Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v4: Volume 4

A History of Indian Medical Literature v4

Language
English

Contents

Volume 4

Front matter

v4.c55.1

A History of Indian Medical Literature

v4.c55.2

VOLUME II B

v4.c55.3

[Figure: Emblica officinalis Gaertn. Āmalakī Nellikka]

v4.c55.4

G. Jan Meulenbold

v4.c55.5

A History of Indian Medical Literature

Volume II B: Annotation

v4.c56.1

EGBERT FORSTEN · GRONINGEN

v4.c56.2

Cover design: Françoise Berserik Frontispice: Hortus Indicus Malabaricus, Vol. 1 (1678), tab. 38 by courtesy of the University Library Groningen Typesetting and layout: Adriaensen & Barkhuis

v4.c56.3

This book was printed with financial support from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and the J. Gonda Foundation, Amsterdam

v4.c56.4

ISBN 90 6980 124 8

v4.c56.5

This book meets the requirements of ISO 9706:1994 Information and documentation Paper for documents-requirements for permanence

v4.c56.6

Copyright © 2000 Egbert Forsten, Groningen, The Netherlands

v4.c56.7

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permisson of the publisher.

v4.c56.8

Contents

v4.c56.9

PART 6 Some important authors and works 1 1 Bower Manuscript 3 2 Bhelasaṃhitā 16 3 Kāśyapasaṃhitā 30 4 Hārītasaṃhitā 46 5 Mādhava 71 6 Vṛnda 89 7 Cakrapāṇidatta 98

v4.c56.10

PART 7 Authors and works from A.D. 600–1500 131 1 Authors and works from the period A.D. 600–1000 133 2 Authors and works from the period A.D. 1000–1500 180

v4.c56.11

PART 8 Authors and works from the 16th to the 20th centuries 259 1 Authors and works from the sixteenth century 261 2 Seventeenth-century authors and works 323 3 Eighteenth-century authors and works 352 4 Nineteenth-century authors and works 377 5 Twentieth-century authors and works 399

v4.c56.12

PART 9 Miscellanea 423 1 Works on pākaśāstra 425 2 Works on nāḍīśāstra 431 3 Various authors 443 4 Various anonymous works 497 5 Authors and works from Sri Lanka 561 6 Authors and works on veterinary medicine 570

v4.c56.13

PART 10 Works on rasaśāstra and ratnaśāstra 617 1 Ānandakanda 619 2 Āyurvedaprakāśa 628 3 Gorakṣasaṃhitā 632 4 Kākacaṇḍeśvarīmatatantra to Rasaḥṛdayatantra 636 5 Rasajalanidhi 646 6 Rasakāmadhenu to Rasāmṛta 648 7 Rasapaddhati to Rasaratnadīpikā 655 8 Rasaratnākara 662 12 Rasendramaṅgala to Rasopaniṣad 714 13 Various works on rasaśāstra and ratnaśāstra 727

v4.c56.14

APPENDICES 777 1 Authorities associated with formulae 779 2 References to medicine in non-medical literature 780

v4.c56.15

BIBLIOGRAPHY 781

Part 6

v4.c57.1

1 See on Kucā: A. Stein (1921). 2 See on this site: A. Grünwedel (1912). 3 *Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1890, 222–223. 4 G. Bühler (1891a). 5 *Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1890, 222–223. 6 A.F.R. Hoernle noticed that G. Bühler and he independently arrived at essentially the same conclusions (IA 21, 1892: 29). G. Bühler (1891b: 302) expressed the same opinion. 7 *Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, April 1891, 54–64. See on this article: G. Bühler (1891b: 303–305). 8 The Bower Manuscript; Facsimile leaves, Nagari transcript, romanised transliteration and English translation with notes, edited by A.F. Rudolf Hoernle, published by order of the Government of India and under the patronage of the Bengali Government, Archaeological Survey of India, New Imperial Series, Vol. XXII, Calcutta 1893–1912. The revised translation of parts I–III was published as Vol. XXIII of the Archaeological Survey of India, New Imperial Series, Calcutta 1909. Reprints of the complete edition (in three volumes), New Delhi 1983 and 1987. The Introduction appeared separately in IA 42 (1913) and 43 (1914). An early version of the annotated translation of part I was published in 1891: An instalment of the Bower Manuscript (JASB 60, 1891, 79–195). Hoernle (1891b) also wrote another long article on the Bower Manuscript in the same year: A note on the date of the Bower Manuscript (JASB 60, 1891, 79–96; see on this article: G. Bühler, 1891b), reprinted with alterations and additions in IA 21, 1892, 29–45. Early versions of the annotated translations of parts IV and VI were published in 1892 (Another instalment of the Bower Manuscript, IA 21: 129–145; The third instalment of the Bower Manuscript, IA 21: 349–369). Moreover, Hoernle wrote an article on the relationship between the Bhela-saṃhitā and the Bower Manuscript: The Bheda Saṃhitā in the Bower Manuscript, JRAS (1910): 830–833. See also Hoernle (1908) and (1909).

v4.c57.2

The edition of the Bower MS contains a long Introduction (ninety-five pages) in eight chapters: (1) the discovery of the Bower Manuscript: its date, locality, circumstances, importance, etc.; (2) description of the Bower Manuscript; (3–4) the script, the scribes, and their wages in the Bower Manuscript; (5) the date of the writing of the Bower Manuscript; (6) on the sources and the date of the Nāvanītaka; (7) language and composition in the treatises of the Bower Manuscript; (8) subject and contents of the treatises in the Bower Manuscript. Hoernle added a number of appendices to the sections on the seven parts composing the Bower MS: an appendix to part V: The Pāśaka-kevali; appendix I to part VI: On the Nāgas, Nāgarājas and other supernatural beings; appendix II to part VI: The Khandhavatta-Jātaka; an appendix to parts VI and VII (written in 1911): The Mahāmāyūrī Vidyā-rājñī. The edition ends with a complete Sanskrit index, a general English index, a list of emendations, and a list of misprints.

v4.c57.3

A considerably shortened version of Hoernle’s Introduction to his edition in D. Chattopadhyaya (1982): I, 116–140.

v4.c57.4

Reviews of Hoernle's edition of the Bower MS were written by J. Jolly (ZDMG 53, 1899: 374–380; ZDMG 67, 1913: 363–371).

v4.c57.5

Another edition of the Bower MS, based on Hoernle's text, is: Nāvanītakam or the Bower Manuscript, critically edited with various readings and restorations for the first time from the Editeo (sic) Princeps of the late Dr. Hoernle, by Kavirāj Balwant Singh Mohan, Mehar Chand Lachman Das, Lahore 1925 [IO.San.D.245]; this edition, which has a small number of footnotes, adds, as an appendix, two versions of the Haritakikalpa from the Aśvinīsamhitā (see Aśvinīkumārasamhitā).

v4.c57.6

Many books and articles on Indian medicine or Sanskrit literature in general devote a number of pages to the Bower MS or are entirely concerned with it; see: ABI 106–110 and 235–239; AVI 282–284; P. Cordier (1903b): 339–343; A.A.M. Esser (1942); Jaggi IV, 21–24; J. Jolly (1901): 14–15 (C.G. Kashikar 18–19); Jyotir Mitra (1974): 66–70; A.B. Keith (1973): 509–510; P. Kutumbiah (1969): Introduction XXXI–XXXIV; R.C. Majumdar (1971): 261; V.N. Pandey (1992); V.N. Pandey and A. Pandey (1988); S.K. Ramachandra Rao (1985): 72–73; P. Rāy (1956): 68–69; J. Filliozat in L. Renou and J. Filliozat (1953): 157 and 675–676; K. Saha (1985); S.N. Sen (1986): 233–234; V. Sharma (1960); G.P. Srivastava (1954): 91–96 and 137–139; V. Śukla I, 129–132; Vṛddhatrayī 166–185; Winternitz II, 366 and III, 544–545; H.R. Zimmer (1948): 51–52.

