Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c26: Part 5

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c26

Language
English

Contents

Part 5

v1.c26.1

The page provided is blank.

Authors called Vāgbhaṭa, their works, and their identities

v1.c26.s1.1

Vāgbhaṭa is a fairly common name in Sanskrit literature. Many works are attributed to authors of this or a closely related appellation.¹

v1.c26.s1.2

The two most important medical treatises ascribed to a Vāgbhaṭa are the Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha and Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā.² The Rasaratnasamuccaya, an iatrochemical work, is the third composition to be mentioned among those with which a Vāgbhaṭa is credited.

v1.c26.s1.3

Other medical works said to have been written by a Vāgbhaṭa are: an auto-commentary on the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā, called Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayavaiḍūryakabhāṣya;³ two more commentaries, called Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayadīpikā⁴ and Hṛdayatippaṇa;⁵ the Aṣṭāṅganighaṇṭu;⁶ the Aṣṭāṅgasāra;⁷ the Aṣṭāṅgāvatāra;⁸ a Bhāvaprakāśa;⁹ the Dvādaśārthanirūpaṇa;¹⁰ a Kālajñāna;¹¹ the Padārthacandrikā;¹² the Śāstradarpaṇa;¹³ a Śataślokī;¹⁴ a Vāgbhaṭa;¹⁵ the Vāgbhaṭīya;¹⁶ the Vābaṭanighaṇṭu;¹⁷ a Vāmanakalpa.¹⁸

v1.c26.s1.4

An author called Bāhaṭa is credited with a Rasamūlikānighaṇṭu,¹⁹ a Bāhaṭa with a Saṃnipātanādanacikitsā.²⁰ A Bāhaṭagrantha is, in spite of its title, not by an author called Bāhaṭa.²¹

v1.c26.s1.5

This chapter will be devoted to the author or authors of the Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha and Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā. The other works mentioned are of less concern in the present context or are discussed elsewhere.

v1.c26.s1.6

The two main treatises face us with the complex problem whether they were composed by one and the same person, by two namesakes, or even by unknown authors. The controversial nature of this issue, to be discussed later, makes it desirable to keep to the texts as closely as possible.

v1.c26.s1.7

The colophons of most editions of both Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya give Vāgbhaṭa, son of Siṃhagupta, as their author.²² The unreliability of colophons, which may have been added later, makes them unsuitable to establish the point of authorship.²³ Actually, the name of the author does not appear even a single time in the Hṛdaya. The Saṃgraha, on the other hand, contains some verses, occurring towards its close (U.50.203–204), which constitute the only source of direct information on the one who may have written this large treatise. These verses state: “The excellent physician Vāgbhaṭa was my paternal grandfather; my name is the same as his; my grandfather’s son was Siṃhagupta, whose son I am; my native country is the land of the Sindhu people;²⁴ I obtained my knowledge (pratibhā)²⁵ from my preceptor (guru), Avalokita,²⁶ and from my father, who was an even more venerable (gurutara) preceptor to me; based on this knowledge, and after studying (vilocana) numerous medical works, 27 I composed (this) well-arranged exposition (vinirṇaya)28 (of the medical science) according to its division into (eight) branches”. 29

v1.c26.s1.8

These meagre facts have led to a host of discussions.

v1.c26.s1.9

One of the disputed points is the original form of the author’s name. Although he calls himself Vāgbhaṭa at the end of the Saṃgraha, variants of his name are found in many a later treatise, in commentaries, etc. The most common of these variants, Vāhaṭa30 (or Bāhaṭa), is particularly frequent in MSS and treatises from southern India. 31

v1.c26.s1.10

Opinions are divided on the issue whether Vāgbhaṭa should be regarded as the original name, or Vāhaṭa; secondarily sankritized to Vāgbhaṭa. Hilgenberg and Kirfel32 did not want to exclude the latter option; C. Vogel seems to give it his preference. 33 P.V. Sharma, 34 on the other hand, is strongly in favour of the former choice, being convinced that the author’s own statements are trustworthy.

v1.c26.s1.11

No information is available on the Vāgbhaṭa, who was the father of Siṃhagupta and grandfather of the Vāgbhaṭa of the Saṃgraha, 35 except for the fact that he was a physician. In spite of this, G. Hāldār asserted that this Vāgbhaṭa, whom he designates as Vāgbhaṭa I and assigns to the second century A.D., was the author of a Smṛtinibandha and Vaidyakaṇighaṇṭu. 36 This Vāgbhaṭa I is reported to have divided the medical science into ten branches: dravyābhidhāna, rugviniścaya, kāyasaukhyasaṃpādana, śalyavidyā, bhūtanigraha, visapratīkāra, bālopacāra, rasāyana, śālākyatantra, and vṛṣya. His Smṛtinibandha is said to have been famous and to be quoted repeatedly in Aparārka’s Yājñavalkyadharmaśāstranibandha. 37 Grammar was the third branch of learning he mastered, according to G. Hāldār, who claimed that Bhartṛhari refers to this Vāgbhaṭa in his Mahābhāṣyadīpikā. 38

v1.c26.s1.12

The name of Vāgbhaṭa’s father is Siṃhagupta in the text of the Saṃgraha and most of the colophons of the MSS and editions of Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya. Niścala refers, when quoting the Hṛdaya, to Vāgbhaṭa as the son of Siṃhagupta, 39 and calls him Vāgbhaṭagupta. 40 The form Saṅghagupta, a variant of Siṃhagupta in some of the MSS and editions of the Rasaratnasamuccaya, attributed to a Vāgbhaṭa, is occasionally found in MSS of the Hṛdaya. 41 Vāgbhaṭa’s father is also called Saṅghagupta by the Hṛdayākāra, a commentator on the Hṛdaya 42 One MS43 employs three variants of the name, Saṅgagupta, Saṅgugupta and Siṃhagupta. This MS, which may date from the late eighteenth century at its earliest, is remarkable in mentioning a Ravigupta as the grandfather of either Siṃhagupta or a Vāgbhaṭa. 44

v1.c26.s1.13

The Tibetan translation of the Hṛdaya gives either Sen-ge sbas-pa (Siṃhagupta) or Dge-ḥdun gsaṅ-ba (Saṅghaguhya) as the name of Vāgbhaṭa’s father, according to G. Huth, 45 but C. Vogel 46 records the former only. One MS of the Hṛdaya 47 has a colophon mentioning Nṛsiṃhagupta as Vāgbhaṭa’s father.

v1.c26.s1.14

Sodhala’s Gadanigraha contains a formula 48 attributed to a Siṃhagupta, whom G. Hāldār 49 regards as identical with Vāgbhaṭa’s father, who, obviously, in Hāldār’s view, wrote a medical treatise. Some of the ingredients of the recipe prove that it cannot be from a rather early source. 50

v1.c26.s1.15

The information at the end of the Saṃgraha shows that its author issued from a family of physicians, 51 settled in Sindh at the time of his birth.

