Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c23.s5: The relative chronological positions of the Carakasaṃhitā and Suśrutasaṃhitā

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c23.s5

Language
English

The relative chronological positions of the Carakasaṃhitā and Suśrutasaṃhitā

v1.c23.s5.1

The period of composition of the first five sections of the Suśrutasaṃhitā is a disputed issue. Several views found in the secondary literature have already been discussed, as well as Cakrapāṇi’s remark that Dṛḍhabala made use of the Suśrutasaṃhitā in completing the Carakasaṃhitā, which, if correct, means that the first five sections of the Suśrutasaṃhitā are earlier than A.D. 300–500. The problem of the relative chronological positions of the Carakasaṃhitā before its revision and completion by Dṛḍhabala and the Suśrutasaṃhitā before its revision and the addition of the Uttaratantra has been discussed by a number of scholars.

v1.c23.s5.2

F. Hessler claimed that Suśruta must be earlier than Caraka, because the latter mentions Dhanvantari. This thesis was brushed aside, too easily, by G. Liétard, 319 who interpreted the Dhanvantari of the Carakasaṃhitā as a mythical being, which is only justifiable for the reference to him as the god of healing (Ca.Vi.8.11). The Dhanvantari, mentioned in the Śārīrasthāna (6.21), is a different person, obviously a medical specialist, whose theory on embryonic development is accepted as authoritative. The same theory, declaring that all the parts of the embryo arise simultaneously, is expounded by Dhanvantari in the Suśrutasaṃhitā and acknowledged there as the final verdict on the issue (Su.Śā.3.32). This need not mean that the Suśrutasaṃhitā was known to Caraka, but shows that particular teachings were associated with Dhanvantari, and that a medical school recognizing him as their authority may already have been in existence.

v1.c23.s5.3

The Carakasaṃhitā does not only mention a medical authority called Dhanvantari, but also the dhānvantarīyāḥ, i.e., those belonging to the school of Dhanvantari. The two references to them are found in the chapter on the treatment of gulma, which derives from Caraka, not from Dṛḍhabala. The treatment of a ripe gulma is described as being part of the domain of the dhānvantarīyāḥ, who are experienced in puncturing (vyadha), cleansing (śodhana), and wound-healing (ropaṇa) (Ca.Ci.5.44); they are also said to be experts in cauterization (dāha; Ca.Ci.5.63cd). 320 These passages point to the abilities of surgical specialists in general, without implying an acquaintance with the Suśrutasaṃhitā, 321 which is proved by the fact that Suśruta disagrees with Caraka and rejects the occurrence of ripening (pāka) in cases of gulma. 322 Cakrapāṇidatta 323 appears to agree that Caraka had a particular school of surgeons, accepting a Dhanvantaritantra as their textbook, in mind, or surgeons in general. 324 Some Indian scholars are, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, convinced that the dhānvantarīyāḥ of the Carakasaṃhitā are surgeons adhering to the teachings of the Suśrutasaṃhitā. 325

v1.c23.s5.4

The arguments adduced in defending Suśruta’s anteriority to Caraka are usually thought to be unconvincing. Most scholars regard Suśruta as later than Caraka. 326 The general impression that the Suśrutasaṃhitā is more systematic and scientific than the latter has led some to the conclusion that the former must be posterior to the latter. 327 Others advanced that the stanzas which the Suśrutasaṃhitā has in common with the Carakasaṃhitā prove that the latter preceded the former. 328 Although this argument is not conclusive in itself, because it can also be used in support of the opposite thesis, it is remarkable that the correspondences are mostly found in the Uttaratantra. 329

v1.c23.s5.5

The version of Sāṃkhya found in the Suśrutasaṃhitā is very often interpreted as later than the version of the Carakasaṃhitā, thus testifying to the posteriority of Suśruta.

v1.c23.s5.6

An interesting detail, noticed by Atrideva, 330 may throw light on the relationship between Caraka- and Suśrutasaṃhitā. A passage occurring in the viśikhānupraveśanīya chapter of the Suśrutasaṃhitā (Sū.10.4) rejects the view, said to be held by some, that the number of means to acquire knowledge about diseases is three, replacing this number by six. This may show familiarity with the doctrines of the Carakasaṃhitā, where indeed the three means referred to are described (Ca.Ci.25.22). Caution is, however, required, for it cannot be excluded that the Carakasaṃhitā shared the doctrine in question with other treatises belonging to the same school.

v1.c23.s5.7

The Hārītasamhitā shows that, at least in the tradition to which this treatise belongs, Caraka was held to have preceded Suśruta. Hārīta’s pariśiṣṭādhyāya describes Caraka as belonging to the Kṛtayuga, Suśruta to the Dvāparayuga.

Cites (3)