Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c20: Chapter 13

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c20

Language
English

Contents

Chapter 13

v1.c20.1

Atri

v1.c20.2

Atri¹ is the name of a priestly family already found in Vedic literature. Many hymns of the Ṛgveda, in particular of maṇḍala five, are attributed to the Atris and members of their family, the Ātrayas.² A number of myths about an individual seer called Atri are referred to in the Ṛgveda, Atharvaveda and some Brāhmaṇas. One of these myths tells that the Aśvins saved him from a burning pit;³ once, the Aśvins are said to have made him young again.⁴

v1.c20.3

Atri is a well known sage in many branches of Sanskrit literature. He is often mentioned in the epics, Purāṇas, etc.⁵ He belongs to the group of seven seers (saptaṛṣi),⁶ and is one of the lords of created beings (Prajāpati).⁷

v1.c20.4

Atri's name is connected with a number of sciences,⁸ such as dharmaśāstra,⁹ jyotiṣa,¹⁰ vāstuśāstra,¹¹ and medicine.

v1.c20.5

Medical authors and works referring to or quoting Atri are: the Bṛhannighaṇṭuratnākara,¹² Carakasaṃhitā,¹³ Haṃsarājanidāna, Hārītasaṃhitā,¹⁴ Kāśyapasaṃhitā,¹⁵ Lakṣmaṇotsava, Nṛsiṃhabhaṭṭa's Tāmbūlakalpasamgraha, Pālakāpya's Hastyāyurveda,¹⁶ Aśubodha and Nityabodha Senagupta in their commentary on the Rasaratnasamuccaya,¹⁷ Śivadāsasena,¹⁸ Toḍara,¹⁹ Vāgbhaṭa's Aṣṭāngahṛdayavaidūryakabhāṣya and Aṣṭāngasamgraha,²⁰ Vāṇeśvara Bhaṭṭācārya's Rasaratnadīpikā,²¹ Vāsudeva's Vāsudevānubhava, Viśvanātha Dvivedī's Rasendrasambhava,²² and the Yogaratnākara.²³

v1.c20.6

Vāsudeva's Vāsudevānubhava mentions among its sources, next to Atri, a Bṛhadatri and Laghuvatri. These works are reminiscent of similar versions of the Ātreyasaṃhitā (= Hārītasaṃhitā).²⁴

v1.c20.7

An Atrisaṃhitā is referred to or quoted in Baladeva Prasāda Miśra's Āyurvedacintāmaṇi,²⁵ Jīvānandavidyāsāgara's commentary on the Rasendrasārasamgraha,²⁶ Raṅgajyotirvid's Vicārasudhākara,²⁷ and the commentary of Aśubodha and Nityabodha Senagupta on the Rasaratnasamuccaya.²⁸

v1.c20.8

Quotations from Atri and the Atrisaṃhitā may actually be from the Hārītasaṃhitā.²⁹

v1.c20.9

Noteworthy features of these quotations and references are: an Atrisaṃhitā is mentioned, occasionally next to an Ātreyasaṃhitā; Atri takes the place of Ātreya in some traditions about the origin of āyurveda; Atri is identified with Kṛṣṇātreya; some recipes are attributed to him; a definition of a drug action (saṃśamana) and descriptions of yantras (and a puṭa) are ascribed to him; he is interested in elephantology.

v1.c20.10

Atri is sometimes regarded as the medical teacher of his son, Ātreya;30 Ātri's wife, Anasūyā,31 is sometimes supposed to be the same as Candrabhāgā.32

v1.c20.11

Atri is in a number of sources described as the father of three sons: Dattātreya, Kṛṣṇātreya (= Durvāsas), and Soma (= Ātreya).33

v1.c20.12

The Indian tradition ascribes to Atri an *Atrisamhitā*, dealing with kāyacikitsā.34 The *Buddhacarita* of Aśvaghoṣa, on the other hand, states that not Atri, but Ātreya, was famous as a medical authority.35

v1.c20.13

The Tibetan tradition regards Atri (Rgyun-śes) as one of the sages who received the medical science from a disciple of Indra.36

Ātreya

v1.c20.s1.1

Ātreya is a famous medical authority.37 He is the teacher of Agniveśa and other pupils in the *Carakasamhitā*; he instructs Bhela in the *Bhelasamhitā*, Hārīta in the *Hārītasamhitā*.38

v1.c20.s1.2

Several sages called Ātreya are known in Indian literature from the earliest times onwards.39 A number of hymns of the *Ṛgveda*, in particular hymns of maṇḍala five, are attributed to various members of the Atri family.40 Vedic literature distinguishes some of these seers by additions to their common name. Two among these compound names are of some interest because they contain the element vasu, also met with in the name of the medical teacher, Ātreya Punarvasu;41 these two names are Ātreya Vasuśruta42 and Ātreya Vasūyu.43 An Ātreya Puruvasu is known from a Brāhmaṇa.44

v1.c20.s1.3

Ātreya is a name connected with the Black *Yajurveda*. One of its schools is the Ātreyīśākhā.45 The *Baudhāyanagṛhyasūtra* refers to an Ātreya as the Padapāṭhakāra of the *Taittirīyasamhitā*, one of the recensions of the Black *Yajurveda*.46 A commentary of Ātreya on the *Taittirīya Prātiśākhya* is mentioned in Somayajvan's *Tribhāṣyaratna*.47 An Ātreya figures in the *Aitareyabrāhmaṇa* as a purohita48 of Aṅga.49 The *Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad* describes Ātreya as the teacher of a Bhāradvāja.50

v1.c20.s1.4

Ātreya is a term used for a type of priest closely related to the sadasya.51

v1.c20.s1.5

The *Gaṇapāṭha* to Pāṇini's granunar mentions Ātreya.52

v1.c20.s1.6

Ātreya is a name occurring several times in the *Mahābhārata*, where he figures as a disciple of Vāmadeva.53

v1.c20.s1.7

The *Brahmapurāṇa* relates that he resided in an āśrama on the banks of the Gomatī and visited Indra's heaven.54

v1.c20.s1.8

A people, called the Ātreyas, is known too; this people is mentioned as associated with the Bhāradvājas and other peoples.55

v1.c20.s1.9

The identity of the Ātreya of the medical tradition is a much discussed problem, complicated by the fact that at least three, probably even four, different persons of this name are known: the Ātreya mentioned in Buddhist sources, Ātreya Punarvasu, Kṛṣṇātreya56 and bhikṣu Ātreya.57

v1.c20.s1.10

Some Buddhist texts relate that an Ātreya, a famous physician residing in Takṣaśilā,58 was Jīvaka's59 medical teacher. The name of this teacher, absent from the Pali sources,60 is given as Ātreya in a Buddhist Sanskrit text61 and in the Tibetan version of the Vinaya (hdul-ba).62

v1.c20.s1.11

A.F.R. Hoemle identified this Ātreya with the Ātreya Punarvasu of the Carakasaṃhitā,63 without underpinning his view by arguments. His guess is rejected by almost all later authors, on the strength of the following pieces of evidence: several different Ātreyas are known; the Ātreya of the Buddhist sources is not called Punarvasu, but sometimes referred to as Māṇakācārya, Kapilākṣa, or Piṅgala;64 he is not, as Ātreya Punarvasu, a specialist in internal medicine, but a surgeon; Takṣaśilā is not mentioned in the Carakasaṃhitā, where Ātreya is described as teaching in Kāmpilya; the names of the six pupils of Ātreya Punarvasu are absent from the Buddhist sources.65

v1.c20.s1.12

Evidence validating Hoemle’s identification is indeed almost entirely lacking, while much tells against it. One single detail seems to count in its favour: the Bhelasaṃhitā describes Ātreya as visiting the country of Gāndhāra,66 a chief city of which was Takṣaśilā. This statement does, however, not carry conviction by the additional detail that Ātreya had in Gāndhāra a conversation with the royal sage Nagnajit, known already as residing there from Vedic literature.67

v1.c20.s1.13

It is obvious that Hoemle was not fully aware of the implications of his suggestion.

