Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c17: Chapter 10

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c17

Language
English

Chapter 10

v1.c17.1

Some early European Indologists collected information on Caraka from MSS of his saṃhitā¹ and references to him and his work.² H.H. Wilson, one of the first European Indologists interested in Indian medicine, expressed the view that Caraka and Suśruta could not be later than the ninth or tenth century on account of references to them in the Purāṇas,³ while the style of their works pointed to a much earlier date.⁴ H.H. Wilson was also acquainted with the fact that Caraka had been translated into Arabic in the eighth or early ninth century;⁵ the earliest one to discover this was, however, F.R. Dietz.⁶ F. Kielhorn⁷ placed Caraka before the middle of the the seventh century because he is quoted three times by Bhartṛhari, who died in A.D. 651/652.⁸

v1.c17.2

The discovery, made simultaneously by S. Lévi⁹ and J. Takakusu,¹⁰ that a Caraka is mentioned as a physician attached to the court of Kaniṣka kicked up much dust. The references to this Caraka are found in two Chinese Buddhist texts. The first of these sources, the Tsa-pao-ts’ang-king,¹¹ translated from the Sanskrit¹² about A.D. 472 by Ki-kia-ye and T’an-yao, consists of a collection of stories, one of them telling that Kaniṣka was on friendly terms with the physician Caraka whose advice protected him from all illness. The second source, the Fou-fa-ts’ang-yin-yuen-king¹³ or Fou fa tsang yin yuan tchouan¹⁴ or Record of the twenty-three patriarchs,¹⁵ said to be a translation by Ki-kia-ye and T’an-yao again, is actually a forgery made in China towards the middle or the end of the sixth century,¹⁶ based on earlier works. Caraka¹⁷ is depicted in this work as a physician who, after presenting himself to Kaniṣka, saves the queen on two occasions, by means of his obstetrical skills, from dying during childbirth;¹⁸ disappointed, on account of the king’s inattentiveness to his counsels, he leaves the court and, finally, retires from worldly life.¹⁹

v1.c17.3

Although the details of these stories, in particular those found in the Record of the twenty-three patriarchs, are untrustworthy, these sources, especially the Tsa-pao-ts’ang-king, which is based on a Sanskrit original, indicate that a physician known as Caraka or a caraka, may have been known about the times of the reign of Kaniṣka, towards the end of the first or the beginning of the second century A.D.²⁰

v1.c17.4

The identity of this Caraka is a hotly debated issue.²¹ Some regard him as the author of the Carakasaṃhitā,²² while others are doubtful²³ or reject this identification.²⁴

v1.c17.5

Some of the arguments adduced against the identification are: the Caraka mentioned is not credited with a medical treatise; the absence of the name of any king in the Carakasaṃhitā; the improbability that a freely wandering physician like Caraka might have accepted the bondage of a royal court;²⁵ the paucity or supposed absence of Buddhist influence on the Carakasaṃhitā, while Kaniṣka was a convert to Buddhism;²⁶

v1.c17.6

Aśvaghoṣa, attached to Kaniṣka’s court according to Chinese tradition, mentions Ātreya in his *Buddhacarita*, without referring to Caraka;²⁷ the poets and scholars at Kaniṣka’s court were Buddhists; Nāgārjuna²⁸ does not mention Caraka in the *Upāyahr̥daya*,²⁹ though, according to some scholars, he refers to Suśruta;³⁰ Caraka’s name is absent from the verses describing Kaniṣka in Kalhaṇa’s *Rājatarangiṇī*.³¹

v1.c17.7

These and various other arguments against the hypothesis that Caraka belongs to the period of Kaniṣka have been put forward in particular by the numerous Indian scholars who claim a much earlier date for him.³²

v1.c17.8

G. Hāldār advanced as his view that the Caraka of Kaniṣka’s court was actually Kapilabala,³³ the father of Dr̥ḍhabala; he called this physician, to whom he attributed a *Kapilabalatantra*, the *Navīnacaraka*, and supposed him to have enriched the already existing *Carakasamhitā* with the comments of Patañjali (the *Patañjalavārttika*), to which he owed the title of Caraka.³⁴

v1.c17.9

This assumption may have led P.V. Sharma³⁵ to suggest that the Caraka mentioned in connection with Kaniṣka may have been a Śaka physician,³⁶ and that his name points to the originally nomadic life of this people. In line with G. Hāldār, he supposes this Caraka to have revised an already existing medical treatise that, afterwards, became known as *Carakasamhitā*.³⁷

