Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c26.s6: Date of the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā

A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c26.s6

Language
English

Date of the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā

v1.c26.s6.1

Some non-Indian sources which are important among the external evidence will be discussed first.

v1.c26.s6.2

The Tibetan translations of the Hṛdaya and Candranandana’s commentary provide a trustworthy lower limit for both works. Candranandana’s commentary, the Padārthacandrikā, was rendered into Tibetan by Rin-chen bzaṅ-po between the years 1013 and 1055, the Hṛdaya by the Indian scholar (mkhan-po) Jārandhara and Rin-chen bzaṅ-po in the same period.498

v1.c26.s6.3

The hypothesis that the Hṛdaya is meant in the Arabic sources referring to a Kitāb asānkar al-jāmi‘ cannot be proved with certainty.499

v1.c26.s6.4

An Arabic author who does undoubtedly refer to the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā is ‘Alī ibn Sahl al-Ṭabarī, who names among his Indian medical sources Caraka, Suśruta, the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya, and the Nidāna in his Firdaws al-ḥikma fī’l ṭibb, written in A.D. 849/850.500 The Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya is quoted by name once;501 material deriving from the Hṛdaya is found in several chapters.502

v1.c26.s6.5

Reliable evidence also consists of quotations in later works, with the obvious proviso that identical verses are absent from the Saṃgraha.

v1.c26.s6.6

The earliest commentator to quote from Vāgbhaṭa is, according to P.V. Sharma,⁵⁰³ Jejjata in his commentary on the Carakasaṃhitā. This assertion is unjustified, since the quotation referred to actually forms part of Cakra’s commentary.⁵⁰⁴

v1.c26.s6.7

The earliest treatise to incorporate numerous verses taken from either Saṃgraha or Hṛdaya is the Mādhavanidāna. Several chapters of the Nidānasthānas of Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya are identical, which makes it impossible to decide which of the two was employed as a source. Stanzas that can only be from the Hṛdaya, because the corresponding chapter of the Saṃgraha is in prose, are, fortunately, not rare at all,⁵⁰⁵ which proves that the Hṛdaya was known to Mādhava.

v1.c26.s6.8

Vṛnda quotes Vāgbhaṭa by name once only in his Siddhayoga, but this verse (1. 27) forms part of both Saṃgraha and Hṛdaya (A.h.Ci.1.5 = A.s.Ci.1.6). Verses that can derive from the Hṛdaya are only found at several places in the Siddhayoga,⁵⁰⁶ which, as to be expected, shows that the former was extant in the period of Vṛnda’s activity.

v1.c26.s6.9

The Cakradatta uses the Hṛdaya extensively as a source,⁵⁰⁷ which, again, does not add new chronological clues.

v1.c26.s6.10

The uncertain dates of several Purāṇas prevent that data they contain can be made use of in determining the date of the Hṛdaya. This applies in the first place to the Garuḍapurāṇa, which contains a version of the Nidānasthāna of the Hṛdaya.⁵⁰⁸ The Agnipurāṇa⁵⁰⁹ and the Viṣṇudharmottarapurāṇa⁵¹⁰ present short medical sections with some similarities.

v1.c26.s6.11

The sources of the Hṛdaya are, in the same way as those of the Saṃgraha, of much importance for the determination of its terminus post quem. Some commentators provide us with material on this issue.

v1.c26.s6.12

Cakrapāṇidatta remarks (ad Ca.Ci.3.197–200ab) that Vāgbhaṭa follows Śaunaka; the uncertain date of this authority makes the remark unsuitable for chronological purposes.

