Charaka Samhita and Sushruta Samhita
by Nayana Sharma | 2015 | 139,725 words
This page relates ‘Question of Authorship’ of the study on the Charaka Samhita and the Sushruta Samhita, both important and authentic Sanskrit texts belonging to Ayurveda: the ancient Indian science of medicine and nature. The text anaylsis its medical and social aspects, and various topics such as diseases and health-care, the physician, their training and specialisation, interaction with society, educational training, etc.
The Question of Authorship
The two major issues facing scholars researching into the history of medicine are ascertaining the authorship of the medical treatises and the time period of their composition. Both the compendia in their present forms have multiple layers of authorship which makes determination of their dates of composition very difficult. Caraka is not the composer of the treatise that is known by the title Caraka Saṃhitā; rather his name appears as the editor (pratisaṃskarta) of the tantra (system) of Agniveśa who was a student of Ātreya Punarvasu. The treatise itself is an exposition of the teachings of Ātreya as imparted to Agniveśa and five other students. Agniveśa was the first among them to compose a work on the master’s teachings which is no longer extant.[1] Caraka’s role as the redactor was to expand the concise statements and condense the very prolix ones in the work of Agniveśa. In course of time, however, as much as one-third of this redacted work became unavailable[2] and was then supplemented by yet another scholar Dṛḍhabala. This is indicated in the treatise by the colophon at the end of the twenty-fifth chapter of Cikitsā-sthāna: agniveśakṛte tantre carakapratisaṃskṛte (a)prāpte dṛḍhabalasaṃpūrite (authored by Agniveśa, redacted by Caraka and, because of its non-availability, supplemented by Dṛḍhabala).
The term tantra used for the treatise is derived from tantraṇa[3] which means to sustain the body or to observe the rules of health. The original Agniveśa-Saṃhitā, as redacted by Caraka had one hundred chapters of which 40 chapters were lost.[4] Dṛḍhabala compiled and restored 17 chapters of Cikitsā-sthāna and the entire Siddhi-sthāna and Kalpa-sthāna by selecting matter from several important treatises. He thus, added forty-one chapters in all to the redaction of Caraka.[5] It is, therefore, evident that there are four layers of authorship in the extant compendium: that of Agniveśa, Caraka and Dṛḍhabala.
Some scholars believe that the present compendium of Suśruta is also not the original one and may have been redacted by a second Suśruta.[6] Commentators often refer to Vṛddha Suśruta (Suśruta the Elder) as the composer of Sauśruta Tantra so as to differentiate him from Suśruta II, the redactor. Quotations from the Sauśruta Tantra in the commentaries are not to be found in Suśruta’s compendium which indicates the existence of an earlier work but their genuineness is doubtful. One cannot be sure if they are the productions of lesser lights, or of ancient, though less renowned commentators attributed to the master to invest them with authority.[7] Mukhopadhyaya admits it is not possible to isolate the original text.[8] According to Ḍalhaṇa, the original text was redacted by Nāgārjuna and came to be known as Suśruta Saṃhitā.[9]
The last section of the extant treatise is the Uttara-tantra or the Supplement which is generally viewed as a later addition. Providing succinct introduction to Āyurveda, the Sutra-sthāna quotes a verse that says medicine would be discussed in the treatise in detail in one hundred and twenty chapters.[10] It is then stated that these chapters are divided into five principal sections and the remaining subjects have been described in the Uttara-tantra.[11] The same number of divisions is again stated in the index provided in the third chapter of the Sutra-sthāna,[12] clearly indicating that the original compendium comprised five sections and the last section is an interpolation. Moreover, the diseases discussed in the sixth section are based on the exposition of the king of Videha and other sages and not on the authority of Dhanvantari as in the other sections.[13] The supplementary section dealing with diseases of the head and the neck, paediatrics, psychiatry and internal medicine, which are not dealt with in the previous sections, was added to give completeness to the treatise.[14] The treatise also underwent textual modification (pāṭha-suddhi) in the hands of Candraṭa, the son of Tisaṭa.[15]
One the earliest scholars to draw attention to the layers in the Suśruta-Saṃhitā belonging to various ages was G. Lietard (1883).[16] There is, however, difference of opinion on the number of layers. A few scholars like Jyotir Mitra believe that the compendium has two strata belonging roughly to 1000 B.C. and the 1st century A.D. and ascribed to Kāśīrāja Divodāsa Dhanvantari and Nāgārjuna as expounder and redactor respectively.[17] P.V. Sharma distinguishes four layers of authorship in the treatise: that of Vṛddha Suśruta (the Elder), Suśruta (the Younger), Nāgārjuna and Candraṭa.[18] It is generally believed that the Uttara-tantra was added by Nāgārjuna.[19]
The isolation of these textual layers and determination of their chronology has proved to be difficult. The problem of chronology is further compounded by the indeterminate historicity of the personalities involved in the composition and revision of the treatises. There is precious little biographical information of the authors in the treatises. According to Caraka’s compendium the first human to receive the knowledge of medical science from the gods was the sage Bharadvāja. He volunteered on behalf of the ṛṣis to take lessons in Āyurveda from Indra.[20] On his return he taught the same to the other sages[21] earning him the title of “the Indian Prometheus” from some modern day writers.[22] Scholars have pointed out that the name is well known in the Vedas and the epics. Bharadvāja is the composer of some Ṛgvedic hymns. In the Mahābhārata, he is the father of Droṇa, the preceptor of the Pāṇḍavas who lived at Haridwār, though in the Rāmāyaṇa, his hermitage is said to have been located at Prayāg.[23] Two medical books, a Tantra, and another by the title, Bhāradājīyam, are attributed to him.[24] A Bharadvāja also appears in the Saṃhitā as a participant in various medical symposia.[25] He is given the title Kumāraśiras.[26] This latter Bharadvāja is evidently different from the sage who went to Indra’s abode as his theories are invariably overturned by Ātreya in the symposia. Besides, though not explicitly mentioned in the Caraka Saṃhitā, Punarvasu Ātreya was probably one of the students of Bharadvāja.[27] It is indeed surprising that no attempt is made by the authors of the treatise to distinguish between the two personalities by providing biographical information.