v1.c26.s1.16

A detail, found in Niścalakara’s *Ratnaprabhā*, induced D.Ch. Bhattacharyya to speculate on the social status of Vāgbhaṭa’s family. Niścala designates, once only in his commentary,⁵² Vāgbhaṭa as a royal sage (rājarṣi). D.Ch. Bhattacharyya, joining this isolated fact to another scrap, namely Jejjata’s references to his teacher, also a Vāgbhaṭa, as the lord (pati) of Mahājahnu, concluded, rather rashly, that the author of *Saṃgraha* and *Hṛdaya* was the chief (rājan) of a small kingdom in Sindh.⁵³

v1.c26.s1.17

It has often been assumed that Vāgbhaṭa was not only born in Sindh, but also spent his life there.⁵⁴ This point cannot be settled with any certainty. The explicit statement by the author himself that he was born in Sindh does not imply that he remained in that region. His migration to another area later in life can therefore not be excluded.

v1.c26.s1.18

This uncertainty proved to be a fertile soil for the cultivation of hypotheses.

v1.c26.s1.19

P.V. Sharma⁵⁵ advanced a number of arguments in favour of the hypothesis that Vāgbhaṭa spent part of his life in Sindh and moved to Ujjayinī or some place near this town later. Vāgbhaṭa’s acquaintance with Sindh is deduced from a verse (A.s.Ci.9.37) asserting that a burning sensation and thirst will disappear when recollecting the way of playing with water of the elephants in Sindh. Additional arguments are a reference to añjana as a substance found in or near the river Sindh (A.s.Sū.8.59) and some verses mentioning the Śakas⁵⁶ (A.s.U.49.214–215).⁵⁷

v1.c26.s1.20

These details are insufficient to prove that Vāgbhaṭa remained in Sindh for some time. Dietary habits of the people living in Sindh and of the Śakas are referred to in the *Carakasaṃhitā*;⁵⁸ the river Sindhu is mentioned in the *Suśrutasaṃhitā*.⁵⁹

v1.c26.s1.21

The migration from Sindh to another region is inferred from the statement that one should leave a country where a king reigns and people abound who do not respect the dharma (A.s.Sū.8.2) and from a number of references to a beautiful and prosperous country.⁶⁰ P.V. Sharma suggests that Vāgbhaṭa left his native country, which had suffered from the incursions of foreign peoples, after Yaśodharman had defeated these foreigners in A.D. 533. These peoples, supposed to be the Hūṇas, are described in Yaśodharman’s records as ruled by vicious kings transgressing the rules of good conduct.⁶¹

v1.c26.s1.22

Again, these references are not convincing at all, being vague and of a type that may be found in any literary work. Moreover, the Hūṇas, different from the Śakas,⁶² are absent from the *Saṃgraha*.

v1.c26.s1.23

P.V. Sharma’s hypothesis that Vāgbhaṭa went to Ujjayinī⁶³ is partly based on the idea that this city was Yaśodharman’s capital, from where he reigned over his kingdom from A.D. 533–583.⁶⁴ P.V. Sharma also takes for granted the identity of this king with the Vikramāditya of Ujjayinī who was the patron of the famous poet Kālidāsa and other well-known writers.⁶⁵

v1.c26.s1.24

No contemporary record, however, gives Yaśodharman the title of Vikramāditya.⁶⁶ Kālidāsa’s patron, Vikramāditya of Ujjayinī, subdued the Śakas, not the Hūṇas; he is a different king, though often confused with Yaśodharman. Moreover, the city associated with Yaśodharman is Daśapura (or Mandasor), not Ujjayinī.⁶⁷

v1.c26.s1.25

Other arguments in favour of Vāgbhaṭa’s choice to come to Ujjayinī are, in P.V. Sharma’s opinion, his reference to Avanti,⁶⁸ the name of the region where the city is situated, and his acquaintance with a substance called avantisoma.⁶⁹

v1.c26.s1.26

Avanti is, however, mentioned in a list of peoples and countries, which weakens the argument, and Avanti's capital, Ujjayinī, is nowhere referred to in the Saṃgraha. The inhabitants of Avanti, the Āvantikas, are present in a similar list found in the Carakasaṃhitā.⁷⁰ The Suśrutasaṃhitā is acquainted with Prācyāvanti and Aparāvanti.⁷¹

v1.c26.s1.27

Finally, P.V. Sharma points to the large number of borrowings from Vāgbhaṭa in the works of Soḍhala, who was a resident of Avanti or the nearby Gujarāt.

v1.c26.s1.28

Borrowings from the Saṃgraha are, however, not only found in Soḍhala's writings, but also, for example, in Vṛnda's Siddhayoga and in the Cakradatta.

v1.c26.s1.29

In sum, none of the evidence carries conviction, which leaves open the question where Vāgbhaṭa chose to live.

v1.c26.s1.30

A rather late Indian tradition, represented in Merutuṅga's Prabandhacintāmaṇi,⁷² an untrustworthy work stuffed with anachronisms,⁷³ presents two Vāgbhaṭas, called Bṛhad- and Laghubāhaḍa, related to each other as father-in-law and son-in-law. They appear in the story as physicians at the court of king Bhoja of Dhārā. The elder of the two, said to be well read in medical treatises, is credited with a work called Vāgbhaṭa, based on his own experience. Wonderful tales are told by Merutuṅga, in particular about the elder physician.

v1.c26.s1.31

A noteworthy fact, in spite of the unreliability of Merutuṅga, remains his being acquainted with the tradition of an older and a younger Vāgbhaṭa.

v1.c26.s1.32

The only Western historian of Indian medicine not to dismiss these stories of the Prabandhacintāmaṇi was P. Cordier,⁷⁴ who, earlier,⁷⁵ had tried to defend that Vāgbhaṭa lived during the reign of Jayasiṃha, king of Kaśmīr (A.D. 1196–1218). The latter view found its origin in a passage, thought to be authentic, of the Rājatarangiṇī, saying that the Buddhist (paramabauddha) Vāgbhaṭācārya, son of Siṃhagupta, was a contemporary of Jayasiṃha.

v1.c26.s1.33

Faced with the critical remarks of J. Jolly,⁷⁶ who insisted on the absence of the passage in the printed texts of the Rājatarangiṇī and confronted him with the expert knowledge of G. Bīhler, Cordier realized that his hypothesis had become untenable. The alternative he adopted proved to be equally indefensible.

v1.c26.s1.34

The collapse of Cordier's tentatives to place the scene of Vāgbhaṭa's activities at the court of king Bhoja of Dhārā or in Kaśmīr during the rule of king Jayasiṃha leaves the problem of Vāgbhaṭa's residence still unsettled.

v1.c26.s1.35

The only fixed point is the information provided by himself that he was born in Sindh.