v1.c20.s1.14

The name of Ātreya as Jīvaka’s teacher occurs in Buddhist sources, most of them non-Indian too, from a much later date than the age in which Buddha lived, which makes it unjustified to deduce that the former was a contemporary of the latter.

v1.c20.s1.15

The rejection of Hoemle’s claim by most Indian authors is connected with their conviction that the Ātreya of the Carakasaṃhitā belongs to pre-Buddhist times and is essentially the same as the Ātreya of Vedic literature. This view gives rise to many difficulties.

v1.c20.s1.16

Vedic literature is already acquainted with a number of different Ātreyas, a fact that is often conveniently overlooked or explained away by assuming that the Ātreya one is concerned with is not one of those whose gotra name was Ātreya, but the son of the venerable sage Atri.68

v1.c20.s1.17

The reference to Kāmpilya in the Carakasaṃhitā69 is, in combination with the absence of any mention of Takṣaśilā, often advanced in support of the thesis that Ātreya belongs to Vedic times. This reasoning is lacking in stringency. Kāmpila or Kāmpilī are indeed names found in Vedic texts,70 but the city of Kāmpilya71 as the capital of southern Pāñcāla72 does not disappear at all from later Indian literature, being known to the epics,73 Purāṇas,74 Kathāsaritsāgara,75 Jain literature, etc.,76 which makes the argument lose its force. The absence of Takṣaśilā among the toponyms of the Carakasaṃhitā, seen as a proof of Ātreya’s anteriority to the rise of the city, may as well be related to the paucity of references to Buddhism in the saṃhitā and its orientation towards Hinduist orthodoxy.

v1.c20.s1.18

Cogent reasons to consider Ātreya Punarvasu to be the same as the Ātreya or one of the Atreyas of Vedic literature are absent. The only Ātreya Punarvasu known is the one who teaches āyurveda to Agniveśa, Bhela and other pupils.77 The Aṣṭādhyāyī is acquainted with this type of name, connected with the lunar mansion under which a person is born, and mentions Punarvasu as one of the examples.78

v1.c20.s1.19

The Ātreya Punarvasu of the medical tradition need not be regarded as a historical personality. It is more sensible to see in him, as brought forward by J. Filliozat,79 a legendary figure, selected on account of the pronounced tendency of the kāyacikitsā- school to demonstrate its being rooted in Vedic lore. The venerable Ātreya of the Vedic texts proved to be suitable to this purpose.

v1.c20.s1.20

The Caraka- and Bhelasamhitā give a number of details concerning their protagonist, who is called Ātreya,⁸⁰ Ātreya Punarvasu,⁸¹ and Punarvasu,⁸² the son of Atri.⁸³

v1.c20.s1.21

The Carakasamhitā once refers to him as Cāndrabhāgin;⁸⁴ the Bhelasamhitā mentions him as Cāndrabhāga and Cāndrabhāga Punarvasu.⁸⁵ These qualifications have occasioned a number of interpretations:⁸⁶ Ātreya was the son of Candrabhāga,⁸⁷ the name of his mother was Candrabhāgā,⁸⁸ he lived on the banks of the Candrabhāgā river,⁸⁹ he was born in the delta formed by the rivers Candrā and Bhāgā,⁹⁰ he lived on the Candrabhāga mountain,⁹¹ or in a place called Candrabhāgā.⁹²

v1.c20.s1.22

Places where Ātreya delivered his teachings are the Caitraratha forest,⁹³ Gāndhāra,⁹⁴ the slopes of the Himālaya,⁹⁵ Kāmpilya,⁹⁶ and Pañcagaṅgā.⁹⁷

v1.c20.s1.23

Ātreya is referred to as a brahmarṣi⁹⁸ or maharṣi;⁹⁹ many laudatory epithets are bestowed on him, in particular in the Carakasamhitā.¹⁰⁰

v1.c20.s1.24

The opening chapter of the Carakasamhitā confers the impression that Ātreya received the āyurveda from Bharadvāja. The story tells that Bharadvāja went to the abode of Indra, who transmitted the science to the foriner, who passed in on to a group of sages. Bharadvāja, albeit a member of this group, is not explicitly mentioned again, which makes some scholars doubtful on Bharadvāja's role as an intermediary, the more so since disagreeing versions of the story are known. This doubt is reinforced by the ambiguities surrounding Bharadvāja. Some versions of the myth about the divine origin of āyurveda make Ātreya obtain the āyurveda directly from Indra or even fail to mention Bharadvāja.¹⁰¹

v1.c20.s1.25

The relationship between Ātreya and Bharadvāja is complex and not lucid at all.¹⁰² An Indian tradition, known to Cakrapāṇidatta, but rejected by him, made the two even into one and the same person.¹⁰³

v1.c20.s1.26

Some Indian authors are convinced that Atri, Ātreya's father, instructed him in the medical science.¹⁰⁴ Vāmadeva is occasionally mentioned as one of Ātreya's teachers.¹⁰⁵

v1.c20.s1.27

Ātreya is one of the eighteen founders of the medical science in the Parāśaratantra.¹⁰⁶

v1.c20.s1.28

An interesting tale found in the Bower MS describes a gathering of sages in which both Ātreya and Suśruta take part;¹⁰⁷ this may be the only occasion on which both authorities meet each other.

v1.c20.s1.29

Atri and Ātreya are sometimes seen as interchangeable names.¹⁰⁸ The Atri of the Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha¹⁰⁹ is probably the same as Ātreya. P. Cordier regarded the Atri, mentioned in Naraharibhaṭṭa's Khaṇḍanamaṇḍana¹¹⁰ as the teacher of Khāraṇādi, as identical with Ātreya Punarvasu;¹¹¹ the same interpretation was applied to the Atri of the pāriśiṣṭādhyāya of the Hāritasamhitā.¹¹² Aśvaghoṣa's Buddhacarita, however, says explicitly that it was not Atri, but Ātreya, who was well known as a physician.¹¹³

v1.c20.s1.30

Some quotations from Atri and the Atrisamhitā, on the other hand, are from Ātreya and the Ātreyasamhitā.¹¹⁴

v1.c20.s1.31

Ātreya (Punarvasu) is also confused with Kṛṣṇātreya,¹¹⁵ and, more rarely, with bhikṣu Ātreya.¹¹⁶ Some consider him to be the same as Dattātreya.¹¹⁷

v1.c20.s1.32

Ātreya’s name as a medical authority spread to Tibet. The Tibetan translation of the Aṣṭāngahṛdayasaṃhitā calls him Rgyun-śes-kyi bu,¹¹⁸ the name given to him in many Tibetan texts.¹¹⁹

v1.c20.s1.33

Medical works attributed to Ātreya or associated with his name are:¹²⁰ Ātreyasaṃhitā, Ātreyasaṃhitāsāra, Ātreyasārasaṃgraha, Ātreyavāgyoga, Nāḍījñāna, Uṣṭrapayaḥkalpa, and Uttarakārikā.

v1.c20.s1.34

The Ātreyasaṃhitā, recorded in MS catalogues, is usually identical with one of the versions of the Hārītasaṃhitā.¹²¹ Some Indian authors, basing themselves on quotations from Kṛṣṇatreya and being convinced of his identity with Ātreya Punarvasu, refer to the Ātreyasaṃhitā as a work that is no longer available.¹²²

v1.c20.s1.35

A number of quotations from an Ātreyasaṃhitā are neither from the Carakasamhitā, nor from the Hārītasaṃhitā, and are moreover not identical with verses attributed to Kṛṣṇatreya.¹²³

v1.c20.s1.36

Details on the Ātreyasaṃhitāsāra¹²⁴ and Ātreyasārasaṃgraha¹²⁵ are not known to me, but both texts may well be related to the Hārītasaṃhitā.

v1.c20.s1.37

Information on the Ātreyavāgyoga, Nāḍījñāna,¹²⁶ and Uṣṭrapayaḥkalpa¹²⁷ is lacking. The Uttarakārikā is quoted in Niścala’s Ratnaprabhā on the Cakradatta.¹²⁸

v1.c20.s1.38

Quotations ascribed to Ātreya¹²⁹ may be from the Carakasamhitā or Hārītasaṃhitā, from some unknown work, or may consist of verses simply attributed to him as an ancient medical authority.

