Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Indian Medicine (Medicin), translated by C. G. Kashikar c8: I. Sources

Indian Medicine (Medicin), translated by C. G. Kashikar c8

Language
English

I. Sources

c8.1

§ 1. Modern Works :— Although, thanks to the discovery of the Central Asiatic manuscripts and Hoernle's splendid work on them, (§ 13) medicine can now be regarded as the oldest of Indian sciences and has been proved to be the science in which the Indians specialized first, yet in view of its continued existence upto the present time and in view of its continual development, it would be more to the purpose from the point of view of method, to begin a review of Sanskrit medical literature with a short reference to the modern works and then go back successively to the older works and finally to the earliest ones.

c8.2

In spite of the advance made by European medicine through English Colleges and Hospitals, the Indian people still like to consult the modern Vaidyas and Kavirājas—although they grumble about their high fees and the costliness of their medicines. Like the modern Indian physicians who still continue to prescribe¹ their time-honoured recipes like the *Cyavanaprāśa* and red sandal powder, their assiduous literary production goes on along the same old paths. Text-books like Binod Lal Sen's *Āyurveda-vijñāna*² in two parts could have been written in the same style 1000 years ago. The medical Sanskrit dictionary *Vaidyakaśabdasindhu* by Umeshchandra Gupta, which is of value also for the Sanskritists, contains a collection of medical technical terms with explanations and numerous citations from the medical glossaries³. Special collections for Materia Medica exist in greater number; e. g. *Āyurvedyadravyābhidhāna*⁴ of K. B. Lal Sengupta printed in Calcutta and the work of K. K. Prasanna Vitasarkar and Bholanath Śarma used in Hoernle's Bower MS., the *Nighaṇṭuratnākara* of Godbole⁵ printed in Bombay and the *Bṛhannighaṇṭuratnākara* of Dattaram Chaube⁶, in both of which works also *Anannasa*, *Tamākhu*, *Daktarimatānusāramūtraparīkṣā* and other modern elements have found admission. Of monographic works mention may be made of the *Cobaciniprakāśa* on *Cobacini* (*Sarsaparilla*) as a remedy against syphilis and other diseases compiled under the auspices of the famous Ranjit Singh. To most of these publications are added translations in Bengali, Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, Singhalese and other modern Indian languages; others are written only in modern Indian languages. The old Sanskrit texts like *Caraka*, *Suśruta*, *Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya*, *Mādhavanidāna*, *Śārṅgadhara Saṃhitā* and others are often printed with or without the old commentaries and with or without the translations in modern Indian languages. The critical editions of Ānandāśrama Sanskrit Series of Poona deserve special mention. The more rare English publications, *e. g.* Umeshchandra Dutt's beautiful *Materia Medica of the Hindus*, Sir Bhagavat Sinhjee's *A short History of Aryan Medical Science*—the work of an Indian Prince, Avinash Chandra Kaviratna's translation of the Caraka Saṃhitā (see § 9 ) serve the object of rousing the interest of English readers for the Indian Medicine.

c8.3

§ 2. 16th to 18th Century :—As soon as one goes back behind the 19th century, great difficulties arise as to the dates of the literary works. So only such of the numerous Sanskrit texts, besides the well known chief works, will be mentioned as are partly already printed and partly only known from the manuscripts catalogues as dealing either with the collective medicine or with particular parts thereof (for glossaries and veterinary science see § 11 ff. ). Mention will also be made of those works the dates of which are determinable a little more easily, as also of those the date of compilation of which is either given in the MSS or can approximately be fixed on internal evidence. According to Sinhjee ibid. many works are indeed exactly datable. Thus he places in the 18th century : *Ataṅkatimirabhāskara* of Balarama in Banaras—a great work also mentioning tea¹, *Āyurvedaprakāśa* of Madhava 1713; IO No. 950 denotes a MS written in 1786; *Yogatarangiṇī* of Trimalla 1751; this well known collection of recipes² must, however, be much older, as L 203—the MS written in 1498 of another work by Trimalla³ is recorded. According to the unreliable dating of Umeshchandra Gupta (ibid. Preface), the following works belong to the 18th Century:—*Bhaiṣajyaratnāvalī* of Govindadāsa (Calcutta 1893, pp.788)

c8.4

(1) Cf. the supplement to Avinash Chandra Kaviratna's Trans. Part 14. (2) Calcutta 1887. pp. 729, 686. (3) Calcutta 1894. pp. 22, 12, 1112. (4) Calcutta 1875, pp. 244. (5) Bombay 1867, 3 parts. pp. 865, 1277, 1201. cf. Sinhjee, ibid. 122 ff. (6) 3rd part 1891, upto pp. 1346, 248. (7) Lahore, 1851. pp. ii, 81. (8) Calcutta 1177, pp. xvi, 354. (9) London 1896, pp. 280.

c8.5

a collection of recipes, also much cited in Dutt's Materia Medica; Rājavallabhīyadravyaguṇa of Nārāyaṇa 1760, also mentioned by Dutt (Calcutta 1868, pp. 106 ); Prayogāmṛta of Vaidyacintāmaṇi, the most extensive work on therapy; for its contents see Aufrecht Oxf. 316; Vaidyāmṛta of Nārāyaṇa and others. Vaidyarāja's Sukhabodha, an easily comprehensible text-book of therapy is certainly written in 1624 which date, according to the era, may mean* either 1702 or 1567.

c8.6

17TH CENTURY:—Definite dates are*: Vaidyavilāsa of Raghunātha Paṇḍita 1697, a short hand-book, printed; Vaidyarahasya of Vidyāpati 1682, mentions syphilis (according to Siṃhjee, written in 1698 which date, however, is a result of mistaking the date of compilation for the date given in the MS L); Cikitsāratnāvali of Kavicandra 1661, on pathology and therapy, copied from Mādhavanidāna according to Haas and Eggeling; Vṛttaratnāvali of Manirām Miśra 1641, a short text-book; Yogasangraha of Jagannātha 1616, on therapy etc. The Yogaratnākara by an unknown author, printed in ĀSS in 1889 (pp. 486) covers the whole medicine with the exception of surgery and anatomy, cites Nirṇayasindhu ( 1611 ), Bhavaprakāśa ( 16th cen. ) and other modern works; it cannot, however, be composed later than 1746, the date of the earliest MS used for the edition ( Siṃhjee; Yogaratnākara 1676 ). Lolimbarāja's Vaidyajīvana, a popular work much commented upon and translated in different modern Indian languages, a very short presentation of therapy in different metres, and full of poetic passages, is according to Siṃhjee, composed in 1633; however, B.4,241 denotes a MS already written in 1608.