v1.c26.s1.36

C. Vogel⁷⁷ regards as evidence confirming that Vāgbhaṭa hails from North India the opinion that seeing a Drāviḍa or an Āndhra in one's dream is a bad omen.⁷⁸ He also draws attention to a remark about the soma-like and beneficial medicinal herbs growing in the Himālayas and the fiery and unwholesome character of herbs growing in the Vindhya mountains,⁷⁹ but this contrast between the properties of medicinal substances coming from the Himālayas and the Vindhya mountains is not peculiar to Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya at all, being found in the Carakasaṃhitā too.⁸⁰

v1.c26.s1.37

Vāgbhaṭa is also regarded as a resident of the North, in particular Sindh, by G. Hāldār.⁸¹ This scholar drafted a highly imaginative theory about a Vāgbhaṭa, who wrote the Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha, the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā, a work intermediate between the two, and the Rasaratnasamuccaya. G. Hāldār wanted to see this author attached to the court of Śaka kings, whose domain included Sindh. The kings he was thinking of are Vāsudeva, the son of Huviṣka, and Kāpālin, the son of Vāsudeva, who ruled in the second and third centuries A.D. G. Hāldār believed that both kings were experts in rasaśāstra and the authors of a Vāsudevasaṃhitā and Rasarājamahodadhi respectively. Vāgbhaṭa, a specialist in rasāyana and rasaśāstra himself, was, in G. Hāldār’s view, obviously the right person to hold the office of antaraṅga at the court of these kings, who are referred to as śakādhipati in the Saṃgraha.

v1.c26.s1.38

An equally or even more inventive theory was developed by R. Śāstrī,⁸² who was convinced that Vāgbhaṭa, author of Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya, lived during the decline of the Gupta dynasty, in the period of the incursions of the Hūṇas, and was born in Sindh, during the reign of Kumāragupta I, in A.D. 420. Together with large numbers of the inhabitants of the region, he fled to Kaśmīr, where he composed his two medical treatises. His flight was precipitated by a tragic incident: his both learned and beautiful daughter had been taken by force by one of the Hūṇa chiefs, who had fallen in love with her. R. Śāstrī contrived to establish that the incident took place when Vāgbhaṭa was thirty-seven years of age. He also managed to determine that he died in A.D. 508, at the end of the reign of Vainyagupta, also called Tathāgatagupta.

v1.c26.s1.39

R. Śāstrī⁸³ argued that Vāgbhaṭa cannot have lived during the reign of Candragupta Vikramāditya, because this king’s rule was firmly established in the western parts of India. There would have been no incentive to migrate to Kaśmīr in that period. The political stability continued during Kumāragupta’s reign, but new incursions of Śakas occurred during the reigns of his successors, Skandagupta and Samudragupta. Vāgbhaṭa fled the country due to the troubles in Skandagupta’s period of rule.

v1.c26.s1.40

Traditions current in Kerala see in a Vāgbhaṭa, who is usually regarded as the author of both Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya, the teacher of Jejjaṭa and Indu.⁸⁴ As discussed in the sections devoted to these commentators, these traditions are not worthy of credit.

v1.c26.s1.41

Another Vāgbhaṭa sometimes confused with the author of the Saṃgraha, Hṛdaya, or both, need not seriously be considered in the present context. This Vāgbhaṭa appears as the father of Tiṣaṭa, the author of the Cikitsākalikā, in the untrustworthy colophons of a number of MSS of that treatise.⁸⁵

v1.c26.s1.42

Some Indian traditions make Vāgbhaṭa into a mythically radiant figure. He is sometimes regarded as an incarnation of Dhanvantari or identified with one of the fourteen gems obtained when the ocean was churned. Others consider him to be an incarnation of Gautama Buddha.⁸⁶ Another legend tells that Vāgbhaṭa was called by Rāvaṇa to treat his brother Kumbhakarṇa.⁸⁷ Binod Lall Sen regarded him as the physician of Yudhiṣṭhira, the eldest of the Pāṇḍava brothers.⁸⁸ A legend about Vāgbhaṭa relates that Dhanvantari, wanting to inquire into the competence of practising physicians, took the form of a bird, and, wandering to the houses of well-known vaidyas, asked ko ’ruk (who is free from disease)? The only one to give a satisfactory answer was Vāgbhaṭa, who replied: hitabhuk (someone eating wholesome food), mitabhuk (who eats moderately), asākabhuk (who does not eat vegetables).⁸⁹

v1.c26.s1.43

The Hārītasamhitā describes Vāgbhaṭa as the representative of the medical science in the Kaliyuga. 90

v1.c26.s1.44

An entirely different tradition paints him as a voluptuous brāhmaṇa, given to all sorts of revelries, and lost in love with a low-caste woman. 91

v1.c26.s1.45

Some well-known Vāgbhaṭas of Sanskrit literature are so clearly distinct that they cannot easily be mistaken for the medical writer, although, nevertheless, this sometimes happens to be the case.

v1.c26.s1.46

Literary works attributed to authors called Vāgbhaṭa are the Vāgbhaṭālaṃkāra and Kāvyānuśāsana; a third composition often mentioned is the Neminirvāṇa.

v1.c26.s1.47

The Vāgbhaṭālaṃkāra, a treatise on poetics, was written by a Vāgbhaṭa, who was a Jaina and the son of Soma; he probably belongs to the first half of the twelfth century. 92 The author of the Kāvyānuśāsana, also a work on poetics, was a son of Nemikumāra and lived later, in the thirteenth or fifteenth century. 93 The Neminirvāṇa, a mahākāvya, may be by the Vāgbhaṭa who wrote the Vāgbhaṭālaṃkāra. 94

v1.c26.s1.48

Titles of other works ascribed to authors called Vāgbhaṭa are: Alaṃkāratilaka, 95 Chando’nuśāsana (a treatise on metrics), 96 Laghu jātaka, 97 Prākṛtapiṅgala, 98 Ṛṣabhadevacarita (a mahākāvya), 99 Śabdārthacandrikā, 100 Śṛṅgāratilaka, 101 and Vāgbhaṭakośa. 102

v1.c26.s1.49

A Vāgbhaṭasmṛtisamgraha, now lost, is quoted by Aparārka in his commentary on the Yājñavalkyasmṛti. 103

v1.c26.s1.50

The Kavikalpalatā, a work of Devendra or Deveśvara, son of a Vāgbhaṭa, is sometimes claimed to be by a Vāgbhaṭa. 104

The religious persuasion of Vāgbhaṭa

v1.c26.s2.1

After this digression on the Vāgbhaṭas known in Sanskrit literature, we return to the subject of the biography of the medical author. As we have seen, nothing definite is known, which did not prevent speculations to proliferate.

v1.c26.s2.2

One piece of information has been left for discussion, namely the religious persuasion and influence of Vāgbhaṭa’s first teacher in medicine, Avalokita. The name of this guru is usually thought to indicate that he was a Buddhist, which raises the question of Vāgbhaṭa’s own religion, a hotly debated issue.

v1.c26.s2.3

The problems concerning this point do not form such a hopeless muddle as might appear from the secondary literature. A proper handling of these problems requires first of all that the data derived from the Samgraha are carefully kept apart from those coming from the Hṛdaya. Since, so far, evidence is dealt with that can throw light on the author of the Samgraha, the material occurring in that work will be presented first and compared with that found in the Hṛdaya.

v1.c26.s2.4

The main concern of many scholars attracted to a study of the religious material found in the Samgraha has been the identification of traces of Buddhism, or the reasoning away of supposedly Buddhist elements, depending on attitudes and beliefs of these scholars themselves. Extensive discussions and disagreeing interpretations have been the unavoidable result.

