A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c42.s16: Date
A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c42.s16
- Language
- English
Date
v3.c42.s16.1
The Hārītasaṃhitā that is known to be from MSS and some editions is sometimes regarded as entirely different from a much earlier treatise of the same name. The later text is for that reason referred to as Pseudo-Hārītasaṃhitā and its author is called Hārīta II to distinguish him from Hārīta I or Vṛddhahārīta.⁵³⁰ The main reason for this distinction was the small number of quotations from Hārīta (and Ātreya) that can be traced in the printed versions of the Hārītasaṃhitā. The number of traceable citations is, to be sure, restricted, but proves to be larger than was formerly assumed. Consequently, the relationship between an old version and the one preserved is more complicated than presumed by those who consider Hārīta I and II to be altogether distinct.
v3.c42.s16.2
The date of the old version of the Hārītasaṃhitā cannot be determined with any precision. Clues to the period to which the printed text belongs are, on the other hand, not scarce at all.
v3.c42.s16.3
The Hārītasaṃhitā contains one verse that is found in Ravigupta’s Siddhāsāra, a work that dates from about A.D. 650.⁵³¹ Ravigupta’s verses are of his own making and not borrowed from predecessors, which establishes that the Siddhāsāra is earlier than the Hārītasaṃhitā. This fact is in conformity with the appearance of Vāgbhaṭa’s name in the pāriśiṣṭādhyāya, although this chapter may be a later addition. Some more features that may be interpreted as pointing to influences from the side of Vāgbhaṭa consist of the description of mada in the chapter on madātyaya and the description of the disease called upaśīrṣaka, recognized by Vāgbhaṭa, but absent from the Caraka- and Suśrutasaṃhitā. The presence of separate chapters on śūla (III.7), nidrā (III.15), āmavāta (III.21), amlapitta (III.24) and vṛddhi (III.32), in line with the arrangement found in the Mādhavanidāna, is in favour of placing the Hārītasaṃhitā in about the same period, i.e., the eighth century. The question whether or not the Hārītasaṃhitā is posterior to Mādhava’s work remains problematic, since both works may partially be based on the same sources. 532 In addition, there are considerable differences between the arrangement and the nosological system of Hārītasaṃhitā and Mādhavanidāna. The absence of verses on the examination of the urine and the pulse indicates that the Hārītasaṃhitā is anterior to Vaṅgasena’s Cikitsāsārasaṃgraha and the Śārṅgadharasaṃhitā. The absence of prescriptions containing Cannabis corroborates this point. 533
v3.c42.s16.4
Plant names that may rather safely be taken as evidence pointing to a relatively late date of the Hārītasaṃhitā are kañcaṭa, 534 māḍa, 535 murāmāṃsī, 536 rudrajaṭā, 537 tulasi, 538 and yugandhara. 539
v3.c42.s16.5
Some more late words found in the Hārītasaṃhitā are bhājikā (III.2.238), mahācāvala (I.5.55), and pasāhī (I.15.1). 540 The references to Śiva and his Śakti (Śārīra 14–15) and to meditation on Śiva (śivadhyāna; III.55.15) confirm that the work cannot be assigned to an early period.
v3.c42.s16.6
The evidence taken together is in favour of placing the Hārītasaṃhitā in the period A.D. 700–1000. 541
v3.c42.s16.7
Chapter 5
v3.c42.s16.8
Mādhava
v3.c42.s16.9
Mādhava¹ was the author of the Rogaviniścaya and, possibly, of the Mādhavacikitsā. His authorship of some other medical works is problematic.²
Cites (1)
- Hārītasaṃhitā — Hārīta, Sanskrit