on what became of the carakasaṃhitā after dṛḍhabala’s revision

7/29/2019 On what became of the Carakasahit after Dhabalas revision

1/22

On what became o the Carakasahitate Dhabalas evision*

PhiliPP A. MAAs

Univesity o Vienna, Austia

Keywods: Agniveatantra, Carakasahit, Caaka, Dhabala, Sanskit tex-tual citicism, Stemmatics

Eve since the ealy days o Indology it is well-known that the oldest classicalyuveda wok in Sanskit, the Carakasahit (between about 100 B.C.E. andC.E. 200, accoding toHIML IA/114), contains two accounts o its own ealytextual histoy.1 In Siddhisthna 12.36cd-12.38a, accoding to Tikamjis thid,

* Wok on this pape has been geneously suppoted by the Austian Science Fund (FWF)in the context o FWF pojects P17300-G03 (Philosophy and Medicine in Ealy Classi-

cal India I) and P19866-G15 (Philosophy and Medicine in Ealy Classical India II).

The pesent pape was oiginally ead at the symposium yuveda in Post-classical

and Pe-Colonial India, at the Intenational Institute o Asian Studies, Leiden on 9 July

2009. I would like to thank Susanne Kammlle o having checked the English o this

pesentation and Dominik Wujastyk o his valuable comments on an ealie vesion o

the pesent pape. I am deeply indebted to the ollowing institutions o having libeally

povided these pojects with copies o manuscipts o the Carakasahit Vimnasthna:

B.J. Institute o Leaning and Reseach (Ahmedabad), Bhogilal Lehechand Institute oIndology (Alipu), Ganganath Jha Kendiya Sanskit Vidyapeetha (Allahabad), Rajas-

than Oiental Reseach Institute (Alwa, Bikane, Kota, and Udaipu Banch), Oiental

Institute (Baoda), Asiatic Society o Bombay, Tinity College Libay (Cambidge), Lal

Chand Reseach Libay (Chandigah), Mahaaja Sawai Man Singh II Museum (Jaipu),

Raghunath Temple Libay (Jammu), Gujaat Ayuved Univesity Libay (Jamnaga),

Nepal-Geman Manuscipt Pesevation Poject (Kathmandu and Belin), Asiatic So-

ciety (Kolkata), Calcutta Sanskit College (Kolkata), National Libay (Kolkata), India

Oce Libay (London), Oiental Reseach Institute (Mysoe), Anandasham (Pune),

Bhandaka Oiental Reseach Institute (Pune), Univesittsbibliothek Tbingen, Benaes

eJournal of Indian Medicine Volume 3 (2010), 122


2/22

PhiliPP A. MAAs2

authoitative edition (Tikamji 1941), Dhabala (ca. th centuy C.E., accod-ing to HIML IA: 141), who is geneally egaded as the nal edacto o theCarakasahit2 (om heeon CS) states that:

vistrayati leokta sakipaty ativistaram ||saskart kurute tantra pura ca punarnavam |atas tantrottamam ida caraketibuddhin || saskta.

A edacto expands what was stated [too] biey, abbeviates what is tooextensive and [theeby] makes an ancient copus o knowledge (tantra) newagain. Theeoe Caaka, who was exceedingly intelligent, evised this high-est copus o knowledge.

Hee we ead that a edacto named Caaka evised an ancient wok in ode toenew it. The name o the evised wok is not stated explicitly hee, but accod-ing to CS Cikitssthna 30.289 cd (on which c. below) and accoding to thesthna-colophons thoughout the CS, Dhabala ees to the copus o knowl-edge composed by Agnivea, i.e. theAgniveatantra.

Dhabalas account o the evision o the oiginalAgniveatantra by Caakapovides some inomation on Dhabalas own attitude towads the textual ta-dition o yuveda. Dhabala tells us that the olde wok was in need o evi-

sion. The eason o this, howeve, is not some deciency in content. Accodingto Dhabala, Caaka was unsatised with the way in which knowledge was im-pated to the eade; the edaction is theeoe meely motivated by a concenabout style, and not about content. The act that Dhabala does not ee to aqualitative change o medical knowledge in time is not supising at all i weemembe the taditional account o how yuveda came to be known to man-kind. Accoding to CS Stasthna 1.3-5, it was the sage Bhadvja who e-ceived the knowledge o yuveda om the god Inda.3 yuveda, accodingly,

Hindu Univesity (Vaanasi), Saasvati Bhavan (Vaanasi). The Anup Sanskit Libay(Bikane) kindly povided access to its Carakasahit Vimnasthna manuscipts.

1 See Codie 1903: 328.

2 C.HIML, vol. 1 A: 132-135.

3 CS Stasthna 1.1.3-5: drgha jvitam anvicchan bharadvja upgamat | indram ugratap

buddhv arayam amarevaram || 3 || brahma hi yathproktam yurveda prajpati |

jagrha nikhilendv avinau tu punas tata || 4 || avibhy bhagav chakra prati-

pede ha kevalam | iprokto bharadvjas tasmc chakram upgamat || 5 || Bhaadvja,

possessing ece ascetic powe and desious o a long lie span, appoached Inda ate

he had peceived that the lod o (immotal) gods was his euge. Since in the beginning


3/22

On what became of the Caakasahit after Dhabalas revision 3

is said not to be o human oigin. And even the gods, among whom Bahm wasthe st to possess this knowledge, neithe developed no invented yuveda,since accoding to the commentato Cakapidatta, yuveda came to the

mind o the all-knowing god Bahm all by itsel.4 yuveda, in consequence,is without a beginning and peect, and it is, accoding to this taditional view,in itsel beyond any need o utue impovement.5 This is not tue, howeve, othe liteay woks o yuveda.

Dhabala addesses the issue o the quality o the CS in the passage imme-diately ollowing my st citation (Siddhisthna 12.38- 12.40b):

tat tv asapra tribhgenopalakyate |tac chakara bhtapati saprasdya sampayat||

akhartha dhabalo jta pacanade pure |ktv bahubhyas tantrebhyo vieochailoccayam ||saptadaauadhdhyyasiddhikalpairaprayat|

It was, howeve, obseved that this [copus o knowledge] was incomplete byone thid. So Dhabala, who was bon in the town Pacanada, popitiatediva, the lod o beings, and nished [this tantra] with peect sense. Atehaving peomed collections o picking up gains and gleaning eas o spe-cial subjects om many tantras, he lled it with seventeen chaptes [o the

book] on medical substances, the Siddhi- and the Kalpa[sthna].6

This inomation accods with the othe account o the Carakasahits textualhistoy, which occus in Cikitssthna 30.289-290:

Pajpati completely masteed yuveda as it was explained by Bahm; and the two

Avins leaned it again om him; [and] the veneable Inda eceived it completely om

the Avins; theeoe Bhaadvja, who had been addesses by the sees, appoached In-

da.

