Philosophy of Charaka-samhita
by Asokan. G | 2008 | 88,742 words
Ayurveda, represented by Charaka and Sushruta, stands first among the sciences of Indian intellectual tradition. The Charaka-samhita, ascribed to the great celebrity Charaka, has got three strata. (1) The first stratum is the original work composed by Agnivesha, the foremost of the six disciples of Punarvasu Atreya. He accomplished the work by coll...
Man as a constitution of six elements (ṣaḍdhātja-puruṣa)
It is something peculiar that Caraka construes a third division of puruṣa called ṣaḍdhātujapuruṣa. In no other philosophical systems or sciences, we come across such a third division. So it is quite natural to have the question, what does it actually refer to?
Ṣaḍdhātujapuruṣa is a constitution of six elements, namely the self and the five physical elements[1] . As a matter of fact, ṣaḍdhātujapuruṣa is the very same rāśipuruṣa. The constituents other than the six mentioned above as the constituents of rāśipuruṣa are only further emanations from the physical elements. Suśruta also describes man in a similar manner. Accordingly, human being, the object of therapeutics, is a constitution of the very same six elements. Suśruta calls it by the name karmapuruṣa.[2]
Taking into account of the similarity of both ṣaḍdhātujapuruṣa of Caraka and karmapuruṣa of Suśṛuta S.K. Ramachandra Rao makes the following observations:
“The individual person, who is essentially dynamic and is a product of transaction, is known in Āyurveda by two expressions: karmapuruṣa (Suśruta) and saṃyogipuruṣa (Caraka). The former word emphasizes the activity aspect, while the latter, the integrational aspect. Both words bring out the phenomenological, transactional, and dynamic characters of the individual”.[3]
Now the problem becomes crucial. If rāśipuruṣa and ṣaḍdharujapuruṣa refer to one and the same entity, particularly man, then it is essential to make clear the purpose behind considering it as one among the three divisions of puruṣa. In this connection Cakrapāṇi, says that ṣaḍdhātujapuruṣa is construed in conformity with Vaiśeṣikadarśana[4] and rāśipuruṣa in conformity with Sāṃkhyadarśana.[5] He arrives at this conclusion because Caraka himself has stated that ṣaḍdhātujapuruṣa is the very same rāśipuruṣa described by the early Sāṃkhyas. But it is not true because of the following reasons.
(1) Caraka nowhere else speaks of his concept of self or of the ṣaḍdhātujapuruṣa subject as belonging to that of Vaiśeṣikadarśana.
(2) It has been conspicuously declared by Caraka that the concept of ṣaḍdhātujapuruṣa goes back to the early Sāṃkhya teachers.[6]
(3) Theoretically, both Vaiśeṣika and Caraka differ in their outlook regarding “being” and “becoming”. Also the concept of inner self and body are entirely different. Hence it is not logical to think that Caraka substantiates two different systems with contradictory view points.
(4) Caraka is philosophizing not for the sake of philosophy, but for formulating the scientific principles regarding health and therapeutics. If he is said to incorporate two contradictory concepts so as to formulate a medical treaty which calls for a high rationale, then the treaty itself would become unscientific and absurd.