v1.c26.s2.5

Buddhist elements that can hardly be questioned are, first of all, a series of names known from the Buddhist pantheon.

v1.c26.s2.6

These names are: Aparājitā¹⁰⁵ (A.s.Ci.2.144;¹⁰⁶ U.4.18);¹⁰⁷ Āryatārā¹⁰⁸ (Sū.8.59¹⁰⁹ and 28.34;¹¹⁰ Ci.2.144);¹¹¹ Āryaparājitā¹¹² (U.1.20);¹¹³ Āryaparṇaśabarī¹¹⁴ (U.1.20);¹¹⁵ Āryāvalokita¹¹⁶ (Sū.28.34;¹¹⁷ Ci.2.144;¹¹⁸ U.8.57);¹¹⁹ Āryāvalokiteśvara¹²⁰ (Sū.8.59);¹²¹ Bhaiṣajyaguru¹²² ((Sū.27, mantra between 12 and 13);¹²³ Parṇaśabarī¹²⁴ ((Sū.28.23;¹²⁵ Ci.2.144);¹²⁶ Ratnaketu¹²⁷ (U.1.19).¹²⁸

v1.c26.s2.7

The names found in this list are undoubtedly Buddhist, but one of them, found in both Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya, namely Dvādaśabhuja Īśvara Āryāvalokita Nātha, is sometimes given another meaning. Aruṇadatta is completely silent and Indu refrains from twisting the meaning, but the majority of the commentators prefer a Hinduist interpretation. Candranandana gives Devadeveśa as the equivalent of Nātha. Śivadāsasena remarks that the Āryā, joined to Avalokita, is Pārvatī, which implies that Avalokita is Śiva. The Kairalī commentary says, in the same vein, that the deity referred to is Mahādeva (= Śiva), accompanied by his consort Āryā (= Pārvatī). P.V. Sharma¹²⁹ argues that Dvādaśabhuja Īśvara should not be connected with Āryāvalokita; he regards the former deity as Kārttikeya, who is described as having six heads and twelve arms in the Mahābhārata.¹³⁰

v1.c26.s2.8

Apart from these names, some titles and epithets are of a Buddhist character. The title Arhant is given to Bhaiṣajyaguru in the mantra addressed to him.¹³¹ The same title is found in another mantra (A.s.Sū.8.60) that belongs to a long description, mainly in prose, of the preparation and application of a wonderful collyrium (añjana), called sarvārthasiddhāñjana (A.s.Sū.58–61). The being addressed in the mantra, also called a dhāraṇī in the text, is Cakṣuḥpariśodhanarāja, i.e., the (divine) king who completely purifies the eyes, namely the eyes of prajñā, jñāna and vijñāna. This being is obviously a healing Buddha, for he is called Tathāgata and Samyaksambuddha.

v1.c26.s2.9

The preparation of the collyrium involves a complicated ritual, which, being composed of some Buddhist and many Hindu elements, is a fine example of the religious syncretism of the Aṣṭāṅgasamgraha.

v1.c26.s2.10

Two problematic names of deities are Jina and Jinasuta, mentioned in a verse (A.s.Ci.21.135) declaring that paying homage to brāhmaṇas, one's gurus and the gods, benevolence (maitrī) to all living beings, and adoration of Jina, Jinasuta, Tārā and Bhāskara, eradicate the disease called kuṣṭha. Indu says in his comments that Jina is the Buddha; he interprets jinasuta in the compound as indicating a plural and regards these Jinasutas as Avalokiteśvara and others.¹³²

v1.c26.s2.11

Tārā, mentioned once (A.s.Ci.21.135),¹³³ may be either the Buddhist or the Hindu deity of that name.¹³⁴ The context – the series Jina, Jinasuta, Tārā, Bhāskara – may be in favour of coupling her with Bhāskara. On the other hand, it must be conceded that Tārā is very frequently met with in Buddhist literature and that she may be the same as Āryatārā.¹³⁵

v1.c26.s2.12

Aparājita, however, is a deity found only in the Hinduist mantras of a chapter on rituals against grahas.¹³⁶

v1.c26.s2.13

Two decidedly Buddhist dhāraṇīs are the māyūrī and mahāmāyūrī. Both are employed, together with the āryāratnaketudhāraṇī and a Hinduist śāntikaranan, in the treatment of vraṇa (A.s.U.1.19).¹³⁷ The mahāvidyā called māyūrī, i.e., the mahāmāyūrī, is, along with the invocation of Hindu deities, used against bhūtas (A.s.U.8.58).¹³⁸

v1.c26.s2.14

The mantra called tathāgatoṣṇīṣa¹³⁹ is, together with another one, called sarvavyādhikitsita,¹⁴⁰ recommended as effective against fevers (A.s.Ci.2.145). The first is obviously a Buddhist mantra, the second one may be Buddhist, Hinduist, or even deliberately ambiguous.

v1.c26.s2.15

The Hṛdaya has been studied as diligently, or even more so, than the Saṃgraha in search of features pointing to Buddhist influence.

v1.c26.s2.16

Names of figures from the Buddhist pantheon found in the Hṛdaya are: Āryāvalokita (U.5.50)¹⁴¹ and Bhaiṣajyaguru (Sū.18, mantra between 17 and 18).¹⁴²

v1.c26.s2.17

This meagre harvest shows unmistakably the degree of discongruity between Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya.

v1.c26.s2.18

The Dvādaśabhuja Īśvara Āryāvalokita Nātha, known from the Saṃgraha, is met with in the Hṛdaya too (U.5.50). The same applies to the epithets of Bhaiṣajyaguru: Arhant; Tathāgata, Samyaksarṇbuddha, Vaiḍūryaprabharāja.

v1.c26.s2.19

The names Jina and Jinasuta occur in a verse present in some of the MSS and editions of the Hṛdaya, but are rather often replaced by Śiva and Śivasuta (Ci.19.98).¹⁴³ Indu’s Śaśilekhā proves that he read Jina and Jinasuta and interpreted these figures in a Buddhist vein. Candranandana was acquainted with the readings Jina and Jinasuta, but comments, nevertheless, that Śivasuta is Śrīgaṇeśa.¹⁴⁴ Aruṇadatta read Śiva and Śivasuta, which may mean that the original names were finally changed.

v1.c26.s2.20

Jina is found a second time in the Hṛdaya (U.37.44) as the name of the one who devised a particular antidote. Aruṇadatta only remarks that he is the Bhagavant Jina; Śivadāsasena regards him as the Bhagavant Buddha, the Kairalī as Buddhamuni.¹⁴⁵

v1.c26.s2.21

This mention of Jina in a verse of the Hṛdaya would be the more noteworthy, if it proved to be absent from the Saṃgraha,¹⁴⁶ on account of the much more scanty references to Buddhist figures in the former when compared with the latter.¹⁴⁷

v1.c26.s2.22

Tārā’s name occurs in the Hṛdaya (Ci.19.98) in a verse that also forms part of the Saṃgraha (Ci.21.135).

