Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v2.c37: Part 5: Vāgbhaṭa

A History of Indian Medical Literature v2.c37

Language
English

Contents

Part 5: Vāgbhaṭa

v2.c37.2.1

1 See CC I, 320, 373, 408, 559, 631, 644 and 794; II, 132 and 224; III, 118. The number of different Vāgbhaṭas distinguished varies considerably. See, for example: P. Cordier (1896): 7–9 (= A. Roṣu, 1989: 398–401) and (1901d): 148–150 (= A. Roṣu, 1989: 446–448); P.K. Gode (1939): 1; H. Parāḍkar (1939): 41–42; Nandkiśor Śarmā, prāstāvika 6 to ed. e of the Aṣṭāṅgasamgraha; Vṛddhatrayī 263. Several opinions on the subject were surveyed and discussed by P.V. Sharma (1968: 281–284). Related forms of the name Vāgbhaṭa are Bāhaṭa, Bāhaḍa, Vāhaṭa, and Vāhaḍa. 2 A few works with related titles are quoted in commentaries. See also: Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayadravyavijñāna and Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasamgraha. 3 See: commentaries on the works ascribed to Vāgbhaṭa. 4 See: Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayavaidyakabhāṣya. 5 See: commentaries on the works ascribed to Vāgbhaṭa. 6 See: Aṣṭāṅganighaṇṭu. 7 *Edited by K. Sāmbaśiva Śāstrī, Śrī Vañci Setu Lakṣmī Series 16, Trivandrum 1931. 8 Quoted by Aruṇadatta, who ascribes it to the author of the Hṛdaya; this attribution is accepted by H. Parāḍkar in his Vāgbhaṭavimarśa. See: Aruṇadatta. 9 CC I, 408 (with question mark) and 559. 10 See: Dvādaśārthanirūpaṇa. 11 NCC IV, 20. STMI 233. 12 CC I, 320 and 559. Cat. Bikaner 1423. 13 CC I, 559 and 644. 14 CC I, 373 and 631 (by Bāhaṭa). 15 Check-list Nr. 869. 16 CC I, 559. Regarded as identical with the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya by P. Cordier (1896: 7). 17 CC I, 559 (Vāhaṭanighaṇṭu). Compare Check-list Nr. 44: Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayanighaṇṭu by Vāgbhaṭa.

v2.c37.2.2

18 CC I, 549 (a chapter of the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā) and 559. Also regarded as a chapter of the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya by P. Cordier (1896: 7). 19 See: Rasamūlikānighaṇṭu. 20 See: Sannipātanidānacikitsā by Bāhaḍa. 21 See: Bāhaṭagrantha. See also: Bāhaṭaśāstra. 22 This colophon is absent in Āṭhavale's edition of the Samgraha. 23 Many editions of the Rasaratnasamuccaya have a colophon, stating that Vāgbhaṭa, son of Simhagupta, was its author. 24 See on Sindhu and its inhabitants, the Saindhavas: N.N. Bhattacharyya (1991): 275; N.L. Dey (1979): 186; B.C. Law (1973): 344–346; S. Saxena (1995): 202–205. 25 Pratibhā is one of the characteristics of a person with an ārṣasattva in the Carakasamhitā (Śā.4.37). 26 Some Indian scholars (see, e.g., ABI 217) refer to this teacher as Avalokiteśvara. Other Indian scholars advanced that this Avalokita may not be a human teacher of flesh and blood, but the Bodhisattva of that name, which would mean that the author thus refers to his veneration for Avalokiteśvara (see R. Śāstrī, 1977: 638; K.R. Srikantha Murthy, 1995: X). 27 The text has subahubheṣaśāstravilocanāt. C. Vogel (1965: 7), who takes the compound as belonging to pituḥ (i.e., from my father), prefers another translation: “whose eye (vilocana) (represents) medical science in a very high degree”. C. Vogel seems to regard Indu’s explanation as supportive of this interpretation.

v2.c37.2.3

Indu’s remark (aśeṣārthaparijñānahetutvāt) may, however, mean that the author refers to his studies as the source of full knowledge of the whole of the object (of medical science). K. Butzenberger and M. Fedorova (1989: 103) agree with C. Vogel in regarding the compound ending in -vilocanāt as belonging to pituḥ, but render it as “who had had a close look at very many medical textbooks” (“der Einsicht genommen hatte in sehr viele medizinische Lehrbücher”). Hilgenberg and Kirfel (1941: XLVII), P.V. Sharma (1968: 304) and K.R. Srikantha Murthy (Intr. to his Hṛdaya translation, XI) agree with my rendering of the text of the Samgraha, which is, moreover, in conformity with the customary statements of authors at the end of their treatises. 28 See C. Vogel (1965: 8) on the interpretation of vinirṇaya, glossed as viniścaya by Indu. 29 Compare A.s.Sū. 1.18cd, where the author refers to his treatise as a yugānurūpasamdarbha, i.e., a composition in conformity with the (present) age of the world, made in a (well-) arranged way (vibhāgena). 30 This form appears, for example, in the chapter colophons of Jejjata’s commentary on the Carakasamhitā; it is also the form used by Mallinātha in his commentaries (ad Raghuvamśa 3.1–2, 6 and 8; ad Meghadūta and Śiśupālavadha; see P. Cordier, 1896: 4). The colophons of Indu’s Śāśilekhā on the Samgraha have Vāgbhaṭa in Aṭhavale’s edition (j), Vāhaṭa in those of Rudrapāraśava (b) and Kiñjavadekar (a).

v2.c37.2.4

31 The form Vāhaṭa may be due to the influence of Prakrit; Vāhaṭa may be due to the pronunciation of intervocalic ṭ in Tamil; Bāhaṭa is, however, also the form found in Merutuṅga’s Prabandhacintāmaṇi. The variant Bābhaṭa seems to be restricted to Bengal. A text intermediate between Samgraha and Hṛdaya has, partially, been *published as Bābhaṭa in Calcutta in 1873. 32 Hilgenberg and Kirfel (1941): XLVII. 33 C. Vogel (1965: 45) bases his reasoning on the Tibetan translation of Vāgbhaṭa’s name, Pha-khol (or, inaccurately, Pha-gol), which presupposes a vernacular form equivalent to Vāgbhaṭṭa; the Mongolian form, Ečige-yin boyol, i.e., slave of one’s father, is in support of this view. See on Vāgbhaṭa’s Tibetan name also: Sh. Bira (1980). 34 P.V. Sharma (1968): 303. 35 Atrideva (ABI 215–216) says that it became usual for a son to be given the name of his grandfather in the Gupta period. 36 G. Hāldār (Vṛddhatrayī 265) admits never to have set eyes on this Vaidyakanighaṇṭu. 37 See Kane I.2, 718: Aṣārka names a Vāgbhaṭasmṛtisamgraha and quotes a few verses from it. Compare CC II, 132. 38 Vṛddhatrayī 44–45, 263–267, 290–291. G. Hāldār (Vṛddhatrayī 465) also mentions another grammarian called Vāgbhaṭācārya, referred to in Jagadīśa’s Śabdaśaktiprakāśikā (see on this work: B.K. Matilal, 1975). This grammarian called Vāgbhaṭa is an altogether different person according to Atrideva (ABI 216–217). See for the quotation from Bhartṛhari: ABI 217; Vṛddhatrayī 290.

