23a. Indu’s commentary on the Ashtanga-samgraha of Vagbhata I

23a Chronological Limits for the Commentary of Indu on the Astargasammgraha of Vagbhata I -Between A. D. 750 and 1050 + In the edition of the Astangasamgraha' with a commentary of Indu called Sasilekha published 31 years ago we are told that "Sasilekha is a commentary of Astangasamgraha by Indu one of the renowned and learned pupils of Vahata." Evidently this statement is based on the following verse³ quoted by the editor in his Sanskrit Introduction to the edition:- "lambasmasrukalapamambujanibhacchayayurti vaidyaka- mantevasina indujajjatamukhanadhyapayantam sada | agulphamalakancukancita dasalaksyopavitojvalat kanthasthagarusaramanjitadrsam dhyayeddrdham vagbhatam || " The Editor in making his observation about the versatile intellect o the author of the Astangasamgraha remarks:Annals (B. O. R. Institute), Vol. XXV, pp. 225-238. 1. Ed. by T. Rudraparasava, Trichur, 1913. H. H. Sir Rama Varma, G. C. S. I., G. C. I. E. of Cochin in his letter of 20 th July 1914 published as a foreword to this edition observes :- "A copy of the commentary (Sasilekha) could not be had in full anywhere. He (Editor) had to go to different places and hunt in several old manuscript libraries, and to collect lists from here and there. Several of such lists were worn out by old age and full of mistakes. It took several years for him to get a clear and complete copy and the labour and the trouble (with which) he had to compare and correct it were not ordinary. Even now it is doubtful whether the copy now prepared is quite free from errors. But I have no hesitation in saying that it is difficult to get a more correct copy of the book anywhere. But for the pains and troubles he has taken in publishing it this important work would have been completely lost." 2. Ibid. dhyana . 3. Ibid. Upodghata, p. IV- The editor calls this verse as sloka " and states that it is "lokaprasiddha ". He does not say anything about its authorship and chronology. 151

152 " STUDIES IN INDIAN LITERARY HISTORY dvadasasahasyaparaparyayah srimadastamgasamgrahah, tato'pi saratarostamgahrdayasya- granthah | rasasastrasarvasvabhuto rasaratnasamuccayasca yadiyadhisanavilase param saksinah || " Evidently in making the above observation the Editor is attributing common authorship to the three works viz. (1) the Astangasamgraha of Vagbhata I (2) the Astangahrdaya of Vagbhata II and (3) Rasaratnasamuccaya of Vagbhata, who according to Sir P. C. Ray was a contemporary of Roger Bacon (died A.D. 1294) Vide History of Hindu Chemistry, p. lvi of Vol. 1 (Calcutta, 1902). I have already recorded elsewhere' the correct views about the authorship of the three works, by three different authors of the same name Vagbhata and hence need not deal with the question in this paper. Our Editor on the basis of the common authorship of the three works further states:- "srimadastamgasamgraharthastu kamapi samicinam dipikamantara parijnatum duhsakta iti sthite athamindoh udayah paramapramoda eva nikhilaprapancasya || " We agree that as the Astangasamgraha of Vagbhata I was difficult to be understood a commentator has come into being in the form of Indu, the author of the Sasilekha but it is difficult to make Indu, a contemporary of Vagbhata I as the Editor does in the following remarks on no solid evidence except the proverbial already quoted by him and reproduced above:- 1. Vide p. 4 of my Introduction to the Astangahrdaya, edited by Vaidya Harishastri Paradkar of Akola (N. S. Press, Bombay, 1938). 2. The identity of authorship for the A. samgraha and A. hrdaya has been taken for granted by many responsible writers on the history of Indian medicine. H. H. the Thakore Saheb of Gondal (pp. 34-35 of his Aryan Medical Science, London, 1896) states: "In his work called "Ashtangahridaya" he (Vagbhata) acknowledges the assistance derived from the writings of Charaka, Sushruta, Agnivesha, Bhela and others who had gone before him. He also wrote another work called "Ashtangasangraha," on which Pandit Arunadatta wrote a commentary. "

