Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c26.s16: The relative chronological positions of the Saṃgraha and the Hṛdaya

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c26.s16

Language
English

The relative chronological positions of the Saṃgraha and the Hṛdaya

v1.c26.s16.1

The anteriority of the Saṃgraha is accepted by the majority of those who expressed their opinion on the subject. 1055

v1.c26.s16.2

Various arguments in support are met with again and again. The language of the Hṛdaya is thought to be more literary and sophisticated to such a degree that the work must be later. 1056 Those advancing this argument usually point to the fact that the Hṛdaya is entirely in verse, without examining and comparing the qualities of the parts in verse found in both works. 1057 Important would be to detect significant differences in this respect, proving the superiority of the Hṛdaya.

v1.c26.s16.3

Few studies of this subject are so far available. P.V. Sharma 1058 made a list of the metres employed in Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya, 1059 and compared these with the metres found in Kālidāsa’s Abhijñānaśākuntala. This study revealed that two metres used in the Saṃgraha are absent from the Hṛdaya: the campakamālā and the sāriṇī. 1060 Metres found in the Hṛdaya, but not in the Saṃgraha, are: bhadrā, 1061 daṇḍaka, 1062 dhīralalitā, 1063 gāthā, gīti, 1064 mandākrāntā, 1065 mātrāsamaka, 1066 mattamayūra, 1067 mukhacapalā, 1068 śuddhavirāj, 1069 upacitrā, 1070 vaiśadevī, 1071 vaitālīya, 1072 and vipulā. 1073

v1.c26.s16.4

Both Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya contain examples of the literary device of using the name of the metre in the verse composed in it. 1074

v1.c26.s16.5

Poetical guṇas frequent in the Saṃgraha are prasāda and mādhurya. 1075

v1.c26.s16.6

Elements of the prose style of the Saṃgraha are those called cūrṇaka (short compounds), utkalikā (long compounds), and āviddha (no compounds). 1076

v1.c26.s16.7

Rhetoric figures used in the Saṃgraha are: 1077 chekānuprāsa, 1078 lāṭānuprāsa, 1079 and yamaka 1080 among the śabdālaṃkāras; arthālaṃkāras employed are: arthāpatti, 1081 atiśayokti, 1082 dīpaka, 1083 nidarśanā, 1084 rūpaka, 1085 svabhāvokti, 1086 tulyayogitā, 1087 upamā, 1088 utprekṣā, 1089 vibhāvanā, 1090 vyatireka, 1091 and yathāsaṃkhya. 1092

v1.c26.s16.8

Hilgenberg and Kirfel are among the few scholars to have defended the thesis that the Hṛdaya is the basic work, while the Saṃgraha is an enlarged version of the same. They argued that the designation Vṛddhavāgbhaṭa for the Saṃgraha does not indicate at all that this work is the older of the two and listed many similar cases which suggest that a Vṛddha version is simply a later and expanded version of a shorter treatise. As a very clear example they mentioned the Vṛddhacāṇakya, a work definitely later than the more original collection going under Cāṇakya’s name. The same authors were convinced that both Hṛdaya and Saṃgraha were originally metrical treatises. They regarded the Saṃgraha as it has come down to us as secondarily partly changed into prose and tried to underpin this by collecting a long series of passages which, in their opinion, show traces of a gradual transformation of verse into prose.

