A History of Indian Medical Literature v4.c57.35

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.