4yurvedadpik on CS Stasthna 1.1.4 (5a36-38): brahmaas tu paramaguror vidita-sakalavedasya yurvedajna svata siddham eveti na gurvantarpek. But o

Bahm, who is the highest teache [and] who knows all knowledge compehension

o yuveda is obtained completely by itsel; thus [his knowledge] does not depend

upon anothe teache. This account o the oigin o yuveda agees logically with CS

Stasthna 30.27, 1., accoding to which yuveda is etenal (vata).

5 Aleady Pollock (1985: 512 f.) obseved that vitually all Sanskitic stras do not aspie

to impove thei content by the discovey o what has neve been known beoe, but

stive ate a ecovey o what was known in ull in the past.

6 Fo a difeent tanslation c.HIML vol. 1 A: 130.


4/22

PhiliPP A. MAAs4

asmin saptadadhyy kalp siddhaya eva ca |nsdyante gniveasya tantre carakasaskte ||tn etn kpilabali en dhabalo karot|

tantrasysya mahrthasya prartha yathtatham ||

In this copus o knowledge [composed] by Agnivea, which was evisedby Caaka, seventeen chaptes as well as the Kalpa- and the Siddhi[sthna-chaptes] wee ound to be missing. These emaining [chaptes] o that im-potant copus o knowledge wee popely composed by Dhabala, son oKapilabala, in ode to complete it.7

Dhabala elates that he ound the CS to be incomplete by a thid o its text,

and that he added two books, i.e. the Kalpa- and the Siddhisthna, as well asseventeen chaptes on medical substances. Without additional inomation,the nal pat o this statement could natually be taken as a eeence to the nalseventeen chaptes o the Cikitssthna.

Since the sequence o chaptes vaies in difeent vesions o the Cikitssthna as well as in difeent vesions o the table o contents towads the end othe Stasthna8 it is dicult to detemine which chaptes Dhabala added tothe CS and which belong to the olde stock o text. This poblem was addessedin the ealy histoy o Indology by Codie (1903) and Hoenle (1908).

Hoenle (1908:1000) pesented two sequences o chaptes in a table (c. ta-ble no. 1, below) deived om the editions o Gagdhaa (1868) and Jvnanda(1896).9

He explained that the sequence o chaptes in Jvnandas edition is suppot-ed by the table o contents towads the end o the CS Stasthna in manu-scipts C5b and (patly)L1d.10 The sequence o chaptes in Gagdhaas edition,accoding to Hoenle, is backed by the table o contents in manuscipts L1d

7 Fo a slightly difeent tanslation c.HIML vol. 1 A: 130.

8 The potions o text containing the two difeent text vesions ae: oe rasm atsrevsarpe ca madtyaye || dvivraye tathonmde syd apasmra eva ca |kataoo{ead

tho]dare caiva grahapurogayo || hikkvse ca kse ca chardis tvieu ca |

(Jvnanda 213.16-19) and oonmde py apasmre kataothodarrasm || 59 ||

grahapurog vsakstisrim |chardivsarpatn viamadyavikrayo

|| 60 ||dvivraya ... (S 30.59cd-61a accoding to Tikamji); c. Codie 1903: 329.

9 Fo a suvey o pinted editions o the CS see http://www.istb.univie.ac.at/caaka/Matei-

als/120.

10 Fo manuscipt sigla see the Sigla o available manuscipts at the end o the pesent

pape, p. 15.


5/22


(patly), P3d, T1d, and T2d, as well as by the actual sequence o Cikitssthnachaptes in manusciptsL1d, P3d, T1d, and T2d. It also agees with the actualsequence in the manuscipt IO 359, which is today peseved in the BitishLibay, London. Hoenle agued that the sequence o chaptes in Gagdhaasedition is the oiginal one and that, accodingly, chaptes nine to thiteen o thisedition wee composed by Caaka.

Moe ecently, Meulenbeld discussed the question o which Cikitssthna

chaptes go back to Caakas evision o the Agniveatantra and which weeadded by Dhabala. He based his discussion on eeences to the authoshipo individual chaptes by the commentato Jajjaa (ca. seventh centuy C.E.,accoding toHIML 1A: 194) and by mediaeval Indian commentatos one othem being the amous Cakapidatta (towads the end o the eleventh centuyC.E., accoding toHIML IIA: 93) as well as on the basis o the colophons tothe Cikitssthna chaptes in Tikamjis edition. Meulenbeld concludes withcetainty that Caaka composed the ou chaptes on aras, atsra, vsarpaand madtyaya. He is less condent with egad to the authoship o the chap-

te entitled dvivraya, which he egads as Caakas composition only on thebasis o the elative weight o the evidence, ... because the chapte colophons,being latte additions, cannot be elied upon; this is conmed by Jejjaa, whoascibes chapte twenty ve [i.e. dvivraya] unhesitatingly to the cya, i.e.,Caaka (HIML IA: 131).11

11 The name o this ancient commentato on the CS is spelled difeently in difeent souc-

es. I pee the spelling adopted in Zysk 2009, which is based on the evidence o the oldest

econstuctable vesion o chapte colophons in the Nirantarapadavykhy, i.e. Jajjaas

commentay on the CS.

No. Gagdhaa Jvnanda No. Gagdhaa Jvnanda

9. unmda aras 18. ksa udara

10. apasmra atsra 19. atsra graha

11. kataka vsarpa 20. chardi pu

12. otha madtyaya 21. vsarpa hikkvsa

13. udara dvivraya 22. t ksa

14. aras unmda 23. via chardi

15. graha apasmra 24. madtyaya t

16. pu kataka 25. dvivraya via

17. hikkvsa otha

Table no. 1: chapte numbes and titles o Cikitssthna chaptes in the editions o Jvnanda

and Gagdhaa; c. Hoenle 1908: 1000 and Codie 1903: 328.


