Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c43.s6: Narasiṃha's commentary (bhāṣya) on the Rasavaiśeṣikasūtra

A History of Indian Medical Literature v3.c43.s6

Language
English

Contents

Narasiṃha's commentary (bhāṣya) on the Rasavaiśeṣikasūtra

v3.c43.s6.1

Narasiṃha's commentary (bhāṣya) on the Rasavaiśeṣikasūtra⁴⁴¹ is essential for understanding the often obscure and very concise sūtras. It presents a considerable number of quotations, usually without naming the source, with the exception of Bharadvāja (1.2), Caraka (1.6), Nimī (3.36 and 4.30), Suśruta (1.6), and Urabhra (3.36). Important is the absence of quotations from Vāgbhaṭa's works, the more so when it is conceded that the Rasavaiśeṣikasūtra and its commentary were composed in Kerala,⁴⁴² where Vāgbhaṭa is the leading authority in āyurvedic theory and practice. Some scholars⁴⁴³ inferred from this that Narasiṃha must be earlier than Vāgbhaṭa. As it is improbable that the latter became the foremost authority for physicians in Kerala immediately after the composition of his works, it is also legitimate to suppose that, in Narasiṃha's times, Vāgbhaṭa had not yet the great prestige he acquired later.

v3.c43.s6.2

An important element in the discussion of Narasiṃha's date is a reference to Subandhu's Vāsavadattā (ad 1.2), a work that became popular in Kerala,⁴⁴⁴ and that probably dates from the seventh century.⁴⁴⁵ This provides us with a terminus post quem of Narasiṃha and shows that he is contemporaneous with or posterior to Vāgbhaṭa.

v3.c43.s6.3

Sankara Menon, who put forward that Nāgavīrya, mentioned by Narasiṃha (ad 1.2) as his guru and the author of some commentary, might be the same as Bhadanta Nāgārjuna, regarded Narasiṃha's commentary as being inspired by the oral explanations of the text by its author.⁴⁴⁶ This view need not be adopted, because Narasiṃha may have received the traditional interpretation of the sūtra after a lapse of time. Nāgavīrya may even have been one of his predecessors in writing a commentary on the Rasavaiśeṣikasūtra, the more so since Narasiṃha refers to divergent interpretations.⁴⁴⁷

v3.c43.s6.4

Sankara Menon's conclusion that Narasiṃha, together with his teacher, led a secluded life in a vihāra in the Taluk of Shertalla, most probably at Tiruvilai,⁴⁴⁸ cannot be proved. Narasiṃha's adherence to the Buddhist faith was inferred by him from the absence of a maṅgalācaraṇa at the beginning of his commentary and from a single reference to the word vihāra (ad 1.1), which are rather weak grounds. Sankara Menon assigns Narasiṃha to the period A.D. 630–730,⁴⁴⁹ when Buddhism was still flourishing in Kerala.⁴⁵⁰ Until Narasiṃha's commentary has been subjected to thorough study, it can, however, only be asserted safely that he lived after Subandhu.⁴⁵¹

v3.c43.s6.5

Narasiṃha's commentary is quoted in Priyavrat Śarmā's auto-commentary on the Dravyaguṇasūtra.

v3.c43.s6.6

The Yogaśataka, attributed to Nāgārjuna or Vararuci

v3.c43.s6.7

The Yogaśataka, attributed to Nāgārjuna or Vararuci,⁴⁵² ⁴⁵³ is an early example of a type of text to become current later, namely the type consisting of small collections of formulae of compound medicines (yoga), covering the eight divisions of āyurveda.

v3.c43.s6.8

Contents

v3.c43.s6.9

The Yogaśataka consists of a collection of verses in diverse metres,⁴⁵⁴ giving about one hundred recipes⁴⁵⁵ of compound medicines.⁴⁵⁶ The total number of stanzas varies in the MSS and editions.⁴⁵⁷

v3.c43.s6.10

The body of the work has twelve sections, as indicated by the colophons: (1) jvaracikitsā (3–8); (2) kāyacikitsā (9–46); (3) netracikitsā (47–54); (4) śālākyatantra (55–62); (5) śalyatantra (63–65); (6) viṣatantra (66–70); (7) bhūtavidyā (71–74); (8) bālatantra (75–77); (9) vājīkaraṇa and (10) rasāyana (78–83); (11) pañcakarman (84–88); (12) uttaratantra (89–92).

v3.c43.s6.11

This list shows that jvaracikitsā has been detached from kāyacikitsā and netracikitsā from śālākyatantra as separate items, making a total of ten divisions as against the traditional eight, and that a section on pañcakarman has been added, as well as one called uttaratantra. This last section specifies what is the best medicine in each group of diseases. The first two verses are of an introductory nature. Appended to the main body are lines of a more general purport, describing causes of excitation of the doṣas (103–105) and of āma (106), the relations between the seasons and the doṣas (107), and general measures of counteracting excitation of the doṣas (108–109). The treatise ends with two concluding verses.

