365bet娱乐

The systematic development of Indian' medicine proceeded primarily on two principal lines, viz. one that of 厂耻艣谤耻迟补 and the other that of Caraka. It is said in 厂耻艣谤耻迟补鈥檚 great work, 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻, that 叠谤补丑尘腻 originally composed the 膧测耻谤惫别诲补 in one hundred verses, divided into one thousand chapters, even before he had created human beings, and that later on, having regard to the shortness of human life and the poverty of the human intellect, he divided it into the eight parts, 艢补濒测补, 艢腻濒腻办测补, etc., alluded to in a previous section. But this seems to be largely mythical. It is further said in the same connection in the 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 , 1. 1 that the sages Aupadhenava, Vaitara峁嘺, Aurabhra, Pau峁�kal膩vata, Karav墨rya, Gopurarak峁�ita, 厂耻艣谤耻迟补 and others approached Dhanvantari or 顿颈惫辞诲腻蝉补, king of 碍腻艣墨, for medical instruction. 厂耻艣谤耻迟补鈥檚 work is therefore called a work of the Dhanvantari school. Though it was revised at a later date by 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补, yet 厂耻艣谤耻迟补 himself is an old writer.

A study of the 闯腻迟补办补蝉 shows that the great physician Atreya, a teacher of 闯墨惫补ka, lived in Taxila shortly before Buddha^[1]. It has been said in a preceding section that in the enumeration of bones 厂耻艣谤耻迟补 shows a knowledge of 膧迟谤别测补鈥檚 system of osteology. Hoernle has further shown in sections 42, 56, 60 and 61 of his 鈥淥steology,鈥� that the 艢补迟补辫补迟丑补-叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺, which is at least as old as the sixth century B.C., shows an acquaintance with 厂耻艣谤耻迟补鈥檚 views concerning the counting of bones. But, since 膧迟谤别测补 could not have lived earlier than the sixth century B.C., and since the 艢补迟补辫补迟丑补-叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 of about the sixth century B.C. shows an acquaintance with 厂耻艣谤耻迟补鈥檚 views, Hoernle conjectures that 厂耻艣谤耻迟补 must have been contemporary with 膧迟谤别测补鈥檚 pupil, Agnive艣a^[2]. But, admitting 贬辞别谤苍濒别鈥檚 main contentions to be true, it may be pointed out that by the term veda-惫腻诲颈苍补岣� in 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 , hi. 5. 18 厂耻艣谤耻迟补 may have referred to authorities earlier than 膧迟谤别测补, from whom 膧迟谤别测补 also may have drawn his materials. On this view, then, the lower limit of 厂耻艣谤耻迟补鈥檚 death is fixed as the sixth or seventh century B.C., this being the date of the 艢补迟补辫补迟丑补-叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺, while practically nothing can be said about the upper limit.

But it is almost certain that the work which now passes by the name of 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 is not identically the same work that was composed by this elder 厂耻艣谤耻迟补 (惫峁沝诲丑补 厂耻艣谤耻迟补). 岣宎lha峁嘺, who lived probably in the eleventh or the twelfth century, says in his Nibandha-蝉补峁僩谤补丑补 that 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补 was the reviser of the 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻^[3]; and the 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 itself contains a supplementary part after the 碍补濒辫补-蝉迟丑腻苍补, called the Uttara-tantra (later work). In the edition of 厂耻艣谤耻迟补 by P. Muralidhar, of Pharuknagar, there is a verse at the beginning, which says that that which was so well taught for the good of the people by the great sage Dhanvantari to the good pupil 厂耻艣谤耻迟补 became famous all over the world as 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 , and is regarded as the best and the chief of the threefold 膧测耻谤惫别诲补 literature, and that it was strung together in the form of a book by no other person than 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补^[4]. 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄 also in his 叠丑腻苍耻尘补迟墨 refers to a reviser (辫谤补迟颈蝉补峁僺办补谤迟峁�); but he does not mention his name.

骋补测补诲腻蝉补鈥檚 辫补帽箩颈办腻 on 厂耻艣谤耻迟补, 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-肠补苍诲谤颈办腻 or 狈测腻测补-肠补苍诲谤颈办腻, has an observation on the eighth verse of the third chapter of the 狈颈诲腻苍补-蝉迟丑腻苍补, in which he gives a different reading by 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补, which is the same as the present reading of 厂耻艣谤耻迟补 in the corresponding passage^[5].

Again, 产丑补峁�峁�补 Narahari in his 罢颈辫辫补峁嚹� on the 础蝉迟腻峁単补-丑峁沝补测补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻, called 痴腻驳产丑补迟补-办丑补峁囜笉补苍补-尘补峁囜笉补苍补 , in discussing 尘奴岣峢补-garbha-苍颈诲腻苍补, annotates on the reading 惫补蝉迟颈-诲惫腻谤别 vipann膩y膩h, which 痴腻驳产丑补迟补 changes in borrowing from 厂耻艣谤耻迟补鈥檚 惫补蝉迟颈尘腻谤补-惫颈辫补苍苍腻-测腻岣� (11.8.14), andsavsthat 惫补蝉迟颈-诲惫腻谤别 is the reading of 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补^[6].

That 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补 had the habit of making supplements to his revisions of works is further testified by the fact that a work called Yoga-艣补迟补办补, attributed to 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补, had also a supplementary chapter, called Uttara-tantra, in addition to its other chapters,

• 碍腻测补-肠颈办颈迟蝉腻,
• 艢腻濒腻办测补-迟补苍迟谤补,
• 艢补濒测补-tantra,
• 痴颈峁�a-tantra,
• 叠丑奴迟补惫颈诲测腻,
• 碍补耻尘腻谤补-tantra,
• 搁补蝉腻测补苍补-迟补苍迟谤补
• and 痴腻箩墨办补谤补峁嘺-迟补苍迟谤补.