6/22

PhiliPP A. MAAs6

Accoding to the chapte colophons in Tikamjis edition, the chaptescomposed by Caaka ae chaptes outeen (ara), nineteen (atisra), twenty-one (visarpa), twenty-thee (via), and twenty-ou (madtyaya). Non o the

manusciptsAp1d

,Ba1d

,J2d

andJp1d

, which due to thei espective stemmati-cal positions (see below, p. 9) may be taken to peseve eadings o the oldesteconstuctable vesion (i.e. the achetype), wheeve they shae a commoneading, has chapte colophons in the Cikitssthna that ee to Dhabalasauthoship. The inomation that cetain chaptes wee composed by Dhabalaappaently was neithe contained in the achetype no in any o the compaa-tively old econstuctable witnesses, which became stating points o the mainlines o tansmission. Theeoe it is highly pobable that Dhabala himseldid not indicate the chaptes he added.

Meulenbeld appaently ovelooked that Cakapidatta, at least accodingto the vesion o theyurvedadpik in Tikamjis edition (which Meulenbeldcites himsel inHIML IB: 220, n. 301), also took the dviraya chapte to be thewok o Caaka.12 Accodingly, thee is no eason to seiously doubt that it wasCaaka who also composed thischapte.

The commentatos stating with Jajaa egad the ve chaptes aras,atsra, vsarpa, madtyaya and dvivraya as pat o the olde statum o thewok. Exactly these chaptes occu in Jvnandas vesion, one ate the othe,as chaptes numbe nine to thiteen, wheeas they ae dispesed in Gagdhaas

vesion in the latte hal o the Cikitssthna as chaptes numbe outeen, nine-teen, twenty-one, twenty-ou and twenty-ve.

Meulenbeld (HIML IA:131 .) emaks coectly that settling the question owhich chaptes belong to the oldest statum o the CS Cikitssthna does notsolve the poblem o the oiginal sequence o chaptes. He ends his discussiono this topic by stating that [m]ost scholas egad Jvnandas aangement asa seconday development. This view is suppoted by the table o contents inchapte thity o the Stasthna, the ode o chaptes in the Nidnasthna, and

12saptadadhyy iti cikitssthne saptadadhyy; te ca carakasasktn yakma-cikitsitn tn av adhyyn, tathrotsravisarpadvivrayamadtayayoktn vihya

jey (yurvedadpik ad CS Cikitssthna 30.289-290 (645b28-30)). Seventeen

chaptes means seventeen chaptes o the Cikitssthna. And these ae [all chaptes]

with the exception o those evised by Caaka, i.e. the [st] eight chaptes [up to the one

entitled] Yakmacikitsita [and] likewise [the chaptes] entitled Aas, Atsa, Visapa,

Dvivaya and Madtyaya. Cakapi lists the same ve chaptes in a slightly difeent

sequence as aras, atsra, vsarpa, madtyaya and dvivranya in his commentay on Ci

9,1 (see Tikamji 1941: 467b,19) and states expessively that these chapte ae the ve

chaptes evised by Caaka (pacdhyy carakasaskt).


7/22


the commentaies o Jejjaa and Cakapidatta.The evidence mentioned by Meulenbeld in suppot o the thesis that the se-

quence o chaptes as ound in Jvnandas edition is seconday in compaison

with the aangement o chaptes in Gagdhaas edition is, howeve, inconclu-sive. The commentatos Jajjaa and Cakapidatta lived, o couse, compaa-tively ealy, i.e. beoe the manuscipts could have been witten, om which thepinted editions o Jvnanda and Gagdhaa wee nally poduced. Jajjaalived ca. 200 yeas ate Dhabala, and Cakapidatta even ca. 600 yeas.The sequence o chaptes in Jajjaas commentay theeoe indicates that al-eady at an ealy date the same sequence as in Gagdhaas pinted editionwas cuent.13 Whethe this sequence is the oiginal one, o whethe it is theesult o an ealy evision, cannot, howeve, be detemined without additional

inomation.The sequence o chaptes in the Nidnasthna (which deals with symp-

toms o diseases) could povide this inomation only unde the conditionthat an obvious similaity to eithe o the two conicting chapte sequencesin the Cikitssthna (which deals with the teatment o diseases) wee dis-cenable. As a as I can see, this is not the case. Admittedly, the sequence oNidnasthna chaptes six (oa, wasting diseases), seven (unmda, insanity),and eight (apasmra, epilepsy) eminds slightly o the sequence o chapteseight (rjayakman, consumption), nine (unmda, insanity), and ten (apasmra,

epilepsy) in Gagdhaas vesion, since rjayakaman is one o the consump-tive diseases. Howeve, this esemblance alone does not justiy the conclusionthat Gagdhaas sequence is the oiginal one. In Jvnandas sequence unmdaand apasmra also ollow immediately one ate the othe (as topics outeenand teen).

Finally, as we have seen above (p. 4), two difeent vesions o the table ocontents at the end o the Stasthna ae tansmitted, each o which coe-sponds to one o the two difeent sequences o chaptes in the Cikitssthna.Accodingly, neithe o the two tables povides evidence o the oiginality o

the one o othe sequence o chaptes.The question o which sequence o Cikitssthna chaptes in the CS is the

oiginal one denitely deseves a moe compehensive teatment than the one Ican ofe hee. Fo my pesent pupose it is, howeve, sucient to highlight thatthe existence o two difeent sequences, which ae both eected in two di-eent metical tables o contents, indicates that the CS may have been evisedthooughly at least once ate the supposedly nal edaction o Dhabala had

13 C. the citical edition o chapte colophons o Jajjaas commentay on the Cikitssthna

in Zysk 2009: 92.


8/22

PhiliPP A. MAAs8

taken place. One may theeoe ask, what happened to the CS ate Dhabalasevision? An impotant souce o inomation is, o couse, the degee o tex-tual difeence between the CS as we know it today and the vesion which

Dhabala poduced ca. 1,500 yeas ago.The two consecutive eseach pojects Philosophy and Medicine in EalyClassical India I and II unde the diection o Kain Peisendanz o the Uni-vesity o Vienna, Austia, ae devoted to pepaing a citical edition o thethid book o the CS, the Vimnasthna (om heeon Vi). In the couse o thesepojects, copies o ty-ou manuscipts have become available. All o thesemanuscipts oiginate om the nothen pat o India, with the exception o aquite moden pape manuscipt om Mysoe (siglumMk).

With egad to scipts, the manuscipts all into ou goups: Besides the

aleady mentioned manuscipt in Kannaa scipt, we have oty-thee manu-scipts witten in Devanga, nine in Bengali scipt and one single manusciptwitten in ad.

Fiteen o these manuscipts can be dated om the inomation povided inscibal colophons. The oldest was witten in 1592 (Ap1d), the youngest in 1875(V3b) C.E., and the aveage date o all dated manuscipts is 1750.