c8.7

16TH CENTURY :— The most prominent production of this century is the universally esteemed Bhavaprakāśa of Bhāvamiśra who was evidently a famous physician of Banaras*. The edition of Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara† is used here which, after a cursory collation with the good old Tübingen MS of 1558-9‡, can be considered as authentic in general in spite of many printing mistakes. Bhavaprakāśa cannot be much older than this MS, since it mentions syphilis ( Phiranga ) introduced by the Portugese and its remedy Cobacīnī which must have been imported about 1535. Pūrvakhaṇḍa of this extensive work treats in two Bhāgas and six Prakaraṇas the origin of medicine, cosmology, anatomy, embryology, Kaumārabhṛtya, dietetics, pharmacology (with many popular and foreign names) etc.; the still more extensive Madhyakhaṇḍa treats in four Bhāgas special pathology and therapy; the Uttarakhaṇḍa of only eleven pages deals with aphrodisiacs (*Vājīkaraṇa*) and elixirs. Particularly valuable are the numerous citations⁹ that deviate much from the printed texts of Caraka, Suśruta etc. The small pharmacological work *Guṇaratnamālā* of Bhavamiśra¹⁰ is still not printed. Comparable with *Bhāvaprakāśa* in its extensive character, size and contents is the medical text-book *Āyurvedasaukhya*¹¹ which forms a part of *Toḍarānanda*, inspired by Toḍar Mall (1589) the famous Hindu minister of emperor Akbar. The oldest MSS of the other parts of this great encyclopaedia denoted in the Catalogues belong to the last three decades of the 16th century. The *Yogacintāmaṇivaidyakasārasaṃgraha*¹²—a collection of recipes composed by the Jain Harṣakīrtisūri must have originated between 1668 or 1666¹³, the dates of the two oldest MSS. and circa 1535, since Phiraṅga and Copacīnī (Cobacīnī) are mentioned in it, as they are mentioned in *Bhāvaprakāśa*. Opium (*aphīma, ahiphena*) and quicksilver (*pārada*) are also often mentioned in it.

c8.8

(1) Not in Aufrecht's CC. (2) Cf. Dietz, *Anal. Med.* pp. 145 ff.; IO 955 ff. (3) Also the MS No. 667 (of Bikaner) of *Yogatarangiṇī* is written at least in 1663. (4) IO 942 ff. (5) IO 949, 958, 953, 945; L 1480; ZDMG 30, 652; W 296. (6) *Āyurvedavijñāna*, I. 12. (7) Calcutta 1875, pp. 36, 37, 292, 178, 162, 229, 132, 228. (8) Garbe, *Verz.* No 153. (9) Cf. Wise, *Comm.* pp. 10 ff.; Oxf. 309-11; Dutt, *Mat. Med.* XI; Sinhjee ibid. pp. 36-8; Umeshchandra Gupta ibid. (10) IO 981. (11) W 280 ff. (12) Bombay 1869, pp. 268 with translation in Marwari language. (13) Cf. Garbe, *Verz.* No 165; B 4, 232; Peters 3, 399.

c8.9

§ 3. The Later Middle Age :— In this period probably falls the composition of numerous works, partly printed, on Rasa, Rasendra, metallic and particularly mercury preparations for internal and external use. The quicksilver cures all diseases, says Narahari¹, and it is also recommended especially for fever, diarrhoea, jaundice (*kāmalā*), diseases of the lungs etc., and later also for syphilis². The calcination of quicksilver and the pharmaceutical preparations thus obtained probably originated with the Arabs (see § 26). *Rasapradīpa, Rasāmṛta, Rasendracintāmaṇi* are already cited in *Bhāvaprakāśa*. *Rasacintāmaṇi, Rasadarpaṇa, Rasaratnapradīpa, Rasaratnāvalī, Rasarahasya, Rasarājahamsa, Rasasindhu, Rasārṇava, Rasālaṃkāra, Rasavātāra* are quoted in *Āyurvedasaukhya*. All these works must, therefore, have

c8.10

existed already in the 16th century. The oldest and definitely datable work of this kind appears till now to be the commentary by Merutunga, a Jain, written in 1386 on Kankalaya Rasādhyāya* which must naturally be older than the commentary. In Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha* also written in the 14th century, the above-mentioned Rasārṇava as well as Rasarahasya and Raseśvarasiddhānta are mentioned, whereby these three works are to be placed about 1300 at the latest. Rasārṇava is also cited in the Rasaratnākara of Nityanātha which deals in five Khaṇḍas first with the manufacture of metallic preparations and then (213 ff.) with the treatment of diseases. It is besides cited in Rasendracintāmaṇi of Rāmacandra which is arranged similar to Rasaratnākara (these two works are printed in Calcutta 1878, pp. 24, 782). The Rasaratnākara must have already existed in the 15th century, as B, 4. 236 denotes a MS written in 1473 and the Persian work on Indian medicine referred to by Haas (ZDMG 30, 630 ff.) denotes Rasaratnākara as a work generally used at that time, i. e. at the beginning of the 16th century. Still older than all these above-mentioned works is the comprehensive Rasaratnasamuccaya* available in a more correct edition, if it were really a work of Vāgbhaṭa, as stated by the editor who has indeed had many MSS. Still in some MSS the author is called Nityanātha or Aśvinikumāra, or there is no author mentioned and at any rate this work which, in 30 Adhyāyas, deals exhaustively with various metallurgical and pharmaceutic processes, differs as strongly as possible from Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha (AS) and Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya (AHr)* in contents as well as in style (see §6). The MSS of Rasaratnasamuccaya are also not old, the oldest (IO. 966) being of 1699 A. D.⁷

c8.11

According to U. C. Dutt (Mat. Med. XII) Śārṅgadhara is the oldest author dealing with the processes of calcination and similar processes. He places the Śārṅgadhara Saṃhitā in the Mohamedan epoch, because Ahiphena and Ākarākarabha* are mentioned in it. According to its editor Jivanram, Śārṅgadhara Saṃhitā is often cited⁹ in Bhāvaprakāśa (16th cen.) and has in its turn used Vṛnda (circa 10th cen. A. D. See § 5). According to Grierson¹⁰ Śārṅgadhara Saṃhitā is to be placed about 1500 on internal grounds. Since there is a commentary¹¹ on Śārṅgadhara Saṃhitā by Vopadeva who flourished about 1300, Śārṅgadhara Saṃhitā must have been written at the latest in the 13th century. His short but solid text-book is not limited to metallic preparations, but deals with much more in three Khaṇḍas and 32

c8.12

Adhyāyas : (i) Weights and measures, quality of medicinal stuffs, effect of seasons, diagnosis and prognosis, effect of medicine, anatomy and physiology, embryology, sections and subsections of diseases (rogagaṇanā). (ii) Decoctions, broths, infusions, cold preparations (hima), pastes, powders, pills, electuaries (pāka), medicated ghees (ghṛta), liquors, oxides (bhasma) of gold and other metals and preparations of quicksilver. (iii) The usual methods of cure like Bṛṃhaṇa, Svedana etc. (See § 24). In diagnosis he exhaustively describes Nāḍīparīkṣā, in diseases he distinguishes a greater number of subsections than that in Caraka, Suśruta, Mādhavanidāna, Vṛnda and Cakradatta. Judged by the numerous editions¹² unfortunately deviating rather strongly like MSS from each other, Śārṅgadhara Saṃhitā is still much read.

