|Year : 2011 | Volume
| Issue : 2 | Page : 147-153
Comparative studies of Bhanumati and Nibandha Samgraha with special reference to Arista Vijnana (prognostic science)
Pradip Kumar Goswami
Department of Samhita and Sanskrit, Faculty of Ayurveda, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India
|Date of Web Publication||2-Feb-2012|
Pradip Kumar Goswami
Department of Samhita and Sanskrit, Faculty of Ayurveda, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi - 221 005, Uttar Pradesh
| Abstract|| |
Ayurveda is serving the mankind for centuries with a holistic approach. This system has preached to treat the diseases which are only curable by the physicians. It has advised the physicians to strictly avoid treating the incurable diseases. In order to assess the incurability of the diseases or the incurable state of a patient; this system has preached the signs and symptoms of incurability which are known as arista-vijnana, which have been described in Brhattrayi of Ayurveda. Though Caraka has placed them in a separate section of his treatise, Cakrapani and Dalhana have also spent a considerable portion in their commentaries dealing with arista-vijnana. They were two renowned scholars who have commented with a depth of wisdom on Susruta Samhita. In this paper, the author has tried to present the comparative and critical comments of both commentators based on Bhanumati and Nibandha Samgraha, respectively, over arista-vijnana as described in Sutrasthana of Susruta Samhita. Dalhana was greatly influenced by Caraka Samhita with regard to the prognostic science. On the other hand, Cakrapani repeatedly recognized the superiority of the indriya-sthana of Caraka Samhita with regard to analysis of prognostic science.
Keywords: Arista , Bhanumati, Cakrapani, Dalhana, Indriya-sthana, Nibandha Samgraha
|How to cite this article:|
Goswami PK. Comparative studies of Bhanumati and Nibandha Samgraha with special reference to Arista Vijnana (prognostic science). AYU 2011;32:147-53
|How to cite this URL:|
Goswami PK. Comparative studies of Bhanumati and Nibandha Samgraha with special reference to Arista Vijnana (prognostic science). AYU [serial online] 2011 [cited 2015 Jan 30];32:147-53. Available from: http://www.ayujournal.org/text.asp?2011/32/2/147/92540
| Introduction|| |
In comparison to Caraka Samhita, Susruta Samhita does not contain indriya-sthana, which is generally observed in samhitas belonging to Atreya sampradaya. Susruta has well discussed concepts of prognostic sciences (arista-vijnana) and their importance in medical science and matter related to arista-vijnana is available in sutra-sthana. The third chapter of sutra-sthana, i.e. Adhyayana-sampradaniy-amadhyaya (slokas 8-9),  gives indications of the contents of arista-vijnana which are discussed in the chapters 28-33.
Cakrapani while commenting on the beginning of the indriya-sthana of Caraka Samhita stated that diseases are to be treated only if they are curable. A physician should know the signs which indicate the incurability of diseases and their complex phenomena leading to the death of a patient. 
Thus the section dealing with the prognostic aspect of diseases, i.e., indriya-sthana of any samhita, is very important and as such it has been given place before the section of cikitsa-sthana (treatment). Indra here means vital breath/life (prana) and its end-indicating signs are rista, which are known as indriya. Thus the section dealing with this is also known as indriya-sthana. 
| Materials and Methods|| |
The present study is mainly literary in nature and therefore, mainly views of both the commentators are independently interpreted, critically discussed, and later are compared with each others'.
Selection of texts
- Dalhana , Nibandha Samgraha Tika on Susruta Samhita along with Naya Candrika Tika on Susruta Samhita of Gayadasa, edited by Acharya Yadavji Tikamji, Chaukhambha Orientalia, Varanasi, reprint edition, 1992.