v3.c43.s6.12

Works referring to or quoting the Yogaśata(ka) by name are: Anantakumāra's Yogaratnasamuccaya,⁴⁵⁸ the Bhesajjamañjūsāsannaya, Harṣakīrti's Yogacintāmaṇi, Kalyāṇa's Bālatantra,⁴⁵⁹ Karaṇdīkar's Nidānadīpikā,⁴⁶⁰ Mahimasamudra's Vaidyakacintāmaṇi, Mallinātha's commentary on the Amarakoṣa,⁴⁶¹ Meghamuni's Meghavinoda, Niścalakara's Ratnaprabhā,⁴⁶² Nidhi's Yogasamuccaya, Rāmacandra's Rāma-vinoda, the Rasoddhāratantra, Trimalla's Yogatarangiṇī and Bṛhadyogataraṅgiṇī, and the Yogaratnākara.⁴⁶³

v3.c43.s6.13

Vararuci is quoted in Anantakumāra's Yogaratnasamuccaya,⁴⁶⁴ the Bhesajjamañjū-sāsannaya, and Niścalakara's Ratnaprabhā.⁴⁶⁵

v3.c43.s6.14

Later treatises that have incorporated verses from the Yogaśataka⁴⁶⁶ are: Bhaiṣajyaratnāvalī, Bhāvaprakāśa, Cakrapāṇidatta's Cikitsāsaṃgraha,⁴⁶⁷ Soḍhala's Gadanigraha, Ṭoḍara's Āyurvedasaukhya,⁴⁶⁸ Vaṅgasena's Cikitsāsārasaṃgraha, Vṛnda's Siddhayoga, and the Yogaratnākara.

v3.c43.s6.15

Translations

v3.c43.s6.16

The Yogaśataka, once a popular work in India and popular in Sri Lanka until recent times, was also known in Tibet and Central Asia. Its popularity in Central Asia appears from the fragments of a bilingual MS from Kucā, containing the Sanskrit text of parts of the Yogaśataka⁴⁶⁹ and their translation into Tocharian B.⁴⁷⁰ The Tocharian version, which is not a literal one, has been expanded by adding explanations, though it follows the Sanskrit text closely. The date of the MS cannot accurately be determined, but it may belong to the seventh century or a somewhat earlier period.471

v3.c43.s6.17

The Tibetan translation of the *Yogaśataka* (Sbyor-ba brgya-pa) forms part of the Tanjur472 as the first of the series of medical works included in this vast collection.473 Its colophon states that the text and its commentary474 were explained first by the mahāpaṇḍita, the brāhmaṇa Jeta-karṇa475 from Nepal, while the paṇḍita Buddhaśrījñāna476 from Eastern India later explained the first part; it was finally brought into agreement with three commentaries, translated and edited by Śākyabhikṣu Dpal Ñi-ma rgyal-mchan bzań-po477 (Śrī Sūryavajrabhadra) at the request of the bhikṣu Amogha, who was well acquainted with the temple Ḥphags-pa hjig-rten dbań-po (Ārya Lokeśa) in Skyi-roṅ.478 This colophon enables us to conclude that the Tibetan translation of the *Yogaśataka* was produced later than the Tibetan version of the *Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā*, which dates from the period between A.D. 1013 and 1055,479 and that it came about with the collaboration of the Buddhaśrījñāna who lived about A.D. 1200.480 The Tibetan version of the *Yogaśataka* is not only found in the Tanjur, but also in the works of Bu-ston (A.D. 1299–1364),481 accompanied by annotations (mchan).482

Author and date

v3.c43.s6.t1.1

It is clear from the above account that the Tibetan translation is not of much value in dating the *Yogaśataka*. Much more valuable is the bilingual from Kucā,483 placed by J. Filliozat in the seventh century or somewhat earlier, which shows that the *Yogaśataka* must have been composed before this period.484

v3.c43.s6.t1.2

Not much evidence is available on the sources of the *Yogaśataka*, except that it has verses in common with the *Carakasaṃhitā*.485 The name of its last section, uttaratantra, points to a period of composition later than that of the *Uttaratantra* of the *Suśrutasaṃhitā*.

