English
( xvii ) 'JDlien the question arises as to the age of ■Sus'r^^ta and Charaka Samhitas, and that is very hard to determine with any positive certainty. All that we know is that the great Buddhist ■scholar Nagarjjuna revised the old Susruta, and added to it the supplementary section ( uttara- tantra). ISJagarjjuna was a leading director of Kaniska’s Council that was held about 78 A. D.. He salutes Susruta in the beginning of the work ( Susruta I. I ) with Brahma, Prajapati, the Asvins, Indra, and Dhanvantari. It must have taken centuries to have made Sus'ruta a mythical figure, and to be classified Avith the gods. Charaka is mentioned in the Chinese Buddhist chronicles, as the family-physician of the Indo-Scythiau king Kaniska ( about first century A. D. ), and who attended at a difficult child-birth of his wife. But Charaka is a family name, and there is an old Vedic Charaka school, known as Kapisthala Cliaraka (I. 1. 3). The internal evidence of both the works indicates , that they were composed in pre-Buddhistic times, though there are numerous interpolations of a later aee. The ‘Sufm-sthcma* ( Section of General Principles ) and the metri¬ cal portions which are more or less explanatory, seem to be later additions. Not only do the prose versions resemble the Brahmap.as in composition. ( xviii ) but all the gods also are post-Vedic, and the common* use of meat, especially beef ( Cbaraka I. 2./18 ; Susruta I. 46. 89 ), points out to a pre-Bu^dbistic age. Tbe osteological nomenclature used in Susruta is almost identical with that used in Atharva Veda (X. 2 ), and in the Satapatha Brabmana ( S. B. E, Vol. XLIV. p. 164 ), It is possible that the sage Yajnavalkya whose name is mentioned in the Brahmanas, and in association with the King .Tanaka, the reputed teacher of the 'Vajasaneyi Samliita' ( tbe White YajurWeda), and the Law-book is tbe same person, and be lived about sixth century B. C. And the King Janaka of Mitbila might have been known as *Kasi-raja’ and Divodasa. It may be said that the Hindu medical science could not make such a rapid advancement from tbe primitive magic charms and sorceries of the Atharva-Veda period, , Avhich has been put at 1000 years B. C. It is true that the "Ayurveda' (medical science) claims to be a branch of the Atharva-Veda, as the priest is tbe successor of the magician, and the medi¬ cine-man is a magician priest. But the Atharva Veda contains many of the oldest superstitions of the Indo-Dravidian masses, and they did'■not become embodied in the Bg-Veda, simply because they represented the attitude of the masses rather ( ) ithan that of the nobility. And when disease hoaiy with age, they became entitlee®^®^^^^®^y and became admitted in the sacred booP^^' more :raka is older than the Sus'ruta, for in ^ the description, physiological explanatioL^®‘^^th classification of subject-matter, in the f t® language and in the therapeutic techniq*!^*^^ ii, represents a more ancient school. As there are many passages that are common,it seems that they 'Were borrowed by the latter from the former. In the followfing pages, I have tried to inter¬ pret and explain the Ancient Hindu Medicine, principally based upon Charaka and Susruta in modern medical terminology. Translation is an ungrateful task, especially of technical subjects, written nearly twenty-five centuries ago, their modes of expression being quite different from those of the present age. However, I have tried to be as careful and accurate as possible. The translation could be much improved bv transposition of words, or outstretching their meanings. I have preferred accuracy to dic¬ tion, ah^ I have often sacrificed, whenever it has ^ been necessary, a good literary form, to make it as true to the original as possible and to reflect its meaning. Yet it is very likely that some of my inter- ( / ( XX ) pietations ir^y not find ready acceptance in many orthodox quarters. But sooner r^it is- realized, ill will be better for the communal • beallb, that the ancient medical works can not S-erve us /to-day any other useful purpose than Atlsuppliy rich materials for llie cultural history race. Its prolific vocabulary might be also profitably utilized to create a National School of Medicine, for continuity of historic consciousness activates and acts as a stimulus for progress. And it is well to know and remember that many of the medical books before they come from the press need revision to be up-to- date, and most of them, before they are ten years old, are almost antiquated. Bacteriology, micro-biology, chemistry, bio-chemistry, non¬ irritant antiseptics, prophylaxis, serum-therapy,, organo-therapy, skiagrapy and the mechanical appliances have completely revolutionized dur¬ ing the last generation in method and technique ‘the treatment and prevention of disease,' which is the object of Medical Science (Susruta I. 1. 