Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c26.s12: The hypothesis of two Vāgbhaṭas

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c26.s12

Language
English

The hypothesis of two Vāgbhaṭas

v1.c26.s12.1

Several arguments have been adduced in support of the thesis that two Vāgbhaṭas have to be distinguished. It will be useful to survey the most important ones.

v1.c26.s12.2

The unreliability of the colophons of the Hṛdaya makes them unsuitable to prove that it was written by the same author as the Saṃgraha. 653 This argument is to be accepted.

v1.c26.s12.3

The absence of the name of the author in the Hṛdaya is regarded as pointing to an author who is not the same as the one who composed the Saṃgraha. 654 This argument, rather often waved aside by unconvincing lines of reasoning, is, in my view, reasonable and should be considered seriously.

v1.c26.s12.4

The references to and quotations from Vṛddhavāgbhaṭa and Vāgbhaṭa are thought to demonstrate that two different authors are meant. 655 The distinction of a Vṛddhavāgbhaṭa, next to a Vāgbhaṭa, adopted by a number of commentators, does not prove in itself that two different authors are meant. Earlier commentators usually assume that the authors of Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya are identical. 656

v1.c26.s12.5

The differences in style, namely that the Saṃgraha is in prose and verse, while the Hṛdaya is exclusively in verse, are considered to support the hypothesis of two authors. 657 This argument certainly has some weight, but can hardly be decisive.

v1.c26.s12.6

The author of the Hṛdaya is seen as more skilled in writing verse than the author of the Saṃgraha. 658 This argument loses its force when closer study reveals that the verses found in the Saṃgraha are not less skilled than those of the Hṛdaya, only less in number.

v1.c26.s12.7

The paucity of Buddhist features in the Hṛdaya is invoked as proving that a different author has been at work. Those features which are still present are interpreted as resulting from the fact that the Saṃgraha was the basis for the composition of the Hṛdaya. 659 Though the Buddhist features are generally less in number in the Hṛdaya, which may be regarded as supporting the argument, the same work also adds some which are absent from the Saṃgraha, which weakens it.

v1.c26.s12.8

The Hṛdaya is said to show more respect for the Hindu dharma than the Saṃgraha. 660 As long as no serious comparative study of both works with its focus on this aspect has been made, the claim must be regarded as unfounded.

v1.c26.s12.9

One of the few Indian scholars who studied part of the differences between Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya more accurately and reliably in order two establish that two Vāgbhaṭas have to be distinguished was Jyotiṣacandra Sarasvatī. This author examined a number of passages from the Śārīrasthānas of Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya.

v1.c26.s12.10

The age a male should have in order to beget a healthy child is twenty-five in the Saṃgraha (Śā.1.3), twenty in the Hṛdaya (Śā.1.8–9a). The female should be sixteen years of age. The Hṛdaya is, as a text more in agreement with orthodox views, regarded as later than the Saṃgraha. This difference between the two texts has also been discussed by Hilgenberg and Kirfel, as well as by H. Parāḍkar, who are not led by it to assume two different authors. 661 The Aṣṭāngasaṃgraha is sometimes (see, for example, Śā.3.37) in agreement with the Carakasaṃhitā (compare Ca.Śā.8.48), whereas the corresponding verse of the Hṛdaya (Śā.1.94) agrees with the Suśrutasaṃhitā (compare Su.Śā.10.16–17). The Hṛdaya (Śā.3.12) mentions the ḍimbha as one of the viscera (koṣṭhāṅga), whereas the Saṃgraha (Śā.5.28) does not employ this anatomical term in the corresponding passage. The Saṃgraha (Śā.5.48) accepts a number of 2,000 sandhis; the Hṛdaya (Śā.3.16cd–17ab) states that their number is 210 according to Dhanvantari, but 2,000 according to Atrinandana (i.e., the Ātreya Punarvasu of the *Carakasaṃhitā*). The system of *sirās* shows some differences (compare A.s.Śā.6.8 and A.h.Śā.3.38b). The nature of the transforming fire is discussed in both texts (A.s.Śā.6.23; A.h.Śā.3.49); two disagreeing opinions are referred to; the second opinion, ascribed to Ātreya in the *Hṛdaya*, appears to be rejected in the *Saṃgraha*. The *Saṃgraha* (Śā.7.14) acknowledges eleven *māṃsamarmans*, forty-one *sirāmarmans*, twenty-seven *snāvamarmans*, eight *asthimarmans*, twenty *sandhimarmans*; the *Hṛdaya* (Śā.4.40–44), on the other hand, acknowledges ten *māṃsamarmans*, thirty-seven *sirāmarmans*, nine *dhamanīmarmans*, twenty-three *snāvamarmans*, eight *asthimarmans*, twenty *sandhimarmans*. The *Saṃgraha* (Śā.7.13–14) distinguishes five types of marman, the *Hṛdaya* (Śā.4.39) adds a sixth type, connected with the *dhamanīs*;⁶⁶² the *Hṛdaya* (Śā.4.45cd–46) adds that others do not acknowledge this extra group, consisting of the *guda* (a *māṃsamarman* in the *Saṃgraha*), the two *apastambhas* (*sirāmarmans* in the *Saṃgraha*), the two *vidhuras* (*snāvamarmans* in the *Saṃgraha*), and the four *śṛṅgāṭakas* (*sirāmarmans* in the *Saṃgraha*) (A.h.Śā.4.42a–c); accordingly, the *Saṃgraha* (Śā.7.10) refers to the *śṛṅgāṭaka* as a *sirāmarman* in another passage; the corresponding verse of the *Hṛdaya* (Śā.4.34) does not mention the type of marman involved. The *Saṃgraha* (Ka.8.27) requires the quantity of fresh, moist drugs and of liquids to be double the quantity of dried drugs; the *Hṛdaya* (Ka.6.23ab) says the same, but specifies that the rule for liquids applies only to quantities of a *kuḍava* and more; the *Saṃgraha* follows Caraka (Ka.12.98cd) and Suśruta (Ci.31.7), whereas the *Hṛdaya* adheres to the rule of Jātukarṇa and that of another unnamed authority, both quoted by Cakrapāṇidatta.⁶⁶³

