Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Identity of Sushruta and Divodasa :— It is only safe to assert that Sushruta was of tl>e raceof Vishvamitra. The Mahabharatam f i) represents him as a son of that roval sage. This coincides with the description given of him in the present recension of the Samhita. The Garuda Puranam (2) places Divodasa as fourth in descent from Dhanvantari, the first propounder of medical science on earti}, whereas the Sushruta Samhita describes the two as identical persons. But this apparent anomaly in the Samhita can be accounted for, if we consider that in some parts of India the custom still prevails of appending, for the purposes of better identification, the name of one's father, or of a glorious ancestor to one's name, and it is therefore not surprising that Divodasa (the preceptor of Sushruta), who was a firm believer in the doctrine of psychic transmigration, should represent himself as an incarnation of Dhanvantari, and a=.sume his name and style in the usual wav. Revond this meagre genealogy we possess no trustworthy information regarding the life and personalitv of Sushruta, the father of Indian Surgery. Age of the Sushruta Samhita:— We have no means of ascertaining what the Samhita was like as originally written hv Sushruta, the present being only a recension, or rather a Mahahhiralam — Anushasan Parva, Ch. W (2} f^-^rf*T^TC^T<T Tnf^E^T^?i: %<^v. 1 ^T5?I^T3I»??T'Pr*T^r: f^Tr??T^»^^3: II Garuda PuranAm, Chap. 139, \'s. 8- 11, INTRODUCTION* lil >■>
2recension of recensions, made oy N^garjuna (i)? All opinions concur in identifying hifn ^with the celebrated founder of the Madhyamika school of Buddhistic philosophy — a fac| which materially assists us in fixing the age of the present Samhita. A few quotations from the Vriddha (old) Sushruta are all that are preserved of the oViginal Sainhitu. But their genuineness is ot a problematic character, and we are not sure whether the}- are the productions of lesser lights, or of ancient though less renowned commentators, attributed to the master to invest thciU with a greater sanctity ;ind authority— a practice which was quite common amongst the bibliographers of Ancient India. Date of Nagarjuna :— At all events Nagarjuna who redacted the Sushruta Samhita lived about the latter part of the fourth century before the__Chris£ian era ;(2) and the Dallanas Commentary, Sulrasth^nam, Ch. I. i. Dallana mentions the names of Jejjada, Gayadasa etc., as the redactors of the original Samhita, and rejects as spurious or of questionable authority the texts which cannot be found in their editions of the work. Must probably the authoritative verses are quotations from the Vriddha Sushruta. Recension or Pratisamsk^ra consists in curtaiUng statements that have been made inordinately elaborate, and in dilating upon truths lliat have been very succinctly dealt with in the original book. A Redactor or Pralisamaskarta makes an old book new again. A Samhita, on the other hand, deals with aphorisms coniained in the Vedas. ^ t^T^f^lfST?! #f%m'TTT: H^lf^cTT: I (2) rT^T VUT^Jf!: SIT^nFff^ qif*!/^: ! Rijatarangini I. Taranga. Vs. 172-173. IV wtroAj CTION.
3original or V^rtddha Sus|jruta 'must have been wriUen at least two centuries earlier in order 'to acquire that hoary aythority and prescription of age,* which alone could have given its right to a recension at the time. Several scholars on the authority of a very vague and general statement concerning* the recension of the Samhita in Dallana's commentary, ascribe th'e authorship of the Uttaratantram (latter portion of '.the Sushruta Samhita) to Nagarjuna. We, on the other hand, hold the Uttaratantram to be neither an interpolation, nor a subsequent addition, • but that it forms an integral portion of the book as it was originally written, though not planned by the Rishi. In the first Chapter of Sutrasthanani Divodasa formally divides the Science of Ayurveda into eight subdivisions, such as, the Shalya (surgery), Sh^iakya (portion treating of diseases restricted to super-clavicular regions such as the eyes, etc.), Kaya-Chikitsa (general diseases such as, fever, etc.), but does not speak anything about them in the first five Sthcinas or subdivisions of the book. It is only once in the 25th chapter of the Sutrasthanani that he mentions the name of Netravartma (diseases of the eyelids) in connection with the classification of surgical operations. It is inxpossible that Divodasa would fall short of his duties by omitting to give instructions on all the subdivisions of the Ayurveda as he promises at the outset, or that Sushruta would leave his Samhita, which is pre-eminently a work on surgery, incomplete by banishiiTg_^ophthalmic ^surgery,
