Vanaspati: Plants and Plant-Life as in Indian Treatises and Traditions c4: Introduction: Was There a Science of Botany?

Vanaspati: Plants and Plant-Life as in Indian Treatises and Traditions c4

Language: English

Introduction: Was There a Science of Botany?

c4.2

Botany is a modern science which imposes its own peculiar form of discipline. The subject matter of investigation which comes within its scope falls also within the broader scope of the Science called Biology. But Biology, too, as we know it, is a science of modern origin. The pride of this modern achievement cannot be relished by a people like the Indian conscious of a great historic past. At the same time it will be too much of arrogance and self-sufficiency on the part of the advocates of modern sciences to neglect the whole body of ancient treatises and the whole mass of traditions of a great people by treating them as a tissue of credulity and superstition. In the life of the science of Botany, exactly as in the life of other sciences, there were earlier processes suggesting its possibility. This may be accepted as a truism. Our enquiry then is—was there anything in India approaching the science of Botany? Were there any earlier processes which enabled the people of this great country to gain in the knowledge of plants and plant-life, and the art of application of this knowledge for the improvement of the general conditions of life?

c4.3

In Varāhamihira’s *Brihatsaṃhitā*¹ as well as in the *Agnipurāṇa*², there is a distinct section dealing with the topics of *Vrikṣāyurveda*—a term which may be literally rendered “the knowledge of tree-life.” The very same term with the additional *Gulma* preceding it (*Gulma-Vrikṣāyurveda*) occurs in the *Kauṭilya Arthaśāstra* in the section³ enumerating the functions of the officer in charge of Agriculture, and his assistants. Whether the term has additional word *gulma* (bushes—shrubs and herbs) or not, the meaning is the same, the word ‘tree’ where it occurs alone standing for the whole of plant-life in the kingdom of plants; even in the Vedic hymns the term *Vanam*, *Vriksha*, being used almost as synonyms.⁴ Of the three works in which this significant term is used and a complete section has been devoted to the subject, the first, the *Agnipurāṇa*, is nothing but a popular encyclopaedia of all kinds of knowledge and practices; the second, the *Bṛhatsaṃhitā*, is a manual containing directions for the applications of the knowledge of astronomy and astrology in practice; the third, the *Arthaśāstra*, is also a handbook discussing matters relating to royal polity and the art of government. Thus all of them are non-Botanical treatises; all are intended not so much to acquaint the students with theories as with practices. In each of the three works we come across a section¹ dealing with the subjects of *Vrikshāyurveda*. The matters dealt with in these sections are of the same character. All of these agree in giving us the impression that the subjects within the scope of the ancient science of plant-life consisted of collection and selection of seeds, germination, grafting, cutting, sowing, planting and nursing, selection of soil, manuring and cultivation of soil under favourable meteorological conditions, and the location of plants for improving the aesthetic and hygienic surroundings of the homestead. There are certain points of difference which are of paramount importance in the absence of any ancient Indian treatises or manuals of *Vriksháyurveda* coming down to us. The section of the *Arthaśāstra* leaves out of account the central point doing justice to the title of the ancient science *Vriksháyurveda*, namely, the ‘treatment of plant-diseases and prescriptions for remedies.’ This point comes out prominently in the *Brihatsaṃhitā* and the *Agnipurāṇa*. On the other hand, the section of the *Arthaśāstra* is not without a special importance not only for its antiquity but also for a clear statement in which the ancient science of plant-life appears to be treated as a sub-head of *Krishitantra*, a term obviously signifying a treatise on Agriculture. The statement is quoted below¹:

c4.4

¹ Chap. 54, Vol. II, pp. 743, etc.

c4.5

² Bibliotheca Indica, Vol. II, 1876, Chap. 281, pp. 43-44.

c4.6

³ Chap. XXIV, p. 115 (Sanskrit original).

c4.7

⁴ Rigveda, X. 81. 4.

c4.8

¹ See supra, p. 2. footnote.

