Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c42.s22: Mādhavacikitsā

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c42.s22

Language
English

Mādhavacikitsā

v3.c42.s22.1

The Mādhavacikitsā ¹⁴⁷ is the earliest compendium on therapy of Sanskrit medical literature, if one disregards a work like the Yogaśataka, which consists only of a collection of recipes. ¹⁴⁸

v3.c42.s22.2

¹⁴⁷ Mādhavacikitsā

v3.c42.s22.3

¹⁴⁸ Yogaśataka

v3.c42.s22.4

The text of the edition is divided into eighty-one chapters. Chapters one to sixty-seven are connected with the treatment of the disorders described in the Mādhavanidāna, essentially in the same order. The remaining chapters are devoted to rasāyana (68), vājīkaraṇa (69), pañcakarman (70), sneha (71), sveda (71), sveda (72), vamana (73), vireka (74), anūvasana and nirūha (75–76), dhūma (77), nasya (78), kavala and gaṇḍūṣa (79), prescriptions for various disorders (prakīrṇarogacikitsā), as well as weights and measures (80), and paribhāṣā (81). The same type of arrangement was adopted in many later works, such as Vṛnda's Siddhayoga ¹⁴⁹ and Cakrapāṇidatta's Cikitsāsaṃgraha. ¹⁵⁰

v3.c42.s22.5

¹⁴⁹ Vṛnda's Siddhayoga

v3.c42.s22.6

¹⁵⁰ Cakrapāṇidatta's Cikitsāsaṃgraha

v3.c42.s22.7

The scheme of chapters one to sixty-seven does not fully agree with that of the Mādhavanidāna. The Mādhavacikitsā has separate chapters on pravāhikā (irritation of the large intestine, including the bacillary dysenteries; 3), ¹⁵¹ bhūtonmāda (insanity caused by supernatural beings; 19), ¹⁵² gṛdhrasī (sciatica; 22), ¹⁵³ plīhan (splenomegaly; 36), ¹⁵⁴ śophodara (37), ¹⁵⁵ snāyuka (dracontiasis, i.e., the Guinea worm disease; 53), ¹⁵⁶ and somaroga or mūtrātīsāra (a polyuria occurring in women;

v3.c42.s22.8

¹⁵¹ pravāhikā

v3.c42.s22.9

¹⁵² bhūtonmāda

v3.c42.s22.10

¹⁵³ gṛdhrasī

v3.c42.s22.11

¹⁵⁴ plīhan

v3.c42.s22.12

¹⁵⁵ śophodara

v3.c42.s22.13

¹⁵⁶ snāyuka

v3.c42.s22.14

63). 157 One chapter is concerned with the therapy of visarpa and visphoṭa (52), whereas the Mādhavanidāna devotes two chapters to these diseases. 158 One chapter deals with all kinds of vraṇa (ulcers and wounds; 43). 159 The chapters on kaumārabhr̥tya are arranged differently from those in the Nidāna; their order is strīroga (61), pradara (62), somaroga (63), strīroga again (64), and garbharakṣā (65), 160 whereas the Nidāna has asṛgdara (= pradara), yonivyāpad (a composite group, comprising menstrual disorders, diseases of the vagina, and functional disorders of psychogenic origin), yonikanda, mūḍhagarbha (disturbances of pregnancy and malposition of the foetus), sūtikāroga (puerperal diseases), stanaroga (diseases of the breasts), and stanyaduṣṭi (disorders of the breastmilk). 161

v3.c42.s22.15

A striking feature of the Mādhavacikitsā is the presence of chapters on the treatment of snāyuka and somaroga, diseases unknown to the author of the Mādhavanidāna. 162 The disease called snāyuka is described for the first time in Vṛnda's Siddhayoga (55.15–19), somaroga in Vaṅgasena's Cikitsāsārasaṃgraha (strīroga 80–88), two treatises written after the period in which Mādhava lived. The view that the Mādhavanidāna and Mādhavacikitsā were written by one and the same author 163 can therefore be upheld only if the chapters on snāyuka and somaroga are considered to be interpolations of later origin. 164 The possibility that these chapters are actually interpolations is strengthened by the absence of a chapter on snāyuka in the manuscript kept at the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute in Poona. 165

v3.c42.s22.16

The general impression one gains on reading the Mādhavacikitsā is that of a rather early work, prior to the Siddhayoga. It shares many verses with it, but is more concise. Part of its prescriptions do not occur in the Siddhayoga 166 or Cakradatta.

v3.c42.s22.17

Details pointing to an early date of composition – prior to that of the Siddhayoga – are the following. The chapter on kṛmiroga (diseases caused by parasites; 7) does not yet prescribe the use of pārāśīyayavānī, 167 and the juice from the leaves of dhattūra. 168 Religion and astrology do not figure in the treatment of masūrikā and viṣa, while they do so in the Siddhayoga. 169 Many of the more complicated compound formulae of Siddhayoga and Cakradatta are absent from the Mādhavacikitsā. 170

v3.c42.s22.18

A noteworthy feature is the presence, in agreement with the Mādhavanidāna, of a separate chapter on the treatment of śūla and pariṇāmaśūla. 171 Chapters on the treatment of āmavāta, 172 amlapitta, 173 and medoroga 174 are present as well. The section on the treatment of various disorders contains a prescription against śītapitta (prakīrṇaroga 1). 175

v3.c42.s22.19

Some other noteworthy features of the treatise consist of a prescription with kañcata 176 as one of its ingredients and the presence of prescriptions against carmakīla in the chapter on kṣudraroga (55.25 and 30). 177 178