v2.c37.2.5

39 Niścala ad Cakradatta, jvara 91 and 149. 40 Ad Cakradatta, jvara 149, 150, 247–252.

v2.c37.3

41 See C. Vogel (1965: 19), who refers to MSS Nrs. 741 and 742 of Th. Aufrecht (1864). The form Saṅghagupta also occurs in the colophons of Cat. Madras MS 13072 and Cat. IO MS 2650 (twice Saṅghagupta and twice Siṃhagupta in the latter). 42 See N.S. Mooss, Intr. to his ed. of the Hṛdaya with the Śāśilekhā, part 1. 43 Wellcome δ2 (see D. Wujastyk, 1985). 44 The former interpretation of the colophon is more probable than the latter. See D. Wujastyk (1985). 45 G. Huth (1895a): 270. 46 C. Vogel (1965): 19. 47 Cat. München Nr. 373 (compare J. Jolly, 1912: 49–50). 48 Gadanigraha, prayoga khaṇḍa, guṭikādhikāra 457–459 (dvitīyā khadiraguṭikā). 49 Vṛddhatrayī 268. G. Mukhopadhyaya (HIM III, 788–789) and P.V. Sharma (AVI 164) seem to share this view. 50 Some of the ingredients are musk (sāraṅgadarpa), mercury, mica, and gold. 51 Indu is of the opinion that Vāgbhaṭa pays homage to the physicians (vaidyāgama jña) in his ancestry in the opening verses of the Samgraha. 52 Ad Cakradatta, jvara 91. Niścala also refers to Vāgbhaṭa as a muni, for example, ad Cakradatta, jvara 20. 53 D.Ch. Bhattacharyya (1947a): 122. C. Vogel (1965: 8) thought it not to be altogether impossible that Mahājāhnu was Vāgbhaṭa’s domicile. See on the identification of Mahājāhnu: Jejjata. 54 Silently assumed by J. Jolly (1901): 8 (C.G. Kashikar 11). 55 AVI 162. P.V. Sharma (1968): 231–232 and 306–307. 56 P.V. Sharma supposes that Śakas were present in or near Sindh in Vāgbhaṭa’s times. 57 The beauty of Śaka women is praised. Compare Kālidāsa’s Raghuvamśa (4.61) on the beauty of Yavana women. 58 See Ca.Vi. 1.18; Ci.30.316. 59 See Su.Ci.29.29 and 30.30. 60 P.V. Sharma omits references; a passage he may have had in mind is, for example, A.s.Sū. 3.113. 61 See R.C. Majumdar c.s. (1948): 154. 62 R. Śāstrī (1977: 666) remarks that Śakas, Hūṇas, Kuṣāṇas, etc., are all lumped together, being mlecchas, in Indian sources. P.V. Sharma (1968: 207, 259) also says that all kinds of foreign peoples are designated as Śakas in Indian texts and that the Samgraha designates the Hūṇas in this way. See on the Śakas: H.W. Bailey (1983): 1230–1232; S. Chattopadhyaya (1955); E. Lamotte (1976): 493–523, 537–543; J.E. van Lohuizen-de Leeuw (1949): 41–47, 326–329; U.P. Thapliyal (1979): 28–31. See on the Kuṣāṇas: U.P. Thapliyal (1979): 33–35. See on the Hūṇas: D.R. Bhandarkar (1968): 32–33; U.P. Thapliyal (1979): 35–36. 63 P.V. Sharma (1968): 307–308. 64 P.V. Sharma refers to *Gauriśaṅkar Caṭarji’s Harṣavardhana (p.89) and M.A. Stein (1961: I, 83). 65 P.V. Sharma even asks himself whether the Dhanvantari, mentioned among the nine gems at Vikrama’s court (enumerated in the Jyotirvidābharaṇa; see: Dhanvantari), may have been Vāgbhaṭa (AVI 162). See on kings called Vikramāditya, for example: K.R. Nandargikar’s edition of Kālidāsa’s Raghuvamśa (1971): Critical Notice 41–67.

v2.c37.4

66 P.V. Sharma (AVI 162) asserts that Yaśodharman was called Vikramāditya after his defeat of the Hūṇas. 67 See R.C. Majumdar c.s. (1948): 154. The capital was shifted to Ujjayinī by king Dravyavardhana, who was probably Yaśodharman’s successor and the patron of Varāhamihira (see A.M. Shastri, 1996: I, 15–16). 68 A.s.Sū.7.231. 69 Mentioned at A.s.Sū.35.4 and U.39.36. Avantisoma is a synonym of kāñjika according to Indu (ad A.S.U.39.36); the same synonym is found in Hemacandra’s Abhidhānacintāmaṇi (3.79), Halāyudha’s Abhidhānaratnamālā (2.163), the Amarakoṣa (vaiśyavarga 39), Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu (6.249), and Rājanighaṇṭu (15.294). 70 Ca.Ci.30.317. 71 Su.Sū.45.21. 72 Ed. Jinavijaya Muni (1933): 121–122: prakāśa 5 (prakīrṇaprabandha), vaidyavāgbhaṭaprabandha; English translation by C.H. Tawney (1899): 198–200. 73 A.B. Keith (1973): 293; Winternitz III, 50, 352, 640. M. Krishnamachariar ((1989: 207) calls it a work of great historical importance. S.N. Dasgupta and S.K. De (1947: 428) judged that some parts are not without historical interest. 74 P. Cordier (1901c): 183–184; (1901d): 148. 75 P. Cordier (1896): 3. 76 J. Jolly (1900a): 262. 77 C. Vogel (1965): 8. 78 A.s.Śā.12.15. Cf. A.h.Śā.6.50. This verse was already noticed by P. Cordier (1901d: 166). 79 A.s.Ka.8.33 = A.h.Ka.6.29cd–30. 80 Ca.Sū.27.209–212. 81 Vṛddhatrayī 292–293. 82 R. Śāstrī (1977): 643–644 and 663–673. 83 R. Śāstrī (1977): 662–663. 84 This tradition is accepted by R. Śāstrī (1977: 647). K.R. Srikantha Murthy (1995: XII) is in favour of seeing Jejjaṭa as a disciple of Vāgbhaṭa, though dismissing the same fact with regard to Indu. 85 See: Tiṣaṭa. Some Indian scholars accepting the tradition are, for example: D.Ch. Bhattacharyya (1947a: 125) and R.Śāstrī (1977: 647). 86 See ABI 217; P.K. Gode’s Intr. to ed. c of the Hṛdaya, 2. The one who described Vāgbhaṭa, author of Saṃgraha, Hṛdaya and Rasaratnasamuccaya, as an incarnation of Dhanvantari, as it were (iva), was Kṛṣṇarāvaśarman in his bhūmikā to the Ānandāśrama edition (1905) of the Rasaratnasamuccaya, where he refers to the position of Vāgbhaṭa in the Hārītasamhita. 87 See B.P. Shastri (1929): 181. 88 *Ayurveda Vijnanam I, 9, referred to by J. Jolly (1900a: 260). 89 This legend was known to Sitaram Ranganath Joshi, according to B. Rama Rao (1992a: 220). 90 See Hārītasamhita, pāriśiṣṭadhyāya 8. 91 See P.K. Gode’s Intr. to ed. c (6th ed.) of the Hṛdaya, 2. 92 S.N. Dasgupta and S.K. De (1947): 559. A.B. Keith (1973): 395. M. Krishnamachariar (1989): 762–763. K. Krishnamoorthy (1975): 47. V.M. Kulkarni (1975): 50. L. Renou in L. Renou and J. Filliozat (1953): 109. Winternitz III, 22 and 642. P. Cordier (1901d: 148)