Fo the last ew yeas, I have been woking upon the nal section o theCS Vi, i.e. Vi 8.67-157. This passage has 4,112 wods and wod stems in com-pounds, moe than 98% o which have at least one vaiant in one o moe manu-

scipts.Based on the assumption that each copyist changes the text vesion he nds

in his exempla, the theoy o textual citicism as omulated by Paul Maas andothes povides a tool to ceate a genealogical tee (a stemma) o all availablevesions o the wok in question by identiying vaiants that ae chaacteistico the difeent lines o tansmission (c. P. Maas 1958 and West 1973).

In pactise, howeve, a numbe o sevee impediments tend to hinde the suc-cessul application o stemmatic analysis. The most seious poblem is, withoutdoubt, textual contamination. Textual contamination occus when two (o moe)

vesions o a text ae meged into one. A scibe, while pepaing a new copy,might use not only one single exempla, but much like some moden editoso ancient texts compae difeent specimens. As a esult o this compaison,he coects appaent mistakes in his main vesion, which he could not havedone had he not been awae o the text vesion in the seconday exempla. Theuse o difeent vesions thus esults in anothe new vesion with chaacteisticvaiants that ae not in accodance with its stemmatic position. The new vesionappeas close to the achetype than it eally is, because it has ewe mistakesthan it could have i it wee just a plain copy o its exempla.

In spite o these diculties, it has been possible to ceate a athe eliable


9/22


hypothetical stemma o the tansmission o the passage unde investigation.Figue 1: A hypothetical stemma o CS Vi 8.67-15714

14 Continuous lines show diect dependence. Boken lines indicate contamination. Vaiants

o manuscipts with sigla pinted in bold ae decisive o the constuction o the stemma

(c. Maas 2009b: 32.). This stemma supesedes the stemma in Maas 2009a: 166, which


10/22

PhiliPP A. MAAs10

The methods I used to ceate the stemma do not have to concen us hee, sincethey ae the subject o Maas 2009b. Vey biey stated, my analysis o vaiantsintegated two complementay appoaches: A compute-based cladistic analy-

sis (i.e. a quantitative appoach) and a philological discussion o vaiant ead-ings (i.e. a qualitative appoach).In the ollowing pat o the pesent pape I shall pesent an outline o the

development o the CS Vi ate Dhabalas evision with a special ocus on thetwo difeent banches o tansmission that lead om achetype A to the twohypachetypes K and E, and om thee uthe on to the individual manusciptso the amilies K and Q. This desciption will be supplemented by a discussiono selected vaiant eadings.

The time span between Dhabalas evision, which appeas at the vey top o

the stemma and the copying o the oldest econstuctable vesion, i.e. achetypeA, was athe shot. This is to be ineed om the low numbe o only teenmistakes that wee ound in ou econstuction o the achetype in Vi 8 67-157.

One o these ew eos occus at Vi 8.108,1 in a passage descibing how apatients stength (bala) is to be detemined.15 Hee Caaka pescibes that thephysician should examine the patient with egad to the eight supeme con-stituents o the body (sra). These constituents then povide the basis o atypology o patients. The depiction o each type o patient consists o two pats.The st pat names eatues o the patients body that indicate the existence o

cetain qualities, and the second pat lists these qualities. Patients having ma-ow (majan) as the supeme body constituent ae chaacteized as mdvagbalavanta snigdhavarasvar having tende limbs, stength and an agee-able complexion and voice. But the occuence obalavanta in all availablevesions within this list o bodily eatues must be a mistake. Having stengthis one o the special qualities listed in the second pat o the desciption, andom thee the wod balavanta was appaently miscopied into the list o bodilyeatues. This eo, like all othe mistakes in the achetype, is clealy caused bya simple scibal slip.

Below achetype A, the tansmission is split into two lines which lead to thetwo hypachetypes K and E, espectively. K is the oldest witness o the Kash-mii vesion. As ealy as 1903 Codie emaked that the textual quality o theKashmii vesion was supeio to that o the vulgate vesion in pinted editions(Codie 1903: 329). The basis o this obsevation was Codies eading othe ad manuscipt peseved at the Bhandaka Oiental Reseach Institute,

was constucted on the basis o an initial cladistic analysis.

15 Chapte-, section- and line numbes ee to Tikamjis thid, authoitative edition o the

CS.


11/22


Pune (i.e. ou P1). Codies judgement, howeve, cannot be wholly endosedtoday, because it is neithe quite tue with egad to the vesion tansmitted inP1, no o that o hypachetype K.

The most obvious chaacteistic o vesion K is its bevity. Fo example, inCS Vi 8.83,1 is has dvividh parka jnavatm as against dvividh tu kha-lu jnavatm. In 84,1 vesion K eads daavidha parka as againstdaavidha tu parka , and in 84,4 K eads anubandha yu vesus anu-bandha tu khalv yu.

The elative conciseness o vesion K is not only conned to the use oemphatic paticles and conjuncts. In contast to all othe vesions it quiteequently does not have a edundant copula in connection with a pedica-tive noun. Fo example, in 84,7. we ead kradni sadaritni in K as

against kradni sadaritnibhavanti; and in 8.86.56 K has bhiak samartha as against bhiak samartho bhavati.

In judging the tempoal elationship o these vaiants, thee hypothesespesent themselves, namely that the Kashmii vesion is an abbeviated vesiono the oiginal, o that vesion E has been extended in couse o the tansmis-sion, o, nally, that vesion K as well as vesion E ae both individual evisionso the achetype.

Vesion K is also emakable o the act that it etains oiginal eadingswhich ae lost in othe pats o the tansmission, while in othe places its text is

quite heavily coupted. A single example may pove the latte point.In Vi 8.68 Caaka lists ten shot denitions o topics (prakaraa) that a phy-

sician has to know in ode to each his aim without too much efot. One othese topics is the stating point o what hat to be efected (kryayoni). In84,3. Caaka denes this topic as kryayonir dhtuvaiamyam The statingpoint o what has to be efected is the unsuitable atio o bodily constituents.Due to a simple witing eo, the second akara o the st wod krya- is miss-ing in vesion K. Accodingly, the denition appeas in K as the meaninglessquestion: k yonirdhtuvaiamyam.16

The act that vesion K as well as vesion E both contain oiginal eadingsas well as eos povides necessay (and sucient) evidence to detemine theposition o these vesions in the stemma. Both must go back diectly to theachetype, though by an unknown numbe o intemediate copies. With egadto vesion K it is emakable that many obvious eos wee neve coected

16 The eason o this eo was pesumably a kind o haplogaphy o two simila akaras,

viz. rya andyo. I this is tue, the eo must have occued at a time o the tansmission,

when the CS Vi was not (yet?) witten in ad scipt, in which the akaras rya andyo

ae quite dissimila (c. Slaje 1993: 34 and 57).


