Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c43.s2: Govardhana

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c43.s2

Language
English

Govardhana

v3.c43.s2.1

Govardhana 206 was the author of several medical works: (1) a commentary (ṭīkā) on the Bṛhattantrapradīpa; 207 (2) Karmamālā, a commentary on the Yogaśataka; 208 (3) Kaumudī; 209 (4) Nyāyasārāvalī; 210 (5) Paribhāṣāvalī. 211 All these works are quoted in Niścalakara's Ratnaprabhā. 212

v3.c43.s2.2

The Ratnamālā, quoted by Niścala, 213 is also a work of Govardhana according to D.Ch. Bhattacharyya 214 and P.V. Sharma. 215

v3.c43.s2.3

Some add to Govardhana's works the Cikitsāleśa and Rogapradīpa. 216

v3.c43.s2.4

An unspecified work of a Govardhana is quoted in Gopālādāsa's Cikitsāmṛta.

v3.c43.s2.5

Govardhana is later than Amitaprabha 217 and the Mādhava who wrote the Yogavyākhyā. 218 D.Ch. Bhattacharyya 219 supposed Govardhana to be later than Vṛṇḍa and to be a contemporary of Cakrapāṇidatta. 220 Some clues in Niścala's Ratnaprabhā may point to Govardhana as an author who is later than Ravigupta, Jejjaṭa, Īśvarasena, Īśāna, and Gadādhara, but earlier than Mādhava, Cakrapāṇidatta and Bakula. 221

v3.c43.s2.6

Govardhana is reported to be a son of Cakrapāṇi. 222

v3.c43.s2.7

The Jīvakapustaka

v3.c43.s2.8

The *Jīvakapustaka* is a collection of prescriptions, preserved in Sanskrit and in a Khotanese version.

v3.c43.s2.9

The manuscript of the *Jīvakapustaka*²²³ contains three separate tracts,²²⁴ which means that it is a typical ‘Sammelhandschrift’. Each tract begins with the word *siddham* (success). As neither a title nor a colophon are extant, and as the text has not been traced elsewhere, the convenient label *Jīvakapustaka* has been assigned to it.²²⁵

v3.c43.s2.10

Contents

v3.c43.s2.11

The treatise²²⁶ contains a series of prescriptions, many of which have separate names, together with indications on their use. It begins as an exposition of the Bhagavant to Jīvaka, who is called ‘the king of physicians’ in the Khotanese version. The Sanskrit text is mainly in ślokas and so corrupt that it can hardly be read. The Khotanese translation, based on this corrupt Sanskrit text that was hardly intelligible to the one who rendered it into Khotanese,²²⁷ is also metrical and is enlarged with regard to the Sanskrit original; it enumerates all the items of comprehensive Sanskrit terms like *daśamūla*, etc., and gives detailed instructions on the way the medicines should be prepared. Its most striking feature is the insistence on specifying in each instance the appropriate quantity of each drug and the amount of milk, water or oil required, also when those items are not found in the original Sanskrit. For this purpose a great variety of terms of measure is used.²²⁸

v3.c43.s2.12

The prescriptions are divided into four sections, containing prescriptions for an agada, ghees (ghrta),²²⁹ oils (taila) and powders (cūrṇa). J. Filliozat identified some of the formulae;²³⁰ later, many more could be traced by R.E. Emmerick.²³¹

v3.c43.s2.13

Date

v3.c43.s2.14

One of the clues to the chronological position of the *Jīvakapustaka* consists of the fact that several formulae were borrowed from the *Siddhasāra*,²³² which makes it clear that it is later in date, probably considerably later, than the latter.²³³

v3.c43.s2.15

The MS of the *Jīvakapustaka* cannot be dated precisely. No detailed palaeographical study of the cursive Brāhmī script as used in Central Asia has yet been made. The language of the Khotanese version is ‘late Khotanese’. All that can be said from the point of view of the language is that the text must have been written before the year A.D. 1000, after which no Khotanese was written.²³⁴

v3.c43.s2.16

The Jvarasamuccaya

v3.c43.s2.17

The *Jvarasamuccaya*²³⁵ is an anonymous monograph on fevers, dating from the tenth century.²³⁶