v1.c26.s6.13

Cakrapāṇidatta also states (ad Ca.Sū.7.45–50) that Vāgbhaṭa follows Haricandra in a verse on the months suitable to the elimination of doṣas that accumulated in a particular season. He literally quotes A.h.Sū.13.33cd–34ab as the verse that agrees with Haricandra’s opinion, without declaring explicitly whether or not it is a direct borrowing. Niścala records (ad Cakradatta, sneha 6) that Vāgbhaṭa quotes Bhaṭṭārahari(ś)candra’s own saṃhitā (svasaṃhitā). The reproduced ardhaśloka from Hari(ś)candra’s treatise is closely related to A.h.Sū.13.33cd without being completely identical. The order of the months mentioned differs slightly: kārttike śrāvaṇe in Niścala’s quotation, śrāvaṇe kārttike in the text of the Hṛdaya. This small difference is not without importance, for the order of the months has to correspond to the order of the seasons enumerated in the second half of the verse. They do correspond, correctly, in the verse of the Hṛdaya, which implies that the second half of Haricandra’s verse, as cited by Niścala, must differ from A.h.Sū.13.34ab. This second half, identical in Haricandra’s saṃhitā and Vāgbhaṭa’s work according to Niścala, is different indeed in such a way that the traditional correspondences are maintained. However, since this ardhaśloka is not identical with A.h.Sū.34ab, we are faced with a problem. Cakra throws some light on this question. He quotes the complete stanza, which remains incomplete in Niścala’s commentary, where pāda d is missing, as an alternative śloka read by someone (probably not Haricandra), adding that it is of no concern because its meaning is the same. Śivadāsa, however, who quotes the second half of the alternative verse (ad Ca.Sū.13.45–50) as coming from some other treatise, objects to its mention of incorrect intervals of three months. The material available shows that the Hṛdaya follows Haricandra, but does not enable us to decide whether or not it quotes him literally. The verse discussed does not form part of the Saṃgraha. The interrelatedness of the dates of Hari(ś)candra and the Hṛdaya does not permit a conclusion from the discussed material on the date of the latter.

v1.c26.s6.14

Another indication regarding the chronological position of the Hṛdaya is supplied by Śivadāsasena. This commentator remarks (ad Cakradatta, dantamūlaroga 23–24), when quoting A.h.U.22.41cd, that Vāgbhaṭa follows Jejjaṭa, which would mean, if Śivadāsa can be trusted, that the latter preceded the former, which cannot be excluded, because Jejjaṭa lived in the seventh or, at the latest, the eighth century. 511

v1.c26.s6.15

The commentator on the Āyurvedābdhisāra claims that one verse of the Hṛdaya (Ni. 2.44cd–45ab) has been borrowed from Hārīta, 512 but this remark does not elucidate the date of the Hṛdaya.

v1.c26.s6.16

The internal evidence on the Hṛdaya consists in the first place of authorities mentioned in the treatise itself.

v1.c26.s6.17

Ātreya’s name appears, in the same way as in the Saṃgraha, at the beginning of each chapter. Called Atriputra (Atri’s son), he receives, together with other sages, the āyurveda from Indra (Sū.1.3). Ātreya, under the name of Atrinandana (also meaning Atri’s son), is mentioned as the one who states that the junctures (sandhi) are 2,000 in number, while Dhanvantari regards their number to be 210 (Śā.3.16cd–17ab). His opinion on the agent responsible for the digestion of the food (the annapaktar) is contrasted with that of another authority not referred to by name, who is, however, Dhanvantari (Śā.3.49); 513 Ātreya declares that the heat (ūṣman) inherent in doṣas, dhātus and malas is this agent, whereas the other authority considers it to be the pācakapitta. Ātreya is said to learn that, when a disease suddenly leaves off in a weak patient, his life is endangered (Śā.5.128). The recipe called puṣyānugacūrṇa is described as being esteemed by Ātreya (U.34.50ab). 514 Ātreya is mentioned as Agniveśa’s teacher (U.40. 59); Ātreya, called Punarvasu on this occasion, is referred to again as the teacher of Agniveśa (U.40.62).

v1.c26.s6.18

Caraka is mentioned a number of times. His definition of vīrya (Ca.Ci.26.65) is quoted (Sū.9.13cd–14ab). 515 Caraka’s name appears, together with those of other ancient authorities, in a few verses towards the end of the treatise (U.40.84 and 88). 516

v1.c26.s6.19

Agniveśa receives the āyurveda from Atriputra (Sū.1.3–4ab). His opinion on the maryādās of the doṣas in fevers is contrasted with that of Hārīta (A.h.Ni.2.60–63 = A.s. Ni.2.62–66). Agniveśa is, together with Bheḍa and others, a pupil of Ātreya (U.40.59); he is the foremost pupil of Punarvasu (Ātreya) (U.40.62).

v1.c26.s6.20

Suśruta’s opinion on the treatment of granthi (U.30.31c-f) is contrasted with that of Nimi (U.30.30cd–31ab), and, again, with that of an unnamed authority (U.30.32). Suśruta is mentioned, together with Caraka and other authorities, towards the end of the treatise (U.40.84 and 88).