v4.c57.7

See on Hoernle: G.A. Griersons's necrology (JRAS 1919: 114–124).

v4.c57.8

9 The Bower MS was returned by Hoernle to its owner, Colonel Bower, in April 1898; it was purchased, in 1898, by the Bodleian Library in Oxford (see M. Winternitz and A.B. Keith, 1905: *110 sqq.).

v4.c57.9

10 See chapter two of Hoernle's Introduction to his ed. for more details.

v4.c57.10

11 See chapter five of Hoernle's Introduction for details on the date of the writing of the Bower MS. Compare G. Bühler (1891b) and J. Jolly (1913): 365–366. J. Filliozat (L. Renou and J. Filliozat, 1953: 675–676) had his doubts about the accuracy of Hoernle's dating of the MS.

v4.c57.11

12 The fact that the Bower MS was written by different hands was already noticed by Babu Sarat Chandra Das, to whom the MS was made over for deciphering by the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1890; Babu Sarat Chandra Das failed to make out its contents. G. Bühler (1891) also arrived at the conclusion that the MS was written by different scribes.

v4.c57.12

13 See Hoernle's Intr., 30 and 37. Yaśomitra is mentioned at the end of part VI and in line three of part VII. See also K. Watanabe (1907: 263), who argues that Yaśomitra is either the name of the one who copied the Mahāmayūrī (in parts VI and VII) or the name of an influential person who made a scribe copy the MS for him.

v4.c57.13

14 See chapters three and four of Hoernle's Intr. for more details about the script and the usages of the scribes.

v4.c57.14

15 See chapter seven of Hoernle's Introduction for more details on language and composition in the treatises of the Bower MS.

v4.c57.15

16 A number of short introductory remarks are in prose (preceding I.50; preceding II.404, 917, 947, 950, 960); three formulae (II.395–395, 715, 784) are probably in prose.

v4.c57.16

17 See the list in Hoernle's Intr., 82–83.

v4.c57.17

18 See Hoernle's Intr., 84, on more details.

v4.c57.18

19 Compare the opening chapter of the Carakasamhitā.

v4.c57.19

20 Metri causa for Hārīta.

v4.c57.20

21 Not mentioned elsewhere in āyurvedic literature. G. Mukhopadhyaya (HIM III, 667) refers

v4.c57.21

to Kṛtasambhava, a medical authority whose name occurs in the Kāśyapasamhitā, as a name possibly related to Sāmbavya. Sāmbavya is the name of a teacher according to MW.

v4.c57.22

22 Kāśirāja appears to be a proper name; it does not mean 'king of Kāśī'. V.N. Pandey (1992: 235) advanced the thesis that Kāśirāja is in all probability identical with Divodāsa Dhanvantari, while Suśruta is Suśruta the Elder, the author of the Suśrutasamhitā; he fails to mention that the Suśrutasamhitā does not contain a lāśunakalpa.

v4.c57.23

23 Four types of digestive fire are mentioned: sama (regular), viṣama (irregular), manda (slow), and tīkṣṇa (very active).

v4.c57.24

24 Bīḍalaka is the more usual form.

v4.c57.25

25 Viśvanadha Sharma (1960) advanced the view that the title Nāvanītaka refers to its author, Navanīta. This improbable interpretation was accepted by V.N. Pandey and A. Pandey (1988: 5; see also V.N. Pandey, 1992: 230). The title Nāvanītaka, which points to the work being an extract from earlier treatises and its being compared to the butter extracted from milk, is repeated at the end of chapters 1, 3, 4, and 8 of part II. The term siddhasamkarṣa, used to characterize the work as an extract (samkarṣa) of approved (siddha) (formulae), may also be regarded as an alternative title (V.N. Pandey and A. Pandey, 1988: 5; V.N. Pandey, 1992: 229–230); it precedes the title Nāvanītaka at the end of chapters 3 and 8. G. Bühler (1891b: 304) had already his doubts on the title of the treatise, which was, in his opinion, either Nāvanītaka or Siddhasamkarṣa. Compare the views of G. Hāldār (Vṛddhatrayī 165) on the derivation of the word nāvanītaka.

v4.c57.26

26 I.e., astringents, to be used, for example, in diarrhoea.

v4.c57.27

27 Actually seven formulae; the text reads five formulae; two may have been added to the original number of five.

v4.c57.28

28 The last two leaves of this chapter are missing.

v4.c57.29

29 See on these recipes: P.K. Gode (1950c).

v4.c57.30

30 Chapter eleven is incomplete at the end.

v4.c57.31

31 The peacock (mayūra) is the traditional enemy of snakes. Compare the role of the mythic bird Garuḍa, who also affords protection against snakes and their bites (see J.Ph. Vogel, 1972). See on the association of the peacock with youth and immortality and the importance of its flesh for the royal table: A. Chattopadhyay (1993a); H.-P. Schmidt (1980).

v4.c57.32

32 I.61–68: a formula for a purgative in the form of boluses, said to act as a rasāyana and vṛṣya, and to be curative of all diseases.

v4.c57.33

33 II.217–132: the formula of mahākalyāṇakaghṛta, taught by Ātreya to Agastya; it differs from the formula for this well-known ghṛta in other medical works. II.588–589: the formula of agastyamodaka; the same formula (agastyamodaka) is found in Vaṅgasena (arśas 147–148). II.905–909: a formula making grey hair turn into hair of a deep dark colour; an almost identical recipe for a rasāyana, not attributed to Agastya, is found at II.768–773.

v4.c57.34.1

34 See Hoernle's Intr., 64–66; compare Hoernle (1909): 861–868. Contributions of the Aśvins are: II.75–77, mātuluṅgaguṭikā; 80–84, another variety of mātuluṅgaguṭikā; 85–86, gulmacūrṇa; 96–101, haridrācūrṇa; 216–222: lāśunaka- or lāśunādyaghṛta; 223–225, jvaraharaghṛta; 241–244, viṣaharaghṛta; 251–257, bindughṛta; 287–312, amṛtataila, a complicated rasāyana, used by Cyavana and Mārkaṇḍeya in order to obtain a long life, free from disease and decrepitude; 418–425, an āśvinayoga against raktapitta, taught by the Aśvins to Vāsava (i.e., Indra), but originally deriving from Brahmā; the same formula, also attributed to the Aśvins, but without the introductory verse, occurs in Soḍhala's Gadanigraha (prayogakhaṇḍa, cūrṇādhikāra 64–69) and in Vaṅgasena (raktapitta 93–98); 575; 579; 618–625, aśvagandhābasti; 716–737, pippalīvardhamānakalpa (see Hoernle's expositon, Intr. 65–66; compare Hoernle, 1909: 864–868); 773–781, an āśvinarasāyana, communicated by the Aśvins to Viśvāmitra, but deriving from Viśvāmitra himself according to the last half-verse (see Hoernle’s Intr., 64); 810–813, three gruels, to be used as aphrodisiacs; 917–949, the harītakīkalpa, as expounded by Brahmā to the Aśvins. 35 See Hoernle’s Intr., 62–63; compare Hoernle (1909): 874–876. I.8: present among the sages in the Himālayas; II.35–37: laguḍacūrṇa; 71–75: śārdūlacūrṇa; 108–119: amṛtaprāśa; 127–132: mahākalyāṇakaghṛta, taught by Ātreya to Agastya; 271–276: balātaila;