c8.13

On the above-mentioned Nāḍīparīkṣā, there is a whole group of special works (see § 20) the oldest of which go back to this period while others of latest date are available partly with translations in modern Indian languages.

c8.14

Vopadeva, the above-mentioned commentator of Śārṅgadhara Saṃhitā, has also written many independent works on medicine, of which Śatalokī on the preparation and use of powders, pills and similar things is several times printed with commentary by the author himself and is most famous (e. g. Madras 1860, Bombay 1889). Vopadeva, also known as a grammarian, was the son of Keśava, an equally literarily active physician in Berar and a protege of the famous minister Hemādri in Devagiri¹³ (between 1260 and 1309) who himself has also written commentaries on medical works (see § 6).

c8.15

As a specimen of monographs on individual diseases of this period, which came in vogue very early, mention may first be made of Jvaratimirabhāskara¹⁴ composed by Kāyastha Cāmuṇḍa in 1489, on fevers and their treatment. The fever, particularly Sannipātajvara, was mostly treated in monographs. Other special works are related to Bālacikitsā, Śiśurakṣā, eye-diseases, poisoning, leprosy, diabetes, jaundice etc. Momahaṇa wrote in 1411 Momahaṇavilāsa under the reign of Mahmud Shah in Kalpi. According to I. 779 it is a great work on aphrodisiacs, Strīroga and Bālaroga. The Śiśurakṣāratna on Kaumārabhṛtya by Pṛthvīmalla¹⁵ must have been written about 1400, since Madanavinoda is written by his father in 1374 (of. § 11).

c8.16

The religious conception of pathology going back to the oldest times according to which diseases are a result of sins committed in previous births, is represented in a decisive manner by *Jñānabhāskara*¹⁸ a comprehensive work (cf. §§ 15. 38). After an introduction important for proving the Greek origin of later astronomy, it describes in detail the diseases from the stand-point of Karmavipāka and prescribes penances, sacrifices and gifts that are necessary for it. An old MS of this work is written in 1500. The works on Karmavipāka e. g. the *Sāragrahakarmavipāka*¹⁹ composed in 1384, belong more to the domain of Dharmaśāstra and are connected with the corresponding teachings of Smrtis. The author of *Virasimhāvaloka*²⁰ (Bombay 1888) says that he deals with three sciences viz. law, astronomy and medicine, but the emphasis is laid on medicine. The author of this work is Virasimha a prince of the well known Rajput clan and the founder of a dynasty in Gwalior in 1375; he wrote the work in 1383.

c8.17

§ 4. Vangasena and Cakradatta:—Vangasena's *Cikitsāsārasamgraha* is a very comprehensive work (Calcutta 1884, pp. 1127) which, after a general introduction to pathology, duties of the physician etc. contains in its main body ( 13-244 ) an exhaustive description of

c8.18

One of the authors cited by Virasimha is Tisaṭācārya, the composer of *Cikitsākalikā*²¹, a complete text-book of medicine in which, among other things, Nāḍīparīkṣā is included. Since Tisaṭācārya mentions Bhoja as one of his predecessors, he belongs to our period, if the well known king Bhoja of Dhara ( 11th century ) is meant. His work is commented upon by his son Candraṭa whose some other medical works are still available.

c8.19

(1) Rajanighantu 13, 111 in Garbe, *Die indische Mineralien* 15, 61. (2) Dutt, *Mat. Med.* 27-38. (3) W 297; BL 241; CC 2.15. (4) Oxf 247; Cowell & Gough 137-43. (5) ASS, Poona, 1890, ( with pictures of crucibles for the metals ). (6) Aufrecht CC also speaks against the authorship of Vagbhata; Cordier ( *Vagbhata*, pp. 8 ff. with a table ) expresses doubt. (7) For further works of this kind see Aufrecht CC. (8) *Mat. Med.* 113, 185. (9) Cf. also the citations in Oxf 311. Sinhjee places Sarng. after Bhav (?). (10) IA 23, 260. (11) W 285 ff. (12) Critical edition of Prabhuram Jivanram (Bombay 1891, pp. 155, 351, 12 ) is used. (13) Bhandarkar, *History of the Deccan* 2, 116; Bhr 36; 224. (14) Bikaner 643; Stein 183; CC 2.44; Garbe Verz. 73. (15) IO 964 ff. (16) W 287-89; IO 926 ff. (17) IO 573-75. (18) BP 86 ff.; BL 246; IO 946; Stein 189; CC 2, 142. (19) W 292, ff.; Oxf 357 ff.; L 3051; CC.

c8.20

diseases and a still more comprehensive presentation of their treatment; then there is the elixir and Vajīkaraṇa ( 945-1006 ), then Bṛṃhaṇa, Svedana, Vamana etc., lastly the dietetics and pharmacology, diagnosis and prognosis. In this work the picture appears essentially different from heretofore : In the field of pharmacy ( 1058-1113 ) nothing is said about calcination of metals, very little is spoken of the metals in general, Nāḍīparīkṣā is not mentioned in the medical examination and the opium does not appear. In the chapter on haemorrhoids Vangasena deals exhaustively, like later authors, with the three kinds of iron and six kinds of steel ( among them Romaka ), purification of the steel, the killing of iron by melting, powdering etc. ( 161 ff. ). He also speaks of the properly purified quicksilver (574), of Rasaparpata, the preparation of quicksilver (958) and other mercurial mixtures, but does not enter into the particulars of the methods of working upon mercury. The oldest MS of Vangasena is written in 1276¹ and another in 1320.² One may conclude perhaps from the name of Vangasena, whose father was called Gadādhara and was living originally in Kañjika, that he was a Bengali and was the contemporary of the Sena dynasty ( Era of Lakṣmaṇasena 1119 ff. ). The majority of MSS also shows the north-eastern origin. In citations Vangasena is very poor, but has quietly copied out word for word from Mādhavanidāna in the description of diseases; many times his readings are better. His chapter on Ariṣṭa ( 1104 ff. ) is similar to Suśruta 1.28-33⁴. Many recipes, e. g. six ślokas in the chapter on Atisāra, are identical in the Bower MS⁵. Others can be traced to Vṛnda and Cakradatta.

