Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c20.s3: Dṛḍhabala

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c20.s3

Language
English

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).

v1.c20.s3.18

A much shorter list, compiled by P.V. Sharma himself, consists of the following twenty-four plant names: bāhlīka, bhṛṅgarāja, bījaka, bodhivṛkṣa, cavikā, dvimadhūka, karpūra, kṛṣṇacitraka, lavaṅga, nāgakeśara, phenilā, prasāraṇī, raktacandana, sahakāra, śrīnivāsaka, śvetamarica, śvetavacā, tālamūlī, trijātaka, tuṇṭuka, turuṣka, uccaṭā, vatsanābha, and yavatiktā.448

v1.c20.s3.19

These lists are not exhaustive. The remaining plant names occurring in Dṛḍhabala’s chapters only are: akṣipīḍa(ka) (Ci.23.215, 216; Ka.11.3),449 amaradāru (Ci.12.43, 53; 13.147; Si.3.58, 67),450 ambuda (Si.3.63),451 amburuha (Ci.22.37),452 amśumatī (Ci.28.96; 29.80),453 annapākin (Si.12.19),454 apetarakṣasī (Ci.10.39),455 bahuphenarasā (Ka.11.3),456 buka (Ci.30.82),457 cāraṭī (Ci.9.45),458 gajapippalī (Ci.12.41; Ka.7.15),459 gaurāmalaka (Ci.18.184), ghana (Ci.15.165; 16.87; 26.190, 198, 208; Si.3.37; 8.19),460 granthi(ka) (Ci.16.73; 23.52; 27.45),461 guhā (Ci.23.213),462 hayagandhā (Ci.28.173),463 hemadugdhā (Ka.12.23),464 hiṅgupattrikā (Ci.9.66),465 indrāyudha (Ci.23.12),466 jātikośa (Ci.26.210; 28.152),467 jayā (Ci.9.45),468 kāñcarakṣīrī (Ci.13.133),469 kapikacchū (Ci.9.80; 11.62; 24.125, 160),470 karavīraka (Ci.23.11),471 karkaṭahvaya (Ka.7.18), karkaṭākhya (Ci.17.94), karkaṭākhyā (Ci.18.118, 173, 177; 28.160; Si.4.10),472 kaṭabhī (Ci.9.70; 10.33; 15.188; 23.66, 79, 187, 213, 245),473 kaṭambharā (Ci.9.47),474 kaṭutumba (Si.11.6),475 kauntī (Ci.9.35; 12.65; 23.55; Si.8.13),476 kāyasthā (Ci.9.57; 10.46, 48; 17.141; 26.83),477 kuṣṭhaghna (Ci.23.54),478 kūṭaraṇā (Ka.7.4),479 madhuyaṣṭī (Ci.23.196; 29.91), madhuyaṣṭikā (Ci.16.100; 29.107),480 mahāpuruṣadantā (Ci.9.46),481 markaṭa (Ci.23.13),482 markaṭī (Ci.9.45), 483 mayūraka (Ci.12.23; 23.57), 484 mustaka (Ci.23.11), 485 nīlī (Ci.18.87; 26.271; Ka.7.34), 486 nyagrodhī(Ka.12.3), 487 pālaka (Ci.23.12), 488 palāśā (Si.3.38, 65), 489 phalāmla (Ci.11.80), 490 pītadru (Ci.10.43; 12.25; 17.110; 26.97; Si.4.29), 491 pṛthakparṇī (Ci.11.44; 18.77), 492 pullāsa (Ci.30.82), 493 puṇḍarīka (Ci.23.12), 494 pūtanākeśī (Ci.9.45; 10.34, 39), 495 pūtīkakarañja (Ci.26.23), 496 raktamūlī (Si.10.31), 497 śṛṅgīviṣa (Ci.23.13), 502 śūkarī (Ci.9.46), 503 taila (Ci.23.12), 504 trāyantī (Ci.12.53; Ka.7.59; Si.3.36), trāyantikā (Ci.29.58; Si.3.62), 505 tridaśāhva (Ci.28.162), 506 tumbī (Ci.26.15; Ka.3.3, 11, 15, 19), 507 tuvara (Ci.30.124), 508 tvakkṣīrī (Ci.11.17, 20, 54, 62; 15.164; 16.89; 18.88, 104, 146, 176; 29.64, 152; Si.12.19), 509 ugragandhā (Ci.26.22), 510 vāmśī (Ci.11.33, 58; 18.89), 511 vāyasapīluka (Ci.23.217), 512 vāyasī (Ci.12.63; 18.81; 23.53; 27.27). 513

