A History of Indian Medical Literature v2.c37.2.3

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).