c8.21

Cakradatta, more fully Cakrapāṇidatta, in short also Cakrapāṇi or Cakra, was undoubtedly a Bengali. This prolific author, as he has described himself, was the younger son of one Nārāyaṇa who served king Nayapāla of Bengal as Rasavatyadhikārin and minister, and therefore may well be placed in 1060⁶. His most famous and often printed⁷ work is a comprehensive therapy, the Cikitsāsārasaṃgraha which, is mostly copied from Vṛnda's Siddhayoga whom Cakradatta expressly mentions as his chief source⁸. Śivadāsasena has written a commentary on this work of Cakrapāṇidatta, which is already printed⁹. His commentary is based on another older commentary on the same work. Śivadāsasena has also commented on another work of Cakrapāṇi, namely Dravyaguṇasaṃgraha¹⁰; and at the end of this commentary he denotes himself as the son of Anantasena, the Ruler of Bengal (*Gauḍabhūmipati*), consequently descended apparently from a branch of Vaidya dynasty of the Senas in Bengal. The Dravyaguṇasaṃgraha contains, as the title shows, chiefly a short survey of the effects of the medicinal stuffs, like the analogous sections in Caraka and Suśruta. His *Sarvasārasaṃgraha* and *Śabdacandrikā*¹¹—a collection and explanation of pharmaceutical and botanical technical terms, are still not printed, and his both great commentaries on Caraka and Suśruta are partly printed (Cf. § 7 ff.). Cakradatta shows himself to be conversant with the calcination of certain metals¹², but he does not appear to have known opium and Nāḍīparīkṣā and mentions quicksilver only rarely¹³.

c8.22

§ 5. Siddhayoga and Madhavanidana:—Siddhayoga or Vṛndamādhava of Vṛnda with the commentary of Śrīkaṇṭhadatta is excellently printed in ĀSS (Poona 1894, pp. 665). Like Cakradatta (§ 4) it exhaustively deals in 82 Adhikāras firstly with the treatment of diseases from fever to poisoning wherein many recipes—mostly provided with corresponding titles are prescribed, and they can partly be identified with those in the Bower MS¹. It then (pp. 515 ff.) deals with elixirs, aphrodisiacs, Bṛṃhaṇa, Svedana, Vamana, Virecana and the like, with the signs of approaching death (Ariṣṭa), Hygiene (Svasthādhikāra) and under the title Miśrakādhikāra it deals in short with physicians, patients, weights and measures and similar general questions. The close adherence of this work to a distinguished author like Cakradatta makes it probable that it had already attained great authority in his (Cakradatta's) times and consequently must have come into existence at least about a century earlier. Several long quotations from Vṛnda² are also found in Hemādri (13th cen.). Vṛnda is besides cited in Śārṅgadhara Saṃhitā (§ 3), in Virasiṃhavaloka³

c8.23

(1) IO 952. (2) BP 86. (3) Cf. Eggeling, IO 951; Cordier, *Quelques donnees nouvelles* 6 (Calcutta 1899). (4) Eggeling, l.c. 952. (5) Cf. Hoernle's remarks in his edition of Bower MS. (6) IO 938; ZDMG 53,378; Haraprasad Sastri, *School History of India* (Calcutta 1896) 33. (7) So says Rosta IO.Cat. (1897) 5; the OB (1887 ff.) upto 7 editions. Cited according to the edition of Jīva. Vidya (Calcutta 1888, pp. 471). (8) ZDMG 53, 377. (9) Calcutta 1887 (pp. 5.23,863 with Bengali translation) and others. (10) Calcutta 1871 (pp. 179). (11) Cf. Wilson, *Essays* B, p. 237; L 562; IO 974. (12) cf. Dutt, *Mat Med*, XII. (13) l. c. XI.

c8.24

and also in some other works. Vṛnda prescribes quicksilver preparations less than Cakradatta⁴. In 7.13 quicksilver mixed with the juices of poisonous plants is prescribed for external use against lice. In the serial order of diseases Vṛnda follows, as he has said in 1.2 and as the comparison also confirms, the Gaḍaviniscaya or Rugviniścaya (see below) which must, therefore, be older. Also Vāgbhaṭa must be older than Vṛnda who quotes⁵ him in 1.27. His mention of a medicine imported from Persia, viz. Pārasīyavavānī (7.1) i.e. Yavānī grown in Persia, might be advanced as an argument against taking back his date too much. The commentary of Śrīkaṇṭhadatta contains many quotations from Caraka, Suśruta, AS, AHr, MN, Hārīta and other old authors. Since Śrīkaṇṭhadatta quotes an older commentator of Vṛnda, Caṇḍraṭa and Hemādri along with Bhoja, Cakradatta and Dallana, he cannot have flourished before the 14th century.

c8.25

The Rugviniścaya or Mādhavanidāna of Mādhava or Mādhavakara⁶, son of Indukara, is the chief work on pathology (Nidāna) and is, therefore, simply called Nidāna⁷. The order in which this work treats the important diseases in 79 Nidānas along with their causes, symptoms and complications, has been the standard not only for Vṛnda and Vangasena but also for all time to come, and is also preserved in such works like e. g. Bhāvaprakāśa which besides quote particularly Caraka and Suśruta. Mādhavanidāna is often literally identical with Caraka and Suśruta and in this case the borrowing has to be taken for granted; but his system, enumeration and description of diseases mark an advance on Caraka and Suśruta. Thus he devotes a special chapter for small pox (Masūrikā) whereas Suśruta mentions it only in minor diseases (Cf. § 66). The anteriority of Suśruta to Mādhavanidāna is proved by the Indian tradition (even though it is doubted by Haas), since e.g. Caraka and Suśruta are cited by Vāgbhaṭa, while Mādhavanidāna is not mentioned by him. As the predecessor of Vṛnda, Mādhava may be placed in the 9th century at the latest, or in the 8th if Mādhava may be identified with Badan, Yadan (i. e. Nidān?)—a pathological work translated very early in Arabic. The numerous commentaries prove the fame of Mādhavanidāna, and of these, eight are mentioned in Aufrecht's Catalogus Catalogorum. The most famous is the often printed Madhukośa composed by Vijayarakṣita and Śrīkaṇṭhadatta in the 14th or 15th century⁸.

