Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c43.s17: The Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c43.s17

Language
English

Contents

The Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu

v3.c43.s17.1

The Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu²²⁹ is a comprehensive lexicon of materia medica which lists both the names and the properties of medicinal substances.

v3.c43.s17.2

²²⁹ [Text of the note]

Contents

v3.c43.s17.t1.1

The treatise consists of two parts: a Gaṇadravyāvali (69 verses),²³⁰ preceded by an introduction (19 verses), and the Nighaṇṭu in its proper sense (about 1,550 verses).²³¹

v3.c43.s17.t1.2

²³⁰ [Text of the note]

v3.c43.s17.t1.3

²³¹ [Text of the note]

v3.c43.s17.t1.4

The introductory verses open with a salutation to Dhanvantari; the author states thereupon that he is going to deal with the Sanskrit and Prakrit names of those among the endless number of vegetable and other substances which are useful in medicine. He hints at the compilatory character of his work by referring to the nighaṇṭus he consulted before composing his own treatise.²³²

v3.c43.s17.t1.5

²³² [Text of the note]

v3.c43.s17.t1.6

The Gaṇadravyāvali divides the medicinal substances into seven large groups (varga), subdivided into smaller units (gaṇa). The substances belonging to each of these gaṇas are enumerated, together with their actions and modes of employment.²³³ The names occurring in the lists of the Gaṇadravyāvali are mostly those of the first member of a series of synonyms of the Nighaṇṭu or consist of a commonly employed synonym. Exceptions to this rule are, for example, the two plants called puṇya (1.4)²³⁴ and suparṇī (1.5),²³⁵ sudhā (1.9),²³⁶ and gṛñjana (4.4).²³⁷ The total number of items of the Gaṇadravyāvali is said to be 373 (7.3), but the actual number of drugs described in the Nighaṇṭu is much larger.

v3.c43.s17.t1.7

²³³ [Text of the note]

v3.c43.s17.t1.8

²³⁴ [Text of the note]

v3.c43.s17.t1.9

²³⁵ [Text of the note]

v3.c43.s17.t1.10

²³⁶ [Text of the note]

v3.c43.s17.t1.11

²³⁷ [Text of the note]

v3.c43.s17.t1.12

One of the principles governing the composition of the Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu is to regard particular drugs, listed in the Gaṇadravyāvali, as representatives of a group of substances and to describe the members of such a group separately in the Nighaṇṭu,²³⁸ either as a viśeṣa²³⁹ or in a different way.²⁴⁰ A related type of summarizing occurs especially in the lists of the sixth varga of the Gaṇadravyāvali: taila (6.7) refers to many kinds of oil, payas (6.7) to both milk and dadhi, etc. At the end of the sixth varga the Gaṇadravyāvali is said to have been expounded by Dhanvantari,²⁴¹ a statement that one expects to occur at the end of the seventh varga. This may imply that the seventh varga is a later addition,²⁴² the more so since the Gaṇadravyāvali omits to mention a large part of its contents.

v3.c43.s17.t1.13

²³⁸ [Text of the note]

v3.c43.s17.t1.14

²³⁹ [Text of the note]

v3.c43.s17.t1.15

²⁴⁰ [Text of the note]

v3.c43.s17.t1.16

²⁴¹ [Text of the note]

v3.c43.s17.t1.17

²⁴² [Text of the note]

v3.c43.s17.t1.18

The Nighaṇṭu, which deals with the synonyms of each drug and its properties and actions, follows the Gaṇadravyāvali in arranging the medicinal substances into seven large groups:²⁴³ (1) guḍūcyādivarga, drugs which eliminate one or more of the doṣas; (2) śatapuṣpādivarga, mainly consisting of spices; (3) candanādivarga, consisting of fragrant substances; (4) karavīrādivarga, containing various plants; (5) āmrādivarga, fruit-bearing trees; (6) suvarṇādivarga, describing metals, minerals, (semi)precious stones, and articles of diet; (7) miśrakādivarga, describing groups of drugs and poisonous substances.