v3.c43.s2.18

Authorities and works quoted are Āśvina, Bhāradvāja, Bheḍa, Bhoja, Caraka, Hārīta, Jatūkarṇa, Kapilabala, Kaśyapa, and Suśruta.²³⁷ The quotations from Kaśyapa often agree with the text of the *Kaśyapasamhitā*.²³⁸ Parts of the long citation from the *Bhālukitantra*, occurring in the *Madhukośa* on the *Mādhavanidāna*,²³⁹ recur, with variants,

v3.c43.s2.19

in the *Jvarasamuccaya*, where they are attributed to Kaśyapa.²⁴⁰

v3.c43.s2.20

The Kriyākālaguṇottaratantra

v3.c43.s2.21

The *Kriyākālaguṇottaratantra*²⁴¹ is a Tantric text bearing upon medicine. It is in the form of a dialogue between Śiva and Kārttikeya. The latter puts questions to his father Śiva, wanting instruction about gāruḍamantras against poison, the characteristics of serpents and of demons, especially those who attack children, about embryology, and other subjects. The work is divided into three kalpas, named after the deities Krodheśvara, Aghora, and Jvareśvara.²⁴²

v3.c43.s2.22

This Tantra dates from before the eleventh century, because Kṣemarāja, the pupil of Abhinavagupta, quotes it several times in his commentary, called *Netroddyota*, on the *Netratantra*.²⁴³ One of its MSS dates from 1184.²⁴⁴

v3.c43.s2.23

The *Kriyākālaguṇottara* is quoted in the *Paraśurāmapratāpa*²⁴⁵ and the *Śiśurakṣāratna*. It was one of the sources of Nāgārjuna’s *Kakṣapuṭa* and is mentioned in the *Mantrakhaṇḍa* of Nityanātha’s *Rasaratnākara*.

v3.c43.s2.24

The Laṅkāvatāra

v3.c43.s2.25

A treatise called *Laṅkāvatāra* is said to be a Tantric work on medicine. One of the MSS dates from A.D. 908.²⁴⁶

v3.c43.s2.26

The Paryāyaratnamālā by Mādhava Bhiṣaj or Mādhavakāra

v3.c43.s2.27

The *Paryāyaratnamālā*²⁴⁷ or *Ratnamālā*²⁴⁸ is a lexicon, written by Mādhava Bhiṣaj²⁴⁹ or Mādhavakāra.²⁵⁰

v3.c43.s2.28

Contents

v3.c43.s2.29

The text of the *Ratnamālā* consists of about 1,300 ardhaślokas, but the edition numbers them from one to 1758 in the following way: ardhaślokas 1–578, pādas 579–1424, ardhapādas 1425–1472, ardhaślokas 1473–1758.

v3.c43.s2.30

The treatise is primarily a nighaṇṭu, and, though it goes beyond the limits of medical terminology, the author wrote it for the sake of physicians, as appears from one of his introductory verses: “What can a valiant man do in a battle if he has no weapons? With regard to therapy the same holds true for a physician who has no (knowledge of) synonyms”.

v3.c43.s2.31

The *Ratnamālā* consists, apart from six introductory (1–12) and two concluding verses (1755–1758), of a synonymous (13–1472) and a homonymous section²⁵¹ (1474–1640), followed by a section containing definitions (1642–1754). The contents are summarily listed in ardhaślokas 9–12. The synonyms are dealt with first in ślokas (13–216) and ardhaślokas (218–578), followed by pādas (580–1424) and ardhapādas (1425–1472). The synonyms are usually given separately, in the nominative, without making making much use of dvandas and ekaśeṣas. The names of plants, animals, inorganic substances, articles of food, etc. (13–854), are accompanied by their vernacular counterparts. The homonyms are divided into apyarthas (words with a single additional meaning each, given in the locative and indicated by the particle api), dvyarthas (words with two meanings) and bahvarthas (words with more than two meanings), distributed as follows: apyarthas (one apyartha in one pāda) (1474–1504), dvyarthas (one dvyartha in one pāda) (1505–1554), dvyarthas (one dvyartha in one ardhaśloka) (1555–1586), and bahvarthas (1587–1640). The bahvarthas have from three to eight meanings and are arranged in such a way that the number of acceptations increases. The section dealing with definitions covers dietary articles (1642–1686), paribhāṣā (technical rules; 1687–1735), and māna (weights and measures; 1737–1754). The junctions between the various parts are indicated in the text itself (217; 579; 1473; 1641).