All these things lead to the conclusion that there is a particular intention behind the description of ṣaḍdhātujapuruṣa. Unless and until the mist and veil that envelops the concept of puruṣa in this regard is removed, it is not possible to arrive at a conclusion regarding the philosophy of Caraka. In other words a precise understanding of ṣaḍdhātujapuruṣa will provide us with the key to discern the philosophical concept of Caraka and how it has been utilized as foundation for formulating a pragmatic science. Caraka, who places primacy on ṣaḍdhātujapuruṣa while classifying, emphatically declares that the conglomeration of six elements in general, constitute the entire universe.[7] That is ṣaḍdhātujapuruṣa, on the one hand refers to man and on the other hand the world beyond his nerve endings. Thus, his intention is very clear. It is to unfold the secrets of the two fold micro-macro relationship of man and nature that he construes ṣaḍdhātjapuruṣa.[8]
Both man and universe are a constitution of the aforesaid six elements and as such they are microcosm and macrocosm. Man is an epitome of the universe.[9] Whatever that is present in the universe are also present in man, and vice versa.[10] The constituents, which the man and the universe share are innumerable. The three doṣas namely vāta, pitta and kapha uphold and sustain, and also destroy the body in the same way as the moon, the sun, and air uphold and sustain, and destroy the world.[11] The individual's form corresponds to earth, wetness to water, heat to fire, vital breath to air, the innumerable openings to ākāśa, and the inner self to the universal “Self” or Brahman. Just as the grandeur Brahman in the universe, so is the inner self in man. Similarly, the various universal phenomena correspond to the phenomena in man. Thus, Prajāpati in the universe is represented by the splendorous mind, Indra by “I consciousness”, Āditya by the process of ādāna, Rudra by anger, Soma by happiness, Vasus by pleasure, Aśvins by brilliance, Maruts by zest, Viśvedevas by sense organs and their objects, darkness by ignorance, light by knowledge, manifestation of the universe by the formation of embryo, kṛta age by childhood, treta age by youthhood, dvāpara age by old age, kali age by illness, and deluge by death. In the same way the one to one correspondence of all other phenomena can be inferred.[12] The epithets used here for the entities present in the universe are Vedic in nature and they are symbolic representations of various kinds of natural phenomena.
The external world has the same features of man. It also has consciousness and a psychosomatic complex in which all happiness, pain and the like appears. It is not easy for an ordinary person to know them. Only such persons who have sharpened their intellect by intuitive power can grasp them.
The repeated questions about the nature of puruṣa and the answers to them have given a distinctive vision of man. What Caraka uncovers is that man is not simply an object among others. Man is not a mere material constitution but a constitution of the immortal divine and the mortal physical elements. The never dying self that indwells in the perishing body as the principle of life is further identified as the foundation of the universe.
Man is conceived as a totality of realities. Man is the medium of all values, and a symbol of good and world sanctity. He is not an instrument in shaping the worldly realities, but an ideal medium to transform the world ensuring the well-being of all beings.
Thus, the knowledge promulgated by Caraka is capable of releasing man from his objective centered behaviourism. He is circumspect of the fact that the knowledge will not be complete without knowing what is divine in him. Human nature has the tendency of turning the self to lower and ephemeral exterior objects. So, Caraka redirects our attention from what is human to what is divine also. He advises us to know man by taking into consideration the deeply felt inner need of human nature. He analyses man taking into consideration every aspect of human nature, his intentions, and purpose of life which science does not tell us.
Above all, the concept of micro-macro relationship of man and the universe lies in the fact that it forms the basis of all tenets regarding treatment and management of health.It is on the basis of the discovered identical nature of the world and man and the laws governing them that the material things are applied to the biological field. When the extrinsic world comes into contact with man externally or internally, the equipoise of the dhātus are caused by their increase or decrease. Hence the therapeutic approach essentially becomes holistic and it contributes to the medical science.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
[2]:
"pañcamahābhūtaśarīrasamavāyaḥ puruṣa' iti. sa yeva karmapuruṣaści-kitsādhikṛtaḥ, Suśrutasaṃhitā of Suśruta.. Śārīra - sthāna, I. 16. The self construed by Suśruta corresponds to the puruṣa in the Classical Sāṃkhya. Ibid., 9; “ayameva pañcamahābhūtaśarīra-samavāyaḥ puruṣah ityanena Suśrutenapyuktaḥ”. Cakrapāṇi on CS, Śārīra - sthāna, I.16.
[3]:
DO, p.172.
[4]:
[5]:
ṣaḍdhāturūpameva puruṣaṃ punaḥ sāṃkhyadarśanabhedāc-caturviṃśatikabhedenāḥ, Cakrapāṇi on Ibid.,17.
[6]:
rāśih ṣaḍdhātujo hyeṣaḥ sāṃkhyairādyaiḥ prakīrtitaḥ CS, Su.XXV.15.
[7]:
ṣaddhātusamudāyo hi sāmānyataḥ sarvalokāḥ. CS,Sa,V.7.
[8]:
see LC, p. 215; cf. AMS, p.182.
[10]:
yāvanto hi loke (mūrtimanto) bhāvaviśeṣāstāvantaḥ puruṣe, yāvantaḥ puruṣe tāvanto loke, Ibid.
[11]:
[12]:
CS, Śārīra - sthāna, V. 5.