v1.c17.10

New elements, probably incorporated by this physician, are, in P.V. Sharma’s view: the references to turbans, shoes and umbrellas;³⁸ the importance of smoking;³⁹ the references to warm clothing;⁴⁰ the maternity home, described as a wooden structure;⁴¹ the importance given to the daily agnihotra ritual;⁴² the references to regions belonging to the Kuṣāṇa and Śaka territory, such as Bāhlīka,⁴³ Saurāṣṭra, Sauvīra, and Sindhu.⁴⁴

v1.c17.11

One of the problems with the name Caraka and its association with the *Carakasamhitā* is its late appearance in medical literature, a feature noticed and rightly stressed by P.V. Sharma.⁴⁵ Dr̥ḍhabala is the first author to refer to Caraka as the one who revised (*sams-kr-*) an earlier treatise, which, though not named, is usually assumed to be the work known as *Agniveśatantra*.⁴⁶ Cakrapāṇidatta mentions both Caraka and Dr̥ḍhabala as *samskārakas*.⁴⁷ It is in the colophons of the *Carakasamhitā* only that Caraka appears as the *pratisamskartar* of the *Agniveśatantra*.

v1.c17.12

The medical authority Caraka and the work going under his name became widely known only in the Gupta period. The earliest authors acquainted with him and his treatise are Vāgbhaṭa and Bhaṭṭārakahariścandra. These facts, and the loss of a considerable part of the *Carakasamhitā*, made P.V. Sharma insist, as already mentioned, that Caraka may have been a Śaka physician, which would explain that his treatise failed to gain wide acceptance and got partly lost, until Dr̥ḍhabala supplied the missing parts. Dr̥ḍhabala was of Śaka origin too, in P.V. Sharma’s eyes,⁴⁸ but in his times the Śakas had become an integral part of Indian society.⁴⁹

v1.c17.13

Jyotir Mitra, who claims a very early date for the *Carakasamhitā*, suggests that it may have been retouched by a physician, bearing the title of Caraka, who was a contemporary of Kaniṣka.⁵⁰ Atrideva⁵¹ appears to hold a similar opinion.

v1.c17.14

Solid evidence for linking the Caraka of the Chinese sources with the author of the *Carakasamhitā* is entirely lacking. This has already been emphasized by J. Filliozat,⁵² D. Chattopadhyaya,⁵³ and others. Several persons, among them physicians, who roamed about the country, may have been called thus, 54 as individuals or as members of groups known as carakāḥ.

v1.c17.15

The *Lalitavistara*, 55 *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka* 56 and some other Buddhist texts 57 are acquainted with wandering heretical ascetics called carakas. The Jain canonical work *Sūyagaḍa* (*Sūtrakṛtāṅga*) refers to the theoretical position of one of the ancient caraka schools. 58

v1.c17.16

Varāhamihira’s *Bṛhajjātaka* mentions the carakas in a list of seven sects. 59 Vaidyanātha Dīkṣita refers to them as a group of religious mendicants in his *Jātakapārijāta*. 60

v1.c17.17

Ṛṣabhadatta, the son-in-law of the Śaka ruler Nahapāna, bestowed a donation on a community of carakas. 61

v1.c17.18

The claim of the Gulabkunverba team that Caraka’s name occurs in Bāṇa’s *Harṣacarita* is unfounded. 62

v1.c17.19

P.V. Sharma is convinced that these references to carakas agree with the type of practitioner described in the *Carakasaṃhitā*, a yāyāvara without fixed abode, devoting his life to the search for knowledge and to solving the health problems of the people. 63 The Gulabkunverba team regards a caraka as the secular equivalent of the religious-minded parivrājaka. 64

v1.c17.20

These interpretations appear to be too specific for the vagueness of the references. Moreover, the term caraka is employed to designate not only a member of various, usually religious, groups, but it has diverse other meanings too. 65 It may denote a follower of a particular Vedic school, a wandering religious student, 66 a performer of a type of acrobatics, 67 a person of low social status, 68 a glutton, 69 a spy, 70 etc.

v1.c17.21

Various other references to caraka(s) are known. The term is found in two sūtras of Pāṇini’s *Aṣṭādhyāyī*: 4.3.107 mentions Katha and Caraka; 5.1.11 employs the words māṇava and caraka. The names in the first sūtra are those of two schools of the Black Yajurveda. 71 The second sūtra has been interpreted in different ways. Some regard Māṇava and Caraka as the names of two Vedic schools, 72 others see in them names for students. 73 P.V. Sharma 74 offered his own explanation: the term māṇava denotes someone who indulges in magic and witchcraft, 75 an art called māṇavavidyā in the *Arthaśāstra*, 76 while the term caraka probably means a medical expert devoted to the *Atharvaveda*.

