A History of Indian Medical Literature v4.c58.6

v4.c58.6

pitta, and that the group subduing kapha has deliberately been left out because it consists of substances already mentioned as forming part of preceding groups. 78 The viprakīrṇadravyaprakaraṇa is not a later addition, but belongs to the original Madanādinighaṇṭu since it forms part of the Tibetan translation and is quoted under Candranandana’s name by Kṣīrasvāmin. 79 Vāgbhaṭa only mentions the chief actions of the gaṇa to which a drug belongs. 80 According to P. Cordier the correct Tibetan title is Yan-lag brgyad-pa-nas bstan-paḥi sman-gyi min-gi rnam-graṅs, i.e., Aṣṭāṅgopadiṣṭabheṣajanāmasūcī. See on the Tibetan translation: Vaidya Bhagwan Dash (1987) (based on the Tibetan text, with Sanskrit equivalents, botanical identifications, and notes); P. Cordier (1903a): 615–616; P. Yonten Arya (1998): XIV. 81 E.g., ad Amarakoṣa 2.4.98 (Madanādi 24.11 is quoted). 82 Kṣīrasvāmin repeatedly quotes, the names Candra and Candranandana, from the Madanādinighaṇṭu, e.g., ad Amarakoṣa 2.4.30 (Madanādi 1.26–27), 37 (Madanādi 15.16), 49 (Madanādi, viprakīrṇa p.4), 98 (Madanādi 24.11), 107 (Madanādi 5.3), 127 (Madanādi 21.26), etc. The Candra and Candranandana quoted by Kṣīrasvāmin are sometimes regarded as two different authors (AVI 380–381; DGV IV, 277 and 278). 83 Śivadatta quotes the Madanādinighaṇṭu as Candranandana ad Śivakoṣa 340 (= Madanādi 24.11); two other quotations from Candranandana agree only partially with verses from the Madanādinighaṇṭu (compare the quotations ad Śivakoṣa 2.31 with Madanādi 8.21, and the quotation ad 441 with viprakīrṇa, p.13: tāmalakī). 84 Candra and Candranandana are quoted ad Nighaṇṭuśeṣa 84–85ab (= Madanādi 3.7–8), 91–92ab (= 16.19), 130cd–131ab (= 1.26–27), 135cd–136ab (= viprakīrṇa, p.13), 137 (= 1.8), 244 (= viprakīrṇa, p.28), 256–257ab (compare Madanādi 24.7), 260–261ab (compare Madanādi 5.3), 307ab (= 24.11), and 325 (= 31.26). 85 See: Indu. 86 This Gaṇanighaṇṭu is a different work, for the quotations from it are not traceable in the Madanādinighaṇṭu. See: Bṛhannighaṇṭuratnākara. 87 Vidula is identified as Acacia sinuata (Lour.) Merr., Barringtonia acutangula (Linn.) Gaertn., Calamus rotang Linn., and Salix caprea Linn. (see M. Abdul Kareem, 1997, Nrs. 25, 214, 290, 1426). 88 Śvetakāmbojikā is mentioned at A.h.U.34.2. This plant is identified as Securinega leucopyrus (Willd.) Muell.-Arg. (see M. Abdul Kareem, 1997, Nr. 1464). 89 This list does not general not imply that Vāgbhaṭa is unacquainted with these distinctions and additions. 90 E.g., kurūṭa (19.19) instead of kuraṇṭa, jharaśī (22.18) instead of saraśī. 91 Identified as Artemisia nilagirica (C.B. Clarke) Pamp. and A. sieversiana Ehrh. ex Willd. (see M. Abdul Kareem, 1997, Nrs. 168 and 171). See on the role of damanaka during the Kāma festival: J.J. Meyer (1937): I, 38–53. 92 Identified as Mucuna monosperma DC. (see M. Abdul Kareem, 1997, Nr. 1137). 93 P.V. Sharma (1986b) was temporarily convinced the two are different; in earlier publications he assumed the two to be identical (AVI 208–209 and 380; 1976a: 107); in a recent publication (1993: Intr. 34) he returned to his early views on this issue. C. Vogel (1965: 15–16) is doubtful on this problem. Usually, however, both authors are regarded as identical (see, for example, Mooss’s Intr. to his ed. of the Madanādinighaṇṭu, 7–11; STMI 44). 94 See P.V. Sharma (1986b).