A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c42.s8: Date

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c42.s8

Language: English

Date

v3.c42.s8.1

Bhela is often quoted by later authors, but, as only a minority among the quotations can be traced in the preserved text of the Bhelasaṃhitā, 273 the majority are unsuitable for the purpose of elucidating its chronological position.

v3.c42.s8.2

Ananta's Yogaratnasamuccaya, a treatise that is probably posterior to the fifteenth century, contains a rather large number of quotations from Bhela; some of these, or related verses, are found in the Tanjore MS. 274

v3.c42.s8.3

Narahari gives, in his Vāgbhaṭamaṇḍana, a quotation found in Bhela's Vimānasthāna. 275

v3.c42.s8.4

Niścalakara's Ratnaprabhā ascribes a number of prescriptions of the Cakradatta to Bhela. 276 Two of these form part of the text of the Bhelasaṃhitā. 277 Eight quotations from Bhela in the Ratnaprabhā are found in the Bhelasaṃhitā. 278

v3.c42.s8.5

Soḍhala's Gadanigraha ascribes the formula of dhānvantaraghṛta 279 to Bhela; this recipe itself is not found in the Tanjore MS of the Bhelasaṃhitā, but is referred to twice (Ci.6.50 and 15.39), which proves that it formed part of the complete text, still known to Soḍhala about A.D. 1200. 280

v3.c42.s8.6

One of Aruṇadatta's quotations 281 establishes that the Bhelasaṃhitā was known in the twelfth century. Two or three citations from Bhela's work in a monograph on fevers by an unknown author, the Jvarasamuccaya, are said to agree with the text of the Tanjore MS, while the majority are not found in the latter. 282 The oldest MS of this Jvarasamuccaya dates from A.D. 924, 283 which establishes that the verses ascribed to Bhela are taken from a version of his work that antedates the tenth century.

v3.c42.s8.7

Tiṣaṭa's Cikitsākalikā contains a recipe ascribed to Bhela (248: hiṅgupañcaka) that, although differently worded, is very close to the formula of the same name in the Bhelasaṃhitā (Ci.19.10), which indicates that the text consulted by Tiṣaṭa in the tenth century was not altogether different from the one known to us.

v3.c42.s8.8

Ṭoḍara's Āyurvedasaukhya contains a quotation that is partly found in the Bhelasaṃhitā. 284

v3.c42.s8.9

Vijayarakṣita's quotation is very close to a verse actually found in the Bhelasaṃhitā. 285

v3.c42.s8.10

The Bower MS describes three gruels (yavāgū) attributed to Bhela. 286 Eleven more prescriptions found in it 287 form also part of the Bhelasaṃhitā, without being associated with his name in the Bower MS. These recipes need not be taken from the Bhelasaṃhitā, as A.F.R. Hoernle claimed, 288 who was convinced that the Nāvanītaka of the Bower MS is posterior to the Bhelasaṃhitā. They may well be from the floating medical tradition or from early treaties now lost. 289

v3.c42.s8.11

The attribution of some gruels to Bhela in the Bower MS indicates that he was regarded as a medical authority in early times, as is also apparent from the references to him as one of the six pupils of Punarvasu Ātreya who wrote their own textbooks on internal medicine (kāyacikitsā). 290 The Bhelasaṃhitā itself shows unequivocally that Bhela belongs to the tradition connected with Ātreya and his special branch of medicine. A close study of the text of Bhela's treatise, as known to us, betrays, however, that it repeatedly departs from the tradition embodied in the Carakasaṃhitā 291 and even presents a not inconsiderable number of affinities with the teachings of the school of Dhanvantari, illustrated by the Suśrutasaṃhitā. 292 A smaller number of details show similarities with the Kāśyapasaṃhitā. 293

v3.c42.s8.12

Data proving that a Bhelasaṃhitā related to the treatise in the Tanjore MS was known in the period of Vāgbhaṭa are found in the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā and Aṣṭāṅgasamgraha. The Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā refers to Bhela's formula of sahacarataila, 294 the Aṣṭāṅgasamgraha to Bhela's kṣārāgada 295 and sahacarataila. 296

v3.c42.s8.13

A collection of formulae called Jivakapustaka contains a formula (Nr. 8), also found in the Bhelasaṃhitā (Ci.5.17–19). Bhela may be mentioned in an old Khotanese fragment of a Buddhist text. 297

v3.c42.s8.14

References to Bhela in other works that conflict with what is found in the text of the Bhelasaṃhitā are also known. Bhela's opinion on the application of clysters (basti) in children, as recorded in the Kāśyapasaṃhitā, disagrees with the view on this subject laid down in the Bhelasaṃhitā. 298

v3.c42.s8.15

The evidence collected from the references to and quotations from Bhela makes clear that the treatise fragmentarily preserved in the Tanjore MS is not completely identical with the work quoted. 299 The chronological position of the preserved Bhelasaṃ- hitā can for that reason be determined only by means of internal evidence and the date of completion of its MS, about A.D. 1650.

v3.c42.s8.16

The structure of the Bhelasaṃhitā, in particular the similarity of this structure to that of the Carakasaṃhitā, the partial identity of the titles of the chapters and their contents, the contents of the Kalpasthāna, etc., make it seem plausible to assume that the work is later than the Carakasaṃhitā after its redaction by Dṛḍhabala or of about the same date. The affinities with the Suśrutasaṃhitā make it improbable that Bhela's treatise is much earlier. Influences from the side of Vāgbhaṭa's works or Mādhava's Rugviniścaya are absent. The period between A.D. 400 and 750 may therefore have witnessed the development of an earlier text into the treatise known from the Tanjore MS.

v3.c42.s8.17

Clues to the period in which the work acquired its present shape were collected by P.V. Sharma.300 Changes in matters pertaining to religion are perceptible when the Caraka- and Bhelasaṃhitā are compared. Both Śaivism and Vaiṣṇavism are represented in the latter,301 whereas the former shows an emphasis on Vaiṣṇavism. Practices that became current in the Gupta age are alluded to; examples are Śiva worship on a cremation ground (Ci.2.40) and the practice of caṇḍakarman (Ci.1.50). Several types of ascetics are mentioned: kaṣāyavastra, muṇḍa, jaṭila, and nagnaka (I.8.14) and mlecchas are referred to (Sū.5.25). Tantric influences are also detectable: the heart is compared with a wheel (cakra) on which the prāṇas are fixed (Sū.20.4), a solar and lunar disc are thought to be located in the umbilical region (Śā.4.11–12), etc.

v3.c42.s8.18

The evidence taken together points to a period after Vāgbhaṭa, about the seventh century or somewhat later, as the age that saw the completion of the text of the Bhelasaṃhitā represented by the Tanjore MS.302

v3.c42.s8.19

Chapter 3

v3.c42.s8.20

Kāśyapasaṃhitā

v3.c42.s8.21

The Kāśyapasaṃhitā¹ is the only specialized textbook on kaumārabhṛtya that has been preserved. Two MSS of this work are known. The first of these was discovered by Haraprasād Śāstrī in Kāṭhmaṇḍu in 1898;² the MS consists of only thirty-eight palm leaves and contains a very small portion of the text.³ The second MS, much more extensive, although incomplete and damaged as well, was acquired by Paṇḍit Hemrāj Śarmā.⁴ The editions of the Kāśyapasaṃhitā are based on this second MS.⁵

Linked texts (1)

Bheḷasaṃhitā — Bheḷa, Sanskrit