A History of Indian Medical Literature v4.c57.250

v4.c57.250

213 The list of the duṣprajātakicikitsā chapter consists of thirty-five items. See P. Tivārī (1989): 588–591. 214 See on 11.19–36: P. Tivārī (1989): 580, 582–583. 215 See P. Tivārī (1989): 616–639. 216 One of the subjects is weaning; see A. Kumar (1994): 33. 217 See on these rituals: A. Kumar (1994): 54, 81–93; U.P. Shah (1956). 218 See on this chapter: A. Kumar (1994): 245–248. 219 Compare on this disease, also called kukūṇa and kukūṇaka: A.h.U.8.19; A.s.U.11.25; Su. U.19.9; Vāṅgasena, bālaroga 13. See also A. Kumar (1994): 242–248. 220 V. Śukla (I, 106) regards kukkuṇaka as trachoma. Compare A. Kumar (1994): 245), who is more cautious and describes it as an acute ocular inflammation, having generalized features of various varieties of conjunctivitis. 221 See on this chapter: A. Kumar (1994): 257–260. 222 The Carakasaṃhitā (Ci.21.12) distinguishes the same seven varieties. 223 See on this chapter: A. Kumar (1994): 252–257. 224 Carmadala is dealt with as one of the forms of kuṣṭha in the Carakasaṃhitā (Ci.7.24) and Suśrutasaṃhitā (Ni.5.10). 225 Other medical treatises do not distinguish doṣic varieties of carmadala. 226 See on the use of the term amlapitta Mādhava's Rogaviniścaya. 227 The Mādhavanidāna describes an upwards and a downwards moving type; the Hārītasamhitā regards amlapitta as a disease without subdivisions. 228 The Carakasaṃhitā describes three types of śvayathu (= śotha), caused by one of the three doṣas (Ci.12.12–14), and a large number of local varieties (Sū.18 and Ci.12). The Suśrutasaṃhitā (Ci.23.3) distinguishes five types: by vāta, pitta, kapha, samnipāta, and poison (viṣa); elsewhere (Su.Sū.17.4) it mentions a type caused by blood and one of traumatic origin. 229 The Suśrutasaṃhitā deals with śūla in its chapter on the treatment of gulma (U.42), where it is in the first place regarded as a complication of gulma, and secondly as an autonomous disease. The Mādhavanidāna has a separate chapter (26) on śūla. 230 The Suśrutasaṃhitā (U.42.82–87) describes varieties caused by vāta, pitta, kapha, and samnipāta; it adds a variety by āmavāta (U.42.123cd–125). The Kāśyapasamhitā does not mention treatments for specific types of śūla, as the Suśrutasaṃhitā does. 231 See A. Kumar (1994): 29, 31. 232 See A. Kumar (1994): 46–47. 233 See on this subject: D.N. Miśra and C. Caturvedī (1982). 234 The geographical names mentioned in these two chapters have elaborately been discussed by U.P. Shah (1958). See also ABI 266; Hemarājaśarman 68–70; Yogeścandra Miśra (1980). Compare Ca.Ci.30.315–319, Su.Sū.45.21, and the janapadavibhaktiya chapter of the Bhelasaṃhitā (Sū.13). 235 The author of the Hindī commentary regards this disease as identical with dhanuḥstambha (tetanus). 236 Probably the same as hanugraha (see Ca.Ci.28.49–50ab; Su.Ni.1.53cd; Mādhavanidāna 22.49–50). 237 Compare Caraka's kakṣā (Ci.12.91ab). 238 The author of the Hindī commentary regards it as a possession syndrome (graharoga). 239 An eye disease according to the Hindī commentary.