A History of Indian Medical Literature v2.c37.2

Language: English

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.