Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c22: Chapter 15

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c22

Language
English

Contents

Chapter 15

v1.c22.1

AGNIVEŚA¹ is credited with a commentary on the Carakasaṃhitā by C.G. Kashikar.² This claim is very implausible.

v1.c22.2

AMARAKARA is regarded as a commentator on the Carakasaṃhitā by P. Cordier.³

v1.c22.3

AMITAPRABHA⁴ wrote a commentary, called Carakanyāsa,⁵ on the Carakasaṃhitā. Niścalakara quotes in his Ratnaprabhā on the Cakradatta from Amitaprabha’s Carakanyāsa, which, as appears from one of the quoted passages,⁶ covered the whole of the Carakasaṃhitā as redacted by Dṛḍhabala. Amitaprabha refers to predecessors (pūrvācāryāḥ) and to particular schools of interpretation of the Carakasaṃhitā, such as the Dākṣiṇātyas (the Southerners), Maitreyas, Paitāmahas, Udīcyas (the Northerners), Vaiṣṇavas, and the followers of Vīravarman.⁷

v1.c22.4

Some quotations from Amitaprabha in Niścalakara’s Ratnaprabhā, not explicitly said to be from the Carakanyāsa, are probably from this commentary.⁸

v1.c22.5

A Carakanyāsa, which is either Bhaṭṭārahariścandra’s or Amitaprabha’s commentary, is cited in Anantakumāra’s Yogaratnasamuccaya.⁹

v1.c22.6

Amitaprabha also wrote a metrical treatise on therapy, used by Cakrapāṇidatta as one of his sources in compiling the Cakradatta.¹⁰

v1.c22.7

Ḍalhaṇa refers to a commentator (ṭīkākāra) Amitaprabha, who may be the author of the Carakanyāsa.¹¹ Amitaprabha/Amṛtaprabha is among the sources of Candraṭa’s Yogaratnasamuccaya. Gopāladāsa quotes him in his Cikitsāmṛta. An Amita- or Amṛtaprabhīya is cited in the Bhesajjamañjūsāsannaya.

v1.c22.8

Many quotations from the Amitaprabhīya are found in Anantakumāra’s Yogaratnasamuccaya.¹² The Amṛtaprabhīya, also used by Anantakumāra,¹³ is identical with the Amitaprabhīya, because one quotation from the former work is also found in the Cakradatta and attributed to Amitaprabha by Niścala.¹⁴

v1.c22.9

Niścala mentions, apart from the Carakanyāsa, one work of Amitaprabha by name, namely the Cikitsātīśaya. The quotations prove that it was a treatise in verse.¹⁵

v1.c22.10

A Yogaśataka, as well as a commentary on the Yogaśataka ascribed to Nāgārjuna, are also recorded as works of Amitaprabha or Amṛtaprabha.¹⁶

v1.c22.11

Niścala, who mentions in one place three authorities, namely Dṛḍhabala, Amitaprabha, and Jejjaṭa,¹⁷ may have placed them in chronological order.¹⁸ However that may be, Amitaprabha is in any case later than Dṛḍhabala, because he commented on Dṛḍhabala’s version of the Carakasaṃhitā and is said to agree with him by Niścala;

v1.c22.12

he is anterior to Vṛnda, who incorporated verses from Amitaprabha’s work in his Siddhayoga, and Candraṭa, who quotes him. 19

v1.c22.13

AṄGIRI 20 is a commentator on the Carakasaṃhitā, quoted by Cakrapāṇidatta in his Āyurvedadīpikā (ad Ca.Si.1.20–22ab). Aṅgiri is an early commentator, 21 sometimes assigned to the tenth century. 22

v1.c22.14

ARUṆADATTA 23 is sometimes regarded as a commentator on the Carakasaṃhitā. 24

v1.c22.15

ĀṢĀDHAVARMAN 25 is a commentator, quoted by Jejjaṭa, 26 Cakrapāṇidatta in his Āyurvedadīpikā, 27 Niścalakara, 28 and Vijayarakṣita. 29 These quotations indicate that he commented on the whole of the Carakasaṃhitā. 30 The name of his commentary was probably Parihāravārttika. 31 Āṣādhavarman is placed in the eighth 32 or ninth century, 33 but is probably earlier on account of the date of Jejjaṭa, who quotes him.

v1.c22.16

BAKULA, also called Bakulakara, Bakulamiśra, 34 and Vakula, 35 wrote one or more commentaries and a medical work in verse. He is quoted or referred to in the Bṛhannighaṇṭuratnākara, 36 by Gopāladāsa in his Cikitsāmṛta, Niścalakara, 37 Śivadāsasena, 38 Śrīkaṇṭhadatta, 39 Vācaspati, 40 and Vijayarakṣita, 41 Bakula wrote a commentary 42 on the Carakasaṃhitā 43 and probably also one on the Suśrutasaṃhitā. 44 A work in verse by Bakula is quoted by Niścala 45 and Śrīkaṇṭhadatta. 46 Niścala also mentions treatises by Bakula, called Bakulatantra 47 and Sāroccaya. 48 The quotations from Bakula(kara) indicate that he is later than Jejjaṭa, 49 Gadādhara, 50 Kārttikakuṇḍa, 51 Govardhana, 52 the Candrikākāra, 53 Vṛnda, 54 Naradeva, 55 and Cakrapāṇidatta, 56 while Bakula is earlier than Vijayarakṣita and Śrīkaṇṭhadatta, who quote him. Bakula may therefore have been either a contemporary of Cakrapāṇidatta or of a somewhat later date. 57 D.Ch. Bhattacharyya and G. Hāldār regard him as a Bengali and assign him to the eleventh century. 58 A. Pandey and K. Raghunathan regard the ending -kara of Bakulakara’s name as evidence supporting the view that he was a Bengali; these authors place him in the period between the first half of the eleventh and the first half of the twelfth century. 59 B. Tripāṭhī refers to him as a commentator of the thirteenth century. 60 Niścala bestows some flowery laudatory epithets on Bakula; he is called anavadyavaidya, vividhavidvadvṛndāraka, and mahopādhyāya. D.Ch. Bhattacharyya 61 supposed Bakula to have been a close connection of Niścala, may be his own uncle (pitṛjyeṣṭha), who is once mentioned in the Ratnaprabhā; 62 P.V. Sharma regards this as very unlikely, on account of the gap of time between Bakula and Niścala. 63

v1.c22.17

BHADRAVARMAN 64 is by some scholars regarded as a commentator on the Carakasaṃhitā. 65 He is quoted by Anantakumāra, 66 Cakrapāṇidatta, 67 Candraṭa, 68 and Niścalakara.69 Bhadravarman’s work was one of the sources of Cakrapāṇi’s Cikitsāsaṃgraha.70 Vṛnda was already acquainted with Bhadravarman’s treatise, as shown by verses that the Siddhayoga and Cakradatta have in common.71 P.V. Sharma regards Bhadravarman as belonging to the ninth century,72 probably because Candraṭa borrowed from him.

v1.c22.18

BHĀSADATTA73 is quoted by Cakrapāṇidatta (ad Ca.Ci.3.216–217)74 as an early commentator on the Carakasamhitā. P.V. Sharma is of the opinion that he belongs to the tenth century;75 B. Tripāṭhī assigns him to the eleventh century.76

v1.c22.19

BHAVYADATTA77 was a commentator on the Carakasamhitā according to P.V. Sharma.78 Bhavya(datta) is quoted by Gopāladāsa in his Cikitsāmṛta, Niścalakara,79 and Śivadāsasena.80 Some quotations may be from a commentary, but not clearly from a commentary on the Carakasamhitā.81 Works by Bhavya(datta), mentioned by Niścala, are the Vaidyapradīpa, also called Vaidyakapradīpasaṃgraha and Bhavyadattasaṃgraha, and the Yogaratnākara.82 Bhavyadatta’s Vaidyapradīpa was esteemed by Niścala, who calls its author a prāmāṇikāgraṇī.83 The author of the Yogaratnākara is referred to as a vidyāmahāvrata.84 Bhavyadatta’s Vaidyapradīpa bases its text more than once on the works of Vāgbhaṭa.85 Niścala rather often mentions Bhavya(datta) in the company of Bakula. P.V. Sharma assigns Bhavyadatta to the twelfth,86 G. Hāldār to the eleventh century.87