v3.c43.s2.32

The synonymous section is concerned with medicinal plants (13–188), followed by a heterogeneous series of terms (189–217) and medicinal plants again (218–421). The work proceeds with minerals and metals (422–445), salts and caustic substances (446–451), sugar and related articles (452–455), medicinal substances (456–480), dairy produce (481–486), cow dung (487), names of animals (488–508), human beings and related terms (509–539), various terms (540–561), deities and other non-human beings (562–574), religious terms (575–578), medicinal substances and some medical terms (580–734), various terms (739–822), various terms (823–828), cows and products of the cow (839–848), cereal products (849–862), medical terms (863–876), anatomical terms (877–944), parts of plants (945–954), various terms (955–1296), the seasons (1297–1302), the lunar mansions (1303–1313), colour adjectives (1315–1330), various terms (1331–1388), names of diseases (1389–1424), and various terms (1425–1472).

v3.c43.s2.33

Special features Many rare words are found in Mādhava’s Ratnamālā. The group of medicinal plants called aṣṭavarga is mentioned (3.43–44).²⁵² Unusual names of plants are: āśita(ka) (651);²⁵³ aśokarohiṇī (352);²⁵⁴ aṣṭapādikā (311);²⁵⁵ asthisamhāra (389);²⁵⁶ cela (712);²⁵⁷ coraṣuṇṭhī (295);²⁵⁸ dhustūraka (405);²⁵⁹ hastikarṇadala (= hastikarṇapalāśa; 100);²⁶⁰ hilamocikā (374);²⁶¹ jūrṇā (697);²⁶² kapāṭacakra (416);²⁶³ kāśmīraja as a synonym of kuṅkuma (264);²⁶⁴ kulatthikā (= vanakulattha; 420);²⁶⁵ kumbhāṭa (654);²⁶⁶ madhukukkuṭī (152);²⁶⁷ pītamudga (694);²⁶⁸ poṭagala (463);²⁶⁹ ṛkṣagandhā (= sarpagandhā; 470);²⁷⁰ sarpākṣī (386);²⁷¹ sudarśanā (363);²⁷² timiraka (= nakharāñjaka; 308);²⁷³ uccaṭā (395).²⁷⁴

v3.c43.s2.34

Remarkable words are moreover: antagranthi as a synonym of atisāra (1401);²⁷⁵ bhiṣajita as a synonym of cikitsā (528), though it usually means auṣadha;²⁷⁶ kothaka as a synonym of kukūṇaka (1390); nirvāhin and suvāhikā as names of a disease (1400);²⁷⁷ tarṣabhū as a synonym of kloman (909); vāṭaṇḍa and vradhna as synonyms of the disease called vṛddhi (1415); yonyarśas as denoting (yoni)kaṇḍa (1392).

v3.c43.s2.35

Mādhava and his Ratnamālā are quoted or referred to by Bhānuji Dīkṣita in his Rāmāśramī or Vyākhyāsudhā on the Amara koṣa, written in the first half of the seventeenth century, probably between A.D. 1620 and 1640,²⁷⁸ Hārāṇacandra in his commentary on the Suśrutasaṃhitā,²⁷⁹ Haricaraṇasena in his Paryāyamuktāvalī,²⁸⁰

v3.c43.s2.36

Mallinātha in his Amarapadapārijāta on the Amara koṣa, dating from the fourteenth century,²⁸¹ Medinikara in his Nānārthaśabdakoṣa, written in the thirteenth century, probably between 1200 and 1275,²⁸² Nārāyaṇa Vidyāvinoda in his commentary on the Amara koṣa,²⁸³ Niścalakara,²⁸⁴ Rādhākāntadeva in his Śabdakalpadruma,²⁸⁵ Rāyamukuṭamaṇi in his Padacandrikā on the Amara koṣa, composed in 1431/32,²⁸⁶ Śivadāsasena in his commentary on Cakrapāṇi’s Dravyaguṇa,²⁸⁷ Śivadatta in the auto-commentary on his Śivakoṣa, dating from 1677/78,²⁸⁸ Umeśacandragupta in his Vaidyakaśabdasindhu, and Vandyaghaṭīya Sarvānanda in his Ṭīkāsarvasva on the Amara koṣa, written in 1159/60.²⁸⁹ Mādhava’s lexicon is said to be quoted several times in Vidyāvinoda Nārāyaṇa’s commentary on the Amara koṣa.²⁹⁰

