^{page 857 note 1} In addition to the texts mentioned in n. 2 on p. 997, Journal, 1908, the following are quoted in this paper:—BS. = Bheḍa Saṁhitā; D.NS. = Ḍallana, Nibandha Saṁgraha, ed. Jāvnanda, 1891; Nāv. = Nāvanītaka, Part II of the Bower MS.; V.CS. = Vangasena, Cikitsāsāra Saṁgraha, ed. Nanda Kumāra Gosvāmī, Calcutta, Ṣaka 1811. Also Rée. Dée. = Dr. P. Cordier, Récentes Découvertes de MSS. médicaux Sanscrifs dans l'Inde, 1903; Orig. = Dr. P. Cordier, Origenes, Evolution et Décadence de la Médicine Indienne.

^{page 858 note 1} On the date of the Bower MS. see Ind. Ant., 1892, vol. xxi, pp. 29 ff.Google Scholar In that dissertation the date had been fixed in the middle of the fifth century. A re-examination of the whole case, in the light of more recent information, has shown that the date must be placed about a century earlier. The details will be found in the Introduction to my edition of the Bower MS., which is now in preparation.

^{page 858 note 2} On his date, see my Osteology of the Ancient Indians, §§ 10 ff., pp. 11 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 858 note 3} See his Réc. Déc., p. 21. I have since verified the identification from my own copy of the Bheḍa Sarṁhitā. It is curious that the MS. of the latter exhibits the same error phalāni for palāni.Google Scholar

^{page 859 note 1} The Nighaṇṭus (Dhanvantari, Madanapāla, Rāja) give only prācīnā as a synonym of pāṭhā.

^{page 860 note 1} Vangasena is really the name of the author, probably in the twelfth century A.D. In the Calcutta edition of Nanda Kumāra Gosvāmī (1889) the work runs into 1127 pages.

^{page 860 note 2} See also India Office Catalogue, p. 951,Google Scholar and ProfessorJolly's, Indian Medicine, p. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 860 note 3} MN., nānā-munīnāṁ; vacanair=nibadhyate; and Nāv., prāk-praṇitair = maharṣiṇāṁ yoga-mukhyaiḥ samanvitam.

^{page 863 note 1} See, e.g., SS., vi, 18,Google Scholar v. 1 (p. 706), 66, v. 1 (p. 914), where Suśruta is called Vaiśvāmitra and Viśvāmitra-suta respectively. In the Lalitavistara, ch. x, p. 142Google Scholar, Viśvāmitra is said to have been the teacher of the boy Buddha. See also Mahābhārata, Anuśasana, iv, 55.Google Scholar A formula of his is quoted in the Commentary to M. S., ch. xxx, vv. 40–3 (p. 269), which, in another version, is found in SS., vi, 42,Google Scholar vv. 24–5 (p. 805). See also Orig., p. 84.Google Scholar

^{page 863 note 2} Verse 781a, Viśvāmitreṇa c = ābhāṣṭam = ṛṣibhiś = c = ābhipūjitam, i.e. (this formula) was declared by Viśvāmitra and highly esteemed by the Rishis. But verse 773b, tapyamānṁ tapo 'tyugraṁ Viśvāmitraṁ mahāmunim | Aśvinau deva-bhiṣajāv = ucatur = varadāṁ varau, i. e., to Viśvāmitra, the great sage, engaged in a most severe ascetic exercise, the Aśvin pair, the divine physicians, the best of benefactors, declared (this formula).

^{page 863 note 3} Unfortunately, in the old Cambridge MS., Add. 1707, of 1275 A.D., Ind. Off. Cat., p. 952,Google Scholar which I have examined, that portion which should have contained the formula is missing. The MS., fol. 100, ends on p. 172 of the print, and only recommences on fol. 503 with p. 990 of the print.

^{page 864 note 1} See the rule in the Paribhāṣa-pradīpa, quoted in Gupta's Medical Dictionary under yoga.

^{page 863 note 2} Both at present inaccessible to me for verification.

