27. Vagbhata, the author of the Astanga-hrdaya and his Commentators

In response to the request of the learned editor (Vaidya Hari Shastri Paradkar Bhisagacarya of Akola) of the present edition of the Astangahrdaya Samhita I have collected in this short introduction some information about Vagbhata the author of this popular work on medicine. Incidentally I have recorded all possible information in a brief manner about the commentators of this work to enable the reader to understand the work of this author in its proper historical perspective. In the preparation of this introduction my outlook has been mainly historical rather than technical as I don't claim any knowledge of the practical side of Indian Medicine as represented in the present work. Further, my introduction is intended to indicate the present stage of research connected with the authorship, history and chronology of the Astanga-hrdaya and its commentators and consequently I have consistently refused to be dogmatic on these matters, some of which are still in an unsettled state. With these preliminary remarks about the method adopted by me in the following study I proceed with the subject proper. I - ASTANGAHRDAYA AND ITS AUTHOR VAGBHATA The name is very commonly met with in the history of of Sanskrit literature.' We are here concerned with are the I Introduction to the Astangahrdaya, N. S. Press, Bombay, 1938, pp. 1-12. 1. Aufrecht in his Catalogus Catalogorum records the following names Part I, p. 559 -- (1) vagbhata father of tisata (author of cikitsakalika ); (2) vagbhata minister of malavendra, father of devesvara ( author of kavikalpalata ). (3) vagbhata author of a glossary of medical words called bahatanighantu . (Continued on next page) 171

author of the gingafar, which Dr. Hoernle' calls the compendium of the Essence of the Octopartite science" and which may be distinguished from the gla or the summary, (Continued from previous page) (4) vagbhata, son of nemikumara, the Jain author of works alamkaratilaka, chamdonusasana and its commentary, vagbhatalamkara, srrmgaratilakakavya ; (5) vagbhata, son of simhagupta, grandson of vagbhata, author of astamgahrdayasamhita, vamanakalpa, vagbhatiya ( on medicine ). (6) The following works are ascribed to but they may not be by the same author :- padarthacamdrika, bhavaprakasa, rasaratnasamuccaya ( Ed. by Bapat, Anandashram Press, Poona, 1890 - 2 nd edition, 1905) and sastradarpana . vrddhavagbhata is quoted in todaranamda and bhavaprakasa . A lexicon called vagbhatakosa is quoted in medinikara . (7) vagbhata, author of vagbhatalamkara . There is also a work called vagbhattamamdana ( on nyaya ) by naraharibhatta, son of sahadevabhatta . Part II, p. 132 a work called c is quoted by on yajnavalkya . Duff's Chronology of India (p. 136) has the following remarks about a who flourished in A. D. 1100:- "The author, jayamamgala, author of the kavisiksa and sripala author of vairocanaparajaya flourished under Jayasimha Siddharaja, fur being poet-laureate to him and his successor HTI "-Peterson Report, i, 68; Bhandarkar's Report 1883-84, 155-6; Epigraphia Indica, i, 295. Further on page 201 Vagbhata is mentioned in the following entry- a medical "1260 A. D. - The ayurvedarasayana, a commentary on a work by vagbhata and a commentary on bopadeva 's muktaphala, a work on Vaishnava doctrines are also ascribed to him" i.e. I, the author of the caturvargacintamani, who was srikaranadhipa ( chief secretary) to mahadeva, the Yadava king of Devagiri. 1. Osteology (Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I) Oxford, 1907, p. 7. 2. Prof. Keith in his History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 510, accepts this distinction between the two writers of the same name vagbhata .

author of which is another a, sometimes called by the Indian Dr. Hoernle commentators as "vrddhavagbhata " or vagbhata, the elder. names vrddhavagbhata as vagbhata I, while the author of the astamgahrdayasamhita is styled by him as vagbhata II. The astamgahrdayasamhita is based on the astamgasamgraha ' and reproduces it copiously. In the latter work az I has tried to gather and amalgamate the more or less conflicting medical systems current in his time, especially those of caraka and susruta . 2 1., chapter 40, verse 82 (1 st ed. vol. ii, p. 826):- " etatpathan samgrahabodhasaktah svabhyastakarma bhisagaprakampyah | akampayatyanya visalatamtrakrtabhiyogan yadi tanna citram || 82 || " 2. Dr. P. C. Ray: History of Hindu Chemistry, Vol. I, Calcutta (1902), Introduction p. XIII-"Vagbhata, the epitomiser of Charaka and Susruta mentions the works of Harita and Bhela, which were probably extant in his days." Burnell's Tanjore Catalogue, pt. I, pp. 63-65, contains a full analysis of Bhelasamhita. Dr. Burnell remarks: "The most superficial comparison shows how much Vagbhata was indebted to this ancient work." Page xvi - "The Charaka, the Susruta and the Bower MS and even the Astangahrdaya of Vagbhata have more or less a common basis or substratum." - " Page xviii Vagbhata in his Astangahrdaya makes copious extracts both from the Charaka and the Susruta. The latter must, therefore, have existed prior to the 9 th century A. D.......... The Vagbhata and the Nidana ( of Madhavakara) are simply summaries of Charaka and Susruta and were written at a time when the latter had become very old and were, therefore, studied by few experts and their abstracts were likely to be prized by the general practitioners." In the Z. D. M. G., Vol. 49, p. 184, Roth observes- "Udoy Chand Dutt in his Mate. Medica describes the work as a methodical and I believe he is orderly compilation from Charaka and Susruta. unjust to him; Vagbhata, who, of course, draws upon Susruta more is not so dependent" (trans. from German by my friend Dr. Hara Datta Sharma, M. A. Ph. D.).