12/22

PhiliPP A. MAAs12

in the couse o tansmission. Bhle in 1877 epoted that manuscipts omKashmi ae equently cooked, i.e. that lacunae and deects in the oiginalae lled accoding to the ancy o the Pandit who coects them (Bhle 1877:

33). Such a pocedue is, howeve, not to be obseved in case o the KashmiiCS Vi. The Kashmii copyists o the most pat peseved the CS as they oundit in thei espective exemplas and copied it to the best o thei ability. Theyneithe invented missing passages no did they use seconday exemplas omoutside Kashmi to contaminate thei lines o tansmission. Only at a compaa-tively late date, when K31, the common exempla oJ1d andJ3d, was pepaed,did a scibe consult a Bengali vesion in ode to coect mistakes in his mainexempla. The basic attitude o this scibe, howeve, still was consevative. Heetained a lage numbe o Kashmii peculiaities in othogaphy, and wheeve

the Kashmii as well as the Bengali vesion both have an acceptable text, thescibe o K31 eithe stuck to his main Kashmii exempla o combined bothvesions. In the subsequent couse o tansmission, uthe instances o con-tamination occued inJ1d, inJ3dand in P2d. In all thee vesions the souce ocontamination stems om the easten pat o India.

A completely difeent attitude towads the eceived text can be ineedom the vaiant eadings that wee intoduced in the line o tansmission lead-ing om hypachetype E to the ineed witness Q. Among the appoximately100 changes that occued in the latte hal o Vi 8, thee ae quite a numbe o

mino syntactical changes. In 86,5., o example, Caaka states that a physi-cian should question his own capability to accomplish his goal. The physicianshould ask himsel kaccid aham asya kryasybhinirvartane samartha, na?Hopeully I am able to poduce this esult, o not? The nal na puts the pe-ceding statement slightly into question, but on the whole the speake, as a as Ican see, is quite condent o his own capability to succeed.

The case is difeent in vesion Q, whee the disjunction v is inseted at theend o the sentence: aham asya kryasybhinirvartane samartha, na v? AmI able to poduce this esult o not? In this eading, ailue and success o the

physician ae equally possible, and the speakes implicit sel-condence o theoiginal vesion thus seems to be lost.

Othe slight textual changes in vesion Q occu o example in Vi 8.89,6with prabodhana instead opratibodhanam waking up, in Vi 8.89,8.(cvypatti instead ocvypattir iti), in 97,1 (drutam o dravam liquid),and in 98,10, whee the wod loma- hai o the body has been inseted ightate keamaru hai o the head and the bead.

Vesion Q not only contained a compaatively high numbe o edactoialchanges, but also shows a consideable numbe o obvious tansmissional e-

os, i.e. involuntay mistakes that must have occued duing the tansmission


13/22


om Z. The poo state o pesevation o the CS Vi in Qs exempla also ex-plains why the scibe elt obliged to change the text so equently.

The act that the Kashmi vesion is in pats supeio to othe vesions was

noticed by the scibes in goup Q aleady at the compaatively ealy point otime when Q11 was copied. This can be concluded om the paticula way inwhich a tansmission eo in Q was coected in Q11. Fom Vi 67 onwadsAp1dhas a long lacuna which extends om hy akalu 67,6 to -bhedennyena v in81,6. This gap in the text was caused by a missing lea. A passage o almostidentical size is tansposed in Q22 to a wong position. The most plausible ex-planation o this phenomenon is to assume that the missing text oAp1d wasaleady lost in Q. Late, the scibe o Q11 noticed the lacuna and copied themissing text om a seconday exempla eithe in the magin o his manuscipt

o onto a new olio. His coection was not popely undestood when Q22 waspepaed, and, as a esult, the text passage was misplaced.

It is possible to identiy the souce om which the passage was insetedinto Q11 om a connective eo which occus in Vi 8.71. This passage, again,biey denes the mateial cause o medical teatment: kryayonis tu s yvikriyam kryatvam padyate What tuns into what has to be efected whenit is changed, is the souce o what has to be efected. The pesent paticiplevikriyam was coupted to vikrayam aleady in K, and it is this eadingthat also occus in Q22. Since it is vey unlikely that the same witing eo oc-

cued independently in K and in Q22, a manuscipt o the K amily must almostnecessaily have been the souce o this eading in Q22, and also in Q11, since thewhole passage that was missing in Q was intoduced en block.

To sum up: The attitude o the copyists o the K amily towads thei e-ceived text difes consideably om that o the copyists o amily Q. The Kash-mii copyists until elatively ecent times used to copy vesion K exclusivelywithout taking eeence to othe vesions. Emendations and othe delibeatetextual changes ae compaatively ae in all Kashmi witnesses with the nota-ble exception oJ1d,J3dand P2d.

In amily Q, howeve, the eceived text was teated difeently. The scibestied to impove the eceived text om a elatively ealy date onwads byemending it and by compaing difeent vesions. A citical distance towadsthe eceived text appaently pevailed in this line o the tansmission.

Thee is, nevetheless, one thing both attitudes have in common: They aim ata pesevation o the CS Vi, although by difeent means. New ideas in the eldo yuveda, like pulse-diagnosis, the use o new substances in phamacologyetc. which became cuent in post classical yuveda wee not intoduced intothe CS Vi at any stage o its tansmission ate Dhabalas evision had taken

place.


14/22

PhiliPP A. MAAs14

How does this esult o eseach into the tansmission o the CS Vimnasthnat to the conclusion eached above on p. 6 that the CS as a whole was pob-ably evised at least once ate Dhabala had edacted the complete wok?

When, o at which point o the tansmission, was this new evision executed?Aleady Codie noticed that the text o Jvnandas edition o the CS is simi-la to the vesion tansmitted in manuscipt P1. Fom this similaity and omtwo eeences in the Madhukoa to Kashmii eadings (kmrapha) o theCS, he ineed that P1 contains with all pobability the Kashmi ecension othe CS (Codie 1903: 329).