indu jajjata- "induh athamacaryavagbhatasisyesu pradhanah taduktam dhyanasloke | mukhanadhyapayanta " miti | anena astamgasamgrahasya hrdayasya ca sasilekheti vyakhyatanyata indunamnapi sa vyapadisyate || " 1 This is confusion worse confounded as the editor makes Vagbhata I, Indu and Jajja ta' contemporaries without any historical evidence and secondly he states that Sasilekha is a commentary on the astamgasamgraha as also on the (astamga ) hrdaya, 2 a statement which is clearly refuted by Indu's own statement at the beginning of his own. commentary on the Sutrasthana that Sasilekha is a commentary on the Samgraha and not on the Hydaya.³ - " - 1. Aufrecht makes the following entry about:CC I, p. 209 - " jaijjata wrote a commentary on susruta . Quoted by Hemadri in Ayurvedarasayana B. P. 373, in Bhavaprakasa Oxf. 311 b, in Atankadarpana Oxf. 314 b, by Candrata Oxf. 357 b, in Todarananda W. p. 289." If Candrata (about A. D. 1000 according to Hoernle) quotes , he is earlier than 1000 A. D. but I have no evidence to prove that and were contemporaries. indu jaijjata jaijjata Vopadeva, contemporary of Hemadri, quotes many times in his commentary prakasa on his father's siddhamantra ( see Ms of siddhamantraprakasa in the Govt. Mss Library at the B. O. R. Institute, Poona, folios 11, 12, 17 etc.). Vopadeva also quotes, fta (fol. 8) and baspacandra (fol. 8 and 34 ) . kharanadi is quoted many times by Hemadri in Ayurvedarasayana. Possibly I mentioned and quoted by HI and vopadeva may be identical with kharanada but this possibility needs to be examined separately. 2. Vide p. 188 of Aryan Medical Science, London, 1896 :- "Some are of opinion that Vagbhata, the celebrated author of "Ashtanga-hridaya" flourished in the time of the Mahabharata and that he was the family physician of the Pandavas." 3. Vide verse 2 in the following 6 introductory verses of Indu's commentary on the Sutrasthana of the Astanga-samgraha which I reproduce from the Edition of the work by Pandit R. D. Kinjavadekar (Chitrashala Press, Poona, 1938 ) :- "prodbhasisvacchasamkhasphutasasikaloddamavaisadyahrdya- prodyatsaumdarya varyaprakatitavapusam naumi vagisvarim tam | (Continued on next page)

This lotus in the form of Samgraha blooms at the sight of the moon's digit viz. the Sasilekha vyakhya or commentary composed by Indu. (Continued from previous page) kallolollasasantipratatasitataraksirasindhvantarala- slisyatpiyusarekham smarayati vibudhandhyayato ya dayaluh || 1 || sarasi suvipulayurvedarupe krtastham munivaravacanaughe dirghanale nibaddham | racitadalamivangaih samgrahakhyam sarojam vikasati sasilekha vyakhyayendoryathavat || 2 || analocitatantrarthah padadavakrtasramah | yatravabhasate murkhastatravacya vipascitah || 3|| bandhacchayavisesajnah suksmamapyadhigacchati | sukaverapi ya vacah kunthasta jala [da] samsadi || 4 || kiyadva kathayisyami yattatvairna budhyate | pramanam ca tadevatra yadasmabhirnirupyate || 5|| durvyakhyavisasuptasya vahatasyasmaduktayah 1 santu samvittadayinyah sadagamapariskrtah || 6|| " Pt. Kinjavadekar's edition of the Astanga-samgraha with Indu's commentary is based on the following printed editions and Mss:- - (1) Text only Ms procured by me from Rajavaidya Jagtap of Kolhapur through the B. O. R. Institute, Poona. (2) Text only-Ms in the possession of Vaidya Gopalshastri Godbole of Bombay. - (3) Text only - Printed edition of Saka 1810 = A. D. 1888 by Ganesh Sakharam Tarte of Nasik and Vaidya Krishnashastri Devadhar. 4. Text with Indu's commentary - Edited at Trichur in 1913. On 6 th January 1939 I brought to the notice of Pt. Kinjavadekar a Ms of Indu's commentary in the Adyar Library described in their Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts, Part II (1928) p. 69 as follows :- " astamgahrdayavyakhya ( sasilekha ) indukrta 39 B 19 de 657". If this Ms turns out on examination to be Indu's commentary it should prove very useful to Pt. Kinjavadekar as he has failed to (Continued on next page)