Though a II is known to all the medical men of India and his compendium of medicine and surgery (the) is widely studied by well-known medical practitioners, yet, not much information is available about his time, place and personality. Some say that he is af himself. He is identified by some with one of the fourteen gems obtained when the ocean was churned. In the far he is described as the great sage of the Kaliyuga. Others regard him as the incarnation of . There is also a story current which describes him as a voluptuous Brahmin given to all sorts of revelries and lost in love with a lowcaste woman. The medical writers like madhava, sarngadhara, cakradatta and bhavamisra look upon vagbhata II as a great authority.2 Mr. Kunte records the following evidence to prove that II was not a Buddhist:- (1). Though some of the opening salutations to the divisions of the astamgahrdayasamhita are addressed either to Buddha or Buddhistic emblem we need not infer therefrom that az II was of Buddhistic persuasion because three-fourths of these opening salutations are addressed to gajanana . (2). In one place c II shows his aversion to Buddhas and says - "na caittham gacchet where the meaning of is explained by the commentators as "Buddha temple" or the "place of worship of the Buddhas." (3). In his precepts for the preservation of health II is a thorough Vedic Aryan and the Hats he recites are also Vedic. For all the foregoing reasons Mr. Kunte thinks that ar lived more under the Vedic than under Buddhistic or Brahmanical polity. "C Though a Vedic Arya, Vagbhata was influenced considerably by the teachings of Gautama Buddha. He seems to have flourished when Buddhism had asserted its power while that of the Vedas had not totally declined." " 1. 'atrih krtayuge caiva dvapare susruto matah | kalau vagbhatanama ca etc. " 2. Astanga-hrdaya with Arupadatta's Comm., Ed. by A. M. Kunte, Bombay, 1830, Intro. pp. 5-6.

Mr. Ganesh Sharma in the upodghata to his edition of the astamga- samgraha of vrddhavagbhata (p. 1 ) observes:- 1) 66 buddhaya tasmai namah ' ityadyuktatvadvagbhato bauddhamatanuyayyasiditi kesam- cinmatam tattu na samyak yatah arccayeddevagovipravrddhavaidyanrpatithin || atharvavihita samtih pratikula graharcanam || mataram pitaram devan vaidyanvipran haram harim | pujayecchila- ye danadamasatyadayarjavan " || ityadivagbhatavacananurodhat buddhasabdasya jnanavaniti arthaparatvacca vagbhato vaidikadharmanuyayi brahmana asinna bauddhamatanuyayityadhigamyate || " As regards the parentage of a II Mr. Kunte says it will be found in the last chapter of the uttaratamtra of the astamgasamgraha samhita . The pertinent verse reads as under:- " bhisagvaro vagbhata ityabhunme pitamaho namadharo'smi yasya | suto'bhavattasya ca simhagupta- stasyapyaham simdhusu jatajanma || " 2 "My grand-father's name was vagbhata, I was given his name, my father was fa, I was born in this country of the Sindhus." Evidently in assigning the above parentage to the author of the astamgahrdayasamhita Mr. Kunte has presumed the identity of the author of the astamgasamgraha viz. vagbhata I, and the author of the astamgahrdayasamhita viz. vagbhata II. This identity may be wrong in view of the fact pointed out by Dr. Hoernle that vagbhata II has based his work (astamgahrdaya- samhita ) on that of vagbhata I or vrddhavagbhata (astamgasamgraha ). Then again on p. 8 of his Introduction which contains Marathi translation of his remarks in English about 's parentage he has wrongly substituted the words "astamgahrdaya samhita '' instead of "astamgasamgrahasamhita " the last chapter of which contains the verse "bhisagvaro vagbhata ityabhut ...... simdhusu jatajanma ' as verified by us in the reference given by us in the foot-note from the edition of the astamgasamgraha of 1888. No edition of the astamgahrdayasamhita contains the verse in question. 1. Is this in astamgasamgraha or astamgahrdaya ? Mr. Kunte says it is in the astamgahrdaya . Perhaps Mr. Ganesh Sharma (1888 ) has based his remarks on Kunte's remarks of 1880. 2. Astargasamgraha, Ed. by Ganesh Sharma, Bombay, 1888, p. 420.