v1.c26.s16.9

This list 1093 consists of: A.h.Sū.12.1–5ab (cf. A.s.Sū.20.1–2); 1094 Ci.10.50 (cf. A.s. Ci.12.13); 11.47–54ab (cf. A.s.Ci.13.27–28); 1095 12.38cd–40ab (cf. A.s.Ci.14.21) 1096 and 42–43ab (cf. A.s.Ci.14.22); 1097 13.16–17 (cf. A.s.Ci.15.6) 1098 and 18cd–20ab (cf. A.s.Ci.15.6–7); 14.82cd–83ab 1099 and 85–87ab (cf. A.s.Ci.16.25–27); 1100 15.93–94 (cf. A.s.Ci.17.35); 1101 16.2–4 (cf. A.s.Ci.18.2); 1102 17.22cd–24ab (cf. A.s.Ci.19.9) and 28cd–30ab (cf. A.s.Ci.19.12); 18.26 (cf. A.s.Ci.20.11); 1103 19.1–2ab (cf. A.s.Ci.21.2); U.1.5d–7ab (cf. A.s.U.1.7–8) and 13cd–14 (Cf. A.s.U.1.14–15); 1104 11.4cd–5ab (cf. A.s.U.14.4), 1105 6cd–7ab (cf. A.s.U.14.5), 1106 48cd (cf. A.s.U.14.37).

v1.c26.s16.10

As the examples given by Hilgenberg and Kirfel in support of their thesis are not persuasive at all and miss all cogency, it is justified to dismiss their line of reasoning aiming at establishing that the Saṃgraha is posterior to the Hṛdaya.

v1.c26.s16.11

Almost no further research has been devoted to the problem whether or not the Saṃgraha has come down to us in the form it originally had. The problem itself has even rarely been raised, except by Hilgenberg and Kirfel 1107 and, earlier already, by P. Cordier. 1108

v1.c26.s16.12

The hypothesis that the Saṃgraha was originally in prose only has never been put forward, but is hardly a possibility to be considered, on account of the incorporation of many unchanged verses deriving from the Carakasaṃhitā. Nevertheless, the parts in prose may well have been more extensive.

v1.c26.s16.13

In support of this hypothesis appears to be the fact that Anantakumāra’s Yogaratnasamuccaya contains quotations in prose, said to be from Vāhaṭa, which reproduce portions of the Saṃgraha which are in verse in the extant version. 1109

v1.c26.s16.14

One of the many enigmatic aspects of the Saṃgraha has to be considered in this context too, namely the fact that part of its chapters are completely identical with chapters found in the Hṛdaya. This is very conspicuous in the Nidānasthāna, where chapters four to six, eight, and twelve to sixteen are the same in both texts. The same feature is characteristic of the Uttarasthāna. 1110 A reason for this puzzling selective procedure has not yet been suggested.

v1.c26.s16.15

The possibility that these chapters in verse replace earlier ones in prose, or in a mixture of verse and prose, cannot be excluded in principle.

v1.c26.s16.16

Various problems have therefore to be addressed. First, the original state of the Saṃgraha, which need not be the text as it has come down to us. The text of the MSS requires therefore careful study, coupled to scrutiny of the quotations from Saṃgraha and Vṛddhavāgbhaṭa.

v1.c26.s16.17

Some early scholars already stressed that the profuse quotations from the Saṃgraha in Hemādri’s commentary on the Hṛdaya give evidence that the text he disposed of did not differ very much from that of the MSS on which the editions are based. Aruṇadatta’s commentary (ad A.h.Sū.12.53–54ab), however, contains a quotation from the Saṃgraha consisting of twenty-five verses, which are absent from the editions of that treatise and replaced there by prose (Sū.20). 1111 These verses are supposed to be from another version of the Saṃgraha by P. Cordier, who first noticed them, 1112 though they are regarded as composed by Aruṇadatta from the original prose by Kuṇṭe and Navre. 1113

v1.c26.s16.18

Crucially important for assessing the development of the group of texts to which Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya belong are the quotations from a Madhyasaṃhitā or Madhyavāgbhaṭa(saṃhitā) and from Madhyavāgbhaṭagupta, found in the commentary of Niścala on the Cakradatta and that of Śivadāsasena on the Uttarasthāna of the Aṣṭāngahṛdayasaṃhitā.

