English
The Caraka-samhita also alludes to the existence of a beginningless traditional continuity of Ayur-veda, under which term he includes life, the constancy of the qualities of medical herbs, diet, etc., and their effects on the human body and the intelligent enquirer. The early works that are now available to us, viz. the Caraka-samhita and Susruta- samhita, are both known as tantras?, Even Agnivega’s work (Agnivesa-samhita), which Caraka revised and which was available at the time of Cakrapani, was a tantra. What then was the Ayur- veda, which has been variously described as a fifth Veda or an upaveda, if not a literature distinctly separate from the tantras now available to us*? It seems probable, therefore, that such a literature existed, that the systematized works of Agnivega and others superseded it and that, as a consequence, it cameultimately to be lost. Caraka, however, uses the word ‘‘ Ayur-veda”’ in the general sense of ‘‘science of life.’’ Life is divided by Caraka into four kinds, viz. sukha (happy), duhkha (unhappy), hita (good) and ahita (bad). Sukham ayuh is a life which is not affected by bodily or mental diseases, is endowed with vigour, strength, energy, vitality, activity and is full of all sorts of enjoyments and successes. The opposite of this is the asukham ayuh. Hitam ayuh is the life of a person who is always willing to do good to all beings, never steals others’ property, is truthful, self-controlled, self-restrained and works 1 Rockhill’s Life of the Buddha, p. 65. 2 Atharva-veda, I. 9. 3, Satam hy asya bhisajah sahasram uta virudhah. : 3 Gurv-ajfia-labhanantaram etat-tantra-karanam. Cakrapani’s Ayur-veda- dipikd, 1. 1. 1; also Caraka-samhitd, 1. 1. 52. 4 Cakrapani quotes the Agnivesa-samhita in his Ayur-veda-dipikd, vi. 3. 177-185. 278 Speculations in the Medical Schools [cH. with careful consideration, does not transgress the moral injunc- tions, takes to virtue and to enjoyment with equal zeal, honours revered persons, is charitable and does what is beneficial to this world and to the other. The opposite of this is called ahita. The object of the science of life is to teach what is conducive to all these four kinds of life and also to determine the length of such a life}. But, if Ayur-veda means ‘‘science of life,”’ what is its connection with the Atharva-Veda? We find in the Caraka-samhita that a physician should particularly be attached (bhaktir adesya) to the Atharva-Veda. The Atharva-Veda deals with the treatment of diseases (cikits@) by advising the propitiatory rites (svastyayana), offerings (bali), auspicious oblations (margala-homa), penances (niyama), purificatory rites (prayas-citta), fasting (upavasa) and in- cantations (mantra)?. Cakrapani, in commenting on this, says that, since it is advised that physicians should be attached to the Atharva- Veda, it comes to this, that the Atharva-Veda becomes Ayur-veda (Atharva-vedasya ayurvedatvam uktam bhavati). The Atharva- Veda, no doubt, deals with different kinds of subjects, and so Ayur- veda is to be considered as being only a part of the Atharva-Veda (Atharva-vedaikadesa eva Gyur-vedah). Viewed in the light of Cakrapani’s interpretation, it seems that the school of medical teaching to which Caraka belonged was most intimately connected with the Atharva-Veda. This is further corroborated by a com- parison of the system of bones found in the Caraka-samhita with that of the Atharva-Veda. Susruta himself remarks that, while he considers the number of bones in the human body to be three hundred, the adherents of the Vedas hold them to be three hun- dred and sixty; and this is exactly the number counted by Caraka®. The Atharva-Veda does not count the bones; but there are with regard to the description of bones some very important points in 1 Caraka, 1. 1. 40 and I. 30. 20-23: hitahitam sukham duhkham Gyus tasya hitahitam manam ca tac ca yatroktam Gyur-vedah sa ucyate. In I. 30. 20 the derivation of Ayur-veda is given as @yur vedayati iti dyur-vedah, i.e. that which instructs us about life. Sugruta suggests two alternative deri- vations—dyur asmin vidyate anena va Gyur vindatity ayur-vedah, i.e. that by which life is known or examined, or that by which life is attained. Susruta-samhita, tf. Terae 2 Caraka, 1. 30. 20. 8 Trini sasasthany asthi-satani veda-vadino bhasante; salya-tantre tu triny eva Satani. SuSsruta-samhita, 1. 5. 18. Trini sasthani satany asthnaém saha danta- nakhena. Caraka-samhitd, 1v. 7. 