English
Dalhana’s Nibandha-samgraha, 1. 1.1. xu] Ayur-veda Literature 425 so well taught for the good of the people by the great sage Dhan- vantari to the good pupil Sugruta became famous all over the world as Susruta-samhita, and is regarded as the best and the chief of the threefold Ayur-veda literature, and that it was strung together in the form of a book by no other person than Nagarjuna}. Cakra- pani also in his Bhanumati refers to a reviser (pratisamskartr); but he does not mention his name. Gayadasa’s pafijika on Susruta, Susruta-candrika or Nydya-candrika, has an observation on the eighth verse of the third chapter of the Nidana-sthana, in which he gives a different reading by Nagarjuna, which is the same as the present reading of Susruta in the corresponding passage”. Again, Bhatta Narahari in his Tippani on the Astanga-hrdaya-samhita, called Vagbhata-khandana-mandana, in discussing miidha-garbha- nidana, annotates on the reading vasti-dvare vipannayah, which Vagbhata changes in borrowing from Susruta’s vastimara-vipanna- yah (1.8.14), and says that vasti-dvareis the reading of Nagarjuna’. That Nagarjuna had the habit of making supplements to his revisions of works is further testified by the fact that a work called Yoga- Sataka, attributed to Nagarjuna, had also a supplementary chapter, called Uttara-tantra, in addition to its other chapters, Ka@ya-czkitsa, Salakya-tantra, Salya-tantra, Visa-tantra, Bhittavidya, Kaumara- tantra, Rasayana-tantra and Vajikarana-tantra. 'This makes it abundantly clear that what passes as the Susruta-samhita was either entirely strung together from the traditional teachings of Sugruta or entirely revised and enlarged by Nagarjuna on the basis of a nuclear work of Susruta which was available to Nagarjuna. But was Nagarjuna the only person who revised the Susruta-samhita? Dalhana’s statement that it was Nagarjuna who was the reviser of the work (pratisamskartapiha Nagarjuna eva) is attested by the verse of the Muralidhar edition (Nagarjunenaiva grathita); but the use of the emphatic word eva in both suggests that there may have been other editions or revisions of Susruta by other writers as well. The hopelessly muddled condition of the readings, - Upadista tu ya samyag Dhanvantari-maharsinad Susrutadya susisvaya lokanam hita-vanchaya sarvatra bhuvi vikhyata namna Susruta-samhita Ayur-vedat-rayimadhye srestha manya tathottama s@ ca Nagarjunenaiva grathita grantha-riipatah. 2 Nagarjunas tu pathati; sarkara sikata meho bhasmakhyo ’smari-vatkrtam iti. In the Nirnaya-Sagara edition of 1915 this is 11. 3. 13, whereas in Jivananda’s edition it is 11. 3. 8. See also Dr Cordier’s Récentes Découvertes de MSS. Médicaux ‘Sanscrits dans l’ Inde, p. 13. 3 ata eva Nagdrjunair vasti-dvara iti pathyate. 426 Speculations in the Medical Schools: [cH. chapter-divisions and textual arrangements in the chapters in different editions of the Susruta-samhita 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 Susruta was limited to a pre-Cakrapani 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 Susruta-samhita after Cakrapani, or the text of Susruta known to Dalhana was not known to Cakrapani. Thus, in dealing with the use of catheters and the processes of introducing medicine through the anus (vasti-kriya) in 1v. 38, the texts of the Susruta-samhita commented on by Dalhana reveal many interesting details which are untouched in the chapter on Vastiin the Caraka-samhita (Uttara-vasti, Siddhi- sthana, x11). This chapter of the Caraka-samhita was an addition by Drdhabala, who flourished in Kagmira or the Punjab, prob- ably in the eighth or the ninth century. When Cakrapani wrote his commentary in the eleventh century, he did not make any reference to the materials found in the Susruta-samhita, nor did he introduce them into his own medical compendium, which passes by the name of Cakradatta. Cakrapani knew his Susruta-samhita well, as he had commented on it himself, and it is extremely un- likely that, if he had found any interesting particulars concerning vasti-kriya in his text, he should not have utilized them in his commentary or in his own medical work. The inference, there- fore, is almost irresistible that many interesting particulars re- garding vasti-kriyd, absent in the texts of the Susruta-samhita in the ninth and eleventh centuries, were introduced into it in the twelfth century. It is difficult, however, to guess which Nagar- juna was the reviser or editor of the Susruta-samhita; it is very unlikely that he was the famous Nagarjuna of the Madhyamika- karika, the great teacher of