v1.c17.22

The *Kāśikāvṛtti* says that the carakas are the pupils of Vaiśampāyana, who is also known as Caraka; nine prominent ones among these carakas are enumerated. 77 The *Bhāgavatapurāṇa* relates that Vaiśampāyana had two pupils, named Adhvaryu and Caraka, who were known by the common name of Caraka. 78 The *Viṣṇupurāṇa* 79 and *Brahmāṇḍapurāṇa* 80 are also acquainted with the carakas as disciples of Vaiśampāyana.

v1.c17.23

These references have given rise to various, mostly speculative and improbable, interpretations. One Indian author asserts that Vaiśampāyana himself is the Caraka who revised the *Agniveśatantra* and made it into the *Carakasaṃhitā*. 81 Another Indian author claims that the *Carakasaṃhitā* is the work of Vaiśampāyana’s pupils. 82 Others again maintain that the author of the *Carakasaṃhitā* must have been a member of one of the Vedic schools established by those disciples of Vaiśampāyana who went to the northern parts of India. 83

v1.c17.24

The more sober view that the Kāśikāvṛtti and a number of Purāṇas refer to the Vedic school called Carakaśākhā, without postulating any connection with the Carakasamhitā, is also represented.84 The Carakas of this śākhā are, for example, mentioned in Viśvarūpa’s commentary on the Yājñavalkyasmṛti.85

v1.c17.25

It is not clear which Caraka is meant in a passage of Jayantabhaṭṭa’s Nyāyamañjarī,86 where Caraka and others are described as able to reach a decision, by means of perception (pratyakṣa), on the power (śakti) of substances (padārtha), either combined or single (samastavyasta), relative to the variability of country, time, the individual (puruṣa), and the stage of the life cycle (daśā).87

v1.c17.26

The Caraka mentioned by Śāntarakṣita is undoubtedly the Caraka of the saṃhitā.88

v1.c17.27

Some passages of Vedic texts which mention a Caraka or use related words are subject to disagreeing interpretations. The Carakācārya of the Taittirīyabrāhmaṇa is, according to Sāyaṇa’s commentary, someone who teaches the art of walking on bamboo stilts (vaṃśāgranartana),88a i.e., a kind of dancer (naṭaviśeṣa); this explanation, pointing to a person of a low social status, is accepted by the Gulabkunverba team and Hemarājaśarman,89 while others prefer to see in this Carakācārya a teacher of the Carakaśākhā.90 The Vājasaneyisaṃhitā is, like the Taittirīyabrāhmaṇa, acquainted with a Carakācārya who is enumerated among the victims at the human sacrifice called puruṣamedha; this person is regarded as a teacher of the Carakaśākhā, denunciated as the representative of a rival school,91 as a person of low status,92 a roaming mendicant (bhikṣu),93 or the medical authority Caraka.94

v1.c17.28

The form of the Sautrāmaṇī ritual called Carakā, usually thought to be connected with the Carakaśākhā, was supposed by A. Hillebrandt to allude to the medical teacher Caraka.95

v1.c17.29

Other references also show that Caraka is a well known name in Vedic literature.

v1.c17.30

The Carakas formed one of the schools (śākhā) of the Black Yajurveda96 and are subdivided into twelve ramifications in the Caraṇavyūha97, one of the Pariśiṣṭas of the Atharvaveda. One of the recensions of the Black Yajurveda, the Kāṭhakasaṃhitā, may be connected with the Carakas98 and be based on an older and lost Carakasamhitā,99 because the Kaṭha school called itself Carakakaṭha100 or Cārāyaṇīyakaṭha in order to distinguish it from the school of the Kapiṣṭhalakaṭhas. The precise extent of the term Caraka is, however, uncertain and it may have been applied to the whole or part of the Black Yajurveda.101

v1.c17.31

The Carakaśākhā was opposed to the Taittirīyaśākhā of the Black Yajurveda,102 and, to a still greater extent, to the schools of the White Yajurveda, represented by the Vājasaneyisaṃhitā.103

v1.c17.32

One passage from the Taittirīyasaṃhitā has become the starting point of brisk discussions about a possible relationship between the Carakaśākhā and the practice of medicine. This passage104 censures the twin healing gods, the Aśvins, as impure beings because they are physicians who roam about (cara) in the human world; a brāhmaṇa should therefore not practise medicine.

