Charaka Samhita and Sushruta Samhita

by Nayana Sharma | 2015 | 139,725 words

This page relates ‘Teacher of Ayurveda’ 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 Teacher of Āyurveda

< Previous

Next >

The Saṃhitās hold the teachers of Āyurveda in high esteem; both Ātreya^[1] and Divodāsa Dhanvantari^[2] are addressed as Bhagavān. Cakrapāṇidatta explains that “bhagavān” is one who possesses “bhaga” or esteemed knowledge. The epithet “Bhagavān” also connotes “one who knows the creation, destruction, birth and death of all creatures and who knows what is knowledge and what is ignorance is to be designated as Bhagavān.”^[3] Bhagavān is an appellation used for the gods or in respect of those personalities possessing the following six attributes: splendour, power, fame, beauty/wealth, knowledge and non-attachment.^[4] Ḍalhaṇa also points out that

“Dhanvantari” is a popular epithet for an expert in surgery. “Dhanuḥ” means surgery and one who has crossed it fully is Dhanvantari.^[5] The preceptor of Suśruta, whose first name was Divodāsa had obtained the title of Dhanvantari by virtue of his expertise in his field of surgery.

In the Saṃhitās, it is student who approaches the teacher which was the practice in the Vedic period too, i.e., the pupil must find the teacher.^[6] Caraka gives us a description of the ideal teacher in the context of a student’s selection of the preceptor. The teacher is required to have a good grounding in the scriptures as well as extensive practical experience; he should be wise, skillful and virtuous with steady hands; he should possess all the necessary equipment for treatment and not be deficient in respect of any of the sense organs. Acquaintance with human nature and the rationale of treatment, flawless knowledge (that is, not overshadowed by knowledge of other scriptures), freedom from vanity, envy and anger and the capability of enduring distress (kleśakṣama) are the other desirable attributes of the teacher of medicine. He should be affectionately disposed towards his disciples with the ability of expressing his views clearly (so that the students have no difficulty in understanding). Such a teacher quickly imparts knowledge to his pupils just like the seasonal cloud that produces a good crop in fertile land.^[7]

A good preceptor, therefore, has several attributes. A thorough grounding in theoretical and practical knowledge is, of course, essential but not sufficient. Skill in treatment, possession of necessary instruments, clarity of expression and a good human nature and absence of vices are also imperative. As regards the condition that his knowledge of Āyurveda should not be overshadowed by that of other scriptures, Cakrapaṇidatta explains that too much knowledge of the other scriptures may sometimes result in overshadowing of the medical perspective.^[8] Confusing concepts alien to medical science should be repudiated by the ideal preceptor, while he should derive help from those that serve as an aid to the medical perspective, i.e., those concepts that help in the understanding of medical science are acceptable. Wujastyk remarks that this description of a good teacher is written “from the perspective of the student: rather than telling a physician what he should be like as a teacher, they (the authors of the Saṃhitās) explain to the student searching for a teacher what he should look for.”^[9]

It is noteworthy that the Suśruta Saṃhitā does not have a similar passage pertaining to the qualifications of the preceptor. It is not clear how students assessed a particular teacher to be suitable though we may conjecture that students went by reputation. Although the text does not elaborate on the credentials of Ātreya, his name associates him genealogically with Atri, the seer mentioned frequently in the Ṛgveda. His preeminence is reflected in the position held by him in the medical seminars; the proceedings are conducted and presided over by Ātreya.^[10] Respected by the gods and the siddhas (sura-siddha-juṣṭa),^[11] he is described as the abode of buddhi (intelligence), smṛti (memory), jñāna (knowledge) and tapas (penance), and a protector of living beings (śaraṇya).^[12] On the other hand, the appellation of Dhanvantari to the name of Divodāsa serves to advocate legitimacy of expertise in surgery. He is addressed by his students as the best among then clinicians (bhiṣajāṃvara).^[13]

As dissemination of medical knowledge is considered an obligation of the recipient, the physician is ideally expected to be engaged in teaching. The ideal physician like the prāṇābhisara referred to in the previous chapter, is constantly engaged in the study of the science and mastering the actual application of the precepts.^[14] It is not clear from our Saṃhitās whether the preceptors were practising physicians or engaged in teaching alone. Ātreya is portrayed as participating in seminars, discoursing with disciples^[15] or engaged in penance in Kailāśa,^[16] but not in a clinical situation attending to patients. Divodāsa Dhanvantari is described as living in a hermitage (āśramastham) surrounded by groups of sages (ṛṣigaṇaparivṛtām).^[17] As he is addressed as kāśīrāja (the king of Kāśī),^[18] it may be surmised he had withdrawn from the life of royalty and taken to the mendicant stage. Considering their wealth of experience in clinical medicine, both the preceptors had been practicing physicians earlier but had possibly taken to teaching after their withdrawal from active practice in their retirement.

It is interesting to note that the medical authorities who participated in a colloquium are described as learned and old (śruta-vayo-vṛddāḥ)^[19] which may indicate the possibility that only aged physicians with considerable experience took to teaching. Participants at this colloquium included Vāryovida^[20] who is addressed as rājārṣī (the royal sage) and Nimi, the king of Videha.^[21] The engagement of kings in medicine was perhaps not unusual for apart from Divodāsa and Nimi, we get the name of Vāmaka, the king of Kāśī^[22] as another medical authority.