- Cakrapani Dutta , Bhanumati Tika on Susruta Samhita, published by Sri Swami Laxmiram Trust, Jaipur, 1939.
| Discussion|| |
In sutra sthana of Susruta Samhita, chapters in which arista-vijnana have been discussed, i.e. chapters 28-33, there are some differences in names of chapters as well as minor variation of texts exists in both editions of Susruta Samhita which are taken by Cakrapani and Dalhana [Table 1].
Differences exist in titles of the chapters 28, 29, and 33. In chapter 33, differences are also found in scripts of Susruta Samhita in both Cakrapani and Dalhana versions.  These variations of texts are also found in tadapatra (manuscripts). Even Harancandra in some points differs from versions of Cakrapani and Dalhana. 
Dalhana in the very beginning of his commentary upon 28/3 classifies aristas into two types-niyata (definite) and aniyata (indefinite).  These two types of definite and indefinite aristas have been explained with the examples of fire and smoke, flower and fruit, and clouds and rainfall. Among these examples, fruit and rainfall are for indefinite whereas fire is for definite. For the indefinite aristas, he stated that these groups of aristas do not give rise to the effects inevitably. On the other hand, definite ones surely give rise to the effect and aristas originated by dosas come under this group. But Cakrapani accepted niyata-aristas indicating the certainty of death with quoting the supporting arguments from Caraka, indriya-sthana chapter 11  and chapter 2  and accepted that niyata-aristas are not vyabhicaritvam as a definite sign of death.
Cakrapani quoting Caraka, indriya-sthana, even discusses niyata and aniyata based on avyabhichari and vyabhichari (definite and probable indicators of death). Cakrapani though did not clearly mention purusa-asrita and purusa anasrita aristas, but discussed clearly kala mrtyu and akala mrtyu with or without aristas and gave opinion basically dependent on indriya-sthana of Caraka Samhita.
On the other hand, Dalhana discussed niyata and aniyata based on the examples stated in Susruta Samhita and indirectly agreed to discuss aristas based on purusa anasrita subjects. Here Dalhana had not directly quoted Caraka but it seems that he got influenced by indriyadhikara of Atreya sampradaya.
In context of the interpretation of su. 28/4 regarding the meaning of asu-vyatikramat, Cakrapani has taken its meaning in the sense of quick destruction after appearance which happens without taking time. Here he quoted the examples of vidyut (thunder), etc.  On the other hand Dalhana explained that asu-vyatikramat-as soon as origin of aristas death takes place, thus like piercing of hundred leaves of utpala which is not observed.  However, some interpret that the aristas retract as soon as they appear. 
According to Dalhana, kila (su. 28/5) means traditional scripture (agama) but Cakrapani did not interpret the word "kila0" like Dalhana and stated the word brahamana, etc. as that was not relevant to the subject, and gave the same example in this concern. 
Susruta Samhita, authority of surgery, deals with wound, abscess, ulcers, etc. Susruta stated that being the object of salya-tantra; examination of vrana should be based on the perception of indriyas. Dalhana (su. 28/8) interprets that adi means sabda and sparsa should be taken. He takes svabhavatah as prakrtitah. Vaikrta is that which is different from prakrtitah. While commenting on Su. su. 28/9-10 Dalhana has enumerated the prakrta gandha as dwandwaja that is based on predominance of two doshas for a particular type of smell such as laja, atasi-oil, and tila-oil; these three are found in vata-pitta, vata-kapha, and pitta-kapha, respectively.  But Cakrapani interpreted prakrta gandha as it has a relation with vata.  Commenting on vaikrta gandha, Dalhana has stated putivallura as dry meeting with pus; matkunah is a tiny insect growing in bed, etc. whereas Cakrapani says matkunah as ungasah (bugs).