There is in fact also a correlation between Bharadvāja and the teacher of Suśruta. Bharadvāja was known to be the priest of three generations of the king of Kāśī, i.e., Dhanvantari, Sudāsa and Pratardana. Therefore, it is suggested that Divodāsa must have owed his knowledge to his priest and preceptor.[28] The Harivaṃsa, in fact, identifies him as the teacher of Dhanvantari[29] though such evidence is not forthcoming from the Suśruta Saṃhitā.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
tantasya kartā prathamāgniveśo yato(a)bhavat; Caraka Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 1.32.
[2]:
Caraka Saṃhitā Siddhisthāna 12.37-38.
[3]:
Caraka Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 30.70.
[4]:
Cakrapāṇidatta on Caraka Saṃhitā Siddhisthāna 12.36-38.
[5]:
Caraka Saṃhitā Siddhisthāna 12.39-40.
[7]:
Kaviraj K.L. Bhisagratna, An English Translation of the Sushruta Samhita, Vol.1, p.iii.
[8]:
G.N.Mukhopadhyaya, History of Indian Medicine, Vol.3, containing Notices, Biographical and Bibliographical, of the Ayurvedic Physicians and their Works on Medicine, from the Earliest Ages to the Present Time, New Delhi, 1974 (Reprint), p.572.
[9]:
G.N.Mukhopadhyaya, History of Indian Medicine, Vol.3, p.573-574.
[10]:
Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 1.39.
[11]:
Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 1.40.
[12]:
Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 3.3.
[13]:
Suśruta Saṃhitā Uttaratantra 1.5-7.
[14]:
G.N.Mukhopadhyaya, History of Indian Medicine, Vol.3, p.576.
[15]:
G.N. Mukhopadhayaya, History of Indian Medicine, Vol.3, p.581.
[16]:
G.J. Meulenbeld, History of Indian Medical Literature, Vol. I A, Groningen 1999, p.338. Hereafter referred to as History of Indian Medical Literature
[17]:
J.Mitra, “The Geographical Data in the Suśruta Saṃhitā” in Bulletin of the Indian Institute of History of Medicine, Vol. VI, No.3, 1976, pp. 158-166.
[18]:
[19]:
P.V. Sharma (Ed. and Transl.), Suśruta-Saṃhitā, Vol. I, Introduction, p.iv. A few scholars like K.L. Bhisagratna do not accept that this view and regard the Utttara-tantra as an appendix or a supplement arising out of the exigencies of the original subdivisions. An English Translation of the Sushruta Samhita, Vol.1, pp. iv-v.
[20]:
Caraka Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 1.18-19.
[21]:
Caraka Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 1.27.
[22]:
Shree Gulabkunverba Ayurvedic Society (Ed. and trans.), The Caraka Saṃhitā, Vol. I, p.30. Hereafter Gulabkunverba.
[23]:
G.N.Mukhopadhyaya, History of Indian Medicine, Vol.3, p.261.
[24]:
G.N. Mukhopadhaya, History of Indian Medicine, Vol.3, p.264.
[25]:
Caraka Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 12.5; 25.20; 26.3; Śārīrasthāna 3.15.
[26]:
Caraka Saṃhitā Śārīrasthāna 6.21.
[27]:
Cakrapāṇidatta on Caraka Saṃhitā Siddhisthāna 1.30-31.
[28]:
Gulabkunverba, The Caraka Saṃhitā, Vol. I, pp.34-35..
[29]:
Gulabkunverba, The Caraka Saṃhitā, Vol. I, p.35.