Indological Truths

SCIENCE AND SOCIETY

IN
ANCIENT INDIA

DEBIPRASAD CHATTOPADHYAYA

RESEARCH INDIA PUBLICATIONS

CALCUTTA

Indological Truths
By the same author
Lokayata : A Study in Ancient Indian Materialism
Indian Philosophy: A Popular Introduction
Indian Atheism : A Marxist Analysis
What is Living and What is Dead in Indian Philosophy

Indological Truths
S a E N C E AND SOCIETY
IN
ANCIENT INDIA

Indological Truths
Indological Truths
 The book was originally planned to have three parts—the third
discussing the sources of the Nyaya-Vai^esika philosophy in the
theoretical fundamentals of ancient Indian medicine. On later
consideration, I have decided to publish the third part in the
form of a separate monograph, for it is too full of technical
'details to sustain the interest of the general readers.
The present study is intended to supplement my recently publi­
shed What is Living and What is Dead in Indian Philosophy,
Nevv Delhi, 1976. I have worked on both these books as a
research fellow of the INDIAN COUNCIL OF HISTORICAL
RESEARCH, New Delhi. While accepting full responsibility
for the views expressed in these as well as for the data on which
the views are based, I am anxious to explain that without the
financial support of the ICHR, it would have been impossible
for me to work full-time on these books. I am extremely grate­
ful to Professor R.S. Sharma and Professor Barun De for the
personal interest kindly taken by them in my work.
I had the opportunity of presenting the main theme of the pre­
sent work in the form of an extension lecture at the National
Library, Calcutta. Presiding over it. Professor Niharranjan
Ray made a number of observations which helped me to modify
some of my main points as well as to reemphasise some others.
I am also indebted to the colleagues of Bangalore University for
discussion of my main argument, which I had the opportunity
of presenting again at Bangalore while delivering an extension
lecture there.
While working on the present book, I had to depend much on
D r Mrinalkanti Gangopadhyaya of the Calcutta University, who
has helped me with Sanskrit texts. I am thankful to Sri Arun
Ghosh for preparing the Index and to Sm Kakoli Bose for
secretarial assistance. In the matter of editing the manuscript
and brushing up its language, the most arduous work has been
that of Sri Radhamohan Bhattacharyya, whom it is impossible
for me to thank enough.
Calcutta
August 15,1977 Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya

Indological Truths
References in foot-notes are to works eited in the Bibliography. When
more than one work by the same author are listed ifl it, the foot-notes
mention the author’s name followed by the initials o f the title in roman
capital. In other cases, only the author is mentioned in the notes.
Abbreviations used for Sanskrit and Pali works, as well as for journals
and general reference books, are explained in the Bibliography.
Numerations used for Caraka-samhita refer to its Gulabkunverba edition
(Jamnagar, 1949) and for Susruta-samhita to its Kasi Sanskrit Series
edition (abbreviated as KSS-ed), 1972.
B and M are used respectively for English translations o f Susruta-samhita
by Bhisagratna and of Caraka-sarrihita edited by Mehta and others.

.:i- i;-

Indological Truths
 CONTENTS

Preface & Acknowledgements

Abbreviations

INTRODUCTION
Plan of the Work 1 The Argument 3 The Sources 19

Book I
SCIENCE & COUNTER-IDEOLOGY
Chapter 1
SCIENCE

Preliminary Remarks 49 Man or Purusa 51 Man and

Nature 53 Prehistory of the View of Man and Nature 55
Man and N a tu re : Physician’s View 59 Interconnections
in Nature 62 Materialist World-view 65 Transformation
of M atter 75 Concept of ‘Life’ 79 Empirical Basis 81
Knowledge of Substances 85 Extension of Sense-
knowledge : Diagnosis 88 Dissection of Corpse 94 The
Ancient Greek Doctors 100 Knowledge and Intervention;
India & Greece 102 Perpetual Flux 125 Science and
Philosophy; Greece & India 128 Theory and Therapeutic
Technique 137 Samanya and ViSesa 140 General
Description of Medical Theory 142 Meaning of the Medical
Formula 145 Understanding the Substances : Dravya,
Guna, Karma & Samavaya 149 Bharadvaja : An Early
Theoretician 153 Diseases : Vayu, Pitta and Kapha 156
Drugs : Rasa, Yirya, Vipaka & Prabhava 158 Laws of
N ature: Knowledge & Power 175 Defence of Medicine 188
Methodology & Epistemology 201 Science and Humanism 209

Chapter 2
COUNTER-IDEOLOGY

Preliminary Remarks 212 Law-givers’ Contempt for Doc­

tors 212 Nature and Sources of Law-codes 221 From
Rgveda to Brahmana-s ; Birth of Counter-ideology 225 Early
Rgvedic Period 232 Healing & Healers in Rgveda 234 ASvins,
the Divine Physicians 239 Censuring the Ancient Gods :
Talttirlya-samhita 241 Other Recensions of Black Yajurveda 244

Indological Truths
Tradition of White Yajurveda : Satapatha Brahmana 246
ASvins in Mahabharata 249 Concealing the Counter­
ideology : Cobwebs of Pedantry 250 Science Replaced by
Mythological Metaphysics 261 Stricture on Direct Know­
ledge 269 Upanisads : Metaphysics Militating against
Science 276 The Ideological Underworld 286 Uddalaka
A ru n i; Science in Hostile Ideological Climate 290 Vedic
and Medical Tradition : Atharvaveda 306 Magico-Religious
Therapeutics to Rational Therapeutics 314 The Chronologi­
cal Question 320 Evidence of the Vinaya-pitaka 323
Medicine in Buddhist India 328 Legend of Jivaka 338
Medicine and Karma : Milindapanha 341 Science and
Political Safety : Brahmagupta 355

Book II
THE SOURCE-BOOKS RE-EXAMINED
Chapter 3
CARAKA-SAMHITA : A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Preliminary Remarks 363 Criterion for Identifying What

is Extrinsic to Medicine 365 The Specific Medical Context
370 Salvation Superimposed on Healing 372 Metaphysical
Correlates 375 Food : Extra-medical vs. Medical View 380
Medical Ethics & Traditional Morality 387 Absolute &
the Relative : Yukti or Dialectics 390 Alcohol and Alcohol­
ism 391 Loyalty to the Law-givers 39' Counter-ideology
with Hook, Line & Sinker 400 Fallacy of Contradiction 402
Converting a Heretic : Bharadvaja. 404 Summing Up 424
Bibliography 427
Index 431

Indological Truths
 INTRODUCTION

1. PLAN OF THE WORK

The present study is divided into three parts, intended to

answer three main questions. Despite ramifications, the ques­
tions are interconnected and may be viewed as three aspects of
one basic question, namely that of the tension in ancient India
between science and its opposite. From the viewpoint of science,
the latter is referred to as the counter-ideology.
The first part of the study discusses the question of science
and its decline in ancient India. It begins with a brief sketch of
some of the prominent theoretical achievements of Indian science
during its creative period. This is followed by an account of
how the ideological requirements of the hierarchical society
militate against these and finally stifle science.
At the present stage of research, however, the propositions
from which the discussion starts may appear to be highly contro­
versial. The real theoretical achievements of ancient Indian
science are on the whole ignored and are sometimes even grossly
misunderstood. An important reason for this is apparently
peculiar. These achievements remain strangely muddled with
many features of the counter-ideology even in the source-books
of Indian science, i.e. in the form in which these reach us.
Anything found in these sources therefore cannot be taken on its
face-value, as indicative of science proper. It is neccessary to
raise the rather unusual question : What is intrinsic and what
is extrinsic to Indian science even in the extant basic works of it ?
A good deal of textual analysis is needed to answer this. In
1
Indological Truths
order not to be arbitrary, however, the analysis presupposes a
clear criterion for the differentiation.
What then is this criterion ? This is sought to be answered
in the second part of the present study, in which—depending on
the criterion settled—an attempt is made to re-explore some of
the more important source-books of Indian science.
Logically speaking, the present study should have begun with
this textual analysis, on the legitimacy of which hinges its central
argument. The only reason for putting it off for the second part
is consideration of communicational advantage. Long digressions
into textual details make it exceedingly difiicult to bring the cen­
tral argument into focus, without which the reader’s interest in a
book is not easily sustained.
But what accounts for the strange form in which the source­
books of Indian science reach us ? Why, in other words, all
sorts of alien ideas and attitudes remain mixed up with science
in these texts ? This is answered partly in the first and partly
also in the second part of the present study. The alien elements
are of the nature of later grafts, and the grafts take place some­
times before these works attain their present form.
The motivation—conscious or unconscious—of grafting these on
works of science may be inferred from their very nature. These
are hostages given to the counter-ideology, when the law-givers’
demand for it becomes increasingly oppressive. This does not
rule out the possibility that the tendency of accommodating the
counter-ideology within science results in course of time in a
situation in which the former also becomes a part of the make-
believe of the scientists. When this takes place, the scientists
behave like split-personalities ; while accepting science they
also prostrate themselves before its opposite. The tradition set
up by them continues to create formidable difficulties for the
development of science in India today.i But that is another
story, into which we need not at present digress.
In the ancient period, the hostages given to the counter­
ideology presumably helped the scientists to evade at least par-

1. See Chattopadhyaya in IM ILL (ed. Nayak) 41if.

Indological Truths
tially the censorship of the law-givers. The works of science
would not have perhaps otherwise survived, as in fact those of
the plain-speaking heretics called the Lokayatas did not.® But
these also crippled and maimed science. Its internal decay and
eventual collapse are largely due to these.
But what happens to the theoretical positions once gained by
science ? These are not entirely lost. They survive in the general
fund of Indian philosophical thought. Though usually neglected
by the historians of Indian philosophy, what Indian science be­
queaths to Indian philosophy is of immense significance. With­
out noting this, we can hardly understand the real source of
some of the important trends of ancient Indian philosophy, parti­
cularly those that have an overtly secular and empirical interest.
This is discussed in the third part of the present study. It tries
also to analyse how the basic tension between science and the
counter-ideology continues in the philosophical field and what
damage is done by it to the development of philosophy.
Such, in brief, is the plan of the present study. It may be
useful to follow it, if we begin with a brief sketch of its main
argument. ^

2. THE ARGUM ENT

The first question naturally is : What really is meant by

science in ancient India ? The answer is suggested by the follow­
ing considerations.
In ancient India, the only discipline that promises to be fully
secular and contains clear potentials of the modern understanding

2. On the Lokayata texts having been once in actual circulation, see Das-
gupta HIP iii. 531 & 536 ; Chattopadhyaya L 6ff. The usual assumption
that Jayarasi Bhatta’s Tattvopaplava-simha is the only surviving Lokayata
text is critically rejected ; Chattopadhyaya, Lokayata-darsana (Bengali,2nd
ed.) 9-41. N ehru (DI 100) conjectures th at the original works of these
heretics were presumably deliberately destroyed ; this agrees with the
Mahabharata stOry of burning them alive : Chattopadhyaya L 33f.

Indological Truths
of natural science is medicine. The other disciplines more
talked of in the orthodox circles are phonetics (siksa), grammar
(vyakarana), etymology (nirukta), metrics (chandas), calendrical
astronomy (jyotisa) and even geometry—the last in the restricted
sense of being a part of ritual technique (kalpa)^. Like the
ritual technique, however, all these originate in the priestly circles,
as parts of their scriptural lore. The traditional word for these
is vedanga—limbs of Veda or scripture. These disciplines thus
bear the birth-marks of anti-secularism and face formidable
difficulties in developing towards science proper. The priests are
interested in supernaturalism and mystification of nature^. They
are therefore strongly opposed to “ the simple conception of
nature just as it is, without alien addition” ®, which, it is the basic
purpose of science to work out, and on which is based “ the
system of behaviour by which man acquires mastery of his
environment” ®.
By contrast, medicine—in spite of its historically inevitable
humble beginnings—^takes already in the ancient period the
momentous step from magico-religious therapeutics to rational
therapeutics, i.e. in the terminology of the pl^sicians themselves,
from daiva-vyapasraya bhesaja to yukti-vyapasraya bhesaja'^. We
shall later see what a wide range of theoretical and practical
propositions is called for by this transition in the history of
Indian medicine. For the present, the point is that this step is
absolutely crucial and the inner demands of science oblige medi­
cine to take it.

3. F or a descriptive account of these disciplines, see W internitz i. 268-289.

4. The typical priest-class form ula repeated in the 5rS/ima«a-literature
that the gods are fond of deliberate mystification will be discussed later.
5. Engels (DN 202) mentions this as the main point of the materialist out­
look on nature. But the same may be taken as the simplest description
of the main theoretical aim of natural science. This shows the instinctive
afiBliation o f natural science to the materialist outlook : Chattopadhyaya
in SSSA 210-232. 6. J. G. Crowther’s definition o f science quoted
by Farrington GS 18, 7. This distinction is repeatedly drawn in the
Caraka-sarrihita, which also makes it quite clear that rational therapeutics
alone represent the technique o f Ayurveda. We shall later see how this
contains the clue to the question concerning the date of Ayurveda.

Indological Truths
 But it is also a very risky step and the risk involved is frankly
political. It is necessary to scrap for this purpose the spell of
mysticism, ritualism and religion. These are sanctified by power­
ful priestly corporations, the ideological requirements of which
are soon taken up by the Indian law-givers. The ancient Indian
doctors are thus dragged into politics, without ever intending
to be politicians themselves. They aspire to be too severely
scientific to remain unnoticed by the establishment. To question
—even by implication—mysticism, ritualism and religion neces­
sitates also the rejection of the very way of life which all these
intend to justify. In short, it amounts to the tendency of
questioning the very norm on which the hierarchical society wants
to thrive.
Already in the Yajurveda, the physicians come under strong
condemnation.® The condemnation continues throughout the
later legal literature—from Apastamba and Gautama belonging
to a few centuries before the Christian era to the late commenta­
tors of Manu, like Kulliika Bhatta of the 12-13th century A.D.
These are there for all to see. The historians of Indian medi­
cine cannot tell their story without noting these. It is therefore
amazing that practically none of them cares to do so.® We are
generally asked to believe instead that Indian medicine develops
smoothly from the scriptural or Vedic tradition and that the
physicians are full conformists—working out their science in
the cool of orthodox piety as it were. This may be a fairy tale,
not history. Admitting that the Yajurveda, the vast Brahmana-
literature, the dharma-sastra-s and smrji-s are aware of the
norm of orthodox piety, it is impossible to escape the simple
fact that its representatives take the most contemptuous view of
the physicians and surgeons.
It is no doubt true that in the Rgveda specially the twin-gods

8. It is o f considerable interest to note that the earliest ground mentioned

fo r this condemnation is the democratic commitment o f the physicians.
This will be discussed later while analysing the Yajurveda passages first
pronouncing contempt for the physicians : Mait Sam iv 6.2, Taitt. Sam.
vi. 4.9, etc... 9. Bloomfield (SBE xliv intro, p. xxxix) is about the only
notable exception to this general tendency of the modern scholars.

Indological Truths
ASvins are highly eulogised for their medical and surgical skill.
Besides, one important theme of the Atharvaveda is medicine,
though inevitably in its rudimentary sense of magical charms
against diseases. But all this is true of a very early period,
when the Vedic society itself is comparatively simple : it is yet
to witness the stabilization of the hierarchical norm, which
takes place from the times of the Yajurveda. From then on the
counter-ideology required by the hierarchical society becomes
increasingly powerful and it senses danger in everything having
even the promise of secular science. Hence very strange things
start happening in the history of ancient Indian culture. In spite
of being gods, the Alvins are degraded because of their medical
past. In spite of being a Veda, the Atharvaveda is looked upon
with subdued contempt—a contempt that sometimes becomes
quite crude in the later legal literature.
The prolonged contempt for medicine and its practitioners in
the officially approved social norm is the most serious external
factor that interferes with the development of Indian medicine.
The law-givers insist that its practice must remain restricted to
those that are supposed to be base-born. One with the oppor­
tunity for education and other cultural openings is not allowed
to go in for it—not at least within the strongholds of the official­
ly approved norm.^® In the whole range of the Upanisadic lite­
rature, we hear of none who is a physician. The lists of disci­
plines apparently having some prestige in the Upanisadic days
are absolutely silent about medicine.
The Buddha resents this no doubt. There is a temporary
flourish of medical science under his direct influence. It is not
without ground therefore that in the later Buddhist tradition in

10. Taksaslla, a famous centre for the cultivation of medicine, is con­

sidered an impure region by orthodox Brahmins : Thapar 59. Interest­
ingly, though the extant Susruta-samhita wants us to believe that its
spokesman D hanvantari is incarnated as the king of KasI (i.1.2), Kasl
nowhere figures in the medical texts as a centre for the cultivation of
medicine. The venues of medical conferences actually mentioned in the
Caraka-sairihita are invariably certain obscure corners of the country, like “ a
certain slope of the Himalayas” U-1-7) or “ the Caitraratha forest” (i.26.6).

Indological Truths
Tibet, the Buddha himself is remembered as a very great physi­
cian^* and the Chinese traveller I-Tsing goes to the extent of
attributing to him an actual medical work.*® But all this seems
to have a rather limited impact on the history of Indian medi­
cine. Notwithstanding all that he does for the reform of the
spiritual and moral climate of the country, the Buddha eflFects no
fundamental social transformation. The hierarchical or varna-
srama norm continues to entrench itself even in the areas ruled
by kings with Buddhist creed *® With the growing strength of
the hierarchical norm, intensifies the contempt for medical
science. The ultimate result is its complete decadence.
W hat ancient Indian culture loses thereby is to be judged from
what ancient Indian medicine once promised. During its creative
period—the period of its transition from magico-religious to
rationalistic therapeutics—the basic requirements of complete
secularisation of their discipline lead the physicians to create
a methodology of their own. Discarding scripture-orientation,
they insist on the supreme importance of direct observation of
natural phenomena and on the technique of a rational processing
of the empirical data. They go even to the extent of claiming
that the truth of any conclusion thus arrived at is to be tested
ultimately by the criterion of practice. Thus are first promised
the fundamentals of a sound epistemology to Indian thought.
Depending on this methodology, the physicians are moreover
led to a general world-view, which is remarkable for the ancient

11. The work briefly called and the commentary on it briefly

called Vaidurya-shon-po. Also the history of medicine with the title dPal-
Idan gso-ba-rig-pa'i-khog-bugs-legs-bsad-vaidurya’i-me-loh-drah-sroh-dgyes-
p a’i-dga’-ston. These works, though yet to be analysed in the standard of
modern scholarship, promise a great deal of im portant inform ation about
the history o f Indian medicine specially under the Buddhist influence.
12. Takakusu 131. I-Tsing calls it “ a Sutra on the Art o f Medicine.”
The work is not identified. The Vinaya-pitaka (sixth khandaka of the
Mahavagga) attributes to the Buddha a long discourse on medicament. In
this, however, the Buddha does not appear in the role of a medical autho­
rity. W hat he discusses is only the question of the nature o f medicines,
recommended by the doctors, to be allowed for the monks within the
santgha. 13. Chattopadhyaya WLWD 207ff.

Indological Truths
 context. They move towards an uninhibited understanding of
world and man—viewing both as made of the same fundamental
stuff, which they call bhuta or matter and which they are inclined
to understand as existing in five root-forms—the panca-bhuta.
They argue that this matter gets transformed into the infinite
variety of inanimate and animate things of the universe because
of laws inherent in nature or svabhava—Xhs laws because of
which fire for example is hot and water cold. Therapeutic power
is conceived by them mainly in terms of the knowledge of these
laws : the clearer the physician’s insight into these the better
is his prospect of regulating the interaction between body-
matter and environmental matter, which determines disease and
health.
Convinced of such a basic theoretical position, the ancient
physicians go in for a commitment which cannot but appear to
be quite audacious for their historical context. It is a com­
mitment to the understanding of nature as a whole. Since man
is made of the same stuff of which everything in nature is made,
there can be nothing in nature irrelevant from the medical view­
point. Evidently enough, the technological and other equip­
ments available in the ancient period cannot and do not allow
them to implement the grand programme of understanding
nature as a whole, i.e. not beyond a certain early stage of it.
But that does not prevent ancient medicine to create potentials
for various other natural sciences in their later specialised
forms—for physics and chemistry, botany and zoology, minero-
logy and climatology, not to speak of anatomy and physiology.
Thus, in short, of all the disciplines of ancient India, medi­
cine alone acquires the full status of science.
Accordingly, ancient Indian science is discussed in the present
study mainly in terms of medicine, the Indian word for which is
ayurveda, ‘the knowledge of long life’. It remains for us to see
the special significance of the way in which the ancient doctors
define or describe it.
The empirical data specially of the therapeutic agents of
the plant world found in Ayurveda are colossal. It is moreover
being increasingly realised that these retain significance as poin­

Indological Truths
ters to fruitful research even for contemporary pharmacology.
But this alone is not what makes Ayurveda exceedingly impor­
tant in the history of science. As is rather well-known, the her­
bal pharmacy of many peoples surviving in the tribal pockets of
the modern world has often amazed the ethnologist.*^ The
pioneers of rational medicine (yukti-vyapasraya bhesaja) are,
however, apparently aware that much more than herbal lore is
required of one wanting to be a physician. As a modern transla­
tor of one of their source-books renders their p o in t:
“ The goatherds, the shepherds and cowherds and other foresters
are acquainted with the names and forms of plants. No one
can claim to have a perfect knowledge of pharmacology by the
mere acquaintance with the names or even the forms of herbs.
If one who knows the uses and actions of herbs, though not
acquainted with their forms, may be called a pharmacologist,
what then need be said of the physician who knows the herbs
botanically, pharmacologically and in every other respect ? He
is the best of physicians who knows the science of the adminis­
tration of drugs with due reference to clime and season, and who
applies it only after examining each and every patient indi­
vidually.”
What the physicians are driving at is the need of a sound
intellectual discipline, which, they feel, can alone raise mere
empirical knowledge to the status of scientific principles. The
technical word they use for this intellectual discipline is yukti.
It is a key concept of Indian medicine and it roughly means
rational application. Among other things, what it requires is
the knowledge of how a number of causes combines to produce
an effect. The effect they aim at is therapeutic success and they
are fully aware that the use of various natural substances
{dravya) ensures it. At the same time they feel that something
more than the mere knowledge of substances is required for
their purpose. This something is the intellectual discipline or

14. P. O. Bodding, Studies in Santal Medicine and Connected Folklore,

Asiatic Society (Memoir), Calcutta 1925. Cf. also Briffault i. 485.
15. Caraka-samhita i 1.120-3. Tr G.
2

Indological Truths
yukti. Hence they claim, “ Yukti or rational application is the
ultimate foundation of ( therapeutic ) success. A physician
accomplished in rational application is always superior to one
with the mere empirical knowledge of the substances.” (siddhih
yuktau pratisthitaj tisthati upari yuktijfiah dravyajnanavatam
sada).^^
Two important achievements of this intellectual discipline
are already mentioned. These are the methodology of science
and the view of man and nature. These two constitute the main
theoretical plank of Ayurveda.
This aspect of ancient Indian medicine—its theoretical plank
—seems to have profound significance not only for the history of
science in its narrower sense but also for the broader context of
the history of ideas. Yet it is precisely this which is most
seriously misunderstood. There also good reasons for this mis­
understanding. Hence is the special need of some preliminary
clarification.
To begin with, the present state of discussion of the theoreti­
cal achievements of Ayurveda is on the whole dismal. A work­
ing scientist like D. D. Kosambi sees practically nothing in
it, and an Indologist as eminent as J. Filliozati® tries to
build up an imposingly scholastic account of it, which is sadly
muddled with alien cosmogony and even elements of crass my­
thology. However, what is usually said about the philosophical
basis of Ayurveda is sheer intellectual garbage—some kind of a
confused dump of incompatible metaphysics without even a
remote relevance to medicine.
A typical example of this may be quoted from A Concise His­
tory o f Science in India, specially because it enjoys the reputa­
tio n ' ®of being the outcome of the “ National Commission for
the Compilation of History of Sciences in India” . In this

16. /&. i.2.16. 17. About the only achievement of Ayurveda noted
by Kosambi C C A I175 : “ The old Indian system o f medicine (ayurveda)
collected many useful cures, sometimes learnt from jungle-dwellers.”
18. Filliozat’s views will be later discussed in some detail. 19. F or
the general failure of th j Commission, see A. Raham an in IH R i.l99ff.