v1.c26.s2.23

Gaurī, mentioned in a mantra of the Hṛdaya that accompanies the preparation of the antidote called candrodaya (U.35.29cd–30), is regarded as the Yellow Tārā by P. Cordier.¹⁴⁸ This interpretation cannot unreservedly be accepted, on account of the presence in the same mantra of Vaiḍūryamātar, Gāndhārī,¹⁴⁹ Cāṇḍālī, Mātaṅgī, and Harimāyī, names which may be partly Buddhist, partly Hinduist.¹⁵⁰ The rituals connected with the preparation of the candrodaya agada are of a syncretistic nature; a mantra, preceding the one discussed, is addressed to Puruṣasiṃha (= Narasiṃha) and Nārāyaṇa; an additional ardhaśloka declares that Indra conquered Vṛtra thanks to the virtues of this drug.

v1.c26.s2.24

The mahāvidyā called māyūrī is mentioned in a verse common to Hṛdaya and Saṃgraha (A.h.U.5.51cd = A.s.U.8.58).

v1.c26.s2.25

Returning to the Saṃgraha, this treatise presents, next to the elements already discussed, more material that has been noticed as Buddhist in character, by some scholars at least. Others deny this Buddhist character and interpret the same data as Hinduist or consider it to be ambiguous.

v1.c26.s2.26

A much discussed subject is the ekavaidya (unique physician) of the opening verse of the Saṃgraha. The author bows down to this deity, who utterly eradicated from the world all the innate (sahaja) diseases, consisting of lust (rāga), etc.

v1.c26.s2.27

This ekavaidya of the Saṃgraha is without any doubt the same as the apūrvavaidya (unprecedented physician) of the corresponding, but differently worded, opening verse of the Hṛdaya. The salutation at the beginning of both works is remarkable by being addressed to a deity of a vague appellation, open to disagreeing interpretations. 151 Whether or not this is intentional cannot be decided. The subsequent history of Hṛdaya and Saṃgraha shows that the ambiguity of their maṅgalas has furthered their acceptance in both Buddhist and Hindu circles.

v1.c26.s2.28

Indu refers to the ekavaidya of the Saṃgraha as the author’s chosen deity (abhimatadevatā) and refuses to identify him.

v1.c26.s2.29

Much more material is available on the apūrvavaidya of the Hṛdaya, which facilitates the examination of the fate of this figure in the commentarial literature.

v1.c26.s2.30

Aruṇadatta, Candranandana, Hemādri and Indu, though commenting on the meaning of apūrva, are silent on the identity of the author’s chosen deity, 152 which, as an uncommon feature, deserves to be taken stock of as a sign that may indicate embarrassment.

v1.c26.s2.31

One author put considerable effort into persuading his readers that the apūrvavaidya is not the Buddha or some figure from the Buddhist pantheon, but, on the contrary, a Hindu deity. His polemics with an opponent prove that a Buddhist interpretation was current in certain circles. This author, Narahari, 153 defends Vāgbhaṭa against the accusation of heterodoxy and of expressing himself in a confusing style. Narahari’s Vāgbhaṭamaṇḍana begins with a lengthy exposition on the opening verse of the Hṛdaya and contains numerous arguments to establish that the apūrvavaidya is Īśvara. Narahari also maintains that the Bhaiṣajyaguru, found in a mantra occurring in both Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya, cannot but designate Dhanvantari.

v1.c26.s2.32

Śrīdāsapaṇḍita asserts rather firmly in his Hṛdayabodhikā on the Hṛdaya that the apūrvavaidya – and the ekavaidya of the Saṃgraha – should be interpreted as Īśvara. The Skāndapurāṇa and Śaivapurāṇa are quoted in support. He rejects the opinion that Vāgbhaṭa’s unusual way of expressing himself (aprasiddhapadaprayoga) gives rise to uncertainty about the deity he had in mind. At the end of this plea, however, he mentions briefly, contradicting his former statements, that the apūrvavaidya may also be Sugata (= Buddha); a quotation from Halāyudha 154 serves to confirm this. Śrīdāsa acknowledges that the mantra addressed to Bhaiṣajyaguru is of Buddhist inspiration.

v1.c26.s2.33

The author of the commentary on the Hṛdaya called Hṛdyā is one of the few to own unequivocally that Vāgbhaṭa was a Buddhist. 155

v1.c26.s2.34

Before proceeding to a survey of more recent opinions on the first verses of Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya, it will be necessary to discuss a rather long salutation, preceding the one addressed to the ekavaidya. This maṅgala, present in some of the editions of the Saṃgraha, 156 praises, with a series of epithets, a deity called Buddha. 157 Some European and Indian scholars 158 accepted this additional verse as genuine, which made it play a part in their thoughts on Vāgbhaṭa’s religion. The absence of the eulogy in most of the editions of the Saṃgraha, the silence of Indu, the absence of a similar verse from the Hṛdaya and its Tibetan translation, all this together speaks against its trustworthiness.

v1.c26.s2.35

P. Cordier¹⁵⁹ was one of the early Western scholars to declare that the opening verse of the Saṃgraha is unequivocally Buddhist;¹⁶⁰ he admitted the parallel stanza of the Hṛdaya to be somewhat ambiguous, but did not hesitate in regarding its apūrvavaidya as the Buddha.

v1.c26.s2.36

Other Western scholars considering Vāgbhaṭa to be a Buddhist are: A.B. Keith¹⁶¹ and G. Liétard.¹⁶²

v1.c26.s2.37

Indian scholars convinced that Vāgbhaṭa was a Buddhist, and who accept the opening verses of Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya as testimonies in proof, are, for example, G. Chāṅgāṇī,¹⁶³ G.S. Pendse,¹⁶⁴ and Nandkiśor Śarmā.¹⁶⁵

v1.c26.s2.38

Indian scholars who roundabout pronounce that Vāgbhaṭa was a Buddhist are Atrideva Gupta,¹⁶⁶ A.M. Kuṇṭe,¹⁶⁷ N.S. Mooss,¹⁶⁸ H. Parāḍkar, Paraśurāmlakṣmaṇ Vaidya,¹⁶⁹ P. Rāy,¹⁷⁰ and Rudrapārāśava.¹⁷¹

v1.c26.s2.39

S. Dasgupta thought it to be very probable that Vāgbhaṭa was a Buddhist.¹⁷²

v1.c26.s2.40

The opening verses of Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya are interpreted as referring to a Hindu deity by a number of Indian scholars. Some examples may suffice.

v1.c26.s2.41

Gaṇeśaśāstrin Tarṭe¹⁷³ asserts that the author was an orthodox Hindu. He explains away the Buddha in the additional maṅgala, present in his edition, and relies on the Hinduist references in the work. Kṛṣṇarāvaśarman¹⁷⁴ maintains that the Buddha and the ekavaidya of the two maṅgalas of the Saṃgraha designate the paramapuruṣa, Brahmā. G. Chāṅgāṇī¹⁷⁵ claimed that the ekavaidya of the Saṃgraha is Dhanvantari. G. Hāldār¹⁷⁶ expressed as his view that the ekavaidya and apūrvavaidya designate Rudra, also called Śaṃkara.¹⁷⁷

v1.c26.s2.42

Fortunately, more balanced views are far from rare.