The date of Vagbhata I is "early seventh century" according to Dr. Hoernle' and as Indu commented on the A. Samgraha² of Vagbhata I, his date must be posterior to early seventh century. We may, therefore, safely fix about 625 A. D. as one terminus to the date of Indu. Let us now see if we can push forward this limit on the strength of evidence from Indu's commentary. In chapter VI of the Sutrasthana, Indu makes the following comment:- ['gunasabdasca bhagaparyayah ' | ' samkhyaya gunasya nimane ' ityadina ] (pa . su 5-2- 47 ) The Editor has identified the above quotation in the Kasika² commentary of the Sutras of Panini, which was composed (Continued from previous page) " procure any Ms of this important commentary for his edition. The catalogue statement " astamgahrdayavyakhya " is again misleading because "sasilekha is Indu's commentary on astamgasamgraha and not on astamgahrdaya . Indu describes vahata as " durvyakhyavisasupta i.e. lying in a state of unconsciousness produced by the effects of the poison of bad commentaries. This statement leads us to suppose that there were some commentaries on the Astangasamgraha preceding the Sasilekha of Indu. 1. Osteoloxford, 1907, Intro. p. 11. 2. Aufrecht makes the following entries about Vaghbhata I and his work:CC I, 35" med. quoted by Arupadatta." CC III, 8-" za med. by Vrddha-Vagbhata RL 222-227 Do, 125" med. BL. 2, 222-227" (BL = Bhandarkar's lists of private libraries in the Bombay Presidency, Part I, Bombay 1893 ). The Des. Cat. of Madras Mss Vol. XXIII (Medicine) contains the following Mss :- No. 13070-Astangasamgraha in Canarese characters on palm-leaf, pp. 122, contains 15 stanzas of the 4 th adhyaya, some stanzas of the 4 th adhyaya, some stanzas of the first adhyaya and from the 4 th to the 37 th adhyaya, excepting adhyayas 6 and 7. Breaks off in 38 th adhyaya of the Sutrasthana. No. 13071-Astanga-Samgrahavyakhya in Canarese characters on palm-leaf pp. 158. Reference is herein made Hariscandra's commentary on the Caraka-Samhita :- 'hariscandrakrtam vyakhyam vinacarakasammatam yastrnotyakrtaprajnah vatumihati so'mbudhim || " ." soyam vahatanama sastrakarasca " ....tasmadastamgasamgrahe ...... "It is difficult to identify the portion contained in this work." to "

about 650 A. D. This reference would push forward the limit of Indu's date to about 700 A. D. if the Editor's identification is correct. Another quotation, which, if identified in the extant late lexicons would enable us to push forward the date of Indu is found in his comment on verse 17 of chapter II of the Sutrasthana. It reads as follows;- [ "amisam bhogyavastuni " iti kosah ] The Medini lexicon assigned to about the 13 th century' has a similar quotation which reads as follows:- "amisam pumnapumsakam | bhogyavastuni sambhoge " It is difficult, however, to say if this quotation has a direct relation with Indu's quotation because it has often been found that some of the late lexicons have drawn freely on the earlier lexicons and at times we find two different lexicons borrowing from a common source. A better criterion for pushing forward the date of Indu after 700 A. D. is the following quotation from the Astangahrdaya of Vagbhata II, who has been assigned to 8 th or 9 th century A. D. by Prof. Jolly (vide p. 16 of Osteology). Sutrasthana comm. on verse 108 of chap. VII (p. 54 of Kinjavadekar's edition) - " uktam ca hrdaye - 'parasparopa samstambhadhatusnehaparampara " (sa . a. 3 - 65 ) As Pandit Kinjavadekar has identified the above quotation in the A. hrdaya of Vagbhata II we have no doubt that Indu was acquainted with the A. hydaya and it is possible to find more references' 1. Vide Kalpadrukosa, Baroda, 1928, Introduction. P. xl, Padmanabhadatta who wrote his Prsodaradivrtti in A. C. 1375 quotes Medini in his Bhuriprayoga (CC I, 467 a"). "The Mankhatika in Zacharie's edition contains also a quotation from Medini, which if genuine would push back Medini's date to the 12 th century for that commentary was most probably written before the last quarter of the 12 th century." 2. In chapter I of Nidanasthana (p. 5 of Kinjavdekar's Edition) we find the following reference :- (Continued on next page)

