The authors and redactors of the Suśruta Saṃhitā and its date

The expounder of the most ancient surgical treatise, Kāśīrāja Divodāsa Dhanvantari, is described as residing in his hermitage surrounded by saints.^[1] He bears the title “Dhanvantari” as he is regarded as the incarnation of the deity Dhanvantari. The term itself implies one who has expertise in surgery for dhanuḥ means surgery and anta the end; hence, one who has crossed it fully or reached the highest end of surgery is Dhanvantari.^[2] He is also given other epithets: amaravaram^[3] or “excellent among gods” by virtue of his discovery of ambrosia in the previous birth^[4] and bhagavān,^[5] that is, “one who is endowed with all powers, greatness, fame, brilliance, enjoyment, wealth and efforts”.^[6] The expounders of both our medical compendia, are addressed as bhagavān pointing to the similar positions held by Ātreya and Divodāsa in their respective areas of medicine. Like the former, the latter is held to be a mythic personality by scholars like Filliozat^[7] and Meulenbeld.^[8] The name Divodāsa is mentioned in the Ṛgveda but he is in all probability a different person.^[9] The name of Dhammantari, the famous physician of times gone by, is mentioned by king Milinda.^[10] According to the Viṣṇupurāṇa, Dhanvantari was a prince born as the grandson of Kāśirāja in the family of Āyus.^[11] Filliozat is of the conviction that the legend of Dhanvantari has been forged at leisure. “It is in any case probable that some king of Kāśī has, in antiquity, acquired a reputation in medicine and that the legends now preserved, might have been the result of the efforts to reconstitute from the Indian point of view.”^[12] P.V. Sharma however differs, holding Divodāsa as “a real teacher” who maintained an āśrama and that his great grandfather Dhanvantari might have been deified by dint of his surgical skills.^[13]

This polarity of views is also evident in the historicity of Suśruta. For early evidence we may consider the term sauśrutapārthavāḥ occurring in Pāṇini’s Aṣṭadhyāyī which is taken to connote the pupils of Suśruta and Pṛthu. A vārttikā of Kātyāyana refers to the term sauśruta as a work proclaimed by Suśruta^[14] though there is no stated connection with the medical authority. The name in connection with medical science appears in some other texts.^[15] In the Bower Manuscript, a Suśruta leads a group of muṇis to Kāśirāja. A second Suśruta is mentioned in the Upāhṛdaya of Nāgārjuṇa. The Bhaviṣyapurāṇa refers to Suśruta as the pupil of Dhanvantari who was the incarnation of Sūrya. There is a fourth reference in texts on aśvaśāstra to a Suśruta as the son and pupil of Śalihotra. Suśruta as a medical authority and pupil of Dhanvantari is known in the Agnipurāṇa and Garuḍapurāṇa. However, historians have been able to satisfactorily identify any of these personages with Suśruta of the Suśruta Saṃhitā. The Suśruta of the Bower Manuscript is often taken to be identical with this Suśruta but the contexts are different and so is the subject matter.^[16] Besides, the Manuscript does not deal with surgery at all. However, in later texts like Rājaśekhara’s Bālarāmāyaṇa and Bhāvmiśra’s Bhāvasaṃhitā we are told that the sage Viśvāmitra sent his son Suśruta to Dhanvantari to learn medicine.^[17]

The parentage of Suśruta is also a vexed issue. The compendium refers to his father Viśvāmitra^[18] but with no other details about his identity. The Vedic ṛṣi Viśvāmitra is not known to have a son Suśruta.^[19] The general consensus is that he was probably the epic figure of the same name.^[20] The Kalpa-sthāna narrates the story of rivalry between Vaśiṣṭha and Viśvāmitra^[21] but surprisingly there is no attempt to relate Viśvāmitra to Suśruta here.

In the absence of trustworthy datable external evidence for the Suśruta, scholars have suggested dates that vary widely. On the basis of the mention of Suśruta and his father, the royal sage Visvāmitra in the Mahābhārata, Bhisagratna ascertains the age of the composition of the original Saṃhitā to be two centuries before the birth of the Buddha. He also contends that this was an age of intellectual effervescence that produced eminent philosophers and scientists.^[22] Some scholars postulate an intermediate period between the time of the Buddha (6^th century B.C.E.) and that of Kātyāyana (c.350 or 250 B.C.E.) for the treatise. It contains a reference to Subhūti Gautam and Dhanvantari taking part in a discussion on the development of the human foetus in the womb.^[23] Buddhist literature knows of Subhūti as a disciple of the Buddha. Therefore, if Dhanvantari is taken as a contemporary of Gautam Buddha, his pupil, Suśruta, perhaps belonged to the late sixth century or the early fifth century.^[24]

P.V. Sharma, who refers to a Vṛddha Suśruta and a younger counterpart, has attempted to separate the different strata. The initiation ceremony for students^[25] characteristic of the Upaniṣadic period can be ascribed to Suśruta I who was a junior contemporary of Divodāsa.^[26] Suśruta II belonged to the reign of Gautamiputra Śātakarṇi of the Śātavāhana dynasty whom he places in the 2^nd century A.D.