v3.c42.s22.20

Sources are sometimes referred to in the Mādhavacikitsā. 179 A considerable number of verses have been borrowed from Ravigupta's Siddhasāra. 180

v3.c42.s22.21

As in the Mādhavanidāna, the author does not mention his name, but the colophon of the edition states that the work is by Mādhava, son of Indukara. 181

v3.c42.s22.22

The Mādhavacikitsā is quoted as Mādhavasaṃgraha in Niścalakara's Ratnaprabhā 182 and, without mention of the work, by Śrīkaṇṭhadatta in the Vyākhyākusumāvalī. 183

v3.c42.s22.23

The question which of the other medical treatises attributed to an author called Mādhava can be assigned to the one who wrote the Mādhavanidāna and, possibly, the Mādhavacikitsā, still remains partially unanswered, though many of the problems concerning medical works by authors of the name of Mādhava have been solved in recent years, first and foremost thanks to the scholarship of P.V. Sharma. 184 Some obscurities are left, for it cannot be ascertained which Mādhava wrote the called Praśanasahasravidhāna, Yogavyākhyā, and Mādhavasaṃgraha.

v3.c42.s22.24

The Praśanasahasravidhāna is once, without the author being mentioned, referred to by Vijayarakṣita, 185 who calls it a śuśrutaślokavārttika, i.e., versified glosses on the Suśrutasaṃhitā. 186 A quotation, attributed to Mādhavakāra in Hemādri's commentary on the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya, 187 may be from the same work. Niścalakara quotes the Praśanasahasravidhāna, i.e., the exposition on a thousand questions, in his Ratnaprabhā; unlike Vijayarakṣita, he also gives the name of its author, Mādhava or Mādhavakāra. 188 Niścala's first quotation consists of a question and the answer to it, both in verse, connected with a statement found in the Suśrutasaṃhitā; 189 the second quotation, in verse too, is about the nature of vāta diseases. 190 The Suśrutavārttika of Mādhava, once quoted in Niścala's Ratnaprabhā, 191 is obviously the same work as the Praśanasahasravidhāna, because it was also composed in the form of questions and answers in verse.

v3.c42.s22.25

A kind of commentary on the Suśrutasaṃhitā by a Mādhava(kara) has once existed, as is clear from a statement found in Vijayarakṣita's part of the Madhukośa, 192 where – in a passage that refers to a stanza from the Suśrutasaṃhitā – Mādhavakāra's name occurs as one among a number of authors of explanatory works. 193 The same series is found in Narahari's Vāgbhaṭamaṇḍana. 194 Moreover, Vācaspati cites in his Ātaṅkadarpaṇa 195 an explanation by Mādhava that also occurs in the Madhukośa, where it is not explicitly attributed to Mādhava. The remark derives from a commentary on the Suśrutasaṃhitā, being clearly an elucidation of a technical term found in a passage from that treatise. 196 Finally, the Ratnaprabhā claims that an author called Govardhana 197 preferred a comment by Jejjata to that on the same subject by Mādhava. 198

v3.c42.s22.26

An unsolved question is whether or not this commentary on the Suśrutasaṃhitā is identical with the Praśanasahasravidhāna. Conclusive evidence is not available, but it seems reasonable to assume that Mādhava did not write two explanatory treatises on the same saṃhitā.

v3.c42.s22.27

The identity of this author has not yet been determined. S. Dasgupta 199 pointed to the Śrīmādhava who, according to Ḍalhaṇa in the introduction to his Nibandhasaṃgraha, composed a tippaṇa on the Suśrutasaṃhitā. This Śrīmādhava may or may not be the same as the one who wrote the Praśanasahasravidhāna. P.V. Sharma 200 suggested that the author of the Praśanasahasravidhāna may be identical with Mādhava, son of Indrakara, who composed the Paryāyaratnamālā. Evidence confirming this identity is, however, completely lacking.

v3.c42.s22.28

The *Yogavyākhyā* is once quoted as a work by Mādhavakara in Śrīkaṇṭhadatta’s commentary on the *Siddhayoga*. 201 Judging from Śrīkaṇṭha’s quotation, this work appears to have been a treatise on medicinal compounds. Niścalakara also quotes Mādhava(kara)’s *Yogavyākhyā* in his *Ratnaprabhā* on the *Cakradatta*. 202 The references to and the three citations in prose from this work suggest that it consisted of explanations regarding the preparation of compound drugs. Niścala is the only author mentioning a shorter version of Mādhava(kara)’s *Yogavyākhyā*, called *Svalpayogavyākhyā*. 203 Conclusive evidence concerning the identity of this Mādhava(kara) is not available, but he may well be the same Mādhava(kara) who wrote the *Praśnasahasravidhāna* on the *Suśrutasaṃhitā*.

v3.c42.s22.29

The information that can be extracted from the *Ratnaprabhā* points to the *Yogavyākhyā* and *Svalpayogavyākhyā* as works concerned with the explanation of prescriptions found in the *Carakasaṃhitā*. 204

v3.c42.s22.30

A number of Niścala’s quotations from and references to Mādhava(kara) that do not name a particular treatise 205 impress as being from the *Yogavyākhyā*, on account of their style and contents. The work they comment on is the *Carakasaṃhitā*. 206 Mādhava(kara) is repeatedly said to follow Jejjata’s views; 207 Govardhana is an author who often agrees with him.

v3.c42.s22.31

A *Mādhavasaṃgraha* is quoted, once only, by Niścalakara. 208

Linked texts (13)