Indological Truths
book, the renowned historian R.C. Majumdar writes :
“ There is a remarkable theory in Ayurveda to the effect that
man is an epitome of the universe, a ‘microcosm’ of the macro­
cosm. Both the universe and man are manifestations of one and
the same eternal spirit...The concept of the microcosm follows
the philosophical doctrines of the Samkhya and Vedanta
schools of Indian thought. The theories of cosmic evolution
of matter and life and of the common constituents of living and
non-living matter are also based on Sainkhya and Nyaya-VaiSe-
sika doctrines. The idea of the eternal and omnipotent soul
serving a span of existence inside an animated body, as a result
of the residual effects of Karma (deeds in previous births), is from
the Nyaya...The basic common concepts of Indian philosophy
have also been largely incorporated into Ayurveda. Ayurveda
accepts that the highest aim of life is the quest for ultimate truth
and realisation ; that the perception of our senses is not valid in
the absence of spiritual insight ; that suffering is due to the hu­
man error of discrimination (sic) between the body and mind
which suffer and the spirit which is immune ; that the final wis­
dom is to shed passions and illusions ; that the supreme essence
of power and awareness is present in man, making him potentially
omniscient and omnipotent when he achieves self-realisation;
and that it is possible for the trained mind to achieve this self-
realisation and salvation ; a healthy body, long life and a keen
mind being desirable aids to this end.” ®“
This looks like a queer junk-shop in which dismantled parts
of various metaphysical models—sometimes with random labels
stuck to these—are sought to be joined to each other, uninhibited
by any consideration of their mutul coherence and, what is worse
for our present discussion, with a total disregard for the question
of their possible relevance to the theoretical requirements of
medical practice. And yet we are asked to believe that this
shows the philosophical conviction of the ancient doctors.
A full philosophical analysis of the passage would be tedious.
But it is necessary to have some words at least on a few points

20. Majumdar in CHSI 237-38.

Indological Truths
imagined to represent the philosophical foundation of Ayurveda.
It is true that the ancient physicians think that an adequate
understanding of man presupposes knowledge of nature as
a whole. In a sense, man is viewed as a microcosm of the
universe. But the ■actual ground for such ' a view is just
the opposite of what Majumdar believes, namely “ both universe
and man are manifestations of one and the same eternal spirit.”
Indeed, the philosophy of the one eternal spirit when carried to
its logical culmination—as is done in Advaita Vedanta—leaves
the universe including man with a precarious reality of its own,
it being viewed as m a y a or some kind of a phantom mysteriously
conjured up by human ignorance.® ^ By contrast, the view of
the fundamental unity of nature and man, though taking shape
in the dim antiquity as part of some cosmogonic speculation, is
given a new content altogether by the physicians, when they
view both as made of the same stuff, namely matter, which, the
pioneers of science could understand no more satisfactorily than
in terms of earth, water, air, fire and akasa {panca-bhuta).
Pending the discussion of this, let us note here some other
points. Majumdar says that for the view of this eternal spirit of
which the universe and man are manifestations, Ayurveda is
indebted to Samkhya and Vedanta schools of Indian thought.
To the same Samkhya, however, Ayurveda is supposed to be
indebted also for its theorj' of cosmic evolution of matter and
life, and for the common constituent of living and non-living
matter, though this time Samkhya is amalgamated with Nyaya-
VaiSesika rather than Vedanta. In such capers of tall generali­
sations, little scope is left for sober chronological considerations.
But we shall see that it is difficult, if not impossible, to think
that the Nyaya-Vai^esika philosophy takes shape much earlier
than the creative period of Ayurveda, enabling the latter to
borrow from it.
Chronology apart, Majumdar is quite casual about the labels

21. This philosophy is also called sariraka, implying the most intense
contempt for the body, which may as well be contrasted with Caraka-
samhita ii.6.7 attributing the highest importance to the body.

Indological Truths
he attaches to the philosophical scraps mentioned. The trans­
migration of the soul determined by the law of karma, he says,
is borrowed by Ayurveda from the Nyaya philosophy. But the
simple fact is that centuries before the Nyaya philosophy origi­
nates—during the period of the Upanisads and perhaps even
earlier—the theory of transmigration and karma wants to ac­
quire a firm grip on Indian thought. Besides, though it later
becomes some kind of common possession of various philoso­
phical views, the epistemological discussions that form the
special subject-matter of Nyaya seem to be peculiarly free from
any real need of it, '
In any case, whatever be the real place of the law of karma
in Nyaya, the more important point for our present discussion
is its basic incompatibility with the assertion of the intrinsic
efficacy of medicine. Karma, if admitted at all, has got to be
admitted as an omnipotent law, relentlessly determining what­
ever one enjoys or suffers in this life, inclusive of course of
health and disease. Sickness as well as cure, if viewed as deter­
mined by the actions of the patient performed in his past life,
leaves the physician at best as a passive spectator of these, instead
of one actively intervening in medical matters, removing morbid
conditions with standardised techniques of his own. But
nothing is more repulsive than such a passive role to the Indian
physicians themselves. We shall see how boldly they defend the
intrinsic efficacy of their knowledge and technique.®® They
argue that the right physician rightly applying these cannot but
cure the curable diseases, and that even for diseases that are
incurable they can in many cases prescribe effective palliatives,
thereby relieving the patients of the compulsion of suffering
from these. This is surely one way of rejecting the law of
karma, and we can perhaps see in this one of the important
reasons why the law-givers are so much annoyed with the physi­
cians. After all, karma provides the best ideological sanction
for the hierarchical society so fondly visualised by the law-givers.
Incidentally, it is of interest to note that at least a section of the

22. Caraka-saiphita i.9 & 10.

Indological Truths
early Buddhists appears to see the incompatibility of karma with
the basic theoretical requirements of medical science. In spite
of being earnest about the former, they in fact propose to
modify it in so far as they are serious about the latter. In the
Milindapanha of circa first century A.D., the venerable Naga-
sena argues in so many words that as far as diseases are con­
cerned, their actual causes are to be sought outside the law of
karma.^^
Majumdar feels no need to note any of these points. He
makes the physicians accept the law of karma, and, along with
it, the entire gamut of the essentially religious view of the soul
and its salvation, in the general scheme of which medicine is
left with no serious significance. The mish-mash of metaphy­
sics, which he wants us to accept as the philosophical aspect of
Ayurveda, is not only totally irrelevant from the medical view­
point but also positively opposed to its theoretical requirements.
One could have completely ignored all these, but for an ex­
tremely bewildering position. The views mentioned in the
passage just quoted can be substantiated by actual quotations
from the most important source-books of Ayurveda in the form
in which these reach us. There are in these long discussions
of Vedanta and Vedanta-oriented later Samkhya, of the theory
of transmigration and karma, of the soul and its salvation—not
to speak of a heap of sundry superstitions widely popularised
among others by the traditional law-givers.
Had this been merely so—had the source-books of Ayurveda
been from the theoretical viewpoint a mere collection of meta­
physical scraps like these—the historian of Indian science could
have looked back at the ancient physicians as some kind of rag­
pickers in the field of traditional philosophy, without the aware­
ness of any specific theoretical requirements for their science.
This is in fact the way in which Majumdar views them. Where
he is wrong however is what he totally overlooks. The same
source-books of Ayurveda that display all these also give us the
unmistakable impression of developing the methodology of

23. SBE XXXV. 19Iff. Details to be discussed later.

Indological Truths
science and of moving on its strength to a view of man and
nature directly relevant for medical practice. We are permitted
to see the real theoretical basis of Ayurveda in these and these
alone.
All this, however, means one thing. The source-books of
Ayurveda in their extant forms give us the apparent impression
of being quaint bundles of incompatible ideas. It is imposible for
the modern student of ancient Indian medicine to escape this
fact, specially because the incompatibilities are not merely
philosophical. We shall mention here only a few examples of
the extra-philosophical incompatibilities, because these enable
us to see how crudely obvious they are.
In a number of passages, one of the basic texts of Ayurveda
enthusiastically recommends the worship of the cow along with
such holy objects as the gods and Brahmins. A typical example
of this is the advice ; deva-go-brahmana-guru-vrddha-siddha-
acaryan arcayet—“ one should worship the gods, cows. Brah­
mins, preceptors, spiritual adepts and teachers.” ®* in a
number of other passages of the same text, however, we find the
cow being discussed in a way which cannot but appear to be
audaciously objective—even heretical—from the viewpoint from
which the worship of the cow is recommended. We are told
of the exact place the animal has in the general zoological
classification of the ancient doctors, who are frankly interested
in the classification because it gives them the clue to the pro­
perties of the animal flesh strictly discussed as diet or drug.*®
The doctors seem to be specially impressed by what we call
the protein value of the cow’s flesh. In their terminology, it
is highly mamsa-kara or ‘promoter of flesh’.*® So it is specially
recommended to persons badly in need of adding flesh to their
bodies—to those who suffer from the loss of flesh due to
irregular fever, dry cough, etc. as well as to those that have
excessive appetite because of living the life of hard manual

24. Caraka-satrihita L'8.18. 25. lb. i.27. The discussion forms part
o f niarnsa-varga (‘class of flesh’) o f annapana-vidhi (‘the principks o f food
and drink’). 26. Caraka-sanMta vi.2.158.

Indological Truths
 work. As the text puts i t ;
gavyam kevaJa-vatesu pinase nsama-jvarejj
suskakasa-srama-atyagni-marnsaksaya-hitam ca
We shall later see many more examples from the same text
showing this dual attitude to the cow. These two attitudes, it
needs to be noted, do not at all exemplify what is called
“ ambivalence” in Freudian psychology.®® What they exemplify
instead is only a flat contradiction, inasmuch as one cannot
worship the cow as a god as well as freely eat it to satisfy one's
mere physical requirements. But our understanding of the
text cannot stop here and accept the contradiction on its face-
value. Since it is a medical text after all, the more important
question is : Which of these two attitudes to the cow is pre­
sumably the attitude of the physician proper ? There can be
only one answer to this. It is the attitude to the cow's flesh
judged as diet or drug and not the attitude to the cow judged
as a holy object of worship. Evidently, the worship of the
cow is recommended from the viewpoint of orthodox religion
and the prescription of its flesh from that of medicine proper.
In our text in its present form, the former is loosely super­
imposed on the latter, without any effort to make the two
cohere.
Here is another obvious example. From the standpoint of
orthodox religion, the text wants to look very pious when it
recommends brahmacarya or celibacy and even goes to the
extent of declaring that it is the best road leading to liberation.^s
The essential precondition of brahmacarya is absolute absti­
nence from sex and alcohol. Strangely, however, the same text
contains a very long chapter (with four sub-chapters) on
vajikarana, prescribing recipes for increasing sexual stamina.
The chapter opens with a rather lurid description of how an
exhilarating female partner best stimulates sex in the male.®®

27. lb. i.27.79-80. 28. There is no question here o f any strong

unconscious desire severely suppressed and hence seeking surreptitious
gratification, as in the case of what Freud calls ambivalence.
29. Caraka-samhita i.30.14. 30. Ib. vi.2A.4if.

Indological Truths
Elsewhere, while recommending the regulation of sexual beha­
viour according to seasonal variation, it advises one to have
as much of sex as one may like with the coming of the winter :
prakamam ca niseveta maithunam sisiragame.^'^ This, to say
the least, can hardly be said by a real brahmacarya enthusiast.
So are the things said about alcohol. The text teaches the
technique of preparing eightyfour varieties of alcoholic drinks.®^
and discusses the desirable consequences of their use. As
these are summed up in a mnemonic verse ; “ Thus have been
enumerated the 84 kinds of best wines, which invigorate the
body and mind, stimulate appetite (lit. the digestive fire), cure
insomnia, depression and anorexia and induce exhilaration.” 3S
It also contains a long discourse on the use and abuse of
alcohol, which appears to be astonishingly objective even for
our times. Though fully aware of the evils of morbid drinking,
it comes out sharply against those who denounce drinking as
such on the evidence of the undesirable consequences of exces­
sive drinking. The consequences of excessive drinking can no
more be an evidence for its general undesirability than the
consequences of excessive eating of food being an evidence for
the general undesirability of food. As the text puts it, “But,
by its inherent nature (svabhava) alcohol is to be viewed as on a
par with food. Consumed without consideration of rational
application or yukti, it leads to disease. Consumed with due
consideration of rational application (yukti), it is like nectar” .
kim tu madyam svabhavena yathaivanmm tatha smHaml
ayuktiyuktam rogaya, yuktiyuktam yatha’tnrtamjl^*
We hear in this the unmistakable voice of the physician,
whatever the text may have to say elsewhere glorifying the
religious ideal of brahmacarya.
Many more examples of such anomalies may easily be cited.
But that is not necessary for our present purpose. What is
necessary instead is to note a simple point. The most im­
portant source-books of Ayurveda in their extant forms are not
coherent texts. These are full of anomalies and inconsistencies,

31. lb. i.6.17. 32. Ib. i.29.7. 33. Ib. i.25.50, 34. Ib. vi.24.59.
3

Indological Truths
ranging from the intermixture of incompatible philosophical
views to crude contradictions of practical precepts.
How then are we to judge these texts ?
Are we to imagine that the ancient Indian physicians are so
naive as not even to realise the incoherence resulting from such
intermixtures ? For reasons to be explained later, it has proved
frankly impossible to make such an assumption the basis of the
present study. It is based instead on a different proposition.
The incompatibilities in the texts can be explained. The source­
books of Ayurveda need not be thrown away as mere muddles,
for everything found in these need not be accepted as rer
presenting strict medical views ; there is surely a great deal
indicative of genuine medicine, but there is also a heap of
alien ideas and attitudes superimposed on these. The superim­
positions take place sometimes before the texts assume their
present forms, giving these their quaint appearance.
We have already mentioned what it is that possibly moti­
vates the later representatives of Ayurveda to go in for such
superimpositions. These are of the nature of ransoms offered
to the counter-ideology—the stamp of religion given on science
with the hope of making it acceptable to orthodoxy.®® But
there is also an exceedingly interesting point to be noted in this
connection. In view of the fact that the hostility of religion
to medical science is traceable to an ancient period—as ancient
as the times of the Yajurveda—the tendency to save science by
conceding to religion is also likely to be ancient. In other words,
the presumption is that already in an ancient period medical
science faces the risk of being invaded by the counter-ideology.
In any case, in the most important source-book of Ayurveda
itself, we see at least a section of ancient doctors—apparently
the more conscientious of them—trying to resist their best the
possible confusion of their science with alien ideas and attitudes,
or, as they put it, with propositions properly belonging to the
ritualistic and religious contexts.®® So they formulate rules by

35. Cf. Farrington GS 94f. 36. Caraka-samhita iii.8.54 ; iii.8.67.

These, along with other similar formulations, are to be discussed in Book
II of the present study.
Indological Truths
which to differentiate between the truly medical and the extra­
medical propositions. Their efforts do not unfortunately succeed.
The medical text is invaded by extra-iiiedical ideas and attitudes.
But the criterion they evolve for differentiating what is intrinsic
to medicine from what is extrinsic to it survives in the medical
corpus itself. This enables us to make a critical assessment
of the text without going outside it, i,e. without being obliged
to depend on any criterion that may possibly be called arbitrary
from the standpoint of Ayurveda. This is a unique advantage
about the medical corpus. If it is eventually forced to assume
the form of a strange amalgam of science and the counter­
ideology, it also tells us how the ancient medical tradition
itself wants to be clear about the difference between the two.
We propose to discuss this in the second’part of our study. For
the present, let us have some idea of the source-books of
Ayurveda.

3. THE SOURCES

The Indian tradition speaks of three major source-books of

Ayurveda, figuratively called the vrddha-trayi or ‘the three elder
ones’. These are the Caraka-samhita, Susruta-samhita and
Astangasamgraha. There exist also a considerable number of
commentaries on these and many digests based on these. We
are in possession moreover of some fragmentary—but on the
whole early—medical works, like the so-called Bower Manus­
cript and the Bhela-samhita. What come down to us as the
Kdsyapa-samhitd, Hdrita-samhitd, etc., though undoubtedly
bearing the names of some ancient authorities, are not consi­
dered to be really ancient works.
All these other works have occasional but on the whole
incidental lights to throw on the history of ancient Indian
medicine. But the vr.ddha-trayl remain the most basic sources
of our information of it. Of these, again, the Astdhga-sarn-
graha is more in the nature of a medical manual prepared by

Indological Truths
a famous physician called Vagbhata, who undoubtedly depends
on the Caraka-samhitd and Susruta-sarrihita. Without under­
mining its importance, therefore, it would be wrong to consider
it as basic as the other two. Of these two, again, the primary
interest of the Susruta-samhitd is surgery, though on the whole it
shares the doctrinal content of the Caraka-samhita and accepts
the drugs and diets prescribed by the latter. At any rate, the
Caraka-samhitd remains supremely important for understanding
the theoretical position of Ayurveda, though for the purpose
of a fuller view of this theoretical understanding, it is necessary
to refer rather frequently to the Susruta-samhitd. Accordingly,
the present study is based primarily on the Caraka-sarnhitd
supplemented by the Susruta-samhitd.
We shall have here some rough idea of these two texts.
The Caraka-sarnhitd is an enormous medical compilation,
parts of which are entirely in verse, parts in prose alternating with
verse, parts simply in prose usually concluding with mnemonic
verses. Its language, as Filliozat says, “ is classical and does
not correspond to a definite epoch.” 37 On a rough calculation,
it is about three times in bulk of what survives as the medical
literature of ancient Greece, the so-called Hippocratic corpus^s.
The teKt contains 120 (or, counting the sub-chapters on
rasdyana and vajikarana, 126) chapters in all. These are arran­
ged in eight books, namely :
1. Sutra-sthdna, discussing in 30 chapters the history, general
principles, theoretical basis, etc. of medical science.
2. Niddna-sthdna, intended to discuss in 8 chapters the causes
of various diseases and their symptoms.
3. Vimdna-sthdna, discussing in. 8 chapters a wide range of
assorted topics, like the nature and qualities of matter, the
process of transformation within the body of various
natural substances consumed, the methodology of medical
science, codes of conduct of the medical practitioners, etc.
4. Sdrira-sthdna, intended to discuss in 8 chapters mainly

37. Filliozat 50. 38. The calculation is based on the bulk of the
Hippocratic Corpus in The Loeb Classical Library.

Indological Truths
 anatomy and, embryology, though as a matter of fact the
chapters often also digress into metaphysics, ethics etc.
5. Indriya-stham, discussing in 12 chapters various questions
among which those concerning diagnosis and prognosis are
prominent.
6. Cikitsa-sthana, discussing mainly therapeutics—though also
a great deal of dietetics and pharmacology—^in 30 chapters
(or, counting the sub-chapters of the first two chapters, 36
in all).
7. Kalpa-sthana, containing 12 comparatively brief chapters,
evidently supplementing the pharmacopoeia of the earlier
books.
8. Siddhi-sthana, containing 12 chapters on enema, purgation,
urinary diseases, etc., mainly supplementing what is dis­
cussed in the other books.
A great deal of rigour is not maintained in the arrangement of
the main subjects discussed in these eight books. The text as a
whole is full of repetitions and digressions. It also describes
debates and disputes among various authorities on questions of
basic theoretical importanceSs and, what is highly interesting,
the text insists that such debates are extremely useful for expand­
ing the mental horizon of the doctors.‘‘® In any case, the
Caraka-samhitd is fully aware of the differences of opinion
among practising doctors** and even tells us of the works of
different medical schools being in circulation ; vividhani hi sas-
trani bhisajam paricaranti loke^^ Though it is not easy for
us to guess today what precisely is being referred to by these,
there is no doubt that the Caraka-samhitd wants to specify cer­
tain conclusions as characteristic of the medical school represen­
ted by it, and hence as distinguishing this school from the other
medical schools having conclusions characteristic of their own
(prati-tantra-siddhdnta)^^. W hat is remarkable, however, is that,
in spite of the awareness of the differences among the different
schools of medicine, the text insists that there are certain conclu-

39. Caraka-samhita i.l2 ; i.25 ; i.26 ; iv.6 ; etc. 40. Ib. iii.8.15.
41. Jb. iii.5.4 ; iii.5.13 ; vi.3.65-6 ; vi.3.117 ; vi.3.192 ; etc. 42. Ib.
iii.8.3. 43. /A iii.8.37.

