A History of Indian Medical Literature v2.c37.291

v2.c37.291

357 See Hemādri ad A.h.Sū.7.40–41ab. P.V. Sharma takes the authors quoted (Candranandana, Aruṇadatta, Indu, Mādhavakāra) as being placed in chronological order. 358 C. Vogel, IL 329. 359 See AVI 216. 360 Most authors agree that Indu was a Kāśmīrian; see, for example, AVI 217; P.K. Gode (1944g): 223–224; C. Vogel (1965): 13. D.Ch. Bhaṭṭacharyya (1947b: 131) proposed to correct the punctuation of a statement by Indu in his comments on A.s.U.49.204 in such a way that he refers to himself as a resident of Kaśmīr, but it is not clear which punctuation should be preferred. Indu, while interpreting a verse on the use of garlic, says either that the practice described is known to the inhabitants of Kaśmīr and that he is ignorant about it, or that he, a Kāśmīrian, is not acquainted with it. The practice referred to by Vāgbhaṭa is concerned with the rule that brāhmaṇas are not allowed to eat garlic; they may, however, use the milk of a cow that has been fed with garlic. This circumvention of the prohibition on the consumption of garlic is also described in the Bower MS (I.34). 361 NCC: not recorded. AVI 176 and 209. Vṛddhatrayī 54, 58, 277. See: commentaries on the Carakasamhitā. 362 NCC: not recorded. AVI 175 and 207–208. B. Rama Rao (1992): 301. H. Parāḍkar (1939): 29. STMI 229. 363 NCC I, 463. STMI 27 and 229. AVI 175. H. Parāḍkar (1939): 29. C. Vogel (1965): 11. Edition: śrīmadvāhaṭaviracitam aṣṭāngahṛdayam — uttarasthānam, kairalīvyākhyayā samullasitam, aṣṭavaidyakulaprabhavena vayaskarāgāranivāsinā śrīnārāyaṇaśarmātmajena śaṅkaraśarmaṇā, cēppāṭ k. acyutavāryeṇa ca saṃśodhitam, Vaidyasārathi Granthāvali 1, Kōṭṭayam 1942; this edition is based on three MSS (see the editor's Nivedanā); the commentary, written in Sanskrit, is accompanied by short remarks in Malayāḷam on the identity of medicinal substances. 364 See, e.g., the comments ad 12.1; 17.1–3; 35.9cd–10. 365 See, e.g., the comments ad 22.81–94, 96, 101; 28.34–36. 366 See, e.g., the comments ad 1.47cd; 2.51cd and 66cd; 13.67ab; 32.104. 367 See the remarks on the Māyūrī ad 5.53. 368 See the comment ad 5.52, where Āryāvalokita is regarded as identical with Śiva. The author of the Kairalī probably follows the interpretations of the Pāṭhyakāra (see the footnote ad U.5.50 in Kuṇṭe and Navre's edition of the Aṣṭāngahṛdayasaṃhitā). 369 Compare, for example, the comments by Aruṇadatta and the author of the Kairalī on the identity of umā (25.31) and sūryavallī (35.21). 370 See, for example, the comments ad 1.20cd, 50, 51; 2.3ab and 4ab; 22.66 and 93; 24.18ab; 25.22cd and 45ab; 27.16ab; 30.39; 31.1. 371 See also Punarvasu. 372 Compare Vaideha. 373 These quotations are from the Suśrutasaṃhitā. 374 I.e., Jejjata. 375 Keśava's Kalpadrukośa is quoted. 376 Bhiṣagārya's Abhidhānamañjarī is quoted. 377 Not recorded in the NCC. 378 The author of the Pāṭhya commentary. 379 Compare Ātreya. 380 The author of the (Vyākhyā)sāra commentary.