A History of Indian Medical Literature v2.c37.189

v2.c37.189

85 See A.A. Ramanathan's introduction (69–71) to the edition of this commentary; the same Introduction (47) discusses Mallinātha's date. C. Vogel (IL 315) places him in the fourteenth century. 86 NCC I, 327 and VIII, 2. See T.R. Chintamani (1938), who assigns this commentary to the beginning of the sixteenth century. C. Vogel (IL 316) writes that Nārāyaṇa Śarman (or Cakravartin) completed his *Amarakoṣapañjikā* in A.D. 1618/19. Compare on Nārāyaṇa Vidyāvinoda's sources: Th. Aufrecht (1874): 121. 87 NCC I, 373. Rāyamukuṭa completed his commentary in A.D. 1431/32 (C. Vogel, IL 315). Compare on Nārāyaṇa's sources: Th. Aufrecht (1874): 121. 88 NCC I, 373: completed in A.D. 1624. 89 N.N. Dasgupta (1936/37): 159–160. Sarvānanda completed his commentary in A.D. 1159/60 (C. Vogel, IL 315). Compare NCC VIII, 2. 90 NCC I, 373. 91 CC I, 30. See also NCC II, 287. Ujjvaladatta's *Vṛtti* is assigned to about A.D. 1250 (P.K. Gode, 1939f: 8; Winternitz III, 396). See on the disputed authorship and date of the *Uṇādisūtras*: H. Scharfe (1977): 104–105; Winternitz III, 396. 92 See C. Vogel (IL 362–363), who regards it as a work of the seventeenth century. 93 D.Ch. Bhattacharyya (1947b): 132. 94 C. Vogel (1965): 12. 95 N.N. Das Gupta (1936/37): 159–160. H. Parāḍkar (1939): 31. 96 P.V. Sharma (1993: Intr. 33–34) is convinced that Aruṇadatta cannot be earlier than Ḍalhaṇa; he is of the opinion that Ḍalhaṇa quotes the lexicographer Aruṇa. 97 A.B. Keith (1973): 384. S.N. Dasgupta and S.K. De (1947): 536. M. Krishnamachariar (1989): 744. Winternitz III, 19. 98 D.Ch. Bhattacharyya (1947a: 119) regarded Niścalakara as an elder contemporary of Aruṇadatta. 99 This date is in agreement with the conclusions reached by D.Ch. Bhattacharyya (1947b: 132), which are also accepted by C. Vogel (1965: 12–13). Dates assigned to Aruṇadatta: beginning of the twelfth century (H. Parāḍkar, 1939: 31–32); A.D. 1175 (P.V. Sharma, 1993: Intr. 40); end of the twelfth or beginning of the thirteenth century (V. Śukla I, 111–112); about A.D. 1200 (ABI 227–228); twelfth or thirteenth century (Vṛddhatrayī 277); thirteenth century (R.C. Majumdar, 1971: 227); first quarter of the thirteenth century (Gaṇanātha Sena, 1924: 57), A.D. 1225 (AVI 215); the early part of the thirteenth century (STMI 24); the middle of the thirteenth century (P. Cordier, 1901c: 186); the fifteenth century (the latest (J. Jolly, 1901: 8; C.G. Kashikar 10). 100 NCC I, 373. N.N. Das Gupta (1936/37): 159–160. S. Dasgupta (1975): II, 434. Jaggi IV, 28. 101 The first author to point out the errors in Hoernle's reasoning was D.Ch. Bhattacharyya (1947b: 130–133). 102 Hoernle calls him, erroneously, Vijayarakṣita instead of Śrīkaṇṭhadatta. 103 See the *Madhukośa* ad *Mādhavanidāna* 59.29 = Su.U.7.6cd–7ab. This doctrine concerns the true position of the first tunic (paṭala) of the eyeball. Śrīkaṇṭhadatta regards, in agreement with Videha whom he quotes in support, the innermost cover as the first one, rejecting the view that the outermost is meant. The latter opinion, indeed adhered to by Aruṇadatta (ad A.h.U.12.1), is, however, not attributed to him in the *Madhukośa*, and need not derive from Aruṇa at all, because more probably an old controversy is hinted at. Other commentaries also refer to the controversy (see the Kairalī ad A.h.U.12.1 and Indu ad A.s.U.15.2) and side with Śrīkaṇṭhadatta.