________________
CHAPTER VI]
BOWER MANUSCRIPT
Ivii
of the six parallels in the Suáruta Savhità, above listed, the three amatisára formula (Nos. 1-3) occur in the Uttara.tantra. Two conclusions follow from this circumstance. First, as the Uttara-tantra complements the so-called Susruta Sarhitá, or the Ayurveda Sastra, the latter work must have been in existence at the time of the compilation of the Navanitaka. Secondly, as all the six treatises (tantra or kalpa) of the pupils of Atrêya existed at the date of the compilation of the Uttara-tantra, it is not unreasonable to assume that they still existed somewhat later when the Ndvanitaka was compiled; and that those formulæ whichi cannot be identified either in the Charaka Samhitd or in the Bhêda.Sasihita, and of which the Ndvanitaka does not expressly name the author, may have been extracted from the works of the four pupils of Atrêya, which were still current as great medical authorities (paramarshi or maharshi ), and which might be quoted without any necessity of specification,
To return to the question of the upper limit for the date of the Ndvanitaka, it is now seen that both, the Charaka Sakita and the Susruta Sanhita, must have been in existence at the time when the Ndvanitaka was compiled. Moreover there must have been some interval of time between the compilation of the Ndvanitaka and the Susruta Savihitd. For the three Á mátisara formulæ, above referred to, are quoted by the N Quanitaka, not directly from the Uttara-tantra, but intermediately from the Bhêda Sahhita. The latter itself presupposes the existence of the Susruta Samhita; for it not only refers to Sursuta by name (as Susrôtd), but also teaches one of his distinctive doctrines (regarding the gulma disease). Also, some not inconsiderable interval of time must be allowed for the two Sahitds of Charaka and Susruta acquiring that acknoweldged position of standard works which enabled the author of the Ndvanitaka ta quote formulæ from them without the necessity of naming them as his
source.
The upper limit, accordingly, is determined by the dates of the three Sanhitas, o Charaka, Susruts, and Bheda. About the date of the Bhêda Samhitd we know nothing whatsoever. That of the Susruta Savihita, as before intimated, is entangled in a net of uncer. tainties. The date of the Charaka Samhitá alone offers an apparent chance of settlement, It is bound up with the date of the celebrated King Kanishka, at whose court, as tradition tells us, Charaka lived as the royal physician. Unfortunately the date of Kanishka itself is still in dispute; but the most probable theory is that which places him in the middle of the first century BC, as the founder of the well-known Samvat Era. Taking this date for Kanishka as the upper limit, and allowing the necessary interval for the growth of the Samhitda into standard authorities, the second century A.D. may be taken provisionally as the time of the compilation of the N dvanitaka,
There are two points in the Navanitaka, which farour the assignment to it of such a Very early date. One concerns its language, the ather its sources. The former will be dealt with in Chapter VII. As regards its sources, all those which the Navanitaka specifically
" For the evidence, see my paper in the Journal, R. As. Soc., for 1909, pp. 883.
* Much less probable are the two rival theories which place Kanishka in the first century, A.D., as the founder of the Saka Era in 78 A.D., and in the middle of the second century A.D. respectively.