v1.c20.s3.20

The data collected so far does not give us a clear picture of Dṛḍhabala’s methods in completing and revising the extant parts of the Carakasaṃhitā. We cannot even be sure that the MSS and editions faithfully reproduce his text. Aruṇadatta and Śrīdāsapaṇḍita quote fourteen verses of Dṛḍhabala, the first one of which only is found in our text of the Carakasaṃhitā, 514 which may be interpreted as pointing to either an originally longer version or later additions.

v1.c20.s3.21

Generally, the chapters written by Dṛḍhabala are undistinguishable from those we owe to Caraka, as to their style and language, 515 which explains the uncertainties of earlier scholars with regard to the question which chapters can safely be ascribed to the one or the other author. The studies so far available on peculiarities of Dṛḍhabala’s contributions are largely bound up with investigations into his chronological position. Less attention has been paid to disagreements between views expressed by Caraka and Dṛḍhabala. One such contradiction has already been noticed by Cakrapāṇidatta, and, in his wake, Śivadāsasena. These commentators, examining statements concerning the number of days during which fatty substances should be administered, prior to sudation, discovered that Caraka’s and Dṛḍhabala’s views conflict with each other. 516 The difference, explained away by Cakrapāṇi and Śivadāsa, may find its origin in Suśruta’s influence on Dṛḍhabala. 517

v1.c20.s3.22

Inconsistencies within Caraka’s parts of the Carakasaṃhitā may point to interpolations by Dṛḍhabala. An example, discovered by A.F.R. Hoernle, 518 is the description of raktagulma in chapter five of the Cikitsāsthāna, while this disorder is absent from chapter three of the Nidānasthāna. The addition of raktagulma may be accounted for by borrowing from a surgical treatise. 519

v1.c20.s3.23

The reference to Kṛṣṇatreya at the end of chapter eleven of the Sūtrasthāna, attributed to Ātreya at its beginning, is by some regarded as due to Dṛḍhabala’s pen. 520 The same chapter exhibits some more incongruities that are suggestive of the activity of a reviser. 521

v1.c20.s3.24

The question has now to be asked where Dṛḍhabala gleaned his information from. His own statement about his sources is vague (Si. 12.36cd-40ab). Cakrapāṇidatta identifies them as the treatises of Suśruta, Videha and others, which cannot be regarded as a satisfactory answer. Cakrapāṇi obviously refers to Suśruta as a representative of śalya and to Videha as a śālākya specialist, but omits to authors on kāyacikitsā who must have been among Dṛḍhabala’s sources for his chapters on internal medicine.

v1.c20.s3.25

A preliminary problem, namely whether or not Dṛḍhabala could still dispose of fragments of largely lost parts of Caraka’s treatise, is unsolvable. He could, however, avail himself of the original version of the table of contents in the last chapter of the Sūtrasthāna, provided that such a table was already present there. Another source may have been the old version of the Bhelasamhitā, a work belonging to the school of Ātreya and showing many similarities with the Carakasamhitā.522

v1.c20.s3.26

Cakrapāṇi’s reference to Suśruta raises the question whether this remark is trustworthy, and, if so, which version of the Suśrutasamhitā was known to Dṛḍhabala, the original text or the revised one. P.V.Sharma inclines to the view that Dṛḍhabala made use of the old version of the Suśrutasamhitā, before a reviser had reshaped it; he also suggested that this reviser, in his turn, had recourse to Dṛḍhabala’s version of the Carakasamhitā.523 The problems connected with this question will be discussed in the context of Dṛḍhabala’s date.

