150 Dr. Hoernle— An instalment of the Bower Manuscript. [No. 3, 
Chakradatta, on p. 210 (commencing with vastukd vdyasi ddkam), occurs 
in identical words in the Charaka, on p. 736 (middle), and that there is a 
faint similarity in this prescription to that given in verse 120 of our 
manuscript. It is evident, that some of the prescriptions in Chakrapani’s 
compilation are taken from the Charaka; but I do not know whence he 
derived the others, which are identical with some in our manuscript (verses 
123, 128). Further, the prescription in verses 121, 122 (commencing with 
gramydnupa) seems clearly to point to some connection between the me¬ 
dical work, contained in our manuscript and those in the Charaka and the 
Chakradatta. It would be satisfactory to be able to discover what the 
sources were on which Chakrapani drew for his compilation; they are not 
specified anywhere, I believe, in his book. 
For the sake of completeness I may add that in the first portion of 
the Bower MS., the introduction of which I have published in the 
Proceedings for April, I have come across several prescriptions which, 
in quite or almost identical terms, are incorporated in the Chakradatta. 
There is another work which I have been able to examine cursorily 
and which offers a few examples of coincidences. This is the Yangasena, 
by an author of the same name. It appears to be a compilation from 
different medical works, but professes to be a new recension of what was 
formerly known as the Agasti Samhita. # 
The formula for the purgative pills, in verses 60-63 of our manuscript, 
which I have already noted as occurring in the Susruta, is to be found also 
in the Yangasena, in one of its last chapters (the Virechana Adhikara), 
on p. 1020 ; and it may be noted, that in our manuscript, the composition 
of the formula is expressly ascribed to Agasti (in verse 64), whose work 
the Yangasena professes to reproduce.f A very curious verbal agreement 
occurs in verse 84 of our manuscript. Its first half-line (dschyotanam 
mdnusha-dugdha yulctam etc.) is found identically as the second half-line 
* This appears from the statement at tlie end of the book : Agasti-samhit^Syaiii 
prdk=lchydtd maj-janmatas=tatah\ Gadddhara-grihe janma-labdhd me punah sninshrita || 
Vangasena iti ndmnu vikhydtas=tad-anantaram \ grantlio = ’ya7n sarvci-siddhdnta-sdrah 
sighra-phala-dah 11 According to this statement Yangasena was a son of the (physi¬ 
cian) Gadadhara. The Yangasena has been published by N an dak u mar Gosvami, a 
Baidya of Beri, District Rohtak, in 1889, at 57 Cotton Street, Calcutta. I owe the 
loan of my copy to the kindness of Pandit Hara Prasada Shastri. 
f The versions in the Yangasena and Susruta are practically identical; but differ 
a little from the version in our manuscript, see footnote to the translation. I have 
noticed other coincidences between those two works. For example, the whole of 
the remarks of the Yangasena on urine (pp. 1103, 1104) and a portion of its remarks 
on liquors (p. 1103) are found verbally the same in Susruta I, 45 (p. 187, 191). 
Again the prescription against pittdbhishyanda or opthalmia, given in Susruta YI, 10 
(p. 680, verses 2—5), is found in the Yangasena in the chapter on eye-diseases, 
p. 789, verses 86—88. In this case, though the ingredients are the same, they are 
given in a different order. 