v1.c20.s1.39

Ātreya, Caraka and Hārīta are in some works mentioned as three different authorities.¹³⁰

v1.c20.s1.40

Authors and works citing Ātreya on subjects not dealt with in the Caraka- and Hārītasaṃhitā are Aghoranātha, the Bower MS, Gaṇeśaśarman in the Pākapradīpa, the Śālīgrāmanighaṇṭu, Ṭoḍara’s Āyurvedasaukhya, and Vinodalālasena’s Āyurvedavijñāna.¹³¹

v1.c20.s1.41

One verse, said to be from Ātreya in Ṭoḍara’s Āyurvedasaukhya, actually occurs in the Suśrutasaṃhitā,¹³² while another verse, found in the same treatise, refers to Vāgbhaṭa.¹³³

v1.c20.s1.42

The works quoted as Bṛhadātreya, Kaniṣṭhātreya, Madhyamātreya and Vṛddhātreya may, at least partially, be versions of the Hārītasaṃhitā.¹³⁴

v1.c20.s1.43

Dharmaśāstra works connected with the name Ātreya are the Ātreyasmṛti and Ātreyadharmaśāstra.¹³⁵

v1.c20.s1.44

A work called Ātreyatantra is mentioned in Guṇaratna’s commentary on Haribhadrasūri’s Ṣaḍdarśanasamuccaya.¹³⁶ An Ātreyabhāṣya or Ātreyatantra was also known to the Jain author Vādideva Sūri and the Nyāya writer Vādīndra.¹³⁷ A lost Rāvaṇabhāṣya on the Vaiśeṣikasūtras is sometimes ascribed to an Ātreya.¹³⁸ The Tibetan tradition is acquainted with Ātreya as the author of a work on the proportions of statues (Pratimāmāna).¹³⁹

v1.c20.s1.45

Much has been written, mainly by Indian authors, on Ātreya’s date. Those who regard him as a Vedic sage, assign him to very early ages, ranging from 750–700 B.C. to one millennium or even more than one millennium B.C.¹⁴⁰

v1.c20.s1.46

In my opinion, these speculations do not have much sense, since Ātreya (Punarvasu) is clearly a legendary personality.

Agniveśa

v1.c20.s2.1

Agniveśa figures prominently in the *Carakasaṃhitā* as the foremost pupil of Ātreya Punarvasu. 141 His special position in the *Carakasaṃhitā* is illustrated by the story that, on account of his extraordinary intelligence (buddhiviśeṣa), he was the first to compose a treatise (tantra) based on the teachings of Ātreya (Ca.Sū.1.32). This *Agniveśatantra* was the basis of the *Carakasaṃhitā*.

v1.c20.s2.2

Another work, ascribed to Agniveśa, the *Añjananidāna*, is actually a treatise by an unknown author, belonging to the eleventh or twelfth century at the earliest. 142 A *Nidānasthāna* by Agniveśa is recorded in only one MS catalogue; 143 G. Mukhopadhyaya 144 asserts that it is also called *Netrāñjana*, which would imply that it is identical with the *Añjananidāna*. One of the BORI MSS of the *Añjananidāna* 145 ends with a colophon stating that the *Añjana* from Agniveśa’s *Nidānasthāna* is completed, which confirms that the so-called *Nidānasthāna* of Agniveśa cannot be but the *Añjananidāna*. The same applies to the MS of an *Agniveśanidāna*, with commentary. 146 Some scholars claim that Agniveśa wrote a *Nāḍīparīkṣā*. 147 The ascription of a commentary on the *Carakasaṃhitā* to Agniveśa is undoubtedly wrong. 148

v1.c20.s2.3

The only work of Agniveśa to be taken into consideration 149 is the *Agniveśatantra*, at least insofar as human medicine is concerned. A related science, claiming Agniveśa as one of its experts, is elephantology (gajaśāstra). His name appears in this context in Godāvaramiśra’s *Hariharacaturaṅga*, 150 Nīlakaṇṭha’s *Mātaṅgalīlā*, 151 Pālakāpya’s *Hastyāyurveda*, 152 and Śivarāmabhūpati’s *Kalpanāratna*. 153 A MS of a *Hastiśāstra* by Agniveśa is referred to by Atrideva. 154

v1.c20.s2.4

It may be convenient to begin a discussion of Agniveśa’s *Agniveśatantra* and his contributions to medicine with a list of quotations.

v1.c20.s2.5

Authors and works quoting Agniveśa or Agniveśya and a work called *Agniveśya*, *Agniveśatantra* or *Agniveśasaṃhitā* are: 155 Āḍhamalla, 156 Anantakumāra, 157 *Āyurvedābdhiṣāra*, 158 Bhāvamiśra, 159 the *Bhesajjamañjūsāsannaya*, Cakrapāṇidatta, 160 Candraṭa, 161 Daḷhaṇa, 162 Jejjaṭa, 163 Jīvānandavidyāsāgara, 164 Kāśīrāma, 165 Kṛṣṇadatta, 166 Mādhavācārya, 167 Narahari, 168 Nīlakaṇṭha, 169 Niścala, 170 Rudrabhaṭṭa, 171 Sadānandadādhīca, 172 Satyanārāyaṇaśāstrin, 173 Śivadāsasena, 174 Soḍhala, 175 Śrīdāsapaṇḍita, 176 Śrīkaṇṭhadatta, 177 Toḍara, 178 Vāgbhaṭa, 179 and Vijayarakṣita. 180

v1.c20.s2.6

Quotations from Agniveśa that form part of the *Carakasaṃhitā* are found in Satyanārāyaṇaśāstrin’s *Padārthavijñāna*, 181 Soḍhala’s *Gadanigraha*, 182 and Toḍara’s *Āyurvedasaukhya*. 183

v1.c20.s2.7.1

The larger part of the quotations, however, are absent from the text of the *Carakasaṃhitā*; they deal with the following subjects: (1) seasonal regimen: Toḍara II: 3.130 184 and 196–198; 185 (2) epidemic diseases (janapadoddhvaṃsa): Toḍara II: 3.225 and 226–228; 186 (3) the means of knowledge concerning diseases: Toḍara II: 1.130; 187 (4) the qualities of the three doṣas and substances suitable to alleviate excited doṣas: Toḍara II: 2.63–64; 188 (5) the threefold movement of the doṣas: Toḍara II: 2.38; 189 (6) the relationships between the tastes and the mahābhūtas: Toḍara II: 3.66–67; 190 (7) the firmness (saṃhati) of the body: Toḍara II: 3.378–381ab; 191 (8) the number of hairs (roman) of the human body: Toḍara II: 4.51–53ab; 192 (9) the metabolic transformation of the seven bodily elements: Śrīdāsapaṇḍita ad A.h.Śa.3. 61cd–62ab; (10a) the formation of śukra in males and females and the duration of this process in persons with a strong, mildly weak, weak and very weak bodily fire: Śrīdāsapaṇḍita ad A.h.Śa.3.65cd–66ab and 67cd; (10b) śukra derives from the six tastes (ṣaṭprabhava) and from four mahābhūtas: Toḍara II: 4.92–94 and 95–96; (11) the influence of the diet and behaviour of a pregnant woman on the unborn child: Toḍara II: 4.159–160 and 205–215;¹⁹³ (12) embryology: Toḍara II: 4.188 and 193;¹⁹⁴ (13) ariṣṭas: Toḍara II: 5.55;