Indological Truths
sions essential for medical science as such. In other words,
there are propositions which—instead of being characteristic only
o f this or that school o f medicine—are necessarily shared by all
schools of medicine. These constitute the absolutely minimum
body of postulates without which medicine is not at all possible.
The text calls these sarva-iantra-siddhanta or conclusions
unanimously shared by all schools of medicine, and says ;
“Among these (conclusions) those are called the unanimously
admitted ones which have reputation in each and every treatise
on the subject (viz. medicine). Such are ; there are causes ;
there are diseases ; there are ways of curing the curable
diseases” .
(tatra sarva-tantra-siddhantah nama tasmin tasmin sarvasmin
tantre tat tat prasiddham; yatha santi nidanani, santi vyadhayah;
santi siddhi-upayah sadhyanam iti).**
Such then is the general situation o f ancient Indian medicine
presupposed by the Caraka-sarnhita. There are different schools
of medicine with propositions characteristic of each. But there is
also a number of minimum propositions for medical science as
such. These are ; 1) the principle of causality, 2) the recogni­
tion of the fact of disease, which seems to mean the accep­
tance of disease as a disease rather than any supernatural
phenomenon and 3) the self-assurance of the doctor that there
must be techniques o f actually curing the diseases that are not
incurable. In accordance with this understanding of the funda­
mentals of medicine, and specially with a sense of assurance in
the healing technique, the text claims that, of the eight books
into which it is divided, the most important one is the Cikitsa-
sthana, discussing therapeutics proper : “Thus has been explain­
ed the treatment of all diseases. This part of the work discuss­
ing therapeutics proper is the most important part of the entire
treatise” .
iti sarva-vikarandm uktam etad, cikUsitamj
sthanam etat hi tantrasya rahasyam param uttamamjl*’^
But more of the significance of this later, specially for con-

44. Ib. iii 8 37. 45. Ib. vi.30.288.

Indological Truths
trasting medicine of ancient India with medicine of ancient
Greece.
The therapy recommended by the Caraka-samhita is based
mainly on the use of drug and diet. It recommends surgery only
in a few exceptional cases and even this perhaps somewhat reluc­
tantly^®. By contrast, the Susruta-samhita wants emphatically to
argue the primary importance of surgery in medical science.
“ All hold this tantra (ia/ya-(anira=surgery) to be the most
important of all the other branches of Ayurveda, inasmuch as
instantaneous actions can be produced with the help of such
appliances as surgical operations, external applications of alkahes,
cauterization etc., and secondly it contains all that can be found
in the other branches of the science of medicine as well, with the
superior advantage of producing instantaneous effects by means
of surgical instruments and appliances. Hence it is the highest in
value of all the medical tantra-s.”^'^
Compared to the Caraka-samhita, the Susruta-samhita is
lesser in bulk. Like the former, however, it is also written in
classical Sanskrit, partly in verse and partly in prose. The main
body of the text contains 120 chapters arranged in five books.
These are :
1. Sutra-sthana, discussing in 46 chapters various topics in­
clusive of the general principles of medicine, the use and
construction of surgical appliances, practice of surgery,
cauterization, etc.
2. M<i««a-siA5na, discussing in 16 chapters mainly the causes
of diseases.
3. Sarlra-sthana, discussing in 10 chapters mainly anatomy,
embryology and the technique of dissection.
4. Cikitsa-sthana, discussing in 40 chapters therapeutic techni­
ques.
5. Kalpa-sthana, discussing mainly toxicology in 8 chapters.
To this main body of the text is added, evidently later, an
appendix in 66 chapters on assorted topics, which is called
the Uttara-tantra or ‘postscript to the treatise’.

46. Ib. vi.5.44 ; vi.5.63 ; vi.5 137-40 ; vi.6.58 ; vi.13.184 ; vi.26.68 ;

vi.26.123 ; etc, 47. Susruta-samhita i.1.15. Tr B.

Indological Truths
 Such then are the main features of the two source-books of
Indian medicine. We shall have a few more words on these
helpful for our understanding of the history of ancient Indian
medicine.
First, the Caraka-samhita on which the present study is
specially based.
As for its possible date, modern scholars have proposed
various views. These range from the 6th century B. C. or much
earlier to the 1st century A. D. or much later. We shall have
to reopen this question later and shall see that though any ten­
dency at absolute dating of the text is bound to be fallacious,
there are important evidences suggesting what Filliozat calls
“ the epoch of the creation of the doctrine contained therein” is
very likely to be pre-Buddha.
In any case, the medical tradition embodied in the text is
admittedly ancient. But the only form in which it reaches us is
quite later. After passing through various hands, it receives its
present form from one Drdhabala, who calls himself its final “re­
constructor” (pratisamskarta). What he tells us of the history of
the formation of the work, shorn of mythologies, has some light
to throw on its extant form.
The work begins with the account of a grand conference
convened somewhere on the slopes of the Himalayas. It is
attended by a fairly large number of ancient sages, who are all
disturbed by the fact of human suffering caused by various
diseases. Could this be a way of stating the simple fact that
the original core of the work represented an effort to create a
general pool of medical knowledge, which remained scattered
among various doctors of different localities before this attempt
at a systematic compilation of these in some congregation of
the doctors ? But the text itself does not say anything about
genuine medical questions being discussed in this grand assembly
of the ancient sages. It is more interested in telling us a trans­
parent fiction : one of these sages goes to heaven and obtains
the knowledge of medicine from Indra,^® the king of gods, who,

48. There is nothing in Vedic mythology to connect Indra with the

medical tradition and, as we shall see, even in the Mahabharata, Indra

Indological Truths
 in his turn, receives it from Brahma, via Prajapati and the
ASvins. In this garbled account of the descent of medicine
from heaven to earth, one point appears to be quite striking.
The earliest human authority on Ayurveda, according to our
text, is a person called Bharadvaja. Interestingly, the text does
not attribute to him any discourse on disease and cure. He is
interested instead in the theoretical foundations of Ayurveda,
which are very cryptically formulated by him as six categories—
called the ‘similar’ (samanya), dis-similar (yisesa), qualities,
substances, action and inherent relation : samanyam ca visesam
ca gm an, dravyani karma ca j samavdyam In the history
of Indian philosophy, we come across these categories in the
VaiSesika system, in which specially the first two acquire altered
significance. But the more important point, as we shall later
see, is that these categories are absolutely essential for the
theoretical basis of Ayurveda, because only in terms of these
that an enormous amount of empirical data, specially about the
therapeutic agents, compiled presumably by generations of obser­
vers, are sought to be processed or systematically understood by
the ancient Indian doctors. It is not improbable therefore that
the Caraka-samhitd retains in its own way the memory of the
earliest theoretician of the medical school.
But Bharadvaja is a common gotra or clan name of ancient
India. Nothing of positive historical value can be made of the
assorted legends associated with the name in the epics and my­
thological literature (purana-^).^^ But what we read about him
in the Caraka-samhitd itself is peculiarly interesting. Though
admitting him to be the first human authority (or perhaps the
earliest theoretician) of Ayurveda, the text seems to maintain a
polite silence about him in its account of the transmission of
medical knowledge. Thus the pioneer Bharadvaja notwithstand­
ing, the extant Caraka-samhitd makes another sage called
Atreya—evidently also known as Punarvasu—the main spokesman

shows intense contempt for the Asvins because of their medical past. For
a strange way of connecting Indra v/ith medical tradition see, Filliozat 3.
49. Caraka-sanihita i.1.28-9. 50. Mehta i.30tf.
4

Indological Truths
of medicine. The entire Caraka-samhita claims to be based on
the oral instructions of Atreya. Modern scholars like Fillio-
zat®^ and Keswani“ ^ want to take it for granted that Atreya in
his turn is instructed by Bharadvaja. But the text itself does
not say this. It simply drops Bharadvaja and begins anew with
Atreya and his pupils.®®
Why is this peculiarity ? We have perhaps a clue to this
elsewhere in the Caraka-samhita. Bharadvaja is a staunch
advocate of the view that everything happens in nature because
of the laws inherent in nature—a view traditionally known as
svabhava-vada.^^ This view is considered strongly heretical
specially in the later intellectual climate of the coimtry and one
of the ways in which the extant Caraka-samhita wants to look
very pious is to introduce a long discourse into the text with the
ostensible purpose of converting Bharadvaja, into a follower of
orthodox religion and metaphysics.®® This, as we shall later
see in some details, is an extremely interesting internal evidence
of the Caraka-samhita, indicative of the anxiety at an ideological
shift on the part of those through whose hands the text passes
before reaching us. The only way of ignoring or overlooking
the possibility is to imagine—as some modern scholars actually
do—that the text mentions different Bharadvajas. But there
is nothing in the text to support this. Besides, the more im­
portant question remains whether the theoretical fundamentals
of Ayurveda can at all do without the view of svabhava. We
shall see that these c a n n o t; in other words, the assumption
of laws inherent in nature is not a dispensable proposition
for ancient Indian medicine.
But let us return to the Caraka-samhita as finally “re­
constructed” by Drdhabala. In this, as we have just said,
the exponent of medicine is supposed to be Atreya, His oral
discourse, we are further told, is codified by his foremost disciple
called AgniveSa. Thus the typical form in which a chapter
opens is : “ Thus spoke the exalted Atreya” {iti ha sma aha

51. Filliozat 60. 52. Keswani 10. 53. Caraka-sarrihitau I. iO.

54. Ib. i.25.20-1. Details to be discussed later. 55. Ib. iv. 3.16ff.
Details to be discussed later.

Indological Truths
 bhagavan atreyah). And the usual colophon at the end of
each chapter is : “ Thus in this treatise made by AgniveSa...”
(iti agnivesa-kr.te tantre...). In other words, we are asked
to believe that this enormous work is based on the oral dis­
course of one person, subsequently codified by one of his single
students. Whoever may be responsible for trying to create
such an impression, there are certain prima facie difficulties
about it. The work is of the nature of a compilation or
samhita. In spite of the rather mechanical form maintained
practically throughout the extant text that it is nothing but
Atreya’s discourse codified by Agnive§a, there are places in
which its editors or reconstructors appear to forget it. We
shall mention here only three examples of this from the
extant Caraka-samhitd.
First, as we shall presently see, on Drdhabala’s own ad­
mission, a considerable number of chapters are added to the
book by himself. Peculiarly, however, even these chapters open
with the stereotyped declaration : “ Thus spoke the exalted
Atreya” . Such a declaration is thus no more than a matter of
mere formality.
Secondly, the eleventh chapter of the Sutra-sthana opens as
usual with the statement that it is spoken by Atreya. But the
mnemonic verse quoted at its end attributes the discourse in it
to “ the wise Krsna Atreya” (kr.snatreyena dhimatam).'^^ Are we
then to think that the text refers to the same person alterna­
tively as Atreya” and Krsna Atreya ? But that is not very easy.
Apart from the fact that the Caraka-samhita itself attributes a
number of recipes evidently to a different medical authority
mentioned as Krsna Atreya,®^ later Indian medical tradition
insists, as Mukhopadhyaya shows, that Krsna Atreya “belonged
to the surgical school and could not have been the same as
Punarvasu Atreya” ®® or the alleged spokesman of our Caraka-
samhita. Incidentally, the chapter referred to is itself a rather
quaint OQe. Its earlier part (up to i.l.33) is more interested in
orthodox religion and metaphysics apparently oblivious of the

56. Ib. i.11.64. 57. Ib. vi 15.131 ; vi. 15.185 ; vi.16.71 ; vi.26.227 ; etc.
58. Mukhopadhyaya ii.440.

Indological Truths
medical requirements. The latter part of the chapter, however,
is outspokenly medical in content, recognising—which is some­
what unusual for the Caraka-samhita—surgical excision as a
form of therapy equally important as medicine. ®®
Thirdly, in view of the fact that one cannot wilfully alter the
proper name of an ancient and eminent authority depending on
the meaning it conveys, we are sometimes left to wonder about
the real personality of AgniveSa from the standpoint of the ex­
tant Caraka-samhita. Though used as a proper name practically
throughout the work, at least on two occasions the text follows
the extraordinary procedure of concocting synonyms for it
based on its literal meaning. Thus the same authority is also
mentioned as VahniveSa®® and Hutagave§a®‘—both with the
literal meaning of agnivesa or “ one with fire garment”, and,
at least in the first case, even without any need for rhyming.
Does this mean that AgniveSa is taken more as a descriptive
epithet than the proper name of an individual authority ? Or
does it mean that the very assumption of a single person
codifying the vast medical compilation is more of the nature
of an afterthought and hence forgotten by the editors in
their unguarded moments ?
We have mentioned all these only to emphasise one point.
It is hard to believe that the vast compilation with all its inner
complexities is based on the oral instructions of a single person
codified by only one of his students. The simple fact on the
contrary seems to be that it contains the total pool of medical
knowledge of a considerable number of ancient doctors and,
what is also most important for our understanding of it, it
passes through various hands before reaching us in its present
form. Who then are the ancient doctors, the compilation of
whose knowledge and experience seems to form the original
core of our Caraka-samhita ?
What we have so far discussed about the formation of the
work throws no light whatsoever on a point of very great
importance. In Indian tradition, the text firmly acquires the
name Caraka-samhita, literally Caraka-compilation. How are

59. Caraka-sanihita 111.55. 60. /6. i.13.3, 61. 76. i,17.5.

Indological Truths
we to explain this ? The only answer given to it by the work
in its extant form is too thick to be seriously taken. Caraka,
we are told, was some kind of an intermediate editor or re-
constructor of the work, which, in its present form, is re-
reconstructed or finally reconstructed by Drdhabala. The
story, in short, is that the work is originally expounded by
Atreya, codified by AgniveSa and revised by Caraka, i.e.,
already before it reaches Drdhabala. Caraka’s name thus
occurs in the text only in its chapter colophons, which read ;
agnivesa-kpe caraka-pratisamskrte—“made (codified) by Agni-
veSa and revised by Caraka.” Assuming this—assuming in
other words that Caraka is only an intermediate editor of
the work—his role in its formation can only be secondary.
Why then—in spite of Atreya and Agnive^a—the work should
acquire fame as the Caraka-samhita ? Secondly, Drdhabala
wants us to believe no doubt that Caraka is the proper name
of an individual authority with extraordinary intellect. As he
puts it, “ This excellent treatise replete with truth is revised by
the extraordinarily intelligent Caraka” : atah tantrottamam
idam carakena atibuddhina / samskrtam tattva-sampurnam....^^
But it is extremely doubtful if the word caraka can be taken
as the proper name of an individual authority. It literally
means “the roving one” . In ancient India, it is usually used
as the descriptive epithet of many wandering sects, which were
then quite common.®® Such sects evidently included the sect
of the roving physicians, the historical existence of which is
evidenced by the name of a lost recension of the Atharvaveda,
called Carana-vaidya or “roving physicians” .®^ Besides,
according to the Indian medical tradition itself, of the various
trainings required of being a physician, one is called “roving
about” ,®® apparently because the search for the healing agents
requires it. Thus, in short, the name Caraka-samhita becomes
hardly convincing if Caraka is taken to be the proper name of just
an intermediate editor of the text. It seems to make far better
sense if viewed as the compilation of medical knowledge of

62. Ib. viii.12.67-8. 63. Rhys Davids in JRAS. 1898 ; C. Bendall

in JRAS 1901. 64. Dasgupta ii.283-4. 65, M ehta .241.

Indological Truths
the ancient roving physicians. Could it be that because of
the Brahmanical bias against the practice of wandering about—
a practice that created diificulties for the observance of the
various taboos prescribed in the law-books®®—the word caraka
is sought to be converted into the proper name of an individual,
who is somehow connected with the medical corpus, though
only in the capacity of its intermediate editor ?
All this, it will perhaps be objected, is highly conjectural.
What is not at all conjectural, however, is that which Drdha-
bala says in the text. According to his own admission, he
is unacquainted with the text supposed to be originally ex­
pounded by Atreya and codified by AgniveSa. What actually
comes down to him is AgniveSa’s version of the text as already
edited or revised by an intermediate editor, whom he is pleased
to call Caraka. From what Drdhabala says, we can form no
idea of the possible time-gap between AgniveSa’s original
codification of it and its subsequent revision by Caraka. But
the time-gap between this intermediate editor and Drdhabala—its
final reconstructor—must have been considerable, because D rdha­
bala says that during his own times about one-third of the work
“ codified by AgniveSa and revised by Caraka” becomes extinct.
We are told nothing about the actual cause of this extinction.
Could it be that the contempt for medicine expressed by the
Indian law-givers—their insistence that its practice must remain
restricted to the culturally under-privileged ones—had anything
to do with the neglect and loss of a very substantial portion
of it ? We do not have any answer to this from Drdhabala.
He simply tells us that he takes upon himself the responsibility
of writing out these lost portions, which to be exact, consist
of 41 out of the total 120 chapters. As he puts it,
“ In this work of AgniveSa as revised by Caraka have not
survived seventeen chapters (of the Cikitsa-sthana) and also
(the whole of) the Kalpa{-sthana) and Siddhi{-sthana). For

66. Grierson in ERE x.570 : this orthodox contempt for ‘roving about'
gives rise amongst the Vaisnavas the reform movement associated with
the name of Ramananda. Evidently, the sedentary mode of living best
suits the stagnant values of the vantasrama society.

Indological Truths
the purpose of properly completing it {yathatatham pura-
nartham), these are written by Drdhabala, son of Kapilabala.” ®^
Elsewhere, towards the end of the Siddhi-sthana, Drdhabala
explains the nature of his own contribution to the extant
Caraka-samhita in more detail. He says,
“ For the welfare of living beings were composed one hundred
and twenty chapters by the wise AgniveSa containing the words
of sage Atreya. ...The editor creates anew an ancient treatise,
amplifying for this purpose what is cryptically said and con­
densing what is said much to o , elaborately. Since one-third
of this work as revised by Caraka with incomparable intellec­
tual accomplishment was found missing, it is completed by
Drdhabala, who is born in the town of Pancanada (pancanada-
pura), after propitiating Samkara (Siva), the lord of all crea­
tures. He has completed this treatise by adding to it seventeen
chapters on therapeutics, the Siddhi-sthana and Kalpa-sthana
and for this purpose has collected the distinctive propositions
from a very large number of other treatises.” ®®
Let us first try to be clear about the information we have
about Drdhabala the person in the two passages just quoted.
He is born in the town called Paiicanada and his father’s name
is Kapilabala. Apparently he belongs to a very famous family
of physicians, because Vagbhata mentions his father Kapilabala
as having distinctive medical theories of his own.®® The
question of the geographical location of Paiicanada town is
extensively discussed by the modern scholars,’’® who propose to
view it as an old name of a town in Kashmir somewhere near
the confluence of the Jhelum and the Sindhu. This, if true,
means that Drdhabala belonged to Kashmir. Could it be that
this Kashmirian background of the final reconstructor of our
Caraka-samhita. explains the contempt abruptly expressed in
it for the south Indian peoples referred to as the Dravidas and
Andhrakas ‘ In any case there is absolutely no medical

67. Caraka-samhita v i ‘iO 2S8-90. 68. /6. viii.12.34-9. 69. Asfahga-

sanigraha (KSS-ed) i.20 ; p. 193. 70. Hoernle in JRAS 1908.947ff ;
1909.857fF ; Mehta i.97ff. 71. Caraka-samhita v.5.29 : seeing these
persons in dreams is supposed to be as ominous as dreaming of the dogs,
demons, untouchables etc.

