Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c42.s25: The Vyākhyāmadhukośa

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c42.s25

Language
English

The Vyākhyāmadhukośa

v3.c42.s25.1

The Vyākhyāmadhukośa,²³⁰ often simply called Madhukośa,²³¹ is an elaborate and valuable commentary which covers the whole of the Mādhavanidāna.²³² It is the earliest commentary on Mādhava’s treatise and gives the impression that it is not only based on works of predecessors. The first half, up to chapter thirty-two, was written by Vijayarakṣita, the second half is due to his pupil Śrīkaṇṭhadatta. Both authors quote many authorities. Vijayarakṣita presents a list of those regarded as important in the introductory verses of the Madhukośa: Bhaṭṭāra(haricandra), Jejjaṭa, Gaḍādhara, Vāpyacandra, Śrīcakrapāṇi(datta), Bakula, Īśvarasena, Bhoja, Īśāna, Kārttika(kuṇḍa), Sukīra, Sudhīra, Maitreya, and Mādhava.

v3.c42.s25.2

²³⁰ See p. 68.

v3.c42.s25.3

²³¹ See p. 68.

v3.c42.s25.4

²³² See p. 68.

v3.c42.s25.5

Quoted or referred to in Vijayarakṣita’s part of the Madhukośa are: Abhidhāna (2.10–11),²³³ Agniveśa (2.66cd–74ab), Amara (1.1), Āṣādhadharma (1.14cd–15ab), Bakulakara (6.15; 22.1–4), Bhāluki (2.24, 31cd–32ab, 75), Bhālukitantra (2.18–23, twice), Bhaṭṭāraharicandra (1.4; 1.5a–c, four times; 1.10, twice; 2.1 and 61cd–65; 28.3),²³⁴ Bheḍa (2.37–38), Bhoja (3.21; 5.1; 17.14–15ab; 18.4–6), Cakra (2.18–23, twice; 2.30cd–31ab, 61cd–65, 66cd–74ab; 5.31–32; 8.1 and 10; 12.27–34; 20.5; 22.57cd–58ab), Candrikākāra (2.61cd–65; 10.20; 22.1–4, 15, 27–28ab), Caraka (often), Dṛḍhabala (2.18–23, three times; 8.2; 12.1–2; 16.8cd, twice; 17.15cd–16ab; 22.14–15ab, 28cd–32ab, 44–47ef; 24.1–5; 29.6; 30.1–2; 32.1–3a), Gaḍādhara (1.4 and 12–14; 11.12–13; 12.8 and 11–14; 18.7; 22.57cd–58ab, 58cd–59ab, 59cd–60ab, 68cd–70ab, 70cd–72; 28.2, 3, 14; 29.2 and 6), Guṇākara (5.31–32), Haricandra (1.5a–c and 15cd–18; 2.34–36ab and 39; 2.61cd–65, twice; 18.9; 28.3),²³⁵ Hārīta (1.5d–6; 2.15cd–16, 37–38, 61cd–65; 2.66cd–74ab, twice; 3.21; 8.2; 16.5; 22.57cd–58ab, twice; 26.1; 29.6), Harivaṃśa (2.1), Īśāna(deva) (2.34–36ab; 22.22–26, 28–32ab, 54–56; 23.1–3; 24.6–10), Īśvarasena (1.7), Jatūkarṇa (2.55, twice; 2.61cd–65; 12.11–14), Jejjaṭa (1.4, 5d–6, 11–13; 2.2, 3, 10–11, 18–23, 24, 26–30ab; 2.30cd–31ab, twice; 2.37–38, twice; 2.39, twice; 2.40; 2.42–47, twice; 2.59.61ab; 2.61cd–65, twice;

v3.c42.s25.6

²³³ See p. 68.

v3.c42.s25.7

²³⁴ See p. 68.

v3.c42.s25.8

²³⁵ See p. 68.

