The Classical Doctrine of Indian Medicine: Its Origins and its Greek Parallels c15.71

c15.71

The two *Indriyasthānas* relating the teaching of Ātreya, i.e., those of Bhela and Caraka, have, therefore, a common stock, with many similar details, but with different classifications and with internal changes in the contents of parts, which at first sight look similar. The spirit and the matter are the same but the latter has been kept similar only to enable one to admit that at the point of departure the tradition already had a definite formulation. This is not surprising. We do not know how the teaching received by Bhela has been transmitted, but we know that in relation to Ātreya, Caraka has come in only later. It is Agniveśa who might have received the teaching of Ātreya. Caraka intervened for revising the work of Agniveśa. Many of the divergences can be ascribed to him. However all should not be put to his account. We have seen that at least once he has been more faithful than Bhela in preserving the text which gave the title to a chapter. Moreover, he deals with subjects, which though missing in Bhela, must not be considered as new additions due to him. The investigation of the messenger is neglected by Bhela but is found in other words, in Suśruta¹, whose tradition parallel to that of Ātreya, is very close and in Hārīta¹, reputed to be a co-disciple of Bhela under Ātreya.