v4.c57.34.2

715: on caution in diet and on sexual abstinence; III.25–36: agnighṛta. 36 I.8: present among the sages in the Himālayas; II.802–804: three gruels against diseases caused by deranged vāta, pitta, and kapha; a mantra is added. 37 II.225: the āśvinavaraghṛta is esteemed by Brahmā; 241: the dhānvantaraghṛta is esteemed by Brahmā; 419: the aśvinayoga against raktapitta, taught by the Aśvins to Vāsava, derives originally from Brahmā; II.917–947: the harītakīkalpa, expounded by Brahmā to the Aśvins. 38 II.784 (in prose): the bārhaspatya bṛhatkaraṇa makes a person strong and stout. 39 II.188–200: Cyavana, when of great age, was restored to youth by the cyavanaprāśa; 287–312: Cyavana regained his youth by the use of the amṛtataila. 40 II.232–240: dhānvantaraghṛta; 968–974: Dhanvantari expounds the citrakakalpa to Keśava. 41 I.8: present among the sages in the Himālayas. 42 I.8 (Hārita, metri causa pro Hārīta): present among the sages in the Himālayas. 43 II.454–459: the samasaktakaghṛta is highly esteemed by Janakeśvara (i.e., the Creator). 44 II.1081: an avaleha against vomiting in children; 1097–1099: a recipe against urodghāta in children. Hoernle regards this Jīvaka as the famous physician of that name, known from Buddhist literature. V.N. Pandey and A. Pandey (1988: 13–14; see also V.N. Pandey, 1992: 235–236) are convinced that the Vṛddhajīvaka of the Kāśyapasamhitā is referred to;

v4.c57.34.3

they claim that the recipes, attributed to Jīvaka, are taken from Khilasthāna 17 and 18 of the Kāśyapasamhitā. The Kāśyapasamhitā has a separate chapter on uroghātacikitsā, which does not contain Jīvaka’s formula. The Jīvaka of the Bower MS is also supposed to be the same as the Jīvaka of the Kāśyapasamhitā by Atrideva (ABI 236), G. Hāldār (Vṛddhatrayī 170–171), and B.B. Mishra (1969: 97). 45 II.935: a purgative formula. 46 I.8: present among the sages in the Himālayas. 47 I.8: present among the sages in the Himālayas. 48 I.9: Suśruta turns to the muni Kāśirāja for information on the properties and uses of garlic. 49 II.1010–1040: Kāśyapa’s pills against children’s diseases. So far none of the recipes has been traced in the Kāśyapasamhitā, also called Vṛddhajīvakīyatantra. V.N. Pandey (1988: 14) claim that recipes, attributed to Kāśyapa, are taken from Khilasthāna 17 and 18 of the Kāśyapasamhitā (references are not given; Khilasthāna 17 and 18 are about śotha and śūla in children, while Bower MS II.1010–40 contains recipes against many disorders). 50 II.968–976: the citrakakalpa, expounded by Dhanvantari to Keśava, i.e., Viṣṇu. 51 III.10–14: a formula for an oil against skin diseases, was given by Māṇibhadra, out of compassion, to a monk on the point of death. Māṇibhadra, well known in Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist literature, is a yakṣa, famous for his friendly disposition to people in trouble. 52 II.312: Mārkaṇḍeya obtained a long life by the regular use of amṛtataila.

v4.c57.35

53 III.36–53: the formula of siddhārthataila, devised by Nārāyaṇa. 54 II.883–884: a powder against timira, highly esteemed by Nimi. 55 I.8: present among the sages in the Himālayas. 56 II.782: the formula of a bṛhatkaraṇa (i.e., a rasāyana), appointed by Śaiveśvara; this preparation endows a man with the strength of Viṣṇu and makes an old man young again. 57 I.922: when Śakra (i.e., Indra) drank of the amṛta, a drop fell on the earth and became the medicinal plant called harītakī. 58 I.8: present among the sages in the Himālayas; not mentioned elsewhere in āyurvedic literature. 59 II.633–637: the formula of havuṣābasti, composed by the royal sage Suprabha in āryā verses; this enema (basti) is used for rasāyana and vājīkaraṇa purposes. Suprabha is not mentioned elsewhere in āyurvedic literature; various persons of this name are known (MW; PW). 60 I.8–9: present among the sages in the Himālayas; he asks Kāśirāja for information on garlic. 61 II.329–336: the formula of sahacarataila, ordained by Svayambhū. 62 II.846–847: the formula of an aphrodisiac, called indrapriya. 63 II.319–324: the formula of mūlakataila, a rasāyana, composed by Vāḍvali. A Vāḍbali is referred to in the hitāhitādhyāya of Ugrāditya’s Kalyāṇakāraka as one of those who were opposed to a non-vegetarian diet. Vāḍvali is mentioned in the second Vārttika of Kātyāyana to Pāṇini 6.3.109 (see Hoernle’s note to Bower MS II.319–324). 64 II.418–425: an āśvinayoga, taught by the Aśvins to Vāsava (i.e., Indra). 65 I.8: present among the sages in the Himālayas. 66 II.773–781: a rasāyana formula, communicated to Viśvāmitra by the Aśvins, at the end said to derive from Viśvāmitra, and to be highly esteemed by the sages. V.N. Pandey (1992: 236) suggests this Viśvāmitra to be the father of Suśruta. 67 P. Cordier (1903b: 341) published a partial list; he communicated all his parallels to Hoernle privately in October 1904 (Hoernle, 1909: 868). 68 See J. Jolly (1893) and (1893b). 69 These were first discovered by P. Cordier, as acknowledged by Hoernle (Intr. 58, note 91). The Bhelasamhitā presents many variants of the readings in the Bower MS. 70 See Hoernle’s Intr., 58, and Hoernle (1909): 868–871. 71 The Bhelasamhitā has only a small part of the formula in the Bower MS (II.329–336). 72 Hoernle supposed that this mantra, related to a similar one in the Carakasamhitā (Sū.8.28), got displaced in the Bower MS by some error of the scribe (Hoernle, 1909: 870). 73 This discovery is due to P. Cordier (see Hoernle, 1909: 868); P. Cordier mentions two of these recipes (the balātaila and gaṇḍamālāyoga) in one of his articles (1903b: 341). 74 See Hoernle’s Intr., 59; Hoernle (1909): 871–874. 75 A picchābasti, different from that in the Bower MS, is described at Ca.Ci.14.224–228. 76 Intr., 59–61; Hoernle (1909): 884–885. 77 This claim is uncritically repeated, for example, by O.P. Jaggi (IV, 23), P. Kutumbiah (1969, Intr. 33), and V.N. Pandey and A. Pandey (1988: 12). 78 See also R.F.G. Müller (1932): 797–798. V.N. Pandey (1992: 235) advances that the āmatīsāra prescriptions are not directly quoted from Suśruta, but through Bhela as an intermediary, which proves, in his view, that the Bhelasamhitā is one of the sources of the Uttaratantra. The disagreements between Bhela and Suśruta show that this assertion is hazardous.