v3.c42.s25.9

2.66cd–74ab, three times; 3.4, 9–10, 14–19, 20; 5.3–4; 6.5–6 and 23; 8.1; 8.8–10 (twice); 8.11, 12–15, 19cd–21ab; 9.6–7ab and 12–14; 10.2; 10.21–29ab, twice; 11.12–13; 12.8, 11–14, 18–20, 27–34; 12.35–36, three times; 16.10; 17.6, 14–15ab, 16cd–18; 18.9 and 22; 19.7–8; 20.4, 5, 6; 20.26, twice; 20.29–30, twice; 22.6–9, twice; 22.37cd–38ab, 58cd–59ab, 70cd–72; 24.1–5; 28.2, 3, 15–16; 29.2 and 6), Karavīracārya (3.14–19), Kārttika(kuṇḍa) (1.5d–6; 2.3, 4–7, 8–9, 10–11, 15cd–16; 2.48–54, three times; 2.61cd–65, twice; 2.66cd–74ab; 3.1–3 and 9–10; 5.43; 6.15; 9.11; 10.2 and 14; 22.15, 64cd, 68cd–70ab, 70cd–72; 27.2–12), kāśmīraḥ (5.27cd–30; 10.5; 14.2), Kāśmīrapāṭha (2.18–23), Kharaṇāda (2.34–36ab and 61cd–65), Kṣārapāṇi (3.11; 28.3), Mādhava(kara) (1.5d–6, twice; 2.66cd–74ab; 10.8–12; 11.12–13; 22.44–47ef; 22.65ab, twice), Nāgabhartṛtantra (2.37–38), Nāgārjuna’s Ārogyamañjarī (6.5–6), Pālakāpya (2.1), Parāśara (1.5d–6; 2.39; 3.21; 8.8–10), Praśnavidhāna (1.14cd–15ab), śalākya (22.65ab), Samgraha (30.1–2), Sudāntasena (1.5a–c and 8–9), Suśruta (often), Svāmidāsa (1.14cd–15ab), Tiṣaṭācārya (1.5a–c), Vāgbhaṭa (often), Vāpyacandra (1.4 and 5d–6; 1.8–9, twice; 1.11–13, twice; 1.15cd–18; 2.39; 28.2 and 3), Varāha (22.80), Videha (2.1, 26–30ab, 42–47; 8.11; 18.10–11; 20.18, twice; 20.24 and 26; 22.22–26), Vṛddhabhoja (14.4), Vṛddhasuśruta (2.4–7, 26–30ab, 37–38, 39, 42–47; 26.1), and Vṛddhavāgbhaṭa (1.8–9; 2.66cd–74ab).

