Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c42.s12: Date

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c42.s12

Language
English

Date

v3.c42.s12.1

The story about the origin and transmission of the Kāśyapasaṃhitā, found in the last chapter of the Kalpasthāna, discloses that the text as it has come down to us is the revised version of an older treatise that contained Kaśyapa's teachings on kaumārabhṛtya, passed on to Vṛddhajīvaka and some of the latter's fellow pupils, among whom Vāryovida is mentioned by name. 306

v3.c42.s12.2

The Kaśyapa of the Kāśyapasaṃhitā is one of a series of authorities of this name. Sanskrit medical literature refers to a Kaśyapa, who is sometimes confused with Kāśyapa. 307 The Kāśyapasaṃhitā designates Kaśyapa with the patronymic Mārīca, in accordance with a tradition, recorded in the epics and the Purāṇas, that Kaśyapa was a son of Marīci. 308 It is, however, the only medical treatise that calls him Prajāpati. 309 A Kaśyapadeva, to be worshipped, along with Aditi, Indrāṇī, and the Aśvins, at the approach of a woman's confinement, is mentioned in the jātisūtrīya chapter (85).

v3.c42.s12.3

Kaśyapa's name is replaced by that of Kāśyapa in s short treatise with the title Kāśyaparśiproktastrīcikitsāsūtra, lost in its Sanskrit original, but preserved in a Chinese translation that forms part of the Tripitaka. 310 P.C. Bagchi, 311 who studied this work, affirms that it was translated by Dharmadeva or Dharmabhadra, who went to China in A.D. 973 and stayed there until his death in A.D. 1001. 312 The text, which mentions Kāśyapa as the teacher and Jīvaka as the pupil, deals with prenatal care and describes disorders of pregnancy and their treatment. P.C. Bagchi considers it to be an extract from the lost portion of the jātisūtrīya chapter of the Kāśyapasaṃhitā, since it deals with matter found in the chapters of the same name of the Caraka- and Bhelasaṃhitā. The prescriptions of the Strīcikitsāsūtra are more elaborate that those of Caraka and Bhela. Particular to it are prescriptions for the tenth, eleventh and twelfth months of pregnancy.

v3.c42.s12.4

The Kāśyapasaṃhitā is the only medical treatise that presents Kaśyapa as a specialist in kaumārabhṛtya, whereas many medical authors and works quote from or refer to a specialist in this branch of āyurveda who was called Kāśyapa.³¹³ As we have seen, the Strīcikitsāsūtra conforms to this tradition. An authority on kaumārabhṛtya called Vṛddhakāśyapa is also known from quotations.³¹⁴

v3.c42.s12.5

³¹³ ...

v3.c42.s12.6

³¹⁴ ...

v3.c42.s12.7

The confusion of Kaśyapa and Kāśyapa has a long history, as attested by an anonymous monograph on fevers, the Jvarasamuccaya, a work dating from before A.D. 924. This work contains a number of verses, attributed to Kāśyapa, which closely agree with lines found in the text of the Kāśyapasaṃhitā.³¹⁵

v3.c42.s12.8

³¹⁵ ...

v3.c42.s12.9

The other quotations from the specialist in kaumārabhṛtya called Kaśyapa cannot be traced in the preserved parts of the Kāśyapasaṃhitā, which, if the possibility that they are in toto from lost parts of the treatise is discarded, proves that a different version, no longer extant, has been current.

v3.c42.s12.10

The Kaśyapa of the Kāśyapasaṃhitā is by a number of, chiefly Indian, authors regarded as a very ancient authority, contemporary of Ātreya Punarvasu.³¹⁶ In my opinion, it is not open to doubt that this great Kaśyapa, the Prajāpati, figures in the work to give it the weight of antiquity and has no implications for its chronological position.³¹⁷

v3.c42.s12.11

³¹⁶ ...

v3.c42.s12.12

³¹⁷ ...

v3.c42.s12.13

Kaśyapa's chief pupil, Vṛddhajīvaka, although by some considered to be identical with the Jīvaka of Buddhist literature,³¹⁸ is clearly a different person.³¹⁹ The Jīvaka of Buddhist literature was a surgeon, whereas Vṛddhajīvaka was trained in kaumārabhṛtya.³²⁰ A complication that may have contributed to this confusion is the fact that Vṛddhajīvaka is referred to as Jīvaka in Anantakumāra's Yogaratnasamuccaya, the Bower MS, Dalhaṇa's Nibandhasaṃgraha, the Strīcikitsāsūtra, and Vaṅgasena's Cikitsāsārasaṃgraha.³²¹

v3.c42.s12.14

³¹⁸ ...

v3.c42.s12.15

³¹⁹ ...

v3.c42.s12.16

³²⁰ ...

v3.c42.s12.17

³²¹ ...

v3.c42.s12.18

The names of Jīvaka and Vṛddhajīvaka are connected with each other by P.V. Sharma,³²² who supposes Vṛddhajīvaka, in conformity with his name, to be somewhat earlier than Jīvaka.

v3.c42.s12.19

³²² ...

v3.c42.s12.20

The date of the version of the Kāśyapasaṃhitā from which the untraced quotations derive cannot be established. The same applies to the treatise before its revision by Vātsya.³²³ The work rewritten by Vātsya may have had Vṛddhajīvakiyatantra as its title, as borne out by some colophons,³²⁴ which are of the same type as those found in the Carakasaṃhitā, revised by Dṛḍhabala.³²⁵

v3.c42.s12.21

³²³ ...

