Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c26.s17: Vāgbhaṭa’s renown

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c26.s17

Language
English

Contents

Vāgbhaṭa’s renown

v1.c26.s17.1

The fame of Vāgbhaṭa spread over a large area of Indian culture. The Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā became the object of intensive study, as shown by the very large number of its commentaries. Several later works were inspired by it. The Hṛdaya was translated into Tibetan, together with Candranandana’s commentary,¹¹⁸⁶ and reached the Islamic world.

v1.c26.s17.2

Vāgbhaṭa is held in high esteem particularly in Kerala, where he is the legendary master who taught the medical science to the ancestors of the Aṣṭavaidya lineages. The medical training of an Aṣṭavaidya physician ends with the daily recitation of ten chapters of the Hṛdaya in the family shrine, to be continued during a full year, the ekādaśī days of each half of the lunar month excepted; this exception honours the day of Vāgbhaṭa’s supposed decease.¹¹⁸⁷ An Aṣṭavaidya medical graduate is also obliged to make a palm leaf copy of the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā.¹¹⁸⁸

v1.c26.s17.3

Vāgbhaṭa was also well known in Āndhra, as is attested by the existence of a rendering of the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā into Telugu verse. This version was made by Liṅgayārya, who was a pupil of the famous scholar Bālasarasvatī Mahāmahopādhyāya, in the seventeenth century.¹¹⁸⁹

v1.c26.s17.4

Vāgbhaṭa’s work (probably the Hṛdaya) was translated into Persian in A.D. 1473, by ‘Alī bin Muḥammad bin Ismāīl Asāwlī Usailī under the title of Shifā’-e-Maḥmūdī; it was written during the reign of Sulṭān Maḥmūd Shāh I of Gujarāt (A.D.1458–1511), who founded a department of translation for famous Arabic and Sanskrit works. The work consists of eight sections, dealing respectively with anatomy, children’s diseases, the evil effects of air, diseases and their treatment, wounds, the treatment of bites of poisonous animals, the treatment of possession states, and the restoration of virility.¹¹⁹⁰

v1.c26.s17.5

An important issue that remains to be discussed is the relationship between the classical text of Tibetan medicine, called Rgyud-bźi,¹¹⁹¹ and the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā. This relationship has been studied by R.E. Emmerick,¹¹⁹² who discovered that at least one stanza of the Rgyud-bźi is absolutely identical with the corresponding passage in the Tibetan translation of Vāgbhaṭa’s work.¹¹⁹³ Moreover, consideration must be taken of the fact that many chapters of the Rgyud-bźi correspond extremely closely to the Tibetan translation of the Hṛdaya, if allowance is made for the adjustment that is required to compare the nine-syllable lines of the Rgyud-bźi with the seven-syllable lines of the Vāgbhaṭa translation. The question raised by this state of affairs concerns the relative chronology of the two Tibetan texts. Did the translator of the Hṛdaya make use of an already existing Tibetan version, traditionally ascribed to Vairocana, or is the Rgyud-bźi based on Rin-chen bzaṅ-po’s Tibetan translation of the Hṛdaya? This question cannot be solved with any certainty.¹¹⁹⁴

v1.c26.s17.6

but absent from Caraka- and Suśrutasaṃhitā

v1.c26.s17.7

Authorities mentioned in the Aṣṭāngahṛdayasaṃhitā

v1.c26.s17.8

o Agastya Ci.3.132; 6.55. o Agniveśa Sū.1.4; Ni.2.62; U.40.59 and 62. o Ātreya Sū.1.2; Śā.3.49; 5.128; U.34.50; 40.59. o Atrinandana Śā.3.17. o Atriputra Sū.1.3. o Bhārgava (i.e., Cyavana) Ci.22.66. o Bheḍa Ci.21.72; U.40.59 and 88. o Caraka Sū.9.13; U.40.84 and 88. o Cyavana (compare Bhārgava) U.39.39. o Dhanvantari Śā.2.52; 3.16 and 50; Ci.10.63; 12.24; 17.14. o Hārīta Ni.2.62. o Kāśyapa U.37.24 and 28. o Nimi U.11.27; 13.16 and 100; U.30.31. o Punarvasu U.40.62. o Śaunaka Ka.6.15. o Suśruta U.30.31; 40.84 and 88. o Vasiṣṭha Ci.3.140. o Videha U.13.27; 22.83. o Vṛddhakāśyapa U.2.43.

v1.c26.s17.9

Authorities mentioned in the Aṣṭāngasaṃgraha

v1.c26.s17.10

o Agastya Ci.5.84; 8.61; U.5.60. o Agniveśa Sū.1.11; 28.34; Ni.2.64; Ka.5.57; U.50.202. o Ālambāyana Sū.1.6; U.40.35. o Ātreya often, e.g., Sū.1.2; 28.34; Śā.3.3 and 5; U.49.262. o Atri U.50.209. o Bharadvāja Sū.1.6; 8.59. o Bheḍa Sū.1.11; Ci.16.14; 23.60. o Bhoja U.42.50. o Bṛhaspati Sū.8.62. o Caraka Sū.28.54; Śā.10.29–32a; Ka.8, add. 25, 27, 61, 70. o Cyavana Sū.8.59; U.49.45.

v1.c26.s17.11

o Dhanvantari Sū.1.6; 8.59; Śā.3.8; 4.51; U.5.60; 40.36. o Gautama Sū.8.86. o Hārīta Sū.1.11; Ni.2.64. o Janaka Sū.8.59. o Kāṅkāyana Ci.10.51. o Kapilabala Sū.20.17. o Karāla Sū.1.11. o Kāśirāja Sū.28.34. o Kaśyapa Sū.1.6. o Kāśyapa Sū.1.6; U.40.149; 43.49 and 54; 48.72. o Kauṭilya U.40.78. o Khaṇḍakāpya Śā.3.5. o Kharaṇāda Ka.8, add. 45, 47, 80. o Kṛṣṇātreya Śā.10.33; Ka.8, add. 5 and 50. o Māṇḍavya Sū.1.11. o Nagnajit U.40.33. o Nārada U.49.206. o Nimi Sū.1.6; U.16.16 and 94. o Parāśara Sū.17.26; 21.16. o Punarvasu Sū.1.5; Ka.5.57; U.40.28. o Puṣkalāvata U.30.11. o Śaunaka Ka.8.20–21. o Suśruta Sū.1.11; 8.59; 20.18; 21.22; Śā.10.32; Ka.8, add. 17 and 79. o Uśanas U.40.88. o Vaitaraṇa U.42.50. o Vasiṣṭha Ci.5.92. o Videha Sū.8.59; U.17.7; 40.34. o Videhapati Sū.28.34. o Viśvāmitra U.74.2. o Vṛddhakāśyapa U.2.60.

v1.c26.s17.12

ĀLAMBĀYANA¹ is mentioned as a medical authority and a specialist in toxicology in the Aṣṭāṅgasamgraha.² He is quoted or referred to, almost always on toxicological subjects,³ by Anantakumāra,⁴ the author of the Bhesajjamañjūsāsannaya, Daḷhaṇa,⁵ Indu,⁶ the author of the Kairalī commentary on the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā,⁷ Parameśvara,⁸ Śrīdāsapaṇḍita,⁹ Śrīkaṇṭhadatta,¹⁰ and Vācaspati.¹¹

v1.c26.s17.13

Ālambāyana i s also known in Buddhist literature. The Bhūridatta-Jātaka (No. 543) refers to him as a toxicologist.¹²

v1.c26.s17.14

Some representatives of the Indian tradition regard him as the author of a lost treatise on kaumārabhṛtya,¹³ but he is usually reckoned among the authors of an agadatantra.¹⁴

v1.c26.s17.15

BṚHASPATI¹⁵ is mentioned as a medical authority in the Bower Manuscript and in the Aṣṭāṅgasamgraha. The Bower Manuscript contains a formula ascribed to Bṛhaspati that aims at increasing bodily strength and bulk. 16 The Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha gives a series of prescriptions of Bṛhaspati to be employed in the protection of a king against the effects of poison. 17 The Bhāratabhaiṣajyaratnākara and Yogaratnākara attribute to Bṛhaspati the formula of a kumārāsava to be used in the treatment of gulma. 18 Śivadāsasena regards Jīvaka, to whom a recipe of the Cakradatta is attributed, as identical with Bṛhaspati. 19

v1.c26.s17.16

Hemādri’s Lakṣaṇaprakāśa calls Bṛhaspati one of the originators of āyurveda. 20 Ugrāditya’s Kalyāṇakāraka refers to him as one of those who were opposed to a non-vegetarian diet. Bṛhaspati is credited with a commentary on a Dhanvantarisūtra 21 and with alchemical works called Rasacakra 22 and Rasacandratantra. 23

v1.c26.s17.17

Bṛhaspati is regarded as the author of a treatise on toxicology (agadatanṭra) 24 or as a specialist in kaumārabhṛtya. 25 He is already associated with medicine in the Ṛgveda 26 and Atharvaveda. 27 The medical skill of Bṛhaspati is also referred to in the Rāmāyaṇa. 28 The Mahābhārata 29 describes him as being ignorant of the mṛtasaṃjīvinī vidyā. 30

v1.c26.s17.18

Bṛhaspati’s name is not only connected with human medicine, but also with gajaśāstra and the treatment of diseases in elephants. He is mentioned in Pālakāpya’s Hastyāyurveda and Nīlakaṇṭha’s Mātaṅgalīlā, and is the reputed author of a treatise on elephants, called Gajalakṣaṇa or Bṛhaspatimata. 31 A treatise on horses, Aśvalakṣaṇa, is also attributed to him.