v1.c17.33

J. Filliozat has argued that the use of the term cara is a shot at the rival school of the Carakas,105 who have not inserted anything similar in their saṃhitās, the Kāṭhaka- (27.4), Kapiṣṭhalakaṭha- and Maitrāyaṇīsaṃhitā, which relate a similar story about the impurity of the Aśvins and their purification by means of the bahiṣpavamānastotra, but without blaming them for being the physicians of human beings. 106 D. Chattopadhyaya rejects the interpretation of J. Filliozat and advances that the word cara does not refer to the Carakaśākhā at all, being simply a descriptive epithet of the Aśvins. 107 J. Filliozat’s suggestion that a comparison of the related passages in the recensions of the Black Yajurveda points to a connection between the Carakaśākhā and the practice of medicine 108 is equally unacceptable to D. Chattopadhyaya, 109 who postulates that the censuring of the Aśvins and of physicians in general is evidence of a changed attitude and a breaking away from the Ṛgvedic tradition, in which the Aśvins were extolled and invited to drink soma in the company of the other gods. 110

v1.c17.34

The references to Caraka and Carakas discussed so far show that these names are very old and go back to Vedic times. A convincing relationship between the Vedic Carakaśākhā and the medical authority Caraka, cannot unequivocally be demonstrated. 111

v1.c17.35

The mention of Caraka as the reviser of an earlier medical treatise appears, as mentioned before, for the first time in Dṛḍhabala’s text of the Carakasaṃhitā. The other early references to a physician of this name, such as the one attached to Kaniṣka’s court, only indicate that the name was given to wandering practitioners of the medical art. Much of the evidence supports the view that groups of Carakas of various types were known, and that Caraka may be seen as designating a member of one of these communities, and not primarily as an individual bearing this name.

v1.c17.36

Caraka as an individual medical authority and the author of the work rewritten by Dṛḍhabala appears on the scene for the first time distinctly in the period of Vāgbhaṭa.

v1.c17.37

Remarkable is the fact that the treatise regarded as Carakasaṃhitā by Dṛḍhabala was only partly available to him, which may mean that it did not gain wide currency in medical circles.

v1.c17.38

Another noteworthy point is that an old treatise, probably the Agniveśatantra, changed its name into Carakasaṃhitā, which is contrary to the practice of calling a work after the pupil who laid down the teachings of his preceptor, disregarding revisions by later authors. 112 The Carakasaṃhitā embodies the teachings of Ātreya Punarvasu, transmitted to Agniveśa, without ever mentioning Caraka.

v1.c17.39

P.V. Sharma 113 proposed two possible solutions to this problem: (a) the Agniveśatantra was renamed Carakasaṃhitā because Agniveśa belonged to the Vedic Caraka school; (b) Caraka, who adhered to the Carakaśākhā, revised Agniveśa’s work to such an extent that the bulk was due to his contributions, which made it proper to change the name.

v1.c17.40

Dṛḍhabala’s reasons for crediting Caraka with an old treatise, incompletely preserved, are obscure. It may have been known already as such in his times, he may have chosen Caraka’s name on account of its Vedic associations, if these were known to him, or he may have had a representative of some group of Carakas in mind. 114 All this remains highly speculative.

v1.c17.41

A number of scholars suppose or are convinced that the Caraka of the Carakasaṃhitā belonged to or was connected with the Vedic Carakaśākhā or its descendants. J. Filliozat, 115 whose views have already partly been discussed, suggested that the Vedic Carakas, being not opposed to wandering physicians to the same extent as the Taittirīyas, may have been interested in medicine, and that a practitioner called Caraka may have belonged to their school. J. Filliozat added that the contents of the Carakasaṃhitā evoke the idea that it derives rather from a brāhmaṇa of a Vedic school than from a court physician, thus overlooking many of its aspects, in particular those indicating that part of the practices described are meant for the benefit of wealthy patients. One of the points to be taken into consideration according to J. Filliozat is the association of a second chief medical authority, Ātreya, with the Ātreyī school of the Black Yajurveda. 116 He is, however, cautious enough to state that all this does not signify at all that the author of the Carakasaṃhitā lived in the period of elaboration of the Yajurvedic saṃhitās, since the style of the former shows it to be not much anterior to the beginning of the Christian era.

v1.c17.42

As we have seen already, D. Chattopadhyaya vigorously rejects J. Filliozat’s opinions, denying any connection between the Caraka of the Carakasaṃhitā and the Carakaśākhā.

v1.c17.43

Scholars defending the thesis that the Caraka of the Carakasaṃhitā is directly related to the Vedic school often assign him to a very early period. Others, not convinced of this relationship or rejecting it, regard him, nevertheless, as a very ancient authority, anterior to Pāṇini, identical with Patañjali, 117 or dating from before the period of Buddha’s activity.

