Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1\ laryngotomy or fever-therapeutics from his work. From I the general plan of the book we can safely assert that Sushruta dealt with easier or more elementary topics in the first five subdivisions of his Samhita in the manner of our modern progressive readers, reserving the discussion of those re^uirmg a more advanced knowledge and skill for the Uttaratantram. The Uttara*^^antram has not been incluued within the five original subdivisions of the Samhita inasmuch as it embraces and more elaborately discusses INTRODUCl'ION. J V >■> lupics which legitimately beloi^g to, ^or are but»incidentairy mentioned in those subdivisions. Hence it is more ot the nature of an appendix or supplement, arising out of the^ exigencies of the original subdivisions. It is probable that Nagarjuna might have redacted this part of the Samhita in common with its other portions. (i}
2Western opipions* on the subject :— The consensus of western opinions is to place Nagarjuna in the first quarter of the third Century B. C. (2), and for fixing Sushruta as a contemporary of Sakya Sinha Buddha. It i^ contended that the age immediately preceding Sakya Muni was a period of decadence in Hindu thought ; and the Sushruta Samhita must have been the fruit of a revived intellectual activity which usually follows the advent of a new creed^an assumption which is in favour of the hypothesis of Greek influence on the Hindu system of medicine. But great men there had been in India before Buddha. The age which immediately preceded the age of Buddha was by no means an age of decadence properly speaking, the age which followed the downfall of Buddliisin shows, on the contrar}', signs of true decadence. India had had eminent philosophers and scientists almost contemporaneously with the great Buddha. The chronological facts collected above from the Mahabharatam, and the Garuda Puranam could have been construed to prove that the age of Sushruta was prior to that of the Mahabharatam but for the internal evidence furnished by the Samhitn itself as to the probable date of its composition which we shall have occasion to deal with later on. ♦> Extraneous Evidence :— Sushruta is mentioned in the (i) MaMmahopadhyaya Kaviraj Dvaiaka N^lh .^en Kaviialna of Calcutta subscribes to this opinion — Tr. ■, (2) Bael's Buddhistic Records of the Western World. \'ol. II. P. 212. Stein's Rdjatarant^uai. > (3) Lalita-Vistarain — Raja R. L. Mitter's Edition, Chaptef I. VI * INTRODUCTION. ^- V^rtikas oP'(i) Katyayana ^4 Century B. C.) and we have no hesitation in saying thatP'^Iie* original Sarnhita was ^vritten at least two centuries before the birth of Buddha.
3'■f We are equally ready to admit, on the other hand, that the tinal recension of the Sarnhita by Nagarjuna, at least the form in which we have it, was made about the second Century B. C. ' ^ Two Nagarjunas :— Several scholars, on the authority of Dallana (the celebrated commentator of the Sushruta Samhita) endeavour to establish the identity of Nagarjuna (the redactor of this Samhita) with his namesake, the celebrated alchemist of the tenth Century (2). But their contentions fall to the ground when we know that many verses of the Sushruta Samhita occur in the works of Bagbhat (Ashtangahridayam) and Madhava (Nidanam), which are two of the works which were translated by the order of the Kaliph (3) in the eighth century. The internal evidences of the book do not supply us with any authentic material to compose anything like a biography of this father of Hindu Surgery. • Internal Evidence :— The line in the Samhita, which has formed the veritable bone of contention amongst scholars of all shades of opinion as throwing a light upon the probable date of its composition, occurs ni the Sharira — Sthanam, in connection with the development of the foetal body and reads as "Subhuti Gautama said that it is the trunk that tirst developed." Conflicting testimonies and the uncertain indication of materiaSs at our disposal : — It is a matter of historic (l) f^^ffll^^^tf" K;5 lyayana'si V^rlikas lo Panini's Grammar. "' Chakra Dutta — Rash^yandhikara. (3) P. C. Roy— Hindu Chcmislry p. X\'1II. (1902), INTRODtTrTIOX. ' VU ■>•)
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.