v3.c43.s17.t1.19

²⁴³ [Text of the note]

v3.c43.s17.t1.20

As already said before, the number of drugs dealt with in the Nighaṇṭu is considerably larger than that mentioned in the Gaṇadravyāvali, because it distinguishes many varieties. This procedure is carried very far in some instances: vijayā (1.130–131)244 is regarded as a variety of medā, khastila (6.120)245 as a kind of grain. In rare cases it happens that the Nighaṇṭu describes a plant which is absent from the Gaṇadravyāvali and not considered to be a variety of some other plant listed in the latter.246 The Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu ends with lists of ekārthas and anekārthas, 247 called Uttaranighaṇṭu.248

v3.c43.s17.t1.21

The compilatory character of the work is confirmed by the presence of quotations.249 Sources are not mentioned by name, Nāgārjuna excepted,250 but the author may have been acquainted with the Aṣṭāṅganighaṇṭu, since verses from that work form part of the Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu.251 The Rasaratnasamuccaya or some of its sources may also have been consulted.252

v3.c43.s17.t1.22

The Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu is a work that gained much prestige.253 A later treatise that was heavily influenced by it is the Sodhalanighaṇṭu, which repeats a large part of the Gaṇadravyāvali254 and many verses from the Nighaṇṭu.255

v3.c43.s17.t1.23

Authors and works quoting from or referring to the Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu256 are: Aruṇadatta,257 the commentary on the Āyurvedābdhisāra,258 Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita in his Tithinirṇayapradīpa,259 Bhāvamiśra in some glosses on his Bhāvaprakāśa, Candranandana,260 Cūḍāmaṇimiśra in his Rasakāmadhenu, Haridattaśāstrin in his commentary on the Rasataraṅgiṇī, Hemacandra in his auto-commentary on the Abhidhānacintāmaṇi,261 Hemādri,262 Indu in his commentary on the Aṣṭāṅgasamgraha,263 Jñānavimalagaṇi in his commentary on Maheśvara’s Śabdabhedaprakāśa,264 Kṛṣṇadatta in his commentary on Trimalla’s Śataślokī, Kṣīrasvamin in his commentary on the Amarakosa,265 Mahendra Sūri in his commentary on Hemacandra’s Anekārthasamgraha,266 Mallinātha267 in his commentary on the Amarakośa,268 Maṅkha in his Anekārthakoṣa,269 Raghunātha in his Bhojanakutūhala, the Śālīgrāmanighaṇṭubhūṣaṇa of the Brhannighaṇṭuratnākara, Priyavrat Śarmā in the auto-commentary on the Dravyaguṇasūtra, Śivadāsasena in his commentary on the Uttarasthāna of the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā,270 Śrīdāsapaṇḍita,271 Śrīvallabhagaṇi in his commentary on Hemacandra’s Nighaṇṭuśeṣa,272 the Tāmbūlamañjarī, Vardhamāna in his Gaṇaratnamahodadhi,273 and Yādavjī Trikamjī in his Rasāmṛta.

v3.c43.s17.t1.24

The Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu was one of the sources of Mahendra Sūri’s commentary on Hemacandra’s Anekārthasamgraha,274 Maṅkha’s Anekārthakoṣa,275 and Raghunāthajī’s Nighaṇṭusamgraha.

Special features

v3.c43.s17.t2.1

The Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu is an important work with many noteworthy features.

v3.c43.s17.t2.2

Some interesting medicinal substances and other details are: kaṇḍobhavā guḍūcī (1.8);276 the distinction between mūrvā and moraṭa (1.13–16),277 dhanvayāsa and yāsa (1.20–23); nepāla as a distinct type of kirātatika (1.35);278 jalamusta (1.43–44);279 the description of paṭola and paṭolī as two separate plants (1.49–53);280 gandhapalāśa as a variety of śaṭī (1.64–66);281 śvāsāri (1.72)282 as a variety of pāṭhā;