v4.c57.36

79 Intr., 59; Hoernle (1909): 884. 80 See also R.F.G. Müller (1932): 798. 81 P. Cordier (1903b); references are absent from this article. 82 See Hoernle's remark in the Emendations to his ed. of the Bower MS. The formula of mahābindughṛta, attributed to Kṛṣṇatreya in Niścalakara's Ratnaprabhā (ad Cakradatta, 29–31; II.22, 418–425); they are probably taken from the floating medical tradition. 83 See Hoernle's notes, abounding with references to parallels from many medical treatises. A number of formulae of the Nāvanītaka form part of medical treatises which are of a much later date (e.g., Vāṅgasena's Cikitsāsārasaṃgraha; see Hoernle's notes to I.106–108, 129, 131; II.22, 418–425); they are probably taken from the floating medical tradition. 84 See Hoernle's table of formulae to which no parallels were known to him (Intr. 88–91). 85 Cakradatta, kuṣṭha 97–100: from the Nāvanīta; arśas 120–126: from the Nāvanītaka. 86 The verses quoted from the Nāvanīta ad Cakradatta, kāsa 48–49, are identical with Bower MS II.160–161. See also ABI 237 and Vṛddhatrayī 167. 87 The six quotations from a Nāvanīta in Anantakumāra's Yogaratnasamuccaya cannot be traced in the Nāvanītaka. 88 Quoted in Candraṭa's Yogaratnasamuccaya. 89 Nāvanīta: ad Cakradatta, raktapitta 79–81, kāsa 48–49. kuṣṭha 97–100; Nāvanītaka: ad arśas 120–126, vātavyādhi 180–184, kuṣṭha 104–110; Nāvanītakasaṃhitā: ad nāsāroga 29–31; Nāvanītatantra: ad svarabheda 12. 90 D.Ch. Bhattacharyya (1947b): 143; Vṛddhatrayī 167. Atrideva (ABI 236) and G. Hāldār (Vṛddhatrayī 166) claim that the Nāvanītaka is mentioned by Cakrapāṇidatta; this claim is unfounded. 91 See on parts IV–V and their contents: Hoernle's Intr., 91–94, and the Appendix to part V. 92 The Appendix to part V contains, in a tabular form, Hoernle's critical edition of those parts of Garga's work which correspond to the fragments of part V. See also Hoernle's Intr., 92, where he presents a Gujarātī text with English translation on the modus operandi in cubomancy. See on the Pāśakakevali, its various titles, the manuscripts, editions, etc.: NCC XII, 76–77; CESS A 2, 122–126 and A 5, 84–86. See also NCC V, 48 (Pāśakakevali by Garga). The work was studied and translated into German by A. Weber (1859); it has been edited at *Kāśī in 1884, at *Madras in 1890, and by *J.E. Schröter (1900). The game with dice called pāśa(ka) is found in several texts, for example: Nīlakaṇṭha's commentary ad Mahābhārata, Virāṭaparvan 50.24 (ed. Poona), Śūdraka's Mṛcchakaṭika, and the Vidhurapaṇḍita-Jātaka (Nr. 545) (see S. Oleksiw, 1980–81). See on Indian divination: E. Balfour (1967): I, 959–961; G.M. Bolling (1911a); *E. Hultzsch (1879); H. Jacobi (1911c); B. Laufer (1987f); E. Thurston (1912): 273–288; A. Weber (1859). 93 Parts VI and VII contain the second and third sections of the expanded versions. See Hoernle's Intr., 94–95, his annotated translation of parts VI and VII, the two Appendices to part VI, and the Appendix to part VII. See on the term vidyārājñī: J. Przyluski (1923). 94 See the beginning of part VI. The story about the monk Svāti is also found in the Bhaiṣajyavastu of the Mūlasarvāstivādin-vinaya (see J.L. Panglung, 1980: 66–67); it has a parallel in the Khaṇḍhavatta-Jātaka (Nr. 203) and its commentary (see on this Jātaka, its interpretation, and its relationship with the Khaṇḍhaparitta: P. Schalk, 1972: 13–21; L.A. Waddell, 1912/13: 163–164). The incident of a monk, bitten by a snake, is also found in the Saṃyuttanikāya and Aṅguttaranikāya (see E.M. Hare, 1962: 81–82), as discovered by S. von Oldenburg (see G. Bühler, 1893: 271); compare the versions of the tale about Upa-

v4.c57.37

sena and related texts (see J.L. Panglung, 1980: 67–69; P. Schalk, 1972: 16–17; E. Waldschmidt, 1957, 1958, 1963). See also the Mora-Jātaka (Nr. 159) and Mahāmora-Jātaka (Nr. 491) (see on these Jātakas and their interpretation: P. Schalk, 1972: 11–13; L.A. Waddell, 1912/13). 95 A rakṣā is a kind of mantra (B. Bhattacharyya, 1964: 55). See on dhāraṇī: J.H. Bateson (1910); F. Bernhard (1967); B. Bhattacharyya (1964): 55–56; Ch. Eliot (1988): I, 332, II, 50–51; L.A. Waddell (1912/13); A.K. Warder (1980): 486–481. See on the Pañcarakṣā, also personified as five female divinities: D.Ch. Bhattacharyya (1972), (1978): 68–100; A. Foucher (1905): 99–101; A. Getty (1928): 138–139; A.K. Gordon (1967): 78–79; M.-Th. de Mallmann (1975): 289–295; H. Nakamura (1996): 317; L.A. Waddell (1912/13): 172–173, 181–182; Winternitz II, 271. 96 One of these translations was made by I-ching; see J. Needham (1975): 427. 97 See on the Mahāmāyūrī and the goddess called thus: V.S. Agrawala (1970): 167, 178; A. Bareau (1964): 176; D.Ch. Bhattacharyya *(1965), (1972), (1974): 6 and 42, (1978): 5; A.K. Chatterjee (1970): 92; F. Edgerton (1977) (vide s.v.); J. Filliozat in L. Renou and J. Filliozat (1953): 373–374; A. Getty (1928): 136–138; Hemarājaśarman 23; S. Lévi (1915), and the English translations of his article by *V.S. Agrawala (1942) and *P.C. Bagchi (1947); R. Mitra (1971): 168–169; P. Mus (1978): 1, 264–268; H. Nakamura (1996): 314, 317; B. Nanjio (1980): Nrs. 306–311 (Mahāmāyūrī-vidyārājñī); Jampa P. Panglung (1980); J. Przyluski (1923); A. Roşu (1986): 224–226 and 230–231; D.C. Sircar (1971/72); L.A. Waddell (1912/13); K. Watanabe (1907); Winternitz II, 271, 366, 380. Nāgārjuna learned the Mahāmāyūrī at Nālandā (see M. Walleser, 1990: 9). The Aryamañjuśrīmūlakalpa (53: rājavyākaraṇaparivarta 449–451; ed. P.L. Vaidya, 1964: 482) tells that a bhikṣu called Nāga will attain perfection in the mayūrī vidyā (compare N. Dutt, 1931: 636). Mantras addressed to a Mahāmāyūrīin and Mahāmāyūrā are found in the Śaṇmukhakalpa (see D. George, 1991: 177: 58A and 182: 67B). 98 A.s.U.1.19; 8.58. 99 Gadanigraha, bhūtavidyā 1.47. 100 Harṣacarita, chapter 5, p.154; E.B. Cowell and F.W. Thomas's transl., p.137. V.N. Pandey (1992: 231) claims that the Mahāmāyūrī is referred to by Aśvaghoṣa (Saundarananda 5.31), but this verse only mentions a vidyā against snake-bite. Compare on vidyās: Vāgbhaṭa. See on vidyās in Jain literature: K.R. Chandra (1970): 400–403. 101 A similar introduction occurs at the beginning of the Kalpasthāna of the Hārītasamhitā and the laśunakalpādhyāya of the Kāśyapasaṃhitā. 102 The laśunakalpa has been translated into German by L. Aschoff (1900), who also collected comparative date on garlic from Greek and Latin literature. J. Jolly (1893) published an article on the laśunakalpa, in which he presented additional material on the subject from Sanskrit literature. See also Bhagwan Dash (1978): 169–188. 103 See J. Jolly (1893) for more details. 104 See Hoernle's notes for more details. 105 The Bower MS states that garlic is called rasūna from the absence of the salty taste in it, whereas many other treatises say that the acid taste is absent. See Hoernle's notes for more details on the differences between the Bower MS and other medical texts. 106 Compare Indu ad A.S.U.49.204. See on garlic in Indian culture: R. Bedi (1960); J.J. Meyer (1937): s.v. Zwiebel; Om Prakash (1961) and (1987): II; U.P. Thapliyal (1979): 96–97. Dharmaśāstra texts contain a ban on the consumption of garlic for the twice-born (Manusmṛti 5.19; Viṣṇusmṛti 51.3; Yājñavalkyasmṛti 1.176).