Indological Truths
relevance in the contempt thus expressed and we are going to
see that Drdhabala’s personal prejudices presumably account
for many peculiarities of the extant Caraka-samhitd.
As for the possible date of Drdhabala, the modern scholars
are left to conjecture on the basis of the reference by him to
other authors or the reference to him or to his work by other
authors—a procedure which, though not very satisfactory, is often
the only one open before them for the purpose of dating literary
sources. Depending roughly on such a procedure, it was earlier
suggested by A. B. Keith, for example, that Drdhabala possibly
belonged to the eighth on ninth century A.D.’ ^ But Mehta
argues that since Vagbhata's work is indebted to an appreciable
extent to our Caraka-samhitd which shows no awareness
of Vagbhata's work and since there are grounds to think that
“ Vagbhata cannot be later than the 4th century A.D.” , we
have to put Drdhabala somewhere between the end of the 3rd
century and the earlier part of the 4th c e n t u r y . W h a t makes
this view really questionable is the assumption of Vagbhata’s
date, the only substantial evidence in favour of which is Mehta’s
claim that the astronomer Varahamihira mentions Vagbhata.
But Varahamihira belongs to the sixth century and there is
nothing impossible for a scientist to refer to his contemporary.
Priyavrata Sastri’’^ in fact argues that Varahamihira’s reference
to Vagbhata notwithstanding, Vagbhata himself is strongly
indebted for his astronomical calculations to Varahamihira. In
any case, we are yet to settle the date of Vagbhata and
hence it is risky to try to settle Drdhabala’s date on the
assumption that Vagbhata is aware of the Caraka-samhitd in
the form in which it is finally “ reconstructed” by Drdhabala.
On a very rough estimate, however, it may perhaps be permi­
ssible to assume that he belongs to the Gupta period or some­
time near the sixth century^®.
More important for our understanding of the extant Caraka-
samhitd is to note certain other points. On his own admission,
he not only writes 41 missing chapters of the text but moreover
rewrites its surviving 79 chapters depending for the purpose on

72. Keith HSL 506. 73. Mehta i.lOOf. 74. P. Sastri 156. 75. lb.

Indological Truths
 various other treatises. This, to say the least, must have been
a stupendous intellectual performance and we cannot but be
amazed by it. At the same time we cannot overlook the possi­
bility of the text suffering very serious modification from what­
ever little he says about the history of its formation. If there
are difficulties in accepting his statement that Atreya is the sole
exponent of this vast medical compilation and Agnive^a alone
codifies the whole of it, there is no ground to imagine that
these names are totally fictitious. The presumption on the
contrary is that these are names of eminent ancient authorities
through whose hands the compilation passes before reaching its
intermediate editor, whom Drdhabala calls Caraka. We do not
know, if at all, the earlier authorities add to or alter the work.
But the possibility of this intermediate editor seriously altering
the text cannot be ruled out, because, according to Drdhabala,
that forms part of the editorial responsibility of the “ reconstruc-
tor” . As he puts it, samskarta kurute tantram puranam ca
punah navam—“the reconstructor creates anew an ancient
treatise” .’ 6
Even dismissing all this as conjectural, there can be no doubt
that at least Drdhabala follows his own editorial norm while
rewriting two-thirds of the Caraka-samhitd that comes down to
him and he has scope for even greater liberties while writing out
the other third of the work, which he frankly acknowledges to
be his own. The possible effect of all this is to be judged in
the light of two other considerations.
First, Drdhabala is anxious to pledge loyalty to a religious
faith. He propitiates Siva or Samkara, the Lord of all Crea­
tures, with whose blessings he manages to complete the work :
tat samkaram bhutapatim samprasadya samapayat.’’'’ It may
be impossible for us today to judge the real depth of this reli­
gious conviction. The long drawn habit of offering ransoms
to religion by the physicians might have created during
Drdhabala’s times the make-believe that medical science can
smoothly cohere with orthodox piety. Or it may be that it is

76. Caraka-smihita vin.X2.iT. 77. Ib. viii.l2 38.

5
Indological Truths
 the way in which Drdhabala himself chooses to concede to
religion, so that he can save what remains of the ancient medi­
cal corpus despite the intense contempt of the law-givers for
medicine as such. In any case, it seems impossible to reject
one possibility. We have in this loyalty to religion pledged by
the final “reconstructor” of the work an unmistakable clue to
the religious elements remaining in the Caraka-samhita loosely
superimposed on science.
Secondly, for “ creating anew an ancient treatise” , Drdhabala
feels the need of depending on various other treatises, evidently
inclusive of those that discuss alien subject-matters. He com­
pletes the work, as he puts it, “ by collecting distinctive pro­
positions from a large number of other treatises” : krtva bahu-
bhyah tantrebhyah visesa-uncha-sila-uccayam.’’ ^ Thus, the
presumption is that for reconstructing the Caraka-samhita, he
collects materials also from non-medical works. The actual
contents of the, work in its extant form corroborate the possibi­
lity, because it is full of grafts of the distinctive propositions of
various metaphysical and theological works.
The result of all this, to say the least, is devastating. When
a person with a professed religious conviction proposes to create
anew an ancient work on medicine depending on the declared
policy that it is desirable for the purpose to depend on all sorts
of treatises—evidently inclusive also of the non-medical ones—
there is the obvious risk for the work as a whole assuming the
form of being a jumble of science and superstition. And the
fact is that the Caraka-samhita does assume such a form. We
may not know with certainty how much the work suffers this
fate in the hands of those through whom it passes before
reaching Drdhabala. This much is fairly obvious however that
Drdhabala does not allow it to reach us without a great deal of
grafts of alien ideas and attitudes on it.
At the same .time, there is another point which must not be
overlooked in this connection. Assuming Drdhabala’s religious
conviction to have been very genuine, it does not go to the

78. 76. viii.12.39.

Indological Truths
 fanatical extent of destroying or obliterating the theoretical posi­
tions once achieved by Indian medicine. In other words, not­
withstanding his religious conviction, Drdhabala also retains
his conscience as a scientist. This makes the extant Caraka-
samhita apparently so peculiar. The religious and metaphysi­
cal elements introduced into the work by him—and perhaps also
by some of his predecessor “ reconstructors”—remain on the
whole loosely superimposed on the genuinely scientific ideas and
attitudes surviving in the same Caraka-samhitd. For under­
standing the history of Indian science it is as important to iden­
tify these alien additions to the text as to see what nevertheless
survives under these conglomerates as positive achievements of
ancient Indian medicine.
Fiiliozat comments on “ the extremely brahmanic contents of
the Caraka-samhita", which, as he rightly says, “ evokes the idea
that its editor was ... a Brahmin of a Vedic school.” ’ ® This,
if somewhat uncertain of the intermediate editor referred to by
Drdhabala, seems to be more or less certain about Drdhabala
himself, only whose version of the text we are aware of. Keswani,
however, makes a suggestion, which amounts to a possible way
of looking at the ancient medical views without the religious
bias added to these. It is to depend more on the other medical
compilation, the Susruta-samhita. Both the- compilations, he
says, “ on the whole, have similar contents, analogous divisions,
and corresponding theoretical and practical data.”®® In spite of
this similarity, however, Keswani thinks that the Susruta-samhita
is surprisingly free from the priestly bias superimposed on
medicine. As he puts it, “ Charaka, in his writings, has a com­
bined role of a moralist, philosopher and above all a physician ;
whereas, Sushruta has tried to cast off whatever shackles of
priestly domination remained at his time, and created an atmos­
phere of independent thinking and investigation, which later
characterized the Greek medicine.” ®i
Without complicating matters by bringing in the question of
Greek medicine at this stage of our discussion, let us concen­
trate here only on one point, which is immediately relevant for

79. Fiiliozat 21. 80. Keswani 12. 81. Ib.

Indological Truths
 understanding the source-books of Indian medicine. If the doc­
trinal contents of the two compilations are on the whole the
same, as Keswani admits, and if the Suhuta-samhitd is totally
free from the “ shackles of priestly domination” , as he further
claims, the simple procedure to see the medical views without
the priestly bias superimposed on these would obviously be to
rely more on the Susruta-samhita. But the problem of the
historian of Indian science is not so easily solved, because the
alleged scientific purity of the Suhuta-samhita is only an illu­
sion. The fact on the contrary is that the only form in which
this other medical compilation reaches us is not free from the
priestly or Brahmanical bias. Indeed the priestly Isias grafted on
the Susruta-samhita sometimes creates worse confusions for us
than does the Caraka-samhita. We shall mention here only one
example, showing how the text in its present form goes to the
extent of making the role of the physician and surgeon abjectly
servile to that of the priests. Says the Suhuta-samhita ; “Ayur­
veda with its eight sections is revealed by (god) Brahma as a
discipline subsidiary to the Veda. Hence the doctor, aware of
his own role, must act in subservience to the priest (because the
latter is the custodian of the Veda).”
brahma vedahgam astdhgam dyurvedam abhdsata /
purohita-mate tasmdt varteta bhisak dtmavdn //.®2
This leaves the doctor with little or no confidence in the in­
trinsic efficacy of his own knowledge and technique—a confi­
dence which all the priestly bias added to the Caraka-sarnhitd
cannot obliterate from it. Thus the Caraka-sarnhitd declares :
“ The physician starting medical treatment in time and with
proper medical knowledge—inclusive of the knowledge of the
difference between the curable and incurable diseases—is ab­
solutely certain to attain success.”
sddhya-asadhya-vibhdgajnah jndna-purvarn ciki>sakah /
kdle ca drabhate karma yat taJ sddhayati dhruvam
In this defence of the doctor’s role, there is no trace at all
of any tendency to submit to the priests and their scriptural lore.

82. Susruta-samhita i.34.8 KSS-ed. 83. Caraka-samhita i.10.7.

Indological Truths
It obviously belongs to the hard core of medical tradition
embodied in the Caraka-samhUa.
Significantly, from this standpoint, the self-confident doctors
compare themselves to the technicians—the cooks and potters—
while the Susruta-samhita wants to ennoble the doctor’s role
with an insipid imitation of the priestcraft. Thus, according to
the view fully shared by the two compilations, successful medical
practice depends essentially on four factors—doctor, patient,
medicine and nurse—of which the most important one is of
course the doctor. But the ways in which the two compilations
want to express this are quite different. The Caraka-samhita
says,
“The physician, the drugs, the nursing attendant and the patient
constitute the four basic factors of treatment. Possessed of the
required qualities, they lead to the earlist cure of disease .. Of
these four the physician occupies the chief place, being at once
the knower (of diseases and drugs), the instructor (of the
attendant and patient) and drescriber (of medicine and regimen).
As the utensils, fuel and fire are to a cook in cooking, or as
the terrain, army and weapon are to a conqueror in obtaining
victory, so are the other three factors in relation to the physician
in accomplishing the cure. Hence is the physician the foremost
factor in treatment. As the clay, the rod, the wheel etc. are
ineffective in the absence of the potter, so do the other three
factors in the absence of the physician fail to accomplish the
cure.” 84
But the same idea is sought to be conveyed by the Susruta-
samhita with a very different analogy. It is the analogy of a
sacrificial performance in which, of all the priests employed, the
one called Adhvaryu is supposed to be the most important.
T h u s:
“The physician, the patient, the medicine and the attendants (nurs­
es) are the four essential factors of a course of medical treatment—
In the absence of a qualified physician the three remaining fac­
tors of treatment will prove abortive, like a religious sacrifice

84. lb i.10.3 & 10-3. Tr G.

Indological Truths
 performed with the help of an Udgatj:, a Hotr and a Brahman
in the absence of an Adhvaryu.” ®®
The passages just quoted are, however, not to be misunder­
stood. These are intended only to show that the form in which
the Suhuta-samhita reaches us is not free from priestly bias.
In certain contexts in which the Caraka-samhitd is refreshingly
free from it, the Susruta-samhitd shows this bias quite crudely.
But this does not at all mean that the extant Susruta-samhitd
shows more of this bias. In many passages of the Caraka-
samhitd, science remains completely submerged under supersti­
tion, while in many passages of the Susruta-sarnhitd the view­
point of science is least tainted by superstition.
W hat we are trying to drive at is a simple point. A com­
parative assessment of the two texts form the viewpoint of the
superimposition of superstition on science in these is not so
important as the form itself in which both the compilations
reach us. If the later editors or reconstructors of the Caraka-
samhitd feel obliged to concede to religion for the pursose of
making the medical compilation sufiBciently innocuous in the
eyes of the law-givers, there is no reason to believe that those
through whose hands the Susruta-samhitd passes before reach­
ing us do not feel the same obligation, specially because its
hard medical core is the same as that of the Caraka-samhitd.
If therefore the Caraka-samhitd somehow or other also preserves
for us the criterion by which to differentiate the strictly medical
from extra-medical ideas and attitudes in it, the same criterion—
though not actually found in the Susruta-samhitd—m aybe pro­
fitably used by us for making a similar critical assessment of this
other compilation.
Less is unfortunately known by us about the history of the
formation of the extant Susruta-samhitd. We have seen how
Drdhabala, the final reconstructor of our Caraka-samhitd, gives
many valuable clups to the history of its formation. The extant
Susruta-sarnhitd, however, wants us only to believe that once
upon a time a number of sages approached Dhanvantari, alias

85. Susruta-samhita i-34.15 & 17. KSS-ed.

Indological Truths
Divodasa, king of KagI, who received Ayurveda from divine
sources—Brahma via Prajapati, the Alvins and Indra. Dhanvan-
tari imparts medical knowledge to these sages, and one of them
called SuSruta codifies his oral instructions. But it is too much
to believe that this enormous compilation embodying a vast
amount of empirical knowledge is codified by a single person
depending on the oral discourse of a single authority. In spite
of Hoernle®®, therefore, there is no sure ground proving the
historicity of Su^ruta, which literally means “ that which is well
heard” , or “ one who has thoroughly learned by hearing.”
Filliozat comments, “ The personage of SuSruta not being his­
torical, the Susruta-samhita shows itself to be not as the personal
work of a certain SuSruta, but as the anonymously edited
manual of a certain school which had selected a susrata for
patron.” ®^ Besides, there is at least one definite ground to think
that the Suhuta-samhita also does not reach us in its early form.
“ We know” continues Filliozat, “ by the very tradition of this
school, that this manual has reached us after having been retou­
ched at least once. The commentator Dalhana (xi-xii century
A.D.) affirms in effect that Nagarjuna has been the ‘reconstruc-
tor’ (pratisamskartr) of the Susruta-samhita. Cordier has put
forward the hypothesis that he has also completed the earlier
text by adding thereto the last section which now forms part
of the samhita and which is known as Uttara-tantra, ‘Last
Section (of the Book)’.” ®®
This has given some of the modern scholars an illusory
assurance about the date of the present version of the work, for
Nagarjuna is a very famous Buddhist philosopher of circa
second century A.D.®* The later Buddhist tradition attributes to
him not only profound knowledge in alchemy®® but also a very

86. Hoetn^e, Osteology S. 87. Filliozat 11-12. 88. lb. 12.

89. Keswani 13 not only identifies the editor of the SuSruta-satphita with
the founder of Sunya-vada but moreover places him in the second century
B .C .! See also his Foreword to Bhisagratna’s translation o f Susruta-sarrihita
p.5. F or the date of Nagarjuna, see Venkata Ramanan 5fT.
90. Chattopadhyaya (ed) T H B I106 & 110.

Indological Truths
large number of works on assorted subjects.®! It is thus easy to
imagine that he had, great knowledge of medicine as well and
hence could be the real reconstructor of the extant Suhuta-
samhita.
On critical considerations, however, such an assumption
proves futile. The great alchemic knowledge of Nagarjuna is
only a transparent fiction leisurely fabricated by the propagan­
dists of Mahayana and—apart from only a few texts—most
of those attributed to him are spurious, trying to acquire
authenticity by being associated with his name. Besides, there
are philosophical and religious considerations which make it im­
possible to connect him with the Suiruta-samhita as we have it,
unless of course we are prepared to believe that for the purpose
of editing the medical compilation he agreed to forget the fun­
damentals of his own philosophy and even renounce his other­
wise intense sectarian affiliation to Buddhism. We shall discuss
here only a few reasons explaining this.
Nagarjuna is the founder or at least the first great exponent
of the Madhyamaka philosophy, popularly known as Siinya-
vada. As a form of extreme idealism it is as much opposed to
the fundamentals of natural science as a philosophy can possibly
be.93 Nagarjuna shows the greatest zeal to prove the total un­
reality of nature or material world (prapanca-sunyatva) in
favour of an indescribable absolute (tathata or sunyata) only
mystically apprehended. Of the techniques followed by him for
proving this, two are most prominent. These are : 1) the
denial of c a u s a lity s s and 2) the damnation of experience and
reason as sources of right knowledge.®* With great scholastic
skill he wants to prove that the concept of causality is only a
fiction. He uses the same skill to “ demolish the normal sources
of knowledge” (pramam-vidhvamsana)^'^—particularly experience

91. About 180 works are attributed in the Tanjur to Nagarjuna, of which
only a few are genuine. Chattopadhyaya (ed) THBI 385.
92. Chattopadhyaya WLWD Ch.s ii & iii.
93. This forms the main theme of the opening chapter of his
maka-karika, for an analysis of which see Stcherbatsky CBN 121fT.
94. S. Mookerjee in NNM RP i.1-175.
95. Nagarjuna considers this theme so im portant for his philosophy that

Indological Truths
and reason—without which he finds it impossible to substantiate
his world-denying philosophy.
Can a philosopher like this have anything serious to do with
the medical tradition ? The answer is obvious and it must be
in the negative.
The concept of causality is absolutely crucial for Ayurveda.®6
It is a point fully shared by Susruta-samhitd with the Caraka-
samhita, because without it the Nidana-sthana of both the texts
become meaningless. We have already seen how the Caraka-
samhita insists that despite all differences between the different
schools of medicine, the acceptance of causality is one of the
minimum propositions required by all the schools (sarva-tantra-
siddhantd). Further, as we shall later see in some detail, the
Susruta-samhitd fully depends on the methodology of science
elaborately worked out in the Caraka-samhitd, the main point
of which is the use of experience and reason : without them the
ancient physicians know no way of understanding the actual
cause of a disease or of its cure. But not merely this. Along
with the Caraka-samhita, the Susruta-samhita tries to work
out a theory of matter (Jbhuta) and of the modes of its trans­
formation into living bodies—a theory without which Ayurveda
is inconceivable. These are examples of some of the theoreti­
cal positions found in the Susruta-samhitd and it is impossible
to imagine that a vigorous Sunya-vadin like Nagarjuna can leave
these uncensored in a book finally edited by him.
Philosophy apart, Nagarjuna has a strong sectarian affilia­
tion to Buddhist religion in its later form. But the religious
ideas and beliefs superimposed on medical science by those who
prepare the extant version of the Susruta-sarnhitd are predomi­
nantly Vedic—i.e. tirthika or ‘alien’ in the terminology of the
later Buddhists. The text not only opens with the claim of be­
ing only an o r ‘subsidiary discipline’ of the Atharvaveda,^’’

he writes special treatises on i t : Vaidalya-sutra & Prakarana, Tanjur mDo

xvii. 3 & 8.
96. Dasgupta ii.396 discusses the point in detail.
97. For the meaning of upahga, see Dasgupta ii.273ff.
6
Indological Truths
it recommends moreover in a cosiderable number of places the
chanting of Vedic spells and invoking the blessings of the Vedic
gods,®® prescribes the propitiation of the Brahmin to obtain his
blessings®® and speaks of the desirability of performing Vedic
sacrifice (/zoma) for medical p u r p o s e s . I g n o r i n g completely
the medical viewpoint, it even goes to the extent of describing
how the major organs of the body and the main physiological
functions are really controlled by the Vedic gods. Here is just
one example :
“ The tutelary god of intellection (buddhi) is Brahma. The god
Igvara is the presiding deity of the sense of egoism (ahamkam);
the moon god is that of the mind (manah) ; the quarters of
heaven, of the ears ; the wind god is that of the skin ; the sun
is that of the eyes ; the water is that of the taste ; the earth is
that of smell ; the fire is that of speech ; Indra is that of
hands ; Visnu is that of legs ; Mitra is that of the anus and
Prajapati is that of the organs of generation” . *
This, it is needless to say, is not medicine and, as we shall
later see, it goes completely against what the text has to say
about the same organs and their functions. It is evidently graf­
ted on the medical compilation by its “ reconstructor” , whoever
he may be. For our present purpose it is necessary only to
note that this reconstructor cannot be a Buddhist, because a
Buddhist reconstructor of a text—if at all interested in inser­
ting religious beliefs into it—is not supposed to insert beliefs
that are crassly Vedic.
Thus, in short, the reconstructor of the extant Susruta-
samhitd called Nagarjuna can by no means be the same as the
famous Buddhist philosopher bearing the same name. Who
then can be the person called Nagarjuna, whom Dalhana—evi­
dently depending on some sound Indian tradition—calls the
reconstructor of our Susruta-samhita ? Some of our modern

98. Susruta-samhita i.5.12 ; i.11.6; i.19.19 ; i.29.12 ; i.29.27 ; i.43.3 •

iii.1,7 ; iii.2.28 ; etc, T r. B.
99. lb. i.5.4 ; i.6.18 ; i.19.15 ; i.28.3 ; iii,I0.2 ; etc. T r B.
100. i.11.6. T rB . 101. /6. iii.1.7. Tr B.

Indological Truths
 scholars have their theory of two Nagarjunas—one the Sunya-
vadin philosopher and the other a specialist in alchemy and
medicine. ^®® Assuming this, we may expect to identify the re-
constructor of the Susruta-samhita with this second Nagarjuna.
But then who is he and to what period does he belong ? Some
hope of answering this question is roused by the account of
Indian science left by the visiting Central Asian scientist al-BirunI
(973-1048), who travelled in India during A.D. 1017-1030. He
mentions rasayana as “ an art which is restricted to certain opera­
tions, drugs, and compound medicines, most of which are taken
from plants. Its principles restore the health of those who were
ill beyond hope, and give back youth to fading old age.” *®*
Though al-Birurni is himself extremely cynical about the scientific
merit of r a s a y a n a ,^ he tells us : “ A famous representative of
this art was Nagarjuna, a native of the fort of Daihak, near
Somanath. He excelled in it, and composed a book which con­
tains the substance of the whole literature on this subject, and is
very rare. He lived nearly a hundred years before our time.” ‘ ° ®
Are we then look for our reconstructor of the Susrta-samhita
in this Nagarjuna, who, on al-Biruni’s authority, is to be placed
roughly in the tenth century ? There are many difificulties in do­
ing this. The Susruta-samhita. contains only four brief chapters
on rasayana,^^^ the discussion of which in the Caraka-samhita
is far more extensive. In any case, it cannot be described by a
scientist like al-Biruni as a book merely on rasayana. Secondly,
as Filliozat convincingly shows, our Suhuta-sarnhita must have
been in existence long before the tenth century. “ Happily” , says
he, ‘‘we have elsewhere some indices of calculating the date when
the text of the Susruta-sarnhita was finally fixed. The medical
manuscript found by Bower in Central Asia, at Koutcha, and
published by Hoernle, mentions SuSruta, as also Atreya, Bhela
and other authors. Hoernle has determined the date of this
manuscript with a somewhat illusory precision, but which, from

102. s. K . D e in HB i.l 19-20 ; Venkata Ramanan 336.