^{page 867 note 1} In SS., iv, 5, cl. 14, p. 406,Google Scholar the name pippalī-vardhamāna is incorporated in the text of the formula. In CS., vi, I, v. 140, p. 424,Google Scholar it is only in the colophon, and even there only in some MSS., e.g. Tüb. 459 and Decc. 925. In other MSS., as in Tüb. 458, I.O. 335, there are no colophons to any of the formulæ.

^{page 868 note 1} All these passages were first recognized by Dr. P. Cordier. He published a list of most of them in his Réc. Déc., p. 21,Google Scholar and communicated all of them to me privately in October, 1904. Since then I have verified them in my own copy of the Tanjore MS. of the Bheḍa Saṁhitā (on which see my Osteology, p. 38, n. 1Google Scholar). The references to the folios in the list are to those of the original MS. in Tanjore. The Bheḍa Saṁhitā is divided into precisely the same eight sthāna as the Caraka Saṁhitā. Accordingly the Roman numerals i, vi, viii in the list refer to the Sātra, Cikitsita, and Siddhi Sthāna respectively. The chapters (adhyāyā) indicated by Arabic numerals differ in the two Saṁhitā. Accordingly in the list the subject of the chapter is named.

^{page 869 note 1} The copies of that MS., which are in the possession of Dr. Cordier and myself, do not, of course, constitute additional authorities.

^{page 873 note 1} Two similar examples are No. 7 (ṣaṭpala-ghṛta) and No. 16 (prasthavireka), which in the printed Charaka editions are named pañcakola-ghṛta and dantī-harītakī. Neither pair of names is found in any Charaka MS., and the latter pair seems to occur first in Chakrapāṇidatta. Another illustrative case is No. 15, which bears no name at all, in either the Nāvanītaka or the Charaka MSS. In the Charaka editions it is named drakṣādya-ghṛta, and this name again seems to appear first in Chakra-pāṇidatta (ch. xxx, No. 40, p. 349).

^{page 873 note 2} Nāv., v. 135b (= CS., v, 139b), says nava-sarpiṣaś=ca ṣaṭpalam=etat=siddhaṁ ghṛtaṁ peyam, i.e. eight palas of fresh ghee (boiled with the previously mentioned drugs) makes an approved ghee for drinking.

^{page 874 note 1} Another plumbago-root formula, in Bower MS., Part III, vv. 25–36a, is also ascribed to Ātreya.

^{page 875 note 1} A work called Vaidya-prasāraka is repeatedly mentioned in Śrīkaṇṭha's Commentary to the Siddhayoga, e.g. pp. 137, 157, 313, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 876 note 1} Nor are they so attributed in Vāgbhaṭa I's Aṣṭāhga Saṁgraha (iv, 5, 11. 8 ff., p. 26; vi, 9, 11. 5–7, p. 214; iv, 23, 11. 16 ff., p. 130), whence they appear to be quoted, with some variants, by Dṛiḍhabala, the complementor of the Caraka Saṁhitā. In the case of the third formula (No. 31), while the second half is identical with the Caraka version (vv. 38–40), the first half, though identical in substance, differs in diction. In the case of the fifth formula (No. 33), the Jīv. ed. of 1896 appends a final half-line (CS., vi, 28, v. 152b, p. 783)Google Scholar ascribing the formula to Kṛishṇātreya. But this is a spurious addition; it is wanting in all MSS. and all editions (even Jīv.'s own ed. of 1877), except that of Gangādhar, who may have been himself the author of it. There is a similar spurious addition to the navāyasa-cūrṇa in Jīv. ed., 1896, p. 680, v. 69b, ascribing it to Kṛishṇātreya. It, too, is wanting in all MSS. and in most editions, even Jīv. 1877. It first appears in Gangādhar's ed. (1881), p. 377, whence it is taken into the Sena ed. (1897), p. 738. It is also taken into the Sena ed. of Cakrapāṇi's, Cikitsā Saṁgraha (1889), No. 8, p. 149;Google Scholar but it is wanting in the Pyari Mohan ed. (1879), p. 170. It is also wanting in the Siddhayoga, p. 124.Google Scholar

^{page 877 note 1} See also Bower, MS., Part I, vv. 61–7, for an Agastya formula.Google Scholar

^{page 878 note 1} Or Kaśyapa; the spelling varies in the MSS.