v1.c22.20

BHĪMADANTA88 was a commentator on the Carakasamhitā, as appears from a quotation in Cakrapāṇidatta’s Āyurvedadīpikā (ad Ca.Ci.10.53). The Vyākhyākusumāvalī (ad Siddhayoga 81.41) quotes him as Bhīmadatta. He lived in the tenth century according to P.V. Sharma,89 in the eleventh century according to B. Tripāṭhī.90

v1.c22.21

BHOJA wrote a vṛtti on the Carakasamhitā according to the Gulabkunverba editors of this saṃhitā.91

v1.c22.22

BRAHMADEVA92 is sometimes93 regarded as a commentator on the Carakasamhitā, which may be right in spite of rather scanty evidence.94

v1.c22.23.1

CAKRAPĀṆIDATTA95 wrote a commentary on the Carakasamhitā that is called Āyurvedadīpikā.96 The following authors, works and schools are quoted or referred to in it: Abhidhānaśāstra (Śā.1.112),97 Agastya (Sū.1.62–63ab), Agniveśa (Sū.2.17; Ci.3.197–200ab; Ci.4.62–72 and 88; Ci.7.60–64), Agniveśasaṃhitā (Ci.3.179cd–188ab), Aṅgiri (Si.1.20cd–22ab), Āṣādhavarman (Ci.3.216–217; 23.137–139; Si.1.13cd–14ab and 25), Aśvavaidyaka (Sū.7.39–40), Ātreya (Ci.3.197–200ab), bauddhāḥ (Śā.1.46–47), Bauddhasiddhānta (Sū.8.12), Bhadraśaunaka (Si.1.20cd–22ab), Bhālukīya (Ci.3.108), Bharadvāja (Si.1.3–6ab), Bharata (Ci.2¹.9),⁹⁸ Bhāsadatta (Ci.3.216–217), Bhaṭṭa (Sū.30.84–85; Vi.8.42), Bhaṭṭaraharicandra (Sū.1.45; Si.12.41cd–45ab), Bhela (Ci.3.285cd–287ab), Bhīmadanta (Ci.10.53), Bhoja (Ci.5.158; 15.17 and 93; Ci. 25.24–25; Si.1.20cd–22ab), Brahmadeva (Ci.3.216–217), Cakṣuṣyeṇa (Ci.7.62–64), Candrikā (Sū.27.129; Ci.26.293), Caraka (Sū.11.25; Ci.3.160cd–161ab; Si.12.36cd–41ab), carakasaṃskāra (Ci.6.5–6), Dāruka (Ci.3.197–200ab), Dāruvāha (Ci.3.74), dhānvantarīyāḥ (Ci.5.44), Dṛḍhabala (Sū.7.45–50; Ci.14.234–242; Ka.12.87–97; Si. 12.36cd–41ab), gandhaśāstra (Ci.28.155), Haricandra (Sū.7.46; Ci.3.179cd–188ab), Hārīta (Sū.1.30–31 and 68–74ab; 21.39–43; 26.25–26; 27.4, 114, 197, 213–216, 231–234ab, 237–238ab, 243–246, 338; 28.4; Ni.1.8; Śā.2.6–10; 8.5–8; I.7.3; Ci.3.71–72, 138cd–139ab, 139cd–140ab, 149cd–155ab, 160cd–161ab, 161cd–163ab; Ci.8.145–148; 16.34–39ab; 17.141cd–144; 22.8;

v1.c22.23.2

Si.1.20cd–22ab and 23cd–24; 3.12cd–13ab, 30cd–31ab and 31cd–33ab; 9.50cd–57), Harivaṃśa (Sū.1.2), Hastivaidyaka (Sū. 6.9–18), Hiraṇyākṣa (Si.12.41cd–45ab), Īśvarasena (Ci.15.88–93; Si.1.20cd–22ab), Jatūkarṇa (Sū.1.2 and 44; 2.18–33; 4.12 and 17; 5.16–18ab, 49cd–51ab, 63cd–71ab; 7.61–62; 26.63 and 84; 27.197; Śā. 4.24; 8.19, 47, 51, 55, 62; Ci.1¹.41 and 77–80; 1².16; 2².3; 2³.3–5 and 15–17; 3.42–47ab, 74, 138cd–139ab, 197–200ab; 5.96 and 149–151; 7.60–64 and 136–139; 8.145–148; 9.42cd–44; 10.34–36; 11.25–26, 56–61, 66–69, 88–90, 91–92; 12.50–52; 13.112cd–116ab; 14.76–88 and 138–169; 15.82–86; 17.42–44; 19.82–84 and 104cd–113ab; 23.229–242ab; 26.73–75, 166–175, 221–230; 28.136cd–138ab, 138cd–142ab, 142cd–157ab; 29.49–60 and 123; Ka.4. 7cd–9ab; 6.5cd–7 and 12cd; 8.11; 9.14–16; Si.1.20cd–22ab, 25, 47cd–49ab; 3.26cd, 27–30ab, 30cd–31ab; 9.12–15; 10.37–38ab), Jejjaṭa (Si.1.20cd–22ab), jyotiṣa (Sū.15.9), Kamalaśīla (Sū.11.25),⁹⁹ kāmaśāstra (Ci.2¹.4cd–8ab), Kapila (Sū.26.8), Kapilabala (Sū.7.45–50), Karāla (Ci.26.129–131), kāśmīrāḥ (Ci.3.114cd–128ab; 10.54–63; 13.112cd–116ab; 25.39cd–43; 30.127cd–132; Si.12.16), Kāśyapa (Vi.8.125; Ci. 23.32), Kharaṇāda (Ci.3.74, 137cd–138ab, 160cd–161ab, 216–217; 28.15–19ab; 29.24–29), Kṛṣṇātreya (Ci.3.197–200ab; 4.73–77; 15.129–131), Kṣārapāṇi (Sū.8.18; 21.39–43; Ni.3.13–14; Ci.3.216–217;

v1.c22.23.3

19.7), kṣāratantra (Ci.5.60cd–64ab), Kṣīrasvāmidatta (Ci.4.93–94), Kumāratantra (Śā.6.27),¹⁰⁰ Laliteśvara (Sū.30.35),¹⁰¹ Nala (Sū.27.265–267),¹⁰² Nighaṇṭu (Ci.7.70–72),¹⁰³ Nighaṇṭukāra (Sū.27.4),¹⁰⁴ Nirātmavādimata (Śā.1.46–47), Nyāya (Vi.8.18, 36, 56, 65–66),¹⁰⁵ nyāyavidaḥ (Sū.1.48; 2.7–8; 4.4), Parāśara (Ci.15.20cd–35; Si.1.29–31), Parihāravārttika (Ci.23.137–139), pūrvaṭīkākṛtaḥ (Ci.29.24–29), Puṣkalāvata (Ci.3.160cd–161ab; 12.98; 20.20–22), Saindhava (Si.1.20cd–22ab), saindhavāḥ (Ci.10.54–63), Śālākya (Sū.2.3–6; 5.7, 16–18ab, 20cd–25ab, 26cd–27ab; 8.9; Śā.8.32; Ci.11.56–61; 15.3–4; 26.104–107ab, 107cd–109, 119–123, 127–128, 180–187ab, 187cd–205; Si.9.74–78 (twice) and 111–115,¹⁰⁶ Śalyatantra (Ci.5.48cd–56ab and 60cd–64ab; 12.96–97; 25.40), Sāṃkhya (Sū.8.3; Śā.1.24; 2.31–36; 3.8), Sāṃkhyadarśana (Si.9.4–5), sāmkhyāḥ (Śā.1.17), sāmudrakāḥ (Śā.8.9), Sāmudrika (I.1.7), Śāntarakṣita (Sū.11.25),¹⁰⁷ Sātyaki (Ci. 26.129–131), Śaunaka (Sū.4.7; Ci.3.197–200ab), Smṛti (Sū.1.48),¹⁰⁸ sūdaśāstra (Sū.2.17; Ci.3.190cd–194ab; Ka.1.23; Si.1.11cd–12ab), Suśruta (many times), suśrutavyākhyātāraḥ (Śā.4.24), Svāmidāsa (Ci.3.216–217), Vāgbhaṭa (Sū.1.30–31; 6.33–40 and 41–48; 7.41 and 45–50; Ni.1.8, 10, 11; Vi.8.100; Ci.3.48cd–49 and 197–200ab; 16.34–39ab), Vaideha (Ci.26.119–123), Vaiśeṣika (Sū.1.44 and 50; 109 8.3; 26.29–35), 110 Varāha (Śā.12.67–70), 111 Vāryovida (Si.12.41cd–45ab), Videha (Ci.26.129–131 and 134–143), Viśākhin (Ni.7.7), 112 Viśvāmitra (Sū.27.209–212;

v1.c22.23.4

Ci.5.71–73), Vṛddhakāśyapa (Ci.23.14), Vyākaraṇa (I.1.1–2), 113 and Vyāsa (Sū.1.3; Vi.3.24; Ci.23.4–7ab).

