Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1certainty that Subhuti was o^e of, the personal disciples of Sakya Sinha Buddha, and that it was customary amongst the contemporaVy Buddliists to append the appela- , tion of their (i) lord fGautama or Rodhisattva) to the "name of a proselyte to accentuate his wisdom and sanctity in the world. A certain section of scholars is'never tired of setting up this line as a conclusive evidence of the fact that the Samhita was, at best, a contemporary production of early Buddhism. But they shut their eyes to opinions of Shaunaka and others on the subject quoted exactl)' in the same portion of the book, which places the date of its composition at least several centuries earlier. Shaunaka, who was the si.vth in remove from the immortal Vyasa in direct line of discipleship, was the author of the renowned Shaunaka Samhita of the Atharvan. These facts lend a very plausible colour to our hypothesis that the original Sushruta Samhita which, was first composed perhaps contemporaneously with the latter portions of the Atharvan, naturally discussed the opinions of Shaunaka and other Vedic embryologists, while Nagarjuna, at the time of redacting that book, quoted the opinion of his contemporar}' Subhuti for the purpose of giving him an equal status with the Vedic Rishis, if for nothing else. Greek Influence : — As regards Hellenic influence on the Hindu system of medicine and on the Sushruta Samhita in special, we must disabuse our mind of all sentiments of racial vanity and proceed to investigate the case in a scientific and unprejudiced spirit before giving a more detailed account of the contents of the SushrutaiSamhita.
2(i) Nagarjuna Bodhisattva was well practised in the art of compounding medicine. N^gSrjuna Bodhisattva by moistening all the great stones with a divine and superior decoction changed them into gold. — Bael's Buddhistic Records of the western world Vol. II. AnuvSk 19, 45. 46. 5. iNTRonurrioN.
3Su^hrufa and Hippocrates -.—From the very apparent similarity which exists between jhe contents of this Samhita •and tjie aphorisms of Hippocrates, many western scholars are apt ,to conclude too hastily that the ancient Indians drew their inspiration in the healing art from the medical works of the Greeks. But the reverse may be said of the Greeks as well with the greater confidence because such an assertion is supported by historic facts, and confirmed by the researches of the scholars of the west (i). According to all accounts Pythagoras was the founder of the healing art amongst the Greeks and the Hellenic peoples in general (2). This great philosopher imbibed his mysteries and metaphysics from the Brahmanas of India. Mr. Pocock in his Jnt^ia in Greece identifies him with Buddhagurus or Buddha, and it is but an easy inference to suppose that he carried many recipes and aphorisms of his master's Ayurveda with him. The sacred bean of Pythagoras is thought to have been the (3) Indian Nelumbium (Utpalam). We know thai simnllaneously with the birth of Buddhism, Buddhist Sramanas were sent out to Greece, Asia minor. Egypt and ether distant countries to preach their new religion. They were known to the Greeks and there is good reason to believe that the Greek Simnoi (venerable) were no other than the Buddhist Sramanas (4). Now a missionary usually teaches the sciences of his country in addition to the preaching of his gospel. The distant mission stations or monasteries of Buddhism were (1) There*1s no ground whatever to suppose that Sushruta borrowed his system of medicine from the Greeks. On the contrary, there is much to tell against such an idea— Weber's History of Indian Literature. (2) The Origin and Growth of the Healing Art — Bedroe P. 162.
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.
1certainty that Subhuti was o^e of, the personal disciples of Sakya Sinha Buddha, and that it was customary amongst the contemporaVy Buddliists to append the appela- , tion of their (i) lord fGautama or Rodhisattva) to the "name of a proselyte to accentuate his wisdom and sanctity in the world. A certain section of scholars is'never tired of setting up this line as a conclusive evidence of the fact that the Samhita was, at best, a contemporary production of early Buddhism. But they shut their eyes to opinions of Shaunaka and others on the subject quoted exactl)' in the same portion of the book, which places the date of its composition at least several centuries earlier. Shaunaka, who was the si.vth in remove from the immortal Vyasa in direct line of discipleship, was the author of the renowned Shaunaka Samhita of the Atharvan. These facts lend a very plausible colour to our hypothesis that the original Sushruta Samhita which, was first composed perhaps contemporaneously with the latter portions of the Atharvan, naturally discussed the opinions of Shaunaka and other Vedic embryologists, while Nagarjuna, at the time of redacting that book, quoted the opinion of his contemporar}' Subhuti for the purpose of giving him an equal status with the Vedic Rishis, if for nothing else. Greek Influence : — As regards Hellenic influence on the Hindu system of medicine and on the Sushruta Samhita in special, we must disabuse our mind of all sentiments of racial vanity and proceed to investigate the case in a scientific and unprejudiced spirit before giving a more detailed account of the contents of the SushrutaiSamhita.
2(i) Nagarjuna Bodhisattva was well practised in the art of compounding medicine. N^gSrjuna Bodhisattva by moistening all the great stones with a divine and superior decoction changed them into gold. — Bael's Buddhistic Records of the western world Vol. II. AnuvSk 19, 45. 46. 5. iNTRonurrioN.
3Su^hrufa and Hippocrates -.—From the very apparent similarity which exists between jhe contents of this Samhita •and tjie aphorisms of Hippocrates, many western scholars are apt ,to conclude too hastily that the ancient Indians drew their inspiration in the healing art from the medical works of the Greeks. But the reverse may be said of the Greeks as well with the greater confidence because such an assertion is supported by historic facts, and confirmed by the researches of the scholars of the west (i). According to all accounts Pythagoras was the founder of the healing art amongst the Greeks and the Hellenic peoples in general (2). This great philosopher imbibed his mysteries and metaphysics from the Brahmanas of India. Mr. Pocock in his Jnt^ia in Greece identifies him with Buddhagurus or Buddha, and it is but an easy inference to suppose that he carried many recipes and aphorisms of his master's Ayurveda with him. The sacred bean of Pythagoras is thought to have been the (3) Indian Nelumbium (Utpalam). We know thai simnllaneously with the birth of Buddhism, Buddhist Sramanas were sent out to Greece, Asia minor. Egypt and ether distant countries to preach their new religion. They were known to the Greeks and there is good reason to believe that the Greek Simnoi (venerable) were no other than the Buddhist Sramanas (4). Now a missionary usually teaches the sciences of his country in addition to the preaching of his gospel. The distant mission stations or monasteries of Buddhism were (1) There*1s no ground whatever to suppose that Sushruta borrowed his system of medicine from the Greeks. On the contrary, there is much to tell against such an idea— Weber's History of Indian Literature. (2) The Origin and Growth of the Healing Art — Bedroe P. 162.
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.