 232–233. 173 See R.C. Majumdar (1971): 223–224; P. Rāy, H. Gupta and M. Roy (1980): 4 (these authors refer to the *Proceedings of 1952 of this Committee). 174 D. Chattopadhyaya (1979): 39–44. 175 P. Cordier (1899a): 1. Cordier was inclined to see in him the Buddhist philosopher, to whom he also ascribed the Yogaśataka (see A. Roṣu, 1989: LXXXIX). 176 R.C. Majumdar (1971): 223. 177 P. Rāy, H. Gupta and M. Roy (1980): 3–4. 178 S.N. Sen (1971): 53. 179 Representatives of this view are: P.V. Sharma (AVI 66–67; Intr., XI, to the 4th ed. of ed. cc of the Suśrutasaṃhitā), K.R. Srikanta Murthy (1992a: 200–201), V. Śukla and R. Tripāṭhī (1982: 70). 180 See for a discussion of this thesis: Candraṭa. Jejjata’s commentary was, according to P.V. Sharma (AVI 66), based on a Kāśmīrapāṭha of the Suśrutasaṃhitā. Compare the Kāśmīrapāṭha of the Carakasaṃhitā. 181 P.V. Sharma claims that the language of this passage suggests a late date.