v1.c20.s3.27

Cakrapāṇi’s mention of Videha as an author from whom Dṛḍhabala borrowed is confirmed by the former’s comments on the latter’s opinion about the number of diseases of the mouth (mukharoga) to be distinguished.524 Dṛḍhabala prefers Videha’s number of sixty-four to the number of sixty-five, acknowledged by Suśruta, in agreement with Bhoja.525 The number of Dṛḍhabala’s diseases of the ear (karṇaroga), namely four, completely disagrees with Suśruta’s number of twenty-eight.526

v1.c20.s3.28

The text of the Carakasamhitā also proves unequivocally that the list of Dṛḍhabala’s sources comprises more names than those of Suśruta and Videha. Dṛḍhabala deviated from both Videha and Suśruta in recognizing ninety-six eye diseases, the number described by Karāla.527

v1.c20.s3.29

A special problem concerning Dṛḍhabala’s activities is posed by the so-called Kāśmīrapāṭha of the Carakasamhitā, known from quotations, and by some regarded as the original text written by Dṛḍhabala.

v1.c20.s3.30

The Kāśmīrapāṭha and the kāśmīrāḥ are quoted or referred to by Āḍhamalla,528 Cakrapāṇidatta,529 Jejjaṭa,530 Niścalakara,531 Śivadāsasena,532 Śrīkaṇṭhadatta,533 Vācaspati,534 and Vijayarakṣita.535

v1.c20.s3.31

The available evidence shows that the text of the editions of the Carakasamhitā presents us with a number of problems. The recorded readings of the Kāśmīrapāṭha sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with the edited text. The attitude of the commentators towards the Kāśmīra text varies slightly; the majority of the Kāśmīra readings are unacceptable to them.

v1.c20.s3.32

A survey of the data may elucidate the problems we are faced with. One of the items mentioned in Ca.Sū.3.3, the bark (tvac) of karavīra, is read as karavīra(ka) by the Kāśmīras according to Niścala and Śivadāsasena,536 who add that the Gauḍīyas regard karavīratvac as the proper reading. Cakrapāṇi gives no comment on karavīratvac.

v1.c20.s3.33

The pipe for inhaling medicinal smoke should be trikoṣaphalita537 according to the text of the Carakasamhitā (Sū.5.50). Śivadāsasena remarks that the Kāśmīras prefer it to be trikoṣa and acchidra (without holes).

v1.c20.s3.34

The editions of the Carakasamhitā give Ci.3.91–102 as part of the text and do not place it between brackets. Vijayarakṣita and Vācaspati538 regard these verses as belonging to the Kāśmīrapāṭha; Jejjata passes them over in silence; Cakrapāṇi may refer to them as read and explained by some, but superfluous in his view, which explains that he does not comment on them. 539 The thirteen saṃnipāta fevers characterized in Ci.3.90–102 are absent from the Suśrutasaṃhitā and Vāgbhaṭa’s works.

v1.c20.s3.35

Cakrapāṇi states that Ci.3.117 is a verse read by the Kāśmīras at this place, but rejected by others. His own judgment is not recorded. Jejjata does not comment on the verse, which gives the impression that it was absent from his text.

v1.c20.s3.36

Cakrapāṇi also informs us that Ci.3.119cd–128ab are only read by the Kāśmīras and not well known (nātiprasiddha). Jejjata ignores these verses.

v1.c20.s3.37

Jejjata regards the two recipes of Ci.3.210–214 as unauthoritative (anārṣa); they are found in the text of the Kāśmīras and Saindhavas. Cakrapāṇi’s remarks indicate that he was aware of the anomalous position of the verses, without rejecting them.

v1.c20.s3.38

Vijayarakṣita and Vācaspati 540 record a variant of Ci.8.52b, preferred by the Kāśmīras. Cakrapāṇi is silent on this issue. Jejjata’s commentary on Ci.8 has not been preserved.

v1.c20.s3.39

Cakrapāṇi declares that Ci.10.54cd–63, acceptable to the Saindhavas and Kāśmīras, are unauthoritative according to the ancient authorities. Jejjata’s comments are not available. The verses describe the aetiology, symptoms and treatment of a curious disease, called atattvābhiniveśa, referred to in the Sūtrasthāna (19.4). The stanzas are out of place in the chapter on the treatment of apasmāra. The disorder is not described elsewhere in the Carakasaṃhitā. 541

v1.c20.s3.40

Niścalakara 542 records a slight variant of Ci.13.69ab, preferred by the Kāśmīras.