Mr. Kunte also quotes the popular couplet describing Vagbhata's power and proficiency:- " nidane madhavah sresthah sutrasthane tu vagbhatah | sarire susrutah proktah carakastucikitsite || || " As Mr. Kunte has presumed the identity of the two as he apparently makes the above verse applicable to c, the author of the gingar. The couplet, however, is not clear on this point. and it is doubtful whether by "a" the couplet means a ( or vrddhavagbhata ) or vagbhata II, who has based his treatise on that of az I. This question can be solved if we can prove the antiquity of the couplet quoted by Mr. Kunte. The colophons to the different chapters of the astamgahrdayasamhita of a II are also misleading as regards the parentage of the. author. For instance the colophon to the p. 850 of Vol. I of Kunte's edition of 1880 reads as under:- " iti srisimha gupta sunuvagbhataviracitayam astamgahrdayasamhitayam trtiyam nidana- sthanam samaptam " The " simhaguptasunuvagbhata " is evidently identical with vrddhavagbhata, the author of the astamgasamgraha and not of the astamgahrdayasamhita and the copyists in copying the MSS of the two works by authors of the name a may have indiscriminately added the expression 'f' to the name of I, while in fact there is no verse in the body of the astamgahrdayasamhita supporting this parentage for vagbhata II. 1 This parentage (f) is also found in the case of the author of the which is also ascribed to in the Colophons of MSS of this work (cf. India Office MS. No. 2175 - Des. Cata. Part V, p. 967). In the indroductory verses of this work verse 9 clearly states that the author of the Simhagupta ( simha guptasunu ) is the son of " rasanamamayannanam cikitsarthopayoginam | sununa simhaguptasya rasaratnasamuccayah || 9 || " (Vide p. 967 of Part V Ind. Office Cata.). If the above verse is a genuine part of the text we get three vagbhata s with the same parentage (simhaguptasunu ) - a circumstance which (Continued on next page)

-77 Prof. Keith, however, makes the following remarks about these two vagbhata s :- (1) "Both claim the same parentage in their works." ( 2 ) " vrddhavagbhata is the son of simhagupta and grand-son of vagbhata and his teacher was the Buddhist Avalokita." (3) The work of c was clearly used by the younger writer (author of far) whose Metrical form as contrasted with the prose mixed with verses of his predecessor (a) confirms his later date. (4) vrddhavagbhata was clearly a Buddhist and he may reasonably be identified with a man referred to by I-tsing as the author of a compendium of the eight topics of medicine. (5) bahata is the Prakrta form of vagbhata and samghagupta is the Prakrta form for simhagupta . (6) The younger agd was very possibly a descendant of the older (ar) though we have no proof for such a conjecture beyond the fact that it might explain their confusion. (7) The lat was probably the work of a Buddhist. It was translated into Tibetan and it could not be put more than a century after the astamgasamgraha . (8) Both the vagbhata s agree in citing caraka and susruta . (Continued from previous page) in itself is highly suspicious and raises doubts about the authenticity of this parentage ascribed to no less than three authors of the same name. According to Sir P. C. Ray the is contemporaneous with Roger Bacon who died in A. D. 1294 (Vide p. Ivi of History of Hindu Chemistry, Vol. I, Calcutta, 1902). If this view is correct the author of the cannot be identical with the author of the inspite of the alleged identity of name and parentage. Mr. Durgashankar Kevalaram Shastri expresses the same view as above against the traditionally accepted view about the identity of the three Vagbhatas (Vide foot-note 31 on p. 258 of Prabandha Chintamani, Gujarati Trans. Bombay, 1934). 1. History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 510. 8.I.L.H.12

Dr. P. C. Ray' regards Vagbhata, the author of the Astangahydaya as the highest medical authority next to Caraka and Susruta. "In many parts of the Deccan the very names of Caraka and Susruta were forgotten and Vagbhata is looked upon as a revealed author and this is one of the reasons which led Haas to conclude that the former succeeded and owed their inspiration to the latter." The Astangahrdaya contains little or nothing that is original. It is merely an epitome of the Caraka and the Susruta with some gleanings from the works of Bhela and Harita. In surgery alone the author introduces certain modifications and additions. Mineral and natural salts chiefly figure in the prescriptions along with vegetable drugs; mercury is incidentally mentioned but in such a perfunctory manner that it would not be safe to conclude that any compounds thereof are referred to. There are, however, a few metallic preparations recommended in it which would presuppose an advanced knowledge of chemical processes. " Regarding the religious faith of Vagbhata Dr. Ray observes :- "There is a tradition current among the learned Pandits of Southern India that Vagbhata, formerly a Brahmin, was persuaded by a Buddha. priest to adopt his religion which he embraced in the latter part of his life.³ The internal evidence also fully supports our author's proclivities towards Buddhism." Date of Vagbhata II The Chinese pilgrim I'tsing speaks of a compiler of the eight divisions of the Ayurveda :-"These eight parts formerly existed in eight books, but lately a man epitomised them and made them into one bundle."4 This reference may give us some idea about the date of 1. History of Hindu Chemistry, Vol. I (1902), Intro. pp. xvi. xvii. 2. Z. D. M. G. Vol. 31, p. 649. 3. Preface to Vaidyakasabdasindhu, p. 6. 4. I'Tsing Records of the Buddhist Religion, Trans. by Takakusu, p. 128.