v3.c43.s2.37

A work called Ratnamālā that may be Mādhava’s lexicon is quoted by a Kaumudīkara who was one of Rāyamukuṭamaṇi’s sources.²⁹¹ The Ratnamālā may have been known to Vijayarakṣita who quotes it without specifying the source;²⁹² Vācaspati’s commentary on the Mādhavanidāna contains the same quotation, adding that it is taken from the Abhidhāna,²⁹³ which indicates that it may be different work, whether earlier or later than the Ratnamālā. According to T. Chowdhury’s note to his edition of the text, the work is also quoted in Yādavaprakāśa’s Vaijayantī (eleventh century), Kṣīrasvāmin’s commentary on the Amara koṣa, composed in the first half of the twelfth century,²⁹⁴ and the Dhanvantariyanighaṇṭu. A Nāmanighaṇṭu by Mādhava, quoted by Devarāja Yajvan in his Niruktabhāṣya,²⁹⁵ may be the Paryāyaratnamālā.²⁹⁶

v3.c43.s2.38

The author Mādhava Bhiṣaj was a son of Indrakara and lived at Śilāhrada. D.Ch. Bhattacharyya has observed²⁹⁷ that Śilāhrada appears to have been a famous place, at a considerable distance from Pāṭaliputra, for it is mentioned in an illustration in Vācaspatimiśra’s Nyāyakaṇikā:²⁹⁸ “Someone who has obtained a favour at Pāṭaliputra will certainly not remember it without confusion at Śilāhrada”. The ancient Śilāhrada has been identified as the modern Pattharghaṭṭā near Bhāgalpur in Bihār, at a certain distance from Paṭnā, the ancient Pāṭaliputra.²⁹⁹ This Pattharghaṭṭā is the site of the Vikramaśila university which flourished during the Pāla dynasty.³⁰⁰ The vernacular names of medicinal plants, added to the Sanskrit synonyms of the Paryāyaratnamālā in the margin of the text, are in favour of assigning a Bengal origin to the author,³⁰¹ if they indeed derive from him and have not been added later.

v3.c43.s2.39

Date Since it is an established fact that Vandyaghaṭīya Sarvānanda quotes from the work, the Ratnamālā was composed before A.D. 1159/60. If it could be proved that Yādavaprakāśa used it in composing his Vaijayantī, it would be earlier than the eleventh century. Internal evidence, consisting of the absence of ahiphena and bhaṅgā, together with their synonyms, points to a period preceding the eleventh century.

v3.c43.s2.40

Indicative of a date later than about 800 are the following points. Firstly, the presence of gandhaka (435), pārada (719) and abhra (720), as well as pūti and its synonym khaṭṭāsikā (794). Secondly, the occurrence of vātiṅgaṇa (360), often supposed to be of Persian origin, as a synonym of vārtākī, the eggplant, Solanum melongena Linn.³⁰²

v3.c43.s2.41

Thirdly, the presence of the disease called (yoni)kanda (1392), described for the first time in the Mādhavanidāna, though the term is used in a different sense in the Ratnamālā. The word vradhna as a synonym opf vṛddhi (1415) is adduced by P.V. Sharma as indicating that the Ratnamālā is posterior to Vṛnda’s Siddhayoga, 303 but that argument is not compelling because Vṛnda (40.20) describes vardhma (= vradhna) as separate from vṛddhi, which would rather point to the posteriority of Vṛnda. Unconvincing too is P.V. Sharma’s claim that the last verse of the Ratnamālā imitates a stanza from Māgha’s Śiśupālavadha (2.112), 304 dating from the seventh century. P.V. Sharma’s arguments for regarding the Ratnamālā as posterior to the Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha should be regarded as tentative and doubtful. 305

v3.c43.s2.42

Summarizing, it can be said that Mādhava’s Ratnamālā probably dates from the period 800–1000. 306 The earlier view that it was written by the author of the Mādhavanidāna should completely be given up. 307

v3.c43.s2.43

Another work called Paryāyaratnamālā was written by Maheśvara Miśra. 308

Linked texts (22)