v1.c20.s2.7.2

(14) the classification of remedial measures (auṣadha): Toḍara II: 2.167–170¹⁹⁵ and 171–174;¹⁹⁶ (15a) any drug and article of diet, procurable by the patient, dependent on his circumstances, should be used by a physician: Toḍara IX: 1.482–483; (15b) the classification of drugs: Toḍara II: 3.6–8;¹⁹⁷ (16) the changes of the properties of medicinal substances during the process of preparation (saṃskāra): Niścala ad jvara 41–42;¹⁹⁸ (17) snehapāka: Yogaratnasamuccaya 7.126; (18) dravyaguṇa: Yogaratnasamuccaya 8.171cd–172ab and 356;¹⁹⁹ (19) the purification of śilājatu: Āyurvedābdhisāra 9372–77, Āyurvedaprakāśa 4.110–115, Bhāvaprakāśa 7³.140–143; (20) the definition of upadrava: Toḍara II: 1.111–112;²⁰⁰ (21) the treatment of primary disease (mūlavyādhi) and upadrava: Toḍara II: 1.113–114; (22) pañcakaraṇan: Kāśīrāma ad Śārṅgadharasaṃhitā III.3.1; (23) pralepaka fever: Toḍara III: 4.795;²⁰¹ (24) śvasana fever: Toḍara III: 4.43;²⁰² (25) dhātupāka in fevers: Toḍara III: 4.1342–1343; (26) sudation (svedana) in fevers: Kusumāvalī ad Siddhayoga 1.132; (27) the treatment of kāmalā by cauterization and a magical recipe: Basavarājīya 90; (28) dislocations and fractures: Āḍhamalla ad Śārṅgadharasaṃhitā I.7.77cd–79ab;²⁰³ (29) the signs of death by drowning (jalamṛtalakṣaṇa): Kusumāvalī ad Siddhayoga 21.5–6, Niścala ad Cakradatta, apasmāra 7–8, Toḍara V: 10.21, Yogaratnākara 430;²⁰⁴ (30) addiction to alcohol and opium (ahiphena): Toḍara III: 3.268;

v1.c20.s2.7.3

(31) the purification of ullipāṣāṇa: Basavarājīya 387; (32) paribhāṣās: (a) Cakrapāṇi ad Ca.Sū.2.17 and Ca.Ci.3.179cd–188ab, Śivadāsa ad Cakradatta, jvara 29;²⁰⁵ (b) Cakrapāṇi ad Ca.Ci.3.197–200ab, ²⁰⁶ Niścala ad Cakradatta, jvara 64; (c) Cakradatta, jvara 64;²⁰⁷ (d) Cakrapāṇi ad Ca.Ci.4.62–72 and 88, Śivadāsa ad Cakradatta, rakta-pitta 14; (e) Cakrapāṇi ad Ca.Ci.7.60–64; (f) the definition of uṣṇodaka: Niścala ad Cakradatta, jvara 17, Śivadāsa ad Cakradatta, jvara 17–18, Śivadāsa ad Cakrapāṇi’s Dravyaguṇa, pānīya 31;²⁰⁸ (g) the definition of mātrā: Ḍalhaṇa ad Su.Ci.38.3–6, Kusumāvalī ad Siddhayoga 76.3ab, Niścala ad Cakradatta, nirūha 8–10, Śivadāsa ad Cakradatta, nirūha 8–10,²⁰⁹ (h) the description of kṛta- and akṛtayūṣa: Niścala ad Cakradatta, vamana 14; (i) rules for the preparation of ṣaḍaṅgakaṣāya, etc.: Toḍara IX: 1.401, 420; (j) the three kinds of dose of a drug: Toḍara IX: 1.1141; (k) rules for the preparation of medicated oils: Toḍara IX: 1.401, 420;²¹⁰ (a) cāṅgerīghṛta: Gadanigraha, ghṛta 32–35ab;²¹¹ (b) cavyādyaghṛta: Gadanigraha, ghṛta 92–94;²¹² (c) cyavanaprāśāvaleha;²¹³ (d) keśarapāka: Sadānandadādhīca’s Cikitsāratnābharaṇa;²¹⁴ (e) mahātiktakaghṛta: Gadanigraha, ghṛta 162–168;²¹⁵ (f) ṣaṭpalaghṛta: Gadanigraha, ghṛta 66cd–68ab; (g) śvadaṃṣṭrādyaghṛta: Gadanigraha, ghṛta 150–153; (h) tiktakaghṛta: Gadanigraha, ghṛta 158–161;²¹⁶ (i) tryūṣaṇādyaghṛta: Gadanigraha, ghṛta 194–197;²¹⁷ (j) vāsādyaghṛta: Gadanigraha, ghṛta 40cd–43ab;

v1.c20.s2.7.4

(k) vātāntakataila: Toḍara III: 4.1271–1278; (l) Bhāvaprakāśa, cikitsā 1.762; (m)

v1.c20.s2.8

Cakrapāṇi ad Ca.Ci.7.60–64; (n) Ṭoḍara III: 3.73; (o) Ṭoḍara III: 3.98; (p) Ṭoḍara III: 3.161; (q) Ṭoḍara III: 3.169–170; (r) Ṭoḍara III: 3.211; (s) Ṭoḍara III: 4.801; (t) Ṭoḍara III: 4.805; (u) Ṭoḍara III: 4.1297–1299; (v) Ṭoḍara III: 4.1336–1337; (w) Ṭoḍara VI: 11.16; (x) Yogaratnasamuccaya 14.254–258; (y) idem, 16.326; (z) idem, 19.246; (aa) idem, 19.267–268; (bb) idem, 20.239–240; (cc) idem, 20.244.

v1.c20.s2.9

One verse from Agniveśa was incorporated in Cakrapāṇi’s Cikitsāsaṃgraha.²¹⁸

v1.c20.s2.10

The quotations from Agniveśa and a tantra or saṃhitā attributed to him raise several questions. Those which form part of the extant text of the Carakasaṃhitā cannot unhesitatingly be regarded as belonging to its oldest layer, the Agniveśatantra, on account of the possibility that the Carakasaṃhitā is cited.²¹⁹ Some quotations are related to verses or prose passages found in the Carakasaṃhitā, but a rather large number are absent from it. This last group is heterogeneous and comprises citations agreeing with views expressed in the Carakasaṃhitā, disagreeing with these views, or dealing with subjects not discussed in the Carakasaṃhitā. Part of the quotations are even decidedly of a rather late date. The technical rules (paribhāṣā) attributed to Agniveśa are most probably from a treatise entirely distinct from the Agniveśatantra that formed the basis of the Carakasaṃhitā.

v1.c20.s2.11

Numerous Indian scholars are in favour of accepting the citations ascribed to Agniveśa as coming from the Agniveśatantra, which makes them discuss the question up to which period this treatise was still available in its original form. Manuscripts of the work are no longer extant.

v1.c20.s2.12

P.C. Rāy is recorded as having asserted in his ‘History of Hindu Chemistry’²²⁰ that the Agniveśatantra was obsolete at the time of composition of Vāgbhaṭa’s Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā.²²¹ G. Mukhopadhyaya challenged this assertion,²²² being convinced of the existence of Agniveśa’s original treatise in Vāgbhaṭa’s time, because this author mentions the works of Agniveśa and other pupils of Ātreya as the sources of his Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā (A.h.Sū.1.3–5ab). Vāgbhaṭa’s reference may, however, be meant to stress that his treatise was in keeping with the tradition and did not introduce new material deviating from the views of the ancient authorities. Agniveśa appears again on the stage at the end of the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā, where he, as the foremost among Ātreya’s students, asks the latter about the ultimate causes of disease and suffering, whereupon Ātreya proceeds to give a lecture on the subject (A.h.U.40.59–77).²²³

v1.c20.s2.13

The Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha mentions Agniveśa as one among the many ancient authorities whose treatises form the basis of the work (A.s.Sū.1.4–18). He is again referred to as the one who asks Ātreya a question about the application of clysters (A.s.Ka.5.57). Towards the end of the treatise he figures as the first who wrote down the teachings on āyurveda originating from Brahmā (A.s.U.50.202).

