A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c43.s25: Mādhavakavi

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c43.s25

Language: English

v3.c43.s25.t1 Contents — 25 parts

Mādhavakavi

v3.c43.s25.1

Mādhavakavi was the author of the *Mādhavadravyaguṇa*, also called *Bhāvasvabhāvavāda*.⁸⁵³,⁸⁵⁴

This treatise, containing 866 verses,⁸⁵⁵ is mainly about the medicinal qualities of dietetic substances. It does not list their synonyms, but a number of drugs are also dealt with in its first chapter. The sources of the work are enumerated in two verses found only at the end of the MSS.⁸⁵⁶ These sources are Bheda, Caraka, Haricandra, Hārīta, Parāśara, Suśruta, Vāgbhaṭa, and Vaideha.

v3.c43.s25.t1.2

⁸⁵⁵ ...

v3.c43.s25.t1.3

⁸⁵⁶ ...

v3.c43.s25.t1.4

Mādhava’s *Dravyaguṇa* is divided into the considerable number of twenty-nine chapters (varga).⁸⁵⁷ It is closely related to Cakrapāṇi’s *Dravyaguṇa* and shares a large number of verses with that treatise, at least a quarter according to my provisional estimate, though also many differences can be noted. Mādhava’s text is larger than that by Cakrapāṇi with regard to the number of verses and the number of chapters. Cakrapāṇi’s dhanyavarga was, for example, broken up by Mādhava into a śāli-, kudhānya- and śimbidhānyavarga, the māṃsavarga into a māṃsa- and matsyavarga, and the madyavarga into a madya-, kāñjika-, and mūtravarga. Mādhava’s large first chapter on drugs (vividhauṣadhivarga) is absent from Cakra’s text, as well as the śreṣṭha-⁸⁵⁸ and the rasavarga.

v3.c43.s25.t1.5

⁸⁵⁷ ...

v3.c43.s25.t1.6

⁸⁵⁸ ...

v3.c43.s25.t1.7

The arrangement of the drugs in the first chapter has been influenced by the *Suśrutasaṃhitā* and Vāgbhaṭa’s *Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha* according to P.V. Sharma,⁸⁵⁹ who also suggested that Mādhava has borrowed from the *Sodhalanighaṇṭu*.⁸⁶⁰

v3.c43.s25.t1.8

⁸⁵⁹ ...

v3.c43.s25.t1.9

⁸⁶⁰ ...

v3.c43.s25.t1.10

Mādhava’s *Dravyaguṇa* became a well-known work, as appears from its being quoted in Āḍhamalla’s *Dīpikā* on the *Śārṅgadharasaṃhitā*,⁸⁶¹ Hemādri’s *Āyurvedarasāyana*,⁸⁶² Kṛṣṇadatta’s commentary on Trimalla’s *Śataślokī*,⁸⁶³ Lakṣmīrāma’s commentary on the *Siddhabheṣajamaṇimālā*, Niścala’s *Ratnaprabhā*,⁸⁶⁴ Śivadā- sasena's *Tattvacandrikā*⁸⁶⁵ and commentary on Cakrapāṇi's *Dravyaguṇa*,⁸⁶⁶ and Vopadeva's *Siddhamantraprakāśa*. ⁸⁶⁷ P.V. Sharma⁸⁶⁸ claims that the *Mādhavadravyaguṇa* is copiously quoted by Śivadatta Miśra in his auto-commentary on the *Śivakoṣa*; this, however, is an error, for these quotations are from the *Paryāyaratnamālā*.⁸⁶⁹ Vandyaghaṭīya Sarvānanda quotes, without naming Mādhava as his source, a portion of a well-known verse from the *Mādhavadravyaguṇa* in his commentary on the *Amarakoṣa*.⁸⁷⁰ One of the verses of Mādhavakavi's work (*śakavarga* 29) attained great popularity and has been quoted by many commentators.⁸⁷¹ The whole of Mādhava's text was incorporated in *Toḍarānanda's Āyurvedasaukhya*.⁸⁷²

v3.c43.s25.t1.11

⁸⁶¹ ...

v3.c43.s25.t1.12

⁸⁶² ...

v3.c43.s25.t1.13

⁸⁶³ ...

v3.c43.s25.t1.14

⁸⁶⁴ ...

v3.c43.s25.t1.15

Noteworthy is the description of the following drugs: jayapāla (vividhauṣadhi 28), bhaṅgā (vividhauṣadhi 63),⁸⁷³ āphūka, i.e., opium (vividhauṣadhi 110),⁸⁷⁴ khaṣatila, i.e., poppy seeds (vividhauṣadhi 111), śatāluka (phala 10),⁸⁷⁵ madhukarkaṭikā (phala 30), a variety of date called śilemānī (phala 46),⁸⁷⁶ amṛtaphala (phala 62), hastikarkaṭaka (śāka 31),⁸⁷⁷ and piṇyākī (śāka 67).⁸⁷⁸

