________________
lxiv
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[CHAPTER VI.
Nepal Manuscript of the year 1183 A.D (303 Nepal Era); the latter, that of the oldest commentator, Chakrapânidatta, who lived about the year 1060 A.D. With regard to six of the eleven chapters, which must have belonged to the original samhita, both traditions agree, They differ only with regard to the three chapters on arias, âtisâra, and visarpa, which Chakrapanidatta assigns to Charaka, while the chapters which the Nepal Manuscript assigns to him, are those on kshatakshina, svayathu, and udara. Now the Nâvanîtaka contains quotations from the former, but none from the latter three chapters; and as its author lived many centuries earlier than Dridhabala, it is obvious that, to judge from this testimony, the tradition of the commentator is to be preferred to that of the Nepal Manuscript. For a detailed statement of the case, which does not strictly come within the scope of the present Introduction, reference may be made to two papers of mine on the Composition of the Charaka Samhitâ in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1808, pp. 997 ff. and 1909, pp. 857 ff.
NOTE.-With regard to the loss of early Indian medical works, referred to on p. liv, I may now (Febr. 1914) add that among the manuscripts recovered by Sir Aurel Stein in the course of his second tour of exploration in Chinese Turkestan, 1906-8 (ante, p. iii), from the immured temple library in the Caves of the Thousand Buddhas near Tun Huang (see his Ruins of Desert Cathay, Vol. II, pp. 28, 29, 171-194, 211-219), there were two incomplete but extensive pôthis, which have since, upon examination, been found by me to be medical works. They are written in Khotanese, one of the two hitherto unknown" languages; one written in upright, the other in cursive Gupta characters; but they are obviously translations from Sanskrit originals, apparently no longer surviving in India. One of these two incomplete pôthis still comprises 65 folios, and professes to be the Sindha-sârä Sasträ, that is in Sanskrit Siddha-sara-Sastra. It appears to treat of Pathology, in which the names of chapters on arias, bhagandara, panduroga, hikka, ivdsa, kása, mátrakṛchchhira, udávartta, unmada, apasmára, vátavyádi, visarpa, krimi, nétraroga can be distinguished. The other pôtlf which is written in cursive script, and of which 71 folios survive, appears to treat of Therapeutics; but its name is not known.
Both pôthis are still awaiting a thorough examination and translation, but a somewhat more minute examination of a portion of the text of the cursive pôthi has disclosed the fact that it contains a number of formule which are practically identical with corresponding ones. in the Charaka and Bhêda Samhitâs, while the majority of them can, for the present, not be traced elsewhere. It suggests itself as possible that the two pôthis, between them, may represent the Nidina and Chikitsita portions of a Samhitâ, which is based on the same sources as the Charaka and Bhêda Samhitâs, but of which the original Sanskrit text is no longer surviving in India.
Fragments of a third medical pôthi in Kuchean, the other hitherto "unknown" language of Kuchar, or Kucha (ante, p. 1, footnote 2). has also been discovered by Professor Sylvain Lévi. This pôthi, too, includes formulæ reminiscent of similar ones in the Charaka Samhita; and it may possibly be a translation of the same original Sanskrit text.
Whether, and in what way, the text of these pôthis may affect the question discussed in Chapter VI must wait till after the completion of the thorough examination and translation of them which is now in progress.
