The Classical Doctrine of Indian Medicine: Its Origins and its Greek Parallels c8.174

c8.174

The precise indication given by this text concerning the difference existing between *kilāsa* and leprosy shows us clearly that one must not identify these two diseases. The form of *kilāsa* due to the wind seems to be psoriasis which has nothing to do with leprosy. The two other forms do not appear to have any corresponding forms in our nosology but are also not of leprous nature. The fact that *kilāsa* is a purely superficial disease in Suśruta, does not accord with the data of the *Atharvaveda* which, though it situates the white spot of *kilāsa* in the skin, declares that *kilāsa* can come from the bones or from the "body". The *kilāsa* of the *Atharvaveda* cannot, therefore, be the same disease as that described in Suśruta and one may ask oneself if it does not represent, as is generally believed, a name of leprosy. Later, in classical medicine, this name could have been deflected from its older meaning, to be applied to more superficial types of dermatoses and of a different nature. But first of all, it must be observed that even in classical medicine there exist several forms which are very near *kilāsa* but which can be more profound. In fact, on the above-quoted passage of Suśruta, the commentator Dalhaṇa observes that according to the teaching of Viśvāmitra: "(The disease), which attaining the skin, does not cause oozing, is called *kilāsa*. When it crosses the skin and penetrates (the constitutive) elements (of the body), leaving the name of *kilāsa*, it should receive the name of *Śvitra*."¹ It is, therefore, possible that in the *Atharvaveda*, *kilāsa* already denoted the same disease which is found later in other classical authors. These later authors, however, do not distinguish the exclusively cutaneous form of the disease, which is accompanied by deeper lesions. The only difference that will persist after all, will be due to the fact that the Vedic text considers the disease as coming out from the depth on to the surface, whereas the classical doctors recognise an inverse sense in its clinical evolution, which is more reasonable and is explained quite naturally by a better knowledge of pathological facts.