v1.c26.s17.19

Bṛhaspati and the Bārhaspatya are among the sources of kallolas six and seven of the Śivatattvaratnākara.

v1.c26.s17.20

Bṛhaspati is associated with many other sciences: grammar, arthaśāstra, nītiśāstra, 32 dharmaśāstra, jyotiṣa, vāstuśāstra, citraśikhaṇḍiśāstra, and ratnaśāstra. 33

v1.c26.s17.21

Kapilabala 34 is a medical authority quoted in the Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha. 35 He is also quoted or referred to by Cakrapāṇidatta, 36 Candraṭa, 37 Indu, 38 Niścalakara, 39 Śivadāsasena, 40 Śrīdāsapaṇḍita, 41 Śrīkaṇṭhadatta, 42 and Vaṅgasena, 43 as well as in the Jvaracikitsā and Jvarasamuccaya. 44

v1.c26.s17.22

Kapilabala is sometimes equated with Kapila. 45

v1.c26.s17.23

Kapilabala is, just like Kapila, credited with a śalyatantra. 46 This Kapilabala is often considered to be Dṛḍhabala’s father; 47 evidence pointing to this identity is, however, absent.

v1.c26.s17.24

G. Hāldār is of the opinion that Dṛḍhabala’s father was called Kapibala and that a much earlier Kapilabala, whom he calls the navīnacaraka, revised the Carakasaṃhitā. He ascribes a Kapilatantra to him and assigns him to the period of Kaniṣka. 48

v1.c26.s17.25

The quotations from Kapilabala are not concerned with surgical subjects, but deal with basic concepts, general principles of treatment, the treatment of fever, 49 and pharmacy. The statements cited are partly in verse, 50 which indicate that they may be from a Kapilabalatantra. This treatise, anterior to the Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha, must even have preceded the revision of the Suśrutasaṃhitā, since Indu states that Suśruta was acquainted with Kapilabala’s views. The quotations by Cakrapāṇidatta show that Bhaṭṭāraharicandra, the commentator on the Carakasaṃhitā, is later than Kapilabala and disagreed with him.

v1.c26.s17.26

KHAṆḌAKĀPYA is in the Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha (Sū.1.11) a medical authority who contradicts Ātreya’s views on the diet of a pregnant woman. He also makes his appearance in the Bhelasaṃhitā (Sū.4.30), where he takes part in the discussion on the formation of the embryo.⁵¹

v1.c26.s17.27

MĀṆḌAVYA⁵² is mentioned as the author of a medical treatise in the Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha (Sū.1.11). He is traditionally regarded as the author of a treatise on rasāyana.⁵³ Medical works referring to Māṇḍavya are Kapilamiśra’s Nāḍīprabodhana and Ugrāditya’s Kalyāṇakāraka. The latter work knows him as a sage who was opposed to a non-vegetarian diet. Pālakāpya’s Hastyāyurveda knows Māṇḍavya as one of the sages assembled at Romapāda’s court in order to be instructed in the art of hastyāyurveda.

v1.c26.s17.28

The rasāśāstra literature is also acquainted with Māṇḍavya. His name occurs in the Pāradasaṃhitā,⁵⁴ Rasaratnākara,⁵⁵ Rasaratnasamuccaya,⁵⁶ Rasataraṅgiṇī,⁵⁷ Rasendramaṅgala,⁵⁸ and Rasopaniṣad.⁵⁹

v1.c26.s17.29

Toḍara’s Āyurvedasaukhya quotes a verse from an authority called Māṇḍava.⁶⁰

v1.c26.s17.30

A treatise called Rasavāridhi is ascribed to him.⁶¹ Vācaspatimiśra’s glosses on Vyāsa’s commentary on the Yogasūtra mention that Māṇḍavya became a long-lived person due to his mastery of rasāyana techniques.⁶²

v1.c26.s17.31

Persons called Māṇḍavya are found in Vedic literature,⁶³ the Mahābhārata,⁶⁴ Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra,⁶⁵ and several Purāṇas.⁶⁶ A Māṇḍavya is mentioned by Piṅgala as an authority on metrics.⁶⁷ An astronomer called Māṇḍavya is quoted in several jyotiṣa texts and commentaries.⁶⁸ Vasiṣṭha is said to have been Māṇḍavya’s teacher in matters relating to astronomy.⁶⁹

v1.c26.s17.32

UŚANAS⁷⁰ is a medical authority mentioned in the Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha (U.40.88), where an antidote (agada) is ascribed to him. The Bower MS (II.846–847) contains the formula of an aphrodisiac, attributed to Uśanas. Daḷhaṇa quotes him as a specialist in the treatment of poisoning.⁷¹ A verse from Uśanas on the twenty types of prameha is found in the Āyurvedābdhisāra.⁷² Ballālasena refers to him in his Adbhutasāgara.⁷³

v1.c26.s17.33

Uśanas is usually regarded as the author of a treatise on toxicology (an agadatantra or -saṃhitā),⁷⁴ but his verse on prameha is not in agreement with this view.

v1.c26.s17.34

The name of an ancient sage called Uśanas is found in the Ṛgveda, later Vedic literature, the Purāṇas, and literary works.⁷⁵ Uśanas is also referred to and quoted as an authority on poetics,⁷⁶ nītiśāstra,⁷⁷ dharmaśāstra, and dhanurveda.⁷⁸

v1.c26.s17.35

Anonymous commentaries without title are recorded in the MS catalogues.¹

v1.c26.s17.36

ARUṆADATTA wrote a commentary called SARVĀṄGASUNDARĀ,² which covers all the sections of the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā.

v1.c26.s17.37

This commentary is a valuable and interesting work. It is obviously based on Candranandana’s Padārthacandrikā, large parts of which are literally reproduced,³ but adds much new material and is richer in references and quotations. Candranandana’s views are not always blindly followed. Many passages show that Aruṇa had his own ideas, for example on the identity of medicinal plants.⁴ The text of the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya, accepted by Aruṇadatta, differs at places from the version preferred by Candranandana.⁵

v1.c26.s17.38

The Sarvāṅgasundarā is more elaborate than the Padārthacandrikā; it is evidently written by a learned man with a great command of a number of sciences.⁶ Remarks on grammar are frequent and grammatical works are referred to,⁷ as well as treatises on metrics and poetics.⁸ The metres of Vāgbhaṭa’s verses are often identified.⁹ Remarkable is Aruṇa’s skill in composing verses of his own.¹⁰

v1.c26.s17.39

An important contribution of Aruṇadatta is his long and detailed exposition on the tantrayuktis.¹¹

v1.c26.s17.40

Characteristic of Aruṇa is his refusal t o elucidate the Buddhist elements found in the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā.¹²