v1.c17.44

The nature, style and contents of the earlier treatises, ascribed to Agniveśa and Caraka, 118 on which Dṛḍhabala’s text is based, is largely a matter of speculation. The date of Caraka’s revision of the Agniveśatantra depends on the availability of reliable internal and external evidence. Early quotations dating from before Dṛḍhabala’s times, which might prove that a medical author called Caraka was known, are entirely lacking. 119

v1.c17.45

Worthy of discussion are several issues which bear on the question what the Carakasaṃhitā looked like before Dṛḍhabala’s revision and completion of the text.

v1.c17.46

The methodical examination of the Carakasaṃhitā in search for vestiges of Buddhist thought is of the utmost importance as one of the means which may be helpful in identifying layers of the text as it existed before Dṛḍhabala’s time, since it is very unlikely that he would have added elements of this type.

v1.c17.47

The question whether or not Buddhist influences are detectable in the Carakasaṃhitā is touched upon frequently in the secondary literature, but few scholars have searched seriously for these traces. The majority of the Indian authors simply deny that Buddhism had any impact, which is based on the preconceived idea that Caraka belongs to a period preceding Buddha’s activity. 120

v1.c17.48

One of the very few Indian scholars to study the subject seriously is P.V. Sharma, in whose opinion the following elements point to an acquaintance of the author of the Carakasaṃhitā with early Buddhist doctrines. 121

v1.c17.49

The kṣaṇabhaṅgavāda (the doctrine concerning the momentariness of any conglomeration of elements) was known, 122 as well as the concept of svabhāvoparama (the cessation of the dhātus due to their svabhāva). 123 The indriyabuddhās are said to be kṣaṇika (momentary). 124 The pratītyasamutpāda (chain of dependent origination) 125 and the Four Noble Truths¹²⁶ were known. Perception (pratyakṣa) and inference (anumāna) are, as in Buddhist logic, the chief means of acquiring valid knowledge (pramāṇa).¹²⁷ Pratyaya and āyatana are used as synonyms of nidāna and hetu.¹²⁸ The term upadhā has the same meaning as upādāna (grasping) in Buddhist thought.¹²⁹ Vedanā (sensation) has the same position in the Carakasaṃhitā as it occupies in Buddhist texts.¹³⁰ The ṣaḍdhātuka nature of the embryo and the individual human being is laid stress on.¹³¹ The five pañcakas of Caraka¹³² resemble the three groups of six dhātus of the Buddhists. The use of manas as a synonym of sattva resembles the Buddhist tradition, in which citta, manas and vijñapti are synonyms of vijñāna.¹³³ The position of prajñā in the Carakasaṃhitā has affinities with the significance of this term in Buddhist thought.¹³⁴ The six promoters of prāṇa (prāṇavardhana), etc., may be related to the six pāramitās of the Buddhists.¹³⁵ The Carakasaṃhitā employs some peculiar words which are found in Buddhist texts.¹³⁶

v1.c17.50

Other authors who studied the subject are Atrideva, S. Dasgupta, the Gulabkunverba team, R.K. Sharma and Bhagwan Dash, Jyotir Mitra, and E. Windisch.

v1.c17.51

Atrideva admitted Buddhist influences, but attributed these to Ātreya or Agniveśa.¹³⁷

v1.c17.52

S. Dasgupta was convinced of Buddhist influences on the Carakasaṃhitā.¹³⁸

v1.c17.53

The Gulabkunverba team states that Caraka was acquainted with the kṣaṇikavāda.¹³⁹

v1.c17.54

R.K. Sharma and Bhagwan Dash acknowledge that the principles of Buddhist philosophy were known.¹⁴⁰

v1.c17.55

Jyotir Mitra expressed as his view that the use of some terms indicates more or less a peripheral glimpse of Buddhism.¹⁴¹

v1.c17.56

E. Windisch advanced the idea that the concept of sattva in the Carakasaṃhitā was inspired by Buddhist thought.¹⁴²

v1.c17.57

Although not all the features, highlighted by P.V. Sharma and others, are convincing, it seems nevertheless reasonable to concede that traces of Buddhist thought are clearly discernible in the Carakasaṃhitā and belong to the layer antedating Dṛḍhabala’s revision.

