English
All operations have to be done with the dravya, and the authoritative texts also speak of operations with the dravyas, and not with the rasas; the rasas depend largely on the nature of the dravyas. Others hold that rasas are the most important, since it is of them that we become directly aware when we take our food, and it is said that they remove the various morbidities of vdta, etc. Others hold that the potency (virya) of things is the most important, since it is by their potency that medicines act®. This potency is of two kinds, hot (usna) and cold (Sita); some think that it is of eight kinds, hot (usna), cold (Sita), moist (snigdha), dry (riiksa), moving (visada), slippery (picchila), soft (mrdu) and sharp (tiksna). Sometimes potency or virya over- comes rasa by its power and makes its own tendencies felt; thus, though sugar-cane ought to remove vata on account of itssweetness, it really increases it on account of its being sita-virya (of cold 1 Caraka-samhitd, 1. 26. 39, Cakrapani’s commentary. 2 Susruta, Sitra-sthana, 40.3. Dravya is defined by Susruta as kriyad-gunavat samavayi-karanam. 8 jhausadha-karmani tirdhvadho-bhagobhayabhaga-samsodhana-samsamana- samgrahakagni-dipaina-prapidana-lekhana-vrmhana-rasayana-vajikarana-svaya - ’ thakara-vilayana-dahana-darana-madana-pranaghna-visa-prasamanani virya- pradhanyad bhavanti. Susruta, 1. 40. 5. 362 Speculations in the Medical Schools [cH. potency)!. Others say that the rasa, as digested by the stomach (paka), is most important, since things can produce good or bad effects only when they are digested. Some hold that each rasa remains unchanged by digestion, though according to others there are only three kinds of rasa resulting from digestion or paka, viz. sweet, acid and hot (Ratu); whereas Susruta held that there were only two kinds of rasa resulting from digestion, viz. sweet and hot; for, in his view, acid was not the result of digestion (amlo vipako nasti). According to Susgruta it is the pitta which is turned into acid. Those objects which have more of earth and water in them are turned into sweet taste, whereas those which have tejas, air and ' Gkasa as their ingredients are turned into hot taste (Ratu). Speaking of the differences of view regarding the relative importance of dravya, rasa, virya and vipaka, Susruta says that they are all important, since a medicine produces effects in all those four ways according to its own nature®. The view of Susruta, as explained by Cakrapani in the Bhanumati, seems to be that food, drink and medicine are all products of the five maha- bhiitas, and rasa, virya and vipaka are dependent on the dravya and are like its potency (Sakti), through which it works’. Cakrapani, commenting on this in the Bhanumati, says that even in those cases where certain rasas are said to remove or increase certain mor- bidities (dosa) it is only because of their importance that they are so described ; the real agent in all such cases is the dravya, since the rasa, etc. are always dependent on the dravya. Apart from the Sakti as manifested in rasa, etc., the dravya also operates by itself in an unthinkable way (acintya), which is also called prabhava and which is comparable with the attractive force exerted by magnets on iron. The dravya by itself is thus differentiated from its Sakti, and it is said to have a peculiar operative mode of its own, as distinguished from that of its sakti or potency, as manifested in rasa, virya or vipaka, and this mode of operation is considered to 1 etani khalu viryadni sva-bala-gunotkarsat rasam abhibhuyatma-karma Rurvanti. Susruta, tbid. The virya is said to remain both in the dravya and in the rasa. Thus in Susruta, I. 40. 5-8, it is said that, if in those rasas which remove vata there is dryness (vauksya), lightness (lJaghava) and cold (saitya), then they will not remove vdyu; so, if in those which remove pitta there is sharpness (taiksnya), heat (ausnya) and lightness (Jaghuta), then they will not remove pitta, and so on. * caturnam api samagryam icchanty atra vipascttah. Susruta, 1. 40. 13. 8 dravya-sakti-riipaka rasa-virya-vipaka yatha-yogam nimitta-karanatam samavayi-kadranatam va bhajanto na kartrtaya vyapadisyante dravya-para- dhinatvat. Bhanumati, 1. 40. 13. XIIT] The Theory of Rasas and their Chemistry 363 be quite unthinkable (acintya) as to the way in which it operates}. Thus some medicines operate by rasa, some by vipaka, or the rasa resulting from the digestive operation (e.g. sunthi, which, though hot in taste and hot in virya, is sweet after digestive operation), some by virya (e.g. kulattha, though pungent, yet removes vayu ‘on account.of its hot virya), some by both rasa and vipaka, some by dravya-prabhava, virya and rasa, some by dravya-prabhava, virya, rasa and vipaka. Caraka, however, differs from Susruta in this view of drayva and rasa, virya and wipaka; for, according to him, rasa, virya and vipaka, themselves being gunas, cannot possess further gunas. He does not admit a Sakti as different from the dravya. Thus in the case of prabhava, while SuSruta holds that it is a specific Sakti, or the thing operating in unaccountable ways, Caraka thinks that this sakti is identical with the thing itself. Thus Cakrapani in explaining Caraka-samhitda, 1. 