v1.c26.s17.41

Authorities and works quoted or referred to by Aruṇadatta are: ¹³ Abhidhānakośa (Sū.26.16cd–17ab),¹⁴ ācārya, ¹⁵ Āgama, ¹⁶ Agniveśa (Sū.1.4cd–5ab), Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha (passim), ¹⁷ Aṣṭāṅgāvatāra (Sū.4.6cd–7c; Ci.17.17cd–19), ¹⁸ Ātreya (Sū.1.5cd–6ab; U.39.142), Āyurvedāvatāra (Sū.5.55–56; Śā.3.7–8ab), ¹⁹ Bālāditya (Sū.2.16),²⁰ Bāṇa (Sū.9.1c), Bauddhatantra (U.40.78–80), Bhāṣya(kāra or -kṛt) (Sū.4.9ab; Śā.5.15cd–16ab; Ni.11.17cd–18a; Ci.10.4–5),²¹ Bhaṭṭārakahariścandra (Sū.1.1),²² Bheḍa (Sū.1.3–4ab; Śā.5.30–32), Caraka (passim), Dāruvāhi (Sū.5.20cd–21c; Śāl.5), Dhānvantara (Sū.5.44–45ab),²³ dhānvantarāḥ (Sū.19.20cd–24ab), Dhanvantari (Sū.1.1; 6.158cd; 17.2–4ab; ²⁵ 19.20cd–24ab; Śā.3.90–95), Dṛḍhabala (Śā.3.62cd–63ab),²⁶ grantha (Sū.1.28cd, 30–31, 32ab, 32cd; Ni.3.3), granthakāra (Sū.5.51cd–53ab; 27.23cd–24ab; Ni.3.1–2),²⁷ grantakṛt (Sū.1.1, 5cd–6ab, 7cd; 13.28–29ab; 14.34; Ci.1.40ab; 3, intr.), granthāntara (Sū.5.50cd), Hariścandra (Sū.5.23cd),²⁸ Hārīta (Sū.1.3–4ab; 6.63cd–64ab; Ni.2.79), Janaka (Sū.1.4cd–5ab), Jātūkarṇa (Sū.1.3–4ab), Jayāditya (Sū.1.1),²⁹ Kālidāsa (Ci.21.5cd–6ab),³⁰ kāṇādāḥ (Sū.1.11ab), Karṇāṭa (Sū.9.1c),³¹ Kāśyapa (Sū.1.3–4ab; U.3.47cd–48ab), Kharanāda and Khāraṇādi, Kṛṣṇātreya (Sū.5.9cd–10; 6.7cd–8ab, 20cd–21ab, 158ab; Śā.5.2cd–3ab), Kṣarāpāṇi (Sū.14.6–7ab), Māgha (Sū.2.25ab), Manu (Sū.12.70), Mīmāṃsā (Sū.8.1), Muni (often),³² Nāgānandanāṭaka (Śā.5.6cd–8ab),³³ Nagnajit (Śā.3.62cd–63ab), Nighaṇṭu (Sū.6.97cd–98ab and 135cd–136ab),³⁴ Nimi (Sū.1.3–4ab), Pānaka (Sū.5.55–56),³⁵ Parāśara (Sū.1.3–4ab; 6.7cd–8ab; Ci.1.148), Ravigupta (Sū.5.23cd),³⁶ Rudrabhaṭṭa (Sū.1.7cd),³⁷ Rudraṭa (Sū.14.36),³⁸ Saṃgraha (passim),³⁹ Sāṃkhya (Śā.3.62cd–63ab),⁴⁰ Śāstrakāra (Sū.1.9; 4.35; 7.56cdd–59; U.5, intr.),⁴¹ Śāstrakṛt (Sū.6.17–18ab; 6.172; U.40.5),⁴² Siddhasāra (Sū.1.4cd–5ab; 5.23cd; 6.41cd; 7.45ab),⁴³ Suśruta (passim), tantrakāra (Sū.1.1, intr.; 1.1 and 6cd; 4.22cd–23; 5.51cd–53ab; Śā.1.8–9ab; 3.57–58; Ci.1.18–19ab and 70; U.40.78),⁴⁴ tantrakṛtaḥ (Ci.2.22; U.40.5), tantrakṛt (Sū.1.5cd–6ab; 7.32cd and 56cd–59; 9.3cd–4ab; 19.13–14ab; Ni.1.14–15; 2.6ab and 60–63; 3.1–2; 4, intr.; 10.36; Ci.1.39 and 104cd–105ab; 17.17cd–19; 21.56; Ka.1.28; U.5, intr.; 28.9cd; 40.78), tantrāntara (Sū.3.30cd–32ab; 5.47ab and 70cd–71; 6.17–18ab, 25cd–26ab, 32ab, three quotations, 33ab, 38cd–40ab, 41cd, 106–107, 112ab, 122cd–125ab, 158cd; 8.55; 9.26cd–27ab; 12.65–66; 14.6; 16.20ab; 20.22ab; 23.15d–16ab and 25; 26.33–34; 27.44cd–45ab; 29.41ab; Śā.1.49ab; 2.3–6a; 3.55–56; Ni.2.21–22, 56cd–57, 60–63; 6.5; 9.15; Ci.1.15cd–16ab, 34cd, 47, 115cd; 2.27–28; 6.23–24; 8.89cd–93ab; 9.5cd–7; 14.13cd–21ab; 17.14cd–16; Ka.1.12d–13a; U.40.2cd–3 and 78),⁴⁵ tantrāntarīyāḥ (Sū.1.6), tantrāntarīyamata (Sū.19.38cd–41ab), Udbhaṭa (Sū.3.23cd–25),⁴⁶ Vāgbhaṭa (passim),⁴⁷ vaiśeṣikāḥ (Sū.1.1; 9.3cd–4ab), Vālmīki (Śā.5.110), vṛddhavaidyāḥ (Sū.19.20cd–24ab; 20.37–38; Ci.8.45cd–48ab; 19.77–78), and Vyāsa (Sū.2.26cd–27ab; 8.33cd–35ab; 14.20).⁴⁸

v1.c26.s17.42

Rudraṭa’s Kāvyālaṃkāra is once (ad Sū.1.1) cited without a reference to the source. Another work from which Aruṇa borrowed may be the Aṣṭāṅganighaṇṭu.⁴⁹ Kuṇṭe and Navre assume that Kedārabhaṭṭa’s Vṛttaratnākara is quoted (ad Sū.15.15 and 21–22);⁵⁰ this contention conflicts with Aruṇadatta’s date. An additional passage, found in one MS of the Sarvāṅgasundarā, quotes the Candrikā.⁵¹

v1.c26.s17.43

Aruṇadatta and his commentary are quoted or referred to by⁵² Dalhaṇa,⁵³ Hemādri,⁵⁴ Kṛṣṇadatta in his commentary on Trimalla’s Śataślokī,⁵⁵ the author of the Kairalī commentary on the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā,⁵⁶ Lakṣmīrāma in his commentary on the Siddhabheṣajamaṇimālā,⁵⁷ Meghadeva in his commentary on the Mādhavadravyaguṇa,⁵⁸ Narahari in his Vāgbhaṭamaṇḍana,⁵⁹ Nārāyaṇa,⁶⁰ Parameśvara,⁶¹ Śaṃkara’s Lalitā on the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya,⁶² Śivadāsasena,⁶³ Śrīdāsapaṇḍita,⁶⁴ the commentary on the Tantrayukti, Ṭoḍara,⁶⁵ and Vācaspati.⁶⁶

v1.c26.s17.44

The Sundarī, quoted in Anantakumāra’s Yogaratnasamuccaya,⁶⁷ is probably Aruṇa’s commentary.

v1.c26.s17.45

Aruṇadatta,⁶⁸ who calls himself Aruṇa in the introductory verses of his commentary,⁶⁹ was a son of Mṛgāṅkadatta.⁷⁰ He was a Hindu by faith, as shown by the maṅgala, addressed to Viṣṇu. Some suppose Aruṇa to hail from North India,⁷¹ while others assert that he was a resident of Bengal.⁷²

v1.c26.s17.46

Some are of the opinion that Aruṇa not only commented on the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya, but on the Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha too.⁷³ The solution of the problem whether or not Aruṇadatta wrote a commentary on the Aṣṭāṅgasamgraha depends on the interpretation of a single reference in Dalhaṇa’s Nibandhasaṃgraha (ad Su.Ka.1.30). Dalhaṇa’s contrasts the interpretation of the term akṣivairāgya,74 given by Gayin (= Gayadāsa), with the views of the Saṃgraha and Aruṇa. This remark has been seen as pointing to a commentary on the Saṃgraha by Aruṇa,75 although it places the Saṃgraha and Aruṇa side by side, without establishing a relationship between them. The term akṣivairāgya occurs in the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā (Sū.7.16) in the same context as in the Suśrutasaṃhitā, and is explained by Aruṇa in a sense that is close to Dalhaṇa’s reference, albeit not literally the same. The Aṣṭāṅgasamgraha (Sū.8.12) does not employ the word akṣivairāgya, but an expression related to the wording of Aruṇa’s remark. This proves, in my view, that Dalhaṇa refers to the Saṃgraha and Aruṇadatta’s commentary on the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya.76 P.V. Sharma,77 however, considers Dalhaṇa’s remark to be a reference to the lexicographer Aruṇa.