v1.c17.58

P.V. Sharma formulated as his opinion that the influences of Buddhism, in combination with the overall orientation towards Brāhmaṇism of the Carakasaṃhitā,¹⁴³ show that it was composed in a period when Buddhism was prevalent side by side with Brāhmaṇic culture, or in an age when, though Buddhism was still a living force, Brāhmaṇism was gaining the upper hand, i.e., during the third or early second century B.C., at the juncture of the Maurya and Śuṅga periods.¹⁴⁴

v1.c17.59

The same scholar constructed an elaborate framework of external evidence in support of this dating.¹⁴⁵

v1.c17.60

P.V. Sharma is firmly convinced that Caraka as a medical authority was not yet known to Pāṇini. Patañjali, the author of the Mahābhāṣya, is regarded as slightly later than a younger contemporary of Caraka.¹⁴⁶

v1.c17.61

Important elements of P.V. Sharma’s framework are: the Milindapañha¹⁴⁷ has many things in common with the Carakasaṃhitā,¹⁴⁸ which indicates that they belong to the same period; Aśvaghoṣa,¹⁴⁹ whose works bear witness to his familiarity with āyurveda, drew extensively on Caraka’s work, ¹⁵⁰ in spite of the fact that his name is not mentioned; a number of formulae found in the Nāvanītaka ¹⁵¹ are quoted from the Carakasamhitā; ¹⁵² the Yājñavalkyasmṛti ¹⁵³ has taken much of its medical material from Caraka. ¹⁵⁴

v1.c17.62

This evidence, taken together, is thought to confirm the chronological scheme developed by P.V. Sharma.

v1.c17.63

The other material adduced by him in favour of his dating of Caraka is of various kinds, mostly consisting of internal evidence. P.V. Sharma points to the influence of the Manusmṛti ¹⁵⁵ and other dharmaśāstra texts, ¹⁵⁶ the Gṛhyasūtras, ¹⁵⁷ and the Purāṇas. ¹⁵⁸

v1.c17.64

References to a king, certain types of officials, and to hospitals, ¹⁵⁹ together with signs showing that the central administration of the state was growing weak, are seen as indicating that the Carakasamhitā belongs to the waning stage of the Mauryan empire or the period of the Śuṅgas. ¹⁶⁰

v1.c17.65

Important for the determination of the chronological position of the Carakasamhitā are its philosophical concepts, which are closely related to those of the Sāṃkhya, Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika schools. ¹⁶¹

v1.c17.66

The main features of the Sāṃkhya ¹⁶² doctrines in the Carakasamhitā, which differ from those found in Īśvarakṛṣṇa’s Sāṃkhyakārikā, ¹⁶³ are: the tattvas are twenty-four in number and consist of the ten senses, ¹⁶⁴ manas, the objects of the five senses of perception, and the eightfold prakṛti (prakṛti in the restricted sense, mahat, ahaṃkāra, and the five mahābhūtas); ¹⁶⁵ the puruṣa is identified with the avyakta (unmanifested) part of prakṛti; ¹⁶⁶ the vikāras (evolutionary products) of prakṛti are collectively called kṣetra, while the avyakta part of prakṛti is regarded as the kṣetrajña (knower of the field); ¹⁶⁷ the conglomeration of this avyakta with its later products generates the living beings; ¹⁶⁸ the tanmātras are not explicitly mentioned; ¹⁶⁸ rajas and tamas represent bad states of the mind, sattva represents good ones; the ultimate state of emancipation is either absolute annihilation or characterless absolute existence and is spoken of as the Brahman state; the senses are bhautika, i.e., formed of matter. ¹⁶⁹

v1.c17.67

This account of Sāṃkhya ¹⁷⁰ agrees, according to S. Dasgupta, ¹⁷¹ with the version propounded by Pañcaśikha in the Mahābhārata. ¹⁷² A cogent refutation of this opinion is due to V.M. Bedekar, ¹⁷³ who studied and summarized the differences between a fluid proto-Sāṃkhya, found in the Mokṣadharma ¹⁷⁴ of the Mahābhārata, the Carakasamhitā, and the Buddhacarita, ¹⁷⁵ and the later philosophical Sāṃkhya. ¹⁷⁶

v1.c17.68

S. Dasgupta ¹⁷⁷ was disposed to think that the early form of Sāṃkhya represented by the Mahābhārata and the Carakasamhitā is the same as the maulikya (original) school, mentioned together with an uttara (later) school in Guṇaratna’s commentary, called Tarkarahasyadīpikā, on Haribhadrasūri’s Ṣaḍdarśanasamuccaya. ¹⁷⁸

v1.c17.69

The version of Sāṃkhya as found in the Carakasamhitā ¹⁷⁹ is earlier than that of the Sāṃkhyakārikā, ¹⁸⁰ which belongs to about the period A.D. 350–450, ¹⁸¹ and may belong to the period of Pañcaśikha ¹⁸² and the Ṣaṣṭitantra, ¹⁸³ i.e., about 100 B.C.–A.D. 200. ¹⁸⁴