to the A. hradya in his commentary. This reference, therefore, would justify us in concluding that Indu flourished after Vagbhata II, say after about 900 A. D. and consequently it is absurd to make him a pupil of Vagbhata I as the does according to to the statement of the Editor of the Trichur Edition of Indu's commentary. In dealing with the properties of the different vegetables (p. 61 of Sutrasthana) Indu observes:- 66 atrasakanam haritakanam 'va yesam namani noktani tesam desabhasadividbhyo'- dhigamyapabhramsa samskaradupayogavisesacca jnatavyani " (4 (Continued from previous page) yena hrdaye pathati - "tadeva vyaktatam yatam rupamityabhidhiyate " iti | evam ca ' sthite se purvarupah kaphapittamehah ' iti yada hrdayagranthe vyakhyayate tatraiva codayisyamah " On p. 25 (chap. Vof Sutrasthana) Indu observes :- " kramasca ' padenapathyamabhyastam ' ityadina vaksyate " The Editor points out thav `he line "kramasca ......abhyastam " is only a part of the following whole stanza of the asthamgahrdaya ( Sutrasthana, VII, 48 ) - " padenapathyamabhyastam padapadena va tyajet | niseveta hitam tadvadekadvitryantarikrtam || " These references leave no doubt that Indu was conversant with the astamgahrdayasamhita of Vagbhata II and perhaps he wrote a commentary on it ("yada hrdayagranthe vyakhyayate tatraiva codayisyamah "). We shall have to investigate if any Mss of Indu's commentary on the can be traced anywhere in India. The Triennial Catalogue of Madras Mss, Vol. IV, Part I, Sanskrit B, describes a Ms of astamgahrdayavyakhya called sasilekha . It is No. R 3447 (p. 5142) and consists of folios 176 in Malayalam characters. It was transcribed in 1920-21 from a Ms in the possession of Mr. M. N. Nambiar, Kaimur village, Trichur, Cochin State. The Ms begins in 141 st stanza of the Sutrasthana and contains the Sarirasthana and the Nidanasthana complete. Judging by the colophons the Ms appears to be Indu's commentary on the Astangahrdaya. These colophons as recorded in the catalogue read as follows " iti induviracitayamastamgahrdayavyakhyayam sasilekhayam trimsodhyayah || iti sutra- sthanam samaptam || dhyayah " 'itinduviracitayamastangahrdayavyakhyayam (sasilekhayam ) nidanasthane sodaso'-

In accordance with this statement we find him recording terms current in Kashmir for particular plants:p. 56 - "kasmiresu mahoyakah " p. 57- - "kasmiresu kebukamanyatra kanavikam " - - - - "kasmiresu silah " "kasmiresu lonara " "paryayah nighantu ' jnanat desabhasasamskaranacca kincit jnayante " p. 58 - "kasmiresu konikah " p. 60 - "kasmiresu tumburuh " p. 63 - "kasmiresu vrksabadari " p. 66 - " atrapi phalanamaprasiddhanam ca yesam namani moktani tani nama- desakulebhyo'pabhramsasamskaradinadhigantavyani " As Indu has taken the trouble of noting the terms current in Kashmir for particular plants etc., I am inclined to believe that he either hailed from Kashmir or was acquainted with a physician in Kashmir through whom he may have obtained the terminology recorded above. Indu in chapter VIII ( Sarirasthana, p. 61) gives the following definition of gambhirya guna:- "yasya prasadadakarat krodhasokabhayadayah | bhavastha nopalaksyante tad gambhiryamiti smrtam || " 1. Vide Introduction, p. xlix of Kalpadru - Kosa, Vol. I ( Baroda, 1928). The oldest of medical and botanical glossaries or Nighantus is Dhanvantarinighantu, which according to Ksirasvamin is earlier than Amara. Other nighantus are :- Paryayaratnamala or Ratnamala of Madhavakara, author of Rugviniscaya - 8 th or 9 th cent. A. C. ( Winternitz III, 550). Paryaya-Muktavali or Muktavali is based on the above work.-Nighantusesa of Hemacandra, Abhidhanaratnamala, Madanavinoda ( 1374 A. D.). Rajanighantu, Sivakosa of Sivadatta (A. D. 1677), Sabdacandrika of Cakrapanidatta, Daksinamurti-nighantu, Dravyamuktavali and Paryayarnava. 2. In the sarirasthana (chap. XIII, p. 87 ) under evil dreams reference is made to " dravidandhrastricandaladyaih " Indu explains : - "andhra- dravidau daksinatya janapadanamani " ie the terms ' andhra ' and ' dravida ' are the names of Southern people or kingdoms. Can this explanation confirm our suggestion that Indu was a Northerner?