103. Sachaui.188. 104. /6. i.l89fT. 105. 76. i . l 89.
106. Susruta-saiphita iv.27-I0.

Indological Truths
the point of view of palaeography, belongs to the period of the IV
to Vl-th centuries...Elsewhere, the texts attributed to Vagbhata,
the Astanga-samgraha and the Astahga-hr.daya-samhita follow
and eventually reproduce the Susruta-samhita as it has reached
us....The Astahga-hrdaya is quoted in the Kitab-al-Fihrist in
Arabic, in 988....One can, therefore, admit that in Vll-th century
at the latest, the Susruta-samhita had been fixed in its present
form, having already been re-adapted by the ‘reconstructor’.” ‘ ®
It is thus difficult to accept that the specialist in rasayana
whom al-Bir5ni mentions as Nagarjuna is the reconstructor of
our Susruta-samhita. Who then is this reconstructor ? At the
present stage of research it seems impossible to answer the ques­
tion with certainty. This does not mean that the commentator
Dalhana simply fabricates the story of such a reconstructor.
The strong presumption on the contrary is that the contents of
the Sukuta-samhita, showing the rather free tendency of graft­
ing all sorts of religious and metaphysical ideas on medicine and
surgery, indicate that this compilation has a history of formation
somewhat similar to the Caraka-samhita. In other words, the
present form of the Susruta-samhita unmistakably suggests that
this medical compilation too. is variously altered by one or
more editors, who want to give it a religious stamp to make it
acceptable to orthodoxy. One of these editors may have the
name Nagarjuna. But we do not know who this Nagarjuna is.
In view of the strong Buddhist association of this name, if we
are obliged to believe that this editor is a Buddhist by creed, it
seems necessary to postulate also some other editor of the
compilation who adds to it the final Brahmanical bias palpably
superimposed on medical science in our extant Susruta-samhita.
Since however we have no positive information about the
editor or editors of the extant Susruta-samhita, any view about
the time when the compilation assumes its present form is bound
to be more or less conjectural. The more important point for
our understanding of the history of Indian science seems to be

107. Filliozat 13-14.

Indological Truths
the possible age of the formation of the medical views it con­
tains. But we need not raise this question separately, because
the doctrinal content of the Susruta-samhita is on the whole the
same as that of the Caraka-samhita. Discarding therefore the
tendency to any absolute dating of either of the two compila­
tions, we shall later try to discuss the more basic question con­
cerning the formation of the medical doctrines contained in
both.

Indological Truths
fii /i'i ■:;:>i;;'i‘:. 1',: gc,.-:;:;;:.'
'v.c n:? ; : r f : i ' ' j . : / S' ; ■ . / ' i o r ,.

i;i Ci"; 'h ■ C'.'^ . ; : U V f h '

Indological Truths
SCIENCE AND COUNTER-IDEOLOGY

Indological Truths
 I - / : -v

Indological Truths
 CHAPTER I

SCIENCE

1. PRELIMINARY REMARKS

The main question raised and sought to be answered in an­

cient Indian medicine retains profound significance even for our
times. It is the question concerning the interaction between en­
vironmental matter and body-matter—between matter in its
state of various things of nature and matter that assumes the
form of the living bodies, specially human bodies.
Such a question was evidently suggested by ai^ enormous
amount of empirical data—mainly of the nature of the effects
on human bodies of various things consumed as food and
drink—compiled by generations of observers over a vast tract
highly rich in flora, fauna and even certain rare minerals.^
Their tools of observation were inevitably rudimentary—
nothing more than the unaided sense-organs, sharpened by
intellectual discipline to a certain extent though these might
have been. There was moreover no possibility then of having
controlled conditions to ensure the accuracy of observation.
What was nevertheless remarkable about the ancient doctors
was the methodology and conceptual tools they evolved for
processing their data. These led them to interpret the simple
facts of eating and drinking as a grand theoretical generalisation
of the interaction between natural matter and body-matter.
As physicians, they were naturally interested above all in
the problem of man. But they viewed everything about man—
his health and disease, his growth and decay, and in fact the

1. E.g. §ilajatu or exudate fron ores with different mineral contents :

Caraka-Sairihita i.21.14; vi.lC .58. {raupya-silajatu & tamra-silajatu) ;
vi.lC .64 ; vi.12.49 ; vi.15,13 ; vi.16.78 ; vi.21 24 ; vi.2I.I30.

Indological Truths
very phenomenon ordinarily called “ life” or p r a m —in terms
of matter, the Indian word for which is bhuta, usually con­
ceived by the physicians as existing in five forms (panca-bhuta).
If they tried to make their view more detailed than was per­
missible on the basis of the technological and other equipments
then available, it is for us only an evidence of how positive
science is sometimes wrongly lured by the fascination for pre­
mature theoretical completeness. But the main aim of their
theoretical drive is not to be overlooked, nor its historical
significance undervalued. Practically everything considered
worthwhile for their science was understood by them in terms of
matter and its transformation. Outside the discussion of this,
nothing was relevant for medicine.
This placed the ancient doctors among the pioneers of the
materialist outlook in Indian history. They are of course yet
unaware of the unlimited possibilities of the expansion of the
knowledge of matter and of the laws of its transformation,
which they are only beginning to understand. But all this
only means that they are ancient scientists after all, and are
not required to prophesy the future development of science.
The limitation of these pioneers of science are not to be
emphasised to the extent of overlooking what nevertheless
is positively achieved by them. They reach the firm con­
viction, for example, that this matter of which everything is
made is knowable, and that there is nothing mysterious or
supernatural about the laws of its transformation. These laws
are essentially the laws of nature, the knowledge of which—
the ancient doctors argue in their own way—extends human
power over nature, which, from the medical point of view,
means ensuring long and healthy life.
Judged by what is positively achieved in ancient Indian
medicine, it has great importance not only for the history of
science in its narrow sense but also for the broader context
of the history of ideas. There is indeed a magnificient begin­
ning in ancient India of science consciousness, with the material­
ist outlook forming its theoretical basis. What eventually
stifles all this is thus a very serious question of ancient Indian

Indological Truths
 history. Before passing on to it, let us have some idea of the
beginning itself.

2. MAN OR PURUSA

The metaphysicians speculating on the spiritual essence of

man are mainly interested in the mystery of the soul. One of
the terms persistently used in Indian philosophical literature to
refer to this is purusa. The metaphysicians of the Upanisadas
propose to identify this soul or purusa with the ultimate reality,
which they call brahman. As it is put in the Br,hadaranyaka
Upanisad, “ This shining immortal purusa who is in this earth,
and, with reference to oneself, this shining immortal purusa who
is in the body—^he indeed is just this Soul (atm an ), this Immor­
tal, this Brahman, this all.” ^ The law-givers add that this philo­
sophy of the spirit or soul is the only pious philosophy, in
which therefore people must have implicit faith.®
The physicians retain the term purusa, but they scrap its
spiritual connotation. Notwithstanding the metaphysicians, the
physicians’ interest in purusa is an all-absorbing interest in his
physical constitution or the body. As the Caraka-samhitd for­
mulates, “ Everything about purusa or man is established in the
body” : sarira-mulah ca purusah bhavati*
The Susruta-sam hita seems to be more specific in asserting
that this purusa in which the physicians are interested is viewed
as something essentially material. Defining certain basic medi­
cal terminologies, it says ;
“ Among these, the term purusa should be taken to mean those
substances from which purusa originates, i.e, matter in its differ­
ent forms ; it should be taken also to mean the various parts or
limbs of purusa, and moreover the skin, flesh, bone, vein, nerve,

2. Br. Up. ii.5.1. 3. E.g. Manu vi.29 ; 49 ; 82-4 ; xii.83;85;91-3 ; 118-25.

4. Caraka-saijihita ii 6.6.

Indological Truths
etc.” : tatra purusa-grahandt tat-sambhava-dravya-samuhah bhu-
tadih uktah ; tat-ahga-pratyahga-vikalpdh ca ivak-mamsa-asthi~
sira-sndyu-prabhrtayah. ®
Such a view of purusa or man, identifying him with the body
made of matter alone, appears to be precariously near the well-
known view of the outspoken materialists, the Lokayatas or
Carvakas, who are heavily censored as heretics by the law-givers
and others. Could it then be that the ancient doctors feel the
need of some subterfuge to evade this censorship, i. e. the need
of toning down its open commitment to the materialist outlook ?
In any case, we come across something peculiar in the extant
Susruta-sam hita. The same opening chapter of the text from
which [its view of purusa is just quoted, gives us another defini­
tion of it, which somehow or other wants to accommodate the
concept of the indwelling spirit or soul in the body. This other
definition of purusa, which occurs earlier in the chapter, reads :
“ In this discipline (viz. Ayurveda), purusa or man means the
transformation of matter in its five forms as combined with
‘the embodied’ {sarlrin, i.e. the soul). All medical acts (such
as, surgical operation, administration of drugs, application of
alkaline substances and cauterisation) are restricted to the purusa
alone” : asmin sd stre panca-m ahdbhuta-sariri-samavayah puru-
sah iti ucyate ; tasmin k riyd , sah adhisthanam.^
There is something obviously peculiar about this modified
definition of purusa, in which is added “ the embodied” or soul
(sarlrin) to the physical entity made of matter in five forms,
specially because the medical interest apparently taken in it is
plainly fictitious. Medical acts, by which our text strictly means
surgical operation, administration of drugs, cauterisation etc.,
are restricted to the purusa exclusively in the sense of the body ;
these can have absolutely nothing to do with the embodied soul.
In short, the purpose of adding the concept of soul to the view
of purusa—OT of just loosely inserting the word sarlrin into this
definition—can at best have an extra-medicinal significance.
Interestingly enough, the same Susruta-sarnhitd elsewhere

5. S'Hira/a-sa/wfoVa i 1.47. KSS-ed. 6. /6 . i.1,30.

Indological Truths
apparently forgets the need of such an extra-medical graft on
medical view and returns to its basically materialist understand­
ing of man or purusa. Thus it declares :
“ Knowing man or purusa as the product of rasa, one must be
specially careful about the preservation of rasa” : rasajarn
purusam vidyat rasam rakset pra ya tn a ta h J
What, then, is meant by rasa, of which man or purusa is
supposed to be made ? It is one of the basic concepts of an­
cient Indian medicine and, in this context of the constitution of
the human body, it is variously translated by the modern scholars
as “chyle” , “ lymph chyle” , fluid of life” and “ organic sap” .
Of these we provisionally accept the last expression, because it
comes very near to the idea sought to be conveyed by the ancient
physicians when they speak of rasa as the basic substance of the
organism. But the more important point to be noted is that
this view of man made of rasa brings us back to the same
materialist understanding of purusa in Ayurveda, for rasa itself
is viewed as the product of matter in five forms (panca-bhuta).
Here is how the Susruta-sarnhitd explains the origin of rasa :
“ Food, which is made of matter in five forms, when fully trans­
formed into its subtlest essence by the agency of fire is called
rasa” : tatra pancabhautikasya...aharasya sam yak-parinatasya
yah tejobhutah sarah param a suksm ah sa rasa iti ucyate.^
It is called rasa, says the text, because the word is derived
from the root ras, “ to move” , and the substance thus named is
ceaselessly circulating throughout the organism.® From this rasa
are successively formed all the main constituents of the body—
blood (ra k ta ), flesh (m atnsa), fat (m edas), bone (aslh i), marrow
(m ajja) and semen (sukra).^^

3. M A N A N D NATUR E

We shall later return to this theory of body formation in

7. Ib. i.14.12. 8. Ib. i.14.1.

9. Ib. i.14.13. 10. Ib. Cf Caraka-samhita vi.15.17.

Indological Truths
more detail. For the present, what concerns us is another point.
This view of man being made of rasa and of rasa being the pro­
duct of matter in five forms, leads the physicians to a general
world-outlook in which man and nature are intimately interrela­
ted, because everything in nature too is made of the same stuff,
namely matter in its five forms. The unity of man and nature
thus becomes a fundamental postulate of ancient Indian medi­
cine. The way in which the physicians try to express this is of
cosiderable theoretical significance. The body is viewed by them
not merely as a part of nature but moreover—made as it is of
the same stuff that goes to the making of everything else in
nature—is considered an “ epitome of nature” , a “ microcosm” .
As the Caraka-sarnhita puts it,
“This purusa is an epitome of nature” : evam ayam lokasammi-
tah purusah.^^
What is specially emphasised about this relation between man
and nature is that without the knowledge of nature, the know­
ledge of man remains incomplete. The knowledge of man pre­
supposes the knowledge of nature as a whole.
This cannot but be reminiscent of the view which, in the
Phaedrus, Plato attributes to ancient Greek medicine, or more
specifically to its spokesman, Hippocrates. As Plato puts the
view ;
“ —Do you think it possible, then, satisfactorily to comprehend
the nature of soul apart from the nature of the universe ?
—Nay, if we are to believe Hippocrates, of the Asclepiad family,
we cannot learn even about the body unless we follow this
method of procedure.” *®
In spite of such a lucid statement, it proves a formidable
difficulty for later authorities on ancient Greek medicine to trace
the view in any of the treatises that survive for us in the Hippo­
cratic corpus. -‘The Phaedrus passage indeed” , says W. H. S.
Jones, “ has been recognised by Littre as a reference to Ancient
M edicine, but Galen is positive that it refers to Nature o f
M an r^ ^

11. Caraka-sarnhita iv.4.13. Cf. iv.5.3. 12. Plato Phaedrus 210.

13. Jones i. intro, p. xliv.

Indological Truths
 When great authorities contradict each other so flagrantly,
the question remains open to enquiry. But the enquiry proves
disappointing. Neither the Ancient M edicin e nor the N ature o f
M an shows the view Plato attributes to ancient Greek medi­
cine.** Besides, what survives for us as the medical literature
of ancient Greece or the Hippocratic collection so-called, exhi­
bits “ the sharpest possible contradictions in doctrines.” “ It gives
us the impression of philosophical debates on various topics
rather than an agreed body of general principles required for
medical practice. As we shall later see, it is difficult—if not
impossible—for us today to be exact about the basic theoretical
position of ancient Greek medicine and as such the place of
the view of man and nature in it is at best conjectural.
Notwithstanding Plato therefore there is no sure ground for
us today to think that the fundamental unity of nature and man
is crucial for ancient Greek medicine. But it is crucial for the
theory and practice of Ayurveda. A number of propositions
considered essential by the ancient Indian doctors follow direct­
ly from it. It appears, however, that the view is not abruptly
invented by the doctors. It was taking shape from a dim anti­
quity as part of some cosmogonic speculation, through which
the ancients tried to express their accumulated experience and
wisdom. What the physicians do is to revolutionise the content
and form of this speculation so fundamentally that it no longer
remains part of primitive cosmogony but becomes an essential
theoretical prerequisite for medical science. To see the role of
the doctors in the making of this view, we have to digress a
little into its prehistory, which seems to have an interest of its
own.

4. PREHISTORY OF THE VIEW OF M A N A N D NATURE

One source of the suggestion of the basic unity of man and

14. lb. intro p. xxxiv-xxxv. 15. Ib. i. intro, p. xxviii.

Indological Truths
 and nature, as Filliozat shows, is traceable as far back as the
Indo-Iranian period. Reviewing the pre-Aryan and Indo-Aryan
data on medicine, he concludes, “ In the Indo-Iranian period
there does not seem to have existed any medical system which
the Vedic Aryans could have brought with them into India. On
the other hand, right from the Indo-Iranian period, several
general notions concerning the cosmic role of the natural ele­
ments, such as the waters, the fire, the wind, had come into
being. At the same time an idea of the correspondence between
these elements and the constituent principles of the body had
been developed and this must have prepared the latter-day deve­
lopment of the two parallel physiologies and cosmologies.” ‘ ®
This suggestion takes a clearer form in the first grouping for
the conception of regular order in general—in the Vedic rja,
corresponding to Avestan asa and the Old-Persian p a — i. e. a
conception which also goes back to the Indo-Iranian period.
As Filliozat, referring to the n a , continues :
“ Among the peoples inclined to explain the organism by the
cosmos and the cosmos by the organism, this notion must have
quickly extended itself from the sky to the earth, from the world
to the living beings. Although victim of innumerable accidents,
the existence of this last one could not be conceived as being
outside the orbit of the great cosmic law, as the same body was
a little cosmos. If this is not properly speaking, a scientific con­
cept of natural law, it is at least an idea quite near the same.” ‘ ’
What Filliozat does not note—^perhaps because of his basic
preoccupation with the idea of the Vedic heritage of Ayurveda—is
the eventual fate of the conception of r ta in the later Vedic tra­
dition itself. This ancient concept magnificently foreshadowing
the view of the laws of nature instinctively as it were, did not
fulfil the promise inherent in it. Instead of developing into the
view of the laws of nature in the later scientific sense, the Vedic
n a meets an abrupt end in the Vedic tradition. In the
imagination of the ancient Vedic poets, p a represented the
most comprehensive view of law—so comprehensive indeed

Indological Truths
 as trying to embrace into an ordered whole all phenomena
of nature inclusive of society. The sense of such a law, regulating
the natural order as much as the social order, is apparently
disturbed with the disturbance of the latter. Thus we find Kutsa,
a comparatively later poet of the R gveda, complaining of the
loss of r.ta in connection with the miserable condition into which
he is thrown :
“I ask of thee, the ancient one,...where is the rta of the past
gone (kva rtam purvyam gatam ) ? Who is the new one who holds
it ?... Oh gods of the three spheres, where is the rja of yours
gone ? Whence again is this absence of r ta {anrta) ?...Where,
oh gods, is the holdings of rta ? Where is the watchfulness of
Varuna (the original custodian of rta) ? Where again is the
path—the magnificent ways—of Aryaman ? And hence we
are fallen in misery... We ask of Varuna, the knower of the
path and the maker of food, and I utter this from my h e a rt;
Let the rta be born anew {navyah ja y a ta m rta m ).” ^^
But the poet’s wish remains unfulfilled and there is no
revival of the r.ta in the Vedic world-view. In later Vedic
literature—the Yajurveda, Brahmana-s and Upanisads—what
survives of the rta is at best its dead relic. The ancient realisa­
tion of the unity of man and nature and of everything being
governed by the same immutable laws—the view of which we
have glimpse in the uninhibited primitive poetry of the
Rgveda —gives place to deliberate obscurantism of the Yajur­
veda and it is finally swept away by the world-denying specu­
lations of the Upanisads, which gives to the Vedic thought a
new direction altogether.^® The philosopher’s consciousness
is coerced to a peculiar process of introversion, in which the
only interest in purusa or man assumes the form of the interest
in his spiritual essence or atman, viewing the body at best as
an unfortunate temporary abode of this soul. In short, in
the general theoretical atmosphere created in the later Vedic
tradition, there is no real interest either in nature or in man,
and hence no longer any urge to develop the view of the laws
unifying both.

Indological Truths
 But this does not mean that the grand principle of the
unity of man and nature becomes extinct in Indian thought.
Though condemned to emaciation and final extinction in the
oflScially boosted world-outlook of the later Vedic period, it
survives in what is usually called Tantrism—a trend of theory
and practice that constitutes some kind of an ideological
underworld from a very remote antiquity.^® To this were
afiBliated many popular cults, inclusive of some still surviving
in the country. Referring to one of these, called the Sahajias,
S. B. Dasgupta observes,
“ Along with the uncompromising spirit of revolt against all
formalities and orthodoxy of religion, great emphasis is laid
in the Sahajia literature on the human body, which is conceived
as a microcosm of the universe. This feature...predominates
in all the Tantras in general, wherever the Yogic element pre­
vails ; but as the Sahajias laid the whole stress on the Yogic
element, this theory of the body being the epitome of the
whole universe is most emphasised.’ i
Emphasis is added to the expression “Yogic element” in the
quotation above, because in this we can see the real weakness of
the view of the unity of man and nature as surviving in the
Tantras. It is this that leads the Tantrikas to the belief that by
controlling the inner mechanism of the human body, it is possi­
ble to bring the course of the entire universe under control.
In spite of this fantasy, however, there survives in the Tantras
the sound principle of the unity of man and nature along with
the zeal of understanding man in terms of the body and the
body alone. Here is how another eminent authority on Tantrism
puts its viewpoint:
“ Whatever exists in the universe exists also in the human body ;
brahmande y e gunah santi te tis thanti kalevare. The human
body is only a microcosm of the universe. This view is shared
by all Tantras. The wisdom of Tantrism is explained by all
on the basis of this view... There are thus two aspects of

20. Chattopadhyaya L 269ff. Mait. Up. vii.Sff seems to give us the

first glimpse of this ideological underworld, 21. S. B. Dasgupta
ORC 103.
Indological Truths
 Tantrika theory and practices. One of this is the external as­
pect and is concerned with the universe. The other is the
internal aspect and is concerned with the human body. There
are two ways in which the Tantrika practices lead to success.
One of these is concerned with internal nature, i.e. of nature
as human body. You can attain success by developing the
forces latent in you. Alternatively, you can move towards the
expression of your internal forces by controlling external or
natural forces. •••According to the Tantras, since the universe
and the human body are made according to the same principles
and of the same materials, and since the same forces operate
in the same manner in both, by developing the forces inherent
in the body you can have the forces of the universe in your
favour and under your control...The relationship between the
forces lying dormant in nature and in human body is indeed
astonishing. The practices on the strength of which this inti­
mate relationship is known, established and brought under
control, constitute the Ta.ntia.-sadfiana or Tantra-practices. Its
basis is deha-tattva —the cult of the body. That is why Tantra
is all along so deeply concerned with the question concerning
the body.” 22

5. M AN A N D NATURE : PHYSICIANS’ VIEW

Such then is the form in which the view of the basic unity
of nature and man comes down to the physicians. It is a form
in which the promise of science remains enmeshed in fantasy.
But it is important that the view survives even with this limi­
tation. When the officially boosted idealist philosophy of the
Upanisads develops strong contempt for the body in order to
glorify the soul—when this philosophy wants to undermine the
reality of the material world or nature to make room for the
exclusive reality of the spirit—the Tantrikas keep alive a di-

