DALHANA'S VERSION OF THE SusRUTA SAMHITA

P. V. SHARMA*

It appears from Dalhana's commentary that there were differentversions of the text of the Susruta Samhita prevalent in different tradi-tions. Commentators' belonging to different traditions have held up·their respective traditional version and have presented their commentaryon that basis. Jejjata, Gayadasa, Karttikakuu da etc., had their owntraditional versions. Sometimes Dalhana has mentioned a number ofversions 1 of the single text.

Apart from the academic traditions, there may be regional basisalso as we see KasmIra recension of the Caraka Sarnhita. Similarlythe Susruta Sarnhita might also have recensions according to regionalfactor.

While presenting his interpretation, Dalha na has discussed therevarious textual versions exposing their traditional controversy. Fordoing so, he had to go through all these texts and study the textual ver-sions critically. The great labour involved in such a gigantic work canbe well imagined.

Moreover, Dalhana, too, had his own versio n which he did notmention explicitly but going through his commentary minutely and com-paring it with the text, this can be detected. Some of the samples havebeen given here (Table 1)-

In deciding the version, Dalhan a has not followed blindly anyprevious commentator, but has always used his discretion. Sometimes,he follows Gayadasa or Jejjata or rejects both but sometimes he takesdecision based on the views of majority of commcnta tors or old tradi-tion. Applied utility was always in his mind.a

* Deptt. of Dravyaguna, Faculty of Indian Medicine, Banaras Hindu UniversityVaranasi.

28 Bulletin Ind. Inst. tu«. Med. Vol. IX

Looking to this situation. the reader has to be very cautious ingoing through the present text and has to use his critical acumen indeciding the version as Dalhana has done. Even then. it would bedifficult for any body to claim that his version represents sincerely theoriginal version of Susruta. Dalhana mentions Gayadisa as having specialposition among the scholars presenting correct versions of the text 8

which shows that regarding textual version he had particular leaningtowards Gayad asa.

He has also mentioned of a South Indian tradition which was notpopular in north. 4.

Regarding Susruta, it seems that there were two distinct traditions.one the followers of Vrddha Susruta and the other those followingSuhuta.5•

Dalhana has bitterly crticised some of the versions as' pramadapatha: 6

Some of the textual versions accepted and commented upon byDalhana do not seem to be correct. For example tinisaindhavam 7

would be more acceptable and intelligible in the form of tinisam dhavamwhich is perhaps the original and correct text.

Some of the versions seem to be doubtful at first instance thoughIt IS not possible to propose alternative versions. The following maybe seen:

1. Yavak amstavakan (S. Ci. 28. 19). Here Dalhana interpretsti}vaki}n as tavak ibhavan which is not at all intelligible.

2. SajlrakaI)yardraSrnglbera sauvarcalani (S. U. 47. 80). Thisbeing in the form of bahuvrj hi compound is adjective of madyani butardrakahngaberasauvarcalani does not fit here. To solve this anomaly.Dalhana has proposed that -saha' may be understood before ardraka.(ardrakasyadau sahasabdo boddhavyah ). But this is stretching too far.In fact. the reading seems to be wrong; it may be saji rakamrardraka-Srngabera sauvarcalani.

3. Kriya va. manus i yasmin sagrahah parikjrtyate (S. U. 60. 40.).Correctly the reading should be sa grahi parikj rtyate.

Dalhana's version of the Susruta Samhita =Sharma 29

4. Kuljraksaudramanduklsiddham tailam ca pnjitam. (S. U.21. 45).

The first and the last words have been intepreted as karkataSrIigi andbrahmj bheda respectively but the word ksaudra has been left uninterpre-ted. Evidently honey is not used in the preparation of tailas and as suchthe reading seems to be incorrect.

5. Svarasairbhr gga vrk~a~am (S. U. 35. 4.). The word bhrIigahas been interpreted as patrabhajjga which as prefix does not fit withthe word vrksa, this anomaly is perhaps due to faulty version.

6. Pibedyusam saharjakam (S. U. 42. 111). Here the wordarjaka has been interpreted but saha is left out in the commentary. Itmay be saha meaning mudgaparni on meaning with. In the later case.the better reading would be pibedyusaiica sarjakam.

sivadasa Sena, the last classical commentator of the later medievalperiod, has also referred to Dalhana's version in his commentarys andmore than once has also critised it as it did not tally with the ancienttradition or the majority view. I)

TABLE I

Existing version Dalhana's version

'*IllT '1m<r ~~~:~Tt:lfr arrr.rlfTll"f

iJ,fCcPT:w:rT\ilfT:

~CfiT:

~uf &T'W

'*Il1l tmf<r, ~1fl: (~. 32.4).

~~T1!:q arriflfT1!"f (~. 47.7)

cr~: 'Sflf1m:rr:(~. 44.11)

iJ,f~: (~. 44.23).