v1.c20.s2.14

These references to Agniveśa in Vāgbhaṭa’s works do not warrant the conclusion that the Agniveśatantra was still extant in Vāgbhaṭa’s times. The only passage in Vāgbhaṭa’s works containing a particular view of Agniveśa is found in the chapter on fever of the Nidānasthāna (A.h.Ni.2.61–62a; A.s.Ni.2.63–64a): the crisis of saṃtata fever occurs on the seventh, tenth or twelfth day according to Agniveśa, whereas Hārīta declares that the critical days are the fourteenth, eighteenth and twenty-second.²²⁴ The verse quoted as deriving from Agniveśa is absent from the Carakasaṃhitā,²²⁵ but its contents fully agree with verses which do form part of its text (Ca.Ci.3. 53cd–61ab). Probably, Vāgbhaṭa summarized the essence of what he knew to be the opinion expressed in the Carakasaṃhitā; however, one cannot exclude that he was acquainted with a view traditionally ascribed to Agniveśa. This does not mean at all that the evidence collected from Vāgbhaṭa’s works proves that the Agniveśatantra was available to him.

v1.c20.s2.15

G. Mukhopadhyaya’s allegation that Agniveśa’s work still existed when the old Sauśrutatantra was redacted by Nāgārjuna and became known as the Suśrutasaṃhitā, 226 rests on very slender evidence. The Suśrutasaṃhitā does not mention Agniveśa’s name; it only refers to the treatises of the six kāyacikitsā specialists 227 and several other groups of experts, used in the composition of the Uttaratantra (Su.U.1.4cd–8ab); this is a statement of the same type as that found at the beginning of Vāgbhaṭa’s works.

v1.c20.s2.16

The claim of many Indian authors that the Agniveśatantra remained accessible for many centuries, up to the times of Cakrapāṇidatta, Vijayarakṣita, Śrīkaṇṭhadatta and Śivadāsasena, 228 is not supported by solid evidence; 229 it rests on the shaky basis of the uncritical acceptance of the genuineness of the quotations and on the conviction that the occurrence of these quotations means that MSS containing the complete text were still extant. Acknowledgment of the additional quotations found in Ṭoḍara’s Āyurvedasaukhya and Anantakumāra’s Yogaratnasamuccaya, neglected by the majority of Indian authors or unknown to them, would oblige them to raise the limit of the period in which the Agniveśatantra could be consulted. It would, moreover, be hard to explain that in the period of compilation of Ṭoḍara’s Āyurvedasaukhya a large body of material from the Agniveśatantra could be collected that was overlooked by the commentators on the classical medical treatises.

v1.c20.s2.17

The majority of the citations referred to by these authors in order to substantiate their claims are of the nature of paribhāṣās; these technical rules belong to a special group of quotations which are probably from an Agniveśasaṃhitā, a work that impresses as entirely different from the Agniveśatantra and of a later date. Paribhāṣās do not form part of the Carakasaṃhitā and are usually found in the commentarial literature or specialized works like the Bheṣajakalpa, attributed to Bharadvāja.

v1.c20.s2.18

As I have already mentioned, the quotations attributed to Agniveśa belong to several groups. In my opinion it is impossible to decide whether or not some may be from the old Agniveśatantra, because of the absence of reliable criteria. No one knows what the Agniveśatantra looked like, in spite of assertions to the contrary. 230 P. V. Sharma has advanced the hypothesis that the Agniveśatantra was a work in sūtra style, resembling the Arthaśāstra; Caraka expanded the text, rewrote the descriptions of the assemblies in the form of dialogues and added the summaries at the end of each chapter. 231 The same author has tried to isolate elements of the Carakasaṃhitā that in his view belong to its oldest layer, i.e., the Agniveśatantra. 232

v1.c20.s2.19

The quotations do not support the hypothesis that Agniveśa’s work mainly consisted of sūtras; by far the larger part of the citations are in verse. 233

v1.c20.s2.20

Peculiarities found in quotations from Agniveśa which throw doubt on their authenticity or point to a date later than Dṛḍhabala’s completion of the Carakasaṃhitā are: the use of the term ekarūpa yakṣman for an epidemic disease; 234 the absence of yukti as a means of knowledge; 235 the number of hairs of the human body; 236 the presence of two different quotations on the same subject; 237 a quotation in verse, corresponding to a passage in prose of the Carakasamhitā; 238 the description of pralepaka fever; 239 the description of śvasana fever; 240 the description of the symptoms of death by drowning; 241 the description of addiction to alcohol and opium; 242 the description of the purification of ullipāṣāṇa. 243

v1.c20.s2.21

A very remarkable reference to Agniveśa, called Hutāśa in this case, occurs in the chapter on bhagna (44) of the Mādhavanidāna. The first verse of this chapter looks like a quotation in which an unnamed authority answers a question put by Agniveśa. The verse distinguishes two kinds of bhagna: kāṇḍabhagna (a bone fracture) and sandhibhagna (dislocation of a joint); the latter is of six varieties. Verses two to seven of the same chapter, probably from the same source as verse one, 244 enumerate the twelve types of fractures. 245

v1.c20.s2.22

The presence of Agniveśa's name in a verse on this subject is striking, on account of the fact that fractures and dislocations are not discussed in the Carakasamhitā. The assumption that the verses referred to are from the old Agniveśatantra 246 would be tantamount to accepting that it essentially differed from the Carakasamhitā in also dealing with surgery.

v1.c20.s2.23

The identity of the Agniveśa mentioned in the Carakasamhitā is a much discussed subject. I agree with J. Filliozat 247 in regarding him as a mythic figure, not as a historic personality. Most Indian scholars disagree with this view and are inclined to identify him with a person of the same name figuring in ancient Indian texts. 248 Several teachers called Agniveśa are already referred to in Vedic literature, 249 which indicates that Agniveśa is a name going back to early times.

v1.c20.s2.24

One of the schools of the Black Yajurveda is called after Agniveśa; 250 this school (śākhā) is mentioned in the Taittirīyaprātiśākhya and the commentary on this work by Māhiṣeya. 251

v1.c20.s2.25

Agniveśa's name is found in the Gaṇapāṭha belonging to Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī. 252

v1.c20.s2.26

The Mahābhārata contains stories about a divine weapon, the āgneyāstra, given by Bṛhaspati to Bharadvāja, who transmitted it to Agniveśa; Agniveśa gave it in his turn to Droṇa, 253 who also received the dhanurveda from him. 254 Agastya is said to have been Agniveśa's teacher in the art of archery (dhanurveda). 255 Another story tells that the coat of mail (varman), in which Indra fought Vṛtra, was handed over to Aṅgiras, who gave it to his son Bṛhaspati, from whom it came to Agniveśa and finally to Droṇa. 256 These stories diverge in presenting Agniveśa as a pupil of Agastya, Bharadvāja and Bṛhaspati. 257

v1.c20.s2.27

Purāṇas mentioning Agniveśa or Agniveśya are the Bhāgavata-, Brahmāṇḍa-, Matsya- and Vāyupurāṇa. 258 The Bhāgavatapurāṇa describes Agniveśa as an incarnation of Agni and the son of Devadatta; he became famous as the great sage Kanīna Jatūkarṇa. 259

v1.c20.s2.28

Buddhist literature is also acquainted with Agniveś(y)a; 260 his name is found in the Divyāvadāna 261 and the Majjhimanikāya. 262 Agniveśāyana is a name occurring in the Avadānaśataka. 263

v1.c20.s2.29

Persons called Aggivessana are moreover known from the history of the Ājīvikas.264 Aggivesāyaṇa is a name found in Ardhamāgadhī literature; the Jaina canonical text Vyākhyāprajñapti or Bhagavatīsūtra tells about a visit to Makkhali Gosāla, the founder of the Ājīvikas, by six wandering ascetic philosophers, one of whom was a certain Aggivesāyaṇa.265

v1.c20.s2.30

The Tibetan medical tradition is acquainted with Agniveśa as Me-bźin ḥjug;266 he is credited with a medical work belonging to the collection known as Rća-ra-ka sde-brgyad.267

v1.c20.s2.31

Al-Bīrūnī transmits a tradition regarding Caraka as an incarnation of Agniveśa.268

v1.c20.s2.32

The arguments adduced by Indian scholars in support of the thesis that the Agniveśa of the Carakasaṃhitā is the same as the Agniveśa or Agniveśya mentioned in the sources referred to do not carry conviction because a coherent picture does not emerge from the data available. The guru-śiṣya relationship between Ātreya Punarvasu and Agniveśa, characteristic of the Carakasaṃhitā, is not found in non-medical sources; many of the latter describe Agniveśa as a pupil of Bharadvāja, whose connection with Agniveśa is indirect in the Carakasaṃhitā, where Ātreya is instructed by him.269

v1.c20.s2.33

Indian authors base their identification of the Agniveśa of the Gaṇapāṭha with the author of the Agniveśatantra on the occurrence, next to each other, of the names of Agniveśa, Parāśara and Jatūkarṇa, three names associated with the medical science;270 this argument is unconvincing because Agniveśa on the one hand, Parāśara and Jatūkarṇa on the other, do not form part of one and the same gaṇa;271 moreover, all three are names of ancient sages associated with many aspects of Indian culture and not with medicine only.

