Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A Concise History of Science in India c8.s2.t3: Extant Classical Works on Āyurveda

A Concise History of Science in India c8.s2.t3

Language
English

Extant Classical Works on Āyurveda

c8.s2.t3.1

Among the major existing works of the Ātreya school (apart from the Caraka) are about 50 known commentaries and editions of the Agniveśa of *Caraka Saṃhitā*,a the notable works being those of Dṛḍhabala (ninth century), Cakrapāṇidatta (eleventh century) and Śivadāsa (eleventh century). Among a smaller number of editions and commentaries of *Suśruta Saṃhitā*, the most notable are those of Nāgārjuna (third to fourth century), Ḍalhanācārya (tenth-eleventh century) and Cakradatta (eleventh century).

c8.s2.t3.2

Next in importance as well as in age (with the possible exception of *Kāśyapa Saṃhitā*) come two works with somewhat similar names, the *Aṣṭāṅga Saṃgraha* also known as *Vṛddha Vāgbhaṭa* and the *Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya*, known simply as *Vāgbhaṭa*. Both are comprehensive works on therapeutics and surgery, one in prose-*cum*-verse and the other in verse alone. From the distinctive name of the first work as the ‘ancient’ Vāgbhaṭa, some assumed differences in quality, and from the very fact of the existence of two different works, it has been supposed that there were two different authors of this name, one earlier and one later. The authors (or author) in both cases, however, claim the same parentage and profess the same school of Buddhist faith. It is known that Vāgbhaṭa was the son of Siṃhagupta, an inhabitant of Sind and a disciple of Avalokita, the Buddhist sage, but no separate particulars are available about the other author. The internal evidence also shows an identity of style, medical views and mode of presentation, and there is no real evidence to show that there was more than one author of this name.b

c8.s2.t3.3

The first mention of a medical book on *Aṣṭāṅga* is found in the memoirs of the Chinese traveller I’Tsing of the seventh century. The author of this book has been identified with the Buddhist Vāgbhaṭa who may, therefore, be placed in the seventh century A.D. or a little earlier.

c8.s2.t3.4

a Rây and Gupta, p. 1.

c8.s2.t3.5

b Sen, Gananath (2), p. 51.

c8.s2.t3.6

The *Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya* is by far the most concise and scientific exposition of Āyurvedic knowledge, incorporating the teachings of the Ātreya, Dhanvantari and Rasāyanaa schools of medicine and distinguished by its knowledge of chemical reactions and laboratory processes. The work has been translated into many Indian and foreign languages, and enjoys a deserved reputation rivalling those of Caraka and Suśruta. The important commentaries on Vāgbhaṭa’s works are by Aruṇadatta (thirteenth century), Candrānanda, Hemādri and Indu.

c8.s2.t3.7

The *Kāśyapa Saṃhitā* is another ancient treatise dealing mainly with paediatrics. It is probably of an age not much later than that of the *Bhela Saṃhitā*, if we consider that it is admittedly an abridged edition or version of an earlier work, the *Vṛddha Kāśyapa*.b It is quoted in the Bower manuscript and contains many quotations, not found elsewhere, from the most ancient works of the Ātreya school including some missing treatises.

c8.s2.t3.8

A valuable work, specializing on the diagnostic aspect of medical knowledge, is due to Mādhavakara (eighth or ninth century) and is entitled *Rugviniścaya* or *Mādhava Nidāna*. It is a compilation from the earlier works of Agniveśa, Suśruta and Vāgbhaṭa, but its merit lies in its scientific selection of knowledge included, concise presentation, and as a valuable clinical guide. It is famous all over India as the best Āyurvedic work on diagnosis of diseases. Two commentaries on this work, *Madhukoṣa* by Vijayarakṣita and *Ātaṅkadarpaṇa* by Vācaspati, are also valuable aids to diagnosis. The *Gadanigraha*, a medical treatise by Ṣoḍhala (seventh century), *Ṣoḍhalanighaṇṭu*, a medical lexicon by the same author, *Siddhayoga* by Vṛndakuṇḍa (ninth century), and *Cakrasaṃgraha*, a valuable treatise containing quotations from earlier works by Cakrapāṇidatta (about A.D. 1050), are other important works on the Ātreya and Dhanvantari schools, containing also some information on inorganic medicines, written before A.D. 1200. Only a few of the Āyurvedic works listed above are available in printed editions, others being in the form of written manuscripts preserved in various collections in India and abroad. The descriptions and locations are to be found in Aufrecht’s Catalogue. Kavirāj Gananath Sen has made an assessment of the comparative merits of these different works.c

Cites (11)