v3.c43.s17.t2.3

kapaṭa (1.82–83)283 as a variety of kaṭṭṛṇa; the description of two kinds of śāli- and pṛṣṭiparṇī (1.87–92); the description of lakṣmaṇā (1.97)284 as a white-flowered type of kaṇṭakārī; kāsa ghnī (1.98–101)285 as a variety of bṛhatī; śyonāka and aralu (1.114–116)286 as names of one and the same tree; vijayā (1.130–131)287 as a type of medā; two types of klītanaka (1.144–145)288 as varieties of madhuyaṣṭī; dadhipuṣpī (1.153–154)289 as a type of kapikacchū; ḍaṅgarī (1.181–182)290 as a variety of trapusa; the distinction between āragvadha (1.219–220) and karṇikāra (1.221–222);291 araṇī (1.225–226)292 and jayapāla (1.227–228)293 as varieties of dantī; kāñcanakṣīrī (1.240–241)294 and svarṇakṣīrī (1.242–243)295 as two distinct types of kṣīriṇī; śvetapuṣpī (1.252–253),296 also called mṛgākṣī,297 as a variety of viśālā; five types of balā are described: balā, mahābalā, nāgabalā, atibalā and rājabalā;298 vṛsamedhā;299 śvetavacā (2.10–11)300 as a variety of vacā; nāḍīhiṅgu (2.40–41);301 the description of substitutes for vamśarocanā (2.55–56) and a variety of this substance called tvakṣīrī or tugākṣīrī (2.57–59);302 the description of three plants called yavānī (2.91–94);303 the description of five kinds of candana: candana, raktacandana, kucandana,304 kāliyaka, and barbarika (3.1–9); kāleyaka (3.27)305 as a variety of agaru; gandhamāṃsī (3.47–48)306 as a distinct variety of māṃsī; dama (3.66)307 as a variety of damana;308 girisindūra (3.103–104) as a variety of sindūra; uccaṭā (4.29–30)309 as a variety of guñjā; cāṇakhyamūlaka (4.35–36) as a variety of mūlaka;310 jantukārī (4.88–89);311 māṃsarohiṇī (4.94–96);312 kuśa is regarded as a variety of darbha and is called mṛdudarbha (4.133–134); mahānala (4.142–143)313 as a variety of nala; three types of dūrvā are described: nīla-,314 śveta-, and gaṇḍadūrvā (4.143–148); balāmoṭā;315 madhukarkaṭī (5.31–32);316 jalamadhūka (5.48–50);317 māḍa (5.70–71)318 as a kind of tāla; the description of four types of karañja:319 karañja, prakārya, udakīrya, and aṅgāravallikā (5.107–111), two types of śimśapā: śimśapā and kuśimśapā (5.121–123), and two types of ketakī: ketakī and suvarṇaketakī;320 sāga;321 jūrṇā as a kind of grain (6.108);322 methikā (6.111–112)323 and vanamethikā (6.113);324 the description of khastila325 and opium (6.120–121); marjikā as a synonym of śikhariṇī (6.301); the description of groups of drugs like svādu- (7.3–4) and sugandhitriphalā (7.5), three kinds of cāturbhadraka (7.7–12), pañcabhṛṅga (7.17), and yakṣakardama326 (7.45–46).327

v3.c43.s17.t2.4

Noteworthy features of the sections on inorganic substances are: the names of the three types of muṇḍa(loha): mṛdu, kaṇṭa, kaḍāra, six types of tīkṣṇa(loha): kharasāra, hartāla, tāla, valla, vajjara, kālaloha, and five types of kānta(loha): bhrāmara, cumbaka, rañjaka, ālocaka, romaka (6.26–29); the eight mahārasas enumerated are: abhra, vaikrānta, mākṣika, adrija, sasyaka, capala, rasāka (6, rasāḥ 1);328 a series of seven dhātus (metals): gold, silver, copper, tin, zinc, lead and iron (7.87), and another series of nine dhātus: gold, silver, copper, tin, lead, tīkṣṇa, kāṃsya, pittala, kiṭṭaloha (7.95); a series of seven upadhātus: svarṇamākṣika, tāramākṣika, tuttha, kāṃsya, rīti (= pittala), sindūra, śilājatu ((7.88); two series of uparasas: (a) gaṇḍha, hiṅgula, abhra, tālaka, śilā, śroto’ñjana, ṭaṅkaṇa, rājāvartaka, cumbaka, sphaṭikā, śaṅkha, khaṭī, gairika, kāsīsa, rasaka, kaparda, sikatā, bola, kaṅkuṣṭhaka, saurāṣṭrī, (b) gandhāśman, gaira, kāsīsa, kāṅkṣī, tāla, śilā, añjana, kaṅkuṣṭha (7.92–93); a series of eight sādhāraṇarasas: kampilla, capala, gaurīpāṣāṇa, navasāgara, kaparda, vahnijāra, girisindūra, hiṅgula, bodāraśṛṅga (7.94–95).329

v3.c43.s17.t2.5

The Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu does not mention its author. As referred to before, a verse at the end of the suvarṇādivarga of the Gaṇadravyāvali states that it emanated from the mouth of Dhanvantari. It is probably for this reason that the treatise became known as Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu, and that the verses from it are quoted as spoken by Dhanvantari. Some MSS ascribe the work to Mahendrabhogika, resident of Sthāṇvīśvara330 and son of Kṛṣṇabhogika.331

v3.c43.s17.t2.6

Date One of the problems connected with the date of the Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu is whether the treatise as it is known to us represents a revised and enlarged version of an earlier text, called Dravyāvali,332 that contained the Gaṇadravyāvali and the series of synonyms of the Nighaṇṭu only, and that has gradually developed into the Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu as it is now.333 It has also been suggested that this process of growth continued for a long time, resulting in the incorporation of drugs that became current in later periods.334

v3.c43.s17.t2.7

Various arguments have been put forward in support of this thesis. One of these is that, at the end of the Gaṇadravyāvali, the author states that, the Gaṇadravyāvali being completed now, he is going to enumerate the synonyms in due order. Instead of doing so, a renewed salutation to Dhanvantari follows, accompanied by an introductory verse mentioning the author’s intention to describe the qualities and actions of the medicinal substances. It is remarkable indeed that the author, in his introductory verses, refers to his work as the Dravyāvali, which is said to consist of a Gaṇadravyāvali and a series of synonyms, while allusions to the medicinal properties also occur in the introduction; their description is even an essential element of the Gaṇadravyāvali. The argument is therefore not convincing, but it remains to be explained why the series of synonyms from the Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu are quoted by later authors, whereas the verses about the properties of the drugs seem to have been less appreciated or less well known.335 The problem whether an earlier Dravyāvali, of a structure similar to that of the Aṣṭāṅganighaṇṭu, has existed or not, depends in my opinion on a thorough study of all the manuscripts available.

v3.c43.s17.t2.8

Important too are the quotations from a Dravyāvali. Authors and works citing from it are: Āḍhamalla, Anantakumāra,336 the Bhesajjamañjūsāsannaya, Candraṭa’s Yogaratnasamuccaya, Mallinātha’s commentary on the Amarakosa,337 Niścalakara’s Ratnaprabhā,338 Śivadāsasena’s commentary on the Cakradatta,339 and Śrīkaṇṭhadatta’s Kusumāvali.340

v3.c43.s17.t2.9

An argument in favour of the thesis that the Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu was subject to a process of gradual growth, resulting in accretions of a later date, is based on Kṣirasvāmin’s acquaintance with it. It has been suggested that an earlier version must have existed, since the treatise in its present shape, describing, for example, opium and zinc, cannot possibly date from the first half of the twelfth century,341 the period in which Kṣirasvāmin lived.342 The structure of the Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu, especially its deal-

v3.c43.s17.t2.10

ing with many drugs as varieties of some basic substance, facilitated undoubtedly the inclusion of later additions.343

v3.c43.s17.t2.11

The date of the Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu, at least its terminus ante quem, can be determined from quotations in later works. Kṣirasvāmin’s commentary on the Amarakosa, which contains numerous quotations from it, testifies to its existence in the first half of the twelfth century. It may therefore have been composed in the period between A.D. 1000 and 1100,344 not earlier, because the Aṣṭāṅganighaṇṭu, which presents a less advanced stage of composition of a nighaṇṭu, can be assigned to the period 800–1000. The reference to the Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu as one of his sources by Maṅkha (first half of the twelfth century)345 in his Anekārthakoṣa and the quotations in Vardhamāna’s Gaṇaratnamahodadhi (composed in 1140),346 Hemacandra’s auto-commentary on his Abhidhānacintāmaṇi (twelfth century) and Aruṇadatta’s commentary on the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā (earlier than 1200) confirm this dating. Some remarks in Kṣirasvāmin’s commentary347 seem to imply that he considered Amarasimha to have been acquainted with the Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu or an earlier version of it, but this is unacceptable and not supported by internal evidence.348

v3.c43.s17.t2.12

The descriptions of Cannabis, opium and zinc in the Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu do not invalidate the date suggested above, since these substances are also mentioned by Vāṅgasena (eleventh century).

Linked texts (10)