v1.c20.s3.41

Cakrapāṇi records a variant of Ci.13.113, read in the Kāśmīra(pāṭha); this variant concerns the ratios of the ingredients of the recipe. The same variant is attributed to the Kāśmīras by Niścala. 543 Jejjata’s commentary on Ci.13 has not been preserved.

v1.c20.s3.42

Vijayarakṣita 544 discloses that the Kāśmīras took exception to the neuter gender of viṣ and made it feminine. Jejjata’s comments are not available. Cakrapāṇi remarks that viṣ is sometimes a neuter noun.

v1.c20.s3.43

Cakrapāṇi mentions a variant of Ci.25.41c, reading sneha instead of taila. This variant, accepted by the Kāśmīras, is not referred to in Jejjata’s commentary.

v1.c20.s3.44

Vijayarakṣita’s comments ad Mādhavanidāna 14.2 (= Ca.Ci.26.125) show that the Kāśmīras preferred a variant, of minor importance, that is also found in some of the MSS. Cakrapāṇi has no remarks on this variant. Jejjata’s comments are not available.

v1.c20.s3.45

Cakrapāṇi’s comments on Ci.30.127cd–132 are interesting. He justifies his remarks by saying that, although the genuineness of Ci.30.128cd–132 is disputed, these verses are accepted by the Kāśmīras and others. Jejjata gives even more information, stating that Ci.30.128cd–132, read by the Kāśmīras and Saindhavas, repeat what has already been discussed elsewhere; he concludes that the verses are to be rejected and that Dṛḍhabala’s text should be adhered to.

v1.c20.s3.46

Cakra mentions a variant, read by the Kāśmīras, in his comments ad Ca.Si.12.16; his remark gives the impression that he disapproved of their reading. 545

v1.c20.s3.47

Āḍhamalla’s commentary on the Śārṅgadharasaṃhitā contains decisive evidence (ad III.8.2). This author reveals that a verse on the varieties of nasya (errhine) to be distinguished, read by the Kāśmīras, conflicts with the corresponding verse of Dṛḍhabala (Si.9.89). The verse, quoted by Āḍhamalla, is also found in Niścala’s *Ratnaprabhā*.⁵⁴⁶

v1.c20.s3.48

A variant, accepted by the Kāśmīras, and dealing with the quantity of guḍa to be used in a particular recipe, is recorded in the *Kusumāvalī*⁵⁴⁷ and Niścala’s *Ratnaprabhā*.⁵⁴⁸ This reference is problematic because the recipe, called māṇibhadramodaka, is not found in the *Carakasamhitā*.⁵⁴⁹

v1.c20.s3.49

Some more readings and interpretations of the Kāśmīras, not yet located in the *Carakasamhitā*, are found in the *Ratnaprabhā* ad jvara 256–257, raktapitta 66–73, gulma 41–42, and kuṣṭha 6–7.

v1.c20.s3.50

This survey of the available material proves unequivocally that the Kāśmīrapāṭha is not identical with Dṛḍhabala’s text at all, being a version of the *Carakasamhitā* that was current in Kaśmīr and comparable with the versions of the Saindhavas, Gauḍīyas, etc.⁵⁵⁰

v1.c20.s3.51

The information we have on the Kāśmīrapāṭha shows that the editions of the *Carakasamhitā* are unsatisfactory in incorporating verses that did not form part of Dṛḍhabala’s text. Our knowledge concerning the MSS of the *Carakasamhitā* leaves very much to be desired, but it may well be that they vary in the extent to which they adhere to Dṛḍhabala’s text or to one of the regional versions.⁵⁵¹