Indological Truths
rect interest in the body and in the material world, viewing both
as iniimately interrelated. This is an essential precondition
for medical science, not only because the physicians, as physi­
cians, are concerned with the body but moreover because they
find it impossible to conceive the body without its relation to
the rest of the material world. Hence the presumption is that
Ayurveda remains indebted to the cult of the body or deha-
tattva of the Tantrikas.
Admitting this, however, it will be an error to overlook
the profound transformation effected by the physicians in the
view of man and nature retained in Tantrism. Discarding the
fantasy of controlling the entire course of nature by yogic
practices intended to control the inner mechanism of the body,
the physicians take the step of insisting on the importance of
the knowledge of nature or the material world as an essential
precondition for the right understanding—and therefore also
for better mastering—of the mechanism of the human body.
From the medical viewpoint, this understanding is useless unless
it is established on a fully rational basis. Therefore, scrap­
ping the Tantrika terminologies of certain quasi-mystical forces
supposed to be operating both in man and nature, the physi­
cians propose to explain both in terms of the same categories
of concretely real things. Lest its formulation of man being
the epitome of the world should remain vague or misunderstood,
the Caraka-sam hita immediately amplifies its point :
“ Whatever concretely exists in the world, exists also in man
(purusa) ; whatever concretely exists in man, exists also in
nature. Such is the way in which intelligent persons want to
view both” : yavantah hi lake m urtimantah bhava-visesah
tavantah puruse ; yavantah puruse tavantah loke i t i ; budhah tu
evam d r s tim icchanti.^^
But what exactly are the physicians driving at ? What,
according to them, concretely exists both in man and nature,
making the former an epitome of the latter ? The context in
which the formulation occurs in the Caraka-samhita leaves us
with no uncertainty about the answer. What the physicians are

23. Caraka-samhita iv.4.13.

Indological Truths
talking of is only m atter and its transformation. The formula­
tion, it needs to be noted, occurs ■immediately after discussing
how natural matter in its five forms contributes to the forma­
tion of everything in the human body, beginning from its foetal
stage. As the text, referring to the foetus formation, says :
“In it (the foetus), even what is derived from the mother etc.
is after all nothing but the transformation of matter” : m a tr ja -
dayah api asya mahabhuta-vikarah eva.^*
Obviously enough, such a formulation is as important from
the viewpoint of modern science as it is difficult for ancient
science to work out. It needs a great deal of knowledge of
matter and of the laws of its transformation to work out the
proposition. The ancient scientists, who are just beginning to
grope for the knowledge of matter, are not expected to give us
any account of the body-formation from natural matter more
satisfactorily than it is historically possible for them. Histori­
cally speaking, however, no less important is the point that some
people somewhere must make a beginning of this understand­
ing and thereby create the possibility for further research in the
same direction. In ancient India at any rate the doctors appear
to take this first bold step. The way in which they try to view
everything in the body as made of natural matter is somewhat
complex. Pending a fuller discussion of the view, we quote
here only the summary of it as occurring in the present context
of the Caraka-sam hita :
“ In it (i. e. in the foetus), sound, auditory sense, lightness, fine­
ness and cavity are but transformations of matter in its akasa-
form ; tangibility, cutaneous sense, roughness, holding together
of the body-elements and movements located within the body
are but transformations of matter in its air-form ; colour, visual
sense, brightness, digestion and heat are but transformations
of matter in its fire-form ; taste, gustatory sense, coldness, soft­
ness, unctuousness and wetness are but transformations of
matter in its water-form ; odour, olfactory sense, weight, stability
and hardness are but transformations of matter in its earth-
form.” 2»

Indological Truths
 This, as we shall see, is in need of much explanation. But
it represents the main point of the theoretical drive of the ancient
Indian physicians. W hat they are trying to work out is thus
not difficult to see. The fundamental unity of man and nature—
that which makes man a microcosm of the world—is due to
the fact that the human body is nothing but a special organisa­
tion of matter, that natural matter in its five forms is transfor­
med into the human body, that the human body is made of the
same stuff of which everything else in nature is made. Thus,
in short, that which enables the physicians to infuse a new
content altogether into the ancient view of the unity of man and
nature is their conscious effort to establish it on the general
materialist view—on a theory of matter and of its transformation.

6. INTERCONNECTIONS IN NATURE

Before proceeding further, we have to note the immediate impli­

cation of the physician’s view of the unity of man and nature.
Put in modern terminology, it means that physiology is inse­
parable from other branches of natural science like physics and
chemitsry, botany and zoology, mineralogy and cUmatology, and
so on. If man and nature are basically the same, the knowledge
of nature in every form must have its bearing on the full under­
standing of man. For the ancient physicians, however, these
various disciplines are yet to branch out as forms of specialised
natural sciences. They have therefore to grope for expressions
to convey the idea of the grand principle of interconnection in
nature, which makes the study of one of its facades unrelated to
the whole as something necessarily incomplete. Yet the expres­
sions they actually use are not without interest for us. RefeiT-
ing to matter in its five forms, the S u hu ta-sam h itd says,
“ (Five forms of matter) exist in everything in the world, because
of their mutual interrelation, because of their mutual inter­
dependence and because of their mutual interpenetration” :

Indological Truths
paraspara-sam sargat, paraspara-anugrahandt, paraspara-anupre-
vesa t ca sarvesu sarvesam sannidhyam asti.^^
This gives us some idea of of the grand view of interrelation
and interpenetration of matter in all its forms on which ancient
medicine depends. It follows for the physicians that though
matter exists in five fundamental forms and though everything
in nature is made of matter, there is hardly anything concretely
existing in nature made exclusively or purely of one form of
matter. Matter in all its five forms goes to the making of every­
thing in nature.
W hat then do they mean when they speak of various things
as “ made of earth” {parthiva), “ made of the water” (apya),
etc. ? The Susruta-sam hitd answers that though everything con­
cretely existing in nature is made of matter in all its five forms,
because of the predominance of one matter-form in something
it is called “ made of earth” or “ made of water” , etc. : utkarsah
tu abhivyanjakah bhavati, idam parthivam , idam apyam , idam
taijasam, idam vayavyam, idam dkasiyam iti.^ ’
We shall presently see the special need felt by the physicians
to take such a view. What interests us here is the practical
proposition following from it. In view of the basic principle of
interpenetration an interaction of matter in everything belonging
to nature, nothing in nature can be irrelevant for medicine.
The medical compilations want to put special emphasis on this
point. As the C araka-sam hitd says,
“ The entire world is the teacher of the intelligent physician, as
it is the foe of the fool” : krtsnah hi lokah buddhimatam
dcdryah ; sa tm h ca a-buddhimatdm.^^
The other way in which the same is sought to be coveyed in
both the compilations is to claim that everything in nature
must have some bearing or other on medical requirments. Here
is one of the expressions used in the Caraka-sam hitd for this
fundamental assumption of Indian medicine :
“ There is nothing in nature without relevance for medicine” : na
anausadham kimcit.^^

26. Susruta-samhita iA2.3. KSS-ed. 27. /6 . i.41.3. 28. Caraka

-samhita iii.8.14. 29. lb. i.27.330.

Indological Truths
 If such brief formulations are not adequate to convey the
profound thesis that without the integrated idea of all aspects of
nature, the knowledge of man remains incomplete,—we must
not overlook the important fact that the representatives of
ancient Indian medicine work in their own way for the
practical implementation of the idea. Historically speaking, they
are the pioneers of a number of natural sciences in ancient
India—of physics and chemistry, of botany and zoology, of
mineralogy and climatology, etc. What is historically no less
remarkable about them is that they do their best to integrate
the knowledge of nature approached from different standpoints.
For the sake of their science, the ancient doctors strive after the
knowledge of nature as a whole.
That which makes it possible for them to strive after such
knowledge is the fundamental theoretical conviction already
mentioned. It is the conviction that the different facades of
nature are interconnected, because everything in nature is made
of the same stuff, namely bhuta or matter. This conviction is
further strengthened by another—equally basic for Ayurveda—
namely that everything in nature occurs according to certain
immutable laws, the body of which is usually called svabhdva in
Indian thought.
In the intellectual atomosphere created in the country by the
persistent demand of the law-givers*® for the outright rejection
of materialism in favour of the idealist world-view, both the
propositions of the physicians are sure to be censored as highly
heretical. This explains why in the medical compilations in their
extant forms we find the strange allegiance pledged to all sorts
of alien thoughts also, the obvious purpose of which is to give
these works an innocuous appearance in the eyes of orthodoxy.
What needs to be specially noted, however, is that notwithstanding
all the muddles created by these grafts on our texts, their basic
commitments to the view of the bhuta-s and svabhava could not
be wiped out, because without these the theoretical fundamentals
of Ayurveda are inconceivable.
30. Manu on heretics (understood mainly as materialists) iv.61; v.88-90 ;
ix.225 ; xii.5 ; on their doctrines and books xi.66 ; xii.5. D etails to be
discussed later.
Indological Truths
 Let us begin with one of the formulations just quoted :
“ There is nothing in nature which is without relevance for
medicine” .®‘ The same formulation is repeated in the Caraka-
samhita : “ No substance is found in the world which is without
relevance for medicine” : na anausadham Jagati kim cit dravyam
upalabhyate.^^ We read the same practically in the same
words also in the Susruta-sam hita. “ There is no substance
in the world which cannot be used for some medical purpose” :
na anausadhibhutam ja g a ti kim cit dravyam asti.^^
The repetitions are important. These show that the
formulation is crucial for ancient Indian medicine. We shall
later see how it gives us also a clue to the possible dating of
the formation of the medical view. For the present, we shall
try to discuss another question. How are the ancient physi­
cians led to a tall generalisation like this ?
The answer is obviously to be sought in the actual contexts
in which these generalisations occur in the medical compilations.
One of the contexts in which it occurs in our Caraka-samhitd
is the discussion of a somewhat staggering list of animate and
inanimate substances and their products recommended for
various medical purposes.®* After giving the list, the text
simply says that it is obviously impossible to discuss everything
in the world from the viewpoint of their medical use. Since,
however, there can be nothing in nature irrelevant for medicine,
the things not covered by the present list are^ also to be judged
by their qualities and according to the principles just discussed,
also taking note of the local wisdom where such substances
are found.®®
The readiness to accept the wisdom of other peoples indi­
cates no doubt the open mind of these ancient scientists. But
the formulation in the form in which it is just quoted may

31. Caraka-samhita 1.27.330. 32. Ib. i.26.12. 33. Susruta-smjihita

i.48.8. KSS-ed. 34. Caraka-samhita i.27.4-329. 35. lb. i.27.229-30.

Indological Truths
give us the impression of a hasty generalisation based primarily
on pragmatic considerations. We do not see in this context
the rationale for the formulation. This does not mean, how­
ever, that the rationale is not there in our text. It is not
mentioned in the present context for the simple reason that
it is already explained in the immediately preceding chapter
of the Caraka-sam hita where the formulation first occurs.
What then is this explanation ?
The Caraka-samhita does not mince words about the mate-
rialist commitment of Ayurveda when it first introduces the
formulation. It occurs in the report on a medical colloquium
held in the Caitraratha forest, which is attended by about a
dozen medical authorities. The subject discussed is the nature
and number of taste-qualities of various substances, which, as
we shall see, has great importance in medical theory. Summing
up the discussion, Atreya, the spokesman of medical science,
comes out with the following :
“ In this discipline (i.e. medicine), everything is viewed as
made of matter in five forms (panca-bhuta). These are
either endowed with consciousness or are just unconscious.
Their qualities are ‘sound etc.’ as well as ‘heavy etc. ending
with the liquid’. As already mentioned, their actions are five­
fold, namely emesis etc.” : sarvam dravyam pancabhautikam
asmin arthe ; ta t cetanavat, acetanam ca ; tasya gunah sab-
dadayah, gurvadayah ca dravantah ; karm a pancavidham uktarn
vamanadi.^^
The statement is categorical and it leaves us with nothing
vague about the theoretical position of Ayurveda. Whatever
else the metaphysicians may have to say, the physician in his
special capacity cannot but be a materialist, because from the
medical viewpoint there can be nothing which is not made of
matter. Even substances endowed with consciousness are as
much the products of matter as substances without con­
sciousness.
It may be easy for us to call this materialism crude, naive
and primitive. But that is not enough for the purpose of

Indological Truths
judging the theoretical position of the ancient physicians. The
more important point is that the first decisive step taken by
them towards positive science is characterised also by the
awareness of the need for a materialist view of things. It is
this that lays the foundation for patient researches of centuries
to come, and hence is of abiding importance for science.
Historically speaking, the detailed explanation of man and
nature actually offered by the ancient physicians—the way in
which they try to work out a comprehensive view of everything
in terms of matter—cannot obviously be more satisfactory than
their understanding of matter itself. Still, neither the historian
of science nor the historian of philosophy can possibly ignore
it, because that will be as much of an error as any tendency
to overrate its importance.
In this explanation, the point that interests the physicians
most is that of the transformation of natural matter into body-
matter. It is on the basis of this that they want to establish
their therapeutic generalisation that there is nothing in nature
which is without relevance for medicine.
How then do they try to explain the making of man from
the same matter that constitutes everything in nature ? To
follow their view, it is necessary first to see w^hat they mean
by the ‘qualities’, because it is by these qualities that they try
to identify the substances, or more specifically, the kind of
matter of which the different substances are made.
In the cryptic formulation just quoted, the qualities are men­
tioned under two heads. These are :
a) ‘Sound etc.’ {sabdddayah), and
b) ‘heavy etc. ending with the liquid’ (gurvadayah dravan-
tah).
The first of these two lists of qualities includes five. ^7
These are—
1. sound (sabda), supposed to be the special quality of matter
in its dkd sa 4 o rm ,
2. touch (sparsa), supposed to be the special quality of matter
in its air-form {vayu),

37. 76. i.26.10ff& iv.7.16fr.

Indological Truths
3. colour ifu p d ), supposed to be the special quality of matter
in its fire-form (tejas or agni),
4. taste (rasa) supposed to be the special quality of matter in
its water-form (ap or ja la ) , and
5. smell (gandha), supposed to be the special quality o f matter
in its earth-form (prth ivi or k siti).
The other list of qualities, viz. ‘heavy etc. ending with the
liquid’, as enumerated in the Caraka-samhita,^^ includes twenty.
Though it is sometimes difficult to have their exact English
equivalents, we can roughly render these as follows :
1. H eavy (guru) 11. Soft (m rdu)
2. Light (laghu) 12. H ard (kathina)
3. Cold (sita) 13. Clear (visada)
4. H ot (usna) 14. Slimy (picchila)
5. Unctuous (snigdha) 15. Smooth (slaksn a)
6. Dry (ruksd) 16. Rough (khara)
7. Slow (m anda) 17. Subtle (suksm a)
8. A cute (tik sn a ) 18. G ross (sthula)
9. Stable (sthira) 19. Dense (sandra)
10. Mobile (sara) 20. Liquid (drava)
Let us now see how with this tow-fold list of qualities of
susbtances, the ancient physicians proceed to explain both nature
and man as made of matter in five forms and how from this
explanation follows their cardinal formulation that there can be
nothing in nature irrelevant for medicine.
In the Caraka-sam hita, Atreya continues his concluding
observations on the medical colloquium just mentioned® ® :

“ Among the substances of the world, some are made (predo­

minantly) of matter in its earth-form {parthiva). To identify
them by their qualities, these
a) abound in the quality of smell, and are peculiarly—
b) heavy, rough, hard, slow, stable, clear, dense and gross.
In the human body, these contribute to what is plump, com­
pact, heavy and stable.

38. 76. i.25.36. 39. /6 . i.26.10-2.

Indological Truths
"Among the substances of the world, some are made (predo­
minantly) of matter in its water-form {Spyd). To identify them
by their qualities, these
a) abound in the quality of taste, and are peculiarly—
b) liquid, unctuous, cold, slow, soft and slimy.
In the human body, these contribute to what is moist, unctu­
ous, unifying, liquid, soft and pleasant.
“ Among the substances of the world, some are made (predo­
minantly) of matter in its fire-form (agneya). To identify them
by their qualities, these
a) abound in the quality of colour, and are peculiarly—
b) hot, acute, subtle, light, dry and clear.
In the human body, these contribute to what is burning, to
the digestive process and to what has radiance, lustre and colour.
“ Among the substances of the world, some are made (predo­
minantly) of matter in its air-form {vayavya). To identify them
by their qualities, these
a) abound in the quality of touch, and are peculiarly—
b) light, cold, dry, rough, clear and subtle.
In the human body, these contribute to what is dry, pain-
giving, mobile, clear and light.
“ Among the substances of the world, some are made (predo­
minantly) of matter in its a k d h -fo rm . {akasatm aka). To
identify them by their qualities, these
a) abound in the quality of sound, and are peculiarly—
b) soft, light, subtle and smooth.
In the human body, these contribute to what is soft, porous
and light.
“ In the light of this knowledge, no substance is found in the
world which is without relevance for medicine, i.e. which, as
rightly used, does not serve some specific medical purpose.”

Before proceeding further, let us try to be clear about one

point. This view of the transformation of natural matter into
body-matter—from which follows the dictum that there cannot
be anything in nature irrelevant for medical purpose—is absolu­
tely crucial for Ayurveda. Hence it is found repeatedly emphasi­
sed in our medical compilations. If the view as just quoted

Indological Truths
appears to be too general to be of use for the physician’s
purposes, elsewhere in the Caraka-sam hita we come across it in
a more specific form. It occurs in the context of anatomical
discussions. The text mentions all parts of the body known
directly by the sense-organs as well as by inference. It also
attempts a quantitative assessment of the body-constituents like
blood, faecal matter, mucus secretion, bile, urine, jBesh marrow
{vasa), fat, bone marrow, seminal fluid, etc.'*° In this connec­
tion, the physicians observe no doubt that all these body-con­
stituents do not have the same characteristics. Hence is the
question ; How to account for their diversity ? For the physi­
cians, there is only one answer to this. The diversity is to be
explained by their origin, i.e. by an account of where these come
from. Wherefrora then do these come ? These come only from
various natural things. But all things of nature are made of
matter in its five forms. All the body-constituents therefore
have ultimately their source in natural matter existing ih five
forms. As the Caraka-sam hita puts it,
“ Matter (predominantly) in its earth-form (parthiva) goes to
the making of everything in the body which is gross, firm, solid,
heavy, rough and hard—as, for example, nails, bones, teeth,
flesh, skin, faeces, hairs on the head and on face and ‘other parts
of the body, and the tendons. From this are also made odour
and the olfactory sense.
“ Matter (predominantly) in its water-form (apya) goes to the
making of everything in the body which is liquid, mobile, slow,
unctuous, soft and viscid—as, for example, ‘organic sap’ (rasa),
blood, fat, mucus, bile, urine, sweat, etc. From this are also
made taste and the gustatory sense.
“ Matter (predominantly) in its fire-from (agneya) goes to the
making of everything in the body that is of the nature of bile
{p itta ), heat and lustre. From this are also made colour and tha
visual sense.
“ Matter (predominantly) in its air-form {vayaviya) goes to the
making of everything in the body that is of the nature of inhala­
tion and exhalation, opening and closing of the eyes, contraction

Indological Truths
and extension, movement, impelling, holding etc. From it are
also made touch and the cutaneous sense.
“ Matter (predominantly) in its akasa -io rm {antariksa) goes to
the making of everything in the body that is of the nature of
porosity and sound-producing, as well as the channels within
the body, both gross and minute. From it are also made sound
and the auditory sense.” *i
One point in this view needs to be specially noted, because
it has far-reaching consequences for Indian philosophy. It is
concerning the origin of the sense-organs. Starting from the
assumption that only the like is apprehended by the like, the
physicians think that a sense-organ must be made basically of the
same matter-form, the specific quality of which it is capable of
apprehending. Thus the specific quality of matter in earth-
form is odour ; hence they think that not only everything in
the body with the special quality of odour, but moreover the
olfactory sense itself is made of matter in its earth-form.
Similarly, from matter in its water-form originates the gustatory
sense, because taste is supposed to be the special quality of
w ater; from matter in its fire-form' originates the visual sense,
because colour is supposed to be the special quality of fire ;
and so on.
Besides all these, there is no doubt something ordinarily
called the soul or the “mover” and which is supposed to be
specially connected with the fact of consciousness {buddhi or
understanding and manas or mind). How do the physicians
account for it ? The full commitment to materialism demands
that this too is to be explained by matter, as it was actually
attempted by the plain-speaking materialists of ancient India,
called the Lokayatas or Carvakas. In the medical compilations
however we do not come across a very clear and consistent
tendency to explain consciousness by matter. But the possi­
bility of at least a section of the physicians subscribing to a
materialist or near-materialist view of consciousness cannot
be completely ruled out. We see elsewhere in the Caraka-
samhitd the distinct theory differentiating between “ a substance

Indological Truths
endowed with consciousness” and “ a substance without con­
sciousness” by the simple criterion of the presence or absence
of the sense-organs in it. As the text says, “ a substance is
called conscious when it is endowed with the sense-organs ;
without the sense-organs a substance is unconscious” : sen-
driyam cetanam dravyam ; nirindriyam acetanam.*^ Thus the
mere presence of the sense-organs is supposed to endow a
substance with consciousness. But, as we have just seen, in
the medical view the sense-organs are only the products of
matter. In other words, in the formulation just quoted, there
is nothing but matter and its transformations to endow a
substance with consciousness. Thus the tendency of a materialist
understanding of consciousness cannot be ruled out.
But let us not impute to the physicians more of the materia­
list outlook than is obviously required for their main purpose,
namely that of ensuring health or the cure of disease. As we
have been discussing, from this viewpoint one of their basic
propositions is : there can be nothing in nature irrelevant for
medical purposes. The proposition occurs also in the Susruta-
sam hita, which, when properly analysed, leads us again to
see the materialist commitment of the ancient doctors.
An entire chapter of the Suhuta-sam hitd^ ® is designed to
establish the view that for medical purposes the substances
(dravya-s) and their knowledge are most important. There
was evidently much controversy among the ancient authorities
on this point, for the text tries to establish this view after
elaborately stating and refuting rival views attributing the same
status to “taste-qualities” (r a s a s ), “ inherent potency” (virya)
of substances by which these act on our bodies and the “process
of transformation” (vipaka) of the substances consumed. With­
out undermining the importance of the knowledge of all these,
the text claims that the knowledge of substances is most im­
portant, because it forms the basis of all other knowledge
required for therapeutic purposes.
In the next chapter** the need is naturally felt for a more
detailed explanation of what is meant by the substances. For

