A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c43.s5: The Rasavaiśeṣikasūtra ascribed to Bhadanta Nāgārjuna

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c43.s5

Language: English

The Rasavaiśeṣikasūtra ascribed to Bhadanta Nāgārjuna

v3.c43.s5.1

The *Rasavaiśeṣikasūtra*, ascribed to Bhadanta Nāgārjuna,⁴⁰⁶ is one of the very few āyurvedic texts in pure sūtra style.

v3.c43.s5.t1.1

The basic concepts of āyurvedic pharmacology are the main concern of this treatise, which contains 486 sūtras, arranged in four chapters.⁴⁰⁷

After some introductory sūtras, in which it is stated that dravya, rasa, guṇa, vīrya, vipāka and karman are the roots of health and disease, chapter one deals with prakṛti (the natural state), vikāra (a morbidly altered state), and the distinctions between the two (8–31); the relationships among the doṣas (32–48); the seats (sthāna) of the doṣas and the digestive fire (agni) (49–76); the nature of the doṣas (77–92); the concepts of agni, bala, sātmya, and their interrelations (93–94); the span of life (āyus) and signs foreboding death (ariṣṭa) (95–98); the concepts of dravya, rasa, etc., and their interrelations (99–171).

v3.c43.s5.t1.3

Chapter two discusses dravya and the differences between dravya and guṇa (1–22); rasa and the way it is distinguished from guṇa (23–29); vīrya (30–36); vipāka (37); karman (38); the five mahābhūtas (39–75); the classification of substances (76–77); the parts of trees and plants in general (78–98);⁴⁰⁸ the pāñcabhautika character of the body (99–110) and of the senses (111–122); the varieties of medicinal substances of vegetable, mineral and animal origin (123).⁴⁰⁹

v3.c43.s5.t1.4

Chapter three is concerned with the six tastes (rasa) (2); conflicting views about the number of rasas (3–5);⁴¹⁰ the many varieties of each rasa (6–10);⁴¹¹ proofs for the existence of six rasas (11–37);⁴¹² the connections between the tastes and the mahābhūtas (38–43), and between rasa and dravya (47–60); the relationships between the tastes and the doṣas (61–72); the combinations of rasas and their connections with the doṣas (72–110); the guṇas and their relationships with the mahābhūtas (112–117).

v3.c43.s5.t1.5

Chapter four begins with an enumeration of the eleven types of vīrya and discusses their relationships with the bhūtas (1–26); more types of vīrya (27–30); vipāka (31–55); karman (56); viruddhāśana (57–61); anupāna (62–63); substitutes for drugs (64–66);⁴¹³ svasthavṛtta (the regimen in health) and āturavṛtta (the regimen in ill-health, aiming at recovery) (67–69); the pramāṇas (70); the catuṣpāda (71–72), and, finally, the success in treatment (73).

v3.c43.s5.t1.6

The *Rasavaiśeṣika(sūtra)* is quoted by Candraṭa,⁴¹⁴ Ḍalhaṇa,⁴¹⁵ Priyavrat Śarmā,⁴¹⁶ and Satyadeva Vāsiṣṭha.⁴¹⁷

Special features

v3.c43.s5.t2.1

The author does not blindly follow established traditions, but works out his own position with regard to basic āyurvedic concepts. Rather often he quotes a series of conflicting views on a particular subject, which are repudiated before he begins bringing forward his own opinion.⁴¹⁹ A noteworthy trend is the repeatedly expressed rejection of a hierarchical ordering of concepts like agni, bala, and sātmya (1.94), dravya, rasa, guṇa, vīrya and vipāka (1.164), though this type of order is a characteristic of the early saṃhitās. This trend is coupled to an insistence on medical experience as the decisive factor on which to base an appraisal of the relative importance of all these concepts.⁴²⁰

v3.c43.s5.t2.2

Interesting features are also the mention of two series of seven prakṛtis (1.31),⁴²¹ the enumeration of only ten guṇas (3.111),⁴²² and the recognition of a large number of vīryas (4.1 and 27).⁴²³ Remarkable is the absence of a discussion on prabhāva, which is an important notion in the *Carakasaṃhitā* and other texts. Anupānas are of six types, dependent on their action: āhārasātma, āhāravīyaghna, āhāraṇulomana, āhāraiviparīta, āhāraśodhana, and āhāraprajaraṇīya.⁴²⁴ The pramāṇas (means of acquiring valid knowledge) recognized are pratyakṣa, anumāna, upamāna, āgama, arthāpatti, and sambhava (4.70).⁴²⁵

The author

v3.c43.s5.t3.1

The name of the author is not mentioned in the text, but he is referred to as Bhadanta Nāgārjuna in the colophons of Narasimha’s commentary on the work. His title Bhadanta,⁴²⁶ and also the addition of the term pravrajita to his name,⁴²⁷ may imply that he was regarded as a Buddhist, at least in later times.⁴²⁸ Ḍalhaṇa, who once quotes from the *Rasavaiśeṣikasūtra* without mention of its title, ascribes it to Nāgārjunācārya.⁴²⁹ J. Filliozat, one of the very few scholars to devote his thoughts to the work and its author, concludes that, as the views expounded in the work do not conflict with those of the *Mūlamadhyamakārikā* of the Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna, both texts may have been composed by one and the same author.⁴³⁰ This identity cannot be established with any certainty; on the contrary, it seems much more likely that the two works were written by different persons, since no traces of Buddhism can be found in the *Rasavaiśeṣikasūtra*, which is mainly based on Sāmkhya and Vaiśeṣika views.⁴³¹ Sankara Menon⁴³² considered Bhadanta Nāgārjuna to be the same as a certain Nāgāvīrya, mentioned as his guru by Narasimha in his commentary (ad 1.2) on the work. This view cannot be substantiated and is completely arbitrary.⁴³³

Date

v3.c43.s5.t4.1

The period of composition is hard to determine, but a quotation from the *Rasavaiśeṣika* in Candraṭa’s commentary on Tiṣaṭa’s *Cikitsākalikā* provides a terminus ante quem, namely the period A.D. 900–1050.⁴³⁴ Sankara Menon⁴³⁵ was of the opinion that, if Bhadanta Nāgārjuna was the preceptor of Narasimha, he may be considered to belong to the seventh century;⁴³⁶ in that case he lived, together with Narasimha, a life of seclusion in a vihāra of the Taluk⁴³⁷ of Shertalla, most probably at Tiruvilai. P.V. Sharma⁴³⁸ expressed as his view that the work may have been composed in the fifth century,⁴³⁹ by the Nāgārjuna who revised and completed the Suśrutasaṃhitā. J. Filliozat dates it in the age of the Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna, i.e., the forst or second century.⁴⁴⁰ It is impossible to reach precision about the chronological position of the text, but more data may become available after it has been carefully studied.

Linked texts (1)

Rasavaiśeṣikasūtra — Bhadanta Nāgārjuna, Sanskrit