v1.c26.s2.43

P.V. Sharma¹⁷⁸ thinks that Vāgbhaṭa, the author of the Saṃgraha, grew up in a Hindu family, but was converted to Buddhism under the influence of his teacher Avalokita. In keeping with the tolerant spirit of the age in which he lived, he was not averse at all to incorporating Hindu elements in his writing.¹⁷⁹

v1.c26.s2.44

Rāmcandravināyak Paṭvardhan¹⁸⁰ regarded Vāgbhaṭa as basically a Hindu, who, in order to satisfy a wide range of readers, did not altogether neglect Buddhist deities; for the same purpose, he composed maṅgalas suitable to double entendre (dvyartha).

v1.c26.s2.45

R. Śāstrī, though strongly defending Vāgbhaṭa’s orthodoxy, admitted that the apūrvavaidya may refer as well to Avalokiteśvara as to Dhanvantari.¹⁸¹

v1.c26.s2.46

G.K. Gurjar and R.M. Anand¹⁸² expressed as their opinion that Vāgbhaṭa, though a Buddhist by inclination, did not allow this to overshadow his respect for the traditions of Indian medicine. He harboured no ill feelings towards Brahmanism, respected it, and was generally tolerant in religious matters. The invocation of the apūrvavaidya is interpreted as a testimony of this attitude and thought to refer to both the Buddha as Bhaiṣajyaguru and to Rudra as a healing deity.¹⁸³

v1.c26.s2.47

Kuṇṭe¹⁸⁴ argued that Vāgbhaṭa was a Hindu who came under the influence of Buddha’s teachings, since he lived in a period of Buddhist expansion. Kuṇṭe regarded the maṅgalas as partly Buddhist, but mainly, in particular the long additional one, as Hinduist; he stressed that three fourths of the long salutation are addressed to Gaṇeśa.¹⁸⁵

v1.c26.s2.48

S.K. Ramachandra Rao¹⁸⁶ sees it as likely that Vāgbhaṭa was a Buddhist, though not of a rigid type, because he was also favourably inclined towards the Vedic culture.

v1.c26.s2.49

K.R. Srikantha Murthy 187 advanced that Vāgbhaṭa was born as a brāhmaṇa, was educated and lived according to the Hindu dharma in his early life, and embraced Buddhism later. He mentions Varāhamihira as another example of the same type of development. The same scholar maintained this position in a later publication, 188 where he brings forward that Vāgbhaṭa shows equal reverence for Hinduism and Buddhism.

v1.c26.s2.50

Apart from the maṅgalas and the names from the Buddhist pantheon, a series of other elements pointing to Buddhist influence in Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya have been discussed in the literature on Vāgbhaṭa’s religious attitude. Again, it will be useful to examine the material from the Saṃgraha first and compare it with that found in the Hṛdaya.

v1.c26.s2.51

The Saṃgraha begins with paying homage to the ekavaidya who has driven away from the world all the innate (sahaja) diseases, 189 together with their roots. These diseases are said to consist of rāga (lust), etc. The Hṛdaya has a similar verse on the apūrvavaidya, who destroyed all the diseases, which perpetually cling to the body, and give rise to (the triad consisting of) autsukya (desire), moha (ignorance), and arati (ill-will). 190

v1.c26.s2.52

The series beginning with rāga is interpreted as Buddhist by some, by others as Hinduist in character.

v1.c26.s2.53

C. Vogel 191 is convinced that the three moral poisons of Buddhism are meant, which almost certainly shows Buddha to be the apūrvavaidya. The three poisons are rāga, dveṣa and moha. 192

v1.c26.s2.54

G. Hāldār 193 is convinced that the five kleśas are meant, which consist of avidyā, asmitā, rāga, dveṣa, and abhiniveśa. 194

v1.c26.s2.55

An element thought to be inspired by Buddhism concerns the way to manage diseases which are incurable, but, nevertheless, amenable to palliative treatment (yāpya). Both Saṃgraha (Sū.2.30) and Hṛdaya (Sū.1.32) deal with this subject. These conditions should be treated as long as a remnant of āyus (the allotted span of life) remains. The conviction of K. Butzenberger and M. Fedorova 195 that this represents an effort to mitigate the āyurvedic principle of rejection of incurable cases may be out of proportion. Yāpya diseases were not rejected in āyurveda and even those classified as pratyākhyeya (suitable to be refused) were accepted after giving a warning that the hope of complete recovery should be given up. 196 Nevertheless, a remarkable verse of the Saṃgraha lays stress on the physician’s duty to attend to an incurable patient until he breathes his last (caramocchvāsa). 197

v1.c26.s2.56

The chapter on dinacaryā contains two stanzas (A.s.Sū.3.115–116) which begin with the exhortation to keep to the ten paths of right conduct (karmapatha) and to conquer the inner enemies (abhyantarāri). The verses go on with the advice to give up the ten bad practices (pāpakarman) relating to the activities of body, voice and mind (kāyavāṅmanas). 198 These practices consist of: hiṃsā (injuring living beings), steya (theft), anyathākāma (desiring a woman with whom intercourse is prohibited), paiśunya (slander), paruṣa (harsh speech), anṛta (lying), saṃbhinnalāpa (idle talk), vyāpāda (malice), abhidhyā (envy), and dṛgviparyaya (heterodoxy). 199 The Hṛdaya contains exactly the same series of ten bad practices (A.h.Sū.2.21cd–22 = A.s.Sū.3.115cd–116), but has not the ardhaśloka about the ten karmapathas and the inner enemies. The halfverse substituted in the Hṛdaya (Sū.2.21ab) prescribes that one should affectionately associate with one’s friends (kalyāṇamitra) and keep distant from others.

v1.c26.s2.57

The commentaries of Aruṇa, Hemādri, Indu, Parameśvara and Śrīdasapaṇḍita explain the verses as referring to the Hindu dharma and ignore that they are more probably of Buddhist inspiration. 200 The ten kuśala and ten akuśala karmapathas are well known from various Buddhist texts. 201 However, dharmaśāstra texts are also acquainted with a related series of ten dharmapathas. 202

v1.c26.s2.58

In conformity with the syncretistic trends of the Saṃgraha, the verses discussed are surrounded by others with no trace of Buddhist influence.

v1.c26.s2.59

A rule found in the Saṃgraha, but absent from the Hṛdaya, says that one should not take a bath in a tank, etc., belonging to someone else, without having removed five piṇḍas (of soil from the bottom) 203 (A.s.Sū.3.70cd). This prescription is seen as a Buddhist element by some scholars, 204 whereas others claim that it is not unknown to Hindus. 205 The presentation of five or four piṇḍas before going to bathe in a tank belonging to someone else is prescribed in the Yājñavalkyasmṛti, while the Manusmṛti simply prohibits bathing in such a place (parakīyanipāna). 206 The Viṣṇusmṛti forbids bathing in another man’s pool, but, in cases of distress, it is permitted after having offered up five (or seven, or four) lumps of clay and (three jars with) water. 207

v1.c26.s2.60

The evidence is clearly against the Buddhist connotation of the practice referred to in the Saṃgraha.

