A History of Indian Medical Literature v4.c57.98

v4.c57.98

179 I.23–26. 180 The Kumbhāṇḍas are a class of demons. Compare the related Kūṣmāṇḍa, one of the grahas mentioned in Vāgbhaṭa’s works (A.H.U.4; A.S.U.7) and the Śārṅgadharasaṃhitā. See on the Kumbhāṇḍas, called grul-bum in Tibetan: R. De Nebesky-Wojkowitz (1993): 309. 181 Unmāda, chāyāgraha, apasmāra, and ostāraka are classified as grahas, which makes a total of twenty-one. Hoernle remarks (in Appendix I to part VI) that a similar list is given in the Mahāvyutpatti; the list found there (see Csoma de Kőrös, 1982: 174) differs, however, considerably. 182 A chāyāgraha is unknown in āyurvedic literature, but a change in one’s natural chāyā is an ariṣṭa, i.e., a sign foreboding death (see, e.g., Ca.I.7). 183 Hoernle considered this word to be a misspelling for dustāraka, which might mean ‘the evil eye’; this emendation is, however, unnecessary. See on Ostārakī: M.-Th. de Mallmann, 1975: 282. 184 Hoernle was of the opinion that this term is the same as khārkhoda, mentioned in the Rājatarangiṇī as a magical performance for the purpose of procuring the death of an enemy. This rare word occurs in the Weber MSS (kakkhorda) (see Hoernle’s note; see also G. Bühler, 1893: 271), and, according to Hoernle, in Ca.Ci.23 (see Ca.Ci.23.250, where Cakrapāṇidatta gives the synonym khurkhuraka for jharjharaka, a rattle). Compare the graha called Kākhorda (A.S.U.7). 185 Compare the graha called Aukiraṇa (A.H.U.4) or Maukiraṇa (A.s.U.7). 186 The fevers mentioned are called ekāhika, dvetīyaka, traitīyaka, cāturthaka, saptāhika, ardhāmāsika, māsika, sakṛṇmauhūrtika, nitya, viṣama, bhūta, mānuṣa, amānuṣa, and doṣaja. 187 Vṛddhatrayī 172. 188 Vṛddhatrayī 165–171. 189 See chapter five of his Introduction to the edition. Earlier, he assigned the MS to the middle of the fifth century (Hoernle, 1891b). G. Bühler (1891b: 309) reached the conclusion that the Bower MS must be placed in the period A.D. 400–500. 190 J. Filliozat in L. Renou and J. Filliozat (1953): 157 and 675–676. 191 The scribes used dots to indicate lacunas in the original (see Hoernle’s Intr., 43; Hoernle, 1909: 858–859); part IV has an interlinear remark, adding a phrase which had inadvertently been omitted. 192 Glosses are found after II.879 and 929; 1109 appears to be a gloss too (see Hoernle’s Intr., 40). 193 V.N. Pandey (1992: 235) is of the opinion that the author of the Nāvanītaka utilized Suśruta’s work before it was redacted by Nāgārjuna; his only argument, the absence of any mention of Nāgārjuna, is very weak, because the association of Nāgārjuna with the Uttaratantra is a late tradition. 194 Hoernle (1909). Later authors often agree with Hoernle in accepting the saṃhitās of Bhela, Caraka and Suśruta as sources for parts I–III of the Bower MS (see, e.g., ABI 106; A.B. Keith, 1973: 509; P. Kutumbiah, 1969; V.N. Pandey and A. Pandey, 1988; G.P. Srivastava, 1954). 195 J. Jolly (1913): 369. 196 Intr., 59–61; Hoernle (1909): 884–885. 197 See also R.F.G. Müller (1932): 797–798. 198 R.F.G. Müller (1932: 809–810) also collected arguments against borrowing from the Carakasaṃhitā. A.B. Keith (1973: 509) asserted that the absence of Caraka’s name is no