v1.c26.s16.19

Niścala’s Ratnaprabhā contains a considerable number of these quotations. Śivadāsasena’s commentary has a much smaller number. As each piece of this precious information may shed light on the nature of the lost treatise, I will give an annotated list:

v1.c26.s16.20

Niścala ad Cakradatta, jvara 3 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 3); 1114 jvara 3 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 3); 1115 jvara 236 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 235); 1116 jvara 238–239 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 237–238); 1117 jvara 247–251 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 248–252); 1118 jvara 288cd–290 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 288–290); 1119 jvara 291 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 291); 1120 atīsāra 4–5 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 4–5); 1121 atīsāra 106 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 104); 1122 grahaṇī 5–6 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 5–6); 1123 grahaṇī 9–11 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 9–11); 1124 arśas 1–3 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 1–3); 1125 arśas 92–95 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 96–99); 1126 arśas 116–122 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 120–126); 1127 arśas 155–160 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 159–164); 1128 agnimāndya 1 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 1); 1129 agnimāndya 2 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 2); 1130 agnimāndya 6–8 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 6–8); 1131 agnimāndya 28 (ed. Ratnaprabhā; absent from other editions); 1132 agnimāndya 78 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 77); 1133 krimi 16 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 12); 1134 pāṇḍuroga 23–24 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 22–23); 1135 raktapitta 38 (quotation in additional part of the commentary, found in one MS only); 1136 rājayakṣman 47–60 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 47–60) (quotation in additional part of the commentary, found in one MS only); 1137 introductory part to the chapter on kāsa; 1138 introduction to hikkāśvāsa (quotation in additional part of the commentary, found in one MS only); 1139 madātyaya 21–22 (ed. Ratnaprabhā; absent from other editions) (quotation in additional part of the commentary, found in one MS only); 1140 madātyaya 21–22 (ed. Ratnaprabhā; absent from other editions) (quotation in additional part of the commentary, found in one MS only); 1141 unmāda 29–30 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 29–30) (this quotation may or may not be from Madhyavāgbhaṭa; the editor supplied Madhya-); 1142 oṣṭharoga 1 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā, mukharoga 1); 1143 dantamūlaroga 23–24 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā, mukharoga 32–33); 1144 dantaroga 8 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā, mukharoga 41); 1145 dantaroga 10 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā, mukharoga 43); 1146 jihvāroga 2 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā, mukharoga 45); 1147 jihvāroga 6 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā, mukharoga 50); 1148 tālugataroga 7cd (= ed. Ratnaprabhā, mukharoga 58cd); 1149 kaṇṭhagataroga 1 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā, mukharoga 59); 1150 kaṇṭhagataroga 2 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā, mukharoga 60); 1151 kaṇṭhagataroga 3 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā, mukharoga 61); 1152 kaṇṭhagataroga 5 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā, mukharoga 63); 1153 karṇaroga 3 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 3); 1154 karṇaroga 11–12 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 11–12); 1155 karṇaroga 23–24 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 23–24); 1156 karṇaroga 23–24 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 23–24); 1157 karṇaroga 49 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 50); 1158 karṇaroga 55 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 56); 1159 karṇaroga 56 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 57); 1160 karṇaroga 62–64 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 63–65); 1161 karṇaroga 62–64 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 63–65); 1162 netraroga 6 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 6); 1163 Śivadāsa ad A.h.U.22.4cd–5ab; 1164 U.22.19–20; 1165 U.22.46ab; 1166 U.22.52; 1167 U.22.53–54ab; 1168 U.22.58cd–59; 1169 U.22.93 (= ed.22.96); 1170

v1.c26.s16.21

Next to the quotations from a Madhyavāgbhaṭa, those from an Alpavāgbhaṭa and Svalpavāgbhaṭa have to be considered. The commentators quoting from these treatises are Niścala and Śivadāsasena again. The Alpavāgbhaṭa is quoted by Niścala ad Cakradatta, tālugataroga 7cd (= ed. Ratnaprabhā, mukharoga 58cd); 1171 karṇaroga 56 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 57); 1172 anuvāsana 34 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 33); 1173 The Svalpavāgbhaṭa 1174 is quoted by Niścala ad Cakradatta, dantaroga 8 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā, mukharoga 41); 1175 karṇaroga 23–24 (= ed. Ratnaprabhā 23–24); 1176 Śivadāsasena ad Cakradatta, karṇaroga 11–13; 1177