This makes it abundantly clear that what passes as the 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 was either entirely strung together from the traditional teachings of 厂耻艣谤耻迟补 or entirely revised and enlarged by 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补 on the basis of a nuclear work of 厂耻艣谤耻迟补 which was available to 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补. But was 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补 the only person who revised the 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 ?

岣宎濒丑补峁嘺鈥檚 statement that it was 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补 who was the reviser of the work (pratisomskart膩p墨ha 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补 eva) is attested by the verse of the Muralidhar edition (N膩g膩rjunenaiva grathit膩); but the use of the emphatic word eva in both suggests that there may have been other editions or revisions of 厂耻艣谤耻迟补 by other writers as well. The hopelessly muddled condition of the readings, chapter-divisions and textual arrangements in the chapters in different editions of the 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 is such that there can be no doubt that from time to time many hands were in operation on this great work. Nor it is proper to think that the work of revising 厂耻艣谤耻迟补 was limited to a pre-颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄 period. It is possible to point out at least one case in which it can be almost definitely proved that a new addition was made to the 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 after 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄, or the text of 厂耻艣谤耻迟补 known to 岣宎lha峁嘺 was not known to 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄. Thus, in dealing with the use of catheters and the processes of introducing medicine through the anus (vasti-办谤颈测腻) in iv. 38, the texts of the 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 commented on by 岣宎lha峁嘺 reveal many interesting details which are untouched in the chapter on Vasti in the Caraka-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 (Uttara-vasti, Siddhi-蝉迟丑腻苍补, xii).

This chapter of the Caraka-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 was an addition by D峁涐笉habala, who flourished in 碍腻艣尘墨谤补 or the Punjab, probably in the eighth or the ninth century. When 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄 wrote his commentary in the eleventh century, he did not make any reference to the materials found in the 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 , nor did he introduce them into his own medical compendium, which passes by the name of Cakradatta.

颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄 knew his 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 well, as he had commented on it himself, and it is extremely unlikely that, if he had found any interesting particulars concerning vasti-办谤颈测腻 in his text, he should not have utilized them in his commentary or in his own medical work. The inference, therefore, is almost irresistible that many interesting particulars regarding vasti-办谤颈测腻, absent in the texts of the 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 in the ninth and eleventh centuries, were introduced into it in the twelfth century. It is difficult, however, to guess which 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补 was the reviser or editor of the 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 ; it is very unlikely that he was the famous 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补 of the 惭腻诲丑测补尘颈办补-办腻谤颈办腻, the great teacher of 艢奴nyav膩da; for the accounts of the life of this 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补, as known from Chinese and Tibetan sources, nowhere suggest that he revised or edited the 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻.

Alberuni speaks of a 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补 who was born in Dihaka, near 厂辞尘补苍腻迟丑补 (Gujarat), about one hundred years before himself, i.e. about the middle of the ninth century, and who had written an excellent work on alchemy, containing the substance of the whole literature of the subject, which by Alberuni鈥檚 time had become very rare. It is not improbable that this 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补 was the author of the 碍补办峁�a辫耻迟补-迟补苍迟谤补, which is avowedly written with materials collected from the alchemical works of various religious communities and which deals with the eightfold miraculous acquirements (补峁ａ弓补-蝉颈诲诲丑颈).

But V峁沶da in his Siddha-yoga refers to a formula by 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补 which was said to have been written on a pillar in 笔腻迟补濒颈辫耻迟谤补^[7]. This formula is reproduced by 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄 Datta, Va峁単asena and by Nityan膩tha Siddha in his Rasa-谤补迟苍腻办补谤补. But since V峁沶da, the earliest of these writers, flourished about the eighth or the ninth century, and since his formula was taken from an inscription, it is not improbable that this 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补 flourished a few centuries before him.

Of the commentaries on the 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 the most important now current is 岣宎濒丑补峁嘺鈥檚 Nibandha-蝉补峁僩谤补丑补. 岣宎lha峁嘺 quotes 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄, of A.D. 1060, and is himself quoted by Hem膩dri, of a.d. 1260. He therefore flourished between the eleventh and the thirteenth centuries. It has been pointed out that sufficient textual changes in the 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 had occurred between 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄 and 岣宎濒丑补峁嘺鈥檚 time to have taken at least about one hundred years. I am therefore inclined to think that 岣宎lha峁嘺 lived late in the twelfth, or early in the thirteenth, century at the court of King Sahap膩la Deva.

颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄 had also written a commentary on the 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻, called 叠丑腻苍耻尘补迟墨, the first book of which has been published by Kaviraj Gangaprasad Sen. Dr Cordier notes that there is a complete manuscript of this at Benares. 狈颈艣肠补濒补 Kara and 艢r墨ka峁噒ha Datta sometimes quote from 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄鈥檚 commentary on the 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻.

岣宎濒丑补峁嘺鈥檚 commentary is called Nibandha-蝉补峁僩谤补丑补, which means that the book is collected from a number of commentaries, and he himself says in a colophon at the end of the Uttara-tantra that the physician 岣宎lha峁嘺, son of Bharata, had written the work after consulting many other commentaries^[8].