v1.c26.s17.47

It may be that Aruṇadatta wrote a commentary on the Suśrutasaṃhitā, recorded as Suśrutaṭīkā.78

v1.c26.s17.48

Uncertainty exists on the question whether or not the commentator Aruṇadatta is identical with the lexicographer and grammarian of the same name. The earliest work citing the latter is Vardhamāna’s auto-commentary on the Gaṇaratnamahodadhi,79 a work dated to A.D. 1140.80

v1.c26.s17.49

Other authors and works quoting him are an anonymous commentary on the Amarakoṣa,81 Bhānuji Dīkṣita’s Vyākhyāsudhā on the Amarakoṣa,82 Durgasiṃha’s Nāmaliṅgānuśāsana,83 Jñānavimalagaṇi’s commentary on Maheśvara’s Śabdabhedaprakāśa,84 the commentaries on the Amarakoṣa by Mallinātha,85 Nārāyaṇa Vidyāvinoda86 and Rāyamukuṭa,87 Sādhusundaragaṇi’s Dhāturatnākara,88 Sarvānandavandyaghaṭīya’s Ṭīkāsarvasva on the Amarakoṣa,89 the Saupadmadhātupāthavyākhyā,90 Ujjvaladatta’s Vṛtti on the Uṇādisūtras,91 and Viśvanātha’s Koṣakalpataru.92

v1.c26.s17.50

The commentator Aruṇadatta lived probably in the northern part of India, because he remarks (ad A.H.Sū.7.71) on the practice of fellatio, censured by him, that is current among the southerners.93 This assertion runs counter to Vātsyāyana’s observation that oral intercourse was typical of the inhabitants of the Pañjāb.94 As a northerner, Aruṇa may have committed a pious fraud in blaming the southerners for a disdained practice.

v1.c26.s17.51

Some95 suppose Aruṇadatta to have been a Bengali on account of the ending -datta of his name.

v1.c26.s17.52

Aruṇadatta, the commentator on the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya, must have lived earlier than about A.D. 1200, since Dalhaṇa refers to him.96 The terminus post quem can be deduced from his sources. Aruṇa’s main source, Candranandana’s Padārthacandrikā, was written between the middle of the eighth century and about A.D. 1000. The quotations from Rudraṭa, who lived in the ninth century,97 and from the Dhanvantarīy Nighaṇṭu, dating from A.D. 1000–1100, are valuable landmarks, indicating that Aruṇa belongs to the twelfth century. The absence of quotations from Aruṇadatta’s commentary in the Madhukośa and Niścalakara’s Ratnaprabhā98 may be seen as pointing to about the middle or the latter half of the twelfth century as the period in which the Sarvāṅgasundarā came into being.99

v1.c26.s17.53

A.F.R. Hoernle’s date of Aruṇadatta, about A.D. 1220, uncritically adopted in many later books and articles, 100 but reached on faulty grounds, 101 can be dismissed. Hoernle supposed that the author of the second part of the *Madhukośa* 102 controverts a certain doctrine of Aruṇadatta concerning the structure of the eye, but the latter’s name is not mentioned, 103 which makes the assertion baseless and without any consequence for Aruṇa’s date.

v1.c26.s17.54

The problem whether or not the commentator Aruṇadatta is identical with the lexicographer of the same name, who must be earlier than A.D. 1140, cannot be solved with any certainty. Chronological considerations do not completely rule out the possibility that the two are one and the same person, 104 but the lexicographer may have lived earlier. 105

v1.c26.s17.55

ĀŚĀDHARA wrote a commentary, called AṢṬĀṄGAHṚDAYODDYOTA or -*uddyotinī*. Āśādhara was the son of Sallakṣaṇa and Raṭhī or Ratnī. His wife was called Sarasvatī and his son Chāhaḍa. He was of Vyāghreravāla (Bagheravāla) lineage and a Digambara Jain householder.

v1.c26.s17.56

Originally, Āśādhara lived in the central part of Rājasthān (Sapādalakṣa), in the town Maṇḍalakara (Maṇḍalgarh, in the Bhīlvārā district), in Śākambharī, the Cauhān kingdom. The campaigns of Muḥammad of Ghūr, and the accompanying Muslim atrocities, made him seek refuge in Dhārā, in Mālwā, in 1193, where he began his studies of grammar and logic. 106 Later, he moved to Nalakaccapura (Nālchā), about twenty miles from Dhārā, and remained there.

v1.c26.s17.57

Āśādhara was born about A.D. 1180 and wrote his works between about 1205 and 1244. He was honoured by the kings Vindhyavarman, Arjunavarman, Devapāla, and Jaitugideva, who are referred to in his writings.

v1.c26.s17.58

Some of his works are: *Dharmāmṛta*, *Jinayajñakalpa*, *Pratiṣṭhāsāroddhāra*, *Triṣaṣṭismṛtiśāstra*, and a commentary on the *Kāvyālaṃkāra*.

v1.c26.s17.59

Āśādhara’s *Uddyota* on the *Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya*, of which no manuscripts are recorded, is mentioned in one of his other works. 107

v1.c26.s17.60

Another Āśādhara, son of Rāmajī and pupil of Dharaṇīdhara, was the author of a commentary on Appaya Dīkṣita’s *Kuvalayānandakārikās*; he also wrote the *Kovidānanda* and its commentary, and, probably, the *Advaitaviveka* and (*Śabda*)triveṇikā. 108

v1.c26.s17.61

A jyotiṣa author Āśādhara, son of Rihluka, wrote the *Grahajñāna*, also called *Grahagaṇita*. 109

v1.c26.s17.62

An anonymous AṢṬĀṄGAHṚDAYAVṚTTI is recorded by A. Rahman. 110

v1.c26.s17.63

An anonymous commentary, called BĀLABODHINĪ, is recorded as being preserved in a single MS of the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras. 111

v1.c26.s17.64

An anonymous commentary, called BĀLAPRABODHIKĀ, is recorded by Th. Aufrecht 112 and some later authors. 113 The *Bālaprabodhikā* was one of the commentaries known to the author of the *Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃgraha*. A commentary, called *Bodhikā*, is referred to in Śaṃkara’s *Lalitā*; it may also be Śrīdāsa’s *Hṛdayabodhikā* or Udayāditya’s commentary.

v1.c26.s17.65

BHAṬṬĀRAHARIŚCANDRA is by some regarded as the author of a commentary on the Aṣṭāngahṛdaya.¹¹⁴ There is no evidence in support of this assertion.¹¹⁵

v1.c26.s17.66

BHAṬṬAŚRĪVARDHAMĀNA is mentioned as the author of a commentary called SĀRODDHĀRA.¹¹⁶

v1.c26.s17.67

A commentary, called BṚHADVYĀKHYĀSĀRA,¹¹⁷ is mentioned by N.S. Mooss¹¹⁸ and P.V. Sharma.¹¹⁹

v1.c26.s17.68

A commentary, called BṚHATPĀṬHYĀ,¹²⁰ is mentioned by A. Rahman,¹²¹ N.S. Mooss,¹²² and P.V. Sharma.¹²³

v1.c26.s17.69

CANDRANANDANA¹²⁴ was the author of the PADĀRTHACANDRIKĀ, a commentary on the whole of the Aṣṭāngahṛdayasaṃhitā. He also wrote the Madanādinighaṇṭu, and, according to some, a collection of glosses (vṛtti) on the Aṣṭāngahṛdaya.¹²⁵

v1.c26.s17.70

The Padārthacandrikā¹²⁶ is, on account of its early date, an important work. It is therefore regrettable that only the portion covering the Sūtrasthāna has been edited. Glimpses of the interpretations of verses from the other sections can be caught from the quotations in the footnotes to Kuṇṭe and Navre's edition of the Aṣṭāngahṛdayasaṃhitā.¹²⁷

v1.c26.s17.71

Candranandana does not quote from or refer to earlier commentators on Vāgbhaṭa's work. In general, his Padārthacandrikā, at least the part covering the Sūtrasthāna, is not a rich source of quotations and references.