v1.c26.s16.22

This material shows that a treatise intermediate between Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya once existed. The quotations collected prove beyond any doubt that the Madhyavāgbhaṭa was still in a mixture of prose and verse, but contained already more verse than the Saṃgraha, without the addition of any important new material. The Alpavāgbhaṭa and Svalpavābhaṭa did not differ much from the Hṛdaya, as far as can be judged from the scanty material at our disposal. 1178

v1.c26.s16.23

Versions of a treatise intermediate between Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya may still exist in some MSS. P. Cordier 1179 records that such a version has partially been edited under the title Bābhaṭa. 1180 This treatise, in 120 chapters, calls itself an Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha; its text sometimes agrees with the Saṃgraha, sometimes with the Hṛdaya, but also contains verses absent from both. 1181

v1.c26.s16.24

Āyurvedic treatises later than Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya, as well as commentaries, may contain quotations ascribed to Vāgbhaṭa that cannot be traced, which implies that they are possibly from one of the intermediate works. One such quotation, found in Niścala’s Ratnaprabhā, 1182 describes the treatment of saṃgrahagrahaṇī, a type of grahaṇī that appears in a verse added to the Mādhavanidāna and in later works, but is completely absent from the versions of Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya known to us.

v1.c26.s16.25

All the evidence, when taken together, appears to suggest that it is legitimate to have doubts about the authenticity of the text of the Saṃgraha as it has been transmitted. The treatise known as Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha now may well be an already partially transformed version of an older text. The versification and the alterations in doctrine, therapeutics, etc., have probably formed part of a gradual process of change, which must have required time and the participation of a series of authors. 1183 The result of this development was the coming into being of the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā, a work that cannot simply be ascribed to one author, although one particular person may have given it its ultimate form. 1184

v1.c26.s16.26

The impression that the Hṛdaya is a harmonious unity as to style and contents, which led a majority of scholars to regard it as the work of one author, may be deceptive. This point has been clearly expressed in particular by Hilgenberg and Kirfel. 1185 Their reasoning, though based on the assumption of the anteriority of the Hṛdaya, requires consideration nevertheless. They pointed to differences in style of the Nidānasthāna of the Hṛdaya, when compared with the other sections, but, unfortunately, omitted to illustrate this claim, which makes it hard to assess. More important are two other points. The first chapter of the Nidānasthāna repeats (A.h.Ni.1.12–24), after dealing with the five elements constituting nidāna, the causes of excitation of the doṣas, which is a subject already discussed in the Sūtrasthāna. This may, in the opinion of Hilgenberg and Kirfel, mean that the Nidānasthāna originated as an independent treatise or as the first part of some medical work; in support of this hypothesis, they refer to the version of the Nidānasthāna extant in the Garuḍapurāṇa, where it is associated with the name of Dhanvantari; they add that the solution of this question hinges on the chronological position of the medical chapters of the Garuḍapurāṇa. The thesis that the repetition of material suggests an independent treatise need not be subscribed to, because this feature proves to be rather common, for example, in the Carakasaṃhitā, when its Nidānasthāna and Cikitsāsthāna are compared. Chapter one of the Nidānasthāna of the Saṃgraha presents the same repetition as that found in the Hṛdaya, and its prose version, probably older, is not directly related to that in verse of the Garuḍapurāṇa, which makes the reasoning of Hilgenberg and Kirfel unconvincing.

v1.c26.s16.27

The conclusion of this long exposition can but be that the problems connected with the development of Saṃgraha, Hṛdaya and the intermediate versions, as well as those concerning the authors involved, are far from even approaching a solution.

Cites (7)