26.72, says, ‘‘saktir hi svariipam eva bhavanam, natiriktam kincid dharmantaram bhavanam’’ (potency is the nature of things and is no separate property distinct from them). Virya in its general sense means “‘the potency or power of medicines to produce effects,” and as such includes within it both rasa and vipaka; but, since these have special names, the term virya is not applied te them?. Apart from this there is special virya in a technical sense (paribhasika). In the view which con- siders this virya to be of two kinds, smigdha and riiksa, these are to be taken as specific characteristics; but in the view which considers the virya to be of eight kinds, these are to be taken as a different set of characteristics of dravya or substance’. This virya is believed to be more powerful than rasa, so that, when the virya and rasa of a thing come into conflict, it is the virya which predominates and not the rasa. Vagbhata junior makes some remarks in support of the name virya, as given to the characteristics which go by that name. He says that, since the virya characteristics of things remain un- changed even after digestion, and since the things are primarily 1 dravyam atmana saktya prabhavakhyaya dosam hanti...atra dravya-sakti- karyodaharanam yatha karsaka-manir loha-salyam Gkarsati. Bhanumati, 1. 40.13. 2 tasya pakasya tad-rasasya vipakasya ca prthan-nirdesan na virya-vyavaharah Sastre. ..Carake tu samanya-virya-sabdena te "pi grhitah. Ibid. 1. 40. 5. 8 yada dvividham viryam tada snigdha-riiksddinam. ..rasadi-dharmata- . yaiva karya-grahanam vaksyati hi madhuro rasah snigdha ity adi astavidha-virya- pakse tu...balavat-karya-kartrtva-vivaksaya viryatvam iti sthitih. Ibid. 1. 40. 4. 364 Speculations in the Medical Schools [cH. in use for medical purposes and each of them would include many substances and rasas, this character justly deserves to be called virya, or the potency-in-chief for producing medical effects’. He further says that rasa is baffled by vipaka, that rasa and wipaka can bafile virya, if they work in the same direction, and that they may all be baffled by prabhava. These remarks, however, are true only in those cases where rasa, virya and vipaka exist in the same proportion, and it must be borne in mind that some objects may have rasa of such a predominant type that it may overcome the vipaka or the virya®. As regards the relative priority of virya and wipaka, Sivadasa in commenting on Cakrapani’s Dravya-guna- samgraha says that virya is prior to vipaka; and this would imply that, as virya can supersede rasa, so vipaka may supersede virya. If we look back to the earliest history of the development of Indian medical ideas in the Atharva-Veda, we see that there were two important classes of medicines, viz. the amulets, manzs and water. Atharva-Veda, 1. 4.4, 1. 5,1. 6, 1. 33, VI. 24,-VI. 92, etc. are all in praise of water as medicine, and water is regarded there as the source of all rasa or taste. Thus from the earliest times two different kinds of medicines were used. Of these the amulets were more or less of a miraculous effect. It was not possible to judge which kind of amulet or mani would behave in which way; their mode of operation was unthinkable (acintya). It is easy to see that this mode of operation of medicines was what was considered a prabhava by Caraka and Susgruta. With them prabhava means the mysterious operation of a medicine acting in an unaccountable way, so that, though two medicines might be exactly similar in rasa, virya and vipaka, they might behave differently with regard to their medicinal effects?. Such an effect was thus naturally con- sidered as unthinkable. But the analogy of the old manis was fresh in the minds of these medical thinkers when conceiving this prabhava, and it was in reality an extension of that idea to other unaccountable effects of medicines*. As none of the chemical effects 1 Astanga-hrdaya, 1.9.15. 2 Ibid. 1. 28. 3 rasa-virya-vipakanam samanyam yatra laksyate visesah karmandm caiva prabhavas tasya ca smrtah. Caraka-samhitd, 1. 26.69. Cakrapani, in commenting on this, says, “‘rasadi-kadryatvena yan navadharayitum sakyate karyam tat pra- bhava-krtam iti siicayati ; ata evoktam ‘ prabhdvo ’cintya ucyate’ rasa-virya-vipaka- taydcintya ity arthah.” * manindm dhdraniyanam karma yad vividhatmakam, tat-prabhadva-krtam tesam prabhavo ’cintya ucyate. (The various actions of amulets are to be con- sidered as being due to a prabhava which is unthinkable—7bid. 1. 26. 72.