He gives the following arguments in favour of his hypothesis:^[27]

(a) The mention of mountains like Śrīparvata, Sahyādri, Malayācala, Devagiri, Arbudagiri, etc. which is appropriate with the title of “the king of the mountains” given to the king.

(b) Many of the geographical names are situated in south India and are not present in Caraka Saṃhitā. The term Dakṣināpatha appears in the text.^[28]

(c) The dominance of Brahmanism reflected in the text also points to religious conditions in Śātavāhana times.

(d) Surgery is intimately related to warfare. The close association with royalty is underlined by the importance given to military medicine and toxicology.

(e) Visvāmitra, Suśruta’s father is said to be the founder of Andhra Pradesh.

As opposed to Sharma’s views, Filliozat points out that Suśruta, signifies “one who has listened well” which bears relation with the epithet bahuśruta, “one who has listened to a lot (of things), “an extremely learned person.^[29] The name is embedded in legendary tales^[30] and attempts to establish his historicity from other texts have not borne fruit. The honorifics bestowed on Suśruta are also an indicator of his mythical status according to Meulenbeld.^[31] Besides, he is referred to as ṛṣi,^[32] śubha and vinayopapanna^[33] in the text and it is unlikely that the author would use these epithets for himself.^[34]

The identity of the redactor Nāgārjuna is also unresolved as there are several persons of this name belonging to different periods. It would seem that apart from Nāgārjuna,^[35] the founder of the Mādhyamika school of Buddhist philosophy, there were at least three other persons of the same name in the first millennium A.D., all of them being experts in alchemy and medicine.^[36] The chronology committee of the National Institute of Sciences of India proposed third to fourth centuries A.D. as the date of recension of the text by Nāgārjuna.^[37] Sharma identifies the redactor of the Saṃhitā as the author of Lohaśāstra who added the Uttara-tantra as well during the Gupta period.^[38] Alternatively, it is also possible that this Nāgārjuna was the friend and counsellor of Śātavāhana king, Gautamiputra Śātkarṇi and a contemporary of Suśruta.^[39] Sharma attributes the addition of the tāntrika element, astrological facts, minerals and their processing to Nāgārjuna.^[40] Some other scholars, like G. Haldar, Atrideva and Hemarajasharman dismiss the association of any Nāgārjuna with the compendium in the absence of identifiable Buddhist features in the text and the lack of evidence of interest in surgery any of the writings ascribed to Nāgārjuna.^[41]

Sharma has suggested the following dates for the four layers of the compendium:^[42]

1. Divodāsa Dhanvantari — 1500-1000 B.C.
2. Suśruta — 2^nd century A.D.
3. Nāgārjuna — 5^th century A.D.
4. Candraṭa — 10^th century A.D.

As A.A. Macdonell points out, the Suśruta Saṃhitā cannot be placed later than the fourth century A.D. owing to the similarities in passages with the Bowe Manuscript.^[43] Dṛḍhabala is said to have made use of Suśruta’s compendium while working on the Caraka Saṃhitā which would mean that the first five sections of Suśruta are earlier than A.D. 300-500.^[44] Caraka shows awareness of the surgical operations of the Dhānvantarīya school and which are similar in procedure as described in the Suśruta Saṃhitā as we have shown below. As we have stated earlier, the worship of Rāma and Kṛṣṇa also indicate that in the present form the treatise belongs to the early centuries of the Common Era.^[45] Meulenbeld assigns the text of Suśruta in its present from to about 500 CE. He does not accept the hypothesis of multiple strata in the treatise. The Sauśruta–tantra of Ḍalhaṇa is simply the Suśruta Saṃhitā.^[46] He argues that the treatise of Suśruta is most probably the work of an unknown author who drew upon multiple sources from various periods. Therefore, there is a tendency to recognise multiple layers but many of the concepts and terms that appear old may have been deliberately incorporated to give a particular flavour to the text.^[47]

While that may well be the case, we may look at a particular verse in the Suśruta Saṃhitā that refers to a treatise of Suśruta (Sauśruta):

aupadhenavaurabhraṃ sauśrutaṃ pauṣkalāvatam.
śeṣāṇāṃ śalyatantrāṇāṃ mūlānyetāni nirdiśet.^[48]

The treatises of Upadhenava, Urabhra, Suśruta and Puṣkalāvata are known to be the basis of the other books on surgery.

It is hardly likely that Suśruta, the author, is referring to his own treatise but to the older work of Suśruta. It is also noteworthy along with the other three names Suśruta is also a proper name here.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 1.3.

[2]:

Dalhaṇa on Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 1.3.

[3]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 1.3.

[4]:

Dalhaṇa on Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 1.3.

[5]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 1.2.