v1.c26.s6.21

Dhanvantari is the authority recommending balātaila (Śā.2.52).517 His number of bones in the human body is three hundred,518 his number of junctures two hundred and ten (Śā.3.16–17a).519 In Dhanvantari’s opinion, the pittadharā kalā is the grahaṇī (Śā.3.50). A dhānvantara ghee, called after Dhanvantari, is prescribed (Ci.10.63ab; 17.14ab);520 its preparation and its actions are described (Ci.12.19cd–24).521

v1.c26.s6.22

Bheḍa is mentioned in connection with the recipe of sahācarataila (Ci.21.70–73ab), as in the Saṃgraha. He is, together with Agniveśa and others, one of the pupils of Agniveśa (U.40.59). One of the last verses refers to him as a medical authority (U.40.88).

v1.c26.s6.23

The other authorities mentioned in the Hṛdaya are not helpful in elucidating its date.

v1.c26.s6.24

This internal evidence on the sources of the Hṛdaya does not give us new chronological clues, when compared with that found in the Saṃgraha.

v1.c26.s6.25

The Hṛdaya is obviously posterior to Dṛḍhabala’s recension of the Carakasaṃhitā,522 because it contains many verses which are literally identical with verses found in the chapters that Dṛḍhabala contributed.

v1.c26.s6.26

It is also later than the Suśrutasaṃhitā before its later revision and the addition of the Uttaratantra because Suśruta is referred to. Some verses of the Hṛdaya are almost identical with stanzas found in the Cikitsāsthāna of the Suśrutasaṃhitā.523

v1.c26.s6.27

Divergent opinions have been expressed concerning the question whether or not the Hṛdaya is later than the revision of the Suśrutasaṃhitā often ascribed to a Nāgārjuna. This issue poses problems similar to those discussed with respect to the Saṃgraha, but it should be noted that the Hṛdaya contains some verses, absent from the Saṃgraha, which are very close to stanzas found in the Uttaratantra of the Suśrutasaṃhitā,524 and, more importantly, a number of verses common to both works.525 These facts are in favour of the hypothesis that the Uttaratantra belongs to the sources of the Hṛdaya.

v1.c26.s6.28

Other features of the Hṛdaya have been used in elucidating its date.

v1.c26.s6.29

The relationship between Hṛdaya and Śukranīti has been studied by P.V. Sharma,526 who claims527 that the sadvṛtta section of the Hṛdaya has about fifty verses in common with the Śukranīti,528 which, for that reason, must have existed in some form before the Hṛdaya was written, in spite of the late date of the version now known.529 This possibility is confirmed by quotations from the Śukranīti in Caṇḍeśvara’s Rājanītiratnākara.530

v1.c26.s6.30

P.V. Sharma531 advanced that the Hṛdaya must be later than Bhāravi’s Kirātārjunīya, because the latter’s alaṃkāras have influenced the former.

v1.c26.s6.31

G.S. Pendse532 argued that the Hṛdaya must be later than Vātsyāyana’s Kāmasūtra, a work that is in all probability referred to.533

v1.c26.s6.32

Mercury (pārada) is prescribed in a verse common to Hṛdaya and Saṃgraha (A.h. U.39.161 = A.s.U.49.392). Additional references to mercury are found at A.h.U.32.31 (pārada) and U.13.36 (rasendra).534 These two verses mention it as an ingredient of preparations for external use.

v1.c26.s6.33

Sulphur may be prescribed for external use only.535

v1.c26.s6.34

The alchemical apparatus called mūsā is known to the Hṛdaya (U.13.30). The andhamūṣā is mentioned in a verse common to Hṛdaya and Saṃgraha (A.h.U.13.20 = A.s.U.16.24) and in one more verse (A.h.U.13.32).

v1.c26.s6.35

Atrideva (ABI 210) says that the variety of the metres used and the preference for long compounds point to the Gupta age.

v1.c26.s6.36

All this material does not advance very much the determination of the date of the Hṛdaya. The facts known prove that it is later than Dṛḍhabala’s version of the Carakasaṃhitā and earlier than the Mādhavanidāna. If Śivadāsa is reliable, the Hṛdaya may be posterior to Jejjaṭa.

Cites (14)