v1.c26.s17.72

Sources he does quote or refer to are:¹²⁸ Āgama (1.2, 5cd–6ab, 19, 27, 30–31; 2.16; 3.12–14; 4.4cd–5ab; 5.68, 74cd, 79–80; 6.26cd–28ab,¹²⁹ 32cd, 43; 8.53; 10.1; 16.14ab), Agniveśa (1.3–4ab), Ātreya (1.1), Atriputra (1.3–4ab), Bhāradvāja (1.3–4ab), Bhaṭṭāraka (1.17cd),¹³⁰ Bheḍa (1.3–4ab), Caraka (passim), Dhanvantari (1.3–4ab; 6.158cd),¹³¹ Kāṇādāḥ (1.11ab), Kāśyapa (1.3–4ab), Kharanāda (6.115cd–117ab, 131cd–133, 149cd, 153cd–157),¹³² Kṛṣṇatreya (6.158ab), Kṣīrapāṇi (1.3–4ab), Nighaṇṭu (6.97cd–98ab¹³³ and 136ab),¹³⁴ Parāśara (1.3–4ab), Punarvasu (1.3–4ab), Saṃgraha (passim),¹³⁵ Siddhasāra (7.45ab), Suśruta (passim), and tantrāntara (5.29ab;¹³⁶ 6.33cd, 106–107, 112,¹³⁷ 122cd–125ab,¹³⁸ 158cd; 29.41ab).¹³⁹

v1.c26.s17.73

Candranandana's Madanādinighaṇṭu is not quoted by name, but the synonyms of medicinal plants, given in the commentary, are usually those found in that nighaṇṭu,¹⁴⁰ whereas Aruṇadatta obviously drew his information from another source. With regard to the names of plants, Hemādri remains closer to Candranandana than Aruṇadatta does. In other respects, Aruṇadatta was heavily indebted to Candranandana, since many parts of his commentary are literally copied from the Padārthacandrikā.¹⁴¹

v1.c26.s17.74

Candranandana or his commentary are quoted by Aruṇadatta,¹⁴² Dalhaṇa,¹⁴³ Hemādri,¹⁴⁴ Niścalakara,¹⁴⁵ Śrīkaṇṭhadatta,¹⁴⁶ Ṭoḍara,¹⁴⁷ and Vācaspati.¹⁴⁸

v1.c26.s17.75

Quotations from a commentary called Candrikā may in some instances be from the Padārthacandrikā.¹⁴⁹

v1.c26.s17.76

A Candrikā is mentioned at the end of Śivadāsasena's commentary on the Cakradatta.¹⁵⁰

v1.c26.s17.77

Candranandana wrote his *Padārthacandrikā* at the instance of Śakunadeva.¹⁵¹ The maṅgala is addressed to Hari.

v1.c26.s17.78

G. Hāldār alleges that the author called by him Vāgbhaṭa IV, the son of Nemi, wrote a *ṭippaṇī* on the *Padārthacandrikā* in the thirteenth or fourteenth century.¹⁵²

v1.c26.s17.79

The *Padārthacandrikā* was translated into Tibetan by Rin-chen bzaṅ-po¹⁵³ in the period 1013–1055.¹⁵⁴ This translation, with the title *Yan-lag brgyad-paḥi sñiṅ-poḥi rnam-par ḥgrel-pa ċhig-gi don-gyi zla-zer źes-bya-ba*, i.e., *Padārthacandrikāprabhāsa nāma aṣṭāṅgahṛdayavivṛti*,¹⁵⁵ forms part of the Tanjur.

v1.c26.s17.80

It is remarkable that the Tibetan translations of the *Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya* and its commentary by Candranandana are later than the translation of Vāgbhaṭa’s *Vaiḍūryakabhāṣya*. This fact is recorded in Jayapaṇḍita’s *Thob-yig*.¹⁵⁶ It is equally noteworthy that the Tibetan translators of the *Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya* did not always agree with Candranandana’s interpretations of its text.¹⁵⁷

v1.c26.s17.81

Candranandana’s *Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayavṛtti*, called in Tibetan *Sman-dpyad yan-lag brgyad-paḥi sñiṅ-poḥi ḥgrel-pa*, i.e., *Vaidya Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayavṛtti*, is a collection of annotations on Vāgbhaṭa’s work.¹⁵⁸

v1.c26.s17.82

DĀMODARA wrote a commentary called *SAṂKETAMAÑJARĪ*.¹⁵⁹

v1.c26.s17.83

An anonymous commentary called *DĪPIKĀ* is recorded.¹⁶⁰

v1.c26.s17.84

HĀṬAKĀṄKA wrote a commentary called (*AṢṬĀṄGAHṚDAYA*)DĪPIKĀ.¹⁶¹ This author is quoted as Hāṭaka by Parameśvara and Śrīdāsapaṇḍita, which may indicate that he lived in Southern India.¹⁶² Śrīdāsa’s quotations establish that he is anterior to Vāsudeva, Śrīdāsa’s teacher,¹⁶³ and later than Indu, with whom Hāṭaka often argues in his interpretations.¹⁶⁴

v1.c26.s17.85

HEMĀDRI wrote a commentary called *ĀYURVEDARASĀYANA*,¹⁶⁵ which probably covered the whole of the *Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā*.¹⁶⁶ The preserved parts contain the commentary on the *Sūtrasthāna*, *Nidānasthāna* 1–5 and 6.24cd–39, *Cikitsitasthāna* 1–6 and 7.100–115, and the *Kalpasthāna*.¹⁶⁷

v1.c26.s17.86

Hemādri’s fame in Indian literary history is based on his authorship of the *Caturvargacintāmaṇi*.

v1.c26.s17.87

The introductory verses of the *Āyurvedarasāyana* declare that this work was written in order to enable man to acquire a healthy body, which is essential for the observance of fasts and vows and the performance of the ceremonies laid down in the *Caturvargacintāmaṇi*. The same verses mention his intention to elucidate differences between the *Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya* and *Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha*, as well as dissentient views expounded in other treatises. Hemādri adds that his comments will be based on the opinions of Caraka, Hārīta, Suśruta, and other authorities, on the commentaries on the *Carakasaṃhitā* by Haricandra and others, and on the commentaries by Jaijjaṭa and others on the *Suśrutasaṃhitā*.

v1.c26.s17.88

A remarkable feature of Hemādri’s commentary is the order he chose for his comments on the *Sūtra*- and *Kalpasthāna*. The chapters of these sections are arranged as follows: Sū.1–15, Ka.6, Sū.16–18, Ka.3, Ka.1–2, Sū.19, Ka.5, Sū.20–30. 168

v1.c26.s17.89

The Āyurvedarasāyana differs considerably from the earlier commentaries by Candranandana, Indu, and Aruṇadatta. Characteristic for the work are the extensive quotations from the Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha, 169 and, in particular, the use made of Vṛnda’s Siddhayoga 170 and Vaṅgasena’s Cikitsāsārasaṃgraha. 171

v1.c26.s17.90

Hemādri pays less attention than Aruṇadatta to points of grammar, metres, figures of speech, etc. Theoretically interesting are his remarks on the guṇas and their actions, 172 on sātmya, 173 and on ojas. 174 He was acquainted with Keśava’s Siddhamantra and Vopadeva’s Siddhamantraprakāśa, as is shown by his making use of the concept of udāsīnatva. 175 The identity of medicinal substances is taken notice of; Hemādri’s observations on this subject deviate frequently from those of his predecessors; 176 vernacular names are not mentioned. 177

v1.c26.s17.91

Astronomy was one of the sciences to which Hemādri felt attracted. He discusses at length which months make up a particular season and rejects Suśruta’s views. In his opinion the season called vasanta comprises the months Phālguna and Caitra when the saṃkrānti of Pisces occurs in the beginning of Phālguna, but it is composed of Caitra and Vaiśākha when the saṃkrānti takes places at the end of Phālguna, etc. 178

v1.c26.s17.92

Hemādri is evasive with regard to the Buddhist elements in the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya. 179 Remarks on the text and its variants are almost absent.