At the beginning of his Nibandha-蝉补峁僩谤补丑补 he refers to Jaiyyata, Gayad膩sa, 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补鈥檚 辫补耻箩颈办腻, 艢rim膩dhava and Brahmadeva. In his work he further mentions Caraka, 贬腻谤墨迟补, Jatukar峁嘺, 碍腻艣测补辫补, K峁涐梗峁嚹乼reya, Bhadra艣aunaka, 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补, the two 痴腻驳产丑补迟补s, Videha, 贬补谤颈艣肠补苍诲谤补, Bhoja, Iv膩rltika 碍耻峁囜笉补 and others. Ilari-艣candra was a commentator on the Caraka-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻. It is curious, however, that, though 岣宎lha峁嘺 refers to 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补 and 艢rim膩dhava Concluding verse of 岣宎濒丑补峁嘺鈥檚 commentary on 厂耻艣谤耻迟补鈥檚 Uttara-tantra, chap. 66.

at the beginning of his commentary, he does not refer to them in the body of it. Hoernle, however, is disposed to identify 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补 and 碍腻谤迟迟颈办补 碍耻峁囜笉补 as one person. Vijayarak峁�ita and 艢r墨ka峁噒ha Datta, commentators on 惭腻诲丑补惫补鈥檚 狈颈诲腻苍补 , refer to 碍腻谤迟迟颈办补 碍耻峁囜笉补 in connection with their allusions to the 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻, but not to 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补. A Patna inscription (E.I.I. 340, 345) says that King Bhoja had given the title of 痴颈诲测腻辫补迟颈 to 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补 产丑补峁�峁�补. Hoernle thinks that this 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补 was the same as 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补 产丑补峁�峁�补.

Hoernle also suggests that V峁沶da 惭腻诲丑补惫补 was the same as 艢rim膩dhava referred to by 岣宎lha峁嘺. 惭腻诲丑补惫补 in his Siddha-yoga often modifies 厂耻艣谤耻迟补鈥檚 statements. It may be that these modifications passed as 惭腻诲丑补惫补鈥檚 罢颈辫辫补峁嘺. Since Gayad膩sa and 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄 both refer to Bhoja and do not refer to one another, it may be that Gayad膩sa was a contemporary of 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄.

Hoernle thinks that the Brahmadeva referred to by 岣宎lha峁嘺 was 艢r墨brahma, the father of 惭补丑别艣惫补谤补, who wrote his 厂腻丑补蝉腻帽办补-肠补谤颈迟补 in A.D. 1111. 惭补丑别艣惫补谤补 refers to 贬补谤颈艣肠补苍诲谤补 as an early ancestor of his. It is not improbable that this 贬补谤颈艣肠补苍诲谤补 was a commentator on Caraka. The poet 惭补丑别艣惫补谤补 was himself also a 碍补惫颈谤腻箩补, and Heramba Sena鈥檚 骋奴岣峢补-bodhaka-蝉补峁僩谤补丑补 was largely based on 惭补丑别艣惫补谤补鈥檚 work. Jejja峁璦鈥檚 commentary passed by the name of 叠峁沨补濒-laghu-辫补帽箩颈办腻; 骋补测补诲腻蝉补鈥檚 commentary was called the 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-肠补苍诲谤颈办腻 or 狈测腻测补-肠补苍诲谤颈办腻 and 艢r墨m膩dhava or 惭腻诲丑补惫补-Kara鈥檚 罢颈辫辫补峁嘺 was called 艢濒辞办补-惫腻谤迟迟颈办补. Gayad膩sa mentions the names of Bhoja, Sura苍补苍诲墨 and Sv膩mid膩sa.

骋补测补诲腻蝉补鈥檚 辫补帽箩颈办腻 has been discovered only up to the 狈颈诲腻苍补-蝉迟丑腻苍补, containing 3000 granthas. Among other commentators of 厂耻艣谤耻迟补 we hear the names of

• Gomin,
• 膧峁Ｄ乨丑补惫补谤尘补苍,
• 闯颈苍补诲腻蝉补,
• Naradanta,
• 骋补诲腻诲丑补谤补,
• 叠腻峁�p补肠补苍诲谤补,
• Soma,
• Govardhana
• and Pra艣nanidh膩na.

It may not be out of place here to mention the fact that the 厂腻峁僰丑测补 philosophy summed up in the 艢腻谤墨谤补-蝉迟丑腻苍补 of 厂耻艣谤耻迟补 is decidedly the 厂腻峁僰丑测补 philosophy of 墨艣varak峁涐梗峁嘺, which, as I have elsewhere pointed out, is later than the 厂腻峁僰丑测补 philosophy so elaborately treated in the 颁补谤补办补-蝉补尘丑颈迟腻^[9]. This fact also suggests that the revision of 厂耻艣谤耻迟补 was executed after the composition of 墨艣varak峁涐梗峁嘺鈥檚 work (about A.D. 200), which agrees with the view expressed above that the revision of 厂耻艣谤耻迟补 was the work of 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补, who flourished about the fourth or the fifth century A.D. But it is extremely improbable that the elaborate medical doctrines of an author who lived at so early a date as the sixth century B.C. could have remained in a dispersed condition until seven, eight or nine hundred years later. It is therefore very probable that the main basis of 厂耻艣谤耻迟补鈥檚 work existed in a codified and well-arranged form from very early times.

The work of the editor or reviser seems to have consisted in introducing supplements, such as the Uttara-tantra, and other chapters on relevant occasions. It does not seem impossible that close critical and comparative study of a number of published texts of the 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 and of unpublished manuscripts may enable a future student to separate the original from the supplementary parts. The task, however, is rendered difficult by the fact that additions to the 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 were probably not limited to one period, as has already been pointed out above.