v3.c42.s25.10

Authorities and works quoted or referred to by Śrīkaṇṭhadatta in his part of the Madhukośa are: Agniveśa (44.1), Ālambāyana (69.21cd–25ab and 28), Bhāluki (44.9–10; 49.37–39), Bhoja (33.27–28, four times; 33.34cd–35, twice; 37.7cd–11ab, twice; 38.8cd–9ab, 15, 16–17, 25, 26; 40.10cd–11ab and 17cd–20; 46.1 and 6; 49.17cd–23ab, 25cd–30, 37–39; 52.22cd–24 and 25; 53.3–8ab; 55.1; 55, 11, twice; 55.12, 22–24, 26, 28–29, 32; 55.36, twice; 55.38, 40cd, 41–43, 44–45ab; 55.45cd–47, twice; 55.50–51; 56.1, 9cd–10ab, 15, 27, 35cd–36ab; 56.38, four times; 56.47, 48, 54; 64.2 and 6), Cakra (55.12), Cakṣuṣya (59.88 and 92; 60.6), Candrikākāra (59.95 and 97–98), Caraka (often), Gaḍādhara (33.13–15ab, 22–25, 34cd–35; 35.15d–17, 21–22c, 22d–24; 41.12; 46.8; 48.1 and 16; 49.17cd–23ab; 56.10–11, 15, 47; 58.1; 59.17, 25, 33cd–35ab, 41ab, 41cd–46, 50cd–51ab, 59, 62cd–64, 65ab, 69cd, 71, 88; 60.1 and 6; 64.7; 69.30–31), Gayadāsa (55.36), Hārīta (40.17ab; 61.6–7), Hiraṇyākṣa (61.6–7; 68.23), Īśāna (33.4), Jatukarṇa (55.12), Jejjaṭa (35.22d–24; 40.11cd–16; 46.2–3ab; 49.17cd–23ab, 25cd–30, 37–39), Kalyāṇavinīścaya (59.67cd and 97–98), kāmaśāstra (47.1), Karāla (59.17), Kārttika (33.34cd–35; 36.17–20; 38.18–20ab; 45.2cd; 55.28–29; 56.22, 23, 53; 57.5; 58.1; 59.14, 22, 24, 33cd–35ab, 49; 59.50cd–51ab, twice; 59.59, 62cd–64, 65cd, 73ab, 74b–d, 75, 86, 89; 69.21cd–25ab, twice; 69.30–31), Kharaṇāda (56.38), Kṣārapāṇi (36.17–20), Mādhava(kara) (45.6cd; 59.96; 60.9–10),²³⁶ Nimi (57.8; 59.29, 41ab, 65ab, 80; 60.8), Ravigupta (59.67cd), śalākya (60.1), Saṃgrahakāra (38.9cd–10; 56.27),²³⁷ Sātyaki (59.47–48ab, twice; 59.94 and 95; 66.11–13),²³⁸ Suśruta (often), Vāgbhaṭa (often), Vāpyacandra (33.7cd–12), Vātsyāyana (48.1), Videha (55.28–29, twice; 55.30; 56.55; 57.1, 2–3, 4, 6–7; 58.2, 15; 59.15, 18; 59.22, twice; 59.26, three times; 59.28, 29, 33cd–35ab, 47–48ab; 59.60cd–61ab, twice; 59.69cd, 70ab, 70cd, 73cd, 74b–d, 75, 76, 79, 81, 85, 87, 88, 93, 97–98; 60.6 and 8; 60.11–13, twice; 60.14–15; 61.6–7), Viśvāmitra (49.37–39), and Vṛddhakāśyapa (69.33–34).

v3.c42.s25.11

²³⁶ See p. 68.

v3.c42.s25.12

²³⁷ See p. 68.

v3.c42.s25.13

²³⁸ See p. 68.

v3.c42.s25.14

Vijayarakṣita is quoted by Niścalakara,²³⁹ Priyavrat Śarmā,²⁴⁰ and Śivadāsasena.²⁴¹ He is referred to by Śailendrasimha.²⁴² The author of the Madhukośa (madhukośakṛt) is cited in Āśubodha and Nityabodha Senagupta’s commentary on the Rasaratnasamuccaya and in the commentary on the Āyurvedābdhisāra.²⁴³

v3.c42.s25.15

²³⁹ See p. 68.

v3.c42.s25.16

²⁴⁰ See p. 68.

v3.c42.s25.17

²⁴¹ He is referred to by Śailendrasimha.

v3.c42.s25.18

²⁴² The author of the Madhukośa (madhukośakṛt) is identical with Vijayarakṣita. Niścalakara’s remarks on Raksitapādāḥ’s opinion ad grahaṇī 4260 and 13261 may refer to Vijayarakṣita.

v3.c42.s25.19

²⁴³ The same applies to the quotations ad arśas 100–103, 262 agnimāndya 5, 263 krimi 5, 264 and nāḍīvraṇa 5. 265 A crucial passage is found in the Ratnaprabhā ad pāṇḍuroga 35–40, where Niścalakara reproduces a variant of verse 40, read by Rakṣitapādāḥ. Pāṇḍuroga 40 consists of an addition of Cakra, called a tippaṇī, to 35–39 (the formula of tryūṣaṇādi-maṇḍūra), quoted from the Carakasamhitā (Ci.16.73–77). Cakra’s tippaṇī is absent from the Siddhayoga, 266 which proves that Rakṣitapādāḥ disposed of the text of the Cakradatta. The identity of Niścala’s Raksitapādāḥ with Vijayarakṣita is supported by the remarkable similarity between his views and those of his pupil Śrīkaṇṭhadatta as expresed in the latter’s Kusumāvalī.

