Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c26.s10: The hypothesis of one single Vāgbhaṭa

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c26.s10

Language
English

The hypothesis of one single Vāgbhaṭa

v1.c26.s10.1

Some Indian scholars protest against the view that the names Vṛddhavāgbhaṭa and Vāgbhaṭa, often employed by commentators in references and quotations from the Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya respectively, indicate two authors, who, moreover, may differ in age.

v1.c26.s10.2

The names Vṛddhavāgbhaṭa and Vāgbhaṭa do not point to different persons in their opinion, but, instead, to two different works only, a larger and a smaller version of one basic text, which have been composed by one and the same person. 612

v1.c26.s10.3

G. Hāldār (Vṛddhatrayī 280–282) was of the opinion that Vāgbhaṭa wrote the Hṛdaya after the Saṃgraha in order to deal with the same subjects in a more intelligible and accessible way (sugamataratva). He refers to Nāgeśabhaṭṭa as an author wo did the same, by composing his Laghumañjūṣā after having written the Bṛhatsiddhāntamañjūṣā. The appellation Vṛddhavāgbhaṭa for the Saṃgraha or its author does not indicate at all, in his view, that an older and distinct person is meant.

v1.c26.s10.4

Yādavaśarman said that Vāgbhaṭa culled his material from Caraka and Suśruta without changing it in composing the Saṃgraha, while he transformed it by introducing many changes in the Hṛdaya. 613 This view does not agree with the facts at all.

v1.c26.s10.5

H. Parāḍkar 614 supposes that Vāgbhaṭa, being afraid that his large and difficult Saṃgraha would fall into oblivion, decided to write a smaller treatise, easier to understand. In support of this idea, he refers to a verse (A.h.U.39.148), where diseases of old age, to be treated successfully by a particular drug, are compared to voluminous books which have not been studied properly. Assuming that Parāḍkar regards this as a taunt directed at the Saṃgraha, the guess that it derives from a different author would be as justifiable in my opinion.

v1.c26.s10.6

A scholar who defended that both Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya were written by one author, but clearly acknowledging the differences between these works, was Nandkiśor Śarmā; he explained the differences by suggesting that Vāgbhaṭa’s views had changed in the course of time under the influence of changes in the society in which he lived. 615

v1.c26.s10.7

Atrideva 616 suggested that the differences in style of the Hṛdaya and its new prescriptions, etc., are due to the fully developed maturity and the experience of Vāgbhaṭa when he wrote that work.

v1.c26.s10.8

A combination of both styles of reasoning has been developed by K.R. Srikantha Murthy. 617 Two entirely different lines of thought are discernible in his argumentation. (1) There was a lack of attention from the side of the author when he prepared the Saṃgraha; being wholly intent on the collection of material from a large number of texts, he did not pay much heed to their evaluation; after completing the Saṃgraha, Vāgbhaṭa noticed many inaccuracies and blemishes, and felt the need to set them right in the Hṛdaya. (2) Changes in the social, religious and political conditions which took place quickly after the disappearance of the Gupta empire had their effect on literary works, including medical treatises.

v1.c26.s10.9

Those advocating that Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya were written by one and the same Vāgbhaṭa muster, in general, vague or otherwise weak, untenable or wrong arguments, such as the similarity in language and style, 618 the same method of presentation, 619 the complete absence of divergences in opinion 620 or the paucity of these differences, 621 the presence of elements of Buddhist origin in both works, 622 the same parentage of the authors, 623 the statement at the end of the Hṛdaya that may refer to the Saṃgraha, 624 and the conviction about the identity expressed by many commentators. 625

v1.c26.s10.10

All these scholars assume the existence of one single Vāgbhaṭa and the anteriority of the Saṃgraha. None of them makes explicit which changes, social, religious, economic or political, are reflected in the two works when compared with each other. Nor do we find examples attesting that the Hṛdaya was written by a more mature and experienced mind. Inaccuracies and blemishes of the Saṃgraha have not been collected and discussed.

v1.c26.s10.11

The similarity in language and style of Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya, used as an argument in support of one author, is, partially at least, certainly present, but cannot be regarded as decisive. One of the two has extensively borrowed from the other, but this need not mean at all that they were composed by one author.

v1.c26.s10.12

The method of presentation is difficult to define, unless it means that both works present their teachings as delivered by the same group of sages.

v1.c26.s10.13

The absence or paucity of divergences in opinion is entirely wrong as an argument, as will be clear to anyone who has studied both works.

v1.c26.s10.14

Buddhist elements are present in both works, which can partly be explained as evidence of borrowing. In general, the Saṃgraha has more of these elements, but, on the other hand, the Hṛdaya adds some.

v1.c26.s10.15

The same parentage of the authors is found in the colophons only, which does not constitute a valid argument. A verse towards the end of the Hṛdaya (U.40.83) does not give Vāgbhaṭa’s genealogy, nor his own name. Nandkiśor Śarmā tried to reason this difficulty away by stating that it was not necessary at all for the author to repeat this information, already present in the Saṃgraha.626

v1.c26.s10.16

Some verses at the end of the Hṛdaya are thought to prove that it was written by the author of the Saṃgraha after completion of the latter work,627 but these stanzas do not convincingly indicate that one and the same author wrote both works.

Cites (4)