^{page 878 note 2} Also quoted by Vāgbhaṭa II in AH., vi, 2, vv. 41–3a,Google Scholar and vi, 3, vv. 48b, 49a.

^{page 879 note 1} If so, it would be a chapter of the Sūtra Sthāna; cf. the name bheṣajāvacāraṇīya of the thirteenth chapter of the Sūtra Sthāna in Vāgbhaṭa I's Aṣṭāṇga Saṁgraha.

^{page 879 note 2} In ch. 1, v. 6, p. 658, he calls it a mahat-tantra, or large Tantra, because it comprises rather more than one-third of the whole Compendium.

^{page 880 note 2} This is the explanation of Ḍ.allana (D.NS., p. 938Google Scholar), and is no doubt correct. He refers, merely to reject it as spurious, to another explanation which identifies Videhapati with Janaka. He does not name the author of this spurious explanation; but the author is Chandraṭa, who actually introduced his explanation into the text of Suśruta. These spurious verses of Chandraṭa may be seen in the Ind. Off. MS., No. 1842 (Cat. 2646), fol. la, vv. 6–8a.

^{page 881 note 1} On the Tantra literature; see also DrCordier, , Réc. Déc., p. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 882 note 1} In this connexion it is worth observing that in the monograph on garlic (laśuna-kalpa), Bower MS., Part I, v. 9 (also v. 40), Suśruta is represented as the “hearer”, or the recipient, of the instruction of the sage-king of Kasi (Kāśīrāja-muni). Notice also that here, too (pp. 879, 882), the formula atha sa bhagavān āha, thus spake that blessed one, i.e. Kāśirāja, occurs.

^{page 884 note 1} To show this in detail would exceed the limits of this paper. A brief statement must suffice. The aphrodisiac formulæ are quoted in AS., vi, 50, p. 411;Google ScholarAH., vi, 40, vv. 23 ff.Google Scholar; C.CS., lxxi, No. 3, p. 726Google Scholar; V.CS., lxx, vv. 11 ff., p. 997.Google Scholar The textual agreements and differences in these quotations, among themselves as well as with the Nāvanītaka versions, seem to point to the latter having preserved the original text.

^{page 886 note 1} For a summary of these theories see JRAS., 1903, pp. 1 ff.Google Scholar, and IA., xxxvii (1908), pp. 25 ff.Google Scholar On the whole, though I agree with ProfessorRapson, (Brit. Mus. Cat. of the Coins of the, Andhra, etc., Dynasties, introd., pp. cv, cviGoogle Scholar) that “the name of the [Śaka] era … may have been derived from the [Western Kshatrapa, Śaka] Kings who used it rather than from the [Kushana] King [Kanishka] who established it”, I am now disposed to believe that the Vikrama theory offers the true solution of the problem.

^{page 888 note 1} In a third recension it is quoted in AS., iv, 2,Google Scholar and AH., iv, 2 on raktapitta.Google Scholar

^{page 889 note 1} The Nāvanītaka, vv. 232–40,Google Scholar too, has a dhānvantara ghee as a remedy for skin diseases, and it may have got this formula from the Bheḍa Saṁhitā, though in the existing mutilated copy of the latter it cannot be traced.

^{page 890 note 1} As to the chapter on dvivraṇī;ya, it may be observed that it is quoted by name in the Caraka Saṁhitā, in the 137th verse of the chapter on visarpa (p. 581Google Scholar). If Charaka was the author of the latter chapter he must, prima facie at least, have been also the author of the former.

^{page 892 note 1} The reference in v. 61 (p. 575) is to the trāyamānā ghee, which is described in the chapter on gulma, vv. 114–17 (p. 493).Google Scholar