v2.c37.5

remarks, on the authority of A.C. Burnell (1880: 57), that the author of the Vāgbhaṭālaṃkāra is generally identified with the medical author in South India. 93 S.N. Dasgupta and S.K. De (1947): 563 (dated as probably belonging to the fifteenth century). A.B. Keith (1973): 395 (thirteenth century). M. Krishnamachariar (1989): 763–764 (end thirteenth century). K. Krishnamoorthy (1975): 47 (twelfth century). V.M. Kulkarni (1975): 52–53 (about fourteenth century). L. Renou in L. Renou and J. Filliozat (1953): 109 (thirteenth century), Winternitz III, 21–22: end of the eleventh or first half of the twelfth century, during the reign of Jayasimha of Gujarāt (A.D. 1093–1154). 94 S.N. Dasgupta and S.K. De (1947): 559 (probably by the author of the Vāgbhaṭālaṃkāra). A.B. Keith (1973): 143 (it may be by the author of the Vāgbhaṭālaṃkāra, but the authorship is not certain; a Madras MS calls the author the son of Dāhaṭa, of the Prāgvāṭi family). M. Krishnamachariar (1989): 762–763 (probably by the author of the Vāgbhaṭālaṃkāra). Winternitz (II, 337–338; III, 22) ascribes the work to the author of the Kāvyānuśāsana. 95 CC I, 32 and 559; NCC I, 399: ascribed to the Vāgbhaṭa who was a son of Nemikumāra. S.N. Dasgupta and S.K. De (1947: 563 and 687): an auto-commentary on the Kāvyānuśāsana. Not mentioned by Winternitz. 96 CC I, 192 and 559; NCC VII, 102: accompanied by a Vṛtti by the author and ascribed to the Vāgbhaṭa who was a son of Nemikumāra. S.N. Dasgupta and S.K. De (1947: 563), M. Krishnamachariar (1989: 763–764) and Nandkiśorśarmā also regard it as written by the author of the Kāvyānuśāsana. 97 See: G. Chāṅgāṇī’s Prākkathan (4) to ed. d of the Saṃgraha; Nandkiśorśarmā’s Prāstāvika (6) to ed. e of the Saṃgraha. Absent from the CC. 98 See: G. Chāṅgāṇī’s Prākkathan (4) to ed. d of the Saṃgraha; Nandkiśorśarmā’s Prāstāvika (6) to ed. e of the Saṃgraha. Not ascribed to a Vāgbhaṭa in CC (I, 336–337; II, 75 and 212; III, 72: Piṅgalachandaḥsūtra or Prākṛtapiṅgala) and NCC (XIII, 134–136: Prākṛtapiṅgala). See A.B. Keith (1973): 48; Winternitz III, 27–29: ascribed to a mythical Piṅgala. 99 Attributed to the author of the Kāvyānuśāsana (S.N. Dasgupta and S.K. De, 1947: 563; M. Krishnamachariar (1989): 763–764). NCC III, 36. Not mentioned by Winternitz. 100 ABI 319. Vṛddhatrayī 467 (ascribed to a Vāgbhaṭa IV). Absent as a work by a Vāgbhaṭa from the CC. 101 CC I, 559 and 660: ascribed to the son of Nemikumāra. G. Chāṅgāṇī (Prākkathan, 4, to ed. d of the Saṃgraha) and Nandkiśorśarmā (Prāstāvika, 6, to ed. e of the Saṃgraha) attribute it to the son of Soma, the author of the Vāgbhaṭālaṃkāra. M. Krishnamachariar (1989: 356 and 1081) remarks that the author’s name is not Vāgbhaṭa, but Gāgabhaṭṭa. Not mentioned by Winternitz. 102 Absent from the CC. Mentioned by G. Chāṅgāṇī (Prākkathan, 4, to ed. d of the Saṃgraha) and Nandkiśorśarmā (Prāstāvika, 6, to ed. e of the Saṃgraha). 103 CC II, 132. G. Hāldār (Vṛddhatrayī 266) regards this Vāgbhaṭa as the grandfather of the author of the Saṃgraha. 104 CC I, 262: by Deveśvara or Devendra, son of Vāgbhaṭa. NCC III, 270–271 and IX, 162: by Deveśvara, son of Vāgbhaṭa who was the prime minister of the king of Mālava. P. Cordier (1901d: 180): by Devendra or Deveśvara, son of Vāgbhaṭa, first minister to a king of Mālava. M. Krishnamachariar (1989: 763): by Deveśvara or Devendra, the son of Vāgbhaṭa, who was a mahāmātya to the king of Mālava. G. Chāṅgāṇī (Prākkathan, 4, to ed. d of the Saṃgraha) ascribes it to a Vāgbhaṭa, who was a minister of king Deveśvara of Mālava. Nandkiśorśarmā (Prāstāvika, 6, to ed. e of the Saṃgraha) describes Vāgbhaṭa, author of the Kavikalpalatā, as the son of Mālavendra and father of Deveśvara. See on the Kavikalpalatā: S.K. De (1960): 289–291.

v2.c37.6

105 Compare Āryāparājitā. See on Aparājitā, a goddess emanating from Ratnasambhava and related to Tārā: B. Bhattacharyya (1964): 118; N.N. Bhattacharyya (1982): 241; A. Foucher (1905): 101–102; A. Grünwedel (1970): 150; M.-Th. de Mallmann (1975): 103–104; G. Roerich (1959): 49; B. Sahai (1975): 235–237, 259–261. An Aparājitā is one of the thirty-two goddesses of the somamaṇḍala in the Kubjikāmatatantra (see D. Heilijgers-Seelen, 1994: 155 and 257); she is also mentioned in the Kubjikā Upaniṣad (see T. Goudriaan and J.A. Schoterman, 1994: 140). Aparājitā is absent from the Hṛdaya.

v2.c37.7

106 In order to be freed from fever, one should pay obeisance to Āryāvalokita, Parṇaśabarī, Aparājitā, and Āryatārā. Cf. Ca.Ci.3.310cd–315ab, which is Hinduist in character and absent from Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya.

v2.c37.8

107 The aparājitā vidyā, written with rocanā on a piece of birch bark (bhūrja), is referred to in the context of a ritual, in which an amulet (pratisarā) is tied around the neck of a child in order to ward off grahas. This ritual is accompanied by a very long mantra (U.4.22–35), which invokes numerous Hindu deities. Indu acknowledges both passages where Aparājitā appears.

v2.c37.9

108 Āryatārā is sometimes regarded as the consort of the Bodhisattva Viśvapāṇi. P. Cordier (1901d: 173) and others consider her to be the consort of Avalokiteśvara. See on Tārā: P. Arènes (1996); S. Beyer (1973); B. Bhattacharyya (1964): 107–108 and 144–145; D.C. Bhattacharyya (1974): 31–48; G. de Blonay (1895), (1911); W. Filchner (1933): 235 and 478, n.1079; A. Getty (1914): 105–112; M. Ghosh (1980); S. Hummel (1950a); W. Kirfel (1952); H. Nakamura (1996): 335; M. and J. Stutley (1977); D.G. White (1996): 64–65; M. Willson (1986); Winternitz II, 268. Atrideva (ABI 234) seems to read Āryā and Tārā (see his remarks on Āryā). Āryatārā is absent from the Hṛdaya.

v2.c37.10

109 Homage should be paid to Āryāvalokiteśvara and Āryatārā, next to Hindu deities. This passage was known to Indu.

v2.c37.11

110 Āryatārā is mentioned together with Āryāvalokita and Hindu deities. Indu is silent on the names.

v2.c37.12

111 Mentioned together with other Buddhist deities; see Aparājitā.

v2.c37.13

112 Compare Aparājitā. Āryāparājitā is absent from the Hṛdaya.

v2.c37.14

113 As at U.4.18, an amulet (called poṭalikā in this case) should be made and fastened to the neck of the child and to its pillow; the mūlamantras of Āryaparṇaśabarī and Āryaparājitā should be written down with goracanā (on a piece of birch bark, to be tied to the child too, according to Indu's explanations).

v2.c37.15

114 Compare Parṇaśabarī. Āryaparṇaśabarī is absent from the Hṛdaya.

v2.c37.16

116 Without much doubt the same as Āryavalokiteśvara, for the text has Āryavalokita Nātha at Sū.28.34 and U.8.57. Avalokita is an abbreviated form of Avalokiteśvara (compare Tibetan Spyan-ras gzigs) (see J. Filliozat, 1950: 57).

v2.c37.17

117 Mentioned together with Āryatārā and a number of Hindu deities. Indu is silent.

v2.c37.18

118 Mentioned together with other Buddhist deities. See Aparājitā in Ci.2.144.

v2.c37.19

119 The muttering of (the name or dhāraṇī of) Dvādaśabhuja (twelve-armed) Īśvara Āryāvalokita Nātha and of the sarvavyādhicikitsā (a vidyā according to Indu) drives away all grahas and cures mental disorders. Indu remarks that Dvādaśabhuja Īśvara is a specification of Avalokita Nātha. The deity mentioned is usually interpreted as the twelve-armed

v2.c37.20

Avalokiteśvara, but some regard him as Śiva, as will be discussed later. A.s.U.8.57 = A.h.U.5.50–51ab.

v2.c37.21

120 The well-known Bodhisattva. Compare Avalokita. See on Avalokiteśvara: ABI 232–233; J. Filliozat (1950); A. Getty (1914): 52–66; Lokesh Chandra (1988); D.I. Lauf (1976): 69–72; G.P. Malalasekera (1966): 407–415; M.-Th. de Mallmann (1967); N.D. Mironov (1927); H. Nakamura (1996): 180, 325–326, 336; S. Paranavitana (1946); P.L. Paul (1939): II, 82–84; L. Renou and J. Filliozat (1953): 573–574; A. von Staël-Holstein (1936); L. de la Vallée Poussin (1909); L.A. Waddell (1894); H. Zimmer (1922). Avalokiteśvara is not mentioned in the Hṛdaya.

v2.c37.22

121 Āryāvalokiteśvara and Āryatārā are mentioned, together with a series of Hindu deities. Compare Āryatārā at Sū.8.59.

v2.c37.23

122 See on Bhaiṣajyaguru: R. Birnbaum (1989); T. Clifford (1984); P. Démiéville et J. Filliozat (1937); *N. Dutt (1939); A. Getty (1914): 23–24; F.M. Hassnain and T.D. Sumi (1995); S. Hummel (1949), (1950), (1965); C. Massin (1982); 64; R.F.G. Müller (1927a), (1927b); H. Nakamura (1996): 181; R. De Nebesky-Wojkowitz (1993): 79; P. Pelliot (1903); L. Rabgay (1981): 6–10; Rechung (1973): 172–176; A. Stein (1921): II, 860, 889–890; M. Tatz (1985); P.L. Vaidya (1961): 165–173; L.A. Waddell (1958): 353–354; A. Wayman (1973), (1976); P. van der Wee (1970); Ch. Willemen (1995); *M. Winder (1985).

