A History of Indian Medical Literature v2.c37.68

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.