A History of Indian Medical Literature v2.c35.45

v2.c35.45

392 Compare the different classification of Suśruta (U.6.3–4). 393 Cf. Su.U.1.29cd–30ab. 394 Cf. Su.U.1.39. 395 Cf. Su.U.6.20. See on the medical interpretation of sadyas: Madhukośa ad Mādhavanidāna 59.11. 396 Hilgenberg and Kirfel were wrong in taking 16.3ab as belonging to the next prescription. 397 Compare A.h.U.16.10 and Su.U.9.11cd–12ab, 16.12 and Su.U.9.13cd–14ab. 398 Compare A.h.U.16.14 and Su.U.12.10. 399 Cf. Su.U.9.3–4ab; 10.3; 11.3; 12.4. 400 Cf. Ca.Ci.26.237–239 and 243cd–245. 401 A.h.U.16.28–29ab is very close to Su.U.9.21cd–22, 16.29cd to Su.U.9.23cd; A.h.U.16.30ab is related to Su.U.9.24ab. 402 Compare A.h.U.16.31cd–32ab and Su.U.12.38–39ab, 16.34c–f and Su.U.12.40, 16.39cd–40ab and Su.U.12.43. The recipes of A.h.U.16.34cd–39ab are collyria (añjana) of the saṃdhāya type. The Kairalī (ad A.h.U.16.35) gives a definition of a saṃdhāvāñjana; such a preparation always contains copper or another metal, crushed vegetable drugs, and a fluid; the mixture should be exposed to smoke (dhūpita). 403 Cf. Su.U.10.13–14ab. 404 Hilgenberg and Kirfel omitted this item in their translation. 405 This list is absent from Caraka- and Suśrutasaṃhitā. The term pilla occurs at Ca.Ci.23.73 and 83; Ḍalhaṇa employs it in his comments ad Su.U.3.21. Paillya is mentioned in the Bower MS. Compare on pilla the quotation from Videha in Ḍalhaṇa's commentary ad Su.U.3.22 (also found, quoted anonymously, in Śivadāsasena's comments ad Cakaradatta, netraroga 45–46); see also the Madhukośa ad Mādhavanidāna 59.88 and 89. 406 Cf. Ca.Ci.26.127 (atiruj, i.e., severe pain, due to vāta); Su.U.20.6. The Carakasamhitā distinguishes four doṣic groups of diseases of the ears, without describing them; nevertheless, karṇaśūla is repeatedly mentioned (Ca.Ci.26.221, 223, 224, 225, 229). Śūla, due to vāta, is characterized at Su.Ni.1.84; the karṇaśūla of Su.U.20.6 arises from vāta, covered by pitta, kapha and blood (see Ḍalhaṇa's comments). 407 Not described in Caraka- and Suśrutasaṃhitā. Śūla is usually associated with vāta. In spite of this, the Suśrutasaṃhitā contains prescriptions against karṇaśūla by pitta. 408 Not described in Caraka- and Suśrutasaṃhitā. 409 Not described in Caraka- and Suśrutasaṃhitā. 410 Not described in Caraka- and Suśrutasaṃhitā. 411 The Carakasamhitā (Ci.26.127) mentions (karṇa)nāda as a disorder due to vāta. Cf. Su.U.20.7 (karṇapraṇāda); Mādhavanidāna 57.2. 412 This accurate observation is not found in Suśrutasaṃhitā and Mādhavanidāna. 413 Cf. Su.U.20.12; Mādhavanidāna 57.7. The doṣic aetiology of the Hṛdaya may have been influenced by Videha (see Ḍalhaṇa ad Su.U.20.12). Compare the Madhukośa ad Mādhavanidāna 57.7. 414 Cf. Ca.Ci.26.128; Su.U.20.11ab. 415 Cf. Ca.Ci.26.128 (due to kapha); Su.U.20.3–5 (four types of śopha) and 16. 416 Cf. Ca.Ci.26.127; Su.U.20.15cd–16ab. 417 Cf. Su.U.20.13. 418 This is the doṣic variety (see Su.U.20.14). 419 Cf. Su.U.20.3–5 and 16.