c8.26

(1) ZDMG 53, 378 ff. (2) l. c. 54, 274. (3) BP 87; Fl 348 ff. (4) e.g. Vrnda 4, the chapter on chronic Grahani which Cakra 44-53 has almost copied and to which he has added at the end two metallic preparations Rasaparpātika and Tamrayoga. Rasaparpātika is an orbicular preparation from melted sulpher and quicksilver, cf. Dutt, Mat Med. 32 f. Tamrayoga also contains quicksilver. (5) ZDMG 1. c. (6) Jiva. Vidya.'s edition (Calcutta 1876 with Madhukosa pp. 443) is used. Out of the recent numerous editions mention may be made of U. C. Dutt's Nidana (2nd edition, Calcutta 1880) which is important on account of its English translation of many names of diseases added to it. To this and other editions a Bengali translation is added. Others contain Hindi, Marathi or Sinhalese translations. (7) Cf. Diets, Anal. Med. p. 118; Wilson JRAS 6, 118; Haas, ZDMG 30, 662, 652 ff.; A. F. Muller, l. c. 34, 475; Dutt, Mat. Med. X; Cordier, Quelques donnees 5f. (8) The joint authorship of Srikanthadatta is confirmed by a comparison of sources of Madhukosa (put together in IO 934) with authors used in Srikanthadatta's commentary on Vrnda. An old MS of Madhukosa is written in 1529 A. D. (Oxf 357) cf. also the Addenda.

c8.27

§ 6. Vagbhata.— Besides some apocryphal productions (cf. § 3) two big and kindred works are attributed to this author¹; of these the bigger and evidently older is referred to in citations as Vrddha Vagbhata and the other simply as Vagbhata. The latter work which is particularly respected and is frequently commented is properly called the Astangahrdayasamhita² i. e. the quintessence of medicine and contains, with arrangement similar to Susruta, in six sthanas and 120 adhyayas a lucid and versified presentation of the whole medicine with special reference to surgery as in Susruta. AHr conforms more closely with Caraka than with Susruta. It also quotes both these authors. Thus in 6.40.84 and 88 both Caraka and Susruta are quoted together; in 1.9.13 Caraka alone is quoted and in 6.30. 31 Susruta alone is quoted. AHr besides quotes Bhela, Nimi, Kasyapa, Dhanvantaryah and in the introduction (1.1) the son of Atri, Agnivesa and other Rsis whose particulars are not given. At the end it also mentions the AS (Vrddha Vagbhata) which the author clearly characterises as his chief source. On the evidence of Tibetan sources, Huth (whose results are indeed not undisputed) places the composition of AHr in the 8th century as the latest limit. A similar result would be obtained if the AHr can be identified with the book Astankar (?) of the Arabic sources³. The citation in Vrnda also appears to take back Vagbhata at least in the 9th century. The opium, pulse-feeling (Nadipariksa) and the metallurgical process do not yet come in here. Of the commentaries, Arunadatta's commentary named Sarvāṅgasundarī is very valuable and is much used by his successors. It is composed in the 15th century⁴ at the latest. Hemādri's Āyurvedarasāyana is written at the end of the 13th century.

c8.28

⁴ (1) Cf. W. 278-90; Oxf 308-9; Burnell 65; Roth Lit-Bl. f. o. Ph.1, 48-50 and ZDMG 49, 184 ff.; Huth, ZDMG 49,280ff. and Sitzb. 1895,267ff.; Cordier, Vāgbhaṭa et l'Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā (Besançon 1896, pp. 17); Jolly, Zur Quellenkunde der indischen Medizin 1. Vāgbhaṭa. ZDMG 54, 260-74.

c8.29

The AS of Vāgbhaṭa⁵ which is frequently quoted in commentaries and is utilized in AHr for the explanation of some rigid statements, is recognised as a very old work at least so far as the major portion is concerned, not only by its priority to AHr but also by its form and contents. AS is composed of a mixture of prose and poetry which reminds us of Caraka and Suśruta ( Cf. § 8 f. ). In an entreaty a saying addressed to Buddha is preserved, while in AHr the Buddhistic tendencies, which are still present in it and which perhaps explain the special reception of this work in Tibet, have considerably faded. At the end of the AS, it is said about the author that he received the name Vāgbhaṭa after his grandfather—himself a distinguished physician, that he learnt under a teacher with the Buddhist name Avalokita and also under his own father Siṃhagupta and that he was born in the Indus region. The versified part often corresponds literally with AHr; but instead of 120 adhyāyas as in AHr, AS has 150, 50 i.e. one third of which constitute the sixth part (Uttarasthāna). In AHr the first five parts contain 80 adhyāyas and the last contains 40. The connection of AS with Caraka and especially with Suśruta from which a direct quotation is also found, is closer than that of AHr. However, AS contains much independent material and is, therefore, of the greatest value for verifying as well as for supplementing our Caraka and Suśruta. If AHr can really be placed in the 8th century or earlier, AS must naturally be still older. In the 7th century Buddhism was still in a flourishing condition in the Indus region. Yet, according to Huth, the Tibetan translations of AHr along with the commentary originated only in the first half of the 11th century.⁶ wanting in the second edition. Much useful is also the new text-edition of Sankarasastri containing some variant readings (Bombay 1900, pp. 792,12). (3) Cf. Cordier *Quelques données* 4; Jolly, I. c. 262. While going to press I have received a new work of Dr. Cordier on Vagbhata (JA 1901) in which he identifies Vaidya Vagbhata with the somewhat mythical court-physician of King Bhoja, following the statement of Merutunga and, therefore, places him in the 11th century. The other facts, particularly the authentic autobiographical information of Vagbhata, can scarcely be reconciled with this identification. (4) According to Cordier l. c. in the 13th century, still the dates collected by him speak for still earlier composition. For an old commentary of Candranandana (not Candrananda) quoted by Arunadatta, see Cordier, l. c. (5) Edition of Ganesh Tarte (Bombay 1888, 2 Vols. pp. 6, 306, 421). (6) Cf. Laufer, *Beitr* 1, 13.

c8.30

⁵ (2) According to the edition of A. M. Kunte containing the commentary of Arunadatta (2nd edition Bombay 1891, pp. 3, 29, 51, 599). In spite of the recent numerous editions, the first edition of Kunte (Bombay 1889, 2 Vols) retains its value on account of the word-index (Śabdānukramaṇikā)

c8.31

§ 7. Atreya-Harita :—Atreya i. e. the son of Atri, also called Punarvasu, is unquestionably one of the most famous medical Rsis. Thus he is called in the Bower MS. 1.8. as the first of the wise men of old times engaged in the search and testing of medicinal plants; so also in AS 1.1, AHr. 1.1.2, and Car 1.1.9. Immediately after Atreya, Harita is mentioned in the Bower MS. The hypothesis that the oldest medical work is preserved in the Samhita ascribed to Atreya or Harita appears to be resting on firm ground¹. On the other hand, the name alone is not convincing enough and several modern falsifications² in the domain of legal literature are concealed especially under the respected names of Atreya and Harita. Haas regards the medical Atreya Samhita as "the most miserable scribbling in this domain". Still both the arguments which he advances for this harsh judgement, namely the theory of karmavipaka (cf. § 3) and the use of various substances (see Kausika sutra) causing nausea are already peculiar to the Vedic medicine. Indeed Harita says at the end of his work that in the four eras (Yugas) Atri, Caraka, Susruta and Vagbhata were the standard authors and consequently betrays hereby his acquaintance with and the anteriority of Vagbhata. The genuineness of this concluding part can, however, be challenged, since the text of Harita is in general very badly preserved, the MSS as well as the printed text differ to a great extent and a commentary and old dated MSS appear to be wanting³. The complete work requires a closer examination; it nevertheless contains in its six sthanas which are of unequal extent a complete system of medicine with many peculiar statements on diseases and therapeutic substances which are often used in later texts, though with precaution.

