xxx
the latter had become very old, and were therefore studied by few experts, and their abstracts were likely to be prized by the general practitioners.
Vágbhata concludes his masterly treatise with the following observation, which is highly significant:—
Vágbhata's apologia"If a work is to pass current as authoritative simply because it is the production of a sage of old, why are the treatises of Charaka and Susruta alone studied and not those of Bhela and others[1]? It thus follows that whatever is reasonable [methodical and scientific] is to be preferred."[2]
Read between the lines the above is to be taken as an apology on the part of our author for appearing in the field; it further establishes clearly that even during his life-