v4.c57.38

107 Two versions, a shorter and a larger one, of the harītakīkalpa from the Aśvinīsaṃhitā have been edited in Kavirāj Balwant Singh Mohan's edition of the Nāvanītaka.

v4.c57.39

108 Compare, for example, the two versions of the harītakīkalpa from the Aśvinīsaṃhitā; Bhāvaprakāśanighaṇṭu 1.1; Hārītasamhitā V.1.5.

v4.c57.40

109 See, for example, Bhāvaprakāśanighaṇṭu, harītakīyādi 8; Hārītasamhitā V.1.11; Madanapālanighaṇṭu 1.9; Rājanighaṇṭu 11.311. The variety usually called cetakī is absent from the Bower MS and replaced by trivṛt. See Hoernle's notes on the subject.

v4.c57.41

112 Compare the citrakakalpa of the Kākaṇḍīśvarakalpatantra (30).

v4.c57.42

113 Ca.Ci.13.36–40; A.h.Ci.15.39–41 and U.39.96; A.s.Ci.17.13, 24.15 and U.49.115–121; Bhela Ci.4.72ab, 6.51, 11.19, 14.19, 15.40; Kusumāvalī ad Siddhayoga 37.44; Cakradatta, plīhayakṛt 19–23.

v4.c57.43

114 See on the pippalīvardhanāna of the Bower MS and related versions in other treatises: Hoernle (1909): 864–867, and Hoernle's notes to Bower MS II.716–737 and 749–752.

v4.c57.44

117 Compare the parallel at A.H.U.16.3cd–5ab, where respectively vāta, pitta and rakta together, and kapha are mentioned.

v4.c57.45

118 Compare anu-pāna, the type of drink required in combination with a particular drug.

v4.c57.46

119 Hoernle interprets lāva rasa as an infusion, prepared from lava, which is either lāmajjaka or lavaṅga; lava and lāva are synonyms of lavaṅga (a clove), for example in Gaṅgādhara's Gandhasāra.

v4.c57.47

121 A mole according to Hoernle. The term abhīlu occurs in the Cakradatta (kṣudraroga 61–62), where Śivadāsasena explains it as being the same as jaṭula. Abhīlu, jaṭula, jatumaṇi, and piplu are synonyms (Amarakoṣa 2.6.49; Gayadāsa ad Su.Ni.13.41; Madhukośa ad Mādhavanidāna 55.35; Śivadāsasena ad Cakradatta, kṣudraroga 58–60). Suśruta's description of jatumaṇi is reddish, which rather points to a haemangiomatous naevus.

v4.c57.48

123 Hoernle's translations are confusing; at II.334 he renders alāsaka as tympanitis, which is probably right because the term occurs in a series of vāta diseases (this means that it is used in the sense of alāsaka); at II.748 the correct reading is, as noticed by Hoernle, vātabalāsaka (not vātam alāsaka-), rightly translated as persistent low fever; the Sanskrit Index, however, gives glossitis, an inflammation of the tongue, for alāsaka (alāsaka is a disease of the tongue in the Suśrutasaṃhitā: Ni.16.38).

v4.c57.49

125 Hoernle regards it as an apoplectic convulsion; apatantraka cannot be translated adequately in western medical terminology; it is a convulsive disorder that has some traits in common with epilepsy (see Ca.Si.).

v4.c57.50

126 Grahas, causing mental disorders, are also mentioned at II.1037; a female graha, Pūtanā, is referred to as attacking children (II.1036). A long series of grahas is enumerated in the Mahāmāyūrī (part VI of the Bower MS).

v4.c57.51

127 Hoernle translated the term by: a man suffering from sterility caused by jealousy. Probably the term means the same as Suśruta's īrṣyaka (Su.Sā.2.40–41), designating a man who is only potent after looking at the intercourse of another couple.

v4.c57.52

128 Hypertrophy of the tonsils according to Hoernle, a tumour on the palate according to MW; kaccapikā or kaccapī is a type of boil occurring in patients with prameha (Ca.Sū.17.85; Su.Ni.6.16); it is also a kṣudraroga (Su.Ni.13.8). Kacchaparoga may, moreover, be a synonym of kūrmaroga.

v4.c57.53

129 A woman bearing only one child.

v4.c57.54

130 Interpreted as a certain throat disease, or ulcers in the throat. A disease, called biḍālikā, is mentioned in the Carakasaṃhitā (Ci.12.76) and Bhelasaṃhitā (Ci.4.86; Si.2.2). It is interpreted as Ludwig's angina in the Gulabkunverba translation of the Carakasaṃhitā. Biḍālī is the name of a particular disease and the female demon presiding over it (reckoned among the Yoginīs) in the Harṣacarita (MW).

v4.c57.55

131 Reading uncertain or unknown disease.

v4.c57.56

132 Hoernle says in his note that khaḍa is not mentioned in any dictionary; he takes it to be synonymous with khallī and to be acute gout or some other kind of rheumatic complaint; in his Sanskrit index he adds that it is possibly the same as khaṭaka (= kubjitapāṇi), a crooked hand. Khaḍa may be the vāta disease located in the ankles (khaḍuka), which is called vātaṅkaṭaka (see, for example, Su.Ni.1.79 and the comments by Gayadāsa and Ḍalhaṇa; see also Ca.Ci.28.73 and Cakrapāṇidatta's comment on the term khuḍavātātā; Madhukośa ad Mādhavanidāna 22.61cd–62ab), or it may be vātarakta, which is also called khuḍa because it affects the ankles (Cakrapāṇidatta ad Ca.Ci.29.11; A.h.Ni.16.4; A.s.Ni.16.5; Kaiyadevanighaṇṭu, miśraka 285). Khallī is yet another vāta disease, different from khuḍa (see Ca.Sū.14.23 and 28.21, Ci.28.57; Su.Ni.1.75; Śrīkaṇṭhadatta ad Siddhayoga 6.61), and regarded as identical with viśvācī (Madhukośa ad Mādhavanidāna 22.57cd–58ab).

v4.c57.57

134 Hoernle interprets it as an exanthematic skin disease. The famous definition of kotha by Bhāluki (see, for example, Cakrapāṇidatta ad Ca.Ci.3.108) points to urticaria.