COMMENTATORS. 179 Vagbhata, the author of the Astanga-hrdaya, presuming that I'tsing alludes to Vagbhata II in the foregoing lines. Dr. P. Cordier thinks that Vagbhata lived at the time of king Jayasimha (1196-1218 A. D.) on the authority of the Rajatarangini but this view is untenable as observed by Dr. Ray because Kalhana's dates are not always feliable. "Cosma de koros was the first to announce that the Thibetan Tanjur contains among others, translations of the Charaka, the Susruta and the Vagbhata.' 1 "George Huth who has critically examined the contents of the Tanjur concludes that the most recent date at which this Tanjur can be placed is 8 th century A. D.2 This is in agreement with the fact that the Vagbhata was one of the medical works translated by order of the Caliphs. But no positive information as regards the most distant date is yet available.³ Kunte from internal evidence is inclined to place him at least as early as the second century before Christ. " According to Dr. Hoernle Vagbhata II or the author of the Astangahrdaya belongs to 8 th or 9 th century A. D. At any rate he is not later than 1060 A. D., the date of Cakrapanidatta. The grounds on which Dr. Hoernle bases his chronology for Vagbhata II may be briefly stated as under:- (1) Vagbhata I, according to Dr. Hoernle may be assigned to early seventh century or about 625 A. D.5 (2) Madhava, Drdhabala and Vagbhata II are all of them posterior to Vagbhata I. 1. Journal of the Asiatic Society, xxxvii, (1835). 2. Z. D. M. G., T. lxis, pp. 279-284. 3. Regarding the bibliography of Vagbhata see two short monographs by Dr. Palmyr Cordier; also Julius Jolly; Zur Quellenkunde der Indischen Medicin, I. 'Vagbhata,' Zeit. Deut. Morg. Ges. LIV pp. 260-74. 4. Osteology, Oxford, 1907, Intro. p. 5. Ibid, Intro. p. 11. 16.

(3) Madhava cites Vagbhata by name' and also quotes from him anonymously. Drdhabala, though he does not name Vagbhata I as his authority, quotes from him very frequently.2 (4) Madhava, Drdhabala and Vagbhata II are anterior to Cakrapanidatta whose date is about 1060 A. D. Cakrapanidatta names Drdhabala and quotes him as the author of the last section (f) of Caraka's compendium. Vagbhata II is quoted many times by name in Cakrapanidatta's commentary on Caraka's compendium." Madhava is anterior to Cakrapanidatta as he precedes both Drdhabala and Vagbhata II. These three authors, according to Dr. Hoernle, must be placed somewhere between the 7 th and 11 th centuries A. D. (5) According to evidence collected by Prof. Jolly' the Arabic sources point to 7 th or 8 th century for Madhava and the Tibetan and other sources point to 8 th or 9 th century for Vagbhata II. Drdhabala takes his place between Madhava and Vagbhata II. In any case none of these authors (Madhava, Drdhabala and Vagbhata II) can be later than c. 1060 A. D., the date of Cakrapanidatta. 1. By name in Siddhayoga i, 27. Cf. Samgraha vol. ii. p. 1, line 8. Quoted in Nidana (ed. Jiv.) ii, 22, 23; cf. Samgraha vol. i p. 266, lines 2-5. 2. See Osteology, Intro. p. 12, foot-note 2. 3. See Cakrapanidatta's Comm. in Tubingen MS No. 463, fol. 534.b 4. See Osteoloy, Intro. p. 12, foot-note 5. 5. Ibid, foot-note 6. 6. See Osteology, p. 13. 7. Indian Medicine, § 5, 6, pp. 7-9. 8. Osteology, Intro. p. 16.

