A History of Indian Medical Literature v4.c57.430

v4.c57.430

343 See on śarkarā: Ca.Ci.26.39–41; Su.Ni.3; A.h.Ni.9.18d–19. 344 A ghṛtādhyāya is absent from the Sūtrasthāna. 345 More types are described in other treatises; see Ca.Ci.12.94–95 (bradhna, identical with vṛddhi according to Cakrapāṇidatta); Su.Ni.12.1–6; A.h.Ni.11.21cd–31. 346 This series of eight types is said to consist of seven members (33.2). Caraka, Suśruta and Vāgbhaṭa do not recognize a type due to blood; instead, Suśruta (Ni.10.7) and Vāgbhaṭa (A.h.Ni.13.65cd–66) describe a traumatic (kṣataja) type, connected with pitta and blood. 347 Caraka (Ci.21.35–39) and Vāgbhaṭa (Ni.13.50–64) describe types called agnivisarpa (by vāta and pitta), granthivisarpa (by vāta and kapha) and kardamavisarpa (by pitta and kapha). Hārita’s ājñieya may be a wrong reading for āgneya. 348 The *Hāritasamhitā* is unique in devoting a separate chapter to infectious diseases. The term upasarga and related terms (upasarjanatva, upasṛṣṭa) are employed with regard to infectious diseases in the *Suśrutasamhitā* (Sū.24.7; see the commentaries of Cakrapāṇidatta and Dalhaṇa) and *Aṣṭāngasamgraha* (Sū.3.112; see Indu’s commentary); equivalent terms are māraka (Indu ad A.s.Sū.3.112), mārī (Dalhaṇa ad Su.Ci.24.91), mahāmārī (J. Filliozat, 1937: 109–110), and janamāra (Bhela Sū.13.8 and 9). Aupasargika (infectious) diseases are mentioned in the *Suśrutasamhitā* (Ni.5.34); an infectious form of prameha, aupasargikameha (gonorrhoea) is described in āyurvedic treatises of a late date (*Āyurvedavijñāna*, *Āyurvedajñānaratnākara*, *Bhaiṣajyaratnāvalī*, *Siddhabheṣajamānimālā*, etc.). 349 Compare on vraṇa: Ca.Ci.25; Su.Sū.21; A.h.U.25. The classifications of the *Suśrutasamhitā* and *Aṣṭāngahṛdayasamhitā* are much more elaborate. 350 See on nāḍīvraṇa: Ca.Ci.25.56; Su.Ni.10.9–14. 351 Compare on ślīpada: Ca.Ci.12.98; Su.Ni.10.9–14. 352 A similar type is mentioned in the *Suśrutasamhitā* (Ni.12.12). 353 Arbuda is larger than the similar swelling called granthi (A.h.U.29.14d). 354 Suśruta (Ni.11.13–21) and Vāgbhaṭa (U.29.14d–18ab) describe more varieties. See P. Tivārī (1990): 406, 407, 416. 355 This is the only example in āyurvedic literature of a chapter dealing with this combination of diseases. 356 See on gaṇḍamālā: Ca.Ci.12.79; Su.Ni.11.12; A.h.U.29.23–25; A.s.U.34.24–26. Bhoja distinguished four doṣic varieties of apacī, a disease he regarded as closely related to gaṇḍamālā (see the commentaries of Gayadāsa and Dalhaṇa ad Su.Ni.11.10–12). Gaṇḍamālā is related to galagaṇḍa in the *Carakasamhitā* (Ci.12.79). Neither apacī nor galagaṇḍa are mentioned in the *Hāritasamhitā*. 357 The usual meaning of lūtā is spider. Eight kinds of poisonous spiders are mentioned in the *Suśrutasamhitā* (Ka.8.9–95); the disorders caused by their bites disagree with the lūtā-vraṇas of the *Hāritasamhitā*. Compare Dalhaṇa ad Ka.8.9–93. Ulcers or sores called lūtā (vraṇa), related to those of the *Hāritasamhitā*, are mentioned in a number of texts, such as, for example, the *Basavarājīya*, Dāmodara’s *Ārogyacintāmaṇi*, Harṣakīrti’s *Yogacintāmaṇi*, Kālidāsa’s *Vaidyamanoramā*, Māhuka’s *Haramekhala*, the *Rājanighaṇṭu*, and Śrīkaṇṭhapandita’s *Hitopadeśa*. A plague caused by the lūtā disease, described as contagious and fatal, and distressing those in the country of king Bhīmasena, is mentioned in Kalhaṇa’s *Rājatarangiṇī* (4.524–528), a work referring to this disease at other places too (6. 185–187; 7.178; 8.1604–1605). Lūtā is referred to in the description of Citragupta’s palace in the Pretakalpa of the *Garuḍapurāṇa* (14.13) (see E. Abegg, 1956: 189). It is also known as a disorder in the *Vārasaptadoṣa*, a text forming part of the *Ḍākinīkalpa* (see A. Hermann-Pfandt, 1997: 68–69).