v3.c42.s25.20

Works and authors quoting the Madhukośa are: the commentary on the Āyurvedābdhisāra,244 a gloss on Bhāvamiśra’s Bhāvaprakāśa,245 the Bṛhannighaṇṭuratnākara,246 Gulrājśarmamiśra’s Viśikhānupraveśavijñāna, Kāśirāma,247 Priyavrat Śarmā’s auto-commentary on the Āyurvedadarśana, Āśubodha and Nityabodha Senagupta’s commentary on the Rasaratnasamuccaya, and Satyadeva Vāsiṣṭha’s commentary on Rāvaṇa’s Nāḍīparīkṣā. The Madhukośa is referred to in Vācaspati’s Ātaṅkadarpaṇa.

v3.c42.s25.21

It is a matter of uncertainty why Vijayarakṣita left his commentary unfinished, though serious consideration should be given to the possibility that death intervened. It is rather generally assumed that Vijayarakṣita was a native of Bengal, which appears to be reasonable, since Niścalakara, who belonged to that region, mentions him as an āyurvedaguru in the introductory verses of his Ratnaprabhā. As Vijayarakṣita is called ārogyaśālīyavaidyapati in the colophons of some old MSS of the Madhukośa,248 he is thought to have been in charge of a hospital (ārogyaśālā).249 The maṅgalācaraṇa of the Madhukośa, addressed to Harihara, shows that the author professed Hinduism, which is confirmed by his rejection of a Buddhist theory of knowledge.250

v3.c42.s25.22

Concerning Vijayarakṣita’s date one should recall that he refers to Cakrapāṇidatta as one of his sources, which permits us to fix the terminus post quem at about A.D. 1060. A disputed piece of evidence is an old MS of the Nidāna, completed in Nepal under the reign of king Jayaratnamalla on December 27, A.D. 1210;251 the name of the work is Śastramadhukośa in the colophon, though it only contains the text of the Nidāna with a line-by-line Newari translation; D.Ch. Bhattacharyya claimed that this MS testifies to the reputation of the Madhukośa in Nepal shortly after 1200.252 An important clue to the date of Vijayarakṣita is provided by Niścalakara, who states that he started writing his commentary on the Cakradatta after Vijayarakṣita’s death. This makes the latter’s terminus ante quem depend on that of Niścalakara, who wrote his commentary in the first half of the twelfth century according to D.Ch. Bhattacharyya, which would make it possible to establish Vijayarakṣita’s date at about A.D. 1100. P.V. Sharma, who disagrees with D.Ch. Bhattacharyya’s chronological scheme, which makes Rāmapāla the patron of Vijayarakṣita,253 fixed his date at about A.D. 1200;254 later, the same author preferred placing him during the reign of Viśvarūpasena or Keśavasena,255 the last notable kings of the Sena dynasty. 256 G. Hāldār257 regards Vijayarakṣita as the son of a daughter of Keśavasena, which would make him live in the second half of the thirteenth century. J. Jolly258 even supposed the Madhukośa to have been written in the fourteenth or fifteenth century.

v3.c42.s25.23

Vijayarakṣita’s date ultimately depends on the period of time that elapsed between his death and the composition of Niścalakara’s Ratnaprabhā. Niścalakara declares that he decided to write his work because the interpretation of the Cakradatta had become obscured after the demise of the āyurvedaguru Vijayarakṣita. P.V. Sharma asserts that this remark proves that in Vijayarakṣita’s times the Cakradatta was studied, next to Viṣ’s Siddhayoga, but had not yet become authoritative, as attested by the fact that Śrīkaṇṭhadatta, who is later than Vijayarakṣita, chose to comment on the Siddhayoga.259