The popularity of the Astangahrdaya as a work of highest. medical authority next to Caraka and Susruta found for it many commentators of repute. Many MSS of their commentaries are now available in several public libraries in India and outside. It would, however, be useful to record here a complete list of these commentaries and the MS material available with regard to each of them in the different libraries :- - (1) Arunadatta's Sarvangasundari (2) Hemadri's Ayurvedarasayana.* (3) Commentary by Asadhara.³ 1. Aufrecht records the following MSS in his Catalogus Catalogorum:Part I, 35-36- Comm. on Sutrasthana I. O. 985; on Sarirasthana B. 4, 218; on Nidanasthana B. 4, 218; on Cikitsasthana B. 4. 218; on Kalpasthana-B. 4. 218 and I. O. 2445; W. p, 280, 281; Oxf.. 3036; K. 222; Bik 629; Radh 32; Burnell 65"; P. 15.; Taylor 1. 254; Oppert I, 2730, 8328, II, 6493; Peters 3, 399; I. O. 985. Part II, p. 7-Stein 181 (adhyayas 1-30, and Uttarasthana 8-16). Part III p. 8- BC. 12; Tb. 150 (Uttarasthana). Aufrecht records the name of the commentary as Sarvangasundari while in the present edition Pt. Paradkar Shastri adopts the name Sundara. Presumably this reading must have some MS basis. 2. Aufrecht in his Cata. Catalogorum records the following MSS:- Part I, p. 36 W. p. 280; K. 210; Bik 632; Radh. 32; and p. 773 NP. I, 14; Bhr 366; Oppert 2758; Peters 2, 196; BP. 86, 274, 373; Oppert 4092. Part II, p. 7- BL 245 ( Sutrasthana); 10 927-(-Do-) Stein 181 (Sutrasthana 1-7). Part III, p. 9- Hpr. 2, 266; Tb. 151 (Sutrasthana). 3. Aufrecht makes the following entry in his Cata. Catalogorum re. Asadhara :- (Continued on next page)

(4) Candracandana's Padarthacandrika.' (5) Commentary by Ramanatha² (6) Commentary by Todaramalla³ (7) A Commentary called Pathya." (Continued from previous page) Part I, p. 36-Peters. 2, 86-Peterson does not record any MS but only mentions that Asadhara wrote a commentary called Uddyota on Vagbhata's Astangahrdaya. This commentary is one of the eleven works of Asadhara recorded by Peterson. A. was a Jain teacher who lived in A. D. 1240 ( = Samvat 1296). His native country was Sapadalakshaya. Owing to this country being overrun by Mleccha took refuge in Dhara, King, A. ran for safety to Malava and where he was received with enthusiasm by (the lord of poets) Bilhana, the chief minister of Vijayavarma, the king of Malava. The foregoing information is recorded in a valuable prasasti to the Dharmamrta of Asadhara, 2 MSS of which are available in the Govt. MSS library at the B. O. R. Institute. Peterson calls Asadhara as "Jain admirable Crichton." As Asadhara was a commentator and was very learned apparently a senior contemporary of Hemadri (about 1260 A. D.) his commentary on the Astangahrdaya must have been a valuable one. Aufrecht, however, records no MSS of this commentary. If any to the commenMSS are found they will prove a valuable addition tarial literature on the Astangahrdaya. I See Aufrecht: Cata Catalo. Part III, p. 9. The correct name of this commentator is (see Cordier in Journ. Asia. 1901, camdranamdana p. 185). Aufrecht records the following MSS. in his Cata. Catalogorum :Part I, p. 36-K. 214; Peters. 1. 113. 2. Cata. Catalogorum, Part I, p. 36 - I, O. 985; N. W. 584. 3. Todaramalla was the Hindu financier of Emperor Akbar (1556-1605)-See Imp. Gaze. (1928-New Edition) vol. II, p. 399. Cata, Catalogorum, Part II, p. 7- Nidanasthana and comm. by Todaramalla, Peters. 3, 39. 4. See Cata. Catalogorum. Part III, p. 8- BC. 395.

(8) A Commentary called Hrdayaprabodhika.' (9) A Commentary by Bhatta Narahari or Nrsimhakavi. (10) Samketamanjari by Damodara.3 183 Of the ten commentaries mentioned above we are concerned at present with those of Arunadatta and Hemadri which have been printed in this edition along with the text of the Astanga-hrdaya. Several editions of the text have been published but the commentaries on the same with the exception of that of Arunadatta have not been published so far. In the present edition Pt. Paradkar Shastri of Akola has included the unpublished commentary of Hemadri with different readings of the text and both the commentaries from 20/25 MSS procured from different places. The readings of the text (Astanga-hrdaya-samhita) have been carefully checked and verified by him with reference to the text of the Carakasamhita, Susrutasamhita and Astangasamgraha. The text of Hemadri's commentary on the Nidanasthana and the Cikitsasthana of the Astanga-hrdaya has been based only on a single rare MS procured with great difficulty by Pt. Paradkar Shastri. A close student of the present edition will also find in the elaborate footnotes, extracts 1. See Cata. Catalogorum, Part III, p. 8-BC. 279 (inc) Part I, p. 36 The Balaprabodhika and Hydayaprabodhika commentaries are mentioned Burnell 65" - 2. Cata. Catalogorum, Part III, p. 8-Vagbhata Khandanamandana by Bhatta Narahari or Nrsimhakavi, son of Bhatta Sivadeva (Cordier in Journal Asiatique, 1901, p. 187). 3. Cata. Catalogorum, Part I, p. 773- W. p. 281 (fr.). 4. The following editions of the Astangahrdaya have been published so far :- - (i) By Pandit Jivananda Vidyasagara, Calcutta, Sarasvati Press, 1882. (ii) - Do 2 nd edition, 1890. - (iii) By Ganesh Sakharam Sarma, Bombay, 1889, (Ganpat Krishnaji Press). (iv) By Shankar Daji Shastri Pade, N. S. Press 1900, Bombay. - (v) By Anna Moreshwar Kunte text with comm. of Arunadatta, 2 vols. Ganpat Krishnaji Press, Bombay, 1880. - (vi) Fourth Edition, 1 st vol. Bombay, 1912, N. S. Press.