v1.c26.s2.61

The prohibition to take food during the night is regarded as a Buddhist element by some. 208

v1.c26.s2.62

An undisputed Buddhist element, found in the Saṃgraha only, is the reference to the four kinds of death distinguished by the Buddhists (saugatāḥ; A.s.Sū.9.89ab). 209 This classification is not elucidated, nor are details given regarding the one hundred and one kinds of death distinguished by the vedavādinaḥ (A.s.Sū.9.86).

v1.c26.s2.63

Benevolence (maitrī) towards all living beings (sarvasattva), found in a verse common to Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya (A.s.Ci.21.135 = A.h.Ci.19.98), is a Buddhist element according to a number of scholars. 210 The term occurs, characteristically, in a mixture of religious concepts, also mentioning vrata, dama, 211 yama, tyāga, 212 and śīla, as well as the veneration of brāhmaṇas, deities (sura) and gurus. The verse ends with the precept to worship (ārādhana) Jina, Jinasuta, Tārā and Bhāskara.

v1.c26.s2.64

Maitrī, however, is not restricted to Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya at all. The term occurs in the Carakasamhitā too, where, for example, Ātreya Punarvasu is said to be maitrīpara. 213 Its frequency 214 and repeated occurrence, next to karuṇā, 215 in Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya would be more interesting.

v1.c26.s2.65

The precept of calling to mind (anu-sam-smṛ-) the deity called Śāstar before going to sleep, found in the Saṃgraha (Sū.3.119ab), is a Buddhist element according to some, 216 but Śāstar may well be the Hindu deity called thus and not the Buddha or another figure from the Buddhist pantheon. 217

v1.c26.s2.66

The statement (A.s.Śā.1.38) that the things heard (śruti) by a pregnant woman (antarvatnī) influence the character type (sattva) of her child is regarded as Buddhist in character by some. 218 There is, however, no ground for such a conclusion; the Suśrutasamhitā (Śā.10.3) clearly describes the bad effects of disagreeable sounds, etc., heard by a pregnant woman, on the child in her womb.

v1.c26.s2.67

An undoubtful Buddhist element is the praise of a physician who imitates the way of life of a Bodhisattva,²¹⁹ who is full of karuṇā, and free from desires (nirāmiṣa) (A.s. U.50.198).²²⁰

v1.c26.s2.68

The use of the term dhāriṇī may well be a Buddhist characteristic.²²¹

v1.c26.s2.69

The employment of the term bhikṣu (A.s.Ci.21.33; U.6.53), regarded as a Buddhist element by some,²²² is not convincing, because it is found in texts without Buddhist influence as well.²²³

v1.c26.s2.70

The argument that the emphasis on mental disorders is a feature due to Buddhism, which, in its early period, inculcated pessimism,²²⁴ does, in my view, not carry conviction.²²⁵

v1.c26.s2.71

Apart from the features that the Hṛdaya has in common with the Saṃgraha, it presents some additional elements considered to be Buddhist in inspiration.

v1.c26.s2.72

Some verses in praise of compassion with the needy, helpful even to one's enemies, and equanimity through rough and smooth (Sū.2.24cd–25) are seen as based on Buddhist ethics.²²⁶ Noticeable again is the context; the ardhaśloka that precedes prescribes that the gods, cows, brāhmaṇas, etc., should receive due honour. This injunction is preceded in its turn by a half-verse recommending to regard even kīṭas and ants as one's equals and one emphasizing the merit of assistance to the destitute and distressed.

v1.c26.s2.73

The instruction not to put strain on the senses, nor to cherish the senses too much (Sū.2.29cd), is sometimes²²⁷ seen as an exhortation to keep to the Middle Way of Buddhism. It is, however, followed by a half-verse urging one not to engage in activities contrary to the trivarga.

v1.c26.s2.74

A prescription that may indeed be Buddhist, found in the chapter on daily conduct (Sū.2.30cd), enjoins steering a middle course (madhyamā pratipad) in all matters (sarvadharmeṣu). The Middle Way of Buddhism may be meant here.²²⁸ The passage has been accepted as Buddhist by some Indian scholars.²²⁹ P.V. Sharma,²³⁰ who is not convinced, tried to invalidate this point of view by some references to parallels in the works of Kālidāsa.²³¹ Atrideva interprets the middle course as one of the signs giving evidence of Vāgbhaṭa's syncretic attitude.²³² R. Śāstrī, a staunch advocate of Vāgbhaṭa's orthodoxy, sees the middle course mentioned as an illustration of Vāgbhaṭa's tendency to use concepts with a multiple meaning, a tendency agreeing with the religious climate during the reign of Vainyagupta; this inclination also led him, for example, to employ the term apūrvavaidya.²³³ As in many other instances, here again the passage is preceded by the Hinduist precept not to undertake any activity conflicting with the dharma.

v1.c26.s2.75

The application of awareness (Sū.2.46–47) is one of the Buddhist features of the Hṛdaya according to C. Vogel.²³⁴

v1.c26.s2.76

Some regard the rule that books (ācāryagrantha) should not be recited or read, for fear of violating a vrata, on the eleventh day of a lunar month as inspired by Buddhism.²³⁵

v1.c26.s2.77

The Hinduist features of the Saṃgraha have received less attention than those pointing to Buddhist influence and were studied in particular by those advocating that Vāgbhaṭa adhered to the Hindu dharma. The arguments adduced with a view to establish Vāgbhaṭa’s orthodoxy should be examined with caution, since the features referred to need not be based at all on Vāgbhaṭa’s religious attitude, but may simply reflect the sources from which he borrowed. 236 Much more illuminating would be what he omitted from his sources or what he changed.

v1.c26.s2.78

Some statements found in the Saṃgraha are taken to mean that Vāgbhaṭa had an aversion to Buddhist sanctuaries.

v1.c26.s2.79

The first passage usually referred to in this context (A.s.Sū.3.43 = A.h.Sū.2.33cd–34ab) says that one should not set foot on a number of particular places. The first of these places is the shadow of a caitya, interpreted in this case as a Buddhist sanctuary. The argument hinges on the meaning of caitya. The commentators are not very helpful. Aruṇadatta remarks that a caitya is either a holy tree or a Buddhist place of worship; Candranandana calls it a tree in which a deity resides; Hemādri comments that a tree in which a graha has his residence is meant; Indu refrains from an explanation in saying that a caitya is well known; 237 Parameśvara follows Aruṇa in declaring it to be a holy tree, called mannumaram in the regional language, or a Buddhist sanctuary; Śrīdāsapaṇḍita agrees with Candranandana, although adding that it is a Buddhist place of worship according to Hāṭaka and a tree in a garden according to the Hṛdyākāra.