v3.c42.s25.24

²⁶⁷ Some of Niścala’s quotations are not from Rakṣita’s interpretation of the Cakradatta, but from a medical treatise that had chapters on pharmaceutical preparations, weights and measures, etc. 267

v3.c42.s25.25

²⁶⁸ D.Ch. Bhattacharyya set up the hypothesis that Niścalakara was one of Vijayarakṣita’s pupils. 268 His main argument is the mention of Vijayarakṣita as an āyurvedaguru in the introductory verses of the Ratnaprabhā. P.V. Sharma rejects this view, advancing that the introductory verses mean to say that Niścala wrote his commentary after a considerable interval of time had passed since Vijayarakṣita’s death, during which period the interpretation of the Cakradatta had suffered from bad explanations. 269 Niścala’s own words, however, do not hint at Vijayarakṣita’s death as an event that occurred a long time ago, but only express that his commentary will make the precious Cakradatta recover the splendour (tviṣ) that got lost owing to bad interpretations (kubodha) since the guru Vijayarakṣita passed away. He adds that he plans to achieve this aim by consulting other treatises and by having recourse to the words of his guru (gurūkti). He does not inform his readers who his guru was, although the latter is repeatedly quoted and referred to. 270

v3.c42.s25.26

²⁷¹ Niścalakara belonged to the tradition established by Vijayarakṣita according to P.V. Sharma, who is of the opinion that this tradition is referred to as guruparamparā and gurusampradāya in the Ratnaprabhā.

v3.c42.s25.27

²⁷² Earlier, A.F.R. Hoernle 271 had dated Vijayarakṣita to about A.D. 1240, on insufficient grounds, which were refuted by D.Ch. Bhattacharyya. 272 Hoernle’s opinion on Vijayarakṣita’s date was based, amongst other things, on the rejection of a certain doctrine concerning the structure of the eye in the Madhukośa. 273 He was wrong in attributing this rejection to Vijayarakṣita, because it is found in the latter part of the Madhukośa, due to Śrīkaṇṭhadatta. Furthermore, he supposed that the doctrine in question, not ascribed to a named authority, derived from Aruṇadatta, whereas the latter, who may have lived in the same age as Vijayarakṣita and Śrīkaṇṭhadatta, 274 is not quoted in the Madhukośa. Since Hoernle determined Aruṇadatta’s date as about A.D. 1220, he fixed Vijayarakṣita’s date at about A.D. 1240. 275 Another point put to use by Hoernle in order to establish Vijayarakṣita’s date was a quotation from Guṇākara in the Madhukośa, 276 wrongly regarded by him as the author of the Yogaratnamālā, written in 1239. Actu-

v3.c42.s25.28

Vijayarakṣita, however, quotes Cakrapāṇidatta, whose treatises were available to him.

v3.c42.s25.29

Vijayarakṣita’s intimate acquaintance with the Cakradatta is attested by some quotations in the Ratnaprabhā, if Rakṣitapādāḥ is identical with Vijayarakṣita. Niścala’s remarks on Raksitapādāḥ’s opinion ad grahaṇī 4260 and 13261 may refer to Vijayarakṣita. The same applies to the quotations ad arśas 100–103, 262 agnimāndya 5, 263 krimi 5, 264 and nāḍīvraṇa 5. 265 A crucial passage is found in the Ratnaprabhā ad pāṇḍuroga 35–40, where Niścalakara reproduces a variant of verse 40, read by Rakṣitapādāḥ. Pāṇḍuroga 40 consists of an addition of Cakra, called a tippaṇī, to 35–39 (the formula of tryūṣaṇādi-maṇḍūra), quoted from the Carakasamhitā (Ci.16.73–77). Cakra’s tippaṇī is absent from the Siddhayoga, 266 which proves that Rakṣitapādāḥ disposed of the text of the Cakradatta. The identity of Niścala’s Raksitapādāḥ with Vijayarakṣita is supported by the remarkable similarity between his views and those of his pupil Śrīkaṇṭhadatta as expresed in the latter’s Kusumāvalī.