from the MSS of the unpublished commentaries of the Astangahrdaya like the Padarthacandrika of Candranandana and the commentary by Todarmalla etc. Pt. Paradkar Shatri has tried his best to make the present edition as much scholarly as possible. All students of the history of Indian Medicine should, therefore, be grateful to him and the N. S. press for bringing out the present edition involving much scholarly labour and expense. Arunadatta Arunadatta was the son of Mrgankadatta.' Mr. Nalini Nath Das Gupta includes this commentary on the Astangahrdaya among the Vaidyaka works of Bengal in the Early Mediaeval period and observes :-"Probably to the early part of the thirteenth century belonged Arunadatta, son of Mrgankadatta and the author of a learned commentary on the Astangahrdaya of Vagbhata II. A commentary on the Susruta Samhita is also ascribed to him (Cata. of Sans. MSS in the Private Libraries of the N. W. Prov. part I, Benares, 1874, 586). An Arunadatta is found quoted, as a lexicographer and grammarian in Brhaspati Rayamukuta's commentary on the Amarakosa (1431 A. D.) (R. G. Bhandarkar's Report on Search of Sanskrit MSS, 1883-84, p. 467) as also in the Tikasarvasva commentary on the same by Sarvananda-Vandyaghatiya (1159 A.D.), but whether he is not different from the physician Arunadatta is very difficult to divine at present. One of the theories of the latter, however, regarding the structure of the eye is controverted by Vijaya-Raksita (c. 1240 A.D.) whence Dr. Hoernle assigns him to about 1220 A. D. (Hoernle: Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I ( Osteology), p. 17)." Aufrecht³ records the following namesakes of Arunadatta:- 1. The colophons of the different chapters of the commentary record the name mrgankadatta ( cf. srimrgankadattaputra srimada danadattaviracitayam astamga . c) while in verse 3 of chapter I of his commentary he gives his father's name as :- " srimanmrgankatanayastikamastangahrdayasya | srimanarunah kurute samyagdrastuh padarthabodhaya || 3|| " 2. See his article on "The Vaidyaka Works of Bengal in the early Medieval Period" (Indian Culture, Vol. II, No. 1, page 159). 3. Cata. Catalogorum, Part I, p. 30.

"arunadatta - lexicographer and grammarian. Quoted by Ujjvaladatta and Rayamukuta. See Ganaratnamahodadhi, p. 119. arunadatta 6108." Manusyalaya Candrika, archi. Oppert 2658, 2942, As Ujjvaladatta's Vrtti on the Unadisutras of Panini has been assigned by Aufrecht' to circa 1250, Arunadatta, the lexicographer and grammarian must have flourished before A. D. 1250. The question of the identity of the namesakes of Arunadatta is still a matter for investigation and the only fact about which we are certain is that three persons of the same name viz. Arunadatta, wrote on four different subjects viz. Medicine, Lexicography, grammar and architecture.. The relative chronology of Arunadatta and two of his successors who were not far removed from him in point of time has been given by Dr. Hoernle on evidence which is as follows:- (1) Vacaspati wrote a commentary called Atanka Darpana (i.e. Mirror of Diseases) on the Nidana ( Pathology) of Madhava. (2) Vijayaraksita and his pupil Srikanthadatta jointly wrote a commentary called Madhukosa (Receptacle of Honey) on the Nidana of Madhava. (3) Vacaspati states in verse 4 of his Introduction to the Atankadarpana that he consulted the Madhukosa for the purpose of writing his own commentary. (4) Vijayaraksita controverts a certain doctrine of Arunadatta regarding the structure of the eye (see Atankadarpana, Uttarasthana, chapter xii, verse 1 of 1 st Ed. Vol. ii, p. 516 ). (5) Vacaspati states in verse 5 of his Introduction that his father Pramoda was chief physician at the court of Muhammad Hammira, who is identical with the celebrated Muhamad Ghori who reigned in Delhi from 1193 to 1205 A. D. (6) Vijayaraksita quotes Gunakara³ who wrote the Yogaratnamala in 1239 A. D. (See verse 7 on page 68 of Jivananda's Ed.). 1. Belvalkar Systems of Sanskrit Grammar, Poona, 1915, p. 54. 2. Osteology, Intro. p. 17. 3. Peterson's Report 1886-92, p. xxvi.