Ou eseach in the tansmission o the CS Vi conms Codies conclusionin so a as P1 does indeed belong to a goup o closely elated manusciptswhich shae as a common ancesto hypachetype K exclusively as against the

est o the tansmission. All o these manuscipts contain the complete set oeight sthnas that make up the complete wok, and all o them have the same se-quence o Cikitssthna chaptes as Jvnandas pinted edition; both in the tableo contents towads the end o the Stasthna as well as in the actual sequenceo chaptes. In contast to this, all manuscipts containing a Vimnasthna de-ived om hypachetype E i.e. manusciptsL1d, P3d, T1d, and T2d, accodingto Hoenle (c. p. 4 above), as well asAp1d,Jp2dandBa1d, accoding to my owneseach have thei Cikitssthna chaptes aanged in the same sequence asGagdhaas pinted edition. I take this to indicate that the stemmatic hypoth-

esis developed on the basis o CS Vi 8.67-157 at least in its boad outline isapplicable not only to the complete Vimnasthna, but also at least to pats othe Sta- and the Cikitssthna, i not even to the complete wok.

Nevetheless, the stemmatical hypothesis cannot help in answeing the ques-tion o which o the two conicting sequence o chaptes in the Cikitssthna isthe oiginal one. Since the two sequences ae tansmitted in two hypachetypes,eithe vesion (o none) may be oiginal (c. P. Maas 1958, 8.e, p. 6). Accod-ingly, the question concening the elative chonology o the two vesions o theCS is insoluble at the pesent time.


15/22


Sigla of available manuscripts

Scipts: b Bengali dDevanga k Kannaa ad

Ad Alwa, RORI 2498, n[ot] d[ated]

Abd Ahmedabad, B.J. Institute o Leaning and Reseach 758, n.d.

Ap1d Alipu, Bhogilal Lehechand Institute o Indology 5283, d[ated] 1592 C.E.

Ap2d Alipu, Bhogilal Lehechand Institute o Indology 5527, n.d.

B1d Bikane, RORI 1566, d. 1797 C.E.

B2d Bikane, Anup Sanskit Lib. 3985, n.d.

B3d Bikane, Anup Sanskit Lib. 3986, d. 1653 C.E.

B4d Bikane, Anup Sanskit Lib. 3995, d. 1649 C.E.

B5d Bikane, Anup Sanskit Lib. 3996, n.d.B6d Bikane, Anup Sanskit Lib. 3997, n.d.

Ba1d Vadodaa, Oiental Institute OI 12489, n.d.

Ba2d Vadodaa, Oiental Institute 25034, n.d.

Bod Mumbai, Asiatic Society 172, d. 1864 C.E.

C1b Kolkata, National Lib. RDS 101, n.d.

C2b Kolkata, Calcutta Sanskit College 23, n.d.

C3b Kolkata, Calcutta Sanskit College 24, n.d.

C4b Kolkata, Asiatic Soc. G 4474/3, n.d.

C5b Kolkata, Asiatic Soc. G 2503/1, n.d.C6d Kolkata, Asiatic Soc. G 4391, n.d.

Cab Cambidge, Tinity College Lib. R 15.85, n.d.

Chd Chandigah, Lal Chand Reseach Lib. 2315, n.d.

Ib1d Ilhbad, G. Jha Kendiya Sanskit Vidyapeetha 25398, n.d.

Ib2d Ilhbad, G. Jha Kendiya Sanskit Vidyapeetha 8783/87, d. 1860 C.E.

Ib3d Ilhbad, G. Jha Kendiya Sanskit Vidyapeetha 37089, n.d.

J1d Jammu, Raghunath Temple Lib. 3266, n.d.

J2d Jammu, Raghunath Temple Lib. 3209, n.d.

J3d Jammu, Raghunath Temple Lib. 3330, n.d.Jn1d Jamnaga, Gujaat Ayuved Univesity Lib. GAS 103, n.d.

Jn2d Jamnaga, Gujaat Ayuved Univesity Lib. GAS 118, n.d.

Jn3d Jamnaga, Gujaat Ayuved Univesity Lib. GAS 96/2, d. 1868 C.E.

Jp1d Jaipu, Mahaaja Sawai Man Singh II (MSMS) Museum 2068, dateable to beoe

1690 C.E.

Jp2d Jaipu, MSMS Museum 2069, d. 1757 C.E.

Jp3d Jaipu, MSMS Museum 2561, d. 1633/34 C.E.

Kd Koa, Rajasthan Oiental Reseach Institute (RORI) 1563, n.d.

Kmd Kathmandu, N-GMPP E-40553, d. 1832 C.E.


16/22

PhiliPP A. MAAs16

L1d London, India Oce Lib. (IOL) Skt. ms. 335, n.d.

L2d London, IOL Skt. ms. 881, n.d.

L3d London, IOL Skt. ms. 1445b, n.d.

Mk Mysoe, Oiental Reseach Institute 902, n.d.P1 Pune, Bhandaka Oiental Reseach Institute (BORI) 555 o 1875-76,

d. 1688 C.E.

P2d Pune, BORI 534 o 1892-95, n.d.

P3d Pune, BORI 925 o 1891-95, n.d.

P4d Pune, nandama 1546, d. 1799 C.E.

T1d Tbingen, Univesitts Bib. (UB) I.458, n.d.

T2d Tbingen, UB I.459, n.d.

T3d Tbingen, UB I.460 + I.474, n.d.

Ud Udaipu, RORI 1474, n.d.V1b Vaanasi, Saasvati Bhavan 44842, d. 1698 C.E.

V2b Vaanasi, Saasvati Bhavan 108824, d. 1838/39 C.E.

V3b Vaanasi, Saasvati Bhavan 108685, d. 1875 C.E.

V4d Vaanasi, Benaes Hindu Univesity C3688, n.d.

V5ad Vaanasi, Saasvati Bhavan 44870, n.d.

V5bd Vaanasi, Saasvati Bhavan 44870, n.d.


17/22


Signs, group sigla and abbreviations used in the Appendix

.. illegible akara.

. illegible pat o an akara. missing akara indicated by the scibe.

blank space in a line o text with the beadth o ca. one akara.

+ akara illegible due to damage o the manuscipt.

* halantacihna (virma).

| daa.

Witness does not tansmit the vaiant unde discussion due to a lacuna.

[xy] Text in squae backets was deleted in the manuscipt.

Text in pointed backets was added in the magin o the manuscipt o elsewhee.

2 text added by a second hand.{xy} illegible text inAd, econstucted on the basis o the eading peseved in C6d.

ac ante correctionem.

om. omitted.

pc post correctionem. The supescipt gue 2 indicates that the coection was made

by a second hand.

rp. epetition. Text was mistakenly copied a second time.

tp. tansposed. Text is omitted hee, but occus at a difeent position.

vl. varia lectio within a epeated passage.