Both Cakrapani and Dalhana substantiated the view of Susruta stating the necessity of knowledge of prakrta awastha and its comparison with vaikrtaawastha as an indicator of prognosis. Particularly when discussing a prognosis based on varna (su. 28/13-15), Dalhana directly gives indications about what can be features of vranasotha, vidradhi, etc.; simply localized swelling associated with different cardinal signs and symptoms, example.g., dhyama, is discussed as isat krsna by Dalhana but Cakrapani discussed it as gandhatrna or dark brick color.  The signs and symptoms of different abnormal varna and rasa are to be inferred on a wound based on the predominance of any dosha. Same principles are followed in support of the views of Susruta in relation to sabda, sparsa, and akrti when these get vaikrtaawastha. Both Dalhana and Cakrapani do not elaborate these.
Dalhana mentions variation of scripts of original text (su. 28/13) but he does not agree with this variation because it is not accepted by commentators and says that this verse is followed by blind supporters. Dalhana has quoted these verses. 
The name of chapter 29 has variations in both commentaries as already compared in [Table 1].
While commenting on su. 29/3, Dalhana has explained the word nimitta as sarpadidarsana, (which indicates auspiciousness and inauspiciousness) whereas Cakrapani takes it as auspiciousness (purnakumbhadi). 
Discussing the dutadarsana su. 29/5, Dalhana takes pakhanda word for kapalika.  But the view of Cakrapani is more wide and full of orthodox thinking as he stated "pakhanda" as vedabahyasramasthah that means those who do not believe in vedas, i.e., heterodox thinker and followers of Saugatadayah (Buddha, etc.).
In the context of explaining the speech of the messenger su. 29/9, Cakrapani has interpreted ruksa as lasita-viparitam means speech having the absence of affection, but on the other hand Dalhana interpreted this term as the unfriendly speaking (maitrirahitam vacah).  Further, Cakrapani stated nisthuram as opposite to soft speaking (pesalaviparitam), but Dalhana taken nisthuram as harshly speaking or rugged speaking (kathoravacanam).
Regarding the day of approach to the physician by messenger su. 29/19, Dalhana interpreted the term sandhi-dinani as the date fixed for rituals (devapretakaryahani)  but Cakrapani has accepted the sandhi-dinam as the 15 th day of the dark half or every loonier month (amavasyatithi)  and this is related to the Indian calendar.
During the interpretation of auspicious su. 29/27-31, Cakrapani has discussed udakumbham as a pitcher full of water (udakapurnah kumbhah) which is auspicious one and in his support he mentions a verse from Caraka Samhita indriya-sthana and from Nimitta Grantha, while Dalhana has interpreted it as pitcher full or empty. Further, he indicates that at the time of entry, the pitcher (kumbha) should be full and at the time of departure the pitcher should be empty.  Cakrapani accepts swalankrita in place of alankrita and takes it as that which is smeared with paste, etc. (alepadina manDitah)  and some take it as an adjective for a virgin girl, but Dalhana stated that alankrita kanya means virgin girl wearing good apparel (bhusanavatikanya).  Dalhana accepts aksata as lajah, whereas Cakrapani takes it as unbroken barley (aksatayavadi).  Again Cakrapani interprets the word sumanah as flower (puspam)  but Dalhana says sumanah as pleasant disposition of physicians. 
Explaining su. 29/41-45, Cakrapani has quoted a verse from the text book of astrology which predicts sakuna (nimittasastra).  Dalhana mentions nimitta as which indicates well and bad (subhasubha sucakam).  Here Cakrapani read lagna in place of bhagna in mulapatha and interprets it as the attachment of thorn, etc. in cloth and others.  Dalhana interprets bhagna as breaking and stated that some read lagna in place of bhagna and also interpreted it as the entanglement of cloth, etc.  Further, in the same context Dalhana explains daurmanasyam as deranged mind (cittavicestitam). 
During the interpretation of su. 29/67, both Cakrapani and Dalhana have quoted from the same source, e.g., from the fifth chapter of Caraka Samhita indriya-sthana and forth chapter of Susruta Samhita sarira-sthana. Further, Cakrapani has described that when the vitiated three doshas fully cover the manovaha-srotas, then a person dreams which has been accepted as aristas.  In support of his views, he quoted a verse from the Caraka Samhita indriya0-sthana fifth chapter. 