6. xT] Ayur-veda and the Atharva-Veda 279 which the school to which Caraka belonged was in agreement with the Atharva-Veda, and not with Susgruta. Dr Hoernle, who has carefully discussed the whole question, thus remarks: ‘‘A really important circumstance is that the Atharvic system shares with the Charakiyan one of the most striking points in which the latter differs from the system of Susruta, namely, the assumption of a central facial bone in the structure of the skull. It may be added that the Atharvic term pratistha for the base of the long bones obviously agrees with the Charakiyan term adhisthana and widely differs from the Suérutiyan karca!.” The Satapatha-brahmana, which, as Dr Hoernle has pointed out, shows an acquaintance with both the schools to which Caraka and Susgruta respectively belonged, counts, however, 360 bones, as Caraka did?. The word veda-vadino in Susruta-samhita, 111. 5. 18 does not mean the fol- lowers of Ayur-veda as distinguished from the Vedas, as Dalhana interprets it, but is literally true in the sense that it gives us the view which is shared by Caraka with the Atharva-Veda, the Satapatha-brahmana, the legal literature and the puranas, which according to all orthodox estimates derive their validity from the Vedas. If this agreement of the Vedic ideas with those of the Atreya school of medicine, as represented by Caraka, be viewed together with the identification by the latter of Ayur-Veda with Atharva-Veda, it may be not unreasonable to suppose that the Atreya school, as represented by Caraka, developed from the Atharva-Veda. This does not preclude the possibility of there being an Ayur-veda of another school, to which Suéruta refers and from which, through the teachings of a series of teachers, the Susruta- samhita developed. This literature probably tried to win the respect of the people by associating itself with the Atharva-Veda, and by characterizing itself as an upanga of the Atharva-Veda’*. Jayanta argues that the validity of the Vedas depends on the fact that they have been composed by an absolutely trustworthy 1 A. F. Rudolf Hoernle’s Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, p. 113. 2 Ibid. pp. 105-106. See also Satapatha-brahmana, x. 5. 4. 12, also XII. 3. 2. 3 and 4, XII. 2. 4. 9-14, Vill. 6. 2. 7 and 10. The Yajnavalkya-Dharma-Sastra, Visnu-smrtt, Visnu-dharmottara and Agni-Purdna also enumerate the bones of the human body in agreement with Caraka as 360. The source of the last three was probably the first ( Yajravalkya-Dharma-sastra), as has been suggested by Dr Hoernle in his Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, pp. 40-46. But none of these non-medical recensions are of an early date: probably they are not earlier -than the third or the fourth century A.D. 3 The word updnga may have been used, however, in the sense that it was a supplementary work having the same scope as the Atharva-Veda. 280 Speculations in the Medical Schools [cH. person (apta). As an analogy he refers to Ayur-veda, the validity of which is due to the fact that it has been composed by trust- worthy persons (apta). That the medical instructions of the Ayur- veda are regarded as valid is due to the fact that they are the instructions of trustworthy persons (yato yatraptavadatram tatra pramanyam iti vyaptir grhyate). But it may be argued that the validity of Ayur-veda is not because it has for its author trustworthy persons, but because its instructions can be verified by experience (nanvayur-vedadau pramanyam pratyaksadi-samvadat pratipannam napta-pramanyat). Jayanta in reply says that the validity of Ayur- veda is due to the fact of its being composed by trustworthy persons; and it can be also verified by experience. He argues also that the very large number of medicines, their combinations and applications, are of such an infinite variety that it would be absolutely impossible for any one man to know them by employing the experimental methods of agreement and difference. It is only because the medical authorities are almost omniscient in their knowledge of things that they can display such superhuman knowledge regarding diseases and their cures, which can be taken only on trust on their authority. His attempts at refuting the view that medical discoveries may have been carried on by the applica- tions of the experimental methods of agreement and difference and then accumulated through long ages are very weak and need not be considered here. The fourth Veda, known as the Atharva-Veda or the Brahma- Veda, deals mainly with curatives and charms?. There is no reason to suppose that the composition of this Veda was later than even the earliest Rg-Vedic hymns; for never, probably, in the history 1 Some of the sacred texts speak of four Vedas and some of three Vedas, e.g. ““asya mahato bhiitasya nihsvasitam etad rg-vedoyajur-vedah sama-vedo ’tharvan- girasah,” Brh. 11. 4. 10 speaks of four Vedas; again “‘ Yam rsayas trayi-vido viduh rcahsamani yajimst,” Taittiriya-brahmana,t.11.1.26speaks of three Vedas. Sayana refers to the Mimamsa-sitra, 11. 1. 37 “‘Sese Yajuh-sabdah”’ and says that all the other Vedas which are neither Rk nor Sama are Yajus (Sayana’s Upodghata to the Atharva-Veda, p. 4, Bombay edition, 1895).