A History of Indian Medical Literature v2.c38.3

v2.c38.3

64 See the notes to Su.Sū.7 and 8. 65 Śrīdāsapaṇḍita ad A.h.Sū.26.10–11. Bhoja and Bhāluki apparently agreed on a number of subjects (see Cakrapāṇidatta ad Su.Sū.6.5 and 8.5). 66 Ṭodara II: 4.11–14 = Bhelasaṃhitā, Śā.4.11cd–15ab. Bhāluki and Bhela are by some considered to be identical (see Gaṇanātha Sena, 1924: I, 18; HIM III, 529), but Dalhaṇa mentions them as separate authorities. 67 Ad Mādhavanidāna 2.18–23. 68 Their order and names differ slightly in the Jvaranirṇaya. 69 Kāśyapasamhitā, viśeṣakalpādhyāya (see G.J. Meulenbeld, 1974: 165–166). 70 See G.J. Meulenbeld (1974): 165–166. 71 Jvaratimirabhāskara 7.65–68ab, 72cd–77ab, 93–94, 97–99ab, 100cd–103ab. 72 Ad Cakradatta, jvara 150. 73 Ad Cakradatta, jvara 237–238. 74 Cakrapāṇidatta ad Su.Sū.2.3. 75 See the preceding references to rasayogas ascribed to Bhāluki. A Bhānukin, mentioned as one of the Mahāsiddhas in the Hathayogapradīpikā (1.8), may be the same as the Rasasiddha Bhāluki. Compare CC I, 407: Bhāluki is quoted in the Hathayogapradīpikā. 76 CC I, 418: Vṛddha Bhoja. See on persons called Bhoja: Vettam Mani 138–139. 77 Bhoja's treatise was divided into the same type of sections (sthāna) as the Suśrutasaṃhitā (see Vāgbhaṭamaṇḍana 81). 78 Dalhaṇa ad Su.Sū.27.9. 79 See, e.g., Anantakumāra's Yogaratnasamuccaya 8.702ab; Gayadāsa ad Su.Ni.5.8; Śrīkaṇṭhadatta ad Siddhayoga 78.4. 80 See Dalhaṇa ad Su.Śā.5.41; Kairalī ad A.h.U.21.39 and 31.9ab; Śrīdāsa ad A.h.Sū.6.167cd–168ab and 30.3–8ab. 81 Numerous quotations bear upon these branches of āyurveda. Bhoja is repeatedly referred to as a śalya specialist. Dalhaṇa calls Bhoja a śalyatantravid (ad Su.U.39.66); Jejjaṭa refers to him as a vraṇacintaka (ad Ca.Ci.25.31ab). 82 See, e.g., Cakrapāṇidatta ad Ca.Ci.15.88–93; Śivadāsasena ad Cakrapāṇidatta's Dravyaguṇa, phalavarga 30. 83 Dalhaṇa ad Su.Śā.5.17 and 20, 6.28–29. Gayadāsa ad Su.Ni.2.7. 84 Dalhaṇa ad Su.Śā.3.12, 18 and 32. Śrīkaṇṭhadatta ad Mādhavanidāna 64.6. 85 See, for example, the recipes in Anantakumāra's Yogaratnasamuccaya against diseases belonging to the division of kāyacikitsā. 86 See the numerous quotations on this subject in Anantakumāra's Yogaratnasamuccaya (prose chapter eight; Śrīdāsapaṇḍita ad A.h.Sū.5.19 and 35–36ab, 6.113–114ab. 87 See the quotations on this subject in Anantakumāra's Yogaratnasamuccaya (prose between 7.97 and 98), Bheṣajakalpa, and Dāmodara's Ārogyacintāmaṇi; Cakrapāṇi ad Ca.Ci.5.514–160. 88 Gaṇanātha Sena (1924): I, 24–26. Gulabkunverba I, 145. A Bhojatantra and a Vṛddhabhojatantra, both on śalya, are repeatedly mentioned (Jaggi IV, 20; H. Parādkar, 1939: 17; P.V. Sharma, AVI 154). Bhoja's knowledge of śalākya was already stressed by R.C. Choudhury (1977: 305). 89 See Suśruta and the notes to Su.Sū.8. 90 See Bhoja's Cārucaryā, etc. A.F.R. Hoernle (1906a: 286) regarded both authors as probably identical; G.N. Mukherjee (1933a) considered them to be identical. D.Ch. Bhattacharya (1947a: 125–126; 1947b: 145–146) distinguished three Bhojas: (a) an ancient ācārya, pupil of Divodāsa and a class-fellow of Suśruta, (b) an earlier Bhojanṛpa, quoted already by Jejjata, (c) the author of the Rājamārtaṇḍa. There is, however, no reason to regard the first two as different authorities; the Bhoja referred to by Cakrapāṇidatta and Dalhaṇa (ad Su.Sū.1.3) as a fellow-student of Suśruta is the same Bhoja as the one quoted in their commentaries.