Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c23.s3: Dates assigned to the Suśrutasaṃhitā

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c23.s3

Language
English

Dates assigned to the Suśrutasaṃhitā

v1.c23.s3.1

Before turning to the structure and contents of the *Suśrutasaṃhitā* and the internal and external evidence on its layers and their dates, it may be useful to give a survey of the opinions in the secondary literature on the chronological positions of the one or more Suśrutas and the reviser of the saṃhitā.

v1.c23.s3.2

One of the earliest scholars to give his opinion on the date of the *Suśrutasaṃhitā* was H.H. Wilson, who stated that the work cannot have the prodigious age, which Hindu fable assigns to it; 196 he thought that, because Suśruta is mentioned in the Purāṇas, the ninth or tenth century was the most modern conjectural limit, while the style indicates a long anterior date. 197 Later, he became acquainted with the discovery, made by F.R. Dietz in 1833, that Suśruta was known in the Muslim world during the rule of Hārūn al-Rashīd. 198 J.A. Vullers 199 misinterpreted Wilson’s remarks, making him declare that Suśruta lived in the ninth or tenth century B.C. at the latest.

v1.c23.s3.3

A. Stenzler 200 reached about the same conclusions as H.H. Wilson. Stenzler pointed to the fact that Ibn Abī Uṣaybi‘a explicitly states that Suśruta’s treatise was translated into Arabic by order of Yaḥyā ibn Ḳhālid,201 who died in the beginning of the eighth century, which establishes the lower limit for Suśruta. Stenzler brought forward, as his own opinion, that the Suśrutasaṃhitā, considering its style and the metres used, might date from some centuries after Christ.

v1.c23.s3.4

Ch. Lassen202 advanced that the parts in verse of the Suśrutasaṃhitā may belong to a slightly later period than the epics. A. Weber203 remarked that the work of Suśruta exhibits a certain affinity to the writings of Varāhamihira.

v1.c23.s3.5

An author to give a very early date to the Suśrutasaṃhitā, namely the tenth century B.C., was F. Hessler,204 whose arguments were convincingly refuted by A. Weber205 and G. Liétard.206 T.A. Wise207 placed Suśruta between the ninth and third centuries B.C.

v1.c23.s3.6

An extreme view was expressed by E. Haas,208 who tried to demonstrate that āyurveda heavily borrowed from the medical science of the Muslims, in its turn based on Greek medicine. He was convinced that the name Suśruta had developed from the Arabic equivalents of the name of the Greek father of medicine, Hippokrates. He denied that Suśruta was known in the Muslim world in the eighth century, and considered him to belong to the twelfth century. The reasonings of E. Haas were invalidated by A. Müller.209

v1.c23.s3.7

J. Jolly210 brought forward that the Arabic translation of the Suśrutasaṃhitā proves that a work closely resembling the version known to us existed in the seventh century, while the style with its mixture of prose and verse is reminiscent of Varāhamihira.

v1.c23.s3.8

A.F.R. Hoernle,211 who distinguished an original Suśruta and a Suśruta II, the reviser who added the Uttaratantra, regarded the former as the pupil of a Kāśirāja who was a teacher in the university of Kāśī in Buddha’s times. He argued that Suśruta was acquainted with the osteological system of Ātreya, 212 the leading professor of medicine at the university of Takṣaśilā in the time of Buddha or shortly before, which proves that the former was a younger contemporary of the latter. He moreover advanced that the author of the Śatapathabrāhmaṇa, placed in the sixth century B.C., was conversant with the doctrines of Suśruta. 213 Hoernle proposed for these reasons the sixth century B.C. as the date of the original Suśruta.

v1.c23.s3.9

G. Liétard214 was cautious with regard to the chronological position of the Suśrutasaṃhitā in the extant form. This author refrained from assigning a date to the original work and gave as his estimate that the revised version or a treatise closely resembling it probably existed about the beginning of the Christian era.