[6]:

Dalhaṇa on Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 1.2.

[7]:

Filliozat, The Classical Doctrine of Indian Medicine, p. 6.

[8]:

G.J.Meulenbeld, History of Indian Medical Literature, Vol. IA, p. 342.

[9]:

P.V. Sharma, Introduction to Vaidya Jādavji Trikamjī Ācharya and Acharya Nārāyaṇ Rām Ācharya “Kāvyatīrtha” (Eds.), Suśrutasaṃhitā of Suśruta, p.vi.

[10]:

T.W.R. Davids translated, The Questions of Milinda, F. Max Muller (ed.), The Sacred Books of the East Series, Vol. XXXVI, Part II, Delhi, 1965 (reprint), IV,7,20.

[11]:

Filliozat, The Classical Doctrine of Indian Medicine, p. 5.

[12]:

Filliozat, The Classical Doctrine of Indian Medicine, p. 6.

[13]:

P.V. Sharma, Introduction to Acharya Jadavji Trikamji and Acharya Narayanram “Kavyatirtha” (ed.), Suśruta-Saṃhitā, pp.v-vi.

[14]:

G.J. Meulenbeld, History of Indian Medical Literature, Vol. IA, p. 333.

[15]:

G.J. Meulenbeld, History of Indian Medical Literature, Vol.I A, p. 333.

[16]:

G.J. Meulenbeld, History of Indian Medical Literature, Vol. IA, p. 335.

[17]:

P.Ray, et al., Suśruta Saṃhitā (A Scientific Synposis), Delhi, 1980, pp.2-3.

[18]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Cikitsāsthāna 2.3.

[19]:

G.J. Meulenbeld, History of Indian Medical Literature, Vol.I A, p. 334.

[20]:

G.J. Meulenbeld, History of Indian Medical Literature, Vol.I A, p. 334.

[21]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Kalpasthāna 8.90-93.

[22]:

K.L. Bhisagratna, An English Translation of the Sushruta Samhita, pp. v-vi.

[23]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Śārīrasthāna 3.18.

[24]:

P.Ray, et al, Suśruta Saṃhitā (A Scientific Synopsis), p.3.

[25]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 2.

[26]:

P.V. Sharma, Introduction to Acharya Jadavji Trikamji and Acharya Narayanram “Kavyatirtha” (Eds.), Suśruta-Saṃhitā, p vii.

[27]:

P.V. Sharma, Introduction to Acharya Jadavji Trikamji and Acharya Narayanram “Kavyatirtha” (Eds.), Suśruta-Saṃhitā, pp.vii-xi.

[28]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Cikitsāsthāna 4.29.

[29]:

J. Filliozat, The Classical Doctrine of Indian Medicine, pp. 6-7.

[30]:

G.J. Meulenbeld, History of Indian Medical Literature, Vol.I A, p. 342.

[31]:

G.J. Meulenbeld, History of Indian Medical Literature, Vol.I A.

[32]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Cikitsāsthāna 2.3.

[33]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Nidāna-sthāna 7.3.

[34]:

G.J. Meulenbeld, History of Indian Medical Literature, Vol.I A, p. 342.

[35]:

K.L. Bhaisagratna takes this Nagārjuna to have undertaken the redaction; An English Translation of the Sushruta Samhita, Introduction, p.iii.

[36]:

P.Ray, et al., Suśruta Saṃhitā (A Scientific Synopsis), p.4.

[37]:

P.Ray, et al., Suśruta Saṃhitā(A Scientific Synopsis), p.4.

[38]:

P.V. Sharma, Introduction to Acharya Jadavji Trikamji and Acharya Narayanram “Kavyatirtha” (Eds.), Suśruta-Saṃhitā, p ix.

[39]:

P.V. Sharma, Introduction to Acharya Jadavji Trikamji and Acharya Narayanram “Kavyatirtha” (Eds.), Suśruta-Saṃhitā, p ix.

[40]:

P.V. Sharma, Introduction to Acharya Jadavji Trikamji and Acharya Narayanram “Kavyatirtha” (Eds.), Suśruta-Saṃhitā, p.xi.

[41]:

G.J. Meulenbeld, History of Indian Medical Literature, p. 340.

[42]:

P.V. Sharma (edited and translated), Suśruta-Saṃhitā, Vol. I, p. iv.

[43]:

G.J. Meulenbeld, History of Indian Medical Literature, Vol. 1A, p. 343.

[44]:

G.J. Meulenbeld, History of Indian Medical Literature, Vol. 1A, p.351.

[45]:

P.V. Sharma, Introduction to Acharya Jadavji Trikamji and Acharya Narayanram “Kavyatirtha” (ed.), Suśruta-Saṃhitā, p viii.

[46]:

G.J. Meulenbeld, History of Indian Medical Literature, Vol.1A, p.347.

[47]:

G.J. Meulenbeld, History of Indian Medical Literature, Vol. 1A, p.348.

[48]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 4.9.