On the basis of the above evidence Dr. Hoernle concludes that- (i) Arunadatta flourished about 1220 A. D. (ii) Vijayaraksita (iii) Vacaspati 1240 A. D. " >> 1260 A. D. 39 " Hemadri Hemadri's name is familiar to us on account of his magnum opus viz. the Caturvargacintamani which Prof. Keith' describes as "written between 1260 and 1309 for Yadava princes." In this book Hemadri "sets out in enormous detail rules of vows and offerings, pilgrimages, the attainment of release, and offerings to the dead. This text is exceptionally rich in Smrti citations in extenso...' " Aufrecht 2 makes the following entries about Hemadri and his works in his Catalogue:- "Son of Kamadeva, son of Vasudeva, son of Vamana, lived under king Mahadeva (1260-71) of Devagiri, son of Caitrapala and under his successor Ramacandra (1271-1309). See Parisesakhanda, 1, p. 4. He is quoted for the first time by Vopadeva, then in the Kalamadhava and Madanaparijata." His works: (1) Ayurvedarasayana. (2) Kaivalyadipika (Muktaphalatika). (3) Caturvargacintamani. (4) Comm. on Saunaka's Pranavakalpa. (5) Sraddhapaddhati. (6) Hemadriprayoga. (7) Nanasantayah (from Santikhanda). 1. History of Sanskrit Literature, Oxford, 1928, p. 448. 2. Catalogus Catalogorum, Part I, p. 768 and Part III, p. 52. 2 Mr. K. A. Padhye gives the following works as Hemadri's :- (1) Caturvargacintamani. (2) Kalanirnaya. (3) Kalanirnaya Sanksepa. (Continued on next page)

This Hemadri is different from bhattahemadri, son of isvarasuri, author of Raghuvamsadarpana ( commentary on the Raghuvamsa).' A work called fattia on dharma by Hemadri ( AK. 437) has also been recorded by Aufrecht. In the commentary on the Astangahrdaya viz. the Ayurvedarasayana, Hemadri gives in the first nine verses some information 2 about himself. He calls himself Hemadri, the author of the Caturvargacintamani (v. 2). For the proper performance of the vows etc. mentioned in the Caturvargacintamani good health is necessary and the commentary Ayurvedarasayana has been written with a view to facilitate the attainment of such good health. This commentary (Continued from previous page) (4) Tithinirnaya. (5) Kaivalyadipika. (6) Ayurvedarasayana. (7) Danavakyavali. (8) Parjanyaprayoga. (9) Pratistha. (10) Laksanasamuccaya. (11) Hemadrinibandha. (12) (13) Tristhalavidhi. Arthakanda. Vide Life of Hemadri (Bombay 1931), p. 33. 1. See my note XV on the Date of Hemadri's commentary on the Raghuvamsa in the Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute, Vol. XIV, pp. 126-28. Bhatta Hemadri in his commentary on Canto XIII, 52 and Canto VII, 37, 51 of the Raghuvamsa, mentions the As Bhatta Hemadri quotes from the Prakriyakaumudi of Ramacandra (between 1350 and 1400) his commentary has been assigned by me to the first half of the 15 th century. 2. See also Early History of India by V. A. Smith (1924), p. 452"The celebrated Sanskrit writer Hemadri popularly known as Hemadapant flourished during the reigns of Ramacandra and his predecessor Mahadeva. He devoted himself chiefly to the systematic redaction of Hindu religious practices and observances and with this object compiled important works upon Hindu sacred law. He is alleged although erroneously to have introduced a form of current script, the Modi, from Ceylon and has given a valuable historical sketch of his patron's dynasty in the introduction to one of his books.' "

follows the views of earlier medical writers viz. caraka, harita, susruta and others (v. 3). It does not repeat what has already been said by commentators like fand others on Caraka and and others on Susruta (v 4). Hemadri also mentions his relation with his patron king Ramacandra of Devagiri (verses 5 and 6). It appears from the above account that Hemadri's Ayurvedarasayana is later than his work Caturvargacintamani as the latter is referred to in the former. This reference gives us the relative chronology of the two works. Prof. P. V. Kane' assigns the composition of the Caturvargacintamani to a period of ten years (1260 to 1270 A. D.) because in the Caturvargacintamani Hemadri is said to be the keeper of the state records of Mahadeva, who reigned from 1260-1271 A. D. Prof. Kane further observes:-"There are contemporary records available showing that Hemadri was in high favour not only with Mahadeva but also with his successor Ramacandra." These remarks receive additional corroboration from the following two verses in the beginning of the Ayurvedarasayana:- 'desabhramsabhayadvicalya layinah snehaih pratapaih param 66 pradravya prasrtan pravesya parito durgodaram vaktatah | urdhvadhogati nirgamayya madanairdansyadibhirvidviso dosanadradhi ramarajyamagadankarena hemadrina || 5 || hemadrinama ramasya rajnah srikaranesvadhi | nanubhau bhagavannistasadgunyakaranesvadhi || 6 || " The above verses clearly refer to the eminent position Hemadri held under King Ramacandra of Devagiri (1271-1309 A.D.). Evidently the Ayurvedarasayana must have been composed between 1271-1309 A. D. when as a minister of Ramacandra he strived for the solidarity of the kingdom. The exact date of composition of the Ayurvedarasayna must, however, await further investigation, because no MSS of the complete commentary of Hemadri on all 1. History of Dharmasastra Literature, Vol. I, 1930, p. 357- "The Thana plate of Ramacandra (dated Saka 1194 i.e. 1272 A. D.) ...describes Hemadri as one who had attained a pre-eminent position in the government through the favour of Ramacandra and as one who was in charge of all state records and was the foremost minister" samastakaranadhipatyamangikurvane ca nirjitajhadimandale mantricudamanau gugaratnarohanadrau hemadri etc. " )