v3.c42.s12.22

³²⁴ ...

v3.c42.s12.23

³²⁵ ...

v3.c42.s12.24

Vātsya, who introduces himself in the last chapter of the Kalpasthāna, which was probably the final chapter of the work before he began revising and completing it, is, on account of his association with the yakṣa Anāyāsa, who protected the city of Kauśāmbī, the capital of Vatsadeśa,³²⁶ supposed to have resided there.³²⁷ Others interpret the name as an indication of his having been a brāhmaṇa of Vatsagotra, in the same way as Vātsyāyana, the author of the Kāmasūtra.³²⁸

v3.c42.s12.25

³²⁶ ...

v3.c42.s12.26

³²⁷ ...

v3.c42.s12.27

³²⁸ ...

v3.c42.s12.28

Due to Vātsya's activity, the sections of the Kāśyapasaṃhitā from the Sūtrasthāna up to the Kalpasthāna consist of two layers which can, unfortunately, not be distin-

v3.c42.s12.29

guished from each other. The Khilasthāna, an appendix that resembles the Uttaratantra of the Suśrutasaṃhitā, was probably in its entirety added by Vātsya,³²⁹ as indicated by its contents and by the colophons which no longer refer to a pratisamskartar. Many chapters of the Khilasthāna mention that a particular subject, not dealt with in the preceding sections, will be expounded.³³⁰ Moreover, some subjects already dealt with in the Cikitsāsthāna, are discussed again in the Khilasthāna.³³¹

v3.c42.s12.30

³²⁹ ...

v3.c42.s12.31

³³⁰ ...

v3.c42.s12.32

³³¹ ...

v3.c42.s12.33

The date of Vātsya's revised version of the Kāśyapasaṃhitā is elucidated by the quotations in the Jvarasamuccaya, the MS of which was completed in A.D. 924.³³² A version of the Kāśyapasaṃhitā related to the text known to us was apparently available to the author of this Jvarasamuccaya, who apparently lived some time before A.D. 900. The Kāśyaparṣiproktastrīcikitsāsūtra may point to a version being known in the tenth century. Some statements on the qualities of breastmilk, attributed to Jīvaka by Vaṅgasena (strīroga 341–344), suggest that this author was acquainted with the Vṛddhajīvakiyatantra, because the relevant verses may have formed part of chapter nineteen of the Sūtrasthāna of the Kāśyapasaṃhitā. Vaṅgasena's work contains some more verses, not ascribed to any authority, which are found in the Kāśyapasaṃhitā.³³³

v3.c42.s12.34

³³² ...

v3.c42.s12.35

³³³ ...

v3.c42.s12.36

More evidence concerning the date of Vātsya's revised version of the Kāśyapasaṃhitā can be collected only from its contents. The references to Jainism³³⁴ and Buddhism³³⁵ are not of much avail for chronological purposes. Hinduism prevails in the work. The type of Hinduism of which the Kāśyapasaṃhitā gives evidence is in favour of dating it to the Gupta period.³³⁶ In support of this are the Tantric elements present: Bhadrakālī is mentioned (180; laśunakalpa 108); Tantric mantras are employed;³³⁷ the mātaṅgī vidyā is referred to (199–200; Revatīkalpa 80);³³⁸ the Siddhas should be honoured by a physician (37; Sū.26.4); siddhamantras are mentioned (230). Indicative of the same age are the social structure, reflected, for example, in the numerous references to varṇas, castes and professions,³³⁹ the increased influence of popular religion³⁴⁰ in comparison with the Carakasaṃhitā, Suśrutasaṃhitā, and the works of Vāgbhaṭa, the geographical terms,³⁴¹ and the names of peoples such as the Hūṇas.³⁴²

v3.c42.s12.37

³³⁴ ...

v3.c42.s12.38

³³⁵ ...

v3.c42.s12.39

³³⁶ ...

v3.c42.s12.40

³³⁷ ...

v3.c42.s12.41

³³⁸ ...

v3.c42.s12.42

³³⁹ ...

v3.c42.s12.43

³⁴⁰ ...

v3.c42.s12.44

³⁴¹ ...

v3.c42.s12.45

³⁴² ...

v3.c42.s12.46

Nosological features with a bearing on the chronological position of the Kāśyapasaṃhitā are the separate chapters of the Khilasthāna on śūla and amlapitta, diseases not yet described as distinct nosological entities by Caraka, Bhela, Suśruta, and Vāgbhaṭa, but appearing as such in the Mādhavanidāna, where, however, the descriptions are so much different that the Kāśyapasaṃhitā and Mādhavanidāna may be regarded as completely independent in this respect. The absence of any influence from the side of the Mādhavanidāna strengthens the view that the Kāśyapasaṃhitā is earlier and may tentatively be placed in about the seventh century.³⁴³

v3.c42.s12.47

³⁴³ ...

v3.c42.s12.48

P.V. Tewari³⁴⁴ assumes that some made changes in the text rather late, in the eleventh to thirteenth century. This unknown reviser made Vātsya take part in a discussion; he also added three lines to the end of chapter nineteen of the Sūtrasthāna.

v3.c42.s12.49

³⁴⁴ ...

v3.c42.s12.50

Hāritasamhita

v3.c42.s12.51

The *Hāritasamhita* is one of the complete textbooks that deal principally with internal medicine (kāyacikitsā); it differs considerably from the *Caraka*- and *Bhelasamhita* which focus on the same division of āyurveda.

Cites (11)