Indological Truths
 this purpose, the Suiruta-sam hita proceeds straightway to
give the theory of matter on which the medical understanding
is based. All substances of nature, the text repeats, are made
of matter in all its five forms, though because of the predo­
minance of one of these matter-forms in a substance it is
called “made of earth” or “made of water” , etc. Next is
discussed the qualities by which to determine whether a subs­
tance is made predominantly of earth or water etc., and what
these matter-forms, consumed as various substances, contribute
to the making of the body—a view, though not the same in
evei7 detail as the one we have just quoted from the Caraka-
sam hita, is substantially the same. W hat interests us most
is that in the Susruta-sam hita, as in the C araka-sam hitd, the
view that there can be nothing irrelevant in nature for medical
purposes follows directly and immediately from the discussion
of all this. Since all substances in nature are made of the
same matter that goes to the formation of the human body,
there can be nothing irrelevant in nature for medical purposes.
As the Susruta-sam hita formulates :
“ From what is just discussed (about the constitution of natural
substances and the human body), we can easily understand that
there is no substance in the world without relevance for
medicine...
“ The qualities discussed as belonging to the substances of the
world, exist also in the human body. Therefore, the condition
of the human body, its growth and decay, are all determined
by the substances in nature” .
anena nidarsanena na anausadhlbhutam ja g a ti kim cit
dravyam a sti...
gunah y e uktah dravyesu iariresu api te tatha /
sthdna-vr.ddhi-ksayah tasm dt dehinam dravya-hetukah //
The formulation is cryptic, but the point emphasised is not
difiScult to see. If the body is made of matter alone, any distur­
bed condition of it (which is called sickness or disease) can only
be viewed as due to some disturbance in this material consti­
tuent, i.e. as due to the excess or diminution in it of matter in

45. /6. i.41.9-16.K SS-ed

10
Indological Truths
some form or other. The remedy accordingly can only be
matter-readjustment in the body, i.e. more simply either reduc­
tion or addition of matter in some form or other. Since every­
thing else in nature is also made of the same matter, everything
in nature is supposed to have some relevance for this matter-
readjustment in some way or other, i.e. for some medical purpose
or other. It is inconceivable that something in nature should
be made of the same matter by which the body is made, and yet
it can be absolutely irrelevant for the general purpose of matter-
readjustment in the body. A thing may be inappropriate for the
purpose of matter-readjustment in this or that specific form, but
it cannot be inappropriate for the general purpose of matter-
readjustment as such, i.e. for the general medical purpose.
We shall later see how the ancient physicians try to conceive
this problem of matter-readjustment as constituting the essence
of their therapeutic technique. For the present the question is :
Can the physicians, with such a view of man and nature, at all
operate without a materialist outlook ? The Susruta-sam hita
comes out with a clear answer in the negative. Reviewing the
philosophical views of ancient India—specially Vedanta and
Vedanta-oriented Samkhya—it asserts that from the medical
viewpoint only the materialist outlook has real relevance. Thus
we are told :
“ It is claimed that the knowledge of matter in its different forms
is alone relevant for medicine, because in the therapeutic context
it is impermissible to conceive of anything transcending matter.”
tasya upa) ogah abhihitah cikitsam p ra ti sarvada /
bhutebhayh hi param yasm at na a sti cinta c ik itsite //
Let therefore the metaphysicians have their own view and let
not the physicians dabble with these. What is imperative for
the physicians, however, is that they must not think of anything
except in terms of matter.

Indological Truths
 8. TRANSFORM ATION OF MATTER

If we are to trace the hard core of the medical tradition

embodied in these compilations to some period earlier than the
Buddha—which, as we shall see, certain important evidences
want us to do—we cannot possibly ignore the contribution of
our physicians to the general fund of Indian philosophical ideas.
In this ancient period, which is roughly the formative period of
Indian philosophy, they do the pioneering work of a bold world-
outlook with a clear commitment to materialism. The point to
be specially noted is that this materialism is not an avoidable
hypothesis for them. It follows necessarily from the very com­
mitment to their science. As physicians they cannot help being
interested in the body, without the full knowledge of which their
science is impossible. The C araka-sam hitd wants us to make
no mistake about this :
“ The physician has full knowledge of Ayurveda only when he
understands the body in every way, in its entirety and in all its
varied conditions. This Ayurveda ensures happiness for all.’'
sariram sarvatha sarvam sarvada veda yah bhisak /
ayurvedam sah kartsnyena veda loka-sukhapradam
Secondly, they cannot escape the fact observed again and
again that this body depends on the things consumed as food
and drink. As Caraka-samhita adds,
“ The body is verily the product of food” : dehah hi ahara-
sambhavah.^^
Had the physicians left their understanding merely at this stage,
their position would not have retained the theoretical interest
that it has for us. It retains this interest because they wanted
to take the further step of enquiring into the constitution of the
things consumed and also into the nature of the transformation
these undergo for becoming the body-constituents. This leads
them to restate the simple fact of observation of food consump­
tion in terms of the making of the body by natural matter.
The Caraka-sam hita says.

Indological Truths
•‘Body means the totality of the transformation of five forms of
matter—a totality that becomes the substratum of conscious­
ness” : sariram nama cetam -adhisthana-bhutam panca-m ahd-
bhuta-vikara-samudayatmakam.^ ®
Or, as the Susruta-sam hita very pointedly says,
“ The body is made of matter in five forms. Food also is made
of matter in five forms. When fully transformed, the properties
of the five forms of matter in food go to add to their counter­
parts in the body.”
pancabh utdtm ake dehe hi dhdrah pdncabhautikah /
vipdkah pancadhd sam yak g m d ti svdn abhivardhayet //®®
Not that we expect the ancient scientists to understand and
explain the nature of this transformation in greater detail than
is historically possible for them. But whatever may be the des­
tiny of their understanding of the problem judged by the standard
of detailed knowledge gained by research many centuries after
them, the historical importance of the fact that they formulate
the problem of the transformation of natural matter into body-
matter cannot be denied. The very formulation of the medical
problem in this way implies the rejection of the supernatural
from the medical standpoint. This is specially significant in the
ancient Indian context, where the priest-class is determined on twist­
ing every bit of empirical knowledge then gained to suit their
general demand for mystification and obscurantism and where
moreover the officially boosted law of karma demands that every­
thing about man is to be understood in terms of the “unseen”
(arfrsia) hangover of actions performed by him in bis past life.
In opposition to all these, it could”liot have been easy for the
physicians to strive after a plainly materialist understanding of
nature and man.
But how exactly do the physicians propose to explain the
transformation of natural matter into body-matter ?
To begin with, they have to depend for this purpose on the
knowledge of the technology available for them. It is basically
the technique of the use of fire, which they observe is required
for the profound transformation of material substances—as for

Indological Truths
example in the process of cooking the food or baking the earthen
pot. Depending on this, they think that the transformation of
the material things into body-constituents must be due to the
agency of fire. Thus, the Caraka-sam hita asserts,
“ Just as the fire below transforms the rice-grains and water in
the pot into cooked food, so the fire within the stomach trans­
forms the food consumed into the organic sap (rasa) and excre­
tory matter (m a la ).” '^^
Thus is the obvious need of assuming some fire within the
body, without which life is impossible. The Caraka-sam hita
wants to put special emphasis on the agency of the fire within :
■‘The life-span, complexion, vitality, good health, enthusiasm,
nutrition, glow, corporeal vigour, lustre, heat and life-breaths
are all ‘due to the fire in the body’ (deha-agni-hetuka).
“ When this fire is extinguished, a man dies. So long as a man
is endowed with it adequately, he lives long in good health.
When it is deranged, he falls ill. Therefore everything is depen­
dent on fire (m ulam agnih tasm at n iru cyate).” ^’^
How to account then for the fire within the body ? The only
theoretical equipment the physicians have to answer this ques­
tion is their view of matter in five forms. Hence it is of con­
siderable interest to see how they use it to account for ‘fire
within the body’ and its crucial role in the transformation of
environmental matter into body-matter.
As already seen, in the medical view everything in nature and
man is made of matter in all its five forms, though in certain
things matter in some form or other predominates. Thus, fire
as one form of matter exists in all natural substances as well as
in every body-constituent—may be in a predominant form or in
some subsidiary form. It is this fire that efiects the basic trans­
formation of natural matter into body-constituents. The Caraka-
samhita asserts,
“ The five fires in the body, namely those existing in the body-
constituents made predominantly of earth, water, fire, air and
akasa, cook respectively their corresponding matter-forms—viz.
earth etc.—in the food consumed which is composed of the same

Indological Truths
 matter-form. (That is, fire in the body-constituent made pre­
dominantly of earth-matter cooks earth-matter of the food, etc.)
“ Thus each matter-form of the substances consumed goes to in­
crease its counterpart in the body. For example, (because of the
action of fire) in the substances consumed, that, which is made
predominantly of earth increases the body-constituent made pre­
dominantly of earth. Similarly, the remaining ones their coun­
terparts in the body. Thus the body as a whole gets its nourish­
ment.” ®®
Thus equipped with the theory of fire “ cooking” within the
body the food-substances consumed, the physicians attempt a
full explanation of the formation of all body-constituents from
natural substances—an explanation on which is based the funda­
mentals of their therapeutic principles. Here is a rather simpli­
fied version of it from the Caraka-sam hita :
‘‘{Thus cooked or transformed), food etc. are converted into two
kinds of substances within the body. These are ; 1) the desirable
or nourishing ones (prasada), which is called rasa (or organic
sap) and 2) the impure ones or waste products (m ala), which is
called excrement or k itta .
“ From the excrement ( k itta ) are formed the following ; sweat,
urine, faeces, vayu, p itta , kapha, the dirty things excreted
through the eyes, ear, nose, mouth, hair-follicles and genital or­
gans (i.e. smegma etc.), as well as hairs on the head, the beard
and hairs on other parts of the body, the nails, etc.
“From the foods transformed into the nourishing substance are
formed all the desirable body-constituents like rasa, blood, flesh,
fat, bone marrow, semen, as well as the five substances consti­
tuting the sense-organs, the body-joints, ligaments, mucus, etc.
“ All these body-constituents formed from the nourishing ones
and the impure ones maintain (normally) their mutual propor­
tion, according to the age and size of the body.
“ Thus the nourishing substances and the excrements, retaining
their proper proportion, maintain the balance of the body-
elements in their substratum, the normal body {evarn rasa-malau

Indological Truths
sva-pramana-avasthitau asrayasya samadhatoh dhatu-samyam
anuvartayatah).
“ Because of the increase or decrease of nutritional body-
constituents (i.e. body-constituents produced from rasa) result­
ing from (faulty) eating, there is a loss of the balance of the
body-elements ; health or cure of such a condition is the
restoration of the balance of this group of body-constituents
(effected by counter-diet). So also is the case of the excreta,
resulting from what is called impurities. When some of the
waste-products in the body exceed their normal proportion
and require to be depleted, these are found to return to their
normal condition (i.e. desirable proportion) and the body-
balance is restored by being treated with counter-diets, with
opposing qualities, like cold and hot.
“ Of these body-constituents called nutritional substances and
excreta, the means of passage is provided by channels within the
body. These channels feed the various body-elements in the
requisite measure and with proportionate constituents.
“ In this manner, the body is the result of nourishment ingested
in the four-fold manner—eaten, drunk, licked and masticated.
The distinction between health and disease in body is due to the
difference between having wholesome and unwholesome diet.” ®*
This, as we shall later see, is far too simple an understandig
of health and disease to allow the physicians remaining fully
statisfied. They have to modify the view to suit their theoretical
purposes. One fatal result of this is the degeneration of the
medical theory into the rigid formulas of vaya, p itta and kapha.
But more of this later.

9. CONCEPT OF “ LIFE”

To resume the main discussion : the ancient doctors are led to

attach very great importance to the question of the interaction
between natural matter and body-matter, because they start

Indological Truths
from a simple but inescapable fact of observation. The fact is
that various natural substances consumed by us as food and
drink determine the conditions called health and disease. The
Caraka-sam hitd wants to put special emphasis on this : “ The
only factor that promotes the growth of man (i.e. ensures his
health is the consumption of wholesome food. The consump­
tion of unwholesome food again is the cause of diseases” ;
hita-ahdra-upayogah ekah eva purusa-vrddhikarah b h a v a ti ;
ahita-ahara-upayogah punah vyadhi-nim ittam
The words ekah eva—“ the only one”—are evidently intended
to add emphasis to the formulation. If the text has elsewhere to
amend it by way of adding other factors like climatic conditions
or environmental changes®® and even occupotianal hazards®®
as also contributing to diseases, they never abandon the basic
importance of food and drink from the medical viewpoint.
They even go to the extent of conceiving the phenomenon called
“ life” or p r a m as originating from food. Summing up a long
discussion on food and drink, the Caraka-sam hitd says,
“ Life is just food transformed into life. All over the world,
everybody strives after food. Complexion, physical grace, good
voice, life, talent, happiness, contentment, growth, excellence of
intelligence—all these are established on food.”
prdnah pranabhutam annam lokah abhidhdvati /
varnah prasddah sausvaryam jivitarn pratibhd sukham Jj
tu stih p u stih balam medhd sarvam a m e p r a tis th ita m /
Thus, not to speak of the physical characteristics like com­
plexion, strength, etc., even those faculties or qualities that are
ordinarily viewed as psychical—talent {pratibhd), excellence of
intelligence (mec/Aa). etc.—are all derived from food. More
remarkable than all this, is what is said about ‘life” or prarta,
about the mystery of which there is already a great deal of
speculation in the country among the Upanisadic philoso­
phers.*® The physicians appear to brush aside all these specu-

55. /Z>. i.25.31. 56. /Z>. i.28.7, e.g. 57. /6 . viii.11.28-30, e.g. 58. Ib.
i.27.249-50. 59. See, e.g. Br. Up. i.6.3 ; ii.1 .2 0 ; iv.4.2 ; iv.4.7 ;
Ch. Up. vii.15.1 ; viii.12.2 ; Mund. Up. iii.1 .4 ; Prasna Up. i i . 3 iii.3 ;
ii i.l l : etc.

Indological Truths
 lations when they say, “ life is nothing but food transformed
into life”—pranah pranabhutam annam.
Lest there should remain anything vague about this view,
the same chapter of our text opens with the statem ent;
“ The specialists assert that the phenomenon called life of
those things that are known as living beings—i.e. of all crea­
tures—is made of food and drink with desirable colour, smell,
taste and touch, consumed in the right manner. They assert
this, because of the results being directly observed” : ista-varna-
gandha-rasa-sparsam vidhi-vihitam a n m -p m a m praninSm prani-
sam jnakanam pranam acaksate k u sa la h ; pratyaksa-phala-
darsanat.^^

10. EMPIRICAL BASIS

In the passage just quoted, the expression pratyaksa-phala-

darsanat —“because of the results being directly observed”—is
in need of being specially noted. It gives us an idea of an
outstanding feature of ancient Indian medicine, namely the
great importance attached in it to the direct observation of
facts. To put special emphasis on the empirical basis of
medical science, the Caraka-sam hitd declares ; “ Now, of all
types of evidences, the most dependable ones are those that
are directly observed by the eyes. Here are some of our views
based on the observation of thousands of instances. Just as
the life-span of those frequently engaged in war is different from
those who keep away from it, so also is the life-span of those
whose diseases are not readily attended to is different from
those who go in for immediate medical aid. It is like the
difference between those who take poison and those who avoid
it, or that between a water-pot subjected to constant wear and
tear and a vase carefully preserved. In short, longevity depends
on care and regulation, the opposites of which expedite death.

60. Caraka-samhita i.27.3.

11
Indological Truths
“ Moreover, we actually observe that certain principles are con­
ducive to healthy life. Thus, when certain practices and food-
habits are antagonistic to one’s habitation and constitution, one
must try to adjust oneself to these only gradually. One must
fully reject those substances that over-add or diminish or wrong­
ly add to the body-con stituents. One must control every ten­
dency to excess, one must not suppress any excretory urge and
one must avoid all rash actions.
“ All this is what we prescribe, because all these are based on
what we directly observe ( sam yak upadisamah ; sam yak
pasyam ah ca iti.
Thus the doctors are defending here certain principles which
they consider to be conducive to health and long life. What
they want to emphasise at the same time is that there is nothing
arbitrary or a p rio ri about these principles. Their vahdity is
guaranteed by empirical data or by what they actually observe.
As is only to be expected, in defence of the intrinsic efficacy of
their science, the final consideration they put forward is : “ All
this is directly observed by us” : idatn ca nah pratyaksam.^^
The great importance attached to empirical evidence in
Ayurveda presumably brings it in direct confrontation with the
tendency to ennoble the free flights of pure reason, which already
in the Upanisadic age, receives a great deal of financial and
political support.®®
How the general theoretical temper favoured by the kings and
nobles of the Upanisads announces its open hostility to empirical
knowledge is well-known. We quote here only a brief descrip­
tion of it given by Hiriyanna :
“ The usual Upanisadic expression for the things of experience,
we know, is nama-rupa (lit. ‘name and form’) ... The mind and
the organs of sense function only within the realm of names and
forms. That is, empirical knowledge is inevitably of the finite.
But this does not mean that Brahman, the infinite, is unknow­
able. The very purpose of the Upanisads is to make it known.

61. /6. iii.3.36. Free tr. 62. /6. i.10.6. 63. Chattopadhyaya
WLWD 124ff.

Indological Truths
So Brahman also is knowable ; only its knowledge is of a higher
type than empirical knowledge. M undaka V panisad (i. 1. 4-5)
classifies all knowledge into two—the higher (para vidya) and
the lower (apara vidya), which are respectively the knowledge of
Brahman and of empirical things...This view denies the name of
vidya to empurical knowledge, which, from the ultimate stand­
point, is not knowledge at all, but only a sort of ignorance or
avidyd."^*^
It is thus not difi0cult to understand why the entire Upani-
sadic literature should be silent about medical science. From
the viewpoint of the lofty speculations of the dominant philo­
sophers of the age, what the doctors are busy with is only a
contemptible form of knowledge, because it is ultimately guaran­
teed by sense-experience. But our present question is : How do
the doctors possibly react to this dominant trend in ancient
Indian philosophy ? The general tendency to denounce and de­
precate empirical knowledge in the oflBcially boosted theoretical
temper of the ancient period encourages the free flights of pure
reason and to subordinate to it all proofs or evidences. Pre­
sumably, such a tendency annoys the physicians and we find the
Susruta-sam hitd coming out sharply against it, It warns the
physicians against the empty fascination for pure reason :
“ A learned physician must never try to examine on grounds of
pure logic the efiBcacy of a medicine, which is known by direct
observation as having by nature a specific medical action. Thus,
for example, even a thousand logical grounds will never make
the Ambastha group of drugs have a purgative function.”
pratyaksa-laksana-phalah prasiddhah ca svabhdvatahl
na osadhih hetubhih vidvdn p a rik seta kathancana //
sahasrena api hetunam na am basthadih virecayet ///* “
Here, therefore, we have a clear example of the protest
against pure reason and this in defence of empirical knowledge.
The group of herbs referred to as belonging to the Ambasthadi-
gana are actually observed by the doctors to cure cases of dysen-

Indological Truths
try with excessive mucus in stool®* and hence they have absolu­
tely no patience for any logical analysis intended to prove it as
having an opposite action. We shall later see how, while trying
to graft the alien idea of the soul and its transmigration on the
medical compilation, the later reconstructors of our C araka-
sam hitd feel also the need of arguing against this importance of
empirical evidence itself!
But this emphasis of the importance on empirical data in
Ayurveda must not be misunderstood. It means no doubt that
according to the ancient doctors, their science is impossible with­
out depending on empirical data or that the stock of empirical
data ultimately differentiates science from the empty postulates
of pure reason. But does it also mean that the anceint physi­
cians think that empirical data are by themselves adequate for
meeting the requirements of their science ? The only answer we
have from the Caraka-sam hita is in the negative. We shall
later see how seriously the medical compilation discusses the
problem of processing the empirical data by rational analysis
and how strenuously the ancient doctors try to explore the
possibility of extending their knowledge beyond the rather limi­
ted scope of depending on the unaided sense-organs. As a
matter of fact, all this leads them to develop an epistemology of
their own—an epistemology which is the direct outcome of their
understanding of the methodology of science. Still the point is
that all these never allow them to forget the basic fact that
empirical knowledge forms the ultimate foundation of their
science. One of the strongest points of Ayurveda is the accumla-
tion of an enormous amount of empirical data on which are
based its theoretical generalisations.
Before proceeding further, therefore, it is necessary for us
to have some idea about the enormity of this data in Ayurveda.
For the convenience of discussion, we may briefly mention these
mainly tmder three heads, namely—
a) empirical data regarding the substances used for medical
purposes.

Indological Truths
 b) empirical data regarding the pathological symptoms, and
c) how the need felt for the empirical data regarding the
body creates the enthusiam for the dissection of corpses.

11. KNOW LEDGE OF SUBSTANCES

To begin with, those concerning the plants.