v1.c26.s17.93

The following authorities and works are quoted or referred to by Hemādri: 180 ācārya (Sū.4.25; 7.48), 181 Aruṇadatta (Sū.7.41ab), Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya (Sū.1.1), Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha (Sū.1.1), Aśvinau (Ci.3.166cd–167ab; 5.33cd–34), 182 Ātreya (Ci.5.33cd–34), 183 Āyurvedaprakāśa (Sū.6.105cd; 10.17–19; Ci.1.19cd–20), 184 Bāṣacandra (Sū.3.11–14; 6.112cd–113ab and 122cd–125ab), Bhaṭṭārakahariścandra (Sū.7.48), 185 Bheḍa (Sū.7.55cd–56ab; 7.65 and 73; 8.28), Bhṛgu (Ci.3.167cd–169ab), 186 Brahmadeva (Sū.7.40–41ab), Bṛhaspati (Sū.7.22cd–26), 187 Candranandana (Sū.7.40–41ab), Caraka (passim), Caturvargacintāmaṇi (Sū.1.1), Cikitsākalikā (Sū.6.160; 16.1), Dalhaṇa (Sū.7.40–41ab), dhanvantarīyāḥ (Sū.19.20cd–24ab), dharmaśāstra (Sū.2.1–3), Gautama (Sū.7.22cd–26), 188 Hariścandra (Sū.1.1; 6.75cd–78), 189 Hārīta (Sū. 1.1; 6.63cd–64ab and 75cd–78), Indu (Sū.7.40–41ab), Jaijjaṭa (Sū.1.1; 2.12cd; 6.75cd–78 and 79cd; 7.40–41ab; 8.28), jyotiḥśāstra (Sū.3.1–2; 5.6–8ab), 190 Kapila (Sū.1.15cd–16ab), Kāśyapa (Sū.3.1–2; 5.6–8ab), Khāraṇādi, 191 Mādhavakara (Sū.8.28), 192 Mādhavakāra (Sū.6.75cd–78, 81, 97cd–98ab, 99cd, 137cd–138, 193 161cd–163ab; 194 7.40–41ab), 195 Manu (Sū.2.5cd–6ab), Paṇḍitakeśava (Sū.6.105cd), 196 Parāśara (Sū.9.21; 13.15), 197 Rasāyurveda (Sū.7.74), Rugviniścaya (Ni.1.3d–4ab; 2.53ab, 66cd–67ab, 74cd–76ab; 198 3.16cd–17ab; 6.35), 199 Saṃgraha (passim), 200 satkāryavādinaḥ (Sū.1.1), saugatāḥ (Sū.7.77), Śaunaka (Ni.1.23cd–24ab), 201 Siddhayoga (Ci.1.19cd–20, 26cd–27ab, 47; 1.54cd–55ab, twice; 1.59, 62–63, 64–65ab; 1.66cd–67ab, twice; 1.70ab, 81cd–83, 94, 166ab; 2.42–44ab), 202 smṛti (Sū.2.1–3), Suśruta (passim), tantrāntara (Sū.1.1; 5.41; 6.75cd–78, 158, 160; 7.48; 11.37–39ab; 20.37–38; Ka.4.73; 203 6.8–9ab and 14d), 204 Vāgbhaṭācārya (Sū.1.1; 3.1–2; 6.5cd and 75cd–78), Vaṅgasena (Sū.8.28; Ni.2.33cd; 5.13cd–15ab, 43cd–45ab, 57cd–58ab; Ci.1.1–2, 18–19ab, 23ab; 1.54cd–55ab, three quotations; 1.59, 62–63; 1.66cd–67ab, two quotations; 1.94, 99–101, 128, 129–130ab, 134cd–135, 150, 166ab, 171–172; 2.35ab, 42–44ab, 44cd–45ab, 50; 3.10ab, 31–33ab, 42cd–44ab, 63cd–67ab, 80, 166cd–167ab; 4.8–9, 20cd–22, 55cd–56ab, 60ab; 5.3–4ab, 25cd–27, 33ab, 33cd–34, 52cd–53; 6.32cd–33, 47cd–49ab, 54cd–55, 57cd–58ab, 59cd, 60–67, 68, 69–72ab, 72cd–74, 82cd–83ab, 83cd–85ab; 7.104cd–107ab), 205 vedavādinaḥ (Sū.7.77), 206 Videhādhipa (Sū.7.22cd–26), 207 Viśvāmitra (Sū.5.11–12), vṛddhavaidyāḥ (Ci.3.114–118ab; Ka.6.14cd), Vṛnda (Sū.5.76–77ab; 19.38cd–41ab; Ni.2.53cd; Ka.2.29–30ab; 3.11–14; 6.17cd–18), 208 and Yogaratna (Ci.3.31cd–32, 63cd–67ab, 68–69, 85cd, 166cd–167ab, 167cd–169ab; 4.6cd–7; 5.25cd–27 and 58cd–60; 6.17cd–21, 43cd, 60–67, 68, 72cd–74; 7.104cd–107ab). 209

v1.c26.s17.94

Works quoted without any reference 210 are the Dhanvantarīyaṇighaṇṭu (Sū.6.128cd–129ab), 211 Medinīkośa (Sū.6.42), 212 Śārṅgadharasaṃhitā (Sū.5.76–77ab), 213 Siddhasāra (Ci.2.42–44ab; 214 6.17cd–21), 215 Siddhayoga (Ci.5.10cd–11), 216 Vaṅgasena (Ci.1.81cd–83; 217 6.17cd–21), 218 and Viśvaprakāśakośa (Sū.6.42). 219

v1.c26.s17.95

Hemādri is quoted or referred 220 to in Bhānuji Dīkṣita’s commentary on the Amarakoṣa, Gopāla’s commentary on Trimalla’s Śataślokī, Gulrājśarmamiśra’s Viśīkhānupraveśavijñāna and commentary on the Āyurvedaprakāśa, Kṛṣṇadatta’s commentary on Trimalla’s Śataślokī, the Kusumāvalī on the Siddhayoga, 221 Lakṣmīrāma’s commentary on the Siddhabheṣajamaṇimālā, 222 Nṛsiṃhakavi’s Vāgbhaṭamaṇḍana, 223 Priyavrat Śarmā’s auto-commentary on the Dravyaguṇasūtra, 224 Śivadatta’s auto-commentary on the Śivakośa, 225 the Tāmbūlakalpasaṃgraha, Tāmbūlamañjarī, and Yogaratnākara. 226

v1.c26.s17.96

Hemādri 227 was a brāhmaṇa of Vatsagotra, 228 son of Kāmadeva, grandson of Vāsudeva, and great-grandson of Vāmana. 229 The year of his birth may have been A.D. 1193 or 1194. 230

v1.c26.s17.97

Hemādri is well known as the author of the Caturvargacintāmaṇi, 231 a large encyclopaedia of ancient religious rites and observances, divided into four parts: (1) Vratakhaṇḍa, on religious fasts and observances, (2) Dānakhaṇḍa, on gifts, (3) Tīrthakhaṇḍa, on pilgrimages to holy places, and (4) Mokṣakhaṇḍa, on the path to final deliverance. A fifth part, in the form of an appendix called Pariśeṣakhaṇḍa, consists of voluminous treatises on the setting up and dedication of images of the deities (devatāpratiṣṭhā), offerings to the manes (śrāddha), the determination of the proper times and seasons for the performance of religious rites (kālanirṇaya), lakṣaṇasamuccaya, and atonement (prāyaścitta). 232 The Caturvargacintāmaṇi is a standard work, 233 replete with information and quotations; it is full of discussions which cannot be well understood without thorough acquaintance with the numerous rules of the Mīmāṃsā. 234 Besides the Caturvargacintāmaṇi and Āyurvedarasāyana, Hemādri wrote 235 the Hemādriprayoga, 236 Śrāddhapaddhati, 237 Tristhalīvidhi, 238 and a commentary, called Kaivalyadīpikā, on Vopadeva’s Muktāphala. 239

v1.c26.s17.98

Vopadeva, 240 a friend and protégé of Hemādri, wrote several works at the encouragement of the latter.

v1.c26.s17.99

Hemādri describes himself in the Caturvargacintāmaṇi as being in charge of the records (sarvaśrīkaraṇaprabhu) of Mahādeva (1260 or 1261–1271), 241 one of the Yādava kings of Devagiri. 242 He is referred to in the colophons as samastakaraṇādhīśvara of Mahādeva and as a very learned man (sakalavidyāviśārada). 243

v1.c26.s17.100

The introductory verses of the Āyurvedarasāyana, written after the Caturvargacintāmaṇi, 244 inform us that Hemādri was at that time in charge of the state records 245 of Mahādeva’s successor, Rāmacandra 246 (1271–1309). 247 The Ṭhāṇā plate of Rāmacandra, dated A.D. 1272, recording the grant of a village to a group of brāhmaṇas, makes mention of Hemādri in the same sense, namely as the foremost minister and as the one in charge of the state records. 248

v1.c26.s17.101

Hemādri is described as a pious man who fed daily a number of brāhmaṇas. He was not only a man of learning himself, but also a generous patron to scholars. His name has remained popular in the Marāṭha country, where he is remembered as Hemāḍpant and associated with numerous temples of a particular style, called Hemāḍpantī. He is, rightly or wrongly, said to have introduced the Moḍī form of writing, current in Mahārāṣṭra. 249

v1.c26.s17.102

The Hemādri who wrote the Lakṣaṇaprakāśa 250 is different from the author of the Caturvargacintāmaṇi and Āyurvedarasāyana; he was a son of Īśvarasūri and may belong to the fifteenth century. 251

v1.c26.s17.103

Probably the same Hemādri, also known as a son of Īśvarasūri, wrote a commentary, called Raghuvamśadarpaṇa, on Kālidāsa’s famous poem. 252

v1.c26.s17.104

HIMADATTA or Sarvahitamitradatta is sometimes mentioned as a commentator on the Aṣṭāngahṛdaya. 253

v1.c26.s17.105

An anonymous commentary called HṚDAYABODHIKĀ is recorded in some MSS catalogues. 254

v1.c26.s17.106

The HṚDYĀ is an anonymous commentary, which mentions the Aṣṭāngasaṃgraha, Indu, and (Aruṇadatta’s) Sarvāṅgasundarī. It is quoted by Śrīdasapaṇḍita 255 and Parameśvara, and referred to in Śaṅkara’s Lalitā. 256 N.S. Mooss mentions particular interpretations of the author of the Hṛdyā, 257 who is one of the few to admit that Vāgbhaṭa was a Buddhist. 258

v1.c26.s17.107

The author of the Hṛdyā, who hailed from Kerala, is posterior to Aruṇadatta and anterior to Vāsudeva, Śrīdāsa’s teacher. 259

v1.c26.s17.108

INDU was the author of two commentaries with the title ŚAŚILEKHĀ, the one on the Aṣṭāngahṛdayasaṃhitā, the other on the Aṣṭāngasaṃgraha. 260 These commentaries are closely related to each other, as can easily be seen when they are compared. The Śaśilekhā on the Aṣṭāngasaṃgraha follows the wording of that on the Aṣṭāngahṛdaya wherever both treatises agree with each other. A striking difference between them is the paucity of quotations in the commentary on the Aṣṭāngahṛdaya, if the references to the Saṃgraha are disregarded.

