Sushrut Samhita

Author(s): Sushrut Maharshi, Narayanram Acharya
Publisher: Chaukhambha Orientaliya

Page 17

( xvi ) go through all these texts and study the textual versions critically. The great labour involved in such a gigantic work way be imagined well. Moreover, Dalhana too had his own version which he did not mention explicitly but going through his commentary minutely and comparing it with the text it can be detected. In deciding the version, Dalhana has not followed blindly any previous commentator but has always used his descretion. Sometimes, he follows Gayadasa or Jejjata or rejects both but sometimes he takes decision based on the views of majority of commentators or old tradition. Applied utility was always in his mind. Looking to this situation, the reader has to be very cautious in going through the present text and has to use his critical acumen in deciding the version as Dalhana has done. Even then it would be difficult for anybody to claim that his version represents sincerely the original version of Sursuta. Dalhana mentions Gayadasa as having special position among the scholars presenting correct versions of the text which shows that regarding textual versions he had particular leaning towards Gayadasa. He has also mentioned of a South Indian tradition which was not popular in North. Regarding Susruta, it seems that there were two distinct traditions one of VIddha Susruta and the other of Susruta. Dalhana has bitterly criticised some of the versions as 'pramada patha. Some of the textual versions accepted and commented upon by Dalhana does not seem to be correct. For example, 'fafar stay'would be more acceptable and intelligible in the form of 'fafast say which is perhaps the original and correct text. Sivadasa Sen, the last classical commentator of the later medieval period, has also referred to Dalhana's version in his commentary? and more than once has also criticised it because it did not tally with the ancient tradition or the majority view. Since long the edition of the Susruta samhita along with the commentaries of Gayadasa and Dalhana duly edited by Acarya Yadavaji Trikamji was out of print and market. The present edition fulfils this long awaited need of scholars for which the publishers deserve sincer thanks. Varanasi, November 15, 1980. P. V. Sharma 1. S. Ci. 9.69. 2. S. Su. 29.44. 3. S. Su. 16.32. 4. S. Ci 37.7, 38.93; also Ci. 31.8. 5. S. Su. 25.30, 27.9. 6. S. Ci. 16.43. Sivadasa Sen gives his version as 'fafasi waq'. Further he comments that Candrata had read it as 'fafasi yay! He also mentions the version 'fafaa ' which is evidently Dalhana's (See Carakadatta, Vidradhicikitsa, 20 ). 7. Cakradatta, Trspacikitsa, 7, 10 (Also 2.3 ), 8. Ibid.