Thakur Balwant Singh and K. C. Chunekar, who have devo­
ted decades of patient research to identify the vegetable drugs
mentioned in the three major works of Ayurveda, enumerate
their number as follows :
“ As regards the total number of drug plants mentioned in the
three sam hita-s, it appears, on a rough estimate, that it lies
somewhere between six and seven hundred or it may be about
six hundred, if the unidentified food grains, divine drugs and
vegetable poisons are excluded, including of course the food-cum-
drug plants and some of the drastic poisons accepted for use
after some treatment. The number of Sanskrit names (excluding
their derivatives) are about 1900, out of which, on a rough
counting, about 670 are common to all the three texts and about
240, 370 and 240 have been exclusively mentioned in Caraka-
sam hita, Susruta-sam hita and A stahga-hrdaya-sam hitd respec­
tively.” ®'
To this it needs to be added that the medical works do not
discuss the plants as such. What these discuss instead are the
effects on our bodies of the different parts and products of the
plants. As the Caraka-sam hita explains,
“ Root, bark, pith, exudation, stalk, juice, sprouts, alkalies, milk,
fruit, flower, ash, oils, thorns, leaves, buds, bulbs and oflf-shoots
are the plant products used in medicine.” ®®
Besides, the same substance of plant origin is often observed
to serve a multiple medical purpose. One of the best examples

67. Balwant Singh & Chunekar pref. p. ix. 68. Caraka-sanihita

i.1.73. T rG .

Indological Truths
of this is the fruit am alaka (Em blica officinalis), also called
am rja-phala and dhatri. The Caraka-sam hita alone mentions
its use over a hundred times, prescribing it or preparations made
of it mainly as a tonic.®®
But the medical compilations are concerned not merely with
herbal pharmacy. The Caraka-sam hita, for example, discusses
one hundred and sixtyfive varieties of animals. Enumerating
the different animal products used for medical purposes, it says,
“ Honey, milk, bile, fat, marrow, blood, flesh, excrement, urine,
skin, semen, bones, sinews, horns, nails, hooves, hair, gorocand
—these are the substances used in medicine from the animal
world.” ’ ®
As an example of the multiple use of the different products of
the same animal, we quote here from the Table o f M edical
Substances o f Anim al Origin and Their Uses prepared by P. Ray
and H. N. Gupta in their C a ra k a-sam h ita: A Scientific
Synopsis"’ '^ :
Go-carman or cow-hide—its ashes recommended as an ingredient
for a medicinal ghee, to be used internally in the treatment of
insanity.
G o-kstra (go-payas) or cow’s milk. Its use—
1. external : in a medicated oil ; for burns, stiffness, etc.,
2. external: in an ointm ent; for dislocation, fractures, etc.,
3. as an ingredient for a nutritive enema ; for anaemia,
amenorrhoea,
4. in tern al; as diet ; for debility, spleen diseases,
5. internal : in a mixture ; for jaundice, consumption, etc,,
6. internal: in a medicated ghee ; for menstrual disorders,
tendency to abortion,
7. in tern al: in a linctus ; for heart diseases, excessive bile
secretion, etc.,
8. internal: in candied sweets ; for heart-diseases etc.
Go-mamsa or cow’s flesh. Its uses—

69. Balwant Singh & Chunekar 36. 70. Caraka-samhita i.1.68-9.

71. Ray & Gupta 40-41.

Indological Truths
 1. external : local application for absorption of venom ; for
poisonous bites,
2. internal: as soup or broth ; for irregular fever, consump­
tion, emaciation, etc.
Go-mutra or cow’s urine. Its uses—
1. external : as lotion ; for skin diseases,
2. external : in an ointm ent; for pruritus, snake-bite, etc.
3. internal : as drink ; for jaundice, leucoderma, etc.,
4. in tern al: in a medicated ghee ; for insanity, epilepsy, etc.
G o -sa k rt or cow-dung. Its uses—
1. external: burnt for fumigation as diaphoretic,
2. external; ingredient of a poultice ; for skin lesions,
3. internal : in a medicated ghee ; for piles,
4. internal : as ingredient for a medicated ghee, or as
aqueous extract with honey etc. ; for piles, poisoning,
oedema, etc.,
Go-sarpis or cow’s fat. Its use—
1. internal : in d ie t; for debility, rheumatism.
or cow’s horn. Its use—
1. inhalation of fumes when burnt ; for accumulation of
phlegm.
Go-snayu or cow’s sinews. Its use—
1. inhalation of the fumes when burnt ; for congestion of
the respiratory tract.
In the same work Ray and Gupta prepare a Table o f M edical
Substances o f M ineral Origin and Their Uses. It contains
sixtyfour main entries. We quote from this Table an example
of the multiple use of the same mineral substance or its pro­
ducts’ ^ :
A yas or iron. Used for hot compress or fomentation ; for hard
cutaneous swellings, varicocele etc.
A yasa or finely powdered iron or specially prepared iron (also
called kalaloharajas, kr.snaysa, kalayasarajas).
Its uses—
1. external: in a dusting powder ; for cutaneous eruptions,

72. 76.79.

Indological Truths
 2. external: an ingredient of a poultice ; for inflammation,
3. external : in an ointment ; for blindness, unseparated
eyelids, tumours, piles,
4. external ; in a hair-lotion, as hair-tonic and hair-dye,
5. internal: in a prescription after prolonged contact with
cow’s urine ; for leucoderma, jaundice, anaemia, heart
diseases, anal fistula, etc.,
6. internal: in a linctus ; for toxicosis, asthma, cough,
hiccup, etc.,
7. internal : in an acid liquid m ixture; for obesity,
flatulence, debility, etc.,
8. internal; in a pill ; for anaemia, jaundice, oedema,
gastro-intestinal irritations, lithiasis, etc.
Ayom ala or iron-rust (also called M andura), Its uses—
1. internal: in a linctus ; for toxic condition with fever,
spastic paraplegia, epilepsy, urinary disorders, skin
diseases, etc.
2. in tern al; in a preparation after prolonged treatment
with cow’s urine ; for anaemia, dropsy, oedema, urinary
disorders, jaundice, dysentery, intestinal parasites, etc.
Such Tables apart, the Caraka-sam hitd itself speaks of “ six
hundred purgatives and five hundred d e c o c t i o n s ” ' besides the
eightyfour varieties of wines already referred to.

12. EXTENSION OF SENSE-KNOW LEDGE : DIAGNOSIS

We have mentioned all these to emphasise one point. The

ancient doctors are not running after empty metaphysical post­
ulates. Their main theoretical drive is determined by an impos­
ing amount of empirical data.
Such data, it is true, are compiled mainly by unaided sense-
organs. But this again is not to be misunderstood. In spite

Indological Truths
of being inevitably dependent on unaided sense-organs, the
physicians also feel the need of extending their knowledge
beyond the limits of bare sense-perceptions. We quote here a
long passage from the Caraka-sam hita which, though occurring
in the context of diagnostic purposes, also shows the general
need felt in Ayurveda to extend the range of knowledge given
by the unaided sense-organs :

“Three indeed are the modes of ascertaining the specific nature

of a disease. These are a) authoritative instruction (apta-
upadesa), b) perception (pratyaksa) and c) inference (anumana).
“ Of these, authoritative instruction means knowledge imparted
by authoritative persons. Authoritative persons, again, are
those who possess undisputed knowledge and memory, the
technique of classification and whose observations are not affec­
ted by subjective factors called likes and dislikes. Because of
being thus characterised, what they say is authoritative. By
contrast, the words coming from persons that are inebriated,
insane, stupid, subjectively inclined and given to half-truths are
unauthoritative.
“ Perception is that which is directly known by one’s sense-organs
and mind (which, even in later Indian thought, is generally
viewed as an internal sense directly perceiving subjective states
like pleasure and pain).
“ Inference is cogitation based on rational application (Jarkah
yukti-apeksah . But more of the meaning of inference later.)
“ The diagnosis of a disease is faultless only after the disease has
been fully examined in all its aspects with the help of these three
ways of knowing. The full knowledge of an object cannot be
obtained by only one of these ways of knowing.
“ Of these three ways of knowing, the starting point, is the
knowledge derived from authoritative instruction. At the next
step, it has to be critically examined by perception and inference.
Without there being some knowledge obtained from authoritative
instruction, what is there for one to examine critically by percep­
tion and inference ? For the learned, therefore, there are two
modes of critical examination, viz. perception and inference Or,
12

Indological Truths
if authoritative instruction also is included, the modes of critical
examination are three.
“ The learned (authorities) instruct as follows. Each disease is
to be viewed as having such and such exciting factors, such and
such sources, such and such onsets, is of such and such nature,
has such and such location, produces such and such feelings (in
the patient), has such and such symptoms, is characterised by
such and such complications, has such and such stages of
aggravation, stabilization and abatement, has such and such
after-effects, has such and such names and is due to the
contact with such and such things. From authoritative
instructions are also known the remedies of a disease—both
curative and preventive.
“ One wanting to know the nature of a disease by perception
should examine everything perceptible in the body of the patient
and should use for the purpose all the sense-organs excepting
the gustatory one. Thus for instance one should examine with
the .auditory sense the intestinal sounds, the sounds of the joints
and finger knuckles, variations in the patient’s voice, or any
other sound that may be present in any part of the body.
“ With the visual sense are to be examined the colour, shape,
proportion and the general appearance as well as changes in
physique and behaviour of the patient. Besides, whatever else
can be the object of visual knowledge should also be similarly
examined.
“ The examination of the patient’s body by the sense of taste,
though falling under direct observation (perception), is prohibi­
ted. One should take recourse to inference for the purpose.
Thus, the physician should ascertain the existing taste in the
patient’s mouth by the method of interrogation. The insipidity
of the body-secretions of the patient is to be determined by the
lice etc. deserting his body and the excessive sweetness of his
body-products from the flies etc. accumulating on the body. If
the disorder of hemothermia is suspected and it is necessary to
determine whether the patient’s blood is healthy or vitiated by
bile, the physician should conclude that the blood is healthy if
a sample of it is eaten by a dog, crow, etc. ; if it is not eaten,
the physician should infer that it is a case of hemothermia. In

Indological Truths
 similar ways, the physician should know by inference the state
of the rest of the patient’s body-fluids.
“ By the olfactory sense, the physicians should know the smell
in the entire body of the patient, i.e. whether it is normal or
abnormal.
“The physician should examine the feel of the patient’s body
by his hands (i.e. the sense of touch).
“ Such then are the ways of examining the patient by perception,
inference and instruction (authority).
“ The following data should also be obtained by inference.
Thus, the condition of digestive fire is to be determined by the
patient’s power of digestion, the patient’s strength by his capa­
city for physical work, the condition of his sense-organs like
ear etc. by their capacity for perception, the condition of his
mind from his power of concentration, his understanding from
the purposive nature of his actions, his passion from the in­
tensity of his attachment, his infatuation from the lack of his
understanding, his anger from the violent nature of his actions,
his grief from his despondency, his joy from his exhilaration,
his pleasure from his expression of satisfaction, his fear from
his dejection, his fortitude from his courage, his vitality from
his enthusiasm, his resolution from the absence of his vasci-
llation, his faith from his opinions, his intelligence from
his power of comprehension, his state of consciousness from the
correct response to his name, his memory from his power of re­
collection, his modesty from his bashfulness, his character from
his conduct, his aversion from his refusals, his evil intentions
from his performances... The age, predilection, homology
and etiological factor of the patient are to be inferred from
the stage of his life, residence, homologous signs and the
nature of pain respectively. Diseases with latent symptoms
are to be inferred from the results of tests with curative
or provocative medications, the degree of morbidity from
the provocative factors, the imminence of death from the
severity of the fatal prognostic signs, the expectation of
recovery from wholesome inclinations, the clarity of mind
from the absence of incoherence. As regards hard-bowelled
conditions or soft-bowelled condition, the nature of his dreams.

Indological Truths
his cravings, his likes and dislikes, his pleasures and pains—
all these are to be known by interrogating the patient.” ^*

Evidently, however, even such a thorough examination of

the patient and his symptoms does not fully satisfy the ancient
doctors. They want to know more about the patient—speci­
ally his environmental and other peculiarities, which, they feel,
are also related to his condition. Hence the Caraka-samhita
mentions also the need for bhum i-pariksa or “ the examination
of the place” for a more adequate understanding of the
patient. Under this is recommended the collection of the
following d a ta :
“The doctor has to know the country where the patient is born,
grows up or has developed the disease. The peculiarity of
the country (whether it is arid or marshy etc.) has to be noted
and along with it are to be noted the nature of the food-habits
of that place, the mode of living and other customs of the
people there. The doctor has to note the nature of the
physical strength and mental make-up of the people, their
general condition of health and the peculiarity 6f their habitat,
their special proclivities, the kind of diseases by which they
are usually infested and also what is usually considered as
wholesome or unwholesome in these regions. Such then are
the points which the physicians must note.”'^^
In the Susruta-sam hitd also strong emphasis is put on the
importance of direct sense-perception for diagnostic purposes.
Thus the text says,
“ (Having entered the sick-room) the physician should view
the body of his patient, touch it with his own hands, and
enquire (about his complaint). Several authorities hold that
these three (inspection, touch and questioning) largely form
the means of our ascertaining the nature of a disease. But
that is not correct, inasmuch as the five sense-organs of hear­
ing, sight, etc. and oral enquiry materially contribute to better
diagnosis.
“ Diseases which are to be diagnosed with the help of the

74. Caraka-samhita iii.4.3-8. 75. Ib. iii.8.93. Free tr.

Indological Truths
organ of hearing will be fully treated later on... The heat
and coldness of the body, or the gloss, roughness, hardness
or softness of the skin of the affected part as in fever, or in
an oedematous condition of the body, are perceptible by the
sense of touch. Fullness or emaciation of the body (cachexia),
the state and indications of vitality, strength, complexion, etc.
are perceived by the sense of sight. Secretions or discharges
(from the inflamed mucous membrane of the urethra) in
pram eha etc. should be tasted with the organ of taste. The
characteristic smell emitted by an ulcer in its critical stage
should be determined with the help of the organ of smell.
“ While such facts as the time or season of the disease, the
caste which the patient belongs to, the things or measures
which tend to bring about a manifest amelioration of the
disease, or prove comfortable to the patient, as well as the
cause of the disease, the aggravation of pain, the strength of
of the patient, and his state of digestion and appetite, the
emission of stool, urine and flatus, or their stoppage, and
the maturity of the disease as regards time, should be speci­
fically ascertained by directly interrogating the patient (on
these subjects). Though the above-said five organs of sense...
help us to make the correct diagnosis of a disease, still the
objects locally perceived by these senses should not be left
out of account in ascertaining its specific nature.’’’^
Though this discussion of the Susruta-sam hita is less
detailed than that of Caraka-sam hita just quoted, it needs to
be noted that it seems to go a step further than the latter,
inasmuch as it does not hesitate to use the sense of taste also
for diagnostic purposes. However, what is much more re­
markable—and even truly revolutionary—about the surgical
text is that, carried by its zeal for direct sense-perception, it
goes to the extent of emphasising the importance of the
practice of dissecting human corpse, without which as the
text claims, the knowledge of anatomy can never be satisfactory.
This is a unique feature of Ayurveda. Specially in the Indian
context of strong religious taboos against touching a corpse

7€. Siisruta-sarrihita i.10.3-5. Tr. B.

Indological Truths
and the strong philosophical contempt for sense-knowledge
already preached in the Upanisads, it evidently required of
the physicians and surgeons the most extraordinary courage
to claim this.

13. DISSECTION OF CORPSE

The S u h uta-sam h ita asserts that it is essential for the doctors—

specially for the surgeons—to have sound kkowledge of human
anatomy. There are no doubt authoritative works on the subject
from which the students of medicine and surgery can get this
knowledge. But that is not enough. The knowledge gained
from the text-book of anatomy can acquire certainty only when
it is corroborated by the direct observation of the different
organs within the body. How then can one have this knowledge
based on direct observation ? For the ancient Indian surgeons
there is only one answer to it, and that is to dissect the dead
bodies. As the Susruta-sam hitd says :
“The different parts or members of the body as mentioned
before—including even the skin—cannot be correctly described
by one who is not versed in anatomy. Hence any one desirous
of acquiring a thorough knowledge of anatomy should prepare
a dead body and carefully observe, by dissecting it, and examine
its different parts. For a thorough knowledge can only be
acquired by comparing the accounts given in the sastra-s
(authoritative works on the subject) with direct personal obser­
vation.”
tasm at nihsam sayam jn an am hartrd ia ly a sy a vanchata /
sodhayitva m rta m sam yag drastavyah ahga-viniscayah //
pratya k sa ta h hi y a t d r s ta m sastra-dr,.stam ca y a t bhavet /
samasatah ta t ubhayam bhuyah Jnana-vivardhanam
How then is this dissection to be done ? The Susruta-samhita
answers :

Indological Truths
“ A dead body selected for this purpose should not be wanting
in any of its parts, should not be of a person who has lived up to
a hundred years (i.e. up to a very old age) or of one who died of
any protracted disease or of poison. The excremerita should be
first removed from the entrails and the body should be left to
decompose in the water of a solitary and still pool, and securely
placed in a cage (so that it may not be eaten off by fish or drift
away), after having covered it entirely with the outer sheaths of
m unja grass, kusa grass, hemp or with rope, etc. After seven
days the body would be thoroughly decomposed, when the
observer should slowly scrape off the decomposed skin etc. with
a whisk made of grass-roots, hair, ku sa blade or with a strip
of split bamboo and carefully observe with his own eyes all the
various different organs, internal and external, beginning with
the skin as described before” : tasm dt sam asta-gatram aviso-
pahatam adirgha-vyadhi-piditam avarsasatikam nihsrstantra-
purisam purusam avahantyam apagayam nibaddham panjaras-
tham m unja-valkala-kusa-sanadinam anyaiam ena dvestita-ahga-
pratyahgam aprakdse dese kvdthayet : sam yak prakuthitam ca
uddhrtya tato deham sapta-rdtrdt uslra-bdlavenu-valkala-kur~
cdndm anyatamena sanaih sanaih avagharsayan tvagddin sar-
van eya bdhya-dbhyantara-ahgavisesdn yathoktdn laksayet
caksusdP^
It must have been extremely difficult to procure for the purpose
of dissection a dead body, specially one with the specifications
mentioned by the surgeons. In other words, such a corpse
must have been something extermely precious for anatomical
studies and hence could not be allowed to be mutilated by the
beginners yet to acquire the skill of dissection. It seems that
such a consideration leads the ancient surgeons to recommend
some kind of a preparatory course for acquiring the technical
skill of dissection by practising it on certain fruits and dummies.
In any case, we read in the Susruta-sam hitd an account which
may as well be taken as getting the students of bio-sciences in
ancient India prepared with the technical skill of using the
knife. The text says,

Indological Truths
“ The preceptor should see his disciple attends the practice of sur­
gery even if he has already thoroughly mastered the several bran­
ches of the science of .medicine, or has pursued it in its entirety.
In all acts coimected with surgical operations of incision, etc.,
and injection of oil, etc., the pupil should be fully instructed as
regards the channels along or into which the operations or
applications are to be made. A pupil, otherwise well-read,
but uninitiated in the practice (of medicine or surgery) is not
competent to take in hand the med cal or surgical treatment of
a disease. The art of making specific forms of incision should
be taught by making cuts in the body of a puspaphald (a kind
of gourd), alavu (bottle-gourd) or ervaruka (cucumber). The
art of making cuts either in the upward or downward direction
should be similarly taught. The art of making excisions should
be practically demonstrated by making openings in the body of
a full water-bag, or in the bladder of a dead animal, or in the
side of a leather pouch full of slime or water. The art of
scraping should be instructed on a piece of skin on which the
hair has been allowed to remain. The art of venesection should
be taught on the vein of a dead animal, or with the help of a
lotus stem. The art of probing and stufi&ng should be taught
on worm-eaten wood, or on the reed of a bamboo or on the
mouth of a dried alavu (gourd). The art of extracting should
be taught by withdrawing seeds from the kernel of a vim bi or
vilva or jack-fruit, as well as by extracting teeth from the jaws
of a dead animal. The act of secreting or evacuating should
be taught on the surface of a sa lm a ll plank covered over with
a coat of bee’s wax, and suturing on pieces of cloth, skin or
hide. Similarly, the art of bandaging or ligaturing should be
practically learnt by tying bandages round the specific limbs
and members of a full-sized doll made of stuffed linen. The art
of tying up a karnasandhi (severed ear-lobe) should be practi­
cally demonstrated on a soft severed muscle or on flesh, or with
the stem of a lotus lily. The art of cauterising, or applying
alkaline preparations (caustics) should be demonstrated on a
piece of soft flesh ; and lastly the art of inserting syringes and
injecting enemas into the region of the bladder or into an ulcera­
ted channel, should be taught by asking the pupil to insert a

Indological Truths
tube into a lateral fissure of a pitcher, full of water, or into the
mouth of a gourd (alavu).
“ An intelligent physician who has tried his prentice hand in
surgery (on such articles of experiment as gourds, etc., or has
learnt the art with the help of things as stated above), or has
been instructed in the art of cauterisation or blistering (applica­
tion of alkali) by experimenting on things which are most akin,
or similar to the parts or members of the human body they are
usually applied to, will never lose his presence of mind in pro­
fessional practice.” ’'®
Beginning thus with such substitutes and dummies, the stu­
dent must acquire sufficient surgical skill before applying it on
the human bodies. But the point is that the practice on such
substitutes is not enough for the study of surgery and medicine.
Notwithstanding the importance of preparatory practices like
these, the S u hu ta-sam h ita does not want the medical students
to stop at it. It insists that the actual dissection of the corpse is
a must for the medical students, because this is the only way of
directly observing the different organs within the body and
direct observation alone ensures the ultimate certainty of our
knowledge.
This emphasis on the supreme importance of knowledge
based on direct observation is enough to annoy the spokesmen
of orthodoxy, because it leaves hardly any scope for their ad­
vocacy for the implicit faith in the scriptures. However, the
Susruta-sam hita has reasons to annoy them much more when—
carried by its zeal for empirical data—it goes to the extent of
claiming that the actual dissection of the corpse is an essential
precondition for anatomical knowledge. In the orthodox
view, the corpse is something too impure to be normally
touched. If one is compelled to touch it, say for the purpose
of carrying it for cremation, one has to perform purificatory
rites to get rid of the impurity or pollution resulting from the
touch. This is a point persistently emphasised by the Indian
law-givers, beginning with Apastamba and Gautama, who lived