v2.c37.24

123 This Mantra, also found in the Hṛdaya (Sū.18, between 17 and 18), is addressed to Bhagavant Bhaiṣajyaguru Vaiḍūryaprabhārāja Tathāgata Arhant Samyaksambuddha. Indu only remarks that it is a Buddhist mantra. R. Śāstrī (1977: 636) identifies Bhaiṣajyaguru as the Bodhisattva Amitābha. Bhaiṣajyaguruvaiḍūryaprabhārāja is mentioned, for instance, in Śāntideva's Śikṣāsamuccaya (see C. Bendall and W.H.D. Rouse, 1971: 170, 171).

v2.c37.25

124 Compare Āryaparṇaśabarī. See on Parṇaśabarī: B. Bhattacharya (1968: Sādhanamālā): II, Intr. CLXX–CLXIII; B. Bhattacharyya (1964): 118 and 145–146 (she is an emanation of the Dhyānibuddha Amoghasiddhi and destroys all kinds of epidemics); D.Ch. Bhattacharyya (1978): 16–18; N.N. Bhattacharyya (1982): 240; N.K. Bhattasali (1929): 58–61; B. Chatterjee (1988); T. Clifford (1984): 50; A. Foucher (1905): 101–102; A. Grünwedel (1970): 150, 152; M.-Th. de Mallmann (1963): 163, (1975): 300–301; H. Nakamura (1996): 326; Rechung (1973): 267; B. Sahai (1975): 239–242, 259–261. The Parṇaśabarīmahāmārīpraśamanī is a Buddhist dhāraṇī averting epidemics (mahāmārī) (see J. Filliozat in L. Renou et J. Filliozat, 1953: 374); a Parṇaśavarināmadhāraṇī is also known (R. Mitra, 1971: 171–172). Parṇaśabarī is absent from the Hṛdaya.

v2.c37.26

125 Parṇaśabarī and other deities should be invoked to protect patients with from evil beings (rakṣas). Indu gives no comments.

v2.c37.27

126 The vidyā of Parṇaśabarī is meant according to Indu. She is mentioned, together with other figures from the Buddhist pantheon, in the context of warding off fever.

v2.c37.28

127 Ratnaketu is absent from the Hṛdaya. P. Cordier (1901d: 174) identifies Ratnaketu with Ratnatārā; he refers to A. Foucher (1905): 131. J. Filliozat (1937: 47) pointed to an Āryamahāsamnipātaratnaketudhāraṇī, a text found in the Tibetan Kanjur (*Mdo, X, 5).

v2.c37.29

128 The māyūrī, mahāmāyūrī and (ārya)ratnaketudhāraṇī should be recited. Indu remarks that the ratnaketudhāraṇī is well known in Buddhist circles. A śāntikarman, to be performed by brāhmaṇas who are conversant with the Atharvaveda, is also prescribed.

v2.c37.30

¹²⁹ P.V. Sharma (1968): 330.

v2.c37.31

¹³⁰ Mahābhārata, Vanaparvan 225.17 (ed. Poona).

v2.c37.32

134 See ABI 233–234. See on Tārā as a Hindu deity: A. Daniélou (1964): 274–277. See on the relationship between the Buddhist and the Hindu Tārā: P. Arènes (1996): 39, 42–43, 65.

v2.c37.33

135 P. Cordier (1901d: 173) sees her as identical with Āryatārā. Compare: Winternitz II, 268, 379.

v2.c37.34

136 See A.s.U.5.28 and 45. Aparājita is also the name of the fourth pitcher (kalaśa) employed in the magical rites described (U.5.41). Aparājita is a name not found in the Hṛdaya. The Arthaśāstra (2.4.17) mentions shrines for Aparājita. Pālakāpya’s Hastyāyurveda refers to the homage of this deity (III.11.79).

v2.c37.35

138 A.s.U.8.58 = A.h.U.5.51cd. See on mahāvidyās like the mahāmāyūrī, which are also called vidyārājñī: J. Przyluski (1923). See on vidyās called vidyārāja: F.A. Bischoff (1956).

v2.c37.36

139 Absent from the Hṛdaya. Buddhist literature is acquainted with a sarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatra- (see M. Lalou, 1936; R. Mitra, 1971: 222–223) and an uṣṇīṣavijayadhāraṇī (see Lokesh Chandra, 1980; R. Mitra, 1971: 263–264; H. Nakamura, 1996: 316; Winternitz II, 272). See on Buddhist deity Uṣṇīṣavijayā: B. Bhattacharya (1968: Sādhanamālā: II, Intr. CLXVI–CLXVIII; Lokesh Chandra (1980).

v2.c37.37

140 Mentioned as sarvavyādhicikitsā in A.s.U.8.57cd (= A.h.U.5.50cd). Indu remarks ad A.s. Ci.2.145 that this mantra refers to the preceding verse, where Parṇaśabarī and other Buddhist deities are found, while he says, in his comments ad A.s.U.8.57, that mantras like the śrīpañcākṣara are meant.

v2.c37.38

141 A.h.U.5.50–51ab = A.s.U.8.57.

v2.c37.39

142 Identical with the mantra between A.s.Sū.27.12 and 13.

v2.c37.40

143 A.h.Ci.19.98 = A.s.Ci.21.135.

v2.c37.41

145 R. Śāstrī (1977: 682) regards this Jina as the founder of Jainism.

v2.c37.42

146 P. Cordier (1901d: 171) asserts that the verse is found in A.s.U.43, where I could not trace it (it is also absent from U.44 and 45).

v2.c37.43

147 It cannot be proved beyond doubt that the Jina of the verse is the Buddha, but this is rather probable. H. Parāḍkar (1939: 8) is convinced that Jina is the Buddha here.

v2.c37.44

148 P. Cordier (1901d: 174) asserts that the mantra also forms part of the Saṃgraha. Cordier refers to L.A. Waddell (1894): 83.

v2.c37.45

149 Regarded as identical with Āryaparṇaśabarī by P. Cordier (1901d: 173), who refers to the *French translation (152–154) of A. Grünwedel (1970).

v2.c37.46

151 Atrideva (ABI 220) is one of the few scholars to assert that apūrvavaidya was a common term for the Buddha in the Gupta age.

v2.c37.47

152 Aruṇa calls A.h.Sū.1.1 the abhimatanamaskāraśloka; Candranandana and Hemādri refer to the iṣṭadevata of the author; Indu mentions again the author’s abhimatadevata.

v2.c37.48

153 P. Cordier (1901d: 167–168) was wrong in his interpretation of Narahari’s attitude; he attributed the opinions of the opponent, described first and refuted later, to the author himself.

v2.c37.49

154 The editor of the commentary of Śrīdāsa remarks in a footnote that the quoted verse is absent from the printed edition of Halāyudha’s Abhidhānaratnamālā, but a related verse is found in Th. Aufrecht’s edition (1.85; repr., Delhi 1975).

v2.c37.50

156 Editions a, e and g. Also present in the edition and translation of K.R. Srikantha Murthy (1995).

v2.c37.51

159 P. Cordier (1901d): 167.

v2.c37.52

161 A.B. Keith (1973): 510.

v2.c37.53

167 *Intr. to his ed. of the Hṛdaya, 2nd ed., 1891 (see J. Jolly, 1900a: 261).

v2.c37.54

169 See H. Parāḍkar (1939): 5–9. P.L. Vaidya collected a series of arguments in favour of Vāgbhaṭa’s Buddhism (see for a summary: P.V. Sharma, 1968: 309–310). P.L. Vaidya’s original paper was published in the *Vaidyasammelanapatrikā (5, 1) and had as title “Vāgbhaṭācāryaḥ kim vaidika uta saugataḥ”.

v2.c37.55

170 P. Rāy (1956): 70.

v2.c37.56

172 S. Dasgupta (1975): II, 433.

v2.c37.57

175 See the Prākkathan (3) to ed. d of the Saṃgraha, where he mentions this earlier view of his. Later, he changed his opinion and became convinced that Vāgbhaṭa was a Buddhist.

v2.c37.58

176 Vṛddhatrayī 268–270.

v2.c37.59

177 G. Hāldār refers to Sāyaṇa ad Ṛgveda 2.33.4 (Rudra is addressed as bhiṣaktama), Vājasaneyisaṃhitā 16.5 (the Śatarudrīya, which mentions the prathama daivya bhiṣaj) and Taittirīyasaṃhitā 4.5.1 (the beginning of the Śatarudrīya, also mentioning the prathama daivya bhiṣaj). He interprets the pitāmaha of A.s.Sū.1.1 as not indicating Vāgbhaṭa’s grandfather, but, instead, Brahmā, and sees the -ādi of pitāmahādi as referring to Dakṣa, the Aśvins, Indra, etc.

