![]() ![]() All serious consideration of this complex question must show awareness of this work. The most detailed and extensive consideration of the date of the Suśrutasaṃhitā is that published by Meulenbeld in his History of Indian Medical Literature (1999-2002). ![]() However, the oldest manuscripts we have of the work already include the sixth section. ![]() The internal tradition recorded in manuscript colophons and by medieval commentators makes clear that an old version of the Suśrutasaṃhitā consisted of sections 1-5, with the sixth part having been added by a later author. Ĭentral to the problem of chronology is the fact that the Suśrutasaṃhitā is the work of several hands. Boslaugh dates the currently existing text to the 6th-century CE. Scores of scholars have subsequently published opinions on the date of the work, and these many views have been summarized by Meulenbeld in his History of Indian Medical Literature. Hoernle's date of 600 BCE for the Suśrutasaṃhitā continues to be widely and uncritically cited in spite of much intervening scholarship. The composition date of the Brahmana is itself unclear, added Hoernle, and he estimated it to be about the 6th century BCE. Over a century ago, the scholar Rudolf Hoernle (1841 – 1918) proposed that given that the author of Satapatha Brahmana, a Vedic text from the mid-first-millennium BCE, was aware of Sushruta's doctrines, Sushruta's doctrines should be dated based on the composition date of Satapatha Brahmana. That person alone is fit to nurse or to attend the bedside of a patient, who is cool-headed and pleasant in his demeanor, does not speak ill of any body, is strong and attentive to the requirements of the sick, and strictly and indefatigably follows the instructions of the physician. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |