Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c43.s1: Candraṭa

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c43.s1

Language
English

Candraṭa

v3.c43.s1.1

Candraṭa, 106 the son of Tiṣaṭa, who wrote the Cikitsākalikā, composed the following works: (1) a commentary on the Cikitsākalikā, (2) Suśrutapāṭhaśuddhi, (3) Yogaratnasamuccaya, (4) Yogamuṣṭi, (5) Dravyāvalī, and (6) Vaidyatriṃśattikā.

v3.c43.s1.2

(1) Candraṭa’s authorship of the commentary on the Cikitsākalikā 107 is evident from the opening sentences of the work. It is written in a lucid style and is important for the constitution of the text of the Cikitsākalikā and its interpretation. At some places Candraṭa informs us of sources not referred to by Tiṣaṭa himself. 108

v3.c43.s1.3

Many basic āyurvedic concepts are discussed at length in the comments on verse sixteen of the Cikitsākalikā. 109 Some new ideas are put forward in this part of the commentary. Candraṭa distinguishes three types of bala (strength): bala (in its restricted sense as physical strength), ojas, and tejas. Sattva is said to be of two types: bhīrutva and sahiṣṇutva. The concept of sātmya is elaborately dealt with according to the views of various authorities. Candraṭa himself is of the opinion that sātmya is of eight types. Regarding the concept of vipāka, he agrees with Suśruta in distinguishing two types. Drugs (auṣadha) are classified according to the predominance of one or more of the mahābhūtas in them.

v3.c43.s1.4

The concept of diseases caused by one’s karman is elucidated by a long quotation from a work not mentioned by name. 110 Differences of opinion between the followers of Caraka (kāyacikitsakāḥ) and Suśruta (śalyatantrakartāraḥ) are noticed. 111 Details on the preparation of various medicines are frequently given, 112 as well as the names of compound formulae. 113 The interpretations of the names of drugs are mostly correct, 114 but sometimes doubtful or wrong, 115 probably because the identity of a number of medicinal substances had become controversial, or because of insufficient knowledge. Occasionally, a medicinal plant is described and its vernacular name mentioned. 116 The term piccaṭa(roga) is employed as a synonym for the eye disease or group of eye diseases usually called pilla. 117 Añjanas, to be employed in eye diseases, are divided into three types: guṭikā, rasa and cūrṇa; guṭikā is subdivided into piṇḍa, varti and guṭikā in a restricted sense. 118

v3.c43.s1.5

Authorities quoted or referred to by Candraṭa are: Agniveśa (1; 2), Āstīka (mentioned by Tiṣaṭa; 387), the Aśvins (1, 227, 306: mentioned by Tiṣaṭa), Ātreya (1; 5), Aupadhenava (1; 145), Aurabhra (1; 2; 145), Bhaṭṭa 119 (introductory part of the commentary), Bhela (2: mentioned by Tiṣaṭa; 20; 80; 82; 248: mentioned by Tiṣaṭa), Bhoja (2: mentioned by Tiṣaṭa; 85; 115), Bhṛgu (2: mentioned by Tiṣaṭa), Bhṛguja 120 (375: mentioned by Tiṣaṭa), Cakṣuṣyeṇa (2; 16; 80; 81; 85; 283; 303–304;

v3.c43.s1.6

354–355), Caraka (passim), Dhanvantari (1: mentioned by Tiṣaṭa), dhānvantarīyāḥ (2), Haricandra 121 (maṅgala), Hārīta (2: mentioned by Tiṣaṭa; 82; 115; 116; 140–142; 173–174; 212–215), Janakātmaja 122 (347: mentioned by Tiṣaṭa), Jejjata (maṅgala; 161–162; 191–192; 221–222), Kāṅkāyana (147 and 151: mentioned by Tiṣaṭa), Kapilabala (283), Kharaṇāda (16; 82; 283), Kṛṣṇātreya (85), Kṣārapāṇi (2; 16; 190; 208–211; 270), Nimī (2), nyāyavidaḥ (16), Parāśara (2: mentioned by Tiṣaṭa; 82; 298–302: mentioned by Tiṣaṭa), Pauṣkalāvata (1), Puṣkalāvata (2; 145), Rasavaiśeṣika (16), 123 Siddhasāra (81), 124 Sudhīra (maṅgala), Śukra 125 (383), Suśruta (passim), vaiśeṣikāḥ (16), Tiṣaṭa (19; 82; 83–84; 110; 111; 193; 208–211; 212–215; 354–355), Vaitaraṇa (2), vaiyākaraṇāḥ (16), Varuṇa (383), 126 Videha 127 (2; 102; 104; 229–231: mentioned by Tiṣaṭa; 304: mentioned by Tiṣaṭa; 327; 328; 343; 346–347: Janakātmaja in Tiṣaṭa’s text), Viśvāmitra (361–364), Vṛddhabhoja (325), and Vṛddhavideha (85).

v3.c43.s1.7

Noteworthy is the absence of Vāgbhaṭa, 128 although he is quoted in Candraṭa’s Yogaratnasamuccaya.

v3.c43.s1.8

Candraṭa’s commentary on the Cikitsākalikā is quoted in Priyavrat Śarmā’s autocommentary on the Āyurvedadarśana and Ṭoḍara’s Āyurvedasaukhya.

v3.c43.s1.9

(2) The Suśrutapāṭhaśuddhi, 129 a MS of which was described by J. Taylor, 130 consists of a revision of the Suśrutasaṃhitā, made by Candraṭa after the commentary of Jejjata, as he indicates himself. 131 The text frequently differs from the printed edition of the Suśrutasaṃhitā according to Taylor, whereas A.F.R. Hoernle 132 notes that it does occasionally, though not very materially, differ from its traditional recension; 133 however, the latter remarks that Candraṭa’s revised text deserves a searching examination because it contains additional and spurious verses recorded as such by Dalhaṇa. Hoernle’s suggestion 134 of a connection between Candraṭa and Kārttikakuṇḍa rests on very slender evidence and needs corroboration. P.V. Sharma, being of the opinion that the text of the Suśrutasaṃhitā as we have it contains changes and additions by the hand of Candraṭa, 135 tried to identify some of the alterations. 136 However, the description of the India Office MS of the Suśrutapāṭhaśuddhi is in contradiction with such a view.

v3.c43.s1.10

Candraṭa refers to his Suśrutapāṭhaśuddhi and Yogaratnasamuccaya at the end of his commentary on the Cikitsākalikā, which proves that the commentary is the latest of the three.

v3.c43.s1.11

A Pāṭhaśuddhi and Mahāpāṭhaśuddhi, quoted extensively by Anantakumāra, 137 cannot but designate Candraṭa’s work. A Pāṭhaśuddhi is cited in the Bhesajjamañjūsāsannaya.

v3.c43.s1.12

The quotations from the Pāṭhaśuddhi in Anantakumāra’s Yogaratnasamuccaya sometimes agree, sometimes disagree with the current text of the Suśrutasaṃhitā. 138

v3.c43.s1.13

Candraṭa is referred to and extolled in Bālāditya’s Suśrutasāra, which may mean that the author of this work was acquainted with the Pāṭhaśuddhi.

v3.c43.s1.14

(3) The Yogaratnasamuccaya, 139 written by Candraṭa, son of Tiṣaṭa, according to its first two verses, 140 is a collection of prescriptions, 141 arranged in eight sections (adhikāra): 142 ghṛta, 143 taila, cūrṇa, guṭikā, avaleha, gadaśānti, 144 (pañca)karman, and kalpa. 145

v3.c43.s1.15

The kalpa section describes nineteen kalpas: amlavetasa-, suvarṇa-, citraka-, kākamācī-, śatāvarī-, bhallātaka-, haritakī-, triphalā-, laśuna-, guḍūcī-, śilājatu-, guggulu-, vārāhī-, kukkuṭī-, eraṇḍataila-, kuṅkuma-, gokṣura-, and alambuṣākalpa. 146

v3.c43.s1.16

The work is of great value because it gives the source of its recipes. These sources are, according to P.K. Gode, 147 who first listed them: Agastya, Agniveśa, Amitaprabha, 148 Amṛtamālā, Āryasamuccaya, Aśvinasaṃhitā, 149 Aśvinīkumārasamhitā, Aśvinīyasaṃhitā, Bhadrasenaka, 150 Bhadravartman, 151 Bhāradvāja, Bheḍa, 152 Bhiṣaṇmuṣṭi, Bindusāra, 153 Cakusyena, 153 Cikitsākalikā, Dravyāvalī, Hārīta, 154 Jatūkarṇa, Kāṅkāyana, Kharanāda, Kṛṣṇātreya, Kṣārāpāṇi, Nāvanītaka, 155 Parāśara, 156 Śaivasiddhānta, Śaunaka, Siddhasāra, 157 Śivasiddhānta, Suśruta, Tisata, Vāgbhaṭa, Vāhaḍa, Vaitaraṇa, Videha, 158 Vṛddhavāhaḍa, Vṛddhavideha, Yogaratnasamuccaya, and Yogayukti.

v3.c43.s1.17

D.Ch. Bhattacharyya 159 added the following names: Ātreya, Carakottaratantra, Cikitsāsamuccaya, 160 Gopura, Ravigupta, and Vṛddhasuśruta; 161 absent from his list are: Agastya, Bhāradvāja, Bhadrasenaka, Kāṅkāyana, Śaivasiddhānta, Vāhaḍa, Vaitaraṇa, and Yogaratnasamuccaya.

v3.c43.s1.18

R.P. Bhatnagar and P.V. Sharma 162 added some more names: Acyuta, 163 Amṛtakumbha, 164 Amṛtaprabha or -prabhā, 165 Aupadhenava, Bhāluki, Cikitsāsāra, Cikitsātiśaya, 166 Dhānvantara, Dhanvantari, Kālāpāda, 167 Mahendrakalpa, Nāgārjuna, 168 Rudrasenaka, 169 Śālihotra, and Vaṅgadatta; absent from this list are: 170 Agastya, Bhadrasenaka, Śaivasiddhānta, Śivasiddhānta, Tiṣaṭa, Vaitaraṇa, and Yogaratnasamuccaya.

v3.c43.s1.19

Niścala mentions the Svalpavāgbhaṭa as one of Candraṭa's sources; 171 he also reproduces recipes which Candraṭa took from some unspecified treatise (tarāntara), 172 Anantakumāra's quotations show that Candraṭa borrowed from the Īśānayoga, 173 Mahodadhi, 174 and Śacīmata. 175 Anantakumāra also quotes a recipe derived from Candraṭa that was written on a stone pillar (śīlāstambha) by the Yavanas. 176

v3.c43.s1.20

The Yogaratnasamuccaya is the same as the Candraṭasamgraha, quoted by Niścala; it may also be identical with the Candraṭasāroddhāra, 177 usually separately listed. 178

v3.c43.s1.21

Candraṭa's collection of formulae was well known in former ages, for it is repeatedly quoted by Niścala. 179 Soḍhala was inspired by it when he composed his Gadanigraha. 180 The work was one of the sources of Cakrapāṇidatta's Cikitsāsamgraha. 181 It is also one of the sources of Dattarāma's Bṛhradasarājasundara, 182 the Bhāratabhaiṣajyaratnākara, and the Rasayogasāgara. 183

v3.c43.s1.22

The work is probably quoted as Yogaratnasamuccaya 184 in the Bhesajjamañjūsāsannaya (which refers to Candraṭa too) and the Yogaratnākara. Hemādri's citations from a Yogaratna are in all probability from Candraṭa's work. 185

v3.c43.s1.23

Anantakumāra's quotations from Candraṭa 186 are undoubtedly from the Yogaratnasamuccaya. Niścalakara, Śivadāsena, 187 Śrīdāsapaṇḍita and Śrīkaṇṭhadatta refer to Candraṭa or quote from him as the author of a therapeutic work which contains a large number of formulae, i.e., the Yogaratnasamuccaya. Ṭoḍara quotes a verse on the proper doses of various type of kaṣāya, which may be from the Yogaratnasamuccaya. 188

v3.c43.s1.24

Candraṭa did not recognize samgrahagrahaṇī as a distinct type of grahaṇī. 189 His readings of Caraka and Suśruta differed occasionally from those accepted by other authors. 190

v3.c43.s1.25

The works by Candraṭa called (4) Yogamuṣṭi 191 and (5) Dravyāvalī 192 are recorded by P.V. Sharma; 193 the (6) Vaidyatriṃśattikā is only mentioned by Th. Aufrecht 194 and in the NCC. 195

v3.c43.s1.26

Śivadāsena quotes from a Vṛṇḍatīkā by Candraṭa, 196 which probably means that Candraṭa wrote a commentary on Vṛṇḍa's Siddhayoga.

v3.c43.s1.27

The author The only fact known is that Candraṭa was the son of Tiṣaṭa. The first verse of the Yogaratnasamuccaya shows that he followed his father's footsteps in being a sun-worshipper. 197

v3.c43.s1.28

Date As discussed in the section on the date of Tiṣaṭa, the terminus ad quem for the composition of the Cikitsākalikā is provided by Niścalakara's statement that Cakrapāṇidatta (about A.D. 1050) utilized Tiṣaṭa's work in writing his own therapeutic compendium. 198 The earliest author after Cakrapāṇidatta to quote from Candraṭa is Śrīkaṇṭhadatta in his Vyākhyākusumāvalī. 199 The terminus post quem of Tiṣaṭa and Candraṭa has been deduced from a remark at the beginning of the latter's commentary on the Cikitsākalikā, proving that he was acquainted with Haricandra's and Jejjaṭa's commentaries. 200 As Jejjaṭa's date is disputed, 201 it is preferable to depart from another fact in establishing the upper chronological limit. This fact consists of Candraṭa's quoting the Siddhasāra 202 and its author, Ravigupta, 203 who lived about A.D. 650. This fixes the period of Tiṣaṭa and Candraṭa between 650 and 1050. If Candraṭa wrote a commentary on Vṛṇḍa's Siddhayoga, as seems to follow from a remark of Śivadāsena, 204 the dates of Tiṣaṭa and Candraṭa fall within the period 900–1050. 205

Cites (26)