12 ). Our very great achievements, ‘in the past, which we have every reason to be pl'oud of, instead of inspiring us with the greatest efforts to lead in arts and sciences, should not mortgage our future to the Dead Past. Bor a race that does not take the utmost care and the most ( xxi ) advanced methods for the prevention of disease and tlif^preservation of health, can not effectively compete in tlie struggle for existence, with more forward races, and succeed in the survival of the fittest. Health is tlie foundation of all wealth and progress. We can not afford to cling to an empty shell, carry the dead weight of the past on our back, sacrificing our future, unless we Avant to be counted 'vith the’extinct races. At the other extreme, there may be some who will contend that I have made a free ride on the wings of imagination, and there could not be such an advanced medical technique in the remote past. I Avant them to follow closely the original text. 1 suffer from no national hypnotism or megalomania. Exaggeration, on the other hand, I belieA'e, is apt to lower the intrinsic value of a thing. Have I been sub¬ consciously influenced by the sense of the grandeur of the country, as an expression of suppressed or subdued patriotism ? I leave that for tlie readers to judge. I have alAA'ays believed .that in ancientness—Egypt, in social polity T-Ohina, in art—Greece, have nobler records of fundamental value than India can boast of. I admit, with all her faults, I love my country. I take pride and glory in ( xxii ) her past achievements. Tremors of her new awakening from the slumber of centuries, have sent me joyous thrills, made me vil^rant with emotions and intoxicating dreams. And I live to see that she will’ contribute her share, worthy of her past, promising of a bright and brighter future, to the advancement of Human Civiliza¬ tion, and take her leading place in science and culture, and in the Council of Nations. But when studying history, intellect should not and does not need to be influenced by a gamut of sentiments and feelings, and can be left free to exercise its supreme prerogative to judge facts as they are on their own merit. I have tried to keep tliat attitude of my mind—not to corrupt my intellect with emotions. In studying the medical history of India, one should not he misled by the prevailing pathetic condition,—lack of hygiene, vicious dietary of the rich and the poor alike, ignorance and ineptitude of the medical practitioners, and the credulity of the public, for progress is not always steady and continuous. Except in the application of the mechanical ; developments and the appliances of machine power, modern nations have hardly made any further advancement in pure arts and literature than the Greeks. Medieval Europe, after the ( xxiii ) A destruction of the Greek States and the downfall of thcsRoman Empire, sank deeper in superstition and ignorance. In medical science the name of Galen (Claudius Galenus 130—201 A. D. ) remained as the only supreme authority in Europe up to the seventeenth century, and in the Saracen empire up to the fourteenth century. The Arabs formed an eclectic school of medicine out of the synthesis of the Greek and the Hindu systems. In India medical science had its highest expression under the Buddhist rule when the relief of pain, human as well as animal, was regarded as a state religious duty, and hospitals were built in every important locality for men as well as animals. In the famous Buddhist universities of Taksasila and Nalanda, there were thousands of students from all parts of India and Outer-India who went there to study medicine alone. With the downfall of the Buddhist states, and the dispersion of the monks, whose principal duties were to administer to the sick, the acquired knowledge virtually disappear¬ ed from India, and healing became the profession of the mendicants by magic charms and incairtations, or of the quacks, charlatans and barbers. It is possible, however, that though I have ( xxiv ) been careful in the selection of the equivalent scientific terms for the Sanskrit, a few/'minor ones may need revision. I have labored under great disadvantages. Though New York Libra¬ ries are splendid institutions, and grant liberal privileges and easy access to the books, there are very few books on Indian Medicine, and I have not been able to avail myself of any book on the subject. Moreover it is very hard to write competently for one individual on all subjects dwelt on in Charaka and Susruta Samhitas, and as they are the product of a medical assemblage —the collected wisdom of the sages that gathered together from all parts of India, as the drugs clearly indicate, and Agnivesa and Susruta might have simply acted as secretaries (Charaka 1 . 1.