I have not been able to trace this definition in this form though the definitions of the gambhirya guna are found in the Natyasastra' of Bharata, the Dasarupaka², the Agnipurana³ and other works. gives the definition of the word as follows:- (p. 61) "yolpam datum na saknoti sthulalaksah sa ucyate " Indu These definitions show the critical nature of his commentary and justify to a certain extent the boastful statement of verse 6 in the beginning of the Sutrasthana viz. " asmaduktayah sadagamapariskrtah durvyakhya- visasuptasya vahatasya samvittidayinyah santu " We have pointed out above that in commenting on the contents of the of the Sutrasthana (p. 57) Indu states that paryayas or synonyms of the names of different plants may be found in the Nighantus (paryayah nighantujnanat ... jnayante ). This statement shows that he was conversant with some medical glossaries containing the names of the different plants and their synonyms. The question now arises whether Indu compiled any Nighantu himself. We try to record the following evidence for the consideration of scholars according to which it seems possible that Indu, the author of the Sasilekha commentary on the Astangasamgraha and Indu, the author of a medical Nighantu frequently quoted by Ksirasvamin in his commentary on the Amarakosa may be identical:- 1. Benares Edn. by Batuknath Sharma, 1929, chapter 24, p. 272- ་་ yasya prabhavadakara romaharsabhayadisu | bhavastha nopalabhyante gambhiryamiti samsitam || 2. Ed. by Haas. p. 47. ་་ gambhiryam yatprabhavena vikaro nopalaksyate | " 3. Ed. in Bib. Indica, Calcutta, 1878, p. 230 " visistalaksanollekha lekhya muttanasabdakam | gambhiryam kathayantyaryastadevanyesu sabdatam || " " 4. Mr. Apte in his Dictionary explains as "Munificent, liberal, generous; Wise, learned; Inclined to recollect both benefits and injuries; Taking careless aim". 5. Vide Introduction, p. 4 of Namalinganusasana (Amarakosa) with Ksirasvamin's commentary ed. by K. G. Oka, Poona, 1913. (Continued on next pige)

(1) Both the authors have the same name Indu. (2) While Indu quoted by Ksirasvamin is the author of a Medical Nighantu, our Indu is the author of the commentary on a medical work viz the Astangasamgraha and appears to be conversant with medical Nighantus, which he says contain the paryayas or synonyms of the names of plants. (3) Indu quoted by Ksirasvamin is evidently earlier than about 1050 A. D. as Ksirasvamin is assigned to the 2 nd half of the 11 th century. Our Indu is also likely to be earlier than A. D. 1050 as we propose to indicate below. In chapter II of Nidanasthana (p. 9 of Kinjavadekar's edition Indu refers to Bhattara Haricandra as follows:- (Continued from previous page) Ksirasvamin belongs to the 2 nd half of the 11 th century (Between 1050 and 1100 A. D.) as he quotcs Bhoja and is quoted by Vardhamana in the Ganaratna-mahodadhi. Medical authorities quoted by Ksirasvamin are (1) Susruta and Sausrutah, (2) Vaidyah (chiefly Caraka), (3) Dhanvantari and his Nighantu (medical), (4) Vahata or Vagbhata, (5) Candra, (6) Indu, (7) Candranandana, (8) Dhatuvidah, (9) Nimih, (10) Haramekhalam. Indu and Candranandana are very frequently quoted by Ksirasvamin especially in his comments on the fa. Indu is quoted on pp. 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 68, 69, 71, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81 etc. (Pages 53 to 84 contain 170 verses of the of the Amarakosa). The following quotations will show the nature and contents of Indu's Nighantu :- " P. 56 - " ahenduh- udumbarastu yajnangah sucaksuh svetavalkalah | - hemadugdhah krmiphalah ksiravrksah sa kancanah || " P. 57 - " ahenduh- tungah puspakasamjnah syat pumnama raktakesarah | pumnagah purusahrasva kesam citpadmakesarah || " :-raughrah P. 59 - "indusrah - raughrah kasayakrdvajrascilako madhupuspakah | - vranausadham kalahino himapuspoksibhesajam || utsadano ghanasvakkastarah sabarapadapah | roghrah sabarakah svetatvagati sarabhesajam || dvitiyah pattikarodho brhatpatrastitikah | uttalaka stilvakasca patti laksa prasadanah || "

