Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c20.s2: Agniveśa

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c20.s2

Language
English

Contents

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.

Linked texts (25)