v1.c22.24

Sources quoted anonymously are Aṣṭāngasaṃgraha (Ci.8.117–134ab), 114 Mahābhāṣya (Sū.1.1, etc), Nyāyasūtra (Sū.1.49), Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī (Sū.1.1, etc.), Raghuvaṃśa (Sū.1.1), Sāmkhyakārikā (Śā.1.20–21, 24, 29–30, 37–38, 63–64, 66–67ab, 67cd–69), Vāgbhaṭa (Sū.26.57cd–58), and Vaiśesikasūtra (Sū.1.1, etc.).

v1.c22.25

Cakrapāṇidatta’s Āyurvedadīpikā is quoted 115 in Satyanārāyaṇaśāstrin’s Padārthavijñāna, Priyavrat Śarmā’s auto-commentaries on Āyurvedadarśana and Dravyaguṇasūtra, and Śivadāsasena’s commentary on the Sūtrasthāna of the Carakasamhitā. The latter has extensively borrowed from Cakrapāṇi. The commentaries on the Carakasamhitā by Gaṅgādhara and Yogīndranāthasena refer very often to the Āyurvedadīpikā without mentioning Cakrapāṇidatta or his work by name.

v1.c22.26

Niścalakara quotes the Āyurvedadīpikā as (Cakra’s) Dīpikā; its author is referred to as the Dīpikākāra or -kṛt. Śivadāsasena quotes the Āyurvedadīpikā in his commentary on the Cakradatta as Cakravyākhyā and Dīpikā, possibly also as Cakra.

v1.c22.27

Cakrapāṇidatta’s commentary contains information on the text of the Carakasamhitā. He indicates which verses he regards as not belonging to the original text, 116 and points to verses accepted by some, but rejected by other commentators or schools of interpretation. 117 Variant readings are rather often recorded. 118 He mentions his preference for particular readings 119 or remains undecided. Cakrapāṇidatta’s text of the Carakasamhitā emends some readings of the text of the Nirṇayasāgar edition. 120

v1.c22.28

Cakrapāṇidatta frequently quotes the views of predecessors and their interpretations of the text. In contrast with Ḍalhaṇa, however, it is difficult to make out which earlier commentator was his favourite authority. 121 Noteworthy are the numerous quotations from Jatūkarṇa and, in particular, the rarity with which Jejjata is cited. It is not uncommon to see Cakrapāṇidatta refer to a series of interpretations by predecessors without making a choice, or placing side by side a number of explanations. 122 The precise meaning of particular technical terms was unknown to him. 123 The same applies to the identity of a number of particular medicinal substances. 124 The vernacular names of drugs mentioned by him are usually those known in Bengal. 125

v1.c22.29

Cakrapāṇidatta’s commentary is characterized by a conciliatory attitude. Differences between the Caraka- and Suśrutasaṃhitā are smoothed out. 126

v1.c22.30

Cakrapāṇidatta was not interested in psychopathology since, in his opinion, the Carakasamhitā is exclusively devoted to kāyacikitsā: the mānasadoṣas are therefore of no importance. 127 He did not admit blood as a doṣa 128 and was in doubt regarding the relationship between pitta and agni. 129 The concepts of poṣya or sthāyin and poṣaka or asthāyin dhātu were known to him. 130 Regarding the metabolism of the dhātus, he concluded that the khalekapotanyāya had an explanatory force equal to (tulyabala) that of the kedārīkulyānyāya and other theories. 131 On another occasion, 132 he preferred either the kedārīkulyānyāya or the dadhikṣīranyāya to the khalekapotanyāya. 133 Noteworthy is the limited role he gives to the pathophysiological processes called saṃprāpti. 134 Important is the remark on the clay-like colour of the stools in obstructive jaundice. 135 A sahajā and vaināyakī buddhi are distinguished. 136

v1.c22.31

With regard to dharma, Cakrapāṇidatta was of the opinion that animals may be killed if required for the preservation of health or the curing of disease, since āyurveda is concerned with ārogyasādhana and not with dharmasādhana. 137

v1.c22.32

Cakrapāṇidatta’s philosophical views are in agreement with the later stages of Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika and Sāṃkhya. This explains that he is sometimes critical of Caraka 138 and tries to conciliate statements found in the Carakasaṃhitā with Nyāya doctrines. 139 In contrast with Caraka, Cakrapāṇidatta does not accept yukti as a separate pramāṇa. 140 He quotes Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla in support of his thesis that it is almost the same as anumāna, 141 or regards it as identical with ūha. 142 An important source of Cakrapāṇidatta was the Praśastapādabhāṣya, which is extensively quoted. 143 144

v1.c22.33

A CANDRIKĀKĀRA, -kāraka or -kṛt, 145 the author of a commentary called Candrikā, and this commentary itself, are repeatedly quoted. 146 It has to be taken into consideration that more than one commentary can be referred to as Candrikā, and that in many instances it is impossible to decide which one is meant. 147 Part of the quotations are from Gayadāsa’s Nyāyacandrikāpañjikā on the Suśrutasaṃhitā; 148 some are from Candranandana’s Padārthacandrikā on the Aṣṭāngahṛdayasaṃhitā, 149 other ones again may be from commentaries on the Carakasaṃhitā 150 and Suśrutasaṃhitā which have not been preserved. 151 P. Cordier supposed that Gayadāsa wrote a commentary on the Carakasaṃhitā, called Carakacandrikā and quoted as Candrikā. 152 The same view has been expressed by P.V. Sharma. 153

v1.c22.34

The Candrikā and its author are quoted by Aruṇadatta, 154 Cakrapāṇidatta in his Āyurvedadīpikā, 155 Dalhaṇa, 156 Gopāladāsa in his Cikitsāmṛta, Hariśaraṇasena in his Dravyaguṇākara, Jīvānandavidyāsāgara in his commentary on the Rasendrasārasaṃgraha, 157 Lakṣmīrāma in his commentary on the Siddhabheṣajamaṇimālā, 158 Meghadeva in his commentary on the Mādhavadravyaguṇa, Nāganātha in his Nidānapradīpa, Narahari in his Vāgbhaṭamaṇḍana, 159 Niścalakara, 160 Śivadāsasena in his commentaries on Cakrapāṇidatta’s Cikitsāsaṃgraha 161 and Dravyaguṇa, 162 Śrīkaṇṭhadatta in the Madhukośa, 163 Toḍara in his Āyurvedasaukbya, 164 and Vijayarakṣita in the Madhukośa. 165

v1.c22.35

CELLADEVA 166 is a commentator quoted by Jejjata. 167 According to P.V. Sharma he lived in the eighth century, 168 but in my view at least a century earlier on account of Jejjata’s date.

v1.c22.36

DALHAṆA is sometimes mentioned as a commentator on the Carakasaṃhitā. 169

v1.c22.37

GADĀDHARA wrote a commentary on the Carakasaṃhitā according to some scholars. 170 The two pieces of evidence on this point are problematic. Vijayarakṣita and Niścalakara quote the same series of interpretations of a particular technical term; one of these interpretations is, according to Vijayarakṣita, from Gādadhara, but from the Candrikā according to Niścalakara. 171 A gloss to the Bhāvaprakāśa 172 is problematic since it quotes a verse of Gādadhara that conflicts with a verse of Dṛḍhabala.