etadeva hrdi krtva bhattaraharicandrena va sabdasya nirdistasyapradhanyam langhanasyapradhanyam vyakhyatam tacca bhisaksastranisnata nangikurvanti ... bhattarakena tu purvarupesu sakaladosasadharanatvallaghvasanasya pradhanyamuktam " (p. 95 ) - bhattarakena tu ' tathavidhairdravyaih purvamabhisamskarah sarirasya ' ityasya vakyasya " etc. bhattara haricandra (or hariscandra ) referred to in the above extract by Indu is the author of carakasamhitabhasya . He is quoted by mahesvara in his lexicon fa composed in A. D. 1111, by A. D.) and by HI in his commentary on the g II. He is also quoted by in his commentary on (about 1000 of Vagbhata on the ² composed about 1220 A. D.3. It appears, therefore, that His earlier than A.D. 1000 and hence Indu's reference to him does not conflict with our suggestion that Indu, the author of Sasilekha may be earlier than 1050 A. D. like his namesake, the author of a medical Nighantu quoted by Ksirasvamin about 1050 A. D. " 66 This The references to Bhattaraka Haricandra made by Indu show that he had not much respect for the views of Haricandra. This inference is warranted as Indu observes (p. 95 - Sutrasthana.) - bhattarakena ...... dvitiyo'pi pakso ya udbhasitah so'smabhirupeksita eva " and bhattaraharicandrena ........vyakhyatam bhisaksastranisnata nangikurvanti ." criticism of Haricandra by Indu is likely to lead one to suppose that Indu and Haricandra might have been contemporaries, but we have at present no evidence either to prove or disprove this suggestion. In the Madras MSS Library Ms No. 13071 is a commentary on the Astangasamgraha but the description of this MS given in the catalogue this commentary has not been identified. Judging by the verse 1. Catalogus Cata. of Aufrecht, I, 756 b. 2. Do. I, 761. 3. Hoernle: Osteology, Oxford, 1907, pp. 17, 100. 4. Vide Catalogue of Nepal Mss by Haraprasad Shastri and Bendall, Calcutta, 1905, Preface p. xxiii-A Ms of Sarottara Nighantu, a work on synonyms in medical science, bears the date of copy viz. N. S. 200= A. D. 1080. 5. Madras Mss, Vol. xxiii. 6. S.I.L.X. 11 66 hariscandrakrtam vyakhyam vina carakasammatam | yastrnotyakrtaprajnahvatumahati so'mbudhim || "

which appears in the extract from this commentary given in the catalogue and which contains a contemptuous criticism of Haricandra' (vide Indu's criticism of Haricandra noted above) it appears that this unidentified commentary may be Indu's Sasilekha itself. As, however, the Madras Ms is not before me I am unable to say anything definitely about this identity, for the question needs to be settled by a comparison of the Madras Ms with the published text of the Sasilekha commentary. In the following passage Indu appears to refer to his Guru ("asmadguravah ") :- Page 95 ( Sutrasthana, Chap. IX ) - " etaccasmadguravo yatha prakrantasabdarthaparatantrastaireveti ca tadviruddhani para- mrsanti vamanadivat purvam dehasyabhisamskrterapi vaidyavidheyatamabhimanyamanascarakasya boddharo vyakhyanabhimanyante | bhattarakena tu 'tathavidhairva dravyaih purvamabhisamskarah sarirasya ' ityasya vakyasya vyadhyutpatyanaikantikapradarsanaparatvamangikrtya tathavidhairiti ca viruddhasamani paramrsya virudvaireva purvasamskaro vyadhyanutpattiheturiti satmyaharaprayataya dvitiyo'pi pakso ya udbhasitah so'smabhirupeksita eva " The expression "asmadguravah " contains possibly a reference to Vagbhata II, the author of the Astangahrdaya but we must await more decisive evidence on this possibility.2 1. There is a Ms No. 13092 of Carakasamhitavyakhya by Hariscandra in the Govt. Ori. Mss Library, Madras, ( Vide Catalogue Vol. XXIII, 1918, p. 8801 ). It consists of 151 pages and contains the 3 rd adhyaya of the Sutrasthana. It begins:- " " svayambhuve pranabhrdantaratmane jagatpradipaya mahaddhitaisine | vivasvate diptasahastrarasmaye surottamayamitatejase namah || " Colophon of Chap. I- ' iti acarya hariscandrakrtau pa (pra ) sisyapadhyaya kayinyase bhesajacatuske dirghajivitiyah prathamo'dhyayah " 2. Pt. Kinjavadekar has drawn my attention to the following passage in Indu's comment on Sarirasthana, Chapter III, (p. 24 a ) of his Edition :- " tatha ca acarya eva hrdaye kevalam mahatyah pratisedham karoti | yatah sahoratrena jiryate | na tu matrantarasya vidhanam | (Continued on next page )

