The Classical Doctrine of Indian Medicine: Its Origins and its Greek Parallels c8.96

c8.96

In the two references which it makes to the legend of the Soma attacked by decay, the *Taittirīya-saṃhitā* declares that Soma has contracted this disease because of his wives (*jāyā*), from where the birth of the disease is called *jāyanya*.¹ It is possible that originally this *jāyanya* was not identical with the disease of Soma and had been brought near the latter one only to explain its name by an etymological play of words. But it is quite possible that *jāyanya* had been conceived as at least analogous to *yaksma*, which would justify the relationship. The *Atharvaveda* possesses a similar term, *jāyanya*, identified by the commentary with *jāyanya* and with *rājayaksma*.² The hymn VII, 76, contains a conjuration against this *jāyanya*: "One who breaks the bones to pieces, who keeps himself under the sole of the feet, one, no matter who he be, who sits atop (of the head); I have chased all *jāyanyas*. The winged one, the *jāyanya* flies, it enters men. Here is the remedy of the two, of one who is intact and of one who is well-broken. We know your origin, O *jāyanya*, from where you are born, *jāyanya*. How will you, therefore, attack (that man) in whose house we offer the oblation?"³ The hymn XIX, 44, which exalts the virtues of an unguent (*añjana*) sheds a ray of light which specifies the term *jāyanya*: "You are the rescuer of life, you are known as the remedy of all, (produce) therefore, O you unguent, well-being. Waters, produce well-being and security. One who is young, the *jāyanya*, the dissection of limbs, the *viśalyaka*, that the unguent push away all consumptive trouble (*yaksma*) out of the limbs...”.¹ What immediately comes out of these texts is as follows: the jāyānya is a disease with superficial manifestations, which is treated with unguents, which can be ulcerated or not, which can be had anywhere because a formula expels it from the limbs and another points to its presence in the feet and in the head (even if it may not be understood to mean that it can go from the feet to the head) and in the last place which can provoke the necrosis of the bones. The term therefore stands for all types of suppurative ailments and of ulcers appearing externally. It is, therefore, quite understandable that this disease be included among the yakṣmas, the consumptive ailments, because the consumptive ailments bring in their wake a rapid atrophy of the neighbouring parts and sometimes even cachexy; the abcesses of the bones particularly provoke a veritable melting of muscles which cannot remain unperceived by even the least attentive observers. In other words, the jāyānya is to the rājayakṣma what a “phthisis” (and not “tuberculosis”) is to general consumption. But if it comes near rājayakṣma one may tend to believe that it had no relation with the ajñātayakṣma, the “unknown consumptive ailment”, because the Atharvanic sorcerer says to it that he knows it. However, it seems that the sorcerer boasts of himself either for imposing himself or for encouraging his patient.