Part 17 - Chemists of the Metallic School: Nagarjuna

Nagarjuna was the author of Rasa-ratnakara (No. 1). He flourished according to Rajatarangini (the history of Kashmir, composed by Kalhana in the 11th century A.D.) in the 4th century B.C., and according to some of the modern Scholars, in the 1st century B.C. In his book; he has acknowledged his debts to Mandavya, and Shambhu (author of Rasarnava). In complex chemical processes, he cites his preceptor as authority. He refers to mercury as the semen of Mahadeva. This is undoubtedly a Hindu conception. He was a Buddhist, and as such, cannot be said to have coined this epithet of mercury. He must have learnt the science of mercury from the Hindus, and especially from the works of Mandavya, and Shambhu.

According to the Indian almanacs, King Vikramaditya Ujjayini defeated the Scythians, 1985 years ago, i.e., in 57 B.C. Varaha-mihira, who was one of the nine gems of the court of this king, must have, therefore, flourished in the 1st century B.C. Modern scholars, however, have placed him six centuries later. According to these scholars, the great astronomer died in the year 587 A.D. In his Brihat-sanghit, Varaha-mihira has given a composition of a tonic and aphrodisiac, which contains, among other things, incinerated mercury, pyrites, mica, and bitumen. This medicine, which is named Madana-Sundara-Rasa, has evidently been borrowed, as has already been pointed out, from Rasa-ratnakara of Nityanatha. Nityanatha was a Bengalee chemist, as will be evidenced from his reference to the “jhola” (soup) of fish, an expression used by the Bengalis only. Varaha-mihira lived in the province of Malwa. A few centuries must have elapsed before the fame of the Bengali Nityanatha’s compilations reached Malwa. Nityanatha, therefore, must have flourished between the 3rd century B.C. and the 4th century A.D. Nityanatha says that one of the authors he consulted was Nagarjuna, who must have composed his treatise long before the 4th century A.D. In view of all these facts, we have no hesitation to assert that Rasa-ratnakara, the authorship of which is attributed to Nagarjuna, must have been composed during the lifetime of Nagarjuna, i.e., between the 4th century B.C., and the 1st century A.D.

As regards the exact date of Nagarjuna, we feel constrained to make a few observations which might be taken into consideration in arriving at a final decision on the point:

According to Rajatarangini, the history of Kashmir, Nagarjnna was a contemporary of King Kanishka, and flourished 150 years after the death of Buddha. If we rely upon this statement, Nagarjuna may be placed in the 4th century B.C. But there is one thing which stands in the way of our accepting the above statement to be true, viz., the date of Kanishka, which has been fixed by modern scholars to be about 400 years after Buddhas death. Such being the case, we shall have to accept one of the following conclusions that can possibly be drawn from the data at our disposal:—

(1) Nagarjuna flourished 150 years after the death of Buddha, and he was not a contemporary of of Kanishka, who reigned in the 1st century B. C.

(2) The former was a contemporary of Kanishka, and flourished, therefore, in the 1st century B.C. and not in the 4th century B. C.

(3) The date of Kanishka, as referred to above, has been fixed wrongly. He may have reigned, as the Raja-tarangini says, in the 4th century B.C.

(4) Kanishka, as referred to in the Raja-tarangini, may be a person different from Kanishka, who has been placed in the 1st century B.C.

If we accept the third or the 4th of the above conclusions to be true, the authenticity of the Raja-tarangini is maintained, but if we accept the first or the second to be true, the authenticity of the book is discarded, at least partially.

The true spirit of scientific investigation requires that we should either rely upon the authenticity of the Raja-tarangini or discard it altogether.

It would not be quite safe to accept one half of Raja-tarangini’s statement to be true, and to discard the other half, It is therefore for our consideration whether we are to accept or reject the testimony borne by the Raja-tarangini with regard to the age of Nagarjuna. In other words, we shall have to look for evidence in support, or in rejection, of the assertion that Nagarjuna flourished about the 4th century B.C. There is one evidence at least which lends support to the authenticity of Raja-tarangini, viz., the evidence furnished by the Indian almanacs with regard to the age of Varaha-mihira, who was one of the nine gems in the court of the King in whose name an era, named the “Samvat”, was inaugurated 1985 years ago. The Indian almanacs are annual records kept from time out of memory, throughout the different parts of India, and, as such, leave very little room for miscalculations about the exact number of years following the institution of the era, as recorded in them.

The fact that almanacs in the different parts of India have all along agreed, even before the introduction of the printing press with regard to the exact number of years following the commencement of the era shows that no such mistake was committed, consciously or unconsciously, in the calculation of the “Samvat” and the other eras recorded in the Indian almanacs. Those who have had an opportunity of looking into manuscript almanacs, prepared long before the introduction of the printing press into India, will, I have no doubt, endorse my views. In the absence of the printing press, the railways, and the other means of communication between the different parts of this vast country, the makers of almanacs could not have been uniform in a particular mistake, all over the country. Having regard to all these facts, we have, I believe, no justification for repudiating the evidence furnished by the almanacs about the age of Varaha-mihira and his patron, the king who instituted the “Samvat” era.

Varaha-mihira, as has already been said, lived about 57 B.C., according to the Indian almanacs. He was indebted to Nityanatha, and Nityanatha was indebted to Nagarjuna, who must have flourished, at least a few centuries before Varaha-mihira. If we are not quite wrong in the line of arguments followed here, I do not see any reason why the testimony borne by the Raja-tarangini with regard to the age of Nagarjuna should be discredited. In such a case, we shall have to accept, as a matter of course, the third or the fourth conclusion stated above.