A all manuscipts deived om the achetype.A Adand C6d.

B4 B4d andL3d.

B5 B5d,Jn1d andJn2d.

C2 C2b and C3b.

E all manuscipts deived om hypachetype E.

Jp1 Jp1d and Ud.

K all manuscipts deived om hypachetype K, i.e.Ad, C6d, Chd,J1d,J2d,J3d,Jp1d,

P1, P2d, Ud.

K11 Chd,J1d,J2d,J3d, P1.K12 Ad, C6d,Jp1d, P2d, Ud.

K22 Jp1d, P2d, Ud.

K31 J1d,J3d.

P1 P1,J1d,J2d andJ3d.

Q all manuscipts deived om the ineed witness Q, i.e.Ap1d,Ap2d,B3d, C1b, C2b,

C3b, C4b, C5b,L2d,Mk, P3d, V1b, V2b, V3b, V5ad, V5bd.

Q11 C1b, C2b, C3b, C4b, C5b,Mk, V1b, V2b, V3b, V5ad, V5bd.

Q12 Ap1d,Ap2d,B3d,L2d, P3d, V5ad, V5bd.

Q21 C5b,Mk, V2b, V3b.


18/22

PhiliPP A. MAAs18

Q31 C5b,Mk.

Q32 V2b, V3b.

R all manuscipts deived om the ineed witness R, i.e.B1d, B2d, B4d, B5d, B6d,

Bod,Ib3d,Jn1d,Jn2d,Jn3d,Jp2d,Jp3d, Kd,L1d,L3d, T1d, T3d, V4d.R11 Jp2d,Jp3d, T1d.

R12 B1d,B5d,L1d,Jn1d,Jn2d.

R13 Ib3d, T3d.

R14 B2d,B4d,B6d,Jn3d, Kd,L3d, V4d.

S Abd,Ba1d,Ba2d, Kmd, P4d,Ib1d,Ib2d, T2d.

S11 Abd,Ba1d,Ba2d,Ib1d,Ib2d, T2d.

S12 Kmd, P4d.

V1 V1b and C1b.

V5 V5ad and V5bd.Z all manuscipts stemming om the common exempla o the ineed witnesses Q

and R.


19/22


Appendix: Variant readings

The Appendix lists all vaiant eadings o CS Vi 8 discussed in the pesent

pape. Section and line numbes at the beginning o each enty ee to the textas edited in Tikamji 1941, which seves as ou eeence text. Vaiant eadingso the manuscipts ae ecoded in a completely positive appaatus, which isoganized with lemmata. These lemmata cite the eeence text and end with asquae backet. Next, all textual witnesses in suppot o the main text ae listed(o sigla etc., c. Signs, goup sigla and abbeviations used in the appendix,on. p. 17, above). A minus sign heading a list o manuscipts within ound back-ets immediately ollowing a goup siglum indicates that the listed witnesses aenot included in thei goup. A semicolon sepaates the list o witnesses om the

st vaiant, which in tun is ollowed by the sigla o witnesses that shae thiseading etc. Witnesses that do not tansmit the vaiant unde discussion due to alacuna ae listed at the end o each enty with a peceding dagge ().

67,6-81,8. hetumanto hy akalu pakvidhibhedennyena v vidhibhedapa-

ktyantaea

hetumanto v] A (Q22Jn3d); tp. Q22; Jn3d

hy v] A (Ap1dJn3d); om.Ap1d; Jn3d

71 kyayonis tu s y vikiyam kyatvam padyate.

vikiyam] K31 Q21 (C5b) R11B6dCabP1 (pcP1)L2dP2d; vikiyamnB3dP3d;vikyamAUd; vikayam K (K31AJ2dP2dUd; acP1) Q22 (C1b); vikamamn

C1b; dhikiyam E (Q11 R11Ap1dB3dB6dCabL1dL2dP3dV5); dhikiyamtL1d;

dhiki V5; Ap1dC5b

83,1 dvividh tu khalu pak jnavatm.

tu khalu] E (Q31 R13B2dBodV4d); tu [..] khalu V4d; tu khalu R13; tu khalu puna

K31; tuB2d; khaluBod; om. K (K31) Q31

84,1 daavidha tu pakyam.

daavidha tu] E (B3dB4B5C4bC5bJp2dKmdT1dT3dV5); daa vidha [u] tu

B3d; tudaavidha tuB5; daavidha taJp2d; daavidha tu T1d; daavidhn tu C4b;daavitu Kmd; daavidha K (C6d;pcAd) C5b; daavidhyaA (acAd); daabuddhi

T3d; daa vitdaavidha tuB4; om. V5

84,4 anubandha khalv yu.

khalv] tu khalv E (Q31B3dP4dV5ad;pcV5bd); tu khaly P4d, tu khlv V5bd (ac), tu

khlv V5ad; om. K Q31B3d

84,7. iti kadni daa daasu bhiagdiu sasya sadaitni.

-daitni] K (K31) Q31B3dL2d; daitni bhavati K31 E (Q31B3dIb3dKdL2d);

sadaitni bhavatiIb3d; + + + + bhavati Kd

84,3. kyayoni dhtuvaiamyam.


20/22

PhiliPP A. MAAs20

kya-] K31 E (Ib2dJn3dV1b) Chd (pc) P2d; kyaIb2d; ky V1b; kyaJn3d; k

K (K31P2d; acChd)

86,5. kaccid aham asya kyasybhinivatane samatho na veti?

na veti] K31 Q (B3dL2dV5); na ceti R11 (2pcT3d); na cemi T3d(ac); naicetiBod; vetiL1dT1d (2pc); veti V5; ceti Chd; neti A (K31 Q11 R11Ap1dAp2dB2dB5BodChdL1d

P3dV5; acT1d); natiB2d; netiB5 (Jn1d); itiJn1d

86,5. bhiag dhtusmybhinivatane samatho bhavati.

bhavati] K31 (pcJ1d) E (S12BodC5b); bhavatiti Kmd; bhavaviti P4d; bhavetiBod; om.