v4.c57.58

135 The Bower MS mentions seven sthānas (translated by Hoernle as grounds) of mahākṣaya; Hoernle interprets them as the seven elements of the body (dhātu) and supposes mahākṣaya to be the same as rājayakṣman. Mahākṣaya, however, more probably designates decrease of the elements of the body, a group of disorders that differs from rājayakṣman (see, e.g., Ca.Sū.17.64–69).

v4.c57.59

136 The puzzling number of thirty-six (reading practically certain according to Hoernle) kuṣṭhas is mentioned, although their number is always eighteen in āyurvedic literature. Hoernle tended to identify them with the kṣudrarogas, which are thirty-six in number in Vāgbhaṭa's works (A.H.U.31.33; A.s.U.36.34); this rather improbable solution (the number of the kṣudrarogas varies considerably in āyurvedic treatises) was rejected by J. Jolly (1899: 380; 1913: 367), who proposed to solve the puzzle by assuming that the eighteen kuṣṭhas and eighteen śūkadoṣas were meant; Hoernle was not averse to Jolly's solution in his revised translation. The Bower MS appears to refer to eighteen kuṣṭhas in some mutilated verses of part III (12–13), as rightly pointed out by Jolly (1913: 367).

v4.c57.60

137 Interpreted as acute diarrhoea. More probably, nirvāhikā is a synonym of pravāhikā (see Paryāyaratnamālā 1400: nirvāhī = suvāhikā), which is a chronic type of diarrhoea. Compare pravāhikā.

v4.c57.61

138 Rendered as blear-eye; see pilla.

v4.c57.62

139 A woman suffering from parisrava, probably menorrhagia. Parisrava or parisrāva is also a complication (vyāpad), due to improper application of emetics and purgatives (Ca.Si.6; Su.Ci.34; A.h.Ka.3).

v4.c57.63

140 Rendered by lippitudo, i.e., blearedness. Pilla is a synonym of the disease of the eyelids called aklinnavartman; according to some it is the same as klinnavartman (Ḍalhaṇa ad Su.U.3.21–22; Madhukośa ad Mādhavanidāna 59.88–89). G.D. Singhal and K.R. Sharma (1976: 35) regard (a)klinnavartman as conjunctivitis (i.e., blear-eye). Pilla also designates a rather large group of eye diseases (see A.h.U.16).

v4.c57.64

141 Probably the same as pilpu or piplu (see abhīlu).

v4.c57.65

142 Interpreted as (hysteric) convulsions by Hoernle. A disease of this name, related to apatantraka and apatānaka, is mentioned in the Hārītasamhitā (III.20.21–22ab).

v4.c57.66

143 Interpreted by Hoernle as dysenteria. Compare nirvāhikā. See on pravāhikā: G.J. Meulenbeld (1974): 618–619.

v4.c57.67

144 A small type of gulma (abdominal tumour) according to Hoernle.

v4.c57.68

145 Spasms in the chest according to Hoernle. Urodghāta is a children's disease in the Bower MS. It is probably related to the children's disease called uroghāta in the Kāśyapasamhitā (uroghātacikitsitādhyāya), thought to be similar to the urahkṣata of the Carakasamhitā (see Satyapāla's commentary on the Kāśyapasamhitā). The term uroghāta occurs in the Suśrutasamhitā (U.24.12) as a symptom of raktaia pratiśyāya; it is characterized as a specific disorder in Ḍalhaṇa's commentary and in the Madhukośa ad Mādhavanidāna 58.23cd–24.

v4.c57.69

146 Obstruction or spasm in the chest according to Hoernle.

v4.c57.70

147 Hoernle translates this term as the pressure of air upwards. Ūrdhvavāta is either regarded as a symptom or as a distinct disorder. See on ūrdhvavāta, for example: Cakrapāṇidatta ad Ca.Sū.23.29; Ḍalhaṇa ad Su.Ci.1.13; Kusumāvalī ad Siddhayoga 1.32; Bhāvaprakāśa, cikitsā 24.90.

v4.c57.71

148 Interpreted by Hoernle as paraplegia, or paralysis spinalis of the lower part. More probably, it is the same as the well-known disease called ūrustambha (see, for example, Su.Ci. 5.31–33ab). Ūruskambha is a term already found in the Maitrāyaṇisamhitā (1.10.14) (see K. Hoffmann, 1986).

v4.c57.72

149 Interpreted by Hoernle as scrotal enlargement or hernia (i.e., the same as vṛddhi); it may indeed be identical with vṛddhi, but may also designate bradhna of the Carakasamhitā (Ci. 12.94–95) or vardhma of the Siddhayoga (40.20–23).

v4.c57.73

150 See P. Rāy (1956: 68–69) on chemistry in the Bower Manuscript. M. Eliade (1960: 278) remarks that the use of mercury is attested in the Bower MS according to Hoernle; he refers to the refutation of this interpretation of the term rasa by R.F.G. Müller and E.O. von Lipmann (1931: 179; compare von Lipmann, 1919: 434); Eliade probably refers to an early version of Hoernle's translation, corrected by him later (see Bower MS II.297 and its translation in vol. I, 107).

v4.c57.74

151 Regarded as the same as abhītaparṇī by Hoernle and identified as Asparagus racemosus Willd. (= śatāvarī); one of the names of this plant is abhīru(pattri) in the Carakasamhitā and other treatises (compare M. Abdul Kareem, 1997, Nr. 185).

v4.c57.75

152 Compare abhīruparṇī.

v4.c57.76

155 Probably a variant of amlātaka, but the same as amlavetasa according to Hoernle, who identifies the latter as Rumex vesicarius Linn. (compare M. Abdul Kareem, 1997, Nr. 1413). Various identifications of amlavetasa, met with in the Carakasamhitā, etc., have been proposed in the secondary literature.

v4.c57.77

156 Identified as Ichnocarpus frutescens R.Br. (= śārivā) by Hoernle. See Dhanvantarinighaṇṭu 1.162: a śārivā with black roots (kṛṣṇamūlī).

v4.c57.78

157 Identified as Pinus roxburghii Sarg. = P. longifolia Roxb. (= sarala) by Hoernle. The Dhanvantarinighaṇṭu (3.78) records ciḍā as a synonym of sarala. Ciḍā is also regarded as the name of P. gerardiana Wall. (see M. Abdul Kareem, 1997, Nr. 1286).

v4.c57.79

158 Hoernle identifies this tree as Oroxylum indicum Vent. (= śyonāka).

v4.c57.80

159 Tentatively identified as Eleusine coracana Gaertn. by Hoernle. Compare Caraka's garmūṭī, which is, however, a grain.

v4.c57.81

160 Hoernle identifies grāha as Marsilea quadrifolia Linn. (absent from Hooker and WIRM), one of the plants regarded as suniṣaṇṇaka (see M. Abdul Kareem, 1997, Nr. 1076).

v4.c57.82

161 Identified as Abrus precatorius Linn. (= guñjā) by Hoernle.

v4.c57.83

162 A fragrant plant of unknown identity according to Hoernle, who refers to another fragrant plant, called sthauneyaka. Clerodendrum infortunatum Linn. is called both harita and sthauneyaka (see M. Abdul Kareem, 1997, Nr. 442), but the leaves of this shrub have a disagreeable odour (see WIRM II, 232).

v4.c57.84

163 Hoernle identifies this grass as Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Jones) Schult. = Andropogon jwarancusa Jones = Andropogon laniger Duthie, non Desf. (= lāmajjaka; see M. Abdul Kareem, 1997, Nr. 548). The Dhanvantarinighaṇṭu (3.86) mentions iṣṭakāpathaka as a synonym of lāmajjaka.