v1.c23.s3.10

A.A. Macdonell215 suggested that Suśruta cannot be later than the fourth century A.D., because the Bower MS contains passages not only parallel, but verbally agreeing with, passages in the Suśrutasaṃhitā. 216

v1.c23.s3.11

P. Cordier217 accepted Hoernle’s claim that the Suśruta of the Bower MS is identical with the one of the Suśrutasaṃhitā, which explains his conclusion that the saṃhitā in its original form is earlier than A.D. 400 and may date from the first century.

v1.c23.s3.12

M. Vallauri218 placed the Suśrutasaṃhitā in the fifth or sixth century A.D. O. Botto 219 prefers the period between the second and fourth centuries.

v1.c23.s3.13

Indian authors ususally place the author of the original version of the Suśrutasaṃhitā, Suśruta I or Vṛddhasuśruta, in early times. Dates mentioned are: 2000 to 3000

v1.c23.s3.14

B.C.; 220 2000 B.C.; 221 the period between 1500 and 1000 B.C.; 222 1200 B.C.; 223 earlier than the period of the Mahābhārata (1000 B.C.); 224 1000 B.C.; 225 not later than 1000 B.C.; 226 about 1000 B.C.; 227 the period of the Atharvaveda; 228 the period of the Upaniṣads; 229 one hundred years before Rāma; 230 a period up to three hundred years after the Mahābhārata; 231 1000 years before the beginning of the Śaka era; 232 the sixth or seventh century B.C. as the lower limit; 233 at least two centuries before the birth of Buddha; 234 the period before the rise of Buddhism; 235 the period between 1000 and 600 B.C.; 236 earlier than Pāṇini; 237 earlier than Kātyāyana, dated in this case to the late sixth or early fifth century B.C.; 238 about 600 B.C.; 239 about 500 B.C.; 240 later than the sixth century B.C.; 241 the last few centuries B.C. 242

v1.c23.s3.15

The structure of the Suśrutasaṃhitā

v1.c23.s3.16

The text of the Suśrutasaṃhitā itself indicates that the treatise consists of five sections (sthāna), with a total of 120 chapters, and an Uttaratantra in sixty-six chapters. 243 The treatise is said to be an abbreviation, for the use by human beings with a restricted life span, of the original āyurveda of Svayambhū (i.e., Brahmā) in 100,000 verses and 1,000 chapters, which already existed before this deity created the living beings. 244

v1.c23.s3.17

The total number of chapters of the first five sthānas is not accidental. The same number, though differently distributed over the respective sections, is a characteristic feature of Carakasaṃhitā, Bhelasaṃhitā, Kāśyapasaṃhitā (without the Khilasthāna), and Aṣṭāngahṛdayasaṃhitā.

v1.c23.s3.18

A table of contents, which includes the Uttaratantra, is found in chapter three of the Sūtrasthāna. 245

v1.c23.s3.19

It has long been noticed that the way in which the extent and contents of the two distinct portions of the saṃhitā are treated may mean that the first and main portion on surgery is more original than the second one, the Uttaratantra, devoted to the other branches of āyurveda, which gives the impression of being an addition. 246 The concluding verses of the last chapter of the Kalpasthāna and the introductory verses of the first chapter of the Uttaratantra seem to support this view; if correct, this implies that all the references to the Uttaratantra in the preceding sections are due to a later author, the one who added the Uttaratantra. The problems relating to this subject will be discussed later in this section.

v1.c23.s3.20

The Suśrutasaṃhitā is primarily a treatise on surgery (śalya), 247 which for that reason occupies the first place 248 on the list of the eight divisions (aṅga) of āyurveda. 249

v1.c23.s3.21

The Sūtrasthāna is devoted to surgical subjects (chapters 5, 7–9, 11–14, 16–19, 21–23, 25–27, 37), basic medical concepts (1–4, 6, 10, 15, 20, 24, 35–36, 40, 42), signs indicating a bad prognosis (ariṣṭajñāna; 28–33), the duties of a royal physician (34), and dravyaguṇa (38–39, 41, 43–46). Differences with the Sūtrasthāna of the Carakasaṃhitā are the inclusion of a chapter on the teaching of āyurveda and the initiation of students (Sū.2), a subject dealt with in Caraka’s Vimānasthāna, chapters on ariṣṭas, discussed in Caraka’s Indriyasthāna, and the absence of chapters describing particular groups of diseases.