K (K31) C5b; J1d(ac)

89,6 sukhena ca pabodhanam

pabodhanam] Q (Q31Ap2dB3dL2dV5); patibodhana A (Q22 Q32Ap1dP3dUd);

patibodhana Ud

89,7. savkai manobuddhndiy cvypatti itiiti] A (Q22 Q32Ap1dAp2dBodP3dV5); om. Q (Q31B3dL2d); Bod

97,1 pittam ua tka dava visam amla kauka ca.

dava] A (Q22 Q32Ap1dB1dJp2dKdKmdP3dT3dV5); dava Kmd; duta Q (Ap2d

B3dL2dMkV5); dutaJp2d; dumaB1d; bhavati T3d; + + Kd; V5

98,10 puyt pauakeamauomanakhadaanavadanapipd.

-oma-]Mk; loma K31 Q (L2dMkV5); lom V5 (pcV5bd); lom V5bd (ac); om. A

(K31 Q11Ap1dAp2dB3dP3dV5)

108,1. mdvag balavanta snigdhavaasva sthladghavttasandhaya ca majja-

s.balavanta]AChdJ3dMkP2d; valavalavantaB3d; balavanta ca E (S12B3dC2Jp3d

KdMkV4dV5ad; vlT3d;pcB1dJn1d); balavanta calaJ1d; balavata caB1d(ac)

Jn1d(ac); balavata caJp3d; baladvant ca T3d; vata V5ad; S12P1 (K31) C2Jp1Kd

V4d


21/22


Literature and abbreviations

Bhle 1877

Geog Bhle,Detailed Report of a Tour in Search of Sanskrit MSS. Made in Kash-mir, Rajputana, and Central India. Extra Number of the Journal of the Bombay

Banch o the Royal Asiatic Society, 1877.

Codie 1903

Palmy Codie, Rcentes dcouvetes de mss. mdicaux sanscits dans lInde

(1898-1902).Memoire presente au Congres des Orientalistes de Hanoi (1902). Le

Muson nouv. sie 4 (1903), 321-352. Repinted in Rou 1989.

CS Carakasahit. See Tikamji 1941.

Gagdhaa 1868

Atharvvavedopaga yurvvede Carakasahit. mahaimunivaaCaakaviacit.asy Stasthnanma pathamasthnam. madGagdhaakavijakaviatna-

viacitay Jalpakalpatausamkhyay vykhyay sahita tenaiva saodhitam.

Kaliktym iyut Bhuvanacandavaskamahodayasya pthanay taddvaivasa

Savdajnaatnkakhyayante 1925 savatsae muditabdham.

HIML Geit Jan Meulenbeld,A History of Indian Medical Literature. 3 vols (in 5 pats).

[Groningen Oriental Studies 15]. Goningen: Fosten, 1999-2002.

Hoenle 1908

A. F. Rudol Hoenle, Studies in Ancient Indian Medicine IV. The Composition o

the Caaka Samhita, and the Liteay Methods o the Ancient Indian Medical Wit-es. (A Study in Textual Citicism). Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great

Britain and Ireland(Oct. 1908), 997-1028.

Jajjaa mahariPunarvasuiyea ivarea Agniveena pra mahmunin Carakea

Kpilabalena Dhabalena ca pratisaskt Carakasahit, mahmahopdhyy

aCaakacatunanaCakapidattaviacitay yuvedadpikvykhyay (tath

cikitssthnata siddhisthna yvat) VgbhaaiycyavaaJajjaaviacitay

Niantaapadavykhyay ca savalit. yuvedcyea pa. Haidattasti

saodhit, pitaJajjaaktuitabhg ca. (dvitytti) , lavapiyapaj

basasktapustaklaydhyakai motll banasds ity etai svakye mumbasaskta ity khye mudalaye mudpayitv pakit. [savat 1997, san

1940].

Jvnada 1896

Carakasahit, stra-nidna-vimna-rrendriya-cikitsita-kalpa-siddhisthn-

tmak. yuvedya bhagavat teyea Punavasun upadi Agnivea-nma-

dheyena tatiyea viacit Caakbhidhena i patisaskrt, vi. e. updhidhi

Jvnanda Vidysgaa Bhacyyea bahni daapustakni samlocya

saskt pakit ca. Saasvat yante mudit i. 1877 sl.


22/22

PhiliPP A. MAAs22

Maas 2009a

Philipp A. Maas, Towads a Citical Edition o the Carakasahit Vimnasthna

Fist Results.Indian Journal of History of Science 44,2 (2009) 163-185. Coected

vesion aivailable online at http://www.istb.univie.ac.at/caaka/esults/117/.Maas 2009b

id., Compute Aided Stemmatics The Case o Fity-Two Text Vesions o

Caakasahit Vimnasthna 8.67-157. In: Jgen Hannede, Philipp A. Maas et

al. (ed.), Text Genealogy, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique. Vol. 1. = Wiener

Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdasiens 52 (2009), 68-119. In the pess.

P. Maas 1958

Paul Maas, Textual Criticism. Tanslated om the Geman by Babaa Flowe. Ox-

od: Claendon, 1958.

Pollock 1985Sheldon Pollock, The Theoy o Pactice and the Pactice o Theoy in Indian Intel-

lectual Histoy.Journal of the American Oriental Society, 105,3 Indological Studies

Dedicated to Daniel H. H. Ingalls (Jul. - Sep., 1985), 499-519.

Rou 1989

Aion Rou, Travaux sur lhistoire de la mdecine indienne. Un demi-sicle de

echeches yuvdiques. Gustave Litad et Palmy Codie. [Publications de

lInstitut de civilisation indienne. Sie in-8o, 56]. Pais: Collge de Fance, Institut

de civilisation indienne, 1989.

Slaje 1993Walte Slaje, rad. Deskiptiv-synchone Schitkunde zu Beabeitung kasch-

miische Sanskit-Manuskipte. Au de Gundlage von Kualas Ghaakharpara-

Ghadpik und unte gaphische Mitwikung von Eva Slaje. [Indische Schriften

1]. Reinbek: Inge Wezle, 1993.

Tikamji 1941

Carakasahit: Caraka Sahit by Agnivea. Revised by Caraka and Dhabala.

With the yurveda-Dpik Commentary of Cakrapidatta. Ed. by Jdavji Tikamj

cya. [Krishnadas Ayurveda Series 66]. Vaanasi: Kishnadas Academy, 2000

(ep. o the ed. Bombay 1941).Vi Vimnasthna.

West 1973

Matin L. West, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique. Applicable to Geek and

Latin texts. Stuttgat: Teubne, 1973.

Zysk 2009

Kenneth G. Zysk, Sanskit Commentaies on the Carakasahit With Special Re-

eence to Jajjaas Nirantarapadavykhy. eJournal of Indian Medicine 2 (2009),

83-99.

on what became of the carakasaṃhitā after dṛḍhabala’s revision

Documents