It is well known that Atri鈥檚 medical teachings, as collected by Agnive艣a in his 础驳苍颈惫别艣补-迟补苍迟谤补 , which existed at least as late as 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄, form the basis of a revised work by Caraka, who is said to have flourished during the time of Ka峁噄峁�ka, passing by the name of Caraka-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻^[10]. It is now also well known that Caraka did not complete his task, but left it half-finished at a point in the 颁颈办颈迟蝉腻-蝉迟丑腻苍补, seventeen chapters of which, together with the books called Siddhi-蝉迟丑腻苍补 and Kalpa-蝉迟丑腻苍补 , were added by Kapilabala鈥檚 son, D峁涐笉habala, of the city of 笔补帽肠补苍补诲补, about the ninth century A.D. The statement that D峁涐笉habala supplemented the work in the above way is found in the current texts of the Caraka-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 ^[11].

狈颈艣肠补濒补 Kara in his 搁补迟苍补-辫谤补产丑腻 describes him as author of the Caraka-辫补谤颈艣颈峁ａ弓补 , and 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄, Vijayarak峁�ita and 础谤耻峁嘺-datta (a.d. 1240), whenever they have occasion to quote passages from his supplementary parts, all refer to D峁涐笉habala as the author. The city of 笔补帽肠补苍补诲补 was identified as the Punjab by Dr U. C. Dutt in his Materia Medica, which identification was accepted by Dr Cordier and referred to a supposed modem Panjpur,north of Attock in the Punjab. There are several 笔补帽肠补苍补诲补s in different parts of India, and one of them is mentioned in the fifty-ninth chapter of the 碍腻艣墨-kha峁囜笉a ; 骋补峁単腻诲丑补谤补 in his commentary identifies this with Benares, assigning no reason for such identification.

Hoernle, however, thinks that this 笔补帽肠补苍补诲补 is the modern village of Pantzinor (鈥渇ive channels鈥� in Kashmir) and holds that D峁涐笉habala was an inhabitant of this place. There are many passages in Caraka which the commentators believe to be additions of the 碍腻艣尘墨谤补 recension (碍腻艣尘墨谤补-p膩tha). 惭腻诲丑补惫补 quotes a number of verses from the third chapter of the sixth section, on fevers, which verses are given with the omission of about twenty-four lines. Vijaya-rak峁�ita, in his commentary on 惭腻诲丑补惫补鈥檚 狈颈诲腻苍补, says that these lines belong to the 碍腻艣尘墨谤补 recension. Existing manuscripts vary very much with regard to these lines; for, while some have the lines, in others they are not found. In the same chapter there are other passages which are expressly noted by 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄datta as belonging to 碍腻艣尘墨谤补 recensions, and are not commented upon by him. There are also other examples.

Hoernle points out that J墨v膩nanda鈥檚 edition of 1877 gives the 碍腻艣尘墨谤补 version, while his edition of 1896, as well as the editions of 骋补峁単腻诲丑补谤补, the two Sens and Abinas, have Caraka鈥檚 original version. 惭腻诲丑补惫补 never quotes readings belonging to the 碍腻艣尘墨谤补 recension. Hoernle puts together four points, viz. that Caraka鈥檚 work was revised and completed by D峁涐笉habala, that there existed a 碍腻艣尘墨谤补 recension of the Caraka-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻, , that D峁涐笉habala calls himself a native of 笔补帽肠补苍补诲补 city, and that there existed a holy place of that name in 碍腻艣尘墨谤补; and he argues that the so-called 碍腻艣尘墨谤补 recension represents the revision of the Caraka-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 by D峁涐笉habala. Judging from the fact that 惭腻诲丑补惫补 takes no notice of the readings of the 碍腻艣尘墨谤补 recension, he argues that the latter did not exist in 惭腻诲丑补惫补鈥檚 time and that therefore 惭腻诲丑补惫补鈥檚 date must be anterior to that of D峁涐笉habala.

But which portions were added to the Caraka-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 by D峁涐笉habala? The obvious assumption is that he added the last seventeen chapters of the sixth book (颁颈办颈迟蝉腻) and the seventh and eighth books^[12]. But such an assumption cannot hold good, since there is a great divergence in the counting of the number of the chapters in different manuscripts. Thus, while J墨v膩nanda鈥檚 text marks 础谤艣补蝉, At墨蝉腻谤补, Visarpa, Mad膩tyaya and Dvivra峁嚹珁a as the ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth chapters of 颁颈办颈迟蝉腻 and therefore belonging to the original Caraka, 骋补峁単腻诲丑补谤补鈥檚 text calls the ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth chapters 鲍苍尘腻诲补, 础辫补蝉尘腻谤补, K峁�atak峁Ｄ�峁嘺, 艢惫补测补迟丑耻 and Udara.

The seventeen chapters attributed to D峁涐笉habala have consequently different titles in the 骋补峁単腻诲丑补谤补 and J墨v膩nanda editions. Hoernle has discussed very critically these textual problems and achieved notable results in attributing chapters to Caraka or D峁涐笉habala^[13]. But it is needless for us to enter into these discussions.

Mah膩mahop膩dhy膩ya Kaviraj 骋补峁嘺苍腻迟丑补 Sen, merely on the strength of the fact that the 搁腻箩补-迟补谤补峁単颈峁嚹� is silent on the matter^[14], disputes the traditional Chinese statement that Caraka was the court-physician of Ka峁噄峁�ka. There is no ground to believe as gospel truth a tradition, which cannot be traced to any earlier authority than Bhoja (eleventh century), that 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈 was the author of a medical work, and that therefore 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈 and Caraka could be identified. His comparisons of some passages from Caraka (iv. 1) with some 蝉奴迟谤补蝉 of 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈 are hardly relevant and he finally has to rest for support of this identification on the evidence of R膩mabhadra 顿墨办峁�i迟补, a man of the seventeenth or the eighteenth century, who holds that 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈 had written a work on medicine. He should have known that there were more 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈s than one, and that the alchemist and medical 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈 was an entirely different person from 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈, the grammarian.