v1.c23.s3.22

The Nidānasthāna is distinct from the corresponding section of the Carakasaṃhitā in being much longer and describing a larger number of diseases. The disorders discussed are for a large part selected because they belong to the domain of surgery, but this criterion does not fully explain the contents. Diseases like kuṣṭha (Ni.5) and prameha (Ni.6), the only ones also dealt with in Caraka’s Nidānasthāna, form part of kāyacikitsā; the same applies to vātavyādhi (Ni.1). Remarkable is the presence of a chapter on mukharoga (Ni.16), one of the subjects of śālākya.250 The chapter on kṣudrarogas (Ni.13) was already a problem to the commentators, since the Nidānasthāna is, in general, about major diseases (mahāvyādhi).251

v1.c23.s3.23

The Śārīrasthāna corresponds partly to the same section of the Carakasaṃhitā. It differs by the incorporation of chapters on the marmans, sirās, phlebotomy, and the dhamanīs; some of these subjects are discussed in Caraka’s Vimānasthāna.

v1.c23.s3.24

The Cikitsāsthāna opens with two chapters on the treatment of vraṇas. Chapter three is devoted to the treatment of bhagna, while its aetiology is found in chapter fifteen of the Nidānasthāna. Chapters four to twenty-two are about the therapy of the diseases discussed, in the same order, in chapters one to fourteen and sixteen of the Nidānasthāna. Chapter twenty-three, on śopha, has parallels in Caraka’s Sūtra- and Cikitsāsthāna. The contents of chapter twenty-four are similar to those of chapter five of Caraka’s Sūtrasthāna. Chapter twenty-five is without a parallel in Caraka’s treatise. Chapters twenty-six to thirty are about vājīkaraṇa and rasāyana,252 which are the subjects of the first two chapters of Caraka’s Cikitsāsthāna. Chapters thirty-one to forty are concerned with pañcakarman and related topics, discussed in some chapters of the Sūtrasthāna and in the Siddhisthāna of the Carakasaṃhitā.

v1.c23.s3.25

The Kalpasthāna is dissimilar from the same section of the Carakasaṃhitā and is about toxicology (viṣatantra),253 a subject to which one chapter of Caraka’s Cikitsāsthāna is devoted.

v1.c23.s3.26

The Uttaratantra is about subjects belonging to śālākya (chapters one to twenty-six), kaumārabhṛtya (chapters twenty-seven to thirty-eight), kāyacikitsā (chapters thirty-nine to fifty-nine), and bhūtavidyā (chapters sixty to sixty-two).254 The concluding chapters are concerned with rasabhedavikalpa, svasthavṛtta, the tantrayuktis, and doṣabhedavikalpa (chapters sixty-three to sixty-six), subjects treated in the Sūtra and Siddhisthāna of the Carakasaṃhitā.

v1.c23.s3.27

The text of the Suśrutasaṃhitā. Quotations from Suśruta

v1.c23.s3.28

The text of the Suśrutasaṃhitā presents many problems deserving serious attention. A critical edition, highly desirable, does not exist so far.255 The remarks on the text, its variants and alternative readings, etc., found in the commentaries of Gayadāsa, Cakrapāṇi and Ḍalhaṇa, provide valuable information and show that there were numerous disagreements on the correct readings, the genuineness or spuriousness of particular passages in verse or prose, the order of the chapters, etc.

v1.c23.s3.29

The extant text exhibits features which unmistakably indicate that earlier traditions and treatises were known. Diverging opinions, held by various unnamed authorities, are repeatedly referred to.256 The school of the vedavādinaḥ is mentioned once.257 Opinions attributed to particular authorities do occur,258 but are less frequent than in the Carakasaṃhitā.