c8.32

(1) Goldstücker in Mrs. Manning's Ancient and Mediaeval India (London 1869) 1.339-42 where a short extract from Harita is given. Sinhjee has expressed analogous views (p.29). (2) Recht und Sitte § 8f. (3) ZDMG 31, 650. (4) Cf. IO 929 and both the editions, essentially differing from each other, by Binod Lal Sen (Calcutta 1887, pp.32, 420) and Jairam Raghunath (Bombay 1892, with Gujarati translation, pp. 39, 812). Still more different from these is the Atreyasamhita described in L. 2633. cf. also Cordier, Origines, 83.

c8.33

§ 8. Susruta :— The Bower MS (§ 13 ) shows that Suśruta, like Ātreya and Hārīta, was respected not only as one of the oldest Ṛṣis in the field of medicine in the fifth century, but also as the mythical author of a work on garlic and other therapeutic substances, the contents of which (as well as of the other medical works of the Bower MS) stand in close relation to those of the well known Suśruta Saṃhitā (Āyurvedaśāstra) composed by Suśruta, son of Viśvāmitra. In the interior parts of India the name of Suśruta was proverbial as that of a distinguished Vaidya at the time of king Yaśovarman of Kamboja (889-910), as is shown by the play on words in the inscriptions of this king¹. About 900, Suśruta was cited in an Arabic translation of the famous Arabian physician Razi (Rhazes) in such a way that one feels that this translation could well have been based on Suśruta Saṃhitā². The Indian-Arabic work of Sanaq on poisons (Circa 910-20) strongly reminds us of Su. 5.1.³ Barmakide Yahya Ibn Chalid (C. 805) who was descended from Buddism had already ordered for the translation of Suśruta. The accounts of the Chinese traveller I-tsing (cf. § 10) also prove the existence of a work similar to our Suśruta at least in the 7th century. The dates adduced in § 5 f. to which the mention of Suśruta in the Mahābhārata may be added, are affirmed by this external evidence.

c8.34

The present condition of the whole Suśruta is indeed borne out⁴ by the commentaries, especially the Bhānumatī of Cakradatta (11th cen.) and the Nibandhasaṃgraha of Dallana (12th cen.). Jaiyyaṭa (Jaijjaṭa) is usually considered as their oldest predecessor⁵. On the basis of his commentary Candraṭa, son of Tiṣaṭa (cf. § 3) undertook a revision (Pāṭhaśuddhi) of the text of Suśruta⁶. We can also gather from Dallana (e. g. on Su. 3.2.48-49) that Jaiyyaṭa read differently in many places and in general great discrepancies existed in the MSS. According to Hoernle many original readings can still be restored from Bhānumatī. The text-critical problems are often very difficult. Thus from Su. 1.1.39 and 1.4.5 one can draw the conclusion that originally there were 120 adhyāyas in five sthānas and that the last part (Uttarasthāna) is a later addition. The AHr also consists of 120 adhyāyas if the Uttarasthāna is reckoned. Even the AS has such a sixth part. The absence of opium among therapeutic substances, of pulse-feeling in medical examination and of small pox in special diseases speaks for the high antiquity of our work. The medicaments are mostly of vegetable kind and a few references to quicksilver remedies¹ are probably interpolations. The language mixed with prose and poetry is not so old as in Bower MS and reminds us much more of Varāhamihira ( 6th century ) but can also have been modernised.

c8.35

The Anukramaṇikā in Su. 1.3 gives information about the contents. The first part ( Sūtrasthāna ) is basic and deals with general questions like the origin and division of medicine, training of physicians, theory of therapeutic substances, dietetics and similar things. It also especially deals with surgery and treatment of wounds which, according to Suśruta, form the most important part of medicine, wherefor Dhanvantari— the surgeon of Gods is considered as its real author. The second ( Nidānasthāna ) deals with pathology, the third ( Śarīrasthāna ) with anatomy and embryology, the fourth ( Cikitsāsthāna ) with therapy, the fifth ( Kalpasthāna ) with toxicology, the sixth supplementary part (Uttarasthāna) with opthalmology and other portions of therapy not described previously as well as with hygiene etc.in short².

c8.36

(1) Bergaigne. Inse. Sanscrites de Campa et de Cambodge (Paris 1893) 2, 218, 227; Liotard. Susruta ( Dict. Encycloped. des Sciences Medicales ). (2) According to the third improved reprint of Jīva. Vidyasagar's edition ( Calcutta 1889, pp. 12, 915 ). For other editions ( first edition, Calcutta, 1835 ff. ), see the Catalogue of Haas-Bendall and Rost and the OB. (3) A Muller, ZDMG, 34, 475, 544 ff. (4) Bhanumati and Nibandhasamgraha together in the editions of Gangaprasad Sen (15 parts upto Su 1.43.5, Calcutta 1888 ff., pp.648, the edition used in Hoernle's translation) and Bijayaratna Sen and Nishikanta Sen (14th part,1893). A complete edition of Nibandhasamgraha published by Jiva. Vidya (Calcutta 1891,pp.1377, thereon see Roth, ZDMG 49, 138-40). Another edition of Susruta with the same commentary is published upto Su 4.20.4 by Abinash Chundar Kaviratna and Chundar Kumar Goopta (Calcutta 1885 ff., pp. 1074 ). (5) Cf. Roth 1. c 139, Hemadri. 10 932. (6) IO 928 (7) Cordier, Quelques donnees nouvelles 2; Jolly, ZDMG, 54, 263. (8) Translations : Hessler, Susruta ( Erlangen 1844 ff., 3 Vols. and 2 parts, pp. 206, 208, 186, 24, 10, 106), Latin; not available. Cf. Weber, IStr.