~crfuf ~i:' ~~.44. 51)

~)('<f\lf<ifil

lItllfGdfd T'ffi': mTl'1T:

ap:{>flEUj (:f'<! m:m~ft:;tl}j ~~~

~omA:

~ mollTur:.•

llll{>tIfGcti :;n~

~~T

q<;ffq

~q-onfTl!"1

f~q'~~

1. S. 11.39-42

Bul/etin ["d. Inst, Hut.Metl. J'~I.IX

}

. ~ :.fkifitf<ifil (~. 44.82)

~~ ~ ~ur: srar.rr: (~. 46.46).

3l~ ~ ~mf~ ff'i.a~ lffilt (~. 46.167)

~fq~~ (~ 46.361)

<fRi ~m;Mur: (.f:q 38.118)

~~;;r: (<fi. 4 26)

~Ti q:~liPn': ('fl. 6.21)

~'fi'TGI'T~ (". 39.156)

~arfwia+£ C,,· 39.234)

1¥1'1t:q¥O~<fi (\3. 39.236)

~~~"''''Ir~'1lr~ (". 39.290)

~Tb"t¥Oal1S61(". 40.72)

'iTOT f~1='llT (". 42.49)

+r~t ~: (". 43.16)

~~'Td<ii'hr'T+rlf:~1<T;(". 44. 14)

mmf~~ (".44.27)

CflQ20Cflq.:>"'I'i~l(s- 48.21).

~ (". 48.23)

~Ten f~~ (". 60.40)

f~cfif~T (". 61.23)

NOTES

Dalhana'« version of the Susruta Samhita =Sharma 31

3f~ tni qf<;:~u ;:rqifu, cif'NfeqfoCR~~q" qfocr: I S. 11.2.24.

3WIl~ whtdl,!;alf(f~: cif'Nfm~mVf mer: I S.91.42-76

~~~ ;jj"'"Iclf~M: ~ ~ , S. Suo 13-4.

~:q .••. :•.••..•.•• ~:qq: ttOf.cr, 'fi!! f.lar;a-~ ~ ~Tf~ltTN f<?lfuld¥J.1S. Suo 12-28.

3. qfS:»tCflICflI'IJI~ 2; m~ ttTO~~~

f"iunaq I~~1.fTdf~: s4'i.llJ(H;ast~~:c, ~

S. Suo 29-44.

S. Suo 17-37

S. Suo 16.32

5. ~~~~GT5lJlflJ<T:

~~mt-<frflJ"'f: I

S. C. 1.37-7; 38.93. also Ci. 31.8.

S. Suo 15-28, 30, U, 25-4

S. Suo 25-30. 27-9.

S. U. 89-217.

S. Suo 46-69.

7. S. Ci. 16-43.

Sivadasasena gives this version as tinisatvacam. Further hecomments tha t Candra ta had read it as tinisam dhavam. He also

...;.. .mentions the version tinisaindhavam which is evidently Dalhanats(See Carakadatta, vidradhicikitsa 20).

8. 6~~i!! 'd"~Cf l!'fal"t' ~~ 'lJ"qf<:a;:r'

~fd" qR;cCfT•....•...•.. OlJ"T:q~ I &fT~m;JclJ"~

~<:'e:[d"1l ~fd" ~(;f'f: G"Ofd"I Cakradatta, tr snacikitsa 7-19. also. 2,3.c. .••• ••

9. 6~~i!! llt!Cflfllcl:f?r 'll~Cfl~ err' ~fd" qfOcCfTo~T~ lJ"f1;cll~\jf(;ffllfd' Ia=r ,!CfCf ~~'c[ I '+n!<:T If'OT:'~ClJ":;r'S('~llT <rvr:' ~fd" ~~'f: qfuccrrFf<W<:<mTrfGlfOT~fd" ~, d"f mm~ srgf~: o41€4Idc"lTq: I ibid.

32 Bulletin Ind. Inst, Hist. Med. Vol. IX

SUMMARY

The commentary of Dalha na suggests that there were different ver-sions of the tex t of Susru ta Samhita. Dalhana had his own version .

•and he used his discretion to decide the correct text. Sometimes hefollows Gayadasa or Jejjata or sometimes rejects both. Applied utilitywall always in his mind. He mentioned a South Indian tradition also.The article also gives a table of some samples which on minute compari-son show that Dalha na had his own version of Susruta Samhita.

~~ cpr O<:froH ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~mT~ fcf; ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ qro

~ ~ I ~1lT cpT ~T qro ~T 31T< ~1 ~ ~ QTo Cjjf f<f1lflj rn ~f~ ~Cf~

ctit ,f4l'1'dl ~ Cjjfif f<>«ITI cp~TQ~ crT ~\NfG m ~T ~ Cjjf aqif~'" rn ~f.I;~ ~~ ~~Rr ~ GT'fr ~ ~1li~fcpnf ~ ;;nit ~ I ~~cp '3'flrTflffiT ~

~ ~Cf1qf~ ~r I ;jr~T~ 1ZcpGf~1lT ~Hqrlj ~~ cpT ~ISI' 'lfT Rim ~ 1 B"ISI'

~ ~ "GT~~ m~r if; ~Q if fGli iTli ~ f~ ~~+rate<flR ~ ~~lj cpT srfuqTI~

<ImIT ~ fcp ~~~~f~m cpT ~~ 1lT"n<t if; qm 3T'l'fT ~r qro ~T I