v2.c37.60

181 R. Śāstrī (1977): 681.

v2.c37.61

182 G.K. Gurjar and R.M. Anand (1975).

v2.c37.62

183 The authors refer to the commentaries of Mahīdhara and Uvaṭa on the Yajurveda. 184 Probably in the introduction to his 1880 ed. of the Hṛdaya. Referred to by P.K. Gode (1939f: 2–3). 185 It is not clear at all how he arrived at the conclusion that Gaṇeśa is saluted. 186 S.K. Ramachandra Rao (1985): 102. 187 See the Introduction to his translation of the Hṛdaya (XX–XXI). 188 K.R. Srikantha Murthy (1995): XII–XIII. 189 G. Häldär interprets sahaja as prākṛta, i.e., svābhāvika; the svābhāvika diseases are those which accompany life: hunger, thirst, old age and death. 190 See the commentaries on these three terms; see also Vṛddhatrayī 270. 191 C. Vogel (1965): 18 and 46. 192 See on the three poisons, associated with the three dosas in Tibetan medicine: A. Wayman (1957). They are represented in the nave of the Buddhist wheel of life by a dove (or cock), serpent and pig respectively; see, for example: F. Meyer (1981): 63–65; L.A. Waddell (1958): 108–109. 193 Vṛddhatrayī 269. 194 See on these kleśas, for example, Yogasūtra 2.3–9. Compare M.E. Burnouf (1973): 443–448; A. Roṣu (1978): 169. 195 K. Butzenberger and M. Fedorova (1989): 105. See the remarks of these authors on the terms viparyaya and atyantaviparyaya. 196 Compare on the attitude towards incurable patients: Su.Sū.28.21; Ci.21.18 and 22.81. 197 See A.s.Sā.7.30cd–31. Indu remarks that a physician need not be afraid to lose his reputation in adopting this principle. A different attitude is expressed in the Suśrutasaṃhitā (Sū.10.6); see also Cakra ad Ca.Sū.9.26. 198 The threefold formula kāyavāṅmanas and its synonyms (kāyavākcitta, kāyavāgbuddhi, vāṅmanaḥśarīra) is very old and of a pan-Indian character; see J. Naudou (1975–76) and A. Roṣu (1978): 22 and 109 (with references). 199 Compare the similar prescriptions and prohibitions, of a Hinduist character, of the Carakasaṃhitā (Sū.8.19). 200 The verses are of Buddhist inspiration according to Atrideva (ABI 219), K. Butzenberger and M. Fedorova (1989: 104), and C. Vogel (1965: 18). 201 See F. Edgerton (1977): II (s.v. karmapatha); C. Vogel (1965): 100. They are mentioned in the Saundarananda (3.37) (see ABI 219). Compare the enumeration found in the Mahāvyutpatti. See also the quotation given by H. Parāḍkar (1939: 8). 202 See, e.g., Manusmṛti 12.4–8. H. Parāḍkar (1939: 8) is of the opinion that the differences indicate that Vāgbhaṭa's list and terminology are of a Buddhist character. The concept of the kalyāṇamitra, met with in the Hṛdaya, confirms this Buddhist character. See the importance in Buddhism of the kalyāṇamitra, who is a spiritual friend helpful to someone who has decided to travel on the path to illumination: A.K. Warder (1980): 105. 203 This is the interpretation of Atrideva (ABI 223) and of Lālcandra Śāstri in his Hindī commentary on the Saṃgraha (ed. g). 204 One of these was P.L. Vaidya (see P.V. Sharma, 1968: 310), who considered the practice of offering five piṇḍas to be a prāyaścitta for hurting living beings living in the water. Compare H. Parāḍkar (1939: 7–8). 205 See B. Rama Rao (1992a): 213. 206 See Manusmṛti 4.201; Yājñavalkyasmṛti 1.159.

v2.c37.63

207 See Viṣṇusmṛti 64.1–2. 208 P.L. Vaidya thought so according to P.V. Sharma (1968: 310). Compare H. Parāḍkar (1939: 8). P.V. Sharma (1968: 310) refers to A.s.Sū.3, where I could only find that one should not eat foods prepared with sesamum (tilasaṃbaddha) after sunset (3.79ab); this rule is in conformity with Manusmṛti 4.75. 209 Noticed as a Buddhist element by H. Parāḍkar (1939: 9). 210 P.L. Vaidya was one of these according to P.V. Sharma (1968: 309). See on maitrī: N.H. Samtani (1975). 211 Also found, for example, at A.h.Sū.2.46. 212 Also found, for example, at A.h.Sū.2.46. 213 Ca.Sū.1.30. 214 Maitrī occurs, for example, at A.h.Sū.2.20, 23cd, 46; Śā.3.120; Ci.19.98. 215 Karuṇā is found, for example, at A.h.Sū.2.26 (karuṇāmṛdu); Śā.6.29; Ci.173; A.ś.Śā.12. 4. Maitrī and karuṇā occur next to each other at A.s.U.50.196. Compare the related term ādrasantānatā (A.h.Sū.2.46; explained as paramakāruṇikatva by Hemādri). 216 Atrideva (ABI 219: Śāstar = Buddha). H. Parāḍkar (1939: 7). P.V. Sharma (AVI 158). K.R. Srikantha Murthy (1995): XIII. P.L. Vaidya (according to P.V. Sharma, 1968: 309). Śāstar refers to Mahēśvara and other deities according to Indu. 217 See on the deity called Śāstar or Aiyaṇār: M.E. Adiceam (1967; with references), (1978); A. Bharati (1963): 141; S.H. Blackburn (1988): 48–88; W. Caland (1926): 44, 45, 46, 142, 150, 152; F. Clothey (1978); W. Crooke (1911): 606; L. Dumont (1953), (1959), (1986; see: index of proper names); W.T. Elmore (1984): 152; A.S. Geden (1925); H. von Glasenapp (1922): 111–112; T.A. Gopinatha Rao (1971): II, 2, 485–492; H.B.M. Ilangasinha (1992): 216–217; L.A.K. Iyer (1929); L. Kjærholm (1982); C.D. Maclean (1982): 61–62 (s.v. Ayen); E.O. Martin (1972): 196–197; P.T. Nair (1969); V. Narayana Pillai (1940); H.R. Pate (1917): 108–109; M.-L. Reiniche (1979); M.N. Srinivas (1955); H. Stork (1992): 94–96; E. Thurston (1912): 166–167; H. Whitehead (1980): 33, 90–91; B. Ziegenbalg (1867): 11, 148–156; F. Zimmermann (1989): 231. 218 See H. Parāḍkar (1939: 10). 219 This passage was noticed by H. Parāḍkar (1939: 10). 220 See on the concept of Bodhisattva, for example: Hōbōgirin, s.v. Bosatsu; H. Kern (1896): 65–68; J.E. van Lohuizen-de Leeuw (1949): 178–179; P. Mus (1978): 741–744; L. de la Vallée Poussin (1909a). 221 Noticed by Atrideva (ABI 220, 231–232). See on dhāraṇī or dhāraṇī: A. Bareau (1964): 176; F. Bernhard (1967); H. Nakamura (1996): 315–318; L. Renou and J. Filliozat (1953): 374; Winternitz II, 269–273, 379–380 (with references). 222 ABI 221. 223 See Ca.Vi.8.149 (bhikṣuka), Su.U.33.6 (bhikṣusaṃghāṭī), Kāśyapasaṃhitā 102 (bālagrahacikitsā) (bhikṣusaṃghāṭī). 224 This argument was advanced by Kuṇṭe (in the Intr. to the 2nd ed. of the Hṛdaya, Bombay 1891) (see J. Jolly, 1900a: 261). 225 Compare: O. Lacombe (1980). 226 K. Butzenberger and M. Fedorova (1989): 105. 227 H. Parāḍkar (1939): 8. 228 The Buddhist path is often called mārga or pratipad (paṭipadā in Pali texts). See the Pali dictionaries and F. Edgerton's dictionary.