c4.9

¹ For English Translation—see Shama Shastri, Chap. XXIV, p 138.

c4.10

“सीताऽध्यक्षः कृषितन्त्रगुल्मवृक्षायुर्वेदज्ञस्तज्ज्ञमखो वा सर्वधान्यपुष्पफलशाककन्दमूलवाप्तीक्षुकार्पासबीजानि यथाकालं गृह्णीयात्॥”

c4.11

By this the officer in charge of Agriculture and his assistants are supposed to be conversant with the treatise of Agriculture (*Krishitantra*) and knowledge of the life of Bushes and Trees, and well trained in the art of utilisation of their knowledge. Dr. Shama Shastri in his translation has represented *Krishitantra* as a science or scientific treatise dealing with *Gulma-Vriksháyurveda* and he cannot but do so in regard to the matters dealt with in this particular section. But from the construction of the sentence it is clear that *Krishitantra* and the *Gulma-Vrikshāyurveda* are two separate terms used to denote the two departments of knowledge. If in a particular context one has been treated as a subsection of the other, necessarily, the implication is not that the departments of knowledge signified by them were not independent; the point which is clear from the *Arthaśāstra* is the interdependence of the two. A treatise of Agriculture will be incomplete without a chapter dealing with the application of Botanical knowledge to the art of plantation, cultivation, manuring and the rest. In the other two references the term *Vrikshāyurveda* looms large and the *Krishitantra* does not find any mention. But here, too, the purpose is just to show the application of the knowledge relating to ancient science of plant-life for agricultural, horticultural, irrigational and economic purposes.

c4.12

The question is—did the authors of the three treatises really intend cataloguing some useful prescriptions for utilisation of this knowledge to exhaust the contents of the science contemplated by the term *Vrikshāyurveda*? The answer must be in the negative. If the sections in the three non-Botanical treatises mean anything, it must be that there was in existence an independent treatise or treatises upon which the prescriptions contained in them were based. They may be taken also to mean, no doubt, that the Ancient Botanical Science was developing at first along with the Art of Agriculture before it gained an independent foothold of its own.

c4.13

Are we to suppose that the knowledge of plant-life developed along with the Science of Agriculture alone? First, let us enquire if there were any separate treatises devoted to the two sciences, one relating to agriculture, and the other to the knowledge of plant-life. Varaha-mihira's commentator—Bhaṭṭopāla—in explaining the prescriptions in the section on *Vrikṣāyurveda*, has elucidated the points by certain quotations from three ancient authors, namely, Kāśyapa, Parāśara and Sārasvata. It seems probable that the treatises ascribed to these authors were primarily concerned with *Krishi*—the art of cultivation, *Krishi-Parāśara* being the traditional title of a treatise associated with one of these authors. There is no reference as yet found out where *Krishitantra* and *Vrikṣāyurveda* have been exchanged one for the other. If it stands out from the sections in the *Brihat-saṃhitā* and *Agnipurāṇa* that the treatment of plant-diseases and their remedies was one of the subjects of investigation falling within the scope of the Botanical science, it may be supposed to have formed, so far as this point is concerned, also a subhead for the ancient Indian science of Medicine. So far as the recorded evidence goes, the reference indicating the close association of the knowledge of plants and plant-life with the art of healing are much earlier and plentiful. We shall briefly examine below two Vedic hymns—one in the Rigveda and the other in the Atharva Veda, and see what light they throw on this point:

c4.14

In the hymn of the Rigveda¹ the poet speaks of 107 applications of plants to make people free from diseases, the plants bearing flowers and fruits, etc. There is not a single utterance in the whole hymn referring to applications of the knowledge of plants for agricultural and other purposes.

c4.15

¹ Rigveda, X, 97.

c4.16

In the hymn of the Atharva Veda² the different herbs and plants are named, classified and praised only for their medicinal properties. There is not a word about the connection of the knowledge of plants with agriculture, irrigation, and the rest. And this is just the typical of several other hymns that corroborate the point.

