________________
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[CHAPTER VI
(4-6), Three Vajkarana-yoga, vv.829-30a, 8336-4a, 8346-5a, corresponding to Susruta Samhita,
IV, 26, vv, 27, 20, 21, The important point with regard to these parallels is that the Amâtisára formule are quoted, not directly from the work of Susruta, but intermediately through the Bhêda Sashita. For in the latter and in the Navanîtaka the text of these three diarrhea formulæ is identical (see Nos, 6-8 in the list of quotations from the Bhêda Samhita), while their common text differs from Suśruta's text in such a manner as to show that the latter is their cominon source." The Návanitaka quotes the three formulæ from the Bhêda Sanhita and the latter derive: them from Suśruta's work. Now the latter, as is well known, is a composite work of two chronologically widely separate, authors. The earlier portion was written by Susruta the Elder, who lived probably in the sixth century B.C., while the later portion, which calls itself Uttara Tantra, or the Later Treatise, was added by an anonymous writer, who may provisionally be called Susruta the Younger. Mediaeval Indian medical tradition identifies him with Nâgârjuna, the reputed contemporary of King Kanishka. This would make him also a contemporary of Charaka, so that both the Sanhitd of the latter and the Uttara Tantra of the former would have been compiled at much the same time. Each link in this chronological chain is still a matter of doubt and dispute; but tortunately that circumstance does not affect the point at issue in the present discussion. Whatever the true identity and date of Susruta the Younger may be, there can be no doubt that his work belongs to the early sanhita period of the Indian medical literature, that is, the period to which also the Charaka Sanhita and the Bheda Saxihitd belong. Susruta the Younger not only added his Uttará Tantra, a Salákya-tantra or treatise on Minor Surgery, as a complement to the earlier tantra, a salya-tantra or treatise on Major Surgery, of Suśruta the Elder, but he also revised the latter work. Thus the result of his labours, that is the Ayurveda Sastra of Suśruta, as We now have it, is essentially a sauhitd work, a compendium of older materials, similar to the Charaka Sashitd; and therefore it is rightly known also as the Susruta Sasihita.
The Uttara-tantra does not profess to be an original composition. In its introductory verses it expressly describes itself as a compilation, and cnumerates the tantras, or treatises, on which it bases itself. These are, firstly, a treatise on áálákya, or minor surgery, by Nimi, t'he Vidê ka-pati or ruler of Vidêha; Secondly, treatises on kumâra-badha, or children's diseases, composed, accurding to the mediæval commentator Dallana (in the 12th cent. A.D.) by Jivaka, Pârvataka, and Bandhuka; thirdly, the six treatises on kdya-chikitsa, or internal medicine, composed by the six paramarshi, or supreme medical authorities, that is, obviously by the six well-known pupils of Atrêya. It is equally obvious, that in the connection in which the six treatises are mentioned, they cannot refer to any sahild, but must refer to the original tantras of Agnivéśa, Bhêda and the rest. In fact, there is no evidence that any saihita, based on the tantras of the four other pupils, Ksharapaui, Jâ¢âkarda, Harita, and Parabara, ever existed; for the so called Hárita Sahhitá is now generally admitted to be a medieval apocryphal compilation. It is evident, therefore, that in the time of the compiler of the Uttaratantra the original treatises of those four "supreme authorities " were still extant, and were accessible to him.
For detailed proof, 82e my paper in the J.R.A.S., 1909, pp. 884-5. " See my Osteology of the Ancient Indians, pp. 3,9.