v3.c42.s25.30

Some of Niścala’s quotations are not from Rakṣita’s interpretation of the Cakradatta, but from a medical treatise that had chapters on pharmaceutical preparations, weights and measures, etc. 267

v3.c42.s25.31

D.Ch. Bhattacharyya set up the hypothesis that Niścalakara was one of Vijayarakṣita’s pupils. 268 His main argument is the mention of Vijayarakṣita as an āyurvedaguru in the introductory verses of the Ratnaprabhā. P.V. Sharma rejects this view, advancing that the introductory verses mean to say that Niścala wrote his commentary after a considerable interval of time had passed since Vijayarakṣita’s death, during which period the interpretation of the Cakradatta had suffered from bad explanations. 269 Niścala’s own words, however, do not hint at Vijayarakṣita’s death as an event that occurred a long time ago, but only express that his commentary will make the precious Cakradatta recover the splendour (tviṣ) that got lost owing to bad interpretations (kubodha) since the guru Vijayarakṣita passed away. He adds that he plans to achieve this aim by consulting other treatises and by having recourse to the words of his guru (gurūkti). He does not inform his readers who his guru was, although the latter is repeatedly quoted and referred to. 270

v3.c42.s25.32

Niścalakara belonged to the tradition established by Vijayarakṣita according to P.V. Sharma, who is of the opinion that this tradition is referred to as guruparamparā and gurusampradāya in the Ratnaprabhā.

v3.c42.s25.33

Earlier, A.F.R. Hoernle 271 had dated Vijayarakṣita to about A.D. 1240, on insufficient grounds, which were refuted by D.Ch. Bhattacharyya. 272 Hoernle’s opinion on Vijayarakṣita’s date was based, amongst other things, on the rejection of a certain doctrine concerning the structure of the eye in the Madhukośa. 273 He was wrong in attributing this rejection to Vijayarakṣita, because it is found in the latter part of the Madhukośa, due to Śrīkaṇṭhadatta. Furthermore, he supposed that the doctrine in question, not ascribed to a named authority, derived from Aruṇadatta, whereas the latter, who may have lived in the same age as Vijayarakṣita and Śrīkaṇṭhadatta, 274 is not quoted in the Madhukośa. Since Hoernle determined Aruṇadatta’s date as about A.D. 1220, he fixed Vijayarakṣita’s date at about A.D. 1240. 275 Another point put to use by Hoernle in order to establish Vijayarakṣita’s date was a quotation from Guṇākara in the Madhukośa, 276 wrongly regarded by him as the author of the Yogaratnamālā, written in 1239. Actually, the medical author Guṇākara, quoted by Vijayarakṣita, is entirely different from the Jaina scholar of the same name who wrote a commentary on the *Yogaratnamālā* in 1239/40. These remarks may suffice to demonstrate that Hoernle's manner of determining Vijayarakṣita's chronological position can now be disregarded.

v3.c42.s25.34

A precise determination of Vijayarakṣita's date remains fraught with problems, but no doubt exists regarding his relative chronological position between Cakrapāṇidatta and Śrīkaṇṭhadatta, which means that he lived in the twelfth century. 277 P.V. Sharma suggests that Śrīkaṇṭha was the grandfather of Niścalakara. 278

v3.c42.s25.35

A medical authority Śrīkaṇṭha, who was the author of the *Amṛtavallī*, is quoted by Niścalakara. 279 Some regard him as identical with the commentator, 280 which is not defensible, because Niścala informs us that this Śrīkaṇṭha preferred a particular reading of a verse of the *Siddhayoga* on the strength of a *ṭippaṇī* of Vṛnda, which is in this case a remark found in Śrīkaṇṭhadatta's *Kusumāvalī*; 281 this proves that the author of the *Amṛtavallī* is posterior to Śrīkaṇṭhadatta. The *Amṛtavallī* was a therapeutic treatise in verse, as shown by Niścala's quotations. 282

Cites (28)