v1.c26.s17.109

Authorities and works quoted or referred to in the edited parts of the Śaśilekhā on the Aṣṭāngahṛdayasaṃhitā 261 are: 262 Bharadvāja (Sū.1.1), Bhaṭṭārahariścandra (Ka.6.14ab), 263 Bhaṭṭāraka (Sū.7.45cd–46), 264 Bhoja (Ka.6.5–6), Cākṣuṣeṇasaṃhitā (Ka.6.14ab), Caraka (Sū.1.4cd–5ab; 7.45cd–46; Śā.3.8; Ci.19.28–30; Ka.1.44; 6.11cd–12, 14ab, 29–30ab), carakavidah (Ci.3.60), Kābandhaka (Ka.1.44), 265 Kāśyapa (Ka.1.44), Kharaṇāda (Sū.29.32cd–33), Kharaṇādasamhitā (Ka.6.14ab), Kṛṣṇātreya (Ka.6.14ab), Śālihotra (Sū.3.1), Saṃgraha (often), 266 Skandarakṣita (Sū.23.17), 267 Suśruta (Sū.1. 4cd–5ab; 19.85–87; Ka.4.26cd–27ab), suśrutādhyāyinaḥ (Ka.6.14ab), Vaidehasamhitā (Sū.23.17), 268 vṛddhavaidyāḥ (Ka.6.14ab), and Vyāsa (Sū.2.27). A quotation from Pā-rameśvara (Ci.19.98) and one from Aruṇadatta 269 are undoubtedly later interpolations.

v1.c26.s17.110

Authorities and works quoted or referred to in the commentary on the Aṣṭāṅgasam-graha 270 are: Agniveśa (Sū.1.13cd–15), Amara (U.50.109–111), asmadguravaḥ (Sū. 9.7–15; Ni.1.8), Ātreya (Sū.17.3; Śā.3.3 and 17), Bharadvāja (Sū.1.2; U.36.8), Bhaṭṭarahariścandra (Ni.2.4), 271 Bhaṭṭarahariścandra’s Kharaṇādasamhitā (Ka.8.17; U.50.150–153), Bhaṭṭāraka (Sū.9.7–15; Ni.2.4), Bhoja ([U.31.54–55]; 36.8 [and 9]), Cakṣuṣyeṇa (Ka.8.17), Caraka (Sū.1.16–18; 3.8cd–12ab; 9.7–15; Ni.2.89–102; Śā.3.8; 5.15; Ci.6.43–44; 7.5–8; 10.28; 15.4; Ka.8.17 and 22; U.9.35–37; 43.56), carakagrantha (Ka.8.17), carakavidah (Ci.4.71–74), Catuḥṣaṣṭi (U.15.2), [Ḍalha-ṇa’s Nibandhasamgraha (U.37.10),] 272 Dāruvāhi(n) (Ni.1.19–31; U.1.22; 5.7–8; 40.32–33), Dhanvantari (Sū.36.5; Śā.3.8; 7.23; [U.16.5–6]; U.41.60), 273 [Gayadāsa (U.43.3–4),] 274 Hṛdaya (Sū.7.107–110; Śā.3.37; Ka.4.39), Janaka (U.17.7; 40.34), Jātūkarṇa ([U.36.9;] Jejjata 275 ([Ni.2.3;] Ci.9.50 and 51–52; 23.40–42; 276 [U.30.79 and 80; 38.2–6a;] 39.35; [42.8 and 101–106; 43.3–4;] 46.83; [49.115 and 116; 50.2 and 18]), Kapilabala (Sū.20.17), [Kairalī (U.8.40, 57, 58, 59, 60),] 277 kāmaśāstra (U.50.130), 278 Kapilabala (Sū.20.18), Kāśyapa (U.37.7; 48.72), Kauṭilya (Sū.8.25cd–31; U.40.83), Khaṇḍakāpya (Śā.3.5), Kharaṇāda(samhitā) (Sū.1.16–18 and 19; Ka.8.17; U.49.309–325; 50.150–153), Kośa (Sū.2.17cd–18ab), Kṛṣṇātreya (Sū.1.16–18, twice; Ka.8.17), [Nandin (U.43.3–4),] 279 Nimi (U.15.2), Parāśara (Sū. 1.16–18; 17.26; 21.14–17), Pāṭhyakāra (U.8.59), 280 [Prabandhasamgraha (U.43.3–4; 44.77),] 281 Puṣkalāvata (U.30.11), Rājanighaṇṭu (U.43.56), 282 [Sārakṛt (U.38.55),] 283 Śaunaka (Ci.3.64cd–65), [Surasavīra (U.43.3–4),] 284 Suśruta (Sū.1.13cd–15, 16–18, 21–22; Śā.215; 7.20; Ci.21.22–25; Ka.8.17; U.2.24 [; 30.85–86; 43.3–4]), Suśrutaṭīkā ([U.40.75; 42.90–94;] 50.109–111), Urabhra (U.36.8), Uśanas (U.70.88), Vāgbhaṭa (Sū.1.16–18; 17.26–28; Śā.6.37–38; Ka.8.17), Vaidehasamhitā (Sū.32.14), 285 [Varā-ha (U.43.3–4),] vāstuvidyā (Sū.3.111cd–112), Vātsyāyana (U.50.131), Viśvāmitra (U.44.2), Vṛddhakāśyapa (U.36.8), and vṛddhavaidyāḥ (Ka.8.17).

v1.c26.s17.111

The Kāśikāvṛtti is quoted anonymously (Sū.6.8–11ab). The verses on paribhāṣā at the end of the commentary on the Kalpasthāna 286 refer to the views of Bhaṭṭā-raharicandra in his Kharaṇāda(samhitā) (45), Caraka (24, 25, 27, 40, 55, 58, 61, 70), Dṛḍhabala (25, 26), Kharaṇāda (45, 47, 80), Kṛṣṇātreya (5, 50), and Suśruta (17, 21, 79).

v1.c26.s17.112

Indu is quoted or referred to by Anantakumāra, 287 Hemādri, 288 the author of the Kairalī commentary on the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya, 289 Nīlamegha, 290 Niścalakara, 291 Parameśvara, 292 Śaṃkara, 293 Śrīdāsapaṇḍita, 294 and the author of the Tantrayukti and its commentary. 295

v1.c26.s17.113

One of the characteristic features of Indu’s commentaries consists of the frequent occurrence of strings of synonyms of medicinal plants, obviously taken from some nighaṇṭu. 296 P.V. Sharma is convinced that Indu was acquainted with the Aṣṭāṅganighaṇṭu and quotes from it, because some of the verses he cites are found exclusively in that work.297 The evidence he collected is not conclusive in my view, since the majority of Indu’s quotations are definitely not from the Aṣṭāṅganighaṇṭu.298 A considerable percentage of them forms part of the Dhanvantarīnighaṇṭu,298 which, however, does not solve the problem of Indu’s source, as some plants have different names or are not mentioned at all in that work.299 Some correspondences between Indu’s citations and verses occurring in Candranandana’s Madanādinighaṇṭu are neither persuasive.300 For these reasons it remains obscure which nighaṇṭu was put to use by Indu, unless he borrowed from more than one.301

v1.c26.s17.114

The two Śaśilekhās, in particular the one on the Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha, are replete with information on Vāgbhaṭa’s materia medica. The Śaśilekhā on the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya is richer in this respect than Aruṇadatta’s commentary. Indu almost never omits to mention one or more synonyms of items of the materia medica occurring in Vāgbhaṭa’s works. His interpretations disagree with those by Aruṇadatta in many cases.302 Valuable are his elucidations concerning plants and other medicinal substances.303 Vernacular names are also given,304 in particular those current in Kaśmīr.305 Other regions to which he refers are Madhyadeśa,306 Śakadeśa,307 Southern India,308 and Uttarāpatha.309 Some of his identifications are particularly interesting.310

v1.c26.s17.115

Indu makes some noteworthy remarks about the thirty-six types of diarrhoea (atisāra), which may occur as a complication (vyāpad) of a treatment with clysters.311 Important is his characterization of a disorder called pramīlaka, amlapitta, orpittaviṣūcikā.312

v1.c26.s17.116

The Śaśilekhā on the Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha (ad U.37.35) contains a rather long series of verses, quoted from an unknown source, on diseases of the feet and some other disorders, together with their treatment. The disorders dealt with are vipādikā, kaṇṭakavedha (wounds by sharp thorns), pādadāha (burning feet), pārṣṇivyathā (painful heels), dehasphuṭana (a cracking skin), atisveda (excessive perspiration), dehadaurgandhya (a bad bodily smell), and vaidyutānaladāha (burns in persons struck by lightning).