In the context of explaining su. 30/2, Dalhana explained pancendriya as the five sense organs as ears, etc., their objects as sound, etc., and faulty perception of these due to less use or excess use. The word panca (five) is used for the elimination of motor organs (karmendriya) and mind (manas), which are both sensory and motor. The motor organs (karmendriya) are understood by sarira itself and the mind is included by indriyas itself as sensory organs do not perceive their objects without mind  while Cakrapani has interpreted pancendriyartha as objects of indriyas, namely, sabdadayah. The opposite character of these or other than these may be known as conflicting perception. Here he stated two types of ristas- (1) bahyabhutadigatam and (2) antara-sariragatam, but Dalhana has not stated so. Cakrapani discussed that the previous two chapters have been elaborated for the examination of the bhutadigatam; after that, the physician examines aturgata-ristas which are based on the abnormality of objects of the five indriyas by visiting the house of patients as described in this chapter. 
In su. 30/3, while considering the nature relating to physique and behavior, both Dalhana and Cakrapani have interpreted few terms in their own ways. In support of their views, both have cited references from the Caraka Samhita indriya-sthana first chapter. Views of both commentators have maximum similarities [Table 2].
Here Dalhana interpreted silam as manasobhavah and he also quoted others' interpretation of silam as samadhanayuktammanah while Cakrapani accepts silam as the function of mind (manovrtti). He has indicated that manah is characterized by sila. Explaining the prakrti, Dalhana cited a reference from Caraka Samhita indriya-sthana and mentioned six different types of prakrti. Cakrapani has also explained similarly  and even explained vikrti by citing references from Caraka Samhita indriya-sthana.
During the explanation of su. 30/10 Dalhana explained that atisugandhih here means suddenly becoming excessively fragrant without the application of fragrance.  Cakrapani reads sugandhim-vati in place of sugandhirvati and interpreted it as the physiology of vata, which means transportation or movement of good fragrance, and even stated grammatical etymology of vata as va = gatigandhanayoh.
Further, in the same chapter, su. 30/19, Cakrapani explains the astapadakaram as the shape of the sarika, small pond (sarikakaram)  while Dalhana has discussed it as astapadakaram which means a quadruple playground seen as a chessboard marked by lines (kosthasantana). 
During the interpretation of su. 31/1, both Cakrapani and Dalhana have stated verses from Caraka Samhita indriya-sthana and Dalhana opined that differences among complexion, luster, and shade are limited not only to characters but also to number; such as complexion (prakrtavarna) is of four types, luster (prabha) is of seven types, and shade (chaya) is of five types. 
In the context of the discussion of su. 31/4, Cakrapani only defined the term hrih as shyness (lajja) and not mentioned other words which are included in the original script of Susruta Samhita. Dalhana has defined and interpreted these terms in his own views.  Here Dalhana has also quoted other views as variation in the first line of this verse along with commentary according to others. 
Dalhana quoted the opinion of others and stated that all abnormalities appear related to behavior excluding luster. Further, according to others' interpretation, meanings are as follows: sri, wealth; tejas, working power; ojas, pure essence of dhatus located in the heart. Opposite to grace, wealth and working power are considered as bad prognosis within a year; again destruction of memory, strength, etc. are indicated as bad prognosis for 6 months.
In the context of interpreting su. 31/10, Cakrapani has explained the kesa-simanta by quoting a verse from Caraka Samhita indriya-sthana which indicates changing the simanta as an arista state.  Dalhana has interpreted kesa-simanta as lining in the hairs and eyebrows and stated that this arista results in death within 3 days if the person concerned is diseased and in 6 days if he is healthy. 
In this context, Cakrapani has mentioned a reference from Caraka Samhita indriya-sthana. 
