A History of Indian Medical Literature v2.c35.19

v2.c35.19

82 Cf. Ca.Ci.9.22–23. 83 Cf. Su.U.27.18cd–21. 84 Compare the first recipe with A.h.U.37.27cd–28 (the daśāngāgada of Kāśyapa). 85 See A.h.U.4. 86 Mantras and tantras according to Aruṇa; the science concerning mantras (mantraśāstra) according to Śivadāsa. 87 See A.h.U.3.59–60ab. Compare A.s.U.5. 88 See A.h.U.2. 89 Cf. Ca.Ni.7.10 and 19–23; Ci.9.16. The term chidra also used in the Carakasaṃhitā (Ci. 9.21). Chidraprahārin is a characteristic of persons with a rākṣasasattva (Ca.Śā.4.38). 90 Cf. Ca.Ni.7.14; Su.U.60.5. One of the items is parasūtakasaṃkara, which was unintelligible to Hilgenberg and Kirfel, who changed parasūtaka into parasūcaka (one who denounces others) and interpreted the compound as a dvandva. Candranandana explains it as strīprasavasaṃkarya; Śivadāsa and the Kairalī give as its meaning: intercourse with a woman who does not belong to one's own near relations (jñāti) and who is not yet purified after giving birth. K.R. Srikantha Murthy translates the compound by: touching others during their days of impurity. Compare Caraka's vividhabhūtaśubhāśucisparśana. 91 Cf. Su.U.60.17–18. 92 Cf. Ca.Ci.9.20; Su.U.60.8. 93 See K.C. Dube (1978): identified as the anti-social type of personality disorder. The Daityas are similar to the devaśatrus (enemies of the gods) of the Suśrutasaṃhitā (U.60.9) and the Dānavas of the Śārṅgadharasaṃhitā (I.7.38; see Āḍhamalla's comments). The Daityas are enemies of the gods (see Dowson; Hopkins; H. Jacobi, 1911b; Vettam Mani). 94 Cf. Ca.Ci.9.20; Su.U.60.10. 95 Cf. Su.U.60.13 (an Uraga is the same as a Nāga). 96 Cf. Ca.Ci.9.20; Su.U.60.11. 97 Cf. Ca.Ci.9.20. 98 Cf. Ca.Ci.9.20; Su.U.60.14. 99 Cf. Ca.Ci.9.20; Su.U.60.15. 100 Not mentioned in Caraka- and Suśrutasaṃhitā. A preta is the spirit of a dead person, especially before the obsequial rites have been performed. See on preta: M.-Th. de Mallmann (1963): 201–202. 101 Śivadāsa explains the Kūṣmāṇḍas as a kind of pretas. They are a class of evil beings in the Bhāgavatapurāṇa (2.6; 2.10; 6.8; 10.16; J.M. Sanyal's translation I, 107, 126, 564, and II, 26) and Viṣṇupurāṇa (1.12.13; H.H. Wilson's translation 76). See on these beings and their iconography: J.N. Banerjea (1956); M.-Th. de Mallmann (1963): 69–70. The Kūṣmāṇḍas may be the same as the Kumbhāṇḍas of Buddhist literature, usually mentioned in the same contexts (see, for example, the Mahāmāyūrī). See on the Kumbhāṇḍas, called grul-bum in Tibetan: R. de Nebesky-Wojkowitz (1993): 309. Kumbhāṇḍas are known in Old-Javanese literature, where they are often of Pulaha and Kapiśā (see J.Gonda, 1933: 378; 1935: 439; 1936: 262). The Caraka- and Suśrutasaṃhitā do not refer to the Kūṣmāṇḍas within the framework of possession, but they are present in the list of the Śārṅgadharasaṃhitā (I.7.40; Āḍhamalla explains them as a kind of Rākṣasas). A class of evil beings who may be related to the Kūṣmāṇḍas are the Vināyakas (one of them is called Kūṣmāṇḍarājaputra); the signs of possession by a Vināyaka are described in the Mānavagṛhyasūtra (2.14; see M.J. Dresden, 1941: 157–164).