v1.c22.38

GAṄGĀDHARA KAVIRĀJA wrote a commentary on the Carakasamhitā, called Jalpakalpataru. 173 This very elaborate commentary deals at great length with philosophical subjects, but gives much less attention to specifically medical topics. The information on drugs is in general disappointing. 174 The views of Cakrapāṇidatta are on many occasions challenged without reference to him by name. 175

v1.c22.39

Authorities and works quoted by Gaṅgādhara are: Agastya (177: Sū.1.62–63ab), Agnipuraṇa (522: Sū.11.23–26), Atrisaṃhitā (16: Sū.1.8–16ab), 176 Bādarāyaṇa (1867 and 1869: Śā.1.152–154), 177 Bhagavadgītā (1826: Śā.1.75–76; 1958: Śā.4.9–12), Bhāluki (2442: Ci.3.108), Bhāṣya (many times), 178 Bhela (2428: Ci.3.72), Caraka (passim), Chāndogyopaniṣad (876: Sū.25.27–29; 1881: Śā.1.152–154; 1891: Śā.1.155), Gautama and Gautama Akṣapāda (often), 179 Hārīta (2312: Ci.13.36–40; 2428: Ci.3.72), Jaimini (39: Sū.1.45; 1869: Śā.1.152–154), 180 Jatūkarṇa (297: Sū.5.49cd–51ab; 985: Sū.26.84; 2412: Ci.3.50ab), Kaivalyopaniṣad (796: Sū.21.34–35), 181 Kaṇāda (often), 182 Kapila (several times), 183 Kathavallī (163: Sū.1.56), Kātyāyanavārttika (1854: Śā.1.141; 1877: Śā.1.154; 1884: Śā.1.155), 184 Lainga (48: Sū.1.47; 864: Sū.25.18–19; 1883: Śā.1.152–154), 185 Mahābhārata (326: Sū.6.7), Māṇḍūkyopaniṣad (138, 160 and 161: Sū.1.56; 795 and 796: Sū.21.34–35), Muṇḍakopaniṣad (1825: Śā.1.75–76; 1869: Śā.1.152–154), Nāgabhartṛtantra (2428: Ci.3.72), Nārada (432: Sū.11.18–29), 186 Nyāyasūtra (142; Sū.1.56), Parāśara (864: Sū.25.14–15; 1214: Ni.1.8; 2432: Ci.3.73), 187 Pātañjala (1854; Śā.1.141; 1877: Śā.1.154; 1884: Śā.1.155), 188 Patañjali (513: Sū.11.20), Praśnopaniṣad (1882: Śā.1.154), Rāvaṇa’s Kumāratantra (2138–2141: Śā.8.65), Sāṃkhya (Śā.1.155), Suśruta (passim), Śvetāśvataropaniṣad (875 and 876: Sū.25.27–29; 1854: Śā.1.75–76), Taittirīyopaniṣad (443: Sū.9.4; 874: Sū.25.27–29), Vaiśeṣika (531 and 532: Sū.11.23–26), Vātsyāyana (many times), 189 Videha (690, 691, 692: Sū.17.26), Vyāsa (431: Sū.8.18–29; 585: Sū.12.8), 190 and Yājñavalkya (431: Sū.8.18–29; 1826: Śā.1.77; 1828: Śā.1.79).191

v1.c22.40

Gaṅgādhara is quoted in Āśubodha Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s commentary on Govindasena’s Paribhāṣāpradīpa. Gaṅgādhara and his Jalpakalpataru are referred to in Satyanārāyaṇaśāstrin’s Padārthavijñāna. Gaṅgādhara’s commentary is quoted in Gulrājśarmamiśra’s commentary on the Āyurvedaprakāśa. The Jalpakalpataru is quoted in Hārītacandra’s commentary on the Suśrutasaṃhitā (ad Su.Sū.6.21–38), Priyavrat Śarmā’s auto-commentary on the Āyurvedadarśana, and the same author’s Doṣakāraṇatvamīmāṃsā.

v1.c22.41

GAṄGĀDHARA KAVIRĀJA was the author of the following medical works: 192 (1) Āgneyāyurvedavyākhyā, 193 (2) Ārogyastotra, 194 (3) Āyurvedasaṃgraha, 195 (4) Bhaiṣajyarāmāyaṇa, 196 (5) Bhāskarodaya, 197 (6) Jalpakalpataru, the commentary on the Carakasamhitā, (7) Mṛtyuñjayasamhitā, 198 (8) Nāḍīparīkṣā, 199 (9) Paribhāṣā, 200 (10) Pathyāpathya, 201 (11) Prayogacandrodaya, 202 (12) a commentary, called Vivṛti, on the Rājavallabhanighaṇṭu, 203 and (13) Vaidyatattvaviniścaya. 204

v1.c22.42

Gaṅgādhara was born in a village called Yaśohara 205 or Māgurā, 206 in the district of Jessore, now in Bangla Desh, in the year 1798 207 or 1799. 208 His parents were Bhavānīprasād Roy and Abhayā Devī. After having become proficient in Sanskrit at the age of eighteen, he studied āyurveda under the guidance of Rāmakānta Sena in Belgharia, in the district of Rājśāhī. He started practice in Calcutta, but, due to ill health, moved to Murśidābād, 209 where he became a very renowned physician, 210 who, due to his extensive learning, was called sarvaśāstrajña. 211

v1.c22.43

Gaṅgādhara is closely connected with the nineteenth-century revival of āyurveda in Bengal, and trained a large number of pupils who, in their turn, became influential teachers in various parts of India. Some well-known pupils of his were Dvārakānāthasena, 212 Hārāṇacandra, 213 and Pareśanāthasena. 214 Gaṅgādhara died in 1884 215 or 1885. 216

v1.c22.44

GAYADĀSA 217 wrote, according to some scholars, commentaries on both the Caraka and Suśrutasaṃhitā. 218 Conclusive proofs that he commented on the Carakasaṃhitā have not been adduced. It can, however, not completely be ruled out that some quotations from the Candrikā and its author refer to a commentary, called Carakacandrikā, on the Carakasaṃhitā by Gayadāsa. 219

v1.c22.45

GOVARDHANA is regarded as a commentator on the Carakasaṃhitā by P. Cordier. 220

v1.c22.46

GUṆĀKARA is regarded as the author of a commentary on the Carakasaṃhitā. 221 The few quotations which are available may be in support of this hypothesis. Vijayarakṣita and Vācaspati mention in their commentaries on the Mādhavanidāna (5.31–32 = Ca.Ci. 14.21–22) explanations of a particular technical term by Cakra(pāṇidatta), Guṇākara and Gadādhara. Niścalakara repeats these comments, with slight variants, in his Ratnaprabhā, replacing Gadādhara by a work called Candrikā. 222 The quotation in the Mādhavanidāna may imply that, besides Cakrapāṇidatta, Guṇākara and Gadādhara commented on the Carakasaṃhitā; this piece of evidence is unfortunately not conclusive, because the technical term involved (āṭopa) also occurs in the Suśrutasaṃhitā. Moreover, Niścala’s remarks form part of his comments on a verse from an unknown source, which may or may not be Caraka. 223 Another quotation from Guṇākara in Niścala’s commentary 224 is inconclusive, because it refers to a verse borrowed from an unknown source again.

v1.c22.47

The Guṇākara referred to is without any doubt different from the author of the same name who wrote a commentary on the Yogaratnamālā ascribed to Nāgārjuna, 225 because the latter Guṇākara is later than Vijayarakṣita. The Guṇākara quoted by Vijayarakṣita, Niścalakara and Vācaspati may belong to the eleventh century, since Vijayarakṣita lived in the first half of the twelfth century. 226

v1.c22.48

A medical authority called Guṇākara whose identity cannot be determined is quoted in Gopāladāsa’s Cikitsāmṛta and Nāganātha’s Nidānapradīpa.