The most important commentary now completely available to us is the 膧测耻谤惫别诲补-诲墨辫颈办腻 , or Coraka-迟腻迟辫补谤测补-峁�墨k腻, of 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄-datta. Another important commentary is the Caraka-辫补帽箩颈办腻 by Sv膩mikum膩ra. He was a Buddhist in faith, and he refers to the commentator 贬补谤颈艣肠补苍诲谤补. The Caraka-tattva-pra诲墨辫颈办腻 was written in later times by 艢ivad膩sasena, who also wrote the Tattva-肠补苍诲谤颈办腻 , a commentary on Cakradatta. We hear also of other commentaries on Caraka by B膩峁�pacandra or V膩pyacandra, 墨艣腻苍补-deva, 墨艣varasena, Vakulakara, 闯颈苍补诲腻蝉补, Munid膩sa, Govardhana, Sandhy膩kara, Jaya 苍补苍诲墨 and the Caraka-肠补苍诲谤颈办腻 of Gayad膩sa.

Among other ancient treatises we may mention the 碍腻艣测补辫补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 , discovered in Kathm膩峁囜笉奴, a medical dialogue between 碍腻艣测补辫补, the teacher and 叠丑腻谤驳补惫补, the student. It is interesting to note that it has some verses (MS., pp. 105-110) which are identical with part of the fifth chapter of the first book of Caraka. There is another important manuscript, called 叠丑腻谤补诲惫腻箩补-蝉补尘丑颈迟腻, which contains within it a small work called Bhesaja-kalpa , a commentary by Ve峁卥ate艣a^[15].

Agnive艣a鈥檚 original work, the Agnive艣a-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 , which was the basis of Caraka鈥檚 revision, was available at least up to the time of 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄; Vijayarak峁�ita and 艢r墨ka峁噒hadatta also quote from it^[16].

Jat奴kar峁嘺鈥檚 work also existed till the time of the same writers, as they occasionally quote from Jat奴kar峁嘺-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻^[17].

The 笔补谤腻艣补谤补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 and K峁Ｄ乺ap膩峁噄-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 were also available down to 艢rika峁噒hadatta鈥檚, or even down to 艢ivad膩sa鈥檚, time.

The 贬腻谤墨迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 (different from the printed and more modem text) was also available from the time of 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄 and Vijayarak峁�ita, as is evident from the quotations from it in their works. Bhela鈥檚 work, called Bhela-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻, has already been published by the University of Calcutta.

It may be remembered that Agnive艣a, Bhela, Jat奴kar峁嘺, 笔补谤腻艣补谤补, 贬腻谤墨迟补 and K峁Ｄ乺ap膩峁噄 were all fellow-students in medicine, reading with the same teacher, Atreya-Punarvasu; Agnive艣a, being the most intelligent of them all, wrote his work first, but Bhela and his other fellow-students also wrote independent treatises, which were read before the assembly of medical scholars and approved by them.

Another work of the same school, called Khara峁嘺da-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 , and also a 痴颈艣惫腻尘颈迟谤补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻, both of which are not now available, are utilized by 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄 and other writers in their commentaries.

The name 蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 , however, is no guarantee of the antiquity of these texts, for the junior 痴腻驳产丑补迟补鈥檚 work is also called 础峁ａ弓腻峁単补-h峁� day a-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻. We have further a manuscript called Vararuci-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻, by Vararuci, and a Siddha-s艒ra-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 by Ravigupta, son of Durg膩gupta, which are of comparatively recent date.

The 叠谤补丑尘补-惫补颈惫补谤迟补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 refers to a number of early medical works, such as the

• 颁颈办颈迟蝉腻-tattva-惫颈箩帽腻苍补 of Dhanvantari,
• 颁颈办颈迟蝉腻-诲补谤艣补苍补 of 顿颈惫辞诲腻蝉补,
• 颁颈办颈迟蝉腻-kaumud墨 of 碍腻艣墨r膩ja,
• 颁颈办颈迟蝉腻-蝉腻谤补-tantra and Bhrama-ghna of 础艣惫颈苍墨,
• Vaidyaka-sarvasva of Nakula,
• 痴测腻诲丑颈-sindhu-vimardana of Sahadeva,
• 闯帽腻苍腻谤峁嘺惫补 of Yama, 闯墨惫腻诲补苍补 of Cyavana,
• Vaidya-蝉补苍诲别丑补-产丑补峁卝补苍补 of Janaka,
• Sarva-蝉腻谤补 of Candrasuta,
• Tantra-蝉腻谤补 of 闯腻产腻濒补, 痴别诲腻峁単补-蝉腻谤补 of 闯腻箩补濒颈,
• 狈颈诲腻苍补 of Paila,
• Sarva-dhara of Karatha
• and Dvaidha-苍颈谤峁嘺测补-tantra of Agastya^[18].

But nothing is known of these works, and it is difficult to say if they actually existed.