c8.37

2,87-90; A.M. Kunte, *Caraka* edited and *Susruta* translated (Bombay 1876ff. pp. 216, 68 upto Su, 1.8 ) Cf. Weber l.c. 3, 561-93: *The Susruta Samhita* trans. by U. C. Dutt (Calcutta 1883 ff., Bibli. Ind. pp. 192 upto Su 1.42); supplemented by A. C. Chattopadhyaya ( Calcutta 1891, pp. 193-288, upto Su 1.46 ); *The Susruta Samhita* translated by A. F. R. Hoernle ( Calcutta 1897, Bibli. Ind. pp. 98, upto Su 1.14 ). Compare also Haas, *Über die Ursprunge der indischen Medizin, mit besonderem Bezug auf Susruta*, ZDMG 30, 617-70; by the same author, *Hippokrates und die indische Medizin*, l. c. 31, 647-66; Weber, ILit² 286, Nachtr. 13; A.Muller l.c. 464-556; Dutt, *Mat. Med.* VIII ff.; Lietard, *Susruta* (see above); Cordier, *Nagarjuna et l'Uttaratantra de la Susrutasamhita* (Anantarive 1896, pp. 7).

c8.38

§ 9. Caraka :-In Chinese sources Caraka appears as the court-physician of the famous king Kaniska ( circa 100 A. D. ) whose wife he attended as an obstetrician in a difficult delivery. The Arabic sources also know Caraka as a medical author whose work was translated first from Indian into Persian and then (c. 800) from Persian into Arabic*. What Alberuni quotes from Caraka according to this translation, e. g. his relation to Agnivesa and the origin of Āyurveda*, agrees with our Caraka. According to the Indian tradition which Alberuni also knows, Caraka is the oldest author*. Vāgbhata, therefore, forms the compound *Carakamṛtau* ( not vice versa ). In Bhāvaprakāsa Caraka is a mythical figure, older than Dhanvantari—the physician of Gods, and also than Suśruta. The Prasthānabheda also mentions Caraka before Suśruta ( IS. 1.21 ). Hārita (§ 7 ) places Caraka, Suśruta and Vāgbhata who are also denoted as Vrddhatrayi, successively in the latter three eras. Outside the medical literature Caraka is three times cited by the grammarian Bhartṛhari who, according to I-tsing, flourished before 650 A. D.* The name Caraka reminds us of the old Vedic school of Caraka ( Cf. also *Kapisthala* Car 1. l. 9 ). Thus chronologically very little can be said against the identification of Caraka with Kaniska's court-physician.

c8.39

The commentary Āyurvedadīpikā or *Carakatātparyatikā* composed by Cakradatta in the 11th century directly bears testimony to the present form of Carakasamhitā, just as is the case with Suśruta. The older commentary of Haricandra or Hariscandra which is quoted by Cakradatta and other old authors is apparently lost. In spite of the old commentary the text has been handed down in a worse condition than in the case of Suśruta, as is evident from great difference between the MSS and the available numerous editions. The last two sthānas and the concluding part of the fifth (41 Adhyāyas in all) do not come from Caraka himself, but are supplemented by Dṛḍhabala born in the Panjab (Pañcanada) "from many books". As a whole, however, the Carakasaṃhitā by its form and contents makes even more antique impression than the Suśruta Saṃhitā. It exceeds the Suśruta Saṃhitā in extensiveness in spite of the complete absence of surgery, which fact is explained by its naive width and looseness. Caraka has in common with Suśruta his terminology and general views, the interchange of prose and poetry, the absence of opium, pulse-feeling and the quicksilver preparations. He has the archaic expression Rājamātra in common with the very old Macartney MS¹⁰.

c8.40

Caraka himself gives a survey of the contents of his work in 1.30. The work consists of eight sthānas¹¹:— 1. Sūtrasthāna deals with pharmacology, food, dietetics, certain diseases, curing methods, physicians and quacks, also physiology, philosophy and other things of the most varied character. 2. Nidānasthāna deals with eight main diseases. 3. Vimānasthāna deals with taste, nourishment, general pathology and medical studies. 4. Śārīrasthāna contains anatomy and embryology. 5. Indriyasthāna on diagnosis and prognosis. 6. Cikitsasthāna on special therapy. 7. Kalpasthāna and 8. Siddhisthāna on general therapy¹².

c8.41

Bheḍa or Bheḍasaṃhitā¹³ which is not yet printed, is very closely related to the Carakasaṃhitā; perhaps it is as if another recension of this work. Caraka himself is only an elaborator of an old work composed by Agniveśa who was a fellow-student with Bheḍa (Car 1.1). Bheḍa is mentioned in the Bower MS. 1.8.

c8.42

(1) S. Levi, *Notes sur les Indo-Scythes*, JA 1896, pp. 447, 480 ff.; Lietard, *Le Medecin Caraka*, Bull. Acn. Med. 1897; Jolly, *Caraka*, WZKM 7, 164-66; Takakusu, *I-tsing* (Oxford, 1896) LIX. (2) Cf. Flugel, ZDMG 11, 149, 325 ff.; A. F. Muller, *l. c.* 34, 475, 554 ff.; Sachau, *Alberuni's India* Pref. xxxi, xxxv. (3) Sachau, *l. c.* 159, 162 ff., 382 ff. (4) Cf. Dutt, *Mat. Med.* VI ff. (5) Kielhorn, IA 12, 227. (6) According to the edition of Sriharinath Visarada (Calcutta 1892 ff., pp. 533, 2, 32) covering the Sutrasthana and Vimana, 1-3, 8 and also according to both the Tubingen MSS (Garbe, Verz. 145 ff.). (7) CC s. v. (8) The citations refer to the edition of K. Debendranath Sen and K. Upendranath Sen (Calcutta 1897, pp. 42, 1056) which presents at least a readable text. The work of Jiva. Vidya. is much improved in the second edition (Calcutta 1896, pp. 931). The good and fully Ind. Med....3 commented Editio Princeps of K. Gangadhara (Calcutta 1868 ff., pp. 1200) was printed upto Car 1. 18 and was completed by Dharanidhara Ray (Berhampore 1878 ff., pp. 1538, 4). For Kunte's edition upto 1.30 see § 8; for other editions and translations in modern Indian languages see OB. (9) Car 6.30.275; 8.12.78-9. Cf. Dutt, Mat. Med. VII; Cordier, *Origines, Evolution et Decadence de la Medecine de Indienne* in *Annales d'Hygiene*, 4, 81 (Paris 1901) (10) Hoernle, *Central Asian MSS*, JASB 1897, p. 247. (11) Not of 11, Cf. Roth, ZDMG, 26, 443. (12) The very extensive translation by Avinashchandra Kaviratna comprises uptill now 20 Vols (Calcutta 1891-99). Cf. Roth, ZDMG 48, 140-42. Roth himself translated Caraka 5.8 and 1.29 in ZDMG, 26, 441 ff. A trans. commenced by Mahondralal Sarkar in 1870 in Calcutta Journal of Medicine did not go beyond adhyaya 2. Cf. also Goldstucker, 1. c. 342-45; Weber, *ILit*² 284 ff.; Eggeling, 10, 923 ff.; Cordier, 1. c. 79 ff. (13) Burnell, 63 ff.; Cordier, 1. c. 80 ff.