v1.c22.49

HARICANDRA or HARÍSCANDRA, also called Bhaṭṭāra(ka)hari(ś)candra, 227 and sometimes indicated merely by his title of distinction, Bhaṭṭāra(ka), 228 was a very early, probably even the earliest, commentator on the Carakasamhitā. 229 this has been preserved. 230 Its mangala is addressed to Sūrya. 231 The extant part shows that Haricandra was well acquainted with the tantrayuktis. 232

v1.c22.50

Bhaṭṭāraharicandra also wrote a revised version of the Kharanādasamhitā, which he based on the Carakasamhitā. 233 Niścalakara may have had this revised Kharanādasamhitā in mind when quoting from Bhaṭṭāra’s own samhitā, 234 unless the latter was a separate work. 235

v1.c22.51

Some suppose that Bhaṭṭārakahariścandra was also the author of a commentary on the Aṣṭāngahrdayasamhitā; 236 this view is contradicted by Niścalakara, who remarks that Vāgbhaṭa quotes Haricandra. 237

v1.c22.52

(Bhaṭṭāra)hari(ś)candra is quoted by Ādhamalla, 238 Anantakumāra, 239 Aruṇadatta, 240 in the Brhannighaṇṭuratnākara, 241 by Cakrapāṇidatta, 242 Candranandana, 243 Dalhaṇa, 244 Gopāladāsa in his Cikitsāmṛta, 245 Indu, 246 Jejjaṭa, 247 Karandikar in his Nidānadīpikā, 248 Nāganātha in his Nidānapradīpa, Narahari in his Vāgbhaṭa(khaṇḍana)maṇḍana, 249 Narasimha in his commentary on the Mā-dhavanidāna, 250 Rūpanayana in his commentary on the Yogaśataka, Śivadāsasena in his commentaries on the Carakasamhitā, 251 Cakrapāṇidatta’s Cikitsā-samgraha 252 and Dravyaguṇa, 253 Śrīdāsapaṇḍita, 254 Śrīkaṇṭhadatta, 255 Toḍarānanda in his Āyurvedasaukhya, 256 Vācaspati, 257 Vijayarakṣita, 258 Vopadeva, 259 and in the Yogaratnākara. 260 Haricandra is referred to in the Brhannighaṇṭuratnākara, 261 by Candraṭa, 262 in the Mādhavadravyaguṇa, 263 by Svāmikumāra, and in an anonymous commentary on the Aṣṭāngasamgraha. An unidentified Hariścandra is cited in the Bhesajjamañjūsāsannaya.

v1.c22.53

An authority called Vṛddhahāriścandra is quoted in Anantakumāra’s Yogaratnasamuccaya. 264

v1.c22.54

The Naiyāsika, quoted by Śrīdāsapaṇḍita, 265 may be Hariścandra, and the Nyāsa, quoted by the same author, 266 his Carakanyāsa.

v1.c22.55

Haricandra’s commentary acquired great fame. 267 Hemādri refers to Haricandra (in the introduction to his Āyurvedarasāyana) as the model of the commentators on the Carakasamhitā. Haricandra’s commentary was often praised by later authors for its high qualities. Candraṭa says in the introductory verses of his commentary on the Cikitsākalikā: “As there exist commentators like Haricandra, Jejjaṭa, and Sudhīra, it is presumptuous for anyone else to comment on the āyurveda”. Another statement testifying to his reputation runs as follows: 268 “The ignorant one who attempts to understand Caraka’s thought without (consulting) Haricandra’s commentary, is (like) a man who wants to drink up 269 the ocean.” Niścala regards Haricandra on many occasions as an important authority.

v1.c22.56

Niścalakara 270 and Śivadāsasena 271 are sometimes critical of Haricandra’s opinions. Indu often rejects his interpretations.

v1.c22.57

Narahari gives in his Vāgbhaṭamaṇḍana the following laudatory epithets to Hariścandra: munitulya, nayavid and sakalavaidyamānyatama. Śrīdāsapaṇḍita eulogizes Haricandra as the foremost authority on internal medicine. 272 Some of his views on particular subjects are mentioned by Niścala. Haricandra acknowledged eighteen types of kṣaya; 273 he distinguished a gulma in women caused by ārtava and a gulma caused by blood occurring in both males and females. 274

v1.c22.58

Haricandra and Jejjata are more than once bracketed together in Niścala’s Ratnaprabhā. They are said to agree on many points, 275 but exceptions do occur too. 276

v1.c22.59

Haricandra is mentioned as a commentator on the Carakasaṃhitā by Maheśvara in his Viśvaprakāśa “He whose name was Haricandra, whose behaviour was as agreeable as that of the moon, held in a wholly unrivalled way the position of an irreproachable court physician to King Sāhasāṅka and adorned the treatise of Caraka with his own commentary”. 277

v1.c22.60

Harīscandra is one of a series of medical authorities enumerated in a Sanskrit-Tibetan dictionary, called Mahāvyutpatti, prepared by order of Khri-lde sroṅ-bćan (A.D. 816–838); his Tibetan name is Seṅ-ge zla-ba. 278

v1.c22.61

A prose writer called Haricandra 279 is referred to in Bāṇa’s Harṣacarita 280 and Vākpati’s Gauḍavaho. 281 An author of the same name is referred to and quoted in Śrīdharadāsa’s Saduktikarṇāmṛta 282 and Vallabhadeva’s Subhāṣitāvalī. 283

v1.c22.62

A Haricandravaiḍyatilaka is mentioned as one of the six sons of Śabarasvāmin. 284

v1.c22.63

A Jain poet of the name Haricandra, belonging to the Digambaras, and a son of Ārdradeva and Rādhā, 285 is undoubtedly different from Bhaṭṭāraharicandra. 286 Śyāmilaka’s Pādatāḍitaka 287 refers to a Bāhlīka physician called Haricandra, who belonged to the Kāṅkāyanagotra and was a son of Īśānacandra. 288 A Haricandra who was much later than our commentator lived at the court of Bhillama III of Devagiri and composed an inscription in the year 1205. 289

v1.c22.64

The evidence available points to an early date for Haricandra because he is already quoted by Jejjata. 290 Cakrapāṇidatta 291 and Niścalakara 292 were convinced that he preceded Vāgbhaṭa, 293 which would mean that he lived before A.D. 600. More difficult to determine is whether or not he wrote his commentary before the Carakasaṃhitā had been completed by Dṛḍhabala. P.V. Sharma’s statement that Haricandra deals with the tantrayuktis at the beginning of his commentary 294 may indicate that he was not yet acquainted with Dṛḍhabala’s redaction, which treats the subject at the end. 295 A remark made by Jejjata, 296 namely that the chapter on madātyaya (Ca.Ci.24) was redacted by Caraka (and not by Dṛḍhabala) and has been well explained by Bhaṭṭārahariścandra, may be seen as slightly in favour of the view that Haricandra preceded Dṛḍhabala. 297

v1.c22.65

Maheśvara’s statement that Haricandra, the commentator on the Carakasaṃhitā, lived six generations earlier would make Haricandra belong to the early part of the tenth century, which does not tally with the probable date of Jejjata. 298

v1.c22.66

The identity of King Sāhasāṅka, Haricandra’s patron according to Maheśvara, is a matter of dispute. The names of five kings are found in the literature on this subject: Candragupta II Vikramāditya (A.D. 380–413), Skandagupta (A.D. 455–467), Yaśodharman of Mālwā (sixth century), Narendra of Bengal (sixth–seventh century), and Śrīcandradeva of Kanauj (eleventh century). 299 Since the only concrete evidence we can hold on to with regard to Haricandra’s date is that he preceded Jejjata, and, according to Cakrapāṇidatta and Niścala, Vāgbhaṭa, it is in my view impossible to decide which king may have been Haricandra’s patron, the more so because the epithet of Sāhasārika was given to several kings. 300 Equally uncertain is the identity of one or more authors called Haricandra with the physician of that name. 301 Haricandra's place of residence is unknown, although it has been suggested that he lived in Ujjayinī. 302

v1.c22.67

HEMACANDRA is by some 303 regarded as a commentator on the Carakasamhitā.

v1.c22.68

HEMĀDRI is by some 304 regarded as a commentator on the Carakasamhitā.

v1.c22.69

HIMADATTA 305 is quoted as an early commentator on the Carakasamhitā by Jejjata, 306 who accepts a certain reading on the authority of this author and some others, mentioned along with him. 307 According to P.V.Sharma, he also wrote a commentary on the Astāngahrdayasamhitā and has to be placed in the eighth century. 308 G. Hāldār 309 also mentions this commentary on the Astāngahrdayasamhitā and asserts that he is somewhat earlier than the ninth century. B. Tripāthī 310 places him in the ninth century. Actually, Himadatta's date depends on that of Jejjata, who quotes him.

v1.c22.70

INDUKARA is by some 311 regarded as a commentator on the Carakasamhitā.