It is well known that there were two 痴腻驳产丑补迟补s (sometimes spelt V膩hata). The earlier 痴腻驳产丑补迟补 knew Caraka and 厂耻艣谤耻迟补. It is conjectured by Hoernle and others that the statement of I-tsing (a.d. 675-685), that the eight arts formerly existed in eight books, and that a man had lately epitomized them and made them into one bundle, and that all physicians in the five parts of India practised according to that book, alludes to the 础峁ａ弓腻峁単补-蝉补峁僩谤补丑补 of 痴腻驳产丑补迟补 the elder. In that case 痴腻驳产丑补迟补 I must have flourished either late in the sixth century or early in the seventh century; for I-tsing speaks of him as having epitomized the work 鈥渓ately,鈥� and on the other hand time must be allowed for the circulation of such a work in the five parts of India. A comparison of 厂耻艣谤耻迟补 and 痴腻驳产丑补迟补 I shows that the study of anatomy had almost ceased to exist in the latter鈥檚 time. It is very probable that 痴腻驳产丑补迟补 was a Buddhist. The 础峁ａ弓腻峁単补-蝉补峁僩谤补丑补 has a commentary by Indu; but before Indu there had been other commentators, whose bad expositions w鈥檈re refuted by him^[19].

惭腻诲丑补惫补, D峁涐笉habala and 痴腻驳产丑补迟补 II all knew 痴腻驳产丑补迟补 I. 惭腻诲丑补惫补 mentions him by name and occasionally quotes from him both in the Siddha-yoga and in the 狈颈诲腻苍补 , and so also does D峁涐笉habala^[20]. Hoernle has shown that D峁涐笉habala鈥檚 96 diseases of the eye are based on 痴腻驳产丑补迟补鈥檚 94. 痴腻驳产丑补迟补 II towards the end of the Uttara-蝉迟丑腻苍补 of his 础峁ａ弓腻峁単补-丑峁沝补测补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 definitely expresses his debt to 痴腻驳产丑补迟补 I. But they must all have flourished before 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄, who often refers to D峁涐笉habala and 痴腻驳产丑补迟补 II. If, as Hoernle has shown, 惭腻诲丑补惫补 was anterior to D峁涐笉habala, he also must necessarily have flourished before 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄.

贬辞别谤苍濒别鈥檚 argument that 惭腻诲丑补惫补 flourished before D峁涐笉habala rests upon the fact that 厂耻艣谤耻迟补 counts 76 kinds of eye-diseases, while 痴腻驳产丑补迟补 I has 94. D峁涐笉habala accepts 痴腻驳产丑补迟补 I鈥檚 94 eye-diseases with the addition of two more, added by 惭腻诲丑补惫补, making his list come to 96. 惭腻诲丑补惫补 had accepted 厂耻艣谤耻迟补鈥檚 76 eye-diseases and added two of his own^[21]. The second point in 贬辞别谤苍濒别鈥檚 argument is that 惭腻诲丑补惫补 in his quotations from Caraka always omits the passages marked by Vijayarak峁�ita as 碍腻艣尘墨谤补 readings, which Hoernle identifies with the revision work of D峁涐笉habala. These arguments of Hoernle appear very inconclusive; for, if the so-called 碍腻艣尘墨谤补 recension can be identified with D峁涐笉habala鈥檚 revision, both D峁涐笉habala鈥檚 碍腻艣尘墨谤补 nativity and his posteriority to 惭腻诲丑补惫补 can be proved; but this proposition has not been proved.

On the other hand, 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄 alludes to a D峁涐笉habala samsk膩ra side by side with a 碍腻艣尘墨谤补 reading, and this seems to indicate that the two are not the same^[22]. The suggestion of 惭腻诲丑补惫补鈥檚 anteriority on the ground that he counts 78 eye-diseases is rather far-fetched. 惭腻诲丑补惫补鈥檚 date, therefore, cannot be definitely settled. Hoernle is probably correct in holding that D峁涐笉habala is anterior to 痴腻驳产丑补迟补^[23]. However, the relative anteriority or posteriority of these three writers does not actually matter very much; for they lived at more or less short intervals from one another and their dates may roughly be assigned to a period between the eighth and tenth centuries A.D.

痴腻驳产丑补迟补 IPs 础峁ａ弓腻峁単补-丑峁沝补测补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 has at least five commentaries, viz. by 础谤耻峁嘺datta (厂补谤惫腻峁単补-蝉耻苍诲补谤墨), A艣膩dhara, Candracandana (笔补诲腻谤迟丑补-肠补苍诲谤颈办腻), R膩man膩tha and Hem膩dri (膧测耻谤惫别诲补-ras膩yand). Of these 础谤耻峁嘺datta probably lived in A.D. 1220. 惭腻诲丑补惫补鈥檚 搁耻驳-惫颈苍颈艣肠补测补, a compendium of pathology, is one of the most popular works of Indian Medicine.

It has at least seven commentaries, viz. by

• Vijayarak峁�ita (Madhu-办辞艣补),
• Vaidya-惫腻肠补蝉辫补迟颈 (膧迟补峁卥补-诲墨辫补苍补),
• R膩man膩tha Vaidya,
• 叠丑补惫腻苍墨蝉补丑腻测补,
• N膩gan膩tha (狈颈诲腻苍补-prad墨pa),
• 骋补峁噀艣补 Bhisaj
• and the commentary known as 厂颈诲诲丑腻苍迟补-肠补苍诲谤颈办腻 or 痴颈惫补谤补峁嘺-siddh艒nta-肠补苍诲谤颈办腻y by Narasimha 碍补惫颈谤腻箩补^[24].

Vijayarak峁�ita鈥檚 commentary, however, closes with the 33rd chapter, and the rest of the work was accomplished by 艢r墨ka峁噒hadatta, a pupil of Vijayarak峁�ita. V峁沶da (who may be the same as 惭腻诲丑补惫补) wrote a Siddha-yoga, a book of medical formulas, well known among medical writers.