v2.c37.64

229 H. Parāḍkar (1939): 8–9. K.R. Srikantha Murthy (1995): XIII. *P.L. Vaidya (see H. Parāḍkar 1939: 8–9).

v2.c37.65

231 He refers to *Raghuvamśa* 13.7cd and *Vikramorvaśīya* 1.20. Both passages do not carry the point in my opinion. 232 ABI 230. 233 See R. Śāstrī (1977): 668, 677–678. R. Śāstrī even wants to see Avalokiteśvara as an ambiguous name, which may refer to Śiva, Viṣṇu or Dhanvantari too. Fusion of figures from the Buddhist pantheon and Hindu deities did occur, in particular outside India; Nīlakaṇṭha Lokeśvara (= Avalokiteśvara) was, for example, an epiphany of Hari-Hara in Tibet (see Lokesh Chandra, 1980–81). 234 C. Vogel (1965): 18. 235 See Rudrapārāśava's upodghāta (IV) to his ed. (b) of the *Saṃgraha*. See on the ekādaśī-vrata: K. Damodaran Nambiar (1979: 272–277); Kane V.1.95–121. 236 Compare C. Vogel (1965): 48), who expresses the same opinion. 237 Compare Indu ad A.s.Sū.9.45. 238 See on cross-roads: J.A. MacCulloch (1911); N.M. Penzer (1925a). 239 Compare A.h.Sū.2.37d–38ab, where both a tree and a caitya figure in a series of places to be avoided. 240 The word caitya is found, for example, at Su.Sū.29.35 (Ḍalhaṇa: = śmaśānavṛkṣa), Śā.10.3, Ci.24.92 (Ḍalhaṇa: = śmaśānavṛkṣa); A.h.Sū.2.33 and 38, Śā.6.18, Ka.6.1, U.36.30; A.s.Sū.7.9, 9.45, Ka.8.2, U.4.40, 41.72 and 76. See on caitya: A.K. Coomaraswamy (1980); E.W. Hopkins (1974): 72; B.C. Law (1931); R.N. Misra (1981); O. Viennot (1954): 88–93, 113–114. 241 See, for example, A.s.Sū.1.3 = A.h.Sū.1.2 (dharma, artha, sukha); Ci.9.103. Compare the references to the trivarga in the Hṛdaya. 242 The reading cārthakāmārtham (see Ca.Ci.14.58) is obviously an error for nārthakāmārtham, as noticed by P.V. Sharma. 243 Hilgenberg and Kirfel (1941): XXI. 244 C. Vogel (1965): 6. 245 Hilgenberg and Kirfel (1941): XXI. 246 C. Vogel (1965): 6. 247 Hilgenberg and Kirfel (1941): XXI. C. Vogel (1965): 6. 248 See H. Parāḍkar (1939): 3. 249 See H. Parāḍkar (1939): 3–4. 250 See R. Śāstrī (1977): 679), who refers to A.h.Śā.1.33, where a large number of these deities are mentioned; the Aśvins, Bhaga, Brahmā, Bṛhaspati, Dhātar, Mitra, Soma, Sūrya, Varuṇa, Vidhātar, and Viṣṇu. A.h.Śā.1.33 = Ca.Śā.8.8 and forms part of A.s.Śā.1.28. R. Śāstrī (1977: 679) also draws attention to A.h.U.39.89cd, where Acyuta is mentioned, the deity who holds the śaṅkha, cakra and gadā in his hands, and various other passages: A.h.U.5.52 = A.s.U.8.59 (Bhūteśa, Sthāṇu, the Pramathas; see R. Śāstrī, 1977: 686; Sthāṇu is also mentioned at A.s.Ni.1.4; cf. Ca.Ci.9.91–92); 40.86cd (Brahmā and Brahmaja; see R. Śāstrī, 1977: 684–685). G. Häldar (Vṛddhatrayī 271–272), also convinced of Vāgbhaṭa's adherence to the Hindu dharma, refers to the story of the divine origin of āyurveda, which mentions several Hindu gods (A.s.Sū.1.4–10; A.h.Sū.1.3). Many more passages could have been quoted; see, for

v2.c37.66

example, A.s.Ci.9.68 (Aśvins, Sarasvatī, Indra, Viṣṇu), U.4.45–46 (Prajāpati, Dharmarāja, Dhanādhipa, Jalādhipa), U.49.257 (Viṣṇu) and 262 (Puṇḍarīkākṣa, Purandara), U.50.159 (Pitāmaha). 251 See, for example, A.s.Sū.28.34; Ci.9.89; A.h.Sū.2.24; Śā.6.72. This is an argument of Patvardhan (see H. Parāḍkar, 1939: 4) and R. Śāstrī (1977: 719–720). 252 See R. Śāstrī (1977: 689), who refers to A.h.U.40.4. 253 See R. Śāstrī (1977: 690–691 and 712), who refers to A.h.Sū.2.48 and U.39.179. 254 See R. Śāstrī (1977: 679), who refers to A.h.Śā.6.39, which verse has been borrowed from Caraka (I.12.79cd–80ab). 255 See R. Śāstrī (1977: 679), who refers to A.h.Śā.1.27cd–28ab (the putrīya vidhi). Many more examples can be noticed: the sautrāmaṇī is mentioned at A.s.Ci.9.69; the term yajña is found, for example, at A.s.Sū.28.34 and U.4.65, homa at A.s.U.7.9, agnihotra at U.4.46. 256 See, for example, A.s.Ci.9.103, 108. This argument was adduced by Patvardhan (see H. Parāḍkar, 1939: 4). 257 See A.s.Sū.5.39 (pratikūlagrahārcana). 258 See Rudrapārāśava's upodghāta (III–IV) to his ed. (b) of the Saṃgraha. 259 See R. Śāstrī (1977): 647. 260 R. Śāstrī (1977): 679–680. 261 Compare the reference to Puruṣasiṃha (= Narasimha) in A.h.U.35.28. 262 See A.h.U.39.89. 263 See A.h.Śā.6.30–39; A.s.Śā.12.5. 264 See R. Śāstrī (1977): 664–665, 705–712. See on the Bhāgavatas: V.M. Apte (1968); Ch. Eliot (1988): II, 194–201; J.N. Farquhar (1967; see index); J. Gonda (1963); A.K. Narain (1983); D.C. Sircar (1968d); A.M. Shastri (1996): I, 135–136; G.R. Welbon (1987). 265 R. Śāstrī (1977): 678. 266 See H. Parāḍkar (1939): 4–5. 267 See on tithi: P.V. Kane V.1, 62–80. 268 See on vrata: P.V. Kane V.1, 1–80. 269 See the translation by J. Takakusu (1966). I-ching's travels lasted from A.D. 671 to 695. See on I-ching also: E. Chavannes (1894). 270 J. Takakusu (1966): 128. See for the references to the Chinese text: C. Vogel (1965): 8–9. 271 See J. Takakusu (1966): IX–XVI. 272 J. Takakusu (1966): X (see Max Müller's examples). 273 J. Takakusu (1966): XII (see Max Müller's examples). See on I-ching's partial reliability and doubts regarding his information on Bhartṛhari: C. Kunhan Raja (1936). 274 J. Takakusu (1966): 128. 275 J. Nobel (1951) published a detailed study of this translation and of I-ching's medical knowledge. Disagreements between the medical data in I-ching's travel report and the translation of the Suvarṇaprabhāsasūtra made J. Nobel (1951: 30) suggest that the translation was not made by I-ching himself, but under his supervision. Nobel's arguments do not convince me; the equally remarkable agreements between the two works are in favour of I-ching's authorship. 276 See for a detailed study of these subjects: J. Jolly (1902). 277 See on this unusual term: J. Nobel (1951): 15–16; J. Takakusu (1966): 131. 278 J. Takakusu (1966): 131. 279 See on this subject: J. Nobel (1951): 7–19. See also: J. Jolly (1902): 567–568.