v1.c20.s2.34

Indian scholars who suppose the Agniveśa of the Carakasaṃhitā to be identical with the Agniveśa or Agniveśya of Vedic literature, the Gaṇapāṭha, the Mahābhārata, etc., are inclined to place him in a period shortly preceding that of Pāṇini, in the age of the early Upaniṣads, or the period of the Śatapathabrāhmaṇa.

v1.c20.s2.35

An argument often adduced in support of the thesis of Agniveśa’s anteriority to Pāṇini is the occurrence of his name in the Gaṇapāṭha, in combination with the fact that the city of Takṣaśilā, known to Pāṇini,272 is nowhere mentioned in the Carakasaṃhitā.273 This argument strains the evidence in identifying an unspecified Agniveśa with the pupil of Ātreya and in supposing that the presence or absence of geographical names in the Carakasaṃhitā reflects the period of composition of the Agniveśatantra. The authors employing this type of reasoning often compare the relationship between the Agniveśatantra and the Carakasaṃhitā with that between Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī and the Mahābhāṣya,274 a comparison that obviously falls short.

v1.c20.s2.36

Another piece of evidence put forward as indicating an early date of the oldest layer of the Carakasaṃhitā, associated with Agniveśa, is the absence of the seven-day week of the solar calendar and the names of the days of the week called after their presiding planets. A number of Indian authors assume that the seven-day week was introduced about one thousand years before the beginning of the Śaka era (A.D. 78);275 its absence would thus corroborate that the Agniveśatantra dates from about 1.000 B.C. Actually, the solar calendar, imported with Western astronomy, was known from Gupta times onwards and did not oust the old luni-solar calendar, which invalidates the argument.276

v1.c20.s2.37

Evidence taken from the contents of the Carakasaṃhitā and considered by Indian scholars to prove the antiquity of the Agniveśatantra is discussed in the chapter on the Carakasamhitā.

v1.c20.s2.38

Most Indian scholars conclude that Agniveśa, the author of the Agniveśatantra, belongs to Upaniṣadic times or the period of the Śatapathabrāhmaṇa and lived about 1000 B.C.²⁷⁷

v1.c20.s2.39

P. Cordier²⁷⁸ supposed Agniveśa to have been a Buddhist who lived six centuries before Caraka.

Dṛḍhabala

v1.c20.s3.1

Dṛḍhabala²⁷⁹ is the author who completed the Carakasamhitā, as attested by himself. He states in the last chapter of the Cikitsāsthāna (Ci.30.289–290): “Since seventeen chapters, and also those of the Kalpa and Siddhi (sections), of Agniveśa’s tantra as revised by Caraka, are not available, Dṛḍhabala, the son of Kapilabala, wrote these missing portions, in order to truthfully complete this important treatise”; in the last chapter of the Siddhisthāna (Si.12.36cd–40ab) he expresses himself in the following words: “A redactor (saṃskartar) enlarges what is concisely stated and abridges prolixities, making an old treatise thus up-to-date again; in that way, this excellent treatise, full of truth, redacted by the very learned Caraka, but seen to be incomplete by one-third (tribhāgena), was fully restored, after propitiating Śaṃkara, the lord of living beings, by Dṛḍhabala, born in Pañcanadapura; he gleaned a mass of relevant information (viśeṣoñchaśiloccaya) from many books, filling with it seventeen chapters on treatment (auṣadhādhyāya), the Kalpa(sthāna) and the Siddhi(sthāna)”.

v1.c20.s3.2

Dṛḍhabala’s own words do not specify which chapters of the Cikitsāsthāna were available to him and which chapters were missing from Caraka’s text. The obvious assumption that the last seventeen chapters are meant is only justifiable if all the evidence that can be collected agrees. A preliminary question, however, presents itself first: what is the correct order of the chapters of the Cikitsāsthāna.²⁸⁰ Two different arrangements are known from MSS and editions. The most current order, adopted first by N.N. Sengupta and B.C. Sengupta,²⁸¹ followed by Gaṅgādhara, has: (1) rasāyana, (2) vājīkaraṇa, (3) jvara, (4) raktapitta, (5) gulma, (6) prameha, (7) kuṣṭha, (8) rājayakṣman, (9) unmāda, (10) apasmāra, (11) kṣatakṣīṇa, (12) śvayathu, (13) udara, (14) arśas, (15) grahaṇī, (16) pāṇḍuroga, (17) hikkā and śvāsa, (18) kāsa, (19) atīsāra, (20) chardi, (21) visarpa, (22) tṛṣṇā, (23) viṣa, (24) madātyaya, (25) dvivraṇīya, (26) trimarmīya, (27) ūrustambha, (28) vātavyādhi, (29) vātaśoṇita, (30) yomivyāpad.²⁸² The second arrangement, adopted by Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara,²⁸³ differs in the order of chapters nine to twenty-five: (9) arśas, (10) atīsāra, (11) visarpa, (12) madātyaya, (13) dvivraṇīya, (14) unmāda, (15) apasmāra, (16) kṣatakṣīṇa, (17) śvayathu, (18) udara, (19) grahaṇī, (20) pāṇḍuroga, (21) hikkā and śvāsa, (22) kāsa, (23) chardi, (24) tṛṣṇā, (25) viṣa. Opinions differ concerning the answer to the question which arrangement should be regarded as the original one. The views expressed are related to the problem which chapters are to be ascribed to Dṛḍhabala.

v1.c20.s3.3

Various types of evidence can contribute to the settlement of this question.²⁸⁴ The two serial orders known agree with regard to the eight initial and the five concluding chapters. The former are uniformly seen as belonging to the Carakasaṃhitā before its revision and completion by Dṛḍhabala, which is in conformity with the chapter colophons and Cakrapāṇidatta’s comments on Ca.Ci.30.289–290.285 The five concluding chapters are uniformly attributed to Dṛḍhabala, in agreement again with the colophons and Cakrapāṇidatta’s remarks. Quotations from Dṛḍhabala confirm that these chapters form part of his contributions.286

v1.c20.s3.4

The authorship of chapters nine to twenty-five is in need of clarification.

v1.c20.s3.5

Chapters nine to twelve287 were written by Dṛḍhabala according to the colophons and Cakrapāṇi’s remarks. The same applies to chapter thirteen (udara).288 Chapter fourteen (arśas) derives from Caraka, as indicated in the colophons and by Cakrapāṇi. Chapter fifteen (grahaṇī) is by Dṛḍhabala, as demonstrated by the colophon, Cakrapāṇi’s remarks, and quotations by Aruṇadatta and Śrīdāsapaṇḍita. Chapters sixteen (pāṇḍuroga) and seventeen (hikkā and śvāsa) are also by Dṛḍhabala, as attested by the colophons, Cakrapāṇi, and the quotations found in the commentaries of Vijayarakṣita and Vācaspati. The authorship of chapter eighteen (kāsa), attributed to Dṛḍhabala in the colophon and by Cakrapāṇi, is not confirmed by one or more quotations.289 Chapter nineteen (atīsāra) is by Caraka, as pointed out in the colophon and the commentaries of Cakrapāṇi and Indu.290 Chapter twenty (chardi) is by Dṛḍhabala according to the colophon and Cakrapāṇi. Chapter twenty-one (visarpa) is by Caraka on the basis of the same evidence. Chapter twenty-two (tṛṣṇā) is ascribed to Dṛḍhabala in the colophon, as well as by Cakrapāṇi, Niścala, Vācaspati and Vijayarakṣita. Chapter twenty-three (viṣa) is by Dṛḍhabala according to Cakrapāṇi, Vācaspati and Vijayarakṣita, but the colophon fails to mention his name. Chapter twenty-four (madātyaya) is attributed to Caraka in the colophon and by Cakrapāṇi.291 The authorship of chapter twenty-five (dvivraṇīya) is problematic; the colophon mentions Dṛḍhabala, whereas Jejjaṭa and Cakrapāṇi regard it as deriving from Caraka.