In connection with this brief account of Indian medical works the Nava-苍墨迟补办补, and the other mutilated medical treatises which have been discovered in Central Asia and which go by the name of 鈥淏ower manuscript,鈥� cannot be omitted. This manuscript is written on birch leaves in Gupta characters and is probably as old as the fifth century A.D. It is a Buddhist work, containing many medical formulas taken from Caraka, 厂耻艣谤耻迟补 and other unknown writers. It will, however, be understood that an elaborate discussion of chronology or an exhaustive account of Indian medical works would be out of place in a work like the present.鈥橳he 膧测耻谤惫别诲补 literature, and particularly that part which deals with medical formulas and recipes, medical lexicons and the like, is vast.

Aufrecht鈥檚 catalogue contains the names of about 1500 manuscript texts, most of which have not yet been published, and there are many other manuscripts not mentioned in Aufrecht鈥檚 catalogue. Among the books now much in use may be mentioned the works of 艢腻谤峁単补诲丑补谤补, of the fourteenth century, 艢ivad膩sa鈥檚 commentary on 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄, of the fifteenth century, and the 叠丑腻惫补-辫谤补办腻艣补 of 叠丑腻惫补mi艣ra, of the sixteenth. Va峁単asena鈥檚 work is also fairly common.

Among anatomical texts Bhoja鈥檚 work and 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补 产丑补峁�峁�补鈥檚 艢腻谤墨谤补-辫补诲尘颈苍墨 deserve mention.

The

1. Aupadhenava-tantra,
2. 笔补耻峁�k补濒腻惫补迟补-迟补苍迟谤补,
3. 痴补颈迟补谤补峁嘺-迟补苍迟谤补
4. and Bhoja-tantra

are alluded to by 岣宎lha峁嘺.

The 叠丑腻濒耻办颈-tantra and Kapila-tantra are mentioned by 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄 in his 叠丑腻苍耻尘补迟墨 commentary.

So much for the anatomical treatises.

1. Videha-tantra,
2. Nitni-tantra,
3. 碍腻帽办腻测补苍补-迟补苍迟谤补,
4. 厂腻迟测补办颈-tantra,
5. 碍补谤腻濒补-tantra
6. and 碍峁涐梗峁嚹乼谤别测补-迟补苍迟谤补

on eye-diseases are alluded to in 艢r墨ka峁噒ha鈥檚 commentary on 惭腻诲丑补惫补鈥檚 狈颈诲腻苍补.

The 艢补耻苍补办补-tantra on eye-diseases is named in the commentaries of 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄 and 岣宎lha峁嘺.

The

1. Jivaka-tantra,
2. Parvataka-tantra
3. and Bandhaka-tantra

are alluded to by 岣宎lha峁嘺 as works on midwifery.

The 贬颈谤补峁噛腻办峁�y补-迟补苍迟谤补 on the same subject is named by 艢r墨ka峁噒ha, whereas the 碍腻艣测补辫补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 and 膧lamb膩yana-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 are cited by 艢r墨ka峁噒ha on toxicology.

The

1. 鲍艣补苍补蝉-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻,
2. Sanaka-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻,
3. L膩峁瓂膩yana-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻

are also mentioned as works on toxicology.

Among some of the other important Tantras may be mentioned

1. 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补鈥檚 Yoga-艣补迟补办补, containing the eight regular divisions of Indian Medicine,
2. and N膩g膩ijuna鈥檚 闯墨惫补-蝉奴迟谤补 and 叠丑别峁�a箩补-办补濒辫补,

all of which were translated into Tibetan.

Three works on the 础峁ａ弓腻峁単补-丑峁沝补测补, called

1. 础峁ａ弓腻峁単补-丑峁沝补测补-苍腻尘补-惫补颈诲奴谤测补办补-产丑腻峁�y补,
2. Pad膩r-tha-肠补苍诲谤颈办腻-辫谤补产丑腻蝉补-苍腻尘补, 础峁ａ弓腻峁単补-丑峁沝补测补-惫峁泃迟颈
3. and Vaidyak膩-峁ａ弓膩峁単a-丑峁沝补测补-v峁泃ter bhe峁�aja-苍腻尘补-蝉奴肠墨,

were also translated into Tibetan.

The 膧测耻谤惫别诲补-蝉奴迟谤补 is a work by Yog膩nandan膩tha, published with a commentary by the same author in the Mysore University Sanskrit series in 1922, with an introduction by Dr Shama Sastry. It is rightly pointed out in the introduction that this is a very modern work, written after the 叠丑腻惫补-辫谤补办腻艣补, probably in the sixteenth century. It contains sixteen chapters and is an attempt to connect 膧测耻谤惫别诲补 with 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈鈥檚 Yoga system. It endeavours to show how different kinds of food increase the sattva, rajas and tamas qualities and how yoga practices, fasting and the like, influence the conditions of the body. Its contribution, whether as a work of 膧测耻谤惫别诲补 or as a work of philosophy, is rather slight. It shows a tendency to connect Yoga with 膧测耻谤惫别诲补, while the 痴墨谤补-蝉颈峁僪腻惫补濒辞办颈迟补 is a work which tries to connect astrology with the same.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

搁辞肠办丑颈濒濒鈥檚 Life of Buddha, pp. 65 and 96.

[2]:

贬辞别谤苍濒别鈥檚 Medicine of Ancient India, Part I, 鈥淥steology,鈥� pp. 7 and 8.

[3]:

Pratisa峁僺kart膩p墨ha 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补 eva. 岣宎濒丑补峁嘺鈥檚 Nibandha-蝉补峁僩谤补丑补, 1. 1. 1.