v3.c43.s6.t1.3

An important topic discussed in relation to the *Yogaśataka* and its date is whether or not it can be identified as a medical compendium referred to by the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim I-ching486 at the end of the seventh century.487 J. Filliozat488 repeatedly expressed that this compendium cannot possibly be, as often claimed, the *Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha* or *Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā*. The *Yogaśataka* was a more suitable candidate in his eyes, which would establish the date of the work. Later,489 he expressed himself more cautiously in this matter. In this later period he was inclined to regard the Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna, who lived in the first or second century, as the author of medical treatises. He thought it to be not impossible to regard the Buddhist composition by this Nāgārjuna, though certainty could not be reached on this point.490 This early date of the *Yogaśataka* made him face two problems: firstly, that I-ching describes a recently composed treatise, and, secondly, that I-ching fails to mention the author by name, though Nāgārjuna was well known to him. This made Filliozat finally declare that no valid assertions can be made about the identity of the medical treatise mentioned by I-ching. I subscribe to the view that the issue cannot be settled. I-ching’s observations are much too vague to be of any use in fixing the date of the *Yogaśataka* or any

v3.c43.s6.t1.4

other work regarded as representing the epitome referred to.491

v3.c43.s6.t1.5

The attribution of the *Yogaśataka* to Nāgārjuna in Buddhist492 and to Vararuci in Hindu tradition is not helpful for chronological purposes. The text involved is undoubtedly one and the same,493 but forms only one of the many works traditionally ascribed to these famous authors. These traditions are unreliable and it proves to be impossible to determine with any certainty who were the various authors of all these works ascribed to Nāgārjuna494 and Vararuci.495

Commentaries

v3.c43.s6.t2.1

Several commentaries are recorded on the *Yogaśataka* attributed to Nāgārjuna or Vararuci: (1) Amitaprabha’s *Yogaśatabhāṣya*.496 (2) Bu-ston’s annotations (mchan) on the Tibetan version; these annotations are based on (3) and (6).497 (3) Dhruvapāla’s498 *Candrakalā*.499 (4) Govardhana’s *Karmamālā*.500 (5) Hariharaśarman’s *Vaidyavallabhā*.501 (6) A commentary by Khyab-hjug-lha (Viṣṇudeva).502 (7) Mahīdhara’s *Viśvavallabhā*.503 (8) A commentary by Mūlavara.504 (9) A commentary by Rūpanayana.505 (10) Samantabhadra’s *Yogaśatatīkā*.506 (11) Sanātana’s *Vallabhā*.507 (12) Somadāsa’s *Karmamālā*.508 (13) Śrīpūrṇasena’s *Yogacintāmaṇi*,509 also called *Abhidhānacintāmaṇi*.510 Pūrṇasena commented on a longer version of the *Yogaśataka*.511 His rather concise ṭīkā does not throw much light on the text of the *Yogaśataka*.512 Sources are not mentioned; he refers, in the introductory part of his commentary, to the *Kalyāṇakāraka*, Suśruta and Vāgbhaṭa. Pūrṇasena may have been a resident of Mahārāṣṭra.513 (14) A commentary by Sūryadeva.514 (15) A commentary called *Bālāvabodha*.515 (16) A vṛtti by Vaikuṇṭhavaidya.516

v3.c43.s6.t2.2

The following is known on their chronology: Rūpanayana is posterior to Ravigupta and Igupta, who are quoted by him, and earlier than about 1500;517 Dhruvapāla, Govardhana,518 Mahīdhara and Sanātana lived before Niścalakara, who quotes from their commentaries on the *Yogaśataka*;519 Dhruvapāla and Khyab-hjug-lha are earlier than Bu-ston, whose annotations are based on their works;520 Śrīpūrṇasena is said to belong to the sixteenth century.521

v3.c43.s6.t2.3

A number of works with the title *Yogaśataka* are recorded, some of which may ultimately prove to be identical with the *Yogaśataka* ascribed to Nāgārjuna or Vararuci. Their authors are: (1) Akṣadeva.522 (2) Amṛtaprabha523 or Amitaprabha; some verses of the *Cakradatta*, borrowed from Amitaprabha according to Niścalakara, form probably part of his *Yogaśataka*, which had verses in common with the *Yogaśataka* ascribed to Nāgārjuna or Vararuci.524 (3) Anantayogīśvara; Nandalāla, pupil of Kalyāṇa, wrote a commentary on this, called *Anvayacandrikā*.525 (4) Devendrakīrti Bhaṭṭāraka.526 (5) Haribhadrasūri.527 (6) Lakṣmīdāsa.528 (7) Madanasimha or Mathanasimha.529 (8) Samantabhadra.530 (9) Śrīkaṇṭhadāsa; Vararuci is said to have written a commentary, called *Abhidhānacintāmaṇi*, on this work.531 (10) Vaidyanātha(putra).532 (11) Vāmana.533 (12) Vidagdhavaidya.534 A *Vṛddhayogaśataka* by Gauḍavamśatilaka,535 Pūrṇasena,536 and Pūrṇasettutamasūri537 are also known, as well as an anonymous *Yogaśatābhidhāna*.538

Linked texts (27)