A History of Indian Medical Literature v4.c57.229

v4.c57.229

the following eight types: due to vāta, pitta, kapha, saṃnipāta, abhighāta, purīṣa, aśmarī, and śarkarā. 156 See on this chapter: A. Kumar (1994): 265–268. 157 Caraka’s list (Ci.25.39cd–43) has thirty-six items; the one found in the Suśrutasaṃhitā (Ci. 1.8) consists of sixty items. 158 These piḍakās are described as complications of prameha in the Caraka- and Suśrutasaṃhitā. Caraka (Sū.17.78–89) describes seven types, the same as those of the Kāśyapasaṃhitā, with the exception of aruṃṣikā; Caraka does not distinguish doṣic groups. The Suśrutasaṃhitā (Ni.6.14–19) also omits aruṃṣikā, but adds three new types: putriṇī, masūrikā, and vidārikā. Aruṃṣikā is one of the kṣudrarogas in the Suśrutasaṃhitā (Ni.13.36). 159 The author of the Hindī commentary on the Kāśyapasaṃhitā regards arakilikā as identical with carmakīla, a wart (see on carmakīla: Su.Ni.2.18–20 and 13.45ab). Compare A. Kumar (1994): 262. 160 See A. Kumar (1994): 263. 161 See on Mahāsena and Viśākha: J.N. Banerjea (1956): 144–146; A.K. Chatterjee (1970); S. Chattopadhyaya (1955): 94–95; J.F. Fleet (1877): 27, (1878): 162, (1884): 137; Hopkins; N.P. Joshi (1986): 24; S.S. Rana (1995); A.M. Shastri (1996): I, 150–152; Vettam Mani. Skanda was, under the name Mahāsena, the tutelary deity of the early Kadambas and the early Cālukyas (A.M. Shastri, 1996: I, 151); Skanda, Mahāsena and Viśākha are three different deities on coins issued by Huviṣka (S. Sharma, 1990: 161; A.M. Shastri, 1996: I, 151). Viśākha is mentioned in the Suśrutasaṃhitā and by Vāgbhaṭa. He is associated with Skanda and sometimes regarded as one of his aspects. His worship is already referred to in the Mahābhāṣya ad Pāṇini 5.3.99 (H. Bakker, 1986: 42; A.M. Shastri, 1996: I, 151; S.S. Rana, 1995: 20–21, 51–52), where he is different from Skanda (S. Sen, 1968: 679); Skanda and Viśākha are also separately mentioned in the Bṛhatsaṃhitā (45.11; 47. 26). He is Skanda’s brother in the dhūrtakalpa of the Atharvavedapariśiṣṭa (see on the ritual, called dhūrtakalpa, S.S. Rana, 1995: 14–16); the Mahābhārata (Vanaparvan 227.17; ed. Poona) describes him as a son of Skanda. Later, Skanda and Viśākha are usually regarded as identical (see, for instance, Amarakoṣa 1.1.39–40). 162 Uroghāta is also mentioned as a disorder related to pratīśyāya or pīnasa in the vedanādhyāya (36; Sū.25.38). The term is absent from the Carakasaṃhitā. The Suśrutasaṃhitā (U.24.12) is acquainted with uroghāta as a symptom of rakta-ja pratīśyāya. A definition of uroghāta is found in Dalhaṇa’s commentary (ad Su.U.24.12) and the Madhukośa (ad Mādhavanidāna 58.23cd–24). The author of the Hindī commentary on the Kāśyapasaṃhitā equates uroghāta with urahkṣata, which appears to be unjustified. Urodghāta is a term occurring in the Bower MS (II.1099). 163 The Carakasaṃhitā (Ci.12.11–14) describes three doṣic types, the Suśrutasaṃhitā (Ci.22. 3) four doṣic types and a type brought about by poison. 164 The formula of viḍaṅgaghṛta is found in Vṛnda’s Siddhayoga (7.10–12) and many later works. 165 Pānavibhrama, absent from the Carakasaṃhitā, is described in the Suśrutasaṃhitā (U.47. 21–22). Pānāpakrama, unknown from other treatises, comprises psychotic states caused by sudden abstinence. 166 The same four doṣic types are described in the Caraka- (Ci.24.88–100) and Suśrutasaṃhitā (U.47.18–19ab). 167 Atrideva (ABI 209) equated phakka with rickets, which is a hazardous interpretation. See on rickets in India: N. Chevers (1886): 381–383. See on the history of rickets: E.H. Ackerknecht (1963): 136–138. Abhimanyu Kumār (1993) and R. Śāstrī (1977: 458) regard it as marasmus, caused by malnutrition (bālaśoṣa). Compare A. Kumar (1994): 204–207 and 210–217. See also A.K. Avasthī (1995). See for a balanced discussion of phakka: P.V. Tewari, C. Chaturvedi and B.S. Dixit (1969).