1\ laryngotomy or fever-therapeutics from his work. From I the general plan of the book we can safely assert that Sushruta dealt with easier or more elementary topics in the first five subdivisions of his Samhita in the manner of our modern progressive readers, reserving the discussion of those re^uirmg a more advanced knowledge and skill for the Uttaratantram. The Uttara*^^antram has not been incluued within the five original subdivisions of the Samhita inasmuch as it embraces and more elaborately discusses INTRODUCl'ION. J V >■> lupics which legitimately beloi^g to, ^or are but»incidentairy mentioned in those subdivisions. Hence it is more ot the nature of an appendix or supplement, arising out of the^ exigencies of the original subdivisions. It is probable that Nagarjuna might have redacted this part of the Samhita in common with its other portions. (i}
2Western opipions* on the subject :— The consensus of western opinions is to place Nagarjuna in the first quarter of the third Century B. C. (2), and for fixing Sushruta as a contemporary of Sakya Sinha Buddha. It i^ contended that the age immediately preceding Sakya Muni was a period of decadence in Hindu thought ; and the Sushruta Samhita must have been the fruit of a revived intellectual activity which usually follows the advent of a new creed^an assumption which is in favour of the hypothesis of Greek influence on the Hindu system of medicine. But great men there had been in India before Buddha. The age which immediately preceded the age of Buddha was by no means an age of decadence properly speaking, the age which followed the downfall of Buddliisin shows, on the contrar}', signs of true decadence. India had had eminent philosophers and scientists almost contemporaneously with the great Buddha. The chronological facts collected above from the Mahabharatam, and the Garuda Puranam could have been construed to prove that the age of Sushruta was prior to that of the Mahabharatam but for the internal evidence furnished by the Samhitn itself as to the probable date of its composition which we shall have occasion to deal with later on. ♦> Extraneous Evidence :— Sushruta is mentioned in the (i) MaMmahopadhyaya Kaviraj Dvaiaka N^lh .^en Kaviialna of Calcutta subscribes to this opinion — Tr. ■, (2) Bael's Buddhistic Records of the Western World. \'ol. II. P. 212. Stein's Rdjatarant^uai. > (3) Lalita-Vistarain — Raja R. L. Mitter's Edition, Chaptef I. VI * INTRODUCTION. ^- V^rtikas oP'(i) Katyayana ^4 Century B. C.) and we have no hesitation in saying thatP'^Iie* original Sarnhita was ^vritten at least two centuries before the birth of Buddha.
3'■f We are equally ready to admit, on the other hand, that the tinal recension of the Sarnhita by Nagarjuna, at least the form in which we have it, was made about the second Century B. C. ' ^ Two Nagarjunas :— Several scholars, on the authority of Dallana (the celebrated commentator of the Sushruta Samhita) endeavour to establish the identity of Nagarjuna (the redactor of this Samhita) with his namesake, the celebrated alchemist of the tenth Century (2). But their contentions fall to the ground when we know that many verses of the Sushruta Samhita occur in the works of Bagbhat (Ashtangahridayam) and Madhava (Nidanam), which are two of the works which were translated by the order of the Kaliph (3) in the eighth century. The internal evidences of the book do not supply us with any authentic material to compose anything like a biography of this father of Hindu Surgery. • Internal Evidence :— The line in the Samhita, which has formed the veritable bone of contention amongst scholars of all shades of opinion as throwing a light upon the probable date of its composition, occurs ni the Sharira — Sthanam, in connection with the development of the foetal body and reads as "Subhuti Gautama said that it is the trunk that tirst developed." Conflicting testimonies and the uncertain indication of materiaSs at our disposal : — It is a matter of historic (l) f^^ffll^^^tf" K;5 lyayana'si V^rlikas lo Panini's Grammar. "' Chakra Dutta — Rash^yandhikara. (3) P. C. Roy— Hindu Chcmislry p. X\'1II. (1902), INTRODtTrTIOX. ' VU ■>•)
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.