The Classical Doctrine of Indian Medicine: Its Origins and its Greek Parallels c8.131

c8.131

We cannot know if, in the Atharvaveda, ksetriya represents para-ksetriya as in Pāṇini and we do not have the guarantee that the notion of transmigration was allowed in the circle where this Veda was elaborated, although, most probably, this notion appertains to the pre-Aryan, anterior basis of this text. But it is clear that the correct significance of the name, “one who appertains to the field”, gives an extremely plausible sense in accordance with what Suśruta has to say of the incurable dermatoses, which penetrate not only the skin, the blood and the flesh, but the entire body right up to its last elements. And, because it is a “bond” associated with the bond of Varuṇa, it must be definitely a “disease of sin”, as is leprosy according to Suśruta, and as are the majority of ailments just studied by us. Thus it appears to be absolutely possible that ksetriya in the Atharvaveda designated diseases which completely impregnated the organism, such as the incurable leprosy. The fact that the Atharvaveda tries to cure it, proves nothing against this last point and must not lead us into supposing that its cure was necessarily expected only after transmigration. It is only the classical medicine, with sufficient experience to lay down with certitude the progonostics of incurability, which ordains the abandonment of incurable diseases. Hope and doubt justified the intervention of the Vedic magician and besides, we have seen that Suśruta himself gave prescriptions for treating cases of advanced leprosy and if not with a view to curing them, then at least for preventing their return after transmigration.