While explaining edema of feet associated with complications (su. 31/19), Cakrapani interpreted ananyopadravah as the complications of only sopha. Further, he recalls the complications of sopha by citing verse 23/8 of Susruta Samhita cikitsa-sthana with a slight variation. He read sothinam ksapayanti in place of sunam samksapayanti. He has also explained the term ananyopadrtavakrtah in another way. He explains it as that (sopha) which is not caused as a complication of another disease, i.e. caused as independent disease. One (sopha) which is caused as a complication of the other diseases such as arsa, pandu, etc. in legs is not an arista.  Here Cakrapani has quoted a verse from Ksarapani in reference to sotha-roga, which shows situations of the incurability of the padasamutthita sotha. Dalhana stated that some others describe and interpret ananyopadravakrtah as edema which is caused by factors other than pandu-roga, udara, piles, etc. and is incurable, while that caused by pandu-roga, etc. is curable. He further stated that some read it as ananyopadravagata while others read it as ananopadravagata reaching face from feet along with complications. 
In the context of explaining the effect of inappropriate treatment (su. 31/30), Dalhana has discussed the visamopacara as insufficient or inappropriate treatment.  Here Cakrapani has classified the mrtyu into three types: (1) apacarakrtam, (2) niyata-karmajanyam, and (3) praniswabhavasamgatam. Cakrapani has explained the word karmabhisca as kalapakaniyataih karmabhih (those actions which are certain to mature due to the effect of kala) while Dalhana in this reference has given his views by giving the word karmabhisca as sarirasthapakaih (actions which hold the body) and ksinaih (decreased) as the remaining part. Here he has given an account of view of other scholars who state that yuktivyapasraya marana is indicated by the word visamopacarena, daivavyapasraya marana by karmabhisca purakrtaih, and swabhava marana by anityatvacca.  In this way, there are three types of causes of death.
In the context of explaining the affliction of bhuta, preta, etc. (su. 31/31), Cakrapani has defined the pretah as a type of pitr, which is a specific stage after death.  But Dalhana has directly explained it as a dead individual.  Cakrapani has discussed the term bhuta as a type of pisaca bheda, while Dalhana has stated bhuta as Yamanucara (follower of Yama) and pisaca as one who takes flesh as diet, a specific yoni of deva. Further, he explained raksamsi as the follower of Ravana. Cakrapani has not explained the word raksamsi. Dalhana has explained the word upasarpanti as to move nearer (samipamgacchanti),  while Cakrapani has explained it as to move nearer and consuming ojas. 
In the context of explaining the transformation of naturally established bodily attributes (su. 32/3), both Cakrapani and Dalhana explained the terms which are shown in [Table 3]. 
Dalhana has further stated that when hard parts of the body like hair, beard, nails, teeth, ligaments, vessels, channels, etc. become soft and soft organs like muscles, fat, marrow, etc. become hard all of a sudden, then these states are known as arista laksana. Cakrapani has enumerated some organs only like bones, teeth, etc.  Dalhana enumerated rakta as mrdunam (soft), while Cakrapani has enumerated mamsa-medadi as mrdunam (soft). In this group, rakta has not been considered. 
In the context of explaining (su. 32/4) the term vakranuvakragagrahah both Dalhana and Cakrapani have similar views about astrology. Dalhana explains vakraga as the movement of graha out of its orbits (rasi).  Cakrapani interprets purvarasigamanam as vakratwam. Further, he has stated that punah means anuvakratwam which is the movement between starting from one house, and again nurturing back in its own house is anuvakratwam. 
| Conclusion|| |
There are considerable similarities in the method of explaining different signs and symptoms indicating arista laksanas based on indriyas. Cakrapani repeatedly quoted references from Caraka Samhita indriya-sthana to substantiate his opinion, while Dalhana also refers to Caraka Samhita indriya-sthana but not so much.