the sthanas of the Astangahrdaya have yet been made available to the editor of the present edition of the Astangahrdaya. For more information about Hemadri and the Yadavas of Devagiri we have to invite the attention of our readers to section 87 of Prof. Kane's History of Dharmasastra, Vol. I (pp. 354-359) from which the following lines are noteworthy :- "Hemadri also wrote a commentary called Ayurvedarasayana. ... Altogether Hemadri was a towering personality. His name is associated throughout the Maratha country with the construction of numerous temples having a peculiar style of architecture. He is slso credited with having invented the Modi script." Mr. K. A. Padhye has also published a Life of Hemadri' (in Marathi) which is replete with information about Hemadri and his times and can, therefore, be read with profit. In particular chapter II, which deals with Hemadri's literary productions will be found interesting. In his remarks about Ayurvedarasayana (1) Mr. Padhye refers to Mr. Kunte's statement that Hemadri wrote a commentary on the Sutrasthana and Kalpasthana and then (2) throws out a suggestion that some contemporary learned physician patronized by Hemadri may have written the Ayurvedarasayana. (3) Mr. Padhye also states that Arunadatta in his commentary on the Astangahrdaya does not refer to Hemadri. With regard to these remarks of Mr. Padhye we have to observe as follows:- (1) The present editition of the Astangahrdaya contains Hemadri's commentary not only on the Sutrasthana and Kalpasthana but on some portion of the Cikitsasthana and Nidanasthana also, though it is difficult to find MSS of the commentary for other sthanas. Perhaps a thorough search for these MSS will have to be made before concluding that Hemadri did not complete his commentary on all the parts of the Astangahrdaya. Mr. Kunte's statement was obviously made in 1880 on a partial survey of MSS material for this commentary, when Aufrecht's Catalogus Catalogorum (1891-1903) was not available to him. (2) As Arunadatta has been assigned to about 1220 A. D. and as Hemadri flourished between 1260 and 1309 A. D. the absence of any reference to Hemadri in Arunadatta's commentary pointed out by Mr. Padhye is easily explained. On the contrary Hemadri men- 1. Life of Hemadri, February 1931 (Bombay).

tions Arunadatta (vide p. 136 - "madhu ksaudram 'maikam ' iti arunadattah and " maireyo ...' kharjurasavah ' iti arunadattah ." ). (3) The hypothesis of a learned physician writing the Ayurvedarasayana for his patron Hemadri is contradicted by Hemadri's own statement in the introductory verses of Ayurvedarasayana published in the present edition (verses 2 and 8) wherein he clearly states that Hemadri, the author of the Caturvargacintamani composed this commentary on the Astanga-hrdaya and if Mr. Padhye does not doubt Hemadri's authorship of his work on Dharmasastra he cannot in fairness to the versatile intellect of Hemadri doubt his authorship of a work on Vaidyaka. In addition to the statement regarding authorship made in the introductory verses we find the following verse at the end of his commentary on verse 105 of chapter 6 of the Sutrasthana wherein two readings in the text are discussed quite in the style of a modern textual critic (page 108) :- 66 bahubhih pathayamanasya pathasyeyam samarthana | hemadrina krta kintu tundaluriti pathyatam || " Then again at the end of his commentary on different chapters of the text we find the following statement repeated:- 66 iti hemadvitikayamayurvedarasayane etc. " Since this Introduction was written two publications pertaining to the Astanga-hrdaya have been published. One of these is a German Translation of the Astangahrdaya Samhita by Luise Hilgenburg and Wilibald Kirfel, which is being published in fascicules by the firm of E. J. Brill of Leiden (Holland). Up to now four fascicules (pp. 1 to 256) have been published. The Translators have given at times some Text-Critical notes which may be useful for a subsequent Critical edition of the Samhita.- The other work is The Ashtanga Hridaya Kosha by K. M. Vaidya of Valapad (South Malbar) 1936. This is a Dictionary of technical terms used in the text of the Astangahrdaya Samhita. (For a detailed notice of this Kosa vide The Oriental Literary Digest, Poona (May 1938 issue), Columns 5-7).