v1.c20.s3.6

The above data permit to conclude with certainty that Dṛḍhabala’s contributions to the Cikitsāsthāna consist of chapters nine to thirteen, fifteen to eighteen, twenty, twenty-two, and twenty-six to thirty, which makes a total of sixteen chapters. The seventeenth chapter is either twenty-three (viṣa), ascribed to Dṛḍhabala by Cakrapāṇi and other commentators, or twenty-five (dvivraṇīya), written by Dṛḍhabala according to the colophon. The relative weight of the evidence points to chapter twenty-three as a contribution of Dṛḍhabala, because the chapter colophons, being later additions, cannot be relied upon; 292 this is confirmed by Jejjaṭa, who ascribes chapter twenty-five unhesitatingly to the ācārya, i.e., Caraka.293

v1.c20.s3.7

The Gulabkunverba team agrees in opting for chapter twenty-three on the basis of Vijayarakṣita’s quotation from it, and on account of Jejjaṭa’s mention of Caraka as the author of chapter twenty-five; the chapter colophons are disregarded. 294 Birajācaraṇ Sengupta, as quoted by G. Mukhopadhyaya,295 accepts Jīvānanda’s views, with one exception: the dvivraṇīya chapter is by Dṛḍhabala, the udara chapter by Caraka.296 The majority of other scholars subscribe to the inferences derived from the evidence.297

v1.c20.s3.8

The conclusions reached with regard to the question which chapters of the Cikitsāsthāna were added by Dṛḍhabala does not solve the problem of the correct order of the chapters of that section. The usual arrangement presents a picture in which five of Caraka’s chapters appear, singly or in a cluster, at various places among those from Drḍhabala’s pen, while Jīvānanda’s order groups them together. Most scholars regard Jīvānanda’s arrangement as a secondary development. 298 This view is supported by the table of contents in chapter thirty of the Sūtrasthāna, 299 the order of the chapters in the Nidānasthāna, 300 and the commentaries of Jejjata and Cakrapāṇidatta. 301

v1.c20.s3.9

Many questions may be raised concerning Drḍhabala’s contributions to the Carakasamhitā. Nothing is known with certainty about the state of Caraka’s work in Drḍhabala’s times. The latter’s remarks convey the impression that Caraka’s revision of the Agniveśatantra had got lost in the course of the ages. 302 The view that Caraka, for some reason, did not complete his work, as supposed by some scholars, 303 is less probable. Drḍhabala himself declares (Ci.30.289–290) that seventeen chapters of the Cikitsāsthāna, and the whole of the Kalpa- and Siddhisthāna of Caraka’s revision of Agniveśa’s work were not available to him (nāsādyante). 304 This pronouncement implies that he was acquainted with the original extent of the work and that he took it for granted that it was not left unfinished by Caraka. The colophons of the chapters we owe to Drḍhabala confirm this view. Some statements found in chapters written by Caraka may be seen as supporting evidence, albeit that one cannot exclude the possibility of Drḍhabala having made these additions; the Kalpasthāna, for instance, is referred to twice (Sū.4.4; 305 Ci.21.53), the Siddhisthāna is mentioned several times. 306 The table of contents in the last chapter of the Sūtrasthāna may, however, well be due to Drḍhabala. 307

v1.c20.s3.10

Most scholars are agreed that Drḍhabala reconstructed the extant part of the Carakasamhitā and made additions to its text, since he acknowledges this fact himself. The identification of passages that may not have formed part of Caraka’s treatise is beset with difficulties. 308 Drḍhabala himself does not inform us of his sources, but Cakrapāṇidatta says that the ‘many treatises’, referred to by Drḍhabala, consisted of the works of Suśruta, Videha and other authors. 309 Verses found in both Caraka- and Suśrutasamhitā are for that reason by some attributed to Drḍhabala. 310

v1.c20.s3.11

A number of scholars, in particular P. Cordier, A.F.R. Hoernle and P.V. Sharma, have tried to identify passages in Caraka’s parts of the Carakasamhitā that may be additions of Drḍhabala. Verses and passages in prose noticed as probably deriving from Drḍhabala are the following: some verses towards the end of Sū.11; 311 the prose portions of Sū.12; 312 the list of one hundred and fifty-two most excellent (agrya) remedial measures, medicinal substances, etc., of Sū.25; 313 the verses on the properties of the water of several rivers (Sū.27.209–212); 314 the already mentioned table of contents of Sū.30; 315 parts of the Nidāna chapter on gulma (Ni.3); 316 some passages of the chapter on epidemics of the Vimānasthāna; 317 the presence of Dhanvantari among a series of gods in the last chapter of the Vimānasthāna (Vi.8.11); 318 the reference to the extraction of a dead foetus by a surgeon (śalyahartar) (Śā.8.31); 319 the list of auspicious objects of the last chapter of the Indriyasthāna; 320 the recommendation to fever patients to recite the thousand names of Viṣṇu (sahasranāmastotra); 321 part of the chapter on the treatment of gulma (Ci.5); 322 the reference to the rise of Agastya in the sky, in connection with the diminution of poisonous elements in rain water (Ci.23.7cd–8); 323 the occurrence of the names of Viṣṇu, Kṛṣṇa and Vāsudeva (Ci.23.91–93); 324 the presence of elements derived from Tantrism;³²⁵ the verses in praise of alcoholic drinks (Ci.24.3–20).³²⁶ Passages referring to surgery and the dhanvantarīyāḥ are by some regarded as interpolations of Dṛḍhabala.³²⁷

v1.c20.s3.12

Some peculiarities found in Dṛḍhabala’s chapters of the Carakasaṃhitā which point to him as an author who lived in the Gupta age are, according to P.V. Sharma: passages reminiscent of treatises on kāmaśāstra (Ci.30.135 and 164);³²⁸ the list of peoples of the last chapter of the Cikitsāsthāna (Ci.30.315–319);³²⁹ the prose style of a passage in chapter one of the Kalpasthāna (Ka.1.8), reminiscent of the prose works of Subandhu and Bāṇa.³³⁰

v1.c20.s3.13

P.V. Sharma inclines to the view that Dṛḍhabala’s list of tantrayuktis (Si.12.41–45ab) has been influenced by the treatment of this subject in the Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra.³³¹

v1.c20.s3.14

P.V. Sharma quotes a list, comprising one hundred and seventy-two items, of medicinal plant names, found in Dṛḍhabala’s chapters of the Carakasaṃhitā, and absent from those attributed to Caraka himself.³³²