v2.c37.67

280 See J. Takakusu (1966): 132; J. Nobel (1951): passim. 281 J. Takakusu (1966): 127–128. 282 J. Nobel (1951): 30. 283 The Sanskrit equivalents are probably nija (= doṣaja) and āgantuja. Compare the title dvivraṇīya of Ca.Ci.25 and Su.Ci.1. 284 See on the Chinese equivalents of the eight branches, which are not identical in the travel report and the Suvarṇaprabhāsa translation; J. Nobel (1951): 29–30. 285 This subject has been discussed by A.F.R. Hoernle (1907). 286 Compare the remarks by R.F.G. Müller (1932): 792. 287 J. Takakusu (1966): 137. 288 J. Takakusu (1966): 138. See also J. Jolly (1902): 571. 289 J. Takakusu (1966): 134. Compare J. Nobel (1951): 26–28. 290 J. Takakusu (1966): 134. 291 P.V. Sharma (1968): 333–334 sees the passage as one of the proofs that I-ching was acquainted with the Saṃgraha. 292 J. Jolly (1902): 572 also inclined to the conclusion that a considerable part of I-ching's medical knowledge did not come from the medical textbook he mentions, but, instead, from Buddhist texts, such as the Vinaya, in particular the medical chapters of the Mahāvagga. 293 G. Mukhopadhyaya (HIM III, 794) regarded the word 'lately' as not meaning that the author of the book preceded I-ching by a short period. C. Vogel (1965: 9) argued convincingly that the Chinese text does not admit of this interpretation. 294 J. Takakusu (1966): 222. 295 J. Jolly (1902): 566–567. Compare J. Jolly (1907). 296 J. Jolly refers, for example, to I-ching's mention of Śakra Devendra (i.e., Indra) as the deity who handed down the science of medicine (see Su.Sū.1.20). 297 A.F.R. Hoernle (1907); this article is a rejoinder to J. Jolly (1907), not to J. Jolly's earlier publication (1902), which, strangely, is not mentioned by Hoernle. 298 C. Vogel (1965) is one of these. 299 A.F.R. Hoernle (1978; orig. publ. 1907): 10–11. 300 J. Jolly (1907). 301 A.F.R. Hoernle (1906): 940–941. 302 See, for example: AVI 159; A.B. Keith (1973): 510; R.C. Majumdar (1971): 226; M. Winternitz III, 549. 303 P.V. Sharma (1968): 332–335. 304 See J. Takakusu (1966): 134. Compare A.s.Ci.2.144, which has no parallel in the Hṛdaya. 305 J. Takakusu (1966): 137–138. The palāṇḍukalpa, which forms part of the Saṃgraha, is absent from the Hṛdaya. 306 J. Takakusu (1966): 134. 307 See A.h.Ci.8.54cd–55ab: combinations of guḍa (treacle) and nāgara (dried ginger), and of guḍa and harītakī are mentioned. A prescription with all three substances is not found in the Hṛdaya, but in the Siddhayoga (6.8). 308 G. Mukhopādhyāya (1913): 18–24; HIM III, 790–796. 309 D.Ch. Bhattacharyya (1947a): 127. 310 C. Vogel (1965): 9. 311 J. Filliozat (1948), (1979); J. Filliozat in L. Renou and J. Filliozat (1953): 157.

v2.c37.68

312 Filliozat obviously thought that Takakusu (to whom he refers) inclined to identifying I-ching's treatise as the Uttaratanṭra, but Takakusu only mentions the Suśrutasaṃhitā. 313 J. Filliozat (1948): 32–35; L. Renou and J. Filliozat (1953): 157. 314 See Takakusu's index for references to Nāgārjuna in I-ching's work. 315 J. Filliozat (1979): XVIII–XIX. 316 See H.H.M. Schmidt's edition of the Yogaśataka (1978): 16–17. 317 One of these writers was Ibn Abī Uṣaybi'a, who mentions it in his 'Uyūn al-anbā' fī ṭabaqāt al-aṭibbā' (see W. Cureton, 1841; F.R. Dietz, 1833: 119 and 123: translated as liber Asankara magna; A. Müller, 1880: 476: translated as: das Compendium Asānkar). It is also mentioned in the Fihrist al-'ulūm (see G. Flügel, 1857: 148, 149: translated as: das Buch Asānkir der Sammler). G. Flügel read the name of the treatise as Asānkir, which he justified by remarking that this form is found in all the MSS of a work by Ḥadschi Chalfa (compare P. Cordier, 1899a: 4; Ḥajī Khalfa). See on the variants in the MSS: A. Müller (1880): 476. C. Vogel (1965: 2) mentions that the Asānkar is also referred to in Mas'ūdī's Golden Meadows (see on this work: R.A. Nicholson, 1962: 352–354). 318 G. Flügel (1857): 148, 149, 151. Compare C. Vogel (1965): 3. 319 P. Cordier (1899a): 4; Cordier omitted al-jāmi'. 320 J. Jolly (1900a): 262. 321 C. Vogel (1965): 3. 322 J. Filliozat in L. Renou and J. Filliozat (1953): 158. 323 The edition of H.H.M. Schmidt gives many identical or related verses found in later works. A few verses of the Yogaśataka are from the Carakasaṃhitā (9 = Ca.Ci.6.40; 20 = Ca.Ci. 26.22; 23 = Ca.Ci.26.20). 324 H.H.M. Schmidt's edition of the Yogaśataka (1978): 165. 325 See, for example, Siddhayoga 10.57–59 (pārāśaraghṛta) = A.s.Ci.7.37–38; the Kusumāvalī is silent on Vṛnda's source, but Śivadāsasena's commentary on the Cakradatta (Siddhayoga 10.57–59 = Cakradatta, rājayakṣman 65–66) mentions that the recipe derives from Vāgbhaṭa. 326 See, for example, Cakradatta, vātavyādhi 151 = A.s.Ci.23.49. Cakrapāṇidatta quotes the Hṛdaya as Vāgbhaṭa in his Āyurvedadīpikā. Once only, we find in this commentary an anonymous quotation that is identical with a verse found in the Saṃgraha (A.s.Sū.7.48cd–49ab is quoted ad Ca.Ci.8.117–134ab). 327 See, for example, Aruṇa ad A.h.Sū.5.51cd–53ab, 61cd–62ab, 68 (references to the Saṃgraha). 328 See, for example, Candranandana ad A.h.Sū.5.15ab and 20.34cd–36 (references to the Saṃgraha). 329 Numerous references to the Saṃgraha are found in his commentary. 330 See, for example, Indu ad A.s.Sū.17.29 (reference to the Hṛdaya). 331 See C. Vogel (1965): 1–2. Vogel's assertion that commentators from Hemādri onwards distinguish Vāgbhaṭa and Vṛddhavāgbhaṭa is not in conformity with the facts. 332 Ad Cakradatta, dantamūlaroga 23–24. 333 Vāgbhaṭa is quoted by Kṣīrasvāmin (first half twelfth century) in his commentary on the Amarakoṣa (see K.G. Oka's Intr. to his edition of the Amarakoṣa with Kṣīrasvāmin's commentary, 1981: 6). 334 This agrees with Ca.Śā.8.32. 335 This is in conformity with Ca.Śā.8.32, where the name of the opponent is Bhadrakāpya.

v2.c37.69

336 A name applied to Viṣṇu and Kṛṣṇa. 337 The Hṛdaya has no corresponding verses. They are absent from the Carakasaṃhitā. 338 Compare Ca.Si.3.26 with the first two pādas of the Saṃgraha. 339 A.s.Ka.5.58–60ab = Ca.Si.11.12–14ab. 340 Compare A.s.Ka.5.62 and Ca.Si.11.16, 5.64–66 and Ca.Si.11.17cd–18. 341 A.F.R. Hoernle (1978): 13–14. 342 P.V. Sharma (1968): 339. 343 See Cakrapāṇi ad Ca.Ci.26.129–131. 344 S. Dasgupta (1975): II, 433. 345 P.V. Sharma (1968): 338, 351; AVI 159. 346 Compare A.s.Sū.15 and Ca.Sū.4. 347 A number of Indian authors have brought forward that the influence of the Suśrutasaṃhitā is predominant in the Saṃgraha, whereas the Hṛdaya is supposed to follow the Carakasaṃhitā more closely. See, for example, G.S. Pendse (in S.R. Godbole, G.S. Pendse and V.A. Bedekar, 1966: XIII). This claim cannot be justified in my opinion; the Saṃgraha incorporates a considerable amount of material from the Carakasaṃhitā that is absent from the Hṛdaya, such as Sū.13 (agryasaṃgrahaṇīya) and 15 (mahākaṣāyasaṃgraha). 348 Some examples are: A.s.U.49.367 (= A.h.39.145) is almost identical with Su.Ci.27.6; A.s. U.50.47a–d (= A.h.U.40.31cd–32ab) is close to Su.Ci.26.33; A.s.U.50.86 (= A.h.U.40.25) is close to Su.Ci.26.18cd. See also the notes to the Saṃgraha. 349 AVI 159–160. 350 A.F.R. Hoernle (1978): 6, 10. 351 The opening chapter of the Hṛdaya does not mention Suśruta. 352 Absent from the Hṛdaya. 353 Absent from the Hṛdaya. 354 Absent from the Hṛdaya. Cf. Su.U.40.161. 355 Absent from the Hṛdaya. 356 Paribhāṣā 17 and 79. 357 Absent from the Hṛdaya. 358 Absent from the Hṛdaya. 359 Cf. A.h.Śā.2.52. 360 Compare A.h.Śā.1.67, where Dhanvantari is not mentioned. 361 Absent from the Hṛdaya. Cf. Su.Ka.4.39. 362 Absent from the Hṛdaya. Cf. Su.Ka.4.40–41. 363 Absent from the Hṛdaya. 364 See also: special features common to Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya. 365 The use of the term nāḍikā (see on the different divisions of the nāḍikā: G. Thibaut, 1899: 26) is noteworthy. The term is employed in Bāṇa's Harṣacarita and Kādambarī (see P.V. Sharma, 1968: 32, 261), the Jyotiṣavedāṅga (see H. Jacobi, 1920: 248), Arthaśāstra, and Bṛhatsaṃhitā (2.4: nāḍī). See also Āyurvedasūtra 9.16–17 and 14.30. 366 See the notes to chapters 5 and 6 of the Śārīrasthāna. 367 Examples are: A.s.U.8.10–12 and Su.U.60.41cd–45cd. 368 See the notes to A.s.U.6. 369 See: special features common to Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya. 370 See: special features of the Saṃgraha. 371 Śivadāsasena claims (ad Cakradatta, dantamūlaroga 23–24) that A.h.U.22.41cd is inspired by Jejjata.