v1.c26.s17.117

Grammar is not one of Indu’s favourite subjects,313 which makes his Śaśilekhā on the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya quite distinct from Aruṇadatta’s commentary. Technical terms derived from philosophy are rarely used.314

v1.c26.s17.118

Interpretations by predecessors, whether commentators on Vāgbhaṭa’s works or on the Caraka- and Suśrutasaṃhitā, are repeatedly referred to or quoted.315 In general, Indu does not borrow extensively from Candranandana, but occasionally he may be indebted to him.316

v1.c26.s17.119

Variants of Vāgbhaṭa’s text are mentioned,317 as well as differences between the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya and Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha.318

v1.c26.s17.120

Very important is a series of 119 verses, appended to the end of the commentary on the Kalpasthāna of both Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya and Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha. These verses deal with technical rules (paribhāṣā) on the preparation of medicines, in particular on the intricate subject of the ratios of the ingredients of compound drugs. They are borrowed from an unknown source319 and are mainly based on views expounded by Caraka, as declared by Indu in his introductory remarks. Divergent opinions of other authorities are repeatedly referred to.

v1.c26.s17.121

The verses on paribhāṣā of Indu’s commentaries were edited separately, translated into English, and annotated by N.S. Mooss, 320 who expressed as his opinion that Indu possessed a thorough knowledge of traditional practices prevalent in Kerala. This view need not be endorsed, as Indu merely refers to practices adopted by some physicians, without specifying a particular region. 321

v1.c26.s17.122

Indu is one of the few commentators who accept Vāgbhaṭa’s syncretistic attitude and do not cloak the Buddhist elements in his works. His remarks on ‘worship of the deities’ (daivatapūjā; A.h.Ci.1.177) mention, as examples of these deities, not only Hari and Hara, but also Āryāvalokita, Āryatārā, Parṇaśabarī, and Aparājitā. 322 Indu reads Jina and Jinasuta in a verse of the Aṣṭāngahṛdaya (Ci.19.98), where these names are suppressed by Aruṇadatta and many editors, who replace them by Śiva and Śivasuta. 323 He interprets Jina as the Buddha, Jinasuta 324 as Avalokiteśa and other deities. 325 Neither is Tārā passed over in silence, as in Aruṇadatta’s commentary; she is recognized as a Buddhist deity. 326

v1.c26.s17.123

Indu argues that Ratnaketu (A.s.U.1.19) is a Buddhist dhāraṇī. He was also acquainted with the Māyūrī (A.s.U.1.19). 327

v1.c26.s17.124

Indu’s own religion may have been a mixture of Hinduism and Buddhism, as is suggested by his naming both Manu and Buddha as the founders of a hitopadeśaśāstra, which delivers from undesirable states of mind caused by rajas and tamas. 328 On the other hand it should be noticed that the maṅgalas of his commentaries are of a Hindu type. 329

v1.c26.s17.125

Next to Indu, the commentator on Vāgbhaṭa’s works, an author of the same name, who composed a nighaṇṭu, 330 is known from quotations in Bhānuji Dīkṣita’s commentary on the Amarakosa, 331 Jñānavimalagaṇi’s commentary on Maheśvara’s Śabdabhedaprakāśa, 332 Kṣīrasvāmin’s commentary on the Amarakoṣa, 333 Mallinātha’s commentary on the Amarakoṣa, 334 Nārāyaṇa Vidyāvinoda’s commentary on the Amarakoṣa, 335 Śivadatta’s auto-commentary on the Śivakoṣa, 336 and Śrīvallabhagaṇi’s commentary on Hemacandra’s Nighaṇṭuśeṣa. 337

v1.c26.s17.126

N.N. Das Gupta 338 may have been the first to suggest that the commentator and the lexicographer of the same name are one and the same person. The only grounds adduced by N.N. Das Gupta are the medical nature of the commentaries and the nighaṇṭu, combined with the fact that Indu is not a commonplace name amongst medical writers. Some later authorities tend to accept the proposed identity, basing themselves on the anonymous definitions of a pharmacopoeial nature, obviously quoted from some nighaṇṭu, in Indu’s commentaries. 339

v1.c26.s17.127

The identity is rejected by P.V. Sharma 340 for chronological reasons. The lexicographer, quoted by Kṣīrasvāmin in the eleventh century, should be distinguished from the commentator who, in P.V. Sharma’s view, belongs to the thirteenth century.

v1.c26.s17.128

There are, however, more compelling grounds for regarding the lexicographer as entirely different from the commentator. The quotations from a nighaṇṭu in the commentaries are, to be sure, not from a single, identifiable medical lexicon. Since these citations agree in a large number of cases with the Dhanvantarīyanighaṇṭu, it seems reasonable to assume that the commentator Indu did not compose a nighaṇṭu himself, which would otherwise certainly have been used in his interpretations of Vāgbhaṭa’s texts. Another argument for discarding the identity is furnished by the absence of agreements between the quotations from the *Indunighaṇṭu* and those found in Indu’s commentaries. The verses cited as coming from the *Indunighaṇṭu* do not form part of the *Dhanvantarīyanighaṇṭu* or *Aṣṭāṅganighaṇṭu*, which indicates that this *Indunighaṇṭu* is distinct from Indu’s source or sources in his commentaries. Consequently, the identity of the lexicographer and the commentator can be maintained only on the assumption that Indu wrote a nighaṇṭu after completing his commentaries, and, moreover, if the chronological position of the *Indunighaṇṭu* does not conflict with that of the *Śaśilekhā*.

v1.c26.s17.129

The earliest quotations from the *Indunighaṇṭu* occur in Kṣīrasvāmin’s *Amarakoṣodghāṭana*, which dates from the first half of the twelfth century,³⁴¹ which implies that the former cannot be earlier than the second half of the eleventh century.

v1.c26.s17.130

The hypothesis, also formulated for the first time by N.N. Das Gupta,³⁴² that Indu, the commentator, may prove to be identical with Indukara, the father of the Mādhava who wrote the *Mādhavanidāna*, is not based on any evidence, and was rightly rejected by D.Ch. Bhattacharyya,³⁴³ because Indukara and Mādhava were residents of Bengal, whereas Indu was a native of Kaśmīr.

v1.c26.s17.131

The Indian tradition makes Indu a direct pupil of Vāgbhaṭa. This tradition, in particular current among the physicians of Kerala, alleges that Vāgbhaṭa, accompanied by his favourite pupils Indu and Jejjaṭa, came to Kerala in order to spend the latter part of his life there.³⁴⁴ A salutary verse in the introductory portion of Nīlamegha’s *Tantrayuktivicāra* refers to Indu and Jejjaṭa as disciples of Vāgbhaṭa.³⁴⁵

v1.c26.s17.132

Indu’s references to Vāgbhaṭa as ācārya³⁴⁶ have been interpreted as pointing in the same direction,³⁴⁷ in spite of the fact that it is common practice among commentators to mention well-known ancient authorities in this way.³⁴⁸

v1.c26.s17.133

In my opinion, it is very unlikely that Indu studied with Vāgbhaṭa himself,³⁴⁹ because Indu observes, in the introduction to both versions of the *Śaśilekhā*, that Vāgbhaṭa’s words had become obscured by bad commentaries, which led him to write a new one. At least one generation of commentators must therefore have preceded Indu. One should also remember that Indu cites Jejjaṭa, which excludes his being a contemporary.

First 133 of 245 passages. Read on

Linked texts (125)