v1.c20.s3.52

Dṛḍhabala is quoted or referred to by Āḍhamalla,⁵⁵² Aruṇadatta,⁵⁵³ Āśubodha Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s commentary on the *Paribhāṣāpradīpa*,⁵⁵⁴ the author of the *Āyurvedābdhisāra*,⁵⁵⁵ Bhāvamiśra,⁵⁵⁶ Cakrapāṇidatta,⁵⁵⁷ Ḍalhaṇa,⁵⁵⁸ Gayadāsa,⁵⁵⁹ Gaṅgādhara,⁵⁶⁰ Gopāladāsa in his *Cikitsāmṛta*, Govindasena in his *Paribhāṣāpradīpa*,⁵⁶¹ Hārāṇacandra,⁵⁶² Indu⁵⁶³ Jejjata,⁵⁶⁴ Karaṇḍikar in his *Nidānadīpikā*,⁵⁶⁵ Nāganātha in his *Nidānapradīpa*, Narahari in his *Vāgbhaṭamaṇḍana*,⁵⁶⁶ Niścalakara,⁵⁶⁷ Śivadāsasena,⁵⁶⁸ Śrīdāsapaṇḍita,⁵⁶⁹ Śrīkaṇṭhadatta,⁵⁷⁰ Vācaspati,⁵⁷¹ and Vijayarakṣita.⁵⁷² He is also quoted by the unknown author of the interpolated portion of Niścala’s *Ratnaprabhā*.

v1.c20.s3.53

Dṛḍhabala is usually referred to by his name, but Niścalakara also calls him Dṛḍhaprabhu,⁵⁷³ *Carakapariśiṣṭakṛt*,⁵⁷⁴ and *Carakapariśiṣṭakṛt*.⁵⁷⁵ Niścala mentions Dṛḍhabala’s version of the *Carakasamhitā* as *Carakavākyapratisaṃskāra*,⁵⁷⁶ *Dṛḍhabalasaṃskāra*,⁵⁷⁷ and *Dṛḍhabalagrantha*.⁵⁷⁸

v1.c20.s3.54

Dṛḍhabala himself tells us that he was a son of Kapilabala⁵⁷⁹ and was born in Pañcanadapura.⁵⁸⁰ The identity of Kapilabala is a matter of dispute⁵⁸¹; some regard him as identical with the medical authority called Kapila.⁵⁸²

v1.c20.s3.55

The location of Pañcanadapura has been discussed by a number of scholars. The majority assume it to be the name of a city or region in either the Pañjāb or Kaśmīr, while a few consider it to be Vārāṇasī.

v1.c20.s3.56

U.Ch. Dutt⁵⁸³ may have been the first author to put forward that Pañcanada means the Pañjāb. This suggestion, not supported by arguments, but probably based on the similarity of the five rivers (nada) of Pañcanada with those of the Pañjāb, was adopted by P. Cordier,⁵⁸⁴ J. Jolly,⁵⁸⁵ and V. Śukla.⁵⁸⁶ P. Cordier was more specific than U.Ch. Dutt in asserting that Pañcanadapura is the same as a place called Pañjpur, to the north of Attock in the Pañjāb.⁵⁸⁷ A.F.R. Hoernle, who corresponded with P. Cordier on this matter, asked M.A. Stein to provide him with more details. The latter replied that there is no Pañjpur in the region of Attock; a Muslim place of pilgrimage, known as Pañjpīr, NNW of Attock, appeared to have caused the confusion. 588

v1.c20.s3.57

A.F.R. Hoernle was convinced that there was really no reason to connect Pañcanada with the Pañjāb. He also stressed that Dṛḍhabala refers to his birthplace as a definite locality (pura), not as a region. He added that several places are known which are called Pañcanada. One of them, mentioned in the Skandapurāṇa (Kāśīkhaṇḍa) 589 is a sacred place in the region of Vārāṇasī; this may well be the locality meant by Gaṅgādhara in his commentary on the Carakasaṃhitā as the native place of Dṛḍhabala. 590 Hoernle further remarked that a place called Pañcanada appears to have once existed in Kaśmīr, near the confluence of the rives Jhelam (Vitastā) and Sindhu; its place is indicated by the village of Pantzinōr, which lies close to what was the original site of that confluence in the later half of the ninth century, in the reign of king Avantivarman. 591 Hoernle concluded that this Pañcanada in Kaśmīr must have been Dṛḍhabala’s home. 592

v1.c20.s3.58

Hoernle’s identification of Pañcanada as a place in Kaśmīr, accepted by many later authors, 593 is no more than a guess, not supported by solid evidence, and obviously connected with his belief that the Kāśmīrapāṭha is the same as Dṛḍhabala’s version of the Carakasaṃhitā; his late date of Dṛḍhabala may also have influenced his views on the identity of Pañcanada.