v1.c17.70

This establishes that the text of Dṛḍhabala’s version of the Carakasamhitā contains important elements belonging to an older layer. ¹⁸⁵

v1.c17.71

The connections between the *Carakasaṃhitā* and the Yoga system¹⁸⁶ are very different from those between the *Carakasaṃhitā* and the Sāṃkhya school. P.V. Sharma¹⁸⁷ came to the conclusion that the fundamental concepts of the *Yogasūtras* are completely absent from the *Carakasaṃhitā*.¹⁸⁸ Others share this opinion,¹⁸⁹ while a few authors only suspect some influence¹⁹⁰ or even postulate a more or less close relationship.¹⁹¹

v1.c17.72

Concepts and views related to those found in the Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika philosophical systems are conspicuous in the *Carakasaṃhitā*, but differences are present as well.

v1.c17.73

The means of acquiring valid knowledge (pramāṇa),¹⁹² as acknowledged in the *Carakasaṃhitā*, are four in number:¹⁹³ āptopadeśa (the testimony of trustworthy persons),¹⁹⁴ pratyakṣa (perception),¹⁹⁵ anumāna (inference),¹⁹⁶ and yukti.¹⁹⁷ Other pramāṇas are not recognized.¹⁹⁸

v1.c17.74

The position of yukti as a distinct pramāṇa is one of the salient features of the *Carakasaṃhitā*.¹⁹⁹

v1.c17.75

The data about the pramāṇas show that the *Carakasaṃhitā* does not commit itself to the views of a particular philosophical school or the precursors of these schools and maintains a partly independent, partly eclectic position.

v1.c17.76

S. Dasgupta’s assertion²⁰⁰ that the *Nyāyasūtras* drew their ideas on the pramāṇas from Caraka’s work cannot seriously be defended. It seems reasonable to regard the material on the pramāṇas in the *Carakasaṃhitā* as belonging to a period before the establishment and codification of the doctrines which are peculiar to each of the darśanas, in particular as anterior to the time in which the *Nyāyasūtras* took their final form,²⁰¹ i.e., probably around the second century A.D.²⁰²

v1.c17.77

The technical terms relating to debates, to which part of Ca.Vi.8 is devoted, are, apart from the *Carakasaṃhitā*, only found in texts on logic.²⁰³ A large number of them occur in the *Nyāyasūtras*; many differences, however, are noticeable.²⁰⁴

v1.c17.78

S. Dasgupta,²⁰⁵ in line with his views on the pramāṇas, supposed it to be not improbable that the *Nyāyasūtras* derived their theory of five propositions²⁰⁶ from Caraka.²⁰⁷

v1.c17.79

Again, it is not necessary at all to presume that the *Nyāyasūtras* borrowed from the *Carakasaṃhitā*; the material found in Caraka’s work more probably derives from a floating body of knowledge.²⁰⁸

v1.c17.80

The material related to Nyāya in the *Carakasaṃhitā* points to a date for the work that precedes the second century A.D.

v1.c17.81

The relationship between the *Carakasaṃhitā* and the Vaiśeṣika system is remarkable because key concepts of Vaiśeṣika are dealt with in the very first chapter of the *Carakasaṃhitā* and are employed, applied to medicine, throughout the treatise. The way in which these concepts are defined and made use of closely resembles, without being exactly the same, their definitions and uses in the *Vaiśeṣikasūtras*.²⁰⁹

v1.c17.82

The opinions of scholars on the type of connection between āyurvedic and Vaiśeṣika thought vary considerably.²¹⁰ Some assert that the Vaiśeṣika borrowed from Caraka,²¹¹ while others defend a diametrically opposed view.²¹²

v1.c17.83

The most probable conclusion that can be drawn from the available material in the *Carakasamhitā* is that it derives from a period not far removed in time from that in which the *Vaiśeṣikasūtras* achieved their present form, i.e., A.D. 50–150.213 This hypothesis is supported by passages which has the *Carakasamhitā* in common with the *Vaiśeṣikasūtras* or which resemble each other closely. 214

v1.c17.84

Not much attention has been given to the relationship between Caraka and the Pūrvamīmāmsā for the reason that influences can hardly be detected. S.P. Gupta,215 one of those who see traces of this school in the *Carakasamhitā*, points to the term niyati, the mention of a yājñikasamaya,216 the references to homa, daivavyapāśraya, etc. Jyotir Mitra217 also examined the connections between the *Carakasamhitā* and the Pūrvamīmāmsā. He discusses the samayas,218 the importance of homa,219 and a number of other subjects. His reflections are based on the conviction that the elements noticed are due to Ātreya Punarvasu, whom he regards as a contemporary of Bādarāyaṇa, the teacher of Jaimini, who wrote the *Mīmāmsāsūtras*.220

v1.c17.85

The connections between the *Carakasamhitā* and Vedānta have not much been studied either.