v1.c26.s2.80

A second passage (A.s.Sū.3.44cd) prohibits passing the night at a vṛkṣacaitya or catvara (a cross-road). 238 The vṛkṣacaitya is a holy tree here or a (holy) tree and a caitya are meant. 239

v1.c26.s2.81

Both statements, however, are actually recasts in very similar passages in prose found in the Carakasaṃhitā (Sū.8.19), which proves that Vāgbhaṭa’s so-called aversion to caityas has been borrowed from Caraka and has nothing to do with a dislike of Buddhism. Cakrapāṇi’s explanation of caitya supports this view, for he says that it is a conspicuously big tree in a village. 240

v1.c26.s2.82

The references to the Hindu trivarga (the three aims of life) have been regarded as proving that Vāgbhaṭa embraced the Hindu dharma. The absence of an index on the Saṃgraha makes it impossible to survey all the relevant passages. 241 Part of the passages where the term trivarga occurs or the three aims are referred to may be borrowed from Caraka or Suśruta, thus being of no use in discussing Vāgbhaṭa’s religion.

v1.c26.s2.83

Much more interesting are changes that can be discovered when Vāgbhaṭa’s text is compared with the Caraka- and Suśrutasaṃhitā, and additions which cannot be traced to these sources.

v1.c26.s2.84

An example that may throw light on Vāgbhaṭa’s technique of handling his sources is found towards the end of the last chapter of the Uttarasthāna of the Saṃgraha (U.50. 185–195), where a series of verses on medical ethics are quoted from Caraka, but some, which are unquestionably Hinduist, are omitted. One of the verses left out says that the āyurveda has been proclaimed by the great sages, devoted to the dharma, for the sake of the dharma, and not to obtain gain (artha) or enjoyments (kāma); 242 the āyurveda has been expounded out of the wish to (provide mankind) with an imperishable (akṣara) state (sthāna) (Ca.Ci.14.57). Another verse missing describes the physician as one who delivers the patient from the snares (pāśa) of the god of death (Vaivasvata) (Ca.Ci.14.60). Meaningful too are the additions, which, due to their stress on maitrī, karuṇā, a nirāmiṣa manas, etc. (A.s.U.50.196–198), may be of Buddhist inspiration.

v1.c26.s2.85

A series of verses immediately preceding those on medical ethics are about the feats of the Aśvins, to whom physicians are compared (A.s.U.50.177–184). Hilgenberg and Kirfel 243 and C. Vogel 244 pointed them out as a typically Hinduist feature, but they are very close to the verses on the same subject from the Carakasaṃhitā, which also precede those on ethics (Ca.Ci.14.40cd–50).

v1.c26.s2.86

Hilgenberg and Kirfel 245 and C. Vogel 246 also mentioned the elaborate mythical story about the origin of fever in the Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha (Ci.1.4) as a characteristically Hinduist feature. The numerous details given by Vāgbhaṭa, absent from Carakasaṃhitā and Suśrutasaṃhitā, and obviously from some unidentified source, are remarkable indeed. The Hṛdaya omits all the details and is very concise on the subject (Ci.2.1–2).

v1.c26.s2.87

The same authors 247 drew attention to the religious treatment of rājayakṣman, of a clearly Hinduist type, described at the end of the chapters on the therapy of that disease in Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya. The Hṛdaya has a half-verse only (Ci.5.84), which recommends recourse to religious measures (daivavyapāśraya) and to the practices mentioned in the Atharvaveda. The Saṃgraha has the same ardhaśloka (Ci.7.118cd), but adds a verse, saying that the same sacrifice (iṣṭi) as that mentioned in the Veda, which cured Candra’s rājayakṣman, should be performed by the purohita (Ci.7.119). This extra verse, however, is a variant of a stanza found in the Carakasaṃhitā (Ci.8.189), which prescribes the same iṣṭi, without mentioning a purohita.

v1.c26.s2.88

Many other features, thought to prove Vāgbhaṭa’s adherence to the Hindu dharma, have been noticed by Indian scholars.

v1.c26.s2.89

Kṛṣṇarāvaśarman 248 regarded the statement that the Saṃgraha does not contain a single syllable not in agreement with the tradition (āgama) (Sū.1.20) as such a feature; he interpreted āgama as vaidikamārga, although the term is often employed merely to designate the medical tradition. The same scholar was of the opinion that the chapter on the instruction of students of the Saṃgraha (Sū.2) testifies to the orthodoxy of Vāgbhaṭa, 249 because the requirements making a pupil acceptable are in conformity with the rules formulated in dharmaśāstra texts. These requirements are, however, of a very general type, declaring, for example, that the student ought to be a brahmacārin, devoted to his guru, etc. (Sū.2.2–4ab); circumstances unsuitable to study are mentioned too (Sū.2.4cd–5). Kṛṣṇarāvaśarman is oblivious of the facts that the Saṃgraha omits numerous details found in the Carakasaṃhitā, does not describe the typically Hinduist rituals which are peculiar to Caraka, and is unaware of the so-called ’oath’ of the Carakasaṃhitā. He also fails to notice that the pertinent chapter of the Saṃgraha ends with a verse praising compassion (dayā) with all living beings as the highest dharma (Sū.2.37cd–38).

v1.c26.s2.90

The Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya contains some passages not found in the Saṃgraha which are thought to support Vāgbhaṭa’s orthodoxy.

v1.c26.s2.91

The chapter on daily conduct contains the precept not to undertake any action that is in conflict with the three aims oflife (trivarga) (Sū.2.30ab). This half-verse is, however, surrounded by instructions more in line with Buddhism. The three aims are separately mentioned alsewhere (Sū.1.2).

v1.c26.s2.92

Other arguments brought forward in support of the thesis that Vāgbhaṭa was not a Buddhist, but a Hindu, are, for example: the worship of Hindu deities; 250 the frequent prescription to venerate brāhmaṇas, gurus, cows, etc.;251 the emphasis on brahmacarya as the best rasāyana for this world and the next (lokadvaya);252 the importance of the śāśvataloka and paraloka;253 the auspiciousness of hearing the sounds of Veda recitation;254 the observance of Hindu rituals;255 the absence of a ban on the consumption of meat and alcoholic beverages;256 the presence of propitiation of the planets;257 the fact that Hemādri calls him an ācārya;258 the use of the term āyurveda instead of cikitsā, the usual term in Buddhist texts.

v1.c26.s2.93

R. Śāstrī argues that the laudatory stanza addressed to Vāgbhaṭa (the dhyānaśloka), which describes him as yajñopavīta (invested with the sacred thread),259 proves that he was a Hindu.

v1.c26.s2.94

The same scholar collected evidence in support of the more specific thesis that Vāgbhaṭa belonged to the community of the Bhāgavatas.260 He points to the important position of Narasimha, exemplified by the medicated ghee called narasimhaghrta, which is said to make one’s body resemble that of Narasimha; someone taking this drug regularly will remain free from disease, because all ailments flee from him, like Asuras in fear of Narasimha with his flaming discus (A.h.U.39.172–173).261 The veneration for Viṣṇu, attested in a number of passages, is adduced in support,262 as is the enumeration of auspicious objects the physician may observe on his way to the patient.263 The Bhāgavata features detected in the Hṛdaya by R. Śāstrī are of importance to him because he wants to place Vāgbhaṭa in the later Gupta age, a period in which Bhāgavatism flourished.264

First 145 of 841 passages. Read on

Linked texts (59)