References to Indu by subsequent medical writers' have not (Continued from previous page) 'sutika ksudvati tailada ghrtadva mahatom pibet ' iti snehe kaye va pite yamakabhyaktadehaya vastrenodaram vestayet " " This passage connects acarya and astamgahrdaya because the line "sutika ksudvati ......pibet " quoted by Indu is found in the following verse of the astamgahrdaya of Vagbhata II ( sarirasthana, chapter I) (p. 100 of Kinjavdekar's Edition, where the text of sarirasthana of the a. hrdaya is reproduced for reference ) :- " sutika ksudvati tailaghrtadva mahatim pibet | pancakolakina matram manu cosnam gudodakam || 94|| " This identification appears to indicate that Indu claimed Vagbhata II, the author of astamgahrdaya, as his acarya " and hence by the expression " asmadguravah " mentioned above he refers possibly to Vagbhata II. If our interpretation of the above passages is correct Indu becomes a direct pupil of Vagbhata II and hence a junior contemporary of his acarya or " guravah " as he respectfully refers to him. " In addition to the references made by Indu to Vagbhata II in the words acarya and guravah the following reference to vahatagrantha appeare to refer to astamgahrdaya of Vagbhata II (P. 1023 of Sutrasthana, chap. IX ) :Vagbhata I - A. Sangraha- " yahadvasante tasyante paksattadvadanodaye | seveta kamatah kamam hemante sisire bali || 97 || " Indu's comment :- " vasante grahannarom vrajet | tasya vasantasyante grisme pascattadvat ghanodaye varsasu hemante sisire ca, bali balavan, kamato yatheccham seveta | saradi svanuktavapi vasantasadrsabaladimattvadudyahadeva narim vrajet | tatha ca srivahatagrantha eva 'yaha 'dvasantasaradoh iti " d, Vagbhata I has omitted or autumn in his list of seasons mentioned in verse 97 quoted above. Indu suggests that the omission is not intentional and quotes in his support the line " vyahadvasantasarado from vahadagrantha which appears to be identical with hrdayagrantha or astamgahrdaya of Vagbhata II who has included the genial for sexual intercourse. By possibly means Vagbhata II and not here distinguished as one is quoted in support of another. in his list of seasons conin the above comment Indu Vagbhata I. The two as are 1. One indu is quoted in the kairalivyakhya on the astamgahrdaya in the following::- (:Continued on next page )