v4.c57.85

164 Generally identified as Hibiscus rosa-sinensis Linn.

v4.c57.86

165 The same as dhyāmaka, a fragrant grass, according to Hoernle. Dhyāmaka is found in the Carakasamhitā, etc., and identified as either a species of Cymbopogon or Valeriana (see M. Abdul Kareem, 1997, Nrs. 552 and 1675).

v4.c57.87

166 Identified as Lannea coromandelica (Houtt.) Merr. = Odina wodier Roxb. (= jiṅgiṇī) by Hoernle (compare M. Abdul Kareem, 1997, Nr. 994).

v4.c57.88

167 Kāla is one of the names of a variety of citraka in the Rājanighaṇṭu (6.127). Hoernle identifies it as Cassia sophera Linn. (= kāsamarda).

v4.c57.89

168 Mentioned in the Madanapālanighaṇṭu. Hoernle identifies keyūra as Pavonia odorata Willd.

v4.c57.90

169 Hoernle regards this plant as an inferior type of śālaparṇī.

v4.c57.91

170 Identified as Nardostachys grandiflora DC. = N. jatamansi DC. (see on the nomenclature: S.S.R. Bennet, 1987) (= māmsī) by Hoernle.

v4.c57.92

171 Identified as Moringa oleifera Lam. = M. pterygosperma Gaertn. (= śigru) by Hoernle.

v4.c57.93

172 Identified as Phragmites karka (Retz.) Trin. ex Steud. (= naḷa) by Hoernle.

v4.c57.94

174 Hoernle regards this plant as identical with pāṭhā. Prācīnā is a synonym of pāṭhā in the Dhanvantarinighaṇṭu (1.70).

v4.c57.95

175 Identified as Terminalia alata Heyne ex Roth = T. tomentosa Wight et Arn. by Hoernle.

v4.c57.96

176 Identified as Rosa alba Linn. by Hoernle (compare M. Abdul Kareem, 1997: Nr. 1401).

v4.c57.97

¹⁷⁸ An example is the mayūraghṛta (II.177–181), which contains veśavāra of peacock's flesh as an ingredient. See also, for example, I.32; II.814, 828, 837, 844.

v4.c57.98

179 I.23–26. 180 The Kumbhāṇḍas are a class of demons. Compare the related Kūṣmāṇḍa, one of the grahas mentioned in Vāgbhaṭa’s works (A.H.U.4; A.S.U.7) and the Śārṅgadharasaṃhitā. See on the Kumbhāṇḍas, called grul-bum in Tibetan: R. De Nebesky-Wojkowitz (1993): 309. 181 Unmāda, chāyāgraha, apasmāra, and ostāraka are classified as grahas, which makes a total of twenty-one. Hoernle remarks (in Appendix I to part VI) that a similar list is given in the Mahāvyutpatti; the list found there (see Csoma de Kőrös, 1982: 174) differs, however, considerably. 182 A chāyāgraha is unknown in āyurvedic literature, but a change in one’s natural chāyā is an ariṣṭa, i.e., a sign foreboding death (see, e.g., Ca.I.7). 183 Hoernle considered this word to be a misspelling for dustāraka, which might mean ‘the evil eye’; this emendation is, however, unnecessary. See on Ostārakī: M.-Th. de Mallmann, 1975: 282. 184 Hoernle was of the opinion that this term is the same as khārkhoda, mentioned in the Rājatarangiṇī as a magical performance for the purpose of procuring the death of an enemy. This rare word occurs in the Weber MSS (kakkhorda) (see Hoernle’s note; see also G. Bühler, 1893: 271), and, according to Hoernle, in Ca.Ci.23 (see Ca.Ci.23.250, where Cakrapāṇidatta gives the synonym khurkhuraka for jharjharaka, a rattle). Compare the graha called Kākhorda (A.S.U.7). 185 Compare the graha called Aukiraṇa (A.H.U.4) or Maukiraṇa (A.s.U.7). 186 The fevers mentioned are called ekāhika, dvetīyaka, traitīyaka, cāturthaka, saptāhika, ardhāmāsika, māsika, sakṛṇmauhūrtika, nitya, viṣama, bhūta, mānuṣa, amānuṣa, and doṣaja. 187 Vṛddhatrayī 172. 188 Vṛddhatrayī 165–171. 189 See chapter five of his Introduction to the edition. Earlier, he assigned the MS to the middle of the fifth century (Hoernle, 1891b). G. Bühler (1891b: 309) reached the conclusion that the Bower MS must be placed in the period A.D. 400–500. 190 J. Filliozat in L. Renou and J. Filliozat (1953): 157 and 675–676. 191 The scribes used dots to indicate lacunas in the original (see Hoernle’s Intr., 43; Hoernle, 1909: 858–859); part IV has an interlinear remark, adding a phrase which had inadvertently been omitted. 192 Glosses are found after II.879 and 929; 1109 appears to be a gloss too (see Hoernle’s Intr., 40). 193 V.N. Pandey (1992: 235) is of the opinion that the author of the Nāvanītaka utilized Suśruta’s work before it was redacted by Nāgārjuna; his only argument, the absence of any mention of Nāgārjuna, is very weak, because the association of Nāgārjuna with the Uttaratantra is a late tradition. 194 Hoernle (1909). Later authors often agree with Hoernle in accepting the saṃhitās of Bhela, Caraka and Suśruta as sources for parts I–III of the Bower MS (see, e.g., ABI 106; A.B. Keith, 1973: 509; P. Kutumbiah, 1969; V.N. Pandey and A. Pandey, 1988; G.P. Srivastava, 1954). 195 J. Jolly (1913): 369. 196 Intr., 59–61; Hoernle (1909): 884–885. 197 See also R.F.G. Müller (1932): 797–798. 198 R.F.G. Müller (1932: 809–810) also collected arguments against borrowing from the Carakasaṃhitā. A.B. Keith (1973: 509) asserted that the absence of Caraka’s name is no

v4.c57.99

evidence against use of the Carakasaṃhitā, which is certain, for Ātreya ranked as the teacher of Caraka (sic !), and the pupil, therefore, was covered by the teacher’s name. V.N. Pandey (1992: 235–238) claims that the absence of Caraka’s name leads to the conclusion that he was not yet popular; in his view, it follows from this that the author of the Nāvanītaka utilized the Agniveśatantra not long after the period in which Caraka revised it; this makes V.N. Pandey conclude that the texts of the Bower MS were written for the use of hospitals during or after the reign of Aśoka, in the second century B.C. 199 See also R.F.G. Müller (1932): 810.

v4.c57.100

1 CC I, 416; III, 90. Check-list Nr. 143.

v4.c57.101

2 This MS was described first by A.C. Burnell (1880): 63–65 (Nr. 10,773). Its number was changed into 11085 in P.P.S. Sastri's Catalogue (1933: 7410–7411). The MS is written in Telugu script, dates from about A.D. 1650 according to Burnell, and is still in a fairly good condition according to P.P.S. Sastri (this is confirmed by a recent microfilm of the MS). Th. Aufrecht (CC I, 416) recorded a second MS that belonged to Paṇḍit Rādhākṛṣṇa of Lahore, but it is no longer traceable and has apparently disappeared (G. Śukla's upodghāta to edition b; Sūramcandra I, 211). The Check-list (Nr. 143) mentions a MS available at the Manuscripts Library, Trivandrum (T 1446); this MS is said to be a copy on paper of the Tanjore MS (BDHM 1, 3, 1963, 132).

