A History of Indian Medical Literature v4.c57.171

v4.c57.171

and Caraka may be based on their disagreeing views on the properties of vibhītaka, described as increasing pitta and kapha by Bhela (Sū.8.22), but pacifying them by Caraka (Sū.27.148). See AVI 125–126 on this subject. 98 Cf. Ca.Śā.1.29. 99 Compare Bhela Sū.11.6–8ab and Ca.Sū.28.9–11a. 100 Compare Bhela Sū.11.8cd–14ab and Ca.Sū.28.116–19. 101 Bhela Sū.11.14cd–15ab. 102 Ca.Sū.28.20–22. 103 Cf. Ca.Sū.26.80–83. 104 The same subject is dealt with at the end of the Cikitsāsthāna of the Carakasaṃhitā, in the Suśrutasaṃhitā (Sū.45.21) and Kāśyapasaṃhitā (Khila 25). 105 This disease has been interpreted as plague (P.S. Amśumān, 1994; AVI 126; Girijādayāluśukla's upodghāta to ed. b). The editors of ed. c regard both batālikā and agnirohiṇī as bubonic plague (granthikajvara). P.S. Amśumān shares their conviction that batālikā and agnirohiṇī are one and the same disorder. The biḍālikā of the Carakasaṃhitā (Ci.12.76) is also mentioned in the Bhelasaṃhitā (Ci.4.86; Si.2.2), but it is not clear whether it is the same as batālikā or a different disorder. The biḍālikā of the Carakasaṃhitā (Ci.12.76) and the kaṇṭhaviḍālikā of the Bower MS (II.42) are not identical with Bhela's batālikā. The Bhelasaṃhitā does not describe agnirohiṇī or refer to it; it is acquainted with rohiṇī (Sū. 26.24), which differs from biḍālikā (see Si.2.2). Compare the interpretation of agnirohiṇī as plague (see Su.Ni.13.19–20). 106 Compare Śā.7.3, which presents a second list of the ten prāṇāyatanas, also disagreeing with Caraka. 107 The types described as saṃkarasveda, prastarasveda, seka, nāḍīsveda, droṇīsveda, jalasveda, udakoṣṭhasveda, and kuṭisveda. 108 Pṛṣṭharoga is a disorder caused by vāta in the Carakasaṃhitā (Ci.28.27). 109 Pṛṣṭharoga is also referred to at Sū.21.4. 110 These diseases of the lens of the eye are not described in the Carakasaṃhitā. Suśruta distinguishes six colours in liṅganāśa (U.7.26cd–27). 111 Caraka does not describe arbuda; Suśruta recognizes six varieties (Ni.11.14cd–15ab). 112 Caraka distinguishes four types of mukharoga (Sū.19.3; Ci.26.119–123). 113 Bhagandara is not described in the Carakasaṃhitā; Suśruta (Ni.4.3) distinguishes the same types as Bhela. 114 Cf. Ca.Ci.12.81; Su.Ni.11.3. 115 Caraka does not describe these diseases, affecting all parts of the eyes (sarvākṣiroga); Suśruta distinguishes five varieties; Bhela's sāmnipāta types are replaced by raktaja varieties in the Suśrutasaṃhitā. 116 Caraka's types (Sū.19.4) are very close to those of Bhela. 117 Caraka (Sū.19.4) also has four types. 118 The Carakasaṃhitā does not describe upadaṃśa. Suśruta (Ni.12.9) distinguishes five varieties, brought about by vāta, pitta, kapha, saṃnipāta, and rakta. Bhela's four varieties arise from pūya, mūtra, śukla, and saṃdhāna. 119 Caraka does not describe the eye disease called āśrāva; Suśruta (U.2.6–7) distinguishes five varieties by adding a pitta type to those mentioned by Bhela.