v1.c20.s3.59

A fanciful theory has been advanced by G. Hāldār. 594 This author assumed that Dṛḍhabala’s father, a paṇḍit born in Kaśmīr, moved, later in life, to the Pañjāb, and settled in Lavapura (i.e., Lahore), where his children were born. In his view, Pañcanadapura cannot be but Lavapura, because Pañcanada designates the Pañjāb and Lavapura is the pura of this region. He counters the identification of Pañcanadapura with Vārāṇasī by the arguments that the latter city is a purī, not a pura, and that the rivers of Vārāṇasī are referred to as nadī, not nada. 595

v1.c20.s3.60

Dṛḍhabala’s chronological position is a much discussed topic, about which conflicting opinions have been advanced.

v1.c20.s3.61

A.F.R. Hoernle tried to establish that Dṛḍhabala borrowed from the Siddhayoga. 596 As an example, he pointed to Ca.Ni.3.17, identical with Siddhayoga 30.2, and supposed this stanza to be an interpolation of Dṛḍhabala, because it duplicates in verse the prose directions of Ca.Ni.3.16. Hoernle arrived at this conclusion by a complex reasoning: the author of the Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha compressed in prose (A.s.Ci.16.2) the substance of Caraka’s versified remarks in his chapter on the treatment of gulma (Ca.Ci.5.20–26); afterwards, the author of the Siddhayoga turned the compressed prose version once more into verse (30.1–4); still later, Dṛḍhabala added the prose of the Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha and one of the verses of the Siddhayoga to Caraka’s chapter on the nidāna of gulma, 597 without realizing, not only that the prose and verse versions are duplicates, but that both these versions are actually duplicates of Caraka’s own genuine verses in his chapter on the treatment of gulma. 598

v1.c20.s3.62

Hoernle’s train of thought does not carry conviction. The Siddhayoga contains many verses found in the chapters of the Carakasaṃhitā that derive from Dṛḍhabala; it is unacceptable to assume that all this material occurred primarily in the Siddhayoga and was put to use by Dṛḍhabala. Not a single instance can be discovered in the commentaries that would confirm Hoernle’s hypothesis. On the contrary, the Kusumāvalī, for example, has a remark, indicating that a particular recipe, useful against unmāda, was explained by Jejjata, which means that it was borrowed from Drdhabala’s chapter on the treatment of this disorder.599 Decisive evidence, overlooked by Hoernle, is the presence in the Siddhayoga of the new diseases described by Mādhava, which were unknown to Drdhabala.

v1.c20.s3.63

Hoernle also claimed that Drdhabala made use of the Mādhavanidāna, unaware as he was of Mādhava’s innovations in the field of nosography. An example is his allegation that the verses on the nidāna of gulma in Ca.Ci.5 derive from Mādhava, who versified the prose on this subject in Ca.Ni.3 and incorporated his verses in his Mādhavanidāna (28.6–14 = Ca.Ci.5.9–17), from which work Drdhabala borrowed them.600 Hoernle’s contention that Drdhabala is posterior to Mādhava, because the latter was unacquainted with the Kāśmīrapātha, is invalidated by the fact that Drdhabala is not, as supposed by Hoernle, the author of the Kaśmīr recension.601

v1.c20.s3.64

The number of ninety-six eye diseases, acknowledged by Drdhabala (Ci.26.129–131), does not, as Hoernle suggested, mean that he obtained that number by accepting the ninety-four diseases of the eye mentioned by Vāgbhata and adding the two extra disorders of Mādhava.602 Cakrapānidatta clarifies this issue by giving the information that Drdhabala followed Karāla’s system in this matter.603

v1.c20.s3.65

The assertion that Drdhabala borrowed from the Siddhayoga is contradicted by the fact that none of the numerous verses from Drdhabala’s chapters of the Carakasamhitā in Vrnda’s work is ascribed to that author in the commentary. The same applies to the Mādhavanidāna and its commentaries. Vijayaraksita states straightforwardly that Mādhava included one of Drdhabala’s verses in his treatise as a complement to a verse found in the Suśrutasamhitā. Hoernle’s assertion that Vijayaraksita’s object was not to make a chronological, but an exegetical statement, was undoubtedly prompted by his need to explain away a fact running counter to his theory.604

v1.c20.s3.66

An important piece of evidence regarding Drdhabala’s date is provided by the references to Drdhabala in Jejjata’s commentary on the Carakasamhitā. As Jejjata belongs to the seventh or eighth century, these references confirm that Drdhabala preceded Mādhava and Vrnda. This is corroborated by what is known about a commentary on Drdhabala’s text by Āsādhavarman, who preceded Jejjata.