v4.c57.102

3 Two copies, made at the request of P. Cordier, form part of the Collection Cordier of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris (J. Filliozat, Liste Nrs. 1182: in Nāgarī, and 1183: in Telugu script; Nr. 1184 is a transcription in Roman characters, made by Cordier). A.F.R. Hoernle obtained a copy in Telugu script in 1905 (see A.F.R. Hoernle, 1978: 38); copies are also available at the India Office in London (see A.B. Keith, 1935: 739–740: Nr. 6224; compare CC III, 90 and R.S. Singh's Intr. to ed. c, 3) and the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine in London (a copy in Nāgarī, made by M.R. Ācārya in 1920, according to a personal communication from Dr. D. Wujastyk). Jādavji Trikamjī had a copy at his disposal (see the upodghāta to his ed. of the Carakasaṃhitā, 4); finally, two copies have been available in Calcutta (see next note). The Kavīndrācāryasūcipatram records a MS of a Bheḍatantra (Nr. 951).

v4.c57.103

4 Editions: a The Bhela Samhita; Sanskrit text; University of Calcutta, Journal of the Dept. of Letters, Calcutta University Press, 1921. The (Prefatory) Note by Asutosh Mookerjee implies that this edition was based on two copies of the Tanjore MS, made by two different scribes at different periods of time. Vedantabisharad Ananta Krishna Shastri is responsible for the emendations. b Bhelasaṃhitā; saṃskartā Śrīgirijādayāluśukla, Vidyābhavan Āyurveda Granthamālā 25, Vārāṇasī 1959. This edition has an upodghāta in Sanskrit by Girijādayālu Śukla, who remarks (9–10) that he corrected the errors in the printed text of edition a by help of the copies of the Tanjore MS that were used in producing a, which explains that the readings of a and b are sometimes slightly different. The emendations vary at many places and are usually better than those of edition a, because Vedantabisharad Ananta Krishna Shastri had no expert knowledge of āyurveda (see upodghāta, 9). c Bhelasaṃhitā (mahārṣipunarvasor ātreyasyāntevāsinā bhelācāryeṇa praṇītā), editors: V.S. Veṅkatasubrahmaṇyaśāstrī and C. Rājarājeśvarasarmā, C.C.R.I.M.H./Pub. 31, New Delhi 1977; Introduction by R.S. Singh, praṣtāvanā (in Sanskrit) by V.S. Veṅkatasubrahmaṇyaśāstrī. This edition, based on the Tanjore MS, is more complete than the previous ones, in which some portions of the MS were omitted; these portions are listed in Appendix A. Appendix B compares the readings of the MS with

v4.c57.104

their substitutions in edition b; Appendix C contains new emendations; Appendix D compares faulty readings in the earlier editions, previous emendations, and the fresh emendations suggested by the editors of edition c. Numerous, sometimes extensive, footnotes, presenting passages from other saṃhitās which are related to those of Bhela, quotations from Bhela found in various medical texts, and an elaborate vocabulary enhance the value of this edition. References are to edition c. See on the editions: C.R.R. Sarma and B. Rama Rao (1980). The unsatisfactory editorial policies of a, b and c make a new study a major desideratum (see on the preparation of a new critical edition: T. Yamashita, 1997). A few chapters of the Bhelasaṃhitā have been translated into European languages. Sūtrasthāna 16 has been edited and translated into French by J. Filliozat (1975: 170–173; English version, 1964: 205–207); it was translated into German by R.F.G. Müller (1962). An English translation (probably by D.V. Subba Reddy), based on ed. b, of Sū.8–9 and 12–13, Ni.5–6, Śā.4 and Ci.1 has been published in BDHM 1, 3, 1963, 138–155. M.G. Weiss (1977: 252–253 and 254–258) rendered Ni.7 and Ci.8 into English.

v4.c57.105

5 H. Lüders (1927).

v4.c57.106

6 The site was described by A. von Le Coq (1909): 1048–1049. See also H. Lüders (1926): 194.

v4.c57.107

7 The ardhaśloka with the number of chapters of the Śārīrasthāna is unintelligible and has been emended.

v4.c57.108

8 The order of the chapters has been rearranged in edition c.

v4.c57.109

9 One of the verses even occurs twice in ed. c: Ni.8.3 and 8 are identical.

v4.c57.110

10 B.M. Barua (1936/37) was convinced that the archaic style of the prose portions is of the same type as that met with in the older Dharmasūtras, the Arthaśāstra, etc. He also supposed that the whole of the Bhelasaṃhitā had originally been in prose and was versified partially later.

v4.c57.111

11 See on this subject Jyotir Mitra (1972); this study was obviously based on the text of ed. b.

v4.c57.112

12 Bhela and Bheḍa are closely related variants of the same name. R.S. Singh (Intr. to ed. c, 8) suggests that there may be a connection between Bhela/Bheḍa and the Bheḍā Brahmins, who inhabit the Śekhāvadī area; this group of Brahmins counts many vaidyas with the surname Bheḍā.

v4.c57.113

13 Bhela's name follows immediately after that of Agniveśa, the foremost among Ātreya's disciples, in the enumeration of the Carakasaṃhitā (Sū.1.31).

v4.c57.114

14 Ca.Sū.1.30–33.

v4.c57.115

15 The Carakasaṃhitā calls these works a tantra, not a saṃhitā. See also A.h.Sū.1.3–4ab.

v4.c57.116

16 Ātreya is also called Punarvasu in the Carakasaṃhitā.

v4.c57.117

17 The Carakasaṃhitā (Sū.13.100) refers to Ātreya as Cāndrabhāgin. Ātreya is supposed to have lived on the summit of the Candrabhāga mountain or on the banks of the Candrabhāgī river (Vṛddhatrayī 74), i.e., the Chenab in the Pañjāb (N.N. Bhattacharyya, 1991: 104; Nando Lal Dey, 1979: 47; MW). P.V. Sharma (AVI 79) claims that Candrabhāgā was the name of Ātreya's mother. See: Ātreya.

v4.c57.118

18 See: Kṛṣṇātreya.

v4.c57.119

19 See: Nagajit.

v4.c57.120

20 Otherwise unknown in Sanskrit medical literature.

v4.c57.121

21 Suśruta Medhāvin is not mentioned in other sources. He has, without any compelling reason, been identified with Suśruta by P. Cordier (1901a: 79–80), Hariprapanna (Intr. to his Rasayogasāgara, 70–71), and A.F.R. Hoernle (1909: 883). One of the authors not accepting this identity is Sūramcandra (1978: 256). Suśruta is nowhere mentioned as being instructed by Ātreya in āyurvedic literature; both are members of a group of sages in the Bower MS (Part I).

v4.c57.122

22 Compare Ca.Sū.26, which mentions more names; Maitreya is absent on this occasion in the Carakasaṃhitā, while Khaṇḍakāpya is replaced by Bhadrakāpya.

v4.c57.123

23 The theory accepting two tastes distinguishes sātmya and asātmya in the Bhelasaṃhitā, chedanīya and upaśamanīya in the Carakasaṃhitā; the Bhelasaṃhitā mentions three tastes in relation with three sthānas, the Carakasaṃhitā refers to chedanīya, upaśamanīya and sādhāraṇa; the theory of the four tastes distinguishes svādu, asvādu, mṛdu, and amṛdu in the Bhelasaṃhitā, whereas the Carakasaṃhitā has svādu and hita, svādu and ahita, asvādu and hita, asvādu and ahita.

First 145 of 7,332 passages. Read on

Linked texts (90)