v1.c17.86

P.V. Sharma221 expressed as his opinion that the concept of the pāñcabhautika nature of the body, not found in Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika, is near to Vedānta views. B. Seal222 held the same conviction. S.P. Gupta223 sees traces of Vedānta in the avyaktam brahma,224 brahman as a synonym of mokṣa, 225 and the brahmabhūto bhūtātmā.226 Jyotir Mitra227 points to Vedānta influence in the avyaktam brahma,228 the brahmabhūto bhūtātmā, the absence of the Sāmkhya concept of mūlaprakṛti, 229 the views concerning the ātman, 230 the concept of upadhā, 231 and the synonyms of mokṣa. 232

v1.c17.87

The philosophical material in the *Carakasamhitā* leads inevitably to the conclusion that it consists of a mosaic of elements derived from diverse schools of thought, often modified in the service of medicine, and mixed with concepts not found elsewhere. 233

v1.c17.88

The same material suggests that the author called Caraka cannot have lived later than about A.D. 150–200 and not much earlier than about 100 B.C.

v1.c17.89

Some stray material bearing on Caraka’s identity and date may be added.

v1.c17.90

An argument in defence of an early date for Caraka, put forward probably for the first time by Hemarājaśarman,234 and repeated by later authors, is the absence of the names for the days of the week in the *Carakasamhitā*.235

v1.c17.91

P.C. Rāy argued in favour of the thesis that Caraka belongs to the early Buddhistic era on the grounds that the chemical information in the *Carakasamhitā* with reference to metals and metallic preparations is of a less advanced character than that in the *Arthaśāstra*, composed in his view between 321–296 B.C.236

v1.c17.92

Caraka is sometimes supposed to be identical with Patañjali. 237 A late tradition, represented by the *Bhāvaprakāśa*, 238 makes him an avatāra of Śeṣa, 239 also called Ananta, who was incarnated as the son of a muni, who became known as Caraka because he came to the earth in the guise of a spy (cara). The description of this muni in the *Bhāvaprakāśa* made Bhagvat Sinh Jee240 assert that the name of Caraka’s father was Viśuddha.241 Some 242 assume that Caraka was thought to be an avatāra of the great Nāga called Śeṣa because he was of nāgavaṃśa.

v1.c17.93

Al-Bīrūnī²⁴³ refers to a tradition claiming that Caraka was a ṛṣi in the Dvāparayuga, when his name was Agniveśa; later, he was known as Caraka, i.e., the intelligent one. This material does not affect the conclusion reached.

v1.c17.94

Some dates assigned to Caraka are: the middle of the first millennium A.D.,²⁴⁴ the second century A.D.,²⁴⁵ the period of Kaniṣka, A.D.100,²⁴⁶ the first century A.D.,²⁴⁷ the period 140 B.C.-A.D. 120,²⁴⁸ slightly later than the Buddhacarita (50 B.C.-A.D.100),²⁴⁹ the period 140 B.C.-A.D.60,²⁵⁰ the first or second century B.C.,²⁵¹ between the second century B.C. and the second century A.D.,²⁵² the second century B.C.,²⁵³ 147 B.C.,²⁵⁴ 144 or 142 B.C.,²⁵⁵ 200 B.C.,²⁵⁶ earlier than 175 B.C.,²⁵⁷ 320 B.C.,²⁵⁸ about 500 B.C.,²⁵⁹ the period of the Mahābhārata or somewhat later,²⁶⁰ the eighth century B.C.,²⁶¹ between 1,000 and 800 B.C.,²⁶² earlier than Pāṇini, ²⁶³ about the period of the Brāhmaṇas, later than the Śatapathabrāhmaṇa, but earlier than Pāṇini and earlier than Buddha,²⁶⁴ the period of the Brāhmaṇas, long before the Nyāya- and Vaiśeṣikasūtras, ²⁶⁵ about 1,000 B.C.,²⁶⁶ 500 years before Pāṇini, in the same period as the Yājñavalkyasmṛti,²⁶⁷ earlier than Pāṇini, at the end of the Dvāpara- or the beginning of the Kaliyuga,²⁶⁸ the beginning of the Kaliyuga.²⁶⁹

Linked texts (34)