A History of Indian Medical Literature v2.c33.568

v2.c33.568

182 See, for instance, Sū.21.3. P.V. Sharma (AVI 67) suggests influence from the side of Islamic medicine. The ideas expressed towards the end of Sū.21 are also found in Bhavabhūti’s works (see P.V. Sharma’s Intr., XI, to the 4th ed. cc of the Suśrutasaṃhitā). See on blood as a doṣa: G.J. Meulenbeld (1991a). 183 These verses have no parallel in the works ascribed to Vāgbhaṭa, which may be in favour of regarding them as interpolated. 184 Upasarga is usually a synonym of upadrava in the Suśrutasaṃhitā. 185 Dalhaṇa says that this plant grows in the Turuṣka country. 186 Ch. Lassen (1852: 513) made the carefully-worded statement that it is difficult to decide whether or not Suśruta is the author of the Suśrutasaṃhitā; personally, he did see no objection against assuming that a man of this name summarized the knowledge of his predecessors in a systematically arranged work. 187 F. Hessler (see G. Liétard, 1858: 29) rendered Suśruta into Latin as ‘qui sacra studia bene absolvit’, G. Liétard (1858: 29) as ‘bene auditus’. See also E. Haas (1877): 651. 188 The same opinion has been expressed by D. Chattopadhyaya (1979: 38–39), J. Filliozat (1975: 9; English translation 11), E. Haas (1876a: 651; 1877: 651–652), R.F.G. Müller (1942: 30–31). See also S.N. Sen (1971: 53: Suśruta’s historicity is doubtful). 189 These epithets are by others regarded as deriving from the reviser, being found in the socalled pratisamskṛtsūtras. 190 G. Hāldār (Vṛddhatrayī 64) regards Suśruta, as well as Caraka, as belonging to the group called śrutarṣis. 191 Suśruta is described as śrīmant in the Uttaratantra (U.66.3–4ab). 192 G. Hāldār (Vṛddhatrayī 119 and 441) regards Vāmaka as a forefather of Divodāsa Dhanvantari. 193 See Yādavaśarman’s upodghāta (17) to ed. cc of the Suśrutasaṃhitā. 194 A.F.R. Hoernle (1978): 8. 195 The view that Kāśī was an old centre of surgery was already criticized by R.F.G. Müller (1933). 196 H.H. Wilson (1823). See H.H. Wilson (1979): 27. 197 See J.F. Royle (1989): 63. G. Mukhopadhyaya (HIM III, 578) is in error when asserting that Wilson considered Suśruta to have flourished in the tenth century. 198 See J.F. Royle (1989): 64–65. See also Wilson’s notes to the paper by W. Cureton (1841). 199 J.A. Vullers (1846): 229–230. 200 A. Stenzler (1846). Compare G. Liétard (1858): 27; (1883): 641. 201 One of the Barmakids. See on him: C. Elgood (1979): 78–83; R.A. Nicholson (1962): 259–261. 202 Ch. Lassen (1852): 512–513. See G. Liétard (1858): 27; (1883): 640–641. 203 A. Weber (1852): 236; (1914): 268. Compare Yādavaśarman’s upodghāta (10) to ed. cc of the Suśrutasaṃhitā. 204 F. Hessler (1844): Praefatio, *(1852). Hessler wrote in his Praefatio (V): quamquam vero lis, quo temporis momento antiquissimae Indorum literae incipiant, adhuc sub judice est, attamen viri doctissimi hujus Āyurvēdae aetatem non post millesimum annum ante Christum natum constituere. 205 A. Weber (1983): II, 87–90. 206 G. Liétard (1858): 27–33; (1883): 640–641. 207 See G. Liétard (1883): 641.