A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c44.s8.t2.70

v3.c44.s8.t2.70

The evidence collected by P.V. Sharma 732 in order to establish that the Rājanighaṇṭu is posterior to the Bhāvaprakāśanighaṇṭu and may date from the seventeenth century is invalid in my view. His first argument, the description of the plant called pītakaravīra 733 by the author of the Rājanighaṇṭu (karavīrādi 16), while the plant is absent from Bhāvamiśra's work, can be discarded because this plant was already known to Kaiyadeva. 734 His second argument, the presence of kulañja(na) 735 in the Rājanighaṇṭu (pippalyādi 55), known as ugragandhā sugandhā to Bhāvamiśra (harītakyadivarga 105), does not carry much weight, since kuliñja(na), a synonym of kulañja(na), was already prescribed by Śārṅgadhara in his Triśatī (168) and Soḍhala in his Gadanigraha (lehādhikāra 342). 736 His third argument, the presence in the Rājanighaṇṭu of a series of drugs, such as kālāñjanī (śatāhvādi 186–187), 737 kāmavṛddhi (śatāhvādi 196–197), karpūrataila (kṣīrādi 125) and sarvakṣāra (pippalyādi 257–258), whereas these are not described in the Bhāvaprakāśanighaṇṭu, is inconclusive, because the Rājanighaṇṭu contains a large number of medicinal substances which are not found in any other nighaṇṭu. His fourth argument, the description of jhaṇḍū (parpaṭādi 141), 738 may be important as a clue to the date of the Rājanighaṇṭu, provided that P.V. Sharma is right in his identification and his claim that it was introduced into India at the end of the sixteenth century. 739 The same applies to the plant called himāvalī (pippalyādi 245–246), but only if it is actually the same as the dvīpāntaravacā of the Bhāvaprakāśanighaṇṭu (harītakyadivarga 107–108), i.e., cobacīnī or sarsaparilla, as suggested by P.V. Sharma. 740