v3.c43.s25.t1.16

*The author* Until comparatively recent times it was often supposed that one and the same author, called Mādhava, was responsible for the composition of the *Rogaviniścaya* and the *Dravyaguṇa*, while, moreover, *Dravyaguṇa* and *Bhāvasvabhāva* were regarded as different works.⁸⁷⁹ N.N. Das Gupta (1936–37: 155) on the other hand, regarded, long ago, the *Bhāvasvabhāva* as written by a Mādhava who was later than the author of the *Rogaviniścaya*. The edition of the text by P.V. Sharma has dissolved the confusion and uncertainty, making it clear that *Mādhavadravyaguṇa* and *Bhāvasvabhāva* are two titles of the same work by an author who calls himself Mādhavakavi. P.V. Sharma also tried to reconstruct the genealogy of the author of the *Mādhavadravyaguṇa*. He supposed that Th. Aufrecht⁸⁸⁰ had described Mādhava, the author of the *Dravyaguṇa*, as the son of Cakradatta, grandson of Śrīkaṇṭhadatta, and father of Puruṣottama, but this is a wrong interpretation, since Aufrecht refers in this way to the genealogy of Puruṣottama, author of a *Dravyaguṇa*.⁸⁸¹ P.V. Sharma, proceeding on this wrong track, observed that Aufrecht's data are confirmed by a MS of Puruṣottama's *Dravyaguṇa*,⁸⁸² in which the author calls himself son of Mādhava, grandson of Cakradatta, and grandson of the Śrīkaṇṭhadatta who wrote commentaries on the *samgraha*s of Vṛnda and Mādhavakara. It is extremely unlikely that Puruṣottama was the author of the *Mādhavadravyaguṇa*, for Puruṣottama, who eulogizes Śrīkaṇṭhadatta, would not have remained silent about his father's well-known work. Moreover, the number of authors called Mādhava is exceedingly large. It must accordingly be concluded that no details concerning Mādhavakavi are known. His title kavi may, if interpreted as an abbreviation of Kavirāja, indicate that he belonged to Bengal.⁸⁸³

v3.c43.s25.t1.17

*Date* One of the MSS utilized by P.V. Sharma for his edition of the *Mādhavadravyaguṇa* was copied in 1452.⁸⁸⁴ The quotations by Vopadeva and Hemādri indicate that the treatise

v3.c43.s25.t1.18

was known in the second half of the thirteenth century. Niścalakara was also acquainted with Mādhava's *Dravyaguṇa*, which establishes that it was written before 1150–1200. If it is accepted that Vandyaghaṭīya Sarvānanda knew the work and quoted from it, the date of its composition is earlier than 1159/60.⁸⁸⁵ Due to its affinity with Cakrapāṇi's *Dravyaguṇa*, which may have been one of its main sources, it cannot be earlier than the third quarter of the eleventh century.

v3.c43.s25.t1.19

P.V. Sharma claims that Mādhavakavi's work dates from about 1250.⁸⁸⁶ He disregards the quotation by Vandyaghaṭīya Sarvānanda⁸⁸⁷ and bases his date on the following arguments. Firstly, many verses from Mādhava's work tally with verses from the *Soḍhalanighaṇṭu*. As admitted by P.V. Sharma himself, it is also possible that both authors derived their information from a common source or that Soḍhala borrowed from Mādhava.⁸⁸⁸ Secondly, he applies the genealogy of Puruṣottama, son of Mādhava and great-grandson of Śrīkaṇṭhadatta, to the establishment of the date of Mādhavakavi. Since he places Śrīkaṇṭhadatta in the early thirteenth century, he regards Mādhavakavi as belonging to a later part of the same century.⁸⁸⁹ As already discussed, this line of reasoning is unacceptable. Thirdly, P.V. Sharma adduces internal evidence to corroborate his chronology. This evidence, consisting of the description of jayapāla, bhaṅgā, āphūka and śilemānī (kharjūrikā) in the *Bhāvasvabhāva*, cannot be regarded as decisive, because bhaṅgā is prescribed by Vangasena and āphūka is found in Soḍhala's *Gadanigraha*.⁸⁹⁰ Moreover, the external evidence is strongly in support of an earlier date.⁸⁹¹

v3.c43.s25.t1.20

*Commentary* A commentary, called *Vaidyavallabhā*,⁸⁹² on the *Bhāvasvabhāva* was written by Meghadeva, son of Ravinābha.⁸⁹³ This commentator ascribes the work to Mādhavakara and states at the end of each varga that the explanations, proposed by Meghadeva, son of Ravinābha, were redacted by Indumatī, whom Cordier⁸⁹⁴ inclined to identify with Indu, the commentator on Vāgbhaṭa's works.

v3.c43.s25.t1.21

The authorities quoted by Meghadeva are: āgamikāḥ, *Candrikā* (= Nyāyacandrikā), Devarāja, Gadādhara, Gayacandra (= Gayadāsa), Gayin, Jejjaṭa, Kharaṇāda, Kṛśasuśruta, Nala, *Sārasvatanighaṇṭu*, Vāpyacandra, Viṣṇugupta, and Yogaratna. Since Aruṇadatta⁸⁹⁵ was also among Meghadeva's sources, his date cannot be earlier than the second half of the twelfth century. The reference to the *Sārasvatanighaṇṭu* may mean that he is much later.

v3.c43.s25.t1.22

*Maheśvara* Maheśvara, the author of the *Viśvaprakāśa*, *Śabdabhedaprakāśa*, and a lost *Sāhasāṅkacarita*,⁸⁹⁶ is credited with a *Cikitsārṇava*.⁸⁹⁷

v3.c43.s25.t1.23

Maheśvara, who wrote his *Viśvaprakāśa* in 1111/12, records in its introduction that he is a son of Śrī Brahma or Brāhma and a grandson of the physician Kṛṣṇa. Among his ancestors are the physician Keśava, Vācaspati, the physician Dāmodara, the physician Śrīkṛṣṇa who was attached to the royal court at Gādhipura, and Haricandra⁸⁹⁸ who was the court physician to Sāhasāṅka and the author of a commentary on the *Carakasamhita.⁸⁹⁹

v3.c43.s25.t1.24

⁸⁹⁹ [^899]:

v3.c43.s25.t1.25

A medical author called Maheśvara is quoted in Herambasena’s *Gūḍhabodha-kasamgraha*, Kavikaṇṭhahāra’s *Prayogaratnākara*, and (as Māheśvara) in Mādhava Kavirāja’s *Mugdhabodha*.