A History of Hindu Chemistry from the Earliest Times to the Middle of the Sixteenth Century A.D. v1.c9.s1.60

v1.c9.s1.60

The age of Susruta has been the subject of animated controversy for a long time past. The Hindus regard this branch of Ayurveda as a direct revelation from the Asvins or the Divine Surgeons (see p. i, Intro.). The origin of this myth can be traced to the Rigveda as already seen. In the Mahábhárata, Susruta is spoken of as the son of the sage Visvámitra and in the "Várttikas" of Kátyáyana (about 4th century B. C.) we also find mention of the same name. It is not, however, easy to establish any connection between these names and our present author. That there was a Vriddha (old) Susruta, exisiting as early as the fifth century A. D., has now been established almost beyond doubt. Dr. Hoernle, to whose profound scholarship and indefatigable labours the world is indebted for the excellent edition of the Bower Ms., has deduced from palæographic evidence that it must have been copied within the period from about 400 A. D. to 500 A. D.¹—a conclusion at which Prof. Bühler has independently arrived. The work professes to be by Susruta, to whom it was declared by the Muni Kásirája. The origin of the Ayurveda as given in the Bower Ms., is on much the same lines as in the Charaka and the mention in it, among others, of such names as Hárita, Bhela, Parásara, and the Asvins as founders of the science of medicine, would go to prove that even so early as the 5th century A. D., the old Susruta had come to be regarded as of mythical origin, and that therefore it must have been composed many centuries anterior to that time. Several important recipes as given in the Bower Ms., *e. g.* those of the “chyavanaprása,” “silájatuprayoga” (the doctrine of bitumen p. 53) etc., occur in practically identical recensions in the Charaka. This is easily accounted for. The Charaka, the Susruta, and the Bower Ms., and even the *Ashtángahridaya* of Vágbhata have more or less a common basis or substratum. In order to understand this point more clearly it is only necessary to refer for a moment to the legal literature of the Hindus. The “Mánava Dharmasástra” or the Institutes of Manu, which still exercises a potent influence in the regulation of the social life of the Hindus, is by no means the ancient work that it pretends to be. Modern research has shown that it is only a recension, or rather a recension of a recension, of “Dharmasútras” connected with the Vedic Schools, incorpora ting at the same time the laws and usages of the age at which it was remodeled.¹