v1.c22.71

ĪSĀNA or ĪSĀNADEVA 312 was a commentator on the Carakasamhitā. 313 A commentary (vyākhyā) by Īsāna is explicitly referred to in Śrīkanthadatta's commentary on the Siddhayoga. Niścalakara's quotations are for by far the larger part from a commentary on the Carakasamhitā.

v1.c22.72

Īsāna(deva) is quoted by Nāganātha in his Nidānapradīpa, Niścalakara, 314 Śrīkanthadatta, 315 Vācaspati, 316 and Vijayaraksita. 317 Īsāna is mentioned as a commentator in the Brhannighanturatnākara. 318

v1.c22.73

Niścala's quotations indicate that Īsāna disagreed with Jejjata on many points. 319 Cakrapānidatta supported Īsāna's views occasionally against those of Jejjata. 320 Amitaprabha accepted some of Īsāna's interpretations of Caraka. 321 An author quoted by Īsāna is Pālakāpya. 322

v1.c22.74

D.Ch. Bhattacharyya 323 suggested that Deva might be Īsāna's family name. According to some scholars he was the son of Keśavadeva, ruler of Tripura, 324 and held the same position as his father after the latter's death. 325

v1.c22.75

Support for P. Cordier's claim 326 that Īsāna was a Buddhist is not available.

v1.c22.76

Īsāna is earlier than Vijayaraksita who quotes him; he is also anterior to Amitaprabha and Cakrapānidatta, who are said to agree with him on some issues. Pālakāpya, cited by Īsāna, evidently preceded him. 327

v1.c22.77

ĪSVARASENA 328 was a commentator on the Carakasamhitā. 329 He is quoted by Cakrapānidatta, 330 Narahari, 331 Niścalakara, 332 Śrīkanthadatta, 333 and Vijayaraksita. 334 The Brhannighanturatnākara refers to Īsvarasena as a commentator. 335 He is said to have commented on the Astāngahrdayasamhitā as well. 336

v1.c22.78

Īsvarasena was the son of Siddheśvarasena. 337 His chronological position depends on the issue whether or not Cakrapānidatta and Niścalakara mention a series of authors and commentators in chronological order. Both lists give the impression that this is the case,³³⁸ which is in favour of the conclusion that Īśvarasena has to be placed in the period between Jejjata on the one hand, and Gadādhara on the other.³³⁹

v1.c22.79

JAYANANDIN is sometimes mentioned as a commentator on the Carakasaṃhitā.³⁴⁰

v1.c22.80

JEJJAṬA³⁴¹ wrote commentaries on the Caraka- and Suśrutasaṃhitā. The commentary on the Carakasaṃhitā, called Nirantarapadavyākhyā,³⁴² has partly been preserved.³⁴³ The extant portions cover Ci.1³.32–5.73; 23.159–24.20; 24.29–26.10; 28.83cd–29.11; 29.49–30.132; 30.288–312; Ka.1.1–4; Si.3.8–7.32; 12.74–78.³⁴⁴

v1.c22.81

Authorities and works quoted or referred to by Jejjaṭa in this commentary are: Agniveśa (Ci.3.63–67 and 71–72), Āṣādhavarman (Ci.3.73, 161cd–163ab, 216–217), Bhālukīya (Ci.3.89cd–109ab), Bhaṭṭārahariścandra (Ci.3.137cd–138ab and 149cd–155ab; 24.3–5),³⁴⁵ Bhela (Ci.3.160cd–161ab and 197–200ab; Si.3.13cd–20ab), Bhoja (Ci.25.24–25 and 31ab; Si.3.13cd–20ab),³⁴⁶ Celladeva (Si.4.38–40; 6. 24),³⁴⁷ Dāruvāha (Ci.3.63–67), dhānvantarīyāḥ (Ci.5.61cd–64ab),³⁴⁸ Dṛḍhabala (Ci.30.127cd–132 and 289–290),³⁴⁹ Hārīta (Ci.3.71–72, 75–83, 138cd–139ab, 146cd–147ab, 149cd–155ab, 160cd–161ab, 161cd–163ab), Himadatta (Ci.3.216–217),³⁵⁰ Jātūkarṇa (Ci.3.63–67 and 258–259), Kharaṇāda (Ci.3.160cd–161ab and 216–217), Kṣārapāṇi (Ci.3.63–67 and 216–217; Si.4.25),³⁵¹ nyāyavidaḥ (Ci.25.27), Parāśara (Ci. 3.73), Pārāśarya (Si.3.13cd–20ab), Śalyatantra (Ci.25.40), samāptikāra (Si.6.5–6),³⁵² sauśrutāḥ (Ci.23.250–253), sūdaśāstra (Ci.24.10–20),³⁵³ Suśruta (Ci.3.149cd–155ab, 160cd–161ab, 197–200ab, 216–217;³⁵⁴ 23.170–174; 24.107–111), Svāmidāsa (Ci. 3.216–217, Tārkṣyatantra (Ci.23.250–253),³⁵⁵ vārttikakāra (Ci.4.93–94),³⁵⁶ and Yogaśāstra (Ci.28.220cd–222ab).³⁵⁷

v1.c22.82

Additional sources are, according to Haridattaśāstrin:³⁵⁸ Manu (p. 836), Nirukta (p. 833), Śaunaka (p. 876), smṛti (p. 840), śruti (pages 839 and 844), Vyākaraṇakārikā (p. 880),³⁵⁹ and Vyāsabhaṭṭāraka (p. 839). P.V. Sharma adds Śaunaka and Vāgbhaṭa.³⁶⁰ P.V. Sharma and G.P. Sharma³⁶¹ add the aupaniṣada chapter of the Kāmasūtra (Ci. 2.47), Patañjali’s Mahābhāṣya (Ci.24.88), and Vāgbhaṭa. K.R. Srikantha Murthy adds the Aṣṭāṅgāvatāra.³⁶² Some anonymous quotations (Ci.28.83cd–89ab; Ci.30.63–70ab) may derive from an early nighaṇṭu.

v1.c22.83

Jejjaṭa quotes Videha according to Niścala.³⁶³

v1.c22.84

Schools of interpretation of the Carakasaṃhitā, referred to by Jejjaṭa, are the gauḍāḥ (Ci.3.197–200ab; 28.89cd–99ab), hariścandrāḥ (Ci.3.179cd–188ab),³⁶⁴ kāśmīrāḥ (Ci.3.210–214; 30.127cd–132), paitāmahāḥ (Si.3.30cd–31ab),³⁶⁵ saindhavāḥ (Ci.3.210–214; 30.127cd–132), śivasaindhavāḥ (Ci.3.73),³⁶⁶ and vaiṣṇavāḥ (Si.3.27–30ab; 6.24).

v1.c22.85

As can be seen from the above lists, Jejjaṭa had many predecessors, sometimes quoted as ṭīkākārāḥ (e.g., Ci.3.139cd–140ab) or vyākhyākārāḥ (e.g., Ci.3.194cd–196).

v1.c22.86

It mattered very much to Jejjaṭa to determine which readings of the Carakasaṃhitā could be regarded as genuine. An important example is found in his comments to chapter thirty of the Cikitsāsthāna, where verses 128cd–287 are rejected by him, although these are acknowledged by the kāśmīrāḥ and saindhavāḥ.³⁶⁷ Some other verses, regarded as spurious by Jejjaṭa, are Ci.3.194ab–195cd and 211–214.³⁶⁸ Niścala records that Jejjata did not accept Ci.4.66 as authoritative.369 The recension adopted by Jejjata as authoritative differs at a considerable number of places from the one recognized by Cakrapāṇidatta.370 An interesting example is Ci.30.82, where būka and pullāsa are substituted for veṇu and kośāmra.371 Jejjata does not accept the readings of the gauḍa, kāśmīra and saindhava recensions of the Carakasamhitā.

v1.c22.87

The information on drugs provided by Jejjata shows that differences of opinion already existed with regard to the identity of a number of medicinal substances.372 Descriptions of plants,373 the names of the regions where they grow,374 and their local names375 are relatively rare.

