A History of Indian Medical Literature v4.c57.429

v4.c57.429

319 Evidently, the list, peculiar to the *Hāritasamhitā* again, is incomplete. 320 These types are absent from the *Carakasamhitā* (Ci.28.41–42) and *Suśrutasamhitā* (Ni.1.68–72). 321 The vāta disease called gṛdhrasī is dealt with in a separate chapter (III.22). 322 The descriptions of āmavāta in the *Hāritasamhitā* and the *Mādhavanidāna* (25) are independent of each other. 323 The verses on treatment of the *Mādhavacikitsā* differ considerably from those of the *Hāritasamhitā*; the latter’s prescriptions are chiefly of a pācana type. 324 The *Mādhavanidāna* describes four types, associated respectively with vāta, pitta, kapha, and sannipāta. 325 See Ca.Ci.28.56; Su.Ni.1.74; A.h.Ni.15.54. 326 This disease is the same as the vāta disease usually called kroṣṭukaśīrṣa (the reading of the *Hāritasamhitā* is probably corrupt); compare Su.Ni.1.76 and A.h.Ni.15.52. 327 Pādaharṣa is usually a member of the group of vāta diseases (see Su.Ni.1.81 and A.h.Ni.15.55cd–56ab). 328 Compare Ca.Ci.29 and A.h.Ni.16, devoted to vātarakta. The *Suśrutasamhitā* (Ni.1.42–44) describes it among the vāta diseases. Caraka, Suśruta and Vāgbhaṭa distinguish doṣa varieties; the *Carakasamhitā* has, moreover, two special types, called uttāna and gambhīra. 329 See *Kaśyapasamhitā*, Khila 16; *Mādhavanidāna* 51. 330 Compare Ca.Sū.18 and Ci.12 (śvayathu = śopha); Su.Ci.23; A.h.Ni.13.21–42. 331 Caraka (Ni.3 and Ci.5) and Vāgbhaṭa (A.h.Ni.5.32) distinguish types caused by one doṣa, two doṣas, and all three doṣas. Types caused by two doṣas are not referred to in the *Suśrutasamhitā* (U.42). Vāgbhaṭa mentions explicitly three types arising from two doṣas. The description of one dvandvaja type (by pitta and kapha in this case) is very unusual, but probably three dvandvaja types are acknowledged in the *Hāritasamhitā*, since a second one (by vāta and kapha) is mentioned in the verses on treatment (26.53–55). 332 See Ca.Ci.13; Su.Ni.7 and Ci.14; A.h.Ni.12 and Ci.15. 333 Cf. Ca.Ci.13.189–90; Su.Ci.14.18; A.h.Ci.15.113–117. 334 Cf. Ca.Ni.4; Su.Ni.6; A.h.Ni.10. 335 Khaṭikāmeha is described in Ṭoḍara’s *Āyurvedasaukhya* (VI: 9.22). 336 Pūyameha is described in Ṭoḍara’s *Āyurvedasaukhya* (VI: 9.23). The *Amṛtasāgara* mentions it as one of the six types of prameha distinguished by Ātreya (III.26). The *Bhaiṣajyaratnāvalī* (89) regards pūyameha as a synonym of aupasargikameha (gonorrhoea). 337 The *Amṛtasāgara* (III.26) mentions takrameha as one of the six types of prameha distinguished by Ātreya. 338 The *Amṛtasāgara* (III.26) mentions atimūtraprameha as one of the six types of prameha distinguished by Ātreya. 339 Compare on the pramehapiḍakās: Ca.Sū.17.83–89; Su.Ni.6.14–19; A.h.Ni.10.25–36. 340 Unknown from other treatises. 341 The *Hāritasamhitā* does not distinguish between mūtrāghāta and mūtraḳcchra (see on the difference between these two disorders: Cakrapāṇidatta ad Ca.Ci.26.43cd–44; Śrīkaṇṭhadatta ad *Mādhavanidāna* 31.1; Āḍhamalla ad *Śārṅgadharasamhitā* I.7.57cd–59a; Dalhaṇa, ad Su.U.59.3, regards them as identical) and does not describe the varieties. See on mūtrāghāta: Ca.Sī.9.25–49ab; Su.U.58; A.h.Ni.9. See on mūtraḳcchra: Ca.Ci.26.32–44; Su.U.59; A.h.Ni.9. 342 See on aśmarī: Ca.Ci.26.36; Su.Ni.3; A.h.Ni.9.9–18c.