v1.c26.s12.11

⁶⁶² 662

v1.c26.s12.12

⁶⁶³ 663

v1.c26.s12.13

A few examples of differences between *Saṃgraha* and *Hṛdaya* not discussed by Jyotiṣacandra Sarasvatī may be useful.

v1.c26.s12.14

The *Saṃgraha* stresses the role of the woman in determining desirable characteristics of the child to be born and agrees with Caraka, whereas the *Hṛdaya* is in conformity with Suśruta in giving this power to both parents.⁶⁶⁴

v1.c26.s12.15

⁶⁶⁴ 664

v1.c26.s12.16

The *Saṃgraha* says that the longings of pregnancy arise in the third month; it adds that according to a disagreeing view they become manifest after six weeks and continue until the fifth month (Śā.2.10–11).⁶⁶⁵ The *Hṛdaya* states that the longings begin in the second month (Śā.1.52). The *Saṃgraha* is in conformity with the *Carakasaṃhitā* which opts for the third month (Śā.4.15); the *Suśrutasaṃhitā* declares that the longings become manifest in the fourth month.

v1.c26.s12.17

⁶⁶⁵ 665

v1.c26.s12.18

The *Saṃgraha* states that the skin consists of six layers (Śā.5.16–17), which agrees with Caraka. The diverging theory of Suśruta who distinguishes seven layers is expounded next (Śā.5.18), without referring to him by name and without taking sides. On the other hand, the *Hṛdaya* acknowledges the seven layers of Suśruta (Śā.3.8d).

v1.c26.s12.19

The *Saṃgraha* regards *ojas* as the essence (*sāra*) of *śukra*, which, due to its very pure nature, has no waste product (*mala*) resulting from this transformation; other authorities declare that *ojas* is not subject to *pāka*; others again state that the embryo (*garbha*) constitutes the essence of *śukra* (Śā.6.29). The *Hṛdaya*, on the other hand, adopts the theory that the embryo arises from *śukra* and does not mention *ojas* in the same context (Śā.3.63ab).

v1.c26.s12.20

Some more differences noticed by Jyotiṣacandra Sarasvatī have to be discussed too.

v1.c26.s12.21

The author of the Saṃgraha is said to make more changes in the text of the Carakasaṃhitā and Suśrutasaṃhitā than the author of the Hṛdaya.666 Nāḍīveda is absent in the Hṛdaya, while the Saṃgraha (U.22.3, 13, 20) mentions it. The Hṛdaya omits many kalpas of the Saṃgraha and explicitly mentions this fact (A.h.U.39.177). The palāṇḍukalpa, for example, which refers to the Śakas, is absent.

v1.c26.s12.22

The Saṃgraha presents itself as entirely based on the accepted tradition.667 The Hṛdaya, in contrast to this, regards style (subhāṣitatva) as more important than the authority of ancient sages (munipraṇītatva) (U.40.88). This argument cannot be accepted as conclusive, because the author of the Hṛdaya also declares that his work follows the teachings of the great sages (mahāmunimatānuga), who possess a wide knowledge without blemishes (vipulāmalavijñāna) (U.40.79).

v1.c26.s12.23

The expression saṃgrahabodhaśakta, found towards the end of the Hṛdaya (U.40.83), and sometimes thought to refer to the Saṃgraha,668 cannot do so actually, because of the differences in opinion between the two works. Jyotiṣacandra Sarasvatī's reason to wave this verse aside is open to discussion. However, the stanza is unconvincing for other reasons when regarded as hinting at the Saṃgraha. It says that a physician able to study and grasp the contents of the summary (saṃgrahabodhaśakta) (of medical science represented by the Hṛdaya) will be able to make totter (ākampayati) colleagues who practice according to other large treatises (anyaviśālatantrakṛtābhiyoga).

v1.c26.s12.24

Jyotiṣacandra Sarasvatī is convinced that a verse towards the end of the Hṛdaya (U. 40.80), where, according to many scholars, 669 the Saṃgraha is mentioned as the work on which the Hṛdaya is based, proves that it derives from a different author. This verse says that the Hṛdaya has arisen, as a quite separate treatise (pṛthag eva tantram), from the great mass of amṛta constituted by the Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha, or, alternatively, by the summary of the eight branches (of the medical science) (aṣṭāṅgasaṃgrahamahāmṛtarāśi), which, in its turn, resulted from the churning of the ocean of the eightfold medical science (aṣṭāṅgavaidyakamahodadhimanthana). Obviously, this verse may refer to the Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha. If it does, the Hṛdaya is later and may be by an author distinct from the one who composed the Saṃgraha.

v1.c26.s12.25

The features highlighted so far show that Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya can hardly be imagined to be works of one and the same author.

Linked texts (4)