v1.c23.s3.30

The Suśrutasaṃhitā is undeniably the work of an author who put to use and drew on a number of sources at his disposal. The commentaries contain hints pointing to at least part of these sources. Among them were the works of Bhāluki and Bhoja, employed in composing the chapters on surgical instruments, as is attested by quotations in the commentaries of Cakrapāṇi and Ḍalhaṇa. These quotations give evidence of a much more detailed knowledge on the subject in the treatises of these predecessors. 259 Cakrapāṇi remarks that a particular verse of the Suśrutasaṃhitā260 has been borrowed from Bhoja, while Gayadāsa identifies a verse261 as coming from another treatise.

v1.c23.s3.31

The large body of quotations from Suśruta, either by name or anonymously, in commentaries and later medical treatises, should also be taken into consideration in studies concerning the text of the saṃhitā and the versions that circulated in various periods.

v1.c23.s3.32

The Mādhavanidāna, for example, contains many verses, taken from the Suśrutasaṃhitā, which present variants. Part of these variants are recorded in Ḍalhaṇa’s Nibandhasaṃgraha, but others are absent there and would have remained unknown otherwise. The same applies to the quotations in the Madhukośa on the Mādhavanidāna.262 Another treatise containing quotations from Suśruta which present variants, as well as a number of untraceable passages in prose and verse attributed to Suśruta, is Anantakumāra’s Yogaratnasamuccaya.263

v1.c23.s3.33

Ṭoḍara’s Āyurvedasaukhya presents a number of unidentified quotations from Suśruta. 264 In spite of their being unidentified by the editors of the text, they cannot be regarded as evidence for an unknown version of the Suśrutasaṃhitā without a large dose of caution, since part of them can be traced and are closely related to readings of the current text. 265 Some of the passages ascribed to Suśruta are noteworthy and interesting. One verse is almost identical with a śloka of the Carakasaṃhitā. 266 Two other verses reproduce a recipe, called pippalyādighṛta, found in Tiṣaṭa’s Cikitsākalikā; this prescription is probably attributed to Suśruta because a pippalyādighṛta, containing largely the same ingredients, but differently worded, does form part of the Suśrutasaṃhitā. 267 More difficult to explain is the attribution of two verses from the Suśrutasaṃhitā to Ātreya. 268

v1.c23.s3.34

Suśruta’s treatise may have been known in versions that differed as to their extent. A Laghusuśruta is recorded in a list of MSS. 269 A Kṛśasuśruta is quoted in Meghadeva’s commentary on Mādhavakavi’s Mādhavadravyaguṇa. The Navīnasuśruta, cited by Vallabhabhaṭṭa in his commentary on Śārṅgadhara’s Triśatī, 270 is obviously the author of the Uttaratantra, because the quotation refers to one of the viṣamajvaras. 271

v1.c23.s3.35

The quotations from Vṛddhasuśruta, which are often regarded as being from the early, original work, are actually from a version that included the Uttaratantra. 272 These quotations are found in the Āyurvedābdhisāra, 273 Bhāvaprakāśanighaṇṭu, 274 Bhāvaprakāśa, 275 Bhojanakutūhala, 276 Bṛhadyogatarangiṇī, 277 Ḍalhaṇa’s Nibandhasaṃgraha, 278 Jvaranirṇaya, 279 Jvaratimirabhāskara, 280 Niścala’s Ratnaprabhā, 281 Śālīgrāmanighaṇṭu, 282 the commentary on the Siddhāntanidāna, 283 Śivadāsa’s commentaries on the Carakasaṃhitā284 and Cakradatta, 285 Śrīdāsapaṇḍita’s commentary on the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā, 286 Śrīkaṇṭhadatta’s commentary on the Siddhayoga, 287 Ṭoḍara’s Āyurvedasaukhya, 288 Vācaspati’s Ātaṅkadarpaṇa, 289 Vallabhabhaṭṭa’s commentary on Śārṅgadhara’s Triśatī, 290 and Vijayarakṣita’s part of the Madhukośa. 291 The Sauśrutatantra, mentioned by Dalhaṇa, 292 is simply the Suśrutasaṃhitā.

Cites (25)