From the above discussion of chapters 28-32, it is observed that both Cakrapani and Dalhana took the extensive help of indriya-sthana of Caraka Samhita in support of their views and substantiate the prognostic (arista laksana) views of Susruta Samhita. Apart from indriya-sthana, of Caraka Samhita, Harita, Ksarapani, Nimi, etc. are also occasionally quoted by both. Cakrapani being the well-known commentary of Caraka Samhita, so naturally a great influence of Caraka Samhita upon Cakrapani is observed. On the other hand, though Dalhana is well known for his lone work on Susruta Samhita, his frequent quoting of indriya-sthana of Caraka Samhita is a significant influence of astrology for ascertaining prognostic views, which indicates that astrology being the contemporary science was also well considered by the practitioners of Ayurveda. Cakrapani has mentioned nimitta grantha and nimitta sastra.
| References|| |
|1.||Sushruta, Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana. 3/8-9, Nibandhasamgraha commentary by Dalhana. Yadavji Trikamji Acharya, editor. 6th ed. Varanasi: Chaukhamba Orientalia; 1997. |
|2.||Agnivesh, Charaka Samhita. Indriya sthana. 1/2, Ayurveda Depika Commentry by Cakrapanidutta. Pt. Yadavji Trikamji Acharya, editor. New Delhi: Rastriya Sanskrit Samsasthan; 2006. |
|3.||Ibid Charaka Samhita. Indriya sthana. 1/2. |
|4.||Ibid Charaka Samhita. Indriya sthana. 2/2. |
|5.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 33/13-14. |
|6.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 33/12-13. |
|7.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 28/3. |
|8.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 28/3. |
|9.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 28/3. |
|10.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 28/3-17. |
|11.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 28/3. |
|12.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 28/4. |
|13.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 28/4. |
|14.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 28/4. |
|15.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 28/5. |
|16.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 28/5. |
|17.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 28/8. |
|18.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 28/9. |
|19.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 28/10. |
|20.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 28/12. |
|21.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 28/13. |
|22.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 28/13. |
|23.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 28/13. |
|24.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 28/3. |
|25.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 28/3. |
|26.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 29/5. |
|27.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 29/5. |
|28.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 29/9. |
|29.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 29/8. |
|30.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 29/19. |
|31.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 29/19. |
|32.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 29/27. |
|33.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 29/27. |
|34.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 29/27. |
|35.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 29/28. |
|36.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 29/29. |
|37.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 29/29. |
|38.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 29/29. |
|39.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 29/29. |
|40.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 29/41-45. |
|41.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 29/43. |
|42.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 29/45. |
|43.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 29/45. |
|44.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 29/45. |
|45.||Ibid Charaka Samhita. Indriya sthana 5/45. |
|46.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sharira sthana 4/73. |
|47.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 29/45. |
|48.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 29/67. |
|49.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 30/2 |
|50.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 30/2 |
|51.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 30/2 |
|52.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 30/2 |
|53.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 30/3 |
|54.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 30/3 |
|55.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 30/3 |
|56.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 30/3 |
|57.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 30/3 |
|58.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 30/10 |
|59.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 30/10 |
|60.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 30/19 |
|61.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 30/19 |
|62.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 31/1 |
|63.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 31/4 |
|64.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 31/4 |
|65.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 31/10 |
|66.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 31/10 |
|67.||Ibid Charaka Samhita. Indriya sthana 8/6-7 |
|68.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 31/19 |
|69.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 31/19 |
|70.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 31/9 |
|71.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 31/19 |
|72.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 31/19 |
|73.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 31/30 |
|74.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 31/30 |
|75.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 31/31 |
|76.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 31/32 |
|77.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 31/32 |
|78.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 31/32 |
|79.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 31/32 |
|80.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 31/32 |
|81.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 31/32 |
|82.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 31/32 |
|83.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 31/32 |
|84.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 31/32 |
|85.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 32/3 |
|86.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 32/3 |
|87.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 32/3 |
|88.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 32/4 |
|89.||Ibid Sushruta Samhita. Sutra sthana 32/4 |
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]