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Identity of Sushruta and Divodasa :— It is only safe to assert that Sushruta was of tl>e raceof Vishvamitra. The Mahabharatam f i) represents him as a son of that roval sage. This coincides with the description given of him in the present recension of the Samhita. The Garuda Puranam (2) places Divodasa as fourth in descent from Dhanvantari, the first propounder of medical science on earti}, whereas the Sushruta Samhita describes the two as identical persons. But this apparent anomaly in the Samhita can be accounted for, if we consider that in some parts of India the custom still prevails of appending, for the purposes of better identification, the name of one's father, or of a glorious ancestor to one's name, and it is therefore not surprising that Divodasa (the preceptor of Sushruta), who was a firm believer in the doctrine of psychic transmigration, should represent himself as an incarnation of Dhanvantari, and a=.sume his name and style in the usual wav. Revond this meagre genealogy we possess no trustworthy information regarding the life and personalitv of Sushruta, the father of Indian Surgery. Age of the Sushruta Samhita:— We have no means of ascertaining what the Samhita was like as originally written hv Sushruta, the present being only a recension, or rather a Mahahhiralam — Anushasan Parva, Ch. W (2} f^-^rf*T^TC^T<T Tnf^E^T^?i: %<^v. 1 ^T5?I^T3I»??T'Pr*T^r: f^Tr??T^»^^3: II Garuda PuranAm, Chap. 139, \'s. 8- 11, INTRODUCTION* lil >■>
2recension of recensions, made oy N^garjuna (i)? All opinions concur in identifying hifn ^with the celebrated founder of the Madhyamika school of Buddhistic philosophy — a fac| which materially assists us in fixing the age of the present Samhita. A few quotations from the Vriddha (old) Sushruta are all that are preserved of the oViginal Sainhitu. But their genuineness is ot a problematic character, and we are not sure whether the}- are the productions of lesser lights, or of ancient though less renowned commentators, attributed to the master to invest thciU with a greater sanctity ;ind authority— a practice which was quite common amongst the bibliographers of Ancient India. Date of Nagarjuna :— At all events Nagarjuna who redacted the Sushruta Samhita lived about the latter part of the fourth century before the__Chris£ian era ;(2) and the Dallanas Commentary, Sulrasth^nam, Ch. I. i. Dallana mentions the names of Jejjada, Gayadasa etc., as the redactors of the original Samhita, and rejects as spurious or of questionable authority the texts which cannot be found in their editions of the work. Must probably the authoritative verses are quotations from the Vriddha Sushruta. Recension or Pratisamsk^ra consists in curtaiUng statements that have been made inordinately elaborate, and in dilating upon truths lliat have been very succinctly dealt with in the original book. A Redactor or Pralisamaskarta makes an old book new again. A Samhita, on the other hand, deals with aphorisms coniained in the Vedas. ^ t^T^f^lfST?! #f%m'TTT: H^lf^cTT: I (2) rT^T VUT^Jf!: SIT^nFff^ qif*!/^: ! Rijatarangini I. Taranga. Vs. 172-173. IV wtroAj CTION.
3original or V^rtddha Sus|jruta 'must have been wriUen at least two centuries earlier in order 'to acquire that hoary aythority and prescription of age,* which alone could have given its right to a recension at the time. Several scholars on the authority of a very vague and general statement concerning* the recension of the Samhita in Dallana's commentary, ascribe th'e authorship of the Uttaratantram (latter portion of '.the Sushruta Samhita) to Nagarjuna. We, on the other hand, hold the Uttaratantram to be neither an interpolation, nor a subsequent addition, • but that it forms an integral portion of the book as it was originally written, though not planned by the Rishi. In the first Chapter of Sutrasthanani Divodasa formally divides the Science of Ayurveda into eight subdivisions, such as, the Shalya (surgery), Sh^iakya (portion treating of diseases restricted to super-clavicular regions such as the eyes, etc.), Kaya-Chikitsa (general diseases such as, fever, etc.), but does not speak anything about them in the first five Sthcinas or subdivisions of the book. It is only once in the 25th chapter of the Sutrasthanani that he mentions the name of Netravartma (diseases of the eyelids) in connection with the classification of surgical operations. It is inxpossible that Divodasa would fall short of his duties by omitting to give instructions on all the subdivisions of the Ayurveda as he promises at the outset, or that Sushruta would leave his Samhita, which is pre-eminently a work on surgery, incomplete by banishiiTg_^ophthalmic ^surgery,
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.