Sinyavada; for the accounts of the life of this Nagarjuna, as known from Chinese and Tibetan sources, nowhere suggest that he revised or edited the Susruta- samhita. Alberuni speaks of a Nagarjuna who was born in Dihaka, near Somanatha (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 sub- stance of the whole literature of the subject, which by Alberuni’s time had become very rare. It is not improbable that this Nagarjuna was the author of the Kaksaputa-tantra, which is xT] Ayur-veda Literature 427 avowedly written with materials collected from the alchemical works of various religious communities and which deals with the eightfold miraculous acquirements (asta-siddhi). But Vrnda in his Siddha-yoga refers to a formula by Nagarjuna which was said to have been written on a pillar in Pataliputra!. This formula is reproduced by Cakrapani Datta, Vangasena and by Nityanatha Siddha in his Rasa-ratnakara. But since Vrnda, the earliest of these writers, flourished about the eighth or the ninth century, and since his formula was taken from an in- scription, it is not improbable that this Nagarjuna flourished a few centuries before him. Of the commentaries on the Susruta-samhita the most im- portant now current is Dalhana’s Nibandha-samgraha. Dalhana quotes Cakrapani, of A.D. 1060, and is himself quoted by Hemadri, 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 Susruta-samhita had occurred between Cakra- pani and Dalhana’s time to have taken at least about one hundred years. I am therefore inclined to think that Dalhana lived late in the twelfth, or early in the thirteenth, century at the court of King Sahapala Deva. Cakrapani had also written a commentary on the Susruta-samhita, called Bhanumati, 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. Niscala Kara and Srikantha Datta sometimes quote from Cakrapani’s commentary on the Susruta-samhita. Dalhana’s commentary is called Nibandha- samgraha, 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 Dalhana, son of Bharata, had written the work after consulting many other commentaries®. At the beginning of his Nibandha-samgraha he refers to Jatyyata, Gayadasa, Bhaskara’s pamjika, Srimadhava and Brahmadeva. In his work he further mentions Caraka, Harita, Jatukarna, Kasyapa, Krsnatreya, Bhadragaunaka, Nagarjuna, the two Vagbhatas, Videha, Hariscandra, Bhoja, Karttika Kunda and others. Hari- écandra was a commentator on the Caraka-samhita. It is curious, however, that, though Dalhana refers to Bhaskara and Srimadhava 1 Nagarjunena likhita stambhe Pataliputrake, v. 149. 2 Nibandhan bahuso viksya vaidyah Sribhadratatmajah uttara-sthanam akarot suspastam Dalhano bhisak. Concluding verse of Dalhana’s commentary on Susruta’s Uttara-tantra, chap.66. 428 Speculations in the Medical Schools [cH. at the beginning of his commentary, he does not refer to them in the body of it. Hoernle, however, is disposed to identify Bhaskara and Karttika Kunda as one person. Vijayaraksita and Srikantha Datta, commentators on Madhava’s Nidana, refer to Karttika Kunda in connection with their allusions to the Susruta- samhita, but not to Bhaskara. A Patna inscription (E.I.I. 340, 345) says that King Bhoja had given the title of Vidyapati to Bhaskara Bhatta. Hoernle thinks that this Bhaskara was the same as Bhaskara Bhatta. Hoernle also suggests that Vrnda Madhava was the same as Srimadhava referred to by Dalhana. Madhava in his Szddha-yoga often modifies Sugruta’s statements. It may be that these modifi- cations passed as Madhava’s Tippana. Since Gayadasa and Cakra- pani both refer to Bhoja and do not refer to one another, it may be that Gayadasa was a contemporary of Cakrapani. Hoernle thinks that the Brahmadeva referred to by Dalhana was Sribrahma, the father of Mahegvara, who wrote his Sahasanka-carita in A.D. 1111. Maheégvara refers to Hariscandra as an early ancestor of his. It is not improbable that this Harigcandra was a commentator on Caraka. The poet Maheégvara was himself also a Kaviraja, and Heramba Sena’s Gidha-bodhaka-samgraha was largely based on Mahegvara’s work. Jejjata’s commentary passed by the name of Brhal-laghu-pafjika; Gayadasa’s commentary was called the Susruta-candrika or Nyaya-candrika and Srimadhava or Madhava- Kara’s Tippana was called Sloka-varttika. Gayadasa mentions the names of Bhoja, Suranandi and Svamidasa. Gayadasa’s pamjika has been discovered only up to the Nidana-sthana, containing 3000 granthas. Among other commentators of Sugruta we hear the names of Gomin, Asadhavarman, Jinadasa, Naradanta, Gadadhara, Baspacandra, Soma, Govardhana and Pragnanidhana.