v1.c20.s3.67

Not yet clear is the question whether or not Bhattārahariścandra, a commentator on the Carakasamhitā who lived earlier than Jejjata, was conversant with Drdhabala’s work.

v1.c20.s3.68

The relationship between Drdhabala and the works ascribed to Vāgbhata was discussed by Hoernle, who held that the Astāngasamgraha was put to use by Drdhabala, whereas the Astāngahrdayasamhitā was not yet known to him.

v1.c20.s3.69

Hoernle developed his arguments from a comparison of the chapters on gulma in the Carakasamhitā, Astāngasamgraha (attributed by him to Vāgbhata I) and Astāngahrdayasamhitā (attributed to Vāgbhata II, and supposed to be later than his namesake). His assertion that Ca.Ni.3.16 must be regarded as Drdhabala’s version of A.S.Ci.16.2 stems from his thesis that the former passage is an interpolation and cannot have belonged to Caraka’s original text, a supposition resulting from Hoernle’s belief that Caraka’s text was devoid of inconsistencies. The same line of thought made Hoernle claim that Ca.Ci.5.172–182 consists of Drdhabala’s versification of a passage in prose found in A.s.Ci.16.605

v1.c20.s3.70

Hoernle’s convictions about Caraka’s consistency and systematic mind have, however, no sound basis and rest on a preconceived idea.

v1.c20.s3.71

His notion that Dṛḍhabala arrived at his number of ninety-six eye diseases by adding the two extra disorders of Mādhava to the ninety-four of the Aṣṭāṅgasamgraha has already been referred to.

v1.c20.s3.72

P.V. Sharma disagrees with Hoernle in regarding the Aṣṭāṅgasamgraha as a work of a later date than Dṛḍhabala. He argues that the succinct treatment of pañcakarman in the Aṣṭāṅgasamgraha, compared with the elaborate treatment by Dṛḍhabala, testifies to the latter’s anteriority. He also points to the quotation from Kapilabala (A.s.Sū. 20.17), identified by P.V. Sharma as Dṛḍhabala’s father, which is, however, a debatable issue.606

v1.c20.s3.73

The Gulabkunverba team was of the opinion that both the Aṣṭāṅgasamgraha and the Aṣṭāngahṛdayasaṃhitā show their indebtedness to Dṛḍhabala’s version of the Carakasaṃhitā, thus attesting the latter’s anteriority.607

v1.c20.s3.74

The Aṣṭāngahṛdayasaṃhitā is almost unanimously considered to have drawn extensively from Dṛḍhabala’s version of the Carakasaṃhitā, which establishes that Dṛḍhabala lived before the age of composition of the Aṣṭāngahṛdaya (about A.D. 600). The chronological position of the Aṣṭāṅgasamgraha with regard to the Aṣṭāngahṛdayasaṃhitā will be discussed in the section devoted to these works.

v1.c20.s3.75

The terminus post quem cannot be determined with any precision. This date depends on the period in which the Suśrutasaṃhitā was revised and its Uttaratantra added, and on the question whether or not Dṛḍhabala was acquainted with the revised and expanded text.

v1.c20.s3.76

Hoernle’s view that the Nāvanītaka of the Bower MS borrowed from the Carakasaṃhitā before its revision and completion by Dṛḍhabala is not based on conclusive evidence,608 and would, anyhow, not be of much avail on account of the uncertain chronological position of that text.

v1.c20.s3.77

A number of details found in Dṛḍhabala’s version of the Carakasaṃhitā point to him as an author belonging to the Gupta period. Next to the details already referred to, additional evidence of the same type was collected by P.V. Sharma, in particular from the Viṣṇudharmottarapurāṇa.609

v1.c20.s3.78

The data taken together suggests that Dṛḍhabala belongs to the period of about A.D. 300--500.610

Cites (13)