c8.43

§ 10. Origin of Ayurveda :- The Ayurveda, the Veda of long life, of therapeutics, was first known from Brahman according to the tradition just mentioned. From Brahman, Prajapati or Daksa received it, from him it came to the Asvins and from them to Indra. So far the accounts agree¹. Further according to Susruta, Indra taught Ayurveda to Dhanvantari (i. e. the Professor of surgery), the surgeon of Gods embodied as king Divodasa of Banaras (Kasiraja). Divodasa then transmitted it to the wise men who approached him as pupils, out of sympathy for the suffering humanity and also in order to prolong their own life; really however, he taught Ayurveda to Susruta along with his six companions, with special reference to surgery. On the other hand, Bharadvaja is, according to Caraka, the first human being to whom Indra exposed the Ayurveda. Out of more than 50 Rsis who surrounded him and whose names do not agree with Susruta's companions, Punarvasu, son of Atri (Atreya), transmitted the science obtained from Bharadvaja to his six disciples : Agnivesa, Bhela, Jatukarna, Parasara, Harita and Ksarapani. Of these Agnivesa first composed a text, then the others also compiled theirs, and these six books obtained the assent of Atreya and other wise men and general recognition in the world. At the end of every Adhyaya it is, therefore, said that this work is composed by Agnivesa and is revised (pratisamskrta) by Caraka. AS and AHr also substantially agree with Caraka's version of the legend which Alberuni also knew (Cf. § 9). According to AS and AHr, Atreya and his companions were directly taught by Indra. In AS the names of the five companions of Agnivesa are partly different and Susruta is mentioned as one amongst them.

c8.44

In Bhavaprakāśa, Ātreya with his six disciples appears (as in Caraka) after the Gods, then Bharadvāja, then Caraka who elaborated the books of Agniveśa and his associates, then Dhanvantari who was king of Banaras (Kāśirāja), lastly Suśruta who, inspired by Dhanvantari, wrote a text-book which is called Suśruta, because it is *sūrutam*. The Prasthānabheda also mentions Caraka as the first of the human authors, whose eight *sthānas* it knows, then it also mentions Suśruta who wrote a book in five *sthānas*³. Much simpler is the account in the first medical work of the Bower MS which puts this work in the mouth of the sage Kāśirāja who was questioned on the nature of garlic by Suśruta botanising in the Himalayas along with nine companions, among whom there were Ātreya and Bheja.

c8.45

Caraka, Suśruta, AS and AHr also agree on the point that they all hold the original Āyurveda which is an Upāṅga of Atharvaveda, to have consisted of eight parts: Surgery (*Śalya*), surgery of eye, ear, nose, throat (*Śālākya*, *Ūrdhvāṅga*), demonology (*Bhūtavidyā*, *Graha*), treatment for children (*Kaumārabhṛtya*, *Bāla*), toxicology (*Agadatantra*, *Viṣagaravairodhikapraśamana*), elixir (*Rasāyana*, *Jarā*) and aphrodisiac (*Vājīkaraṇa*, *Vṛṣa*)*. In Caraka, AS and AHr, Kāyacikitsā is the first part. The Chinese traveller I-tsing (671-695 A. D.) knew those eight parts of Indian medicine in the order in which they are mentioned in Suśruta, and when he says that these eight arts existed originally in eight books but were lately brought together by a man, so this remark can be taken as based on the above Indian account, especially because he mentions Śakra (Indra) as the first author⁴.

c8.46

Whether and how far this tradition possesses a historical kernel, cannot at present be decided. Su 1.1.6 says that the original work of Brahman was composed in 100,000 verses and 1000 chapters and was reduced to those eight parts only in view of the limited grasping power of men. This account has a striking similarity with the original Manusmṛti which is said to have consisted of 100,000 verses and was reduced to its present extent gradually in successive manipulations⁵. The close relation of Suśruta to surgery did not exist originally, as the Bower MS shows.

c8.47

(1) Car, Su, AS, AHr 1.1; Bhav 1.1.1-9. Cf. Harita 1.1. (2) Weber IS I.21. (3) Su, AS, AHr Lc. & Car 1.30,25. (4) Takakusu, l. c. 127ff., 134, 222 ff. (5) Recht und Sitte, § 7.

c8.48

§ 11. Medical Glossaries :— The pharmaceutical collections form an important part of medical literature, but are already dealt with by Zachariae as a part of lexicography¹. Here, therefore, only a small supplement from the pharmaceutical point of view may be given. Even though Dhanvantarinighantu² is the oldest work of this kind, it cannot be very old, for it seems to be familiar with the pharmacological working and therapeutical use of quicksilver and other metals as well as with the philosopher's stone. Thus seven other names are given to quicksilver (Pārada) (p. 213); it cures worms and leprosy, prolongs life, strengthens the eyes and so on in torpid condition (Mūrcchita), while in its natural form it brings death (p. 214). There are five kinds of Ferromagnets, the Roman (Romakānta, p. 211) being one among them. In the Suvarṇādivarga the following metals and minerals are classified according to their good and bad effect: Gold, silver, copper, zinc, brass, lead, white brass, iron, damasked steel (?), iron filings (?), quicksilver, cinnabar, artificial diamond, emerald diamond. Among the plant substances, the opium (Aphūka, Ahiphena, Aphenaka) and poppy seed (Khastīla) are mentioned (p. 232). Compare § 26. In the Madanavinoda of Madanapāla³ composed in 1374 A. D. and also in the later Rājanighaṇṭu of Narahari⁴ a large group of other minerals is likewise mentioned along with the abovementioned minerals. For some later medical Glossaries, see above §§ 1 f., 4 f. One may well suppose that the enumeration of articles of food and therapeutic substances, their grouping in Vargas and the statement of their Guṇas in Car, Su, AS, and AHr originated from the medical glossaries, but the preserved works of this kind appear throughout to be of a later date than the old medical Samhitās. To these Glossaries may also be added the dietetic works like Pathyāpathyanighaṇṭu of Trimalla (printed in Banaras 1869), Pathyāpathyavinicaya of Viśvanāthasena (16th century ?) and the medical cooking books like Kṣemakutūhala, Bhojanakutūhala⁵.

First 48 of 90 passages. Read on

Linked texts (52)