[4]:

Upadi峁ａ弓膩 tu y艒 samyag Dhonvantari-mahar峁�i峁嚹�
Su艣rut膩ya su艣i峁�y膩ya lok膩n膩峁� hita-v膩nchay膩
sarvatra bhuvi vikhy膩t膩 n膩mn膩 厂耻艣谤耻迟补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻
膧测耻谤惫别诲补t-ray墨madhye sre峁ａ弓h膩 m膩ny膩 tathottam膩
s膩 ca N膩g膩rjunenaiva grathit膩 grantha-r奴pata岣�.

[5]:

狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补s tu pa峁環ati; 艣arkar膩 sikat膩 meho bhasm膩khyo 鈥�艣niari-vaikrtam iti.

In the Nirnaya-S膩gara edition of 1915 this is II. 3. 13, whereas in J墨v膩nanda鈥檚 edition it is 11. 3. 8.

See also Dr Cordier鈥檚 Recevtes Decotwertes de MSS. M膿dicaux Sanserifs dans Flnde, p. 13.

[6]:

ata eva 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补ir vasti-dv膩ra iti pa峁環yate.

[7]:

N膩g膩rjunetia likhit膩 stambhe P膩峁璦liputrake, v. 149.

[8]:

Nibandh膩n bahu艣o v墨k峁�ya vaidya岣� Sr墨bh膩rat膩tmaja岣� uttara-蝉迟丑腻苍补m akarot suspa峁ａ弓a峁� Dalhn峁噉 h岣�i峁�ak.

[9]:

History of Indian Philosophy, vol. I, pp. 313-322.

[10]:

On Caraka鈥檚 being the court-physician of Kaniska see S. Levi, Notes sur les Indo-Scythes, in Journal Asiatique, pp. 444 sqq.

[11]:

Caraka-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻, VI. 30 and Siddhi-蝉迟丑腻苍补 , VII. 8.

[12]:

asmin sapt膩da艣膩dhy膩 kalp膩岣� siddhaya eva ca
苍腻蝉腻诲测补苍迟别 鈥檊nive艣asya tantre Carakasa峁僺k峁泃e
t膩n et膩n K膩pilabala岣� 艣e峁Ｄ乶 D峁涐笉habalo 鈥檏arot
tantrasy膩sya mah膩rt岣�asya p奴ra峁嚹乺tha峁� yath膩yatham.
      VI. 30. 274.

[13]:

J.R.A.S. , 1908 and 1909.

[14]:

笔谤补迟测补办峁�a-艣腻谤墨谤补尘, introduction.

[15]:

See Dr Cordier鈥檚 Recentes Decouvertes de MSS. Midicaux Sanscrits dans VInde (1898-1902).

[16]:

See 颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄鈥檚 commentary on Caraka-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻, 11. 2, also 艢r墨kantha on the Siddha-yoga, Jvar膩dhik膩ra.

[17]:

颁补办谤补辫腻峁噄鈥檚 commentary, 11. 2 and 11. 5, also 艢r墨kantha on the 狈颈诲腻苍补 (碍峁�u诲谤补-谤辞驳补).

[18]:

It is curious to notice that the 叠谤补丑尘补-惫补颈惫补谤迟补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 makes Dhanvantari, 碍腻艣墨r膩ja and 顿颈惫辞诲腻蝉补 different persons, which is contrary to 厂耻艣谤耻迟补鈥檚 statement noted above.

[19]:

Durvy膩khy膩-vi峁�a-suptasya V膩ha峁璦sy膩smad-uktaya岣� satitu sa峁僾itti-d膩yinyas sad-膩gama-pari峁�k峁泃膩. Indu鈥檚 commentary, i. i.

[20]:

Siddha-yoga, I. 27,
础峁ａ弓腻峁単补-蝉补峁僩谤补丑补, 11. 1,
狈颈诲腻苍补, 11. 22 and 23,
厂补峁�-驳谤补丑补, 1. 266,
Caraka-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 (Jiv膩nanda, 1896),
Cikitsita-蝉迟丑腻苍补, xvi. 31,
厂补峁僩谤补丑补, 11. 26.

Again, Cikitsita-蝉迟丑腻苍补, xvi. 53, etc.,
厂补峁僩谤补丑补, 11. 27, etc.

[21]:

Hoernle thinks that the total number of 76 eye-diseases ordinarily found in the printed editions of 惭腻诲丑补惫补鈥檚 狈颈诲腻苍补 is not correct, as they do not actually tally with the descriptions of the different eye-diseases given by 惭腻诲丑补惫补 a峁囜笉 do not include 辫补办峁�m补-办辞辫补 and 辫补办峁�m补-艣腻迟腻 varieties. 贬辞别谤苍濒别鈥檚 鈥淥steology,鈥� p. 13.

[22]:

Cakra鈥檚 commentary, i. 7. 46-50.

[23]:

See 贬辞别谤苍濒别鈥檚 鈥淥steology,鈥� pp. 14-16.

[24]:

Narasimha 碍补惫颈谤腻箩补 was the son of N墨lakantha 产丑补峁�峁�补 and the pupil of R膩mak峁涐梗峁嘺 产丑补峁�峁�补. He seems to have written another medical work, called Madhu-matl. His Vivarana-siddh膩nta-肠补苍诲谤颈办腻, though based on Vijaya鈥檚 惭补诲丑耻-办辞峁�a, is an excellent commentary and contains much that is both instructive and new. The only manuscript available is probably the one that belongs to the family library of the author of the present work, who is preparing an edition of it for publication.