v2.c37.70

372 See A.s.U.26.31. 373 See, for example, J. Filliozat in L. Renou and J. Filliozat (1953): 158. 374 The first to notice this fact was P. Cordier (1903b: 333). 375 See the list with references. 376 Also known from the Bower MS. 377 See the chapters where the mentioned authorities are discussed. 378 Ad Cakradatta, unmāda 17 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 17). This passage was noticed first by D.C. Bhattacharya (1947b: 124), who accepted it as genuine and regarded it as coming from the Madhyavāgbhaṭa, because it is absent from Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya. 379 J.N. Farquhar (1967): 208. A.B. Keith (1973): 72. Winternitz II, 259. 380 AVI 161. P.V. Sharma (1968): 30, 66, 69. 381 Compare P.V. Sharma (1968): 169, where this author says that A.s.U.5 is based on the Yājñavalkyasmṛti (he refers to ācārādhyāya 277–290). 382 Chapter 48 in M.R. Bhat's translation. See on this chapter: A.M. Shastri (1996): I, 172–174. 383 See R. Inden (1985): 31; P.V. Sharma (1968): 30; the practice is also described in dharmaśāstra literature. 384 A.B. Keith (1973): 462–463): it may date from about A.D. 700, though others have put it contemporaneous with Varāhamihira. Winternitz (III, 524–527): dating from A.D. 700–750. Compare R. Mitra's preface to the first edition and S.K. Mitra's preface to the revised edition of the Nītisāra. 385 P.V. Sharma (1968): 32, 39, 117–118. 386 Compare A.s.Sū.3.125 and Nītisāra 5.23; 8.98cd–99ab and Nītisāra 5.30. 387 The material discussed derives from both Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya. 388 ABI 217. AVI 159. D. Chattopadhyaya (1979): 32. Gulabkunverba I, 100. H. Parāḍkar (1939): 11. 389 See B.P. Shastri (1929). See also P.V. Sharma (1968): 227–235. 390 Chapter 75 of the edition, 76 of M.R. Bhat's translation. 391 See P.V. Sharma (1968): 230; B.P. Shastri (1929): 180–181. 392 The Bhāvaprakāśa (cikitsā 72.20) has a verse closer to that of the Bṛhatsaṃhitā and adds vidaṅga. Equal quantities of honey and ghee are prohibited in the Carakasaṃhitā. 393 See B.P. Shastri (1929): 216. 394 See B.P. Shastri (1929): 216. 395 See B.P. Shastri (1929): 216–217. 396 See B.P. Shastri (1929): 217. 397 See B.P. Shastri (1929): 217–219. 398 See B.P. Shastri (1929): 220–221. 399 See B.P. Shastri (1929): 221–222. 400 See B.P. Shastri (1929): 219. 401 See B.P. Shastri (1929): 220. 402 P.V. Sharma (1968): 230) points to similarities between Bṛhatsaṃhitā 75.9 and A.s.U.50. 65–67, but these too are superficial. 403 See B.P. Shastri (1929): 222–223. 404 P.V. Sharma (1968): 227–235. 405 See on the metres of Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya: P.V. Sharma (1968): 94–96. See on the metres of the Bṛhatsaṃhitā: Kühnau (1890): 4–10; A.M. Shastri (1996): I, 28 and 43, n.220, II: 458–459; H.D. Velankar (1946).

v2.c37.71

406 See on the alaṃkāras in the Saṃgraha: P.V. Sharma (1968): 98–100. 407 See A.s.Sū.1.16–18 and 20; Bṛhatsaṃhitā 1.5. 408 See A.s.U.50.209; Bṛhatsaṃhitā 1.3–4. 409 See, for example, Bṛhatsaṃhitā 11.61, where the Hūṇas and Cīnas are mentioned; the Yāvanas are found at 14.18, the Hūṇas again at 14.27, and the Cīnas at 14.30. See on the peoples mentioned in the Bṛhatsaṃhitā: A.M. Shastri (1996): I, 64–100. Compare: A.s. Sū.7.229–232. 410 Bṛhatsaṃhitā 9.28; 15.11 and 19; 16.26 (see A.M. Shastri, 1996: II, 485, n.37). Compare A.s.Sū.8.61. 411 The Saṃgraha distinguishes four varṇas among the snakes (U.41), the Bṛhatsaṃhitā among the grahas. 412 See the references to Buddhism in the Saṃgraha. The Bṛhatsaṃhitā describes in its chapter on the making of images, next to those of Hindu deities, the image of Buddha and Jina (57. 44–45). 413 See Bṛhatsaṃhitā 14. 414 See Bṛhatsaṃhitā 97 and 100. Compare A.s.Ni.1.19–31; Śā.12.4. 415 See Bṛhatsaṃhitā 98 and 99. See on śubha: T.N. Madan (1985). 416 Bṛhatsaṃhitā 5.86. The Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya have separate chapters on guhyaroga (U. 38–39, respectively 33–34). 417 P.V. Sharma (1968: 229–230) refers to Bṛhatsaṃhitā 75.3 and 9 (see the preceding comments on these verses). He notices a series of related elements in the prescriptions of both works and adds that the erotically stimulating items of Bṛhatsaṃhitā 75.2 are also found in the Saṃgraha. Other passages showing similarities are, according to P.V. Sharma (1968: 231): A.s.Sū.3.112ab and Bṛhatsaṃhitā 2.11ab; Sū.4.20ab and Bṛhatsaṃhitā 21.21; Sū.8.2 and 2.10ab; Sū.38.16 and 42.38ab; Ci.9.101a and 12.6d; U.5.5 and 47.24. 418 See Bṛhatsaṃhitā 105.6. Compare A.s.Ka.5.57; U.40.39 and 49.262. 419 Mentioned at Bṛhajjātaka 28.9 (see the quotation by B.P. Shastri, 1929: 177). Compare A.M. Shastri (1996): I, 12 and 38, n.101. 420 Bṛhatsaṃhitā 1.1; 57.46–48. Compare A.M. Shastri (1996): I, 13–14. See A.s.Ci.21.135, where Bhāskara, another name for the sun god, is mentioned. 421 Bṛhatsaṃhitā 9.32. P.V. Sharma (who may take the word as designating physicians acquainted with poisonous roots; M.R. Bhatt interprets it as: druggists and physicians) points to the importance of poisoning and its treatment in the Saṃgraha. 422 The Bṛhatsaṃhitā condemns the use of mantras, kuhaka, etc., at 2.15 (M.R. Bhatt’s transl., 2.33) and 74.5; a kuhakajña is referred to at 85.32 (M.R. Bhatt’s transl., 86.32). The term akuhaka is found in the Suśrutasaṃhitā (Sū.10.3); Ḍalhaṇa explains a kuhaka as a paramaviśvāsakārako māyāvin. 423 See Bṛhatsaṃhitā 76.6 (arkamayūkhatapataila; arkamayūkhatāpa is the same as bhānupāka). Compare A.s.U.28.32 and 59 (ādityapāka, which is the same as bhānupāka). 424 See Bṛhatsaṃhitā 80.13. 425 See Bṛhatsaṃhitā 77.35–37 and A.s.Sū.3.35–38ab. 426 See A.s.U.49.419 and Bṛhatsaṃhitā 47.11. 427 See A.s.Sū.8 and Bṛhatsaṃhitā 52.10. 428 See Bṛhatsaṃhitā 14. 429 Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya show this diversity usually at the end of their chapters, the Bṛhatsaṃhitā in all parts of its chapters. The number of different metres employed is larger (more than fifty) in Varāhamihira’s work.

First 74 of 356 passages. Read on

Linked texts (58)