c4.17

² Atharva Veda, VIII, 7 (pp. 498-500, Whitney).

c4.18

The popular Indian word auṣadha denoting medicine is derived from or connected with Oṣadhi signifying the annual herbs. Even at the present day, in some parts of India, the word dāru or tree is used to denote medicine, and in some parts to denote the alcoholic substance, *i.e.*, the *Soma*. The moon bears the designation of *Oṣadhinātha*—the lord of herbs, here *Oṣadhi* being a synonym of ‘*Soma*’ which, according to the above hymns of the Vedas, was the king of the herbs and plants. The word *bheshaja* from which *bhishak* denoting physician is derived, etymologically means “vegetable drugs.”

c4.19

In an expressed opinion in the Charaka-saṃhitā¹ it is only the man well acquainted with the names, and external features of plants, and able to use them properly according to their properties is to be called an expert physician.

c4.20

¹ Sutrasthana, Chap. 1. Verses 51-53

c4.21

The Dhanvantari Nighaṇṭu² which is more explicit on this point says,—“ Sometimes several

c4.22

² > एकन्तु नाम प्रथितं वह्नाम् ।

c4.23

एकस्य नामानि तथा वह्नि ॥
द्रव्यस्य जात्याकृतिवर्णवीर्य ।
रस प्रभावादि गुणैर्भवन्ति ॥
वह्वन्तः प्राकृत-संस्कृ तानि ।
नामानि विज्ञाय वह्‌स्य पृष्या ॥
दृष्ट्या च संस्पृश्य च जाति लिङ्गैः ।
विद्याद्भिषग भेषज मादरेन ॥

c4.24

*Cf.* Preface to the Rāja Nighaṇṭu of Narahari where he says : --

c4.25

नानाविधौषधि रसाह्वय वीर्यपाक
प्रत्येक सम्यगवबोधकृत श्रमोपि
मुह्‌यत्यवश्यमनवेच निघण्टुमेतम्
तस्मादयं विरचितो भिषजां हिताय ।

c4.26

Also Rasaratnasamuchchaya—Chap. VII, 32 “Such herbalists as are not deceitful and are well-versed in the knowledge of the drugs healing vegetables (*bheshajas*) bear one name, sometimes one vegetable bears various names according to its class, external feature, colour, potency, function (*rasa*), effects, properties and the rest.”

c4.27

“The physician does well to master *Bheshaja-Vidyā* by acquainting himself with the various names of plants in Sanskrit and Prakrit, consulting all classes of men, by personal observations, by a careful handling, as well as, by a careful consideration of its specific characters and sexuality.”

c4.28

In this quotation we find the use of a technical term *Bheshaja-Vidyā* signifying a distinct study of the plants and plant-life with special reference to medical properties and use.

c4.29

Here, too, the same question is apt to arise, does this study complete the contents of the ancient Botanical science? We must say, No. Throughout Indian literature we find the theories about the evolution of plants, about the

c4.30

and plants, and in the language of many countries should be employed.” (P C. Roy’s History of Hindu Chemistry, Vol. I, p. 65. Calcutta, 1902.) Also the final test to which Bhikshu Atreya, the celebrated teacher of medicine in the University of Taxila, put his equally celebrated pupil Jivaka, afterwards the physician of Bimbisāra, in collecting, identifying and describing the properties of plants to be found within four Yojanas of the University town. (Vijayratna Sen—Preface to Viraja Charan Sen Gupta’s Vanaushadhi-Darpaṇa, Vol. I, 1908).

Linked texts (5)

Ṛgvedasaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Rasaratnasamuccaya — Vāgbhaṭa (alchemist), Sanskrit
Atharvavedasaṃhitā — Atharvan & Aṅgiras, Sanskrit
Carakasaṃhitā — Agniveśa (Āyurveda) & Caraka, Sanskrit
Rājanighaṇṭu (Nighaṇṭurāja, Abhidhānacūḍāmaṇi) — Narahari Paṇḍita, Sanskrit