v1.c22.88

Cakrapāṇidatta's commentary on the Carakasamhitā shows the influence of Jejjata,376 although the latter is referred to once only.377

v1.c22.89

Bakula versified parts of Jejjata's commentary on the Carakasamhitā.378

v1.c22.90

It is beyond all doubt that Jejjata also wrote a commentary on the whole of the Suśrutasamhitā. This commentary, also partly preserved,379 must have been one of the oldest, or even the oldest one, on that treatise. Its title is nowhere recorded, although P. Cordier380 and S. Dasgupta381 held the opinion that it was called Bṛhallaghupañjikā.382 Jejjata's commentary on the Suśrutasamhitā must have remained available for a long time, since it was consulted by Candraṭa before he started writing his Suśrutapāṭhaśuddhi. Niścala's Ratnaprabhā on the Cakradatta and Ḍalhaṇa's Nibandhasamgraha on the Suśrutasamhitā are rich sources of quotations from Jejjata's commentary.383 Hemādri still refers to it in the introduction to his Āyurvedarasāyana on the Aṣṭāngahṛdayasamhitā as the model of the commentaries on the Suśrutasamhitā.

v1.c22.91

The quotations in Ḍalhaṇa's commentary prove that one of Jejjata's aims was, in the same way as in his commentary on Caraka, to establish a reliable text and to discard readings which he considered to be inauthentic (anārṣa).384 On the other hand he sometimes added verses, composed by himself, to the text of the Suśrutasamhitā, as is made clear by Gayadāsa and Ḍalhaṇa.385

v1.c22.92

Some scholars claim that Jejjata wrote a commentary on Vāgbhaṭa's works.386 This assertion, which is not supported by evidence, is probably based on the tradition that Indu and Jejjata were pupils of Vāgbhaṭa.

v1.c22.93

Authors and works quoting from or referring to Jejjata387 are: Āḍhamalla in his commentary on the Śārṅgadharasamhitā,388 Ambikādattaśāstrin in his commentary on the Rasendrasārasamgraha,389 Anantakumāra,390 the commentary on the Āyurvedābdhisāra, Bhāvamiśra,391 Cakrapāṇidatta,392 Candraṭa,393 Ḍalhaṇa,394 Gayadāsa,395 Gopāladāsa in his Cikitsāmṛta, Gulrājśarmamiśra in his Viśikhānu-praveśavijñāna, Hemādri,396 Indu,397 the Kairalī commentary on the Uttarasthāna of the Aṣṭāngahṛdayasamhitā,398 Karandīkar in his Nidānadīpikā,399 Kāśirāma's commentary on the Śārṅgadharasamhitā,400 Kṛṣṇadatta's commentary on Trimalla's Śataśloki, Meghadeva's commentary on the Mādhavadravyaguṇa, Nāganātha's Nidānapradīpa, Narahari's Vāgbhaṭamaṇḍana,401 Narasimha's commentary on the Mādhavanidāna, Nārāyaṇa's Jvaranirṇaya, Nilamegha's auto-commentary on the Tantrayuktivicāra, Niścalakara,402 Rūpanayana in his commentary on the Yogaśataka, Śivadāsasena in his commentaries on the Carakasamhitā,403 Uttarasthāna of the Aṣṭāngahṛdayasamhitā,404 Cakrapāṇidatta's Cikitsāsamgraha405 and Dravyaguṇa,406 Śivadatta in his auto-commentary on the Śivakośa,407 Śrīkaṇṭhadatta in the Madhukośa408 and Kusumāvalī,409 Sukhānanda in his commentary on the Vaidyajīvana,410 Toḍara in his Āyurvedasaukhya,411 Trimalla in his Bṛhadyogatarangiṇī412, Vācaspati in his Ātaṅkadarpaṇa,413 Vāsudeva in his Vāsudevānubhava, Vijayarakṣita in the Madhukośa,414 and Vopadeva in the Siddhamantraprakāśa.415 Jaijjaṭa’s commentary on the Carakasamhitā is quoted in the Yogaratnākara.416 He is also quoted by the unknown author of the interpolated portion of Niścala’s Ratnaprabhā.417

v1.c22.94

Mahājahnupati Vāhaṭa is mentioned as Jejjaṭa’s teacher.418 D.Ch. Bhaṭṭācāryya419 regarded Mahājahnu as a place-name, suggesting moreover that it survives in the name of a small town, called Majhanda, situated about fifty miles to the north of Hyderabad, on the west bank of the Indus. P.V. Sharma and G.P. Sharma,420 on the other hand, consider Mabājahnuvatī to be the name of a place in Kaśmīr.

v1.c22.95

Some identify Jejjaṭa’s teacher with the famous medical author Vāgbhaṭa,421 whereas others are opposed to this identification.422 A South-Indian tradition makes Indu, who commented on Vāgbhaṭa’s works, a fellow pupil of Jejjaṭa.423

v1.c22.96

Some adhere to the view that Jejjaṭa was the same as Jaiyaṭa, father of Kaiyaṭa, the author of the Pradīpa on the Mahābhāṣya, and Mammaṭa, who composed the Kāvyaprakāśa, but this hypothesis is rejected by others.424

v1.c22.97

Jejjaṭa’s place of residence is a point of contention as well. Those who are in favour of the view that Jejjaṭa was a pupil of the medical author Vāgbhaṭa consider him to have resided, together with his teacher, in Sindh,425 whereas others give preference to Kaśmīr.426

v1.c22.98

Jejjaṭa’s faith is another controversial issue. Probably he was a Hindu and not, as advanced by some, a Buddhist.427

v1.c22.99

The following points have to be taken into consideration when trying to determine the period in which Jejjaṭa lived. Dṛḍhabala and Bhaṭṭārahariścandra preceded him because they are quoted. The same applies to Vāgbhaṭa, one of whose verses (A.s.Ni.2.96cd-97ab) is quoted (ad Ci.13.32-35) as coming from another treatise (tantrāntara).428 The claim that Jejjaṭa is later than Mādhava, the author of the Rugviniścaya, put forward by P.V. Sharma and G.P. Sharma,429 is unfounded, since the quotation they refer to (ad Ci.3.51cd-52cd) does, contrary to their assertion, not occur in Mādhava’s work; it forms part of the Aṣṭāngasamgraha (Ni.2.65), where it is said to be derived from Hārīta. Consequently, Jejjaṭa’s terminus ad quem is about A.D. 600. Jejjaṭa is quoted or referred to by Gayadāsa (about A.D. 1000), Candraṭa (tenth century) and Vṛnda (about A.D. 900).

v1.c22.100

The chronological limits thus established, A.D. 600-900, can be narrowed down by a careful consideration of pieces of information provided by other commentators. A remark by Vijayarakṣita (ad Mādhavanidāna 22.70cd-72), who states that Kārttikakuṇḍa copied a particular interpretation of Jejjaṭa, proves that the latter preceded the former. Niścalakara, who mentions Jejjaṭa and Kārttika together in a number of instances, places the latter always after the former. Vopadeva’s commentary on the Siddhamantra (ad 122 and 123) contains clear indications on Jejjaṭa’s anteriority to Vāpyacandra. A reference by Śrīkaṇṭhadatta (ad Mādhavanidāna 35.22d-24) to the views of Jejjaṭa and Gadādhara implies that the latter is later than Jejjaṭa.430

v1.c22.101

The anteriority of Jejjata with regard to Gadādhara, Vāpyacandra and Kārttikakuṇḍa appears to be confirmed by the order of the names of a series of commentators⁴³¹ on the Suśrutasamhitā, as given by Vijayarakṣita on two occasions: Jejjata–Vāpyacandra–Mādhavakara–Kārttikakuṇḍa (ad Mādhavanidāna 1.5d–6), Jejjata–Gadādhara–Vāpyacandra (ad Mādhavanidāna 1.11–13).⁴³²

v1.c22.102

A relative chronology has thus been obtained, which enables us to place the commentators Jejjata, Gadādhara, Vāpyacandra, Mādhavakara and Kārttikakuṇḍa, the one following upon the other, in the period A.D. 600–900.⁴³³ Unfortunately, the identity of the commentator Mādhavakara cannot be established with certainty; otherwise, if he were the same as the author of the Mādhavanidāna, the first three could be assigned to the period between A.D. 600 and the eighth century.

v1.c22.103

The relative chronological position of Jejjata, however, makes it seem reasonable to place him in the seventh or, at the latest, the eighth century.⁴³⁴ This does not disagree with the statement by P.V. Sharma and G.P. Sharma⁴³⁵ that Jejjata quotes Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇavārttika,⁴³⁶ but excludes that he was the father of Kaiyaṭa and Mammaṭa.⁴³⁷

v1.c22.104

JINADĀSA was a commentator on the Carakasamhitā,⁴³⁸ as appears from quotations in Śrīkaṇṭhadatta’s commentary on the Siddhayoga⁴³⁹ and Niścalakara’s commentary on the Cakradatta.