v1.c20.s3.15

Names of plants mentioned only in Dṛḍhabala’s chapters of the Carakasaṃhitā are, according to this list: ādityavallī (Ci.26.268),³³³ asitasurasa (Ci.18.117),³³⁴ aśvakhuraka (Ci.23.245), aśvāvarohikā (Si.10.37),³³⁵ atiguhā (Ci.23.213),³³⁶ bählīka (Ci.23.102; 30.91),³³⁷ bahuphenarasā (Ka.11.3),³³⁸ balāhaka (Ci.23.11),³³⁹ bandhujīva (Ci.23.181 and 243),³⁴⁰ bhṛṅgarāja (Ci.18.117; 26.264; Ka.1.25),³⁴¹ bījaka (Ci.16.106),³⁴² bodhivṛkṣa (Ci.29.158),³⁴³ bṛhatpattra (Ka.9.1),³⁴⁴ carmakaṣā (Ci.23.66),³⁴⁵ carmasāhvā (Ka.12.3),³⁴⁶ cavikā (Ci.18.158; 26.167; 28.168; Si.4.14),³⁴⁷ cuccū (Ci.23.225),³⁴⁸ daṇḍairaka (Ci.26.51; Ka.1.25),³⁴⁹ devatādaka (Ka.2.3),³⁵⁰ ekāṣṭhilā (Si.10.23),³⁵¹ gandhaphalā (Ci.23.57),³⁵² garāgarī (Ka.2.3; Si.11.12),³⁵³ gaurī (Si.4.21),³⁵⁴ girikarṇikā (Ci.23.195),³⁵⁵ girimallikā (Ka.5.4),³⁵⁶ guḍā (Ka.10.8),³⁵⁷ hālāhala (Ci.23.13),³⁵⁸ hintāla (Ka.1.8),³⁵⁹ jālamālīnī (Ci.23.206),³⁶⁰ kālakūṭa (Ci.23.11),³⁶¹ karahāṭa (Ci.26.15),³⁶² karkaṭa (Ci.23.11),³⁶³ karkoṭakī (Ka.4.3),³⁶⁴ karṇikāra (Ka.8.3),³⁶⁵ kāsamarda(ka) (Ci.17.99; 18.117, 161, 163; 30.52; Ka.1.25; 4.17),³⁶⁶ koṭhaphala (Si.11.12),³⁶⁷ koṭhaphalā (Ka.4.3), krauñca (Ci.23.11),³⁶⁸ kṛṣṇacitraka (Ci.26.272),³⁶⁹ kṛṣṇaguru (Ci.26.270),³⁷⁰ kṛṣṇapiṇḍita (Ci.26.272),³⁷¹ kṛṣṇaśaireyaka (Ci.26.268),³⁷² kṛṣṇaśana (Ci.26.269),³⁷³ kṣveḍa (Ka.6.3, 10, 12),³⁷⁴ kuṅkuma (Ci.23.54, etc.),³⁷⁵ kunduru(ka) (Ci.26.64; 28.153),³⁷⁶ kuśapuṣpaka (Ci.23.12),³⁷⁷ kutaraṇā (Ka.7.4),³⁷⁸ lambā (Ci.26.153; Ka.3.3),³⁷⁹ mahājālīnī (Ka.3.17; 4.3),³⁸⁰ marubaka (Ka.1.23),³⁸¹ meghaka (Ci.23.12),³⁸² mṛdaṅgaphala (Ka.6.3),³⁸³ muṣkaka (Ci.15.189; 26.192, 193),³⁸⁴ nāgakeśara (Ci.28.154),³⁸⁵ nalikā (Ci.28.152),³⁸⁶ nandā (Ka.10.8),³⁸⁷ navamālikā (Ci.26.184),³⁸⁸ nistriṃśapattraka (Ka.10.8),³⁸⁹ padmacāraṭi (Ci.23.55),³⁹⁰ pārāvatapadī (Ka.1.23),³⁹¹ two types of pāṭhā (Ci.18.39),³⁹² pattaṅga (Ci.26.210),³⁹³ piṇḍaphalā (Ka.3.3),³⁹⁴ pītadāru (Si.9.8; 10.23),³⁹⁵ poṭa (Ka.1.25),³⁹⁶ pragraha (Ka.8.3; Si.10.30; 11.24),³⁹⁷ prasāraṇī (Ci.28.166),³⁹⁸ pratyakparṇī (Ka.11.14),³⁹⁹ rājakośātakī (Ka.4.3),⁴⁰⁰ rakṣoghna (Ci.26.15),⁴⁰¹ rakṣoghnī (Ci.23.79), raktacandana (Ci.30.92),⁴⁰² śābaraka(lodhra) (Ci.15.158),⁴⁰³ sadāpuṣpī (Ka.1.14),⁴⁰⁴ sahā (Ci.28.162),⁴⁰⁵ sahacara (Ci.26.264, etc.),⁴⁰⁶ sahakāra (Ka.7.31),⁴⁰⁷ śakra (Ka.5.4),⁴⁰⁸ śambarī (Ka.12.3, additional verse),⁴⁰⁹ sarvānubhūti (Ka.7.4),⁴¹⁰ śāvaraka and śāvaraka (Ci.23.55; 26.233),⁴¹¹ śelu (Ci.23.187, 201, 204),⁴¹² siddhārtha(ka) (Ci.9.69;

v1.c20.s3.16

15, 135; Si.3.67; 7.25),413 śitivāraka (Ci.26.56, 60),414 śrīnivāsaka (Ci.28.153),415 śuklasurasa (Ci.23.101),416 sutaśreṇī (Ka.12.3, additional verse),417 svarṇayūthikā (Si.10.31),418 śvasana (Ka.1.27),419 śvetabhaṇḍa (Ci.10.245), śvetabhaṇḍī (Ci.23.210),420 śvetamarica (Ci.26.245, 246),421 śvetavacā (Ci.23.70; Si.3.62),422 tālamūlī (Ci.18.75),423 tiktalā (Ka.11.3),424 tirītaka (Ka.9.3),425 trigandhaka (Ci.16.89),426 tribhaṇḍī (Ka.7.4),427 truṭi (Ci.26.55, 64, 87),428 tuṇṭuka (Ci.23.70),429 turuṣka (Ci.28.153),430 uccaṭā (Si.12.19),431 udumbaraparṇī (Ka.12.3),432 vallīphala (Ci.20.22),433 vardhamāna(ka) (Ci.17.80; Si.10.19),434 vatsanābha (Ci.23.11),435 veṇī (Ka.2.3),436 vitunnaka (Ci.18.176; 29.94),437 yavatiktā (Ka.11.3).438

v1.c20.s3.17

Plants to be removed from the list are: amṛtaphala (Ci.7.147), asitā,439 aśvakarṇaka (Sū.4.17, etc.), bālekṣu,440 bhṛṅga (Ci.24.181), cañcu (Ci.19.32), dīrghaśūka (Sū.27.8), ervāruka (Sū.27.110, 111), gṛñjanaka (Sū.27.174, etc.), kākāhvā (Ci.21.90), kaṇā,441 kāntā,442 kardama,443 karkāruka (Ci.19.32), karkaṭaka (Ci.14.90), karkaṭikā (Ci.19.104), karpūra (Sū.5.77), kāśmarī (Sū.2.11; 4.16, 17, etc.: kāśmarya, kharāśvā (Sū.23.15: kharāhvā), kośataka (Ci.7.119, etc.: kośātakī), kṛṣṇaparṇāsa,444 kṛṣṇatila,445 kuraṇṭaka (Ci.21.89), lavaṅga (Sū.5.77), mahāpattra (Ci.14.124), pāṭali (Ci.11.62, etc.), phalī (Ci.14.189, etc.: phalinī), phenilā (Ci.24.161), piṇḍī (Ci.14.10), pratyakpuṣpā (Sū.1.82, 85, etc.), śāla (Sū.4.18, etc.) śāliparṇī (Sū.2.11, 20; 4.13, 16, etc.: śālaparṇī), śamyāka (Ci.3.144, etc.: śampāka), sātalā (Sū.1.77, etc.: saptalā), sindhuvārikā (Sū.3.28, etc.: sindhuvāra), śītapākya (Ci.3.258), sūryaparṇī (Ci.11.43, etc.: śūrpaparṇī), śvetaśali (Ci.21.80 and 113), tiṇṭikera (Ci.14.10), trijātaka (Ci.24.128), utkuñcikā,446 vamśalekhana or -locana (Ci.18.73; 23.71),447 varī (Ci.19.62), vijayā (Ci.25.47), vṛṣakarṇikā (Sū.4.11: vṛṣaparṇikā), vyāghrī (Sū.5.65).

First 118 of 205 passages. Read on

Linked texts (67)