" 164 STUDIES IN INDIAN LITERARY HISTORY yet been recorded and consequently it is difficult to fix the lower limit for Indu's date in a definite manner. That Indu flourished after Vagbhata II (8 th or 9 th century) is amply proved by his references to c in the Sasilekha. If, however, his identity with Indu, the author of the medical Nighantu quoted by Ksirasvamin (1050 A. D.) as suggested tentatively by me' in the present paper is proved conclusively we may be able to assign him to a period say between A. D. 750 and 1050. " (Continued from previous page) "alaji alajisamjnah ksudrarogah | vrttadikacchaponnatantam kacchapi visesanam iti induh " Vide p. 403 of the Edition of the Astangahrdaya with the Kairalivyakhya which is being published in the journal Vaidya Sarathi (Kottayani, South India) August 1938, III, 5. This commentary quotes (p. 402) from a lexicon (middle of 11 th century) ksudrah svalpe'dhame krure " iti vaijayanti | and from bhoja (p. 403), "karnayoruparistacca karnayosca samantatah | pitakam kurute rajan salukasadrsam sthiram | " and hence is later than about 1100 A. D. This commentary also quotes from ga (p. 402- ayurvedasya tasyasti praddurangani tadvidah | sarvebhyah prayasastebhyah ksudrarogah samucchritah " iti sresthadatte'pi ), from jatukarna (p. 405), dhanvantari (p. 407), susruta, sausruta (p. 407), manjari ( pp. 413, 401), kesava (p. 416 ). " | " 1. I am happy to find that my friend Mr. Nalininath Das Gupta (Indian Culture, Vol. III, p. 434) has already suggested this identity: "An author of a medical Nighantu or glossary, Indu by name is quoted not a few times by Ksirasvami attributed to the 2 nd half of the 11 th century in his reputed commentary on the Amarakosa. The Nighantu appears to have been lost but the name Indu is found to have been borne by a commentator of the Astangahrdaya of Vagbhata II. A Ms of Indu's commentary entitled Sasilekha, and perhaps the only one preserved, is in the Madras Government Collection (Triennial Catalogue, Madras, Vol. IV, Part I, Sanskrit B, p. 5142). That both the books are medical and that Indu is not a commonplace name amongst the Vaidyaka writers of ancient and early mediaval India tend to suggest that Indu, the author of the Nighantu is the same as the Commentator of the Astangahrdaya. But Indu is after all, a familiar name to us as being that of the father of Madhavakara, the celebrated author of the Nidanasamgraha and it may not improbably be that the writer of the above two works was but Indu, the father of Madhava-Kara". As Mr. Das Gupta assigns Mahava-Kara to the "Seventh Century" his father (Continued on next page)

Prof. Keith' regards the Astangahrdaya Samhita of Vagbhata II as probably the work of a Buddhist. We have suggested earlier in this paper that Indu was most probably the disciple of Vagbhata II as he refers to him as "acarya " and "guravah " If this position is accepted it is easy to understand the following passage in Indu's commentary:Vagbhata I in the Sutrasthana (chap. IV, p. 20) gives the following salutary advice:- 66 satvadyavastha vividhasva tastah samyak samiksyatmahitam vidadhyat | anyo'pi yah kascidihasti margah hitopadesesu bhajeta tam ca || " Indu explains the above verse as follows:- "satvarajastamasam nanavidhanavasthavisesan pariksyatmahitam karaniyam | dustara hi dharmapratibandhaka rajastamovikarah | tatha manubuddhadipranitesu hitopadesasastresu yo margo'sti tamapi seveta " It will be seen from the above text and its explanation by Indu that though in the text there is no suggestion of Buddhist philosophy or religion Indu specifies the text reference to c by explaining it to refer to manupranitasastra or buddhapranitasastra . This specification can be properly explained if we regard Indu as the pupil of a Buddhist, though himself embracing the Hindu faith. This tolerance to Buddhism engendered by his reverence towards a Buddhist guru looks quite natural. Vagbhata I, however, includes enfor among 108 auspicious things 2 which have nothing to do with Buddhist religion. (Continued from previous page) Indu, (as suggested by Mr. Das Gupta above) will have to be assigned to the 7 th Century. As against 8 th or 9 th Century for Vagbhata II suggested by Dr. Hoernle Mr. Das Gupta suggests 7 th Century at the latest for Vagbhata II [Vide Vol. III (1929) p. 795 of History of Indian Medicine by Girindranath Mukharjee ]. This line of argument will make Indu, his son Madhava-Kara and Vagbhata II as contemporary writers of the 7 th Century. Further as Indu criticizes Bhattaraka Haricandra in his Sasilekha Haricandra also may be a contemporary of Indu or some-what earlier than Indu. All these are, however, probabilities, which need to be verified by specialists in the field. " 1. Vide p. 510 of Sanskrit Literature, Oxford, 1928. 2. Vide p. 84 of Sarirasthana, Chapt. XII - 'jyotisam, dharmasastrani, tirthani kavyam, dharmarthakamamrtam valakhilyadayah vedavakyam ..... omkara punyahadharmakriyasvaita- dastottaram mangalanam satam darsanat sparsanat kirtanaccasubhani vyapohyarthasiddhim disantyuttamam "