v1.c22.105

Niścalakara had access to Jinadāsa’s works. The Ratnaprabhā refers to Jinadāsa several times. The references and quotations indicate that he wrote a commentary on the Carakasamhitā and a treatise called Kaṭinadaṇḍī.⁴⁴⁰

v1.c22.106

Other works by this Jain author are a Jambūsvāmicarita⁴⁴¹ and a Kalpabhāṣyacūrṇi.⁴⁴²

v1.c22.107

Jinadāsa is said to have been a pupil of Pradyunmakṣama.⁴⁴³ He is sometimes placed in the twelfth century,⁴⁴⁴ but his terminus ante quem depends on that of Śrīkaṇṭhadatta. Jinadāsa is later than Jejjata according to the references to him in Niścala’s commentary on the Cakradatta.

v1.c22.108

JÑĀTADEVA, son of Kāśmīra Rudradeva, wrote the Sārārthasamgraha, which may be a commentary on the Carakasamhitā.⁴⁴⁵

v1.c22.109

JYOTIṢACANDRA SARASVATĪ⁴⁴⁶ wrote a commentary, called Carakapradīpikā, on the Sūtrasthāna of the Carakasamhitā.⁴⁴⁷ The views of Gaṇanāthasena are repeatedly referred to in this commentary.⁴⁴⁸ The author was a Bengali.⁴⁴⁹

v1.c22.110

KĀRTTIKA(KUṆḌA)⁴⁵⁰ wrote, according to some scholars,⁴⁵¹ apart from his commentary on the Suśrutasamhitā, also one on the Carakasamhitā. Evidence in favour of this view is not available.

v1.c22.111

KṚṢṆA VAIDYA, also called KṚṢṆABHAṬṬA, is said to have written a commentary on the Carakasamhitā.⁴⁵² Kṛṣṇa Vaidya may be the father of Nāganātha, the author of the Nidānapradīpa, who probably lived in the fifteenth century.⁴⁵³ Some assign him to the eleventh century⁴⁵⁴ and regard him as the father of Maheśvara, who wrote the *Viśvaprakāśa*⁴⁵⁵ in 1111/12. Others suppose him to be Maheśvara’s grandfather.⁴⁵⁶

v1.c22.112

KṢĪRASVĀMIDATTA⁴⁵⁷ may have composed glosses on the *Carakasaṃhitā*, as appears from quotations by Jejjaṭa and Cakrapāṇidatta (ad Ca.Ci.4.93–94).⁴⁵⁸ P.V. Sharma places him in the eighth century,⁴⁵⁹ but he is probably earlier on account of Jejjaṭa’s date.

v1.c22.113

MĀDHAVA, the author of the *Suśrutaślokavārttika*, is sometimes also regarded as a commentator on the *Carakasaṃhitā*.⁴⁶⁰

v1.c22.114

MAITREYA⁴⁶¹ was, according to P.V. Sharma,⁴⁶² probably a commentator on the *Carakasaṃhitā*. Vijayarakṣita mentions him as a medical author,⁴⁶³ the *Bṛhannighaṇṭuratnākara* as a commentator.⁴⁶⁴ In the *Carakasaṃhitā* he is a sage whose views are opposed to those of Punarvasu Ātreya.⁴⁶⁵ P.V. Sharma places him in the twelfth century.⁴⁶⁶

v1.c22.115

MEDHĀVIN is quoted as a commentator, probably on the *Carakasaṃhitā*, by Śrīkaṇṭhadatta in the *Vyākhyākusumāvalī*.⁴⁶⁷

v1.c22.116

MUNIDĀSA is regarded as a commentator on the *Carakasaṃhitā* by P. Cordier.⁴⁶⁸

v1.c22.117

NĀGADEVA⁴⁶⁹ is by some regarded as a commentator on the *Carakasaṃhitā*,⁴⁷⁰ but the reference to him in Niścala’s *Ratnaprabhā*⁴⁷¹ points to him as the author of a commentary on the *Suśrutasaṃhitā*.⁴⁷²

v1.c22.118

NANDIN is mentioned as a commentator on the *Carakasaṃhitā* by Gayadāsa (ad Su. Ni.6.15–19). He also wrote a commentary on the *Suśrutasaṃhitā*.⁴⁷³

v1.c22.119

NARADATTA⁴⁷⁴ was the author of a commentary on the *Carakasaṃhitā*.⁴⁷⁵

v1.c22.120

Naradatta is quoted by Niścalakara as a commentator on the *Carakasaṃhitā*.⁴⁷⁶ Naradatta’s school of interpetation is referred to as Naradantavyākhyāsampradāya in the *Kusumāvalī*.⁴⁷⁷ The same school of interpretation is quoted as the Naradevopadeśaparamparā by Niścala.⁴⁷⁸ The followers of Naradatta are cited by Niścala as the *naradattasampradāyinaḥ*.⁴⁷⁹ Cakrapāṇidatta is said to adhere to Naradatta’s views.⁴⁸⁰ The *tippaṇī* of a pupil of Naradatta (*naradattaśiṣyatippaṇī*) was also known to Niścala.⁴⁸¹

v1.c22.121

The references to Naradatta suggest that he wrote, apart from the commentary on the *Carakasaṃhitā*, a medical treatise. This work may have been the *Bṛhattantrapradīpa*, quoted by Niścala. The authorship of this work is uncertain, since Niścala only mentions its title, but it may well have been written by Naradatta, Cakrapāṇi’s teacher, which would explain that Cakrapāṇi incorporated two recipes from the *Bṛhattantrapradīpa* in his *Cikitsāsaṃgraha*.⁴⁸² Niścala mentions the *Bṛhattantrapradīpa* twice in his commentary on the mukharoga chapter. He says that some verses of Cakṣuṣyeṇa are found in that work; 483 he also quotes it on the subject of a disorder called khaṇḍauṣṭha, described by Cakṣuṣyeṇa, Candraṭa, Nāgabhartṛ, Vāgbhaṭa, and in the Carakottaratantra, Āyurvedasāra and Bṛhattantrapradīpa. 484

v1.c22.122

The Bṛhattantrapradīpa is a work of Naradatta according to G. Hāldār. 485 P.V. Sharma, who regarded it as a work of Naradatta in an earlier publication, 486 changed his opinion and attributes it to Bhavyadatta in his edition of Niścalakara’s Ratnaprabhā. 487

v1.c22.123

A treatise called Tantrapradīpa, quoted by Niścala 488 in his comments on the same chapters which mention the Bṛhattantrapradīpa, might well turn out to be the same work. A Tantrapradīpa is also quoted by Śivadāsasena. 489

v1.c22.124

Naradatta was Cakrapāṇidatta’s teacher, 490 which fixes his chronological position.

v1.c22.125

NARASIMHAKAVIRĀJA wrote a commentary on the Carakasaṃhitā, called Carakatattvaprakāśakaustubhatikā. The author refers to this commentary in the one he wrote on the Mādhavanidāna. 491

v1.c22.126

PATAÑJALI is by some regarded as the author of a Carakavārttika. 492

v1.c22.127

SADĀNANDA wrote a commentary, called Auṣadhavivṛti, on the chapters of the Carakasaṃhitā containing rules for the preservation of health (svasthavṛtta). 493

v1.c22.128

SAINDHAVA was a commentator on the Carakasaṃhitā according to Cakrapāṇidatta, who mentions him in the series Aṅgiri-Saindhava-Jejjaṭa-Īśvarasena (Si.1.20cd-22ab). 494

v1.c22.129

SAṂDHYĀKARA is a commentator on the Carakasaṃhitā 495 who is quoted by Niścalakara. 496

v1.c22.130

ŚIVADĀSASENA 497 wrote a commentary, called Carakatattvapradīpikā, 498 on the Carakasaṃhitā. 499 The part dealing with Sūtrasthāna 1.1 to 26.58 has been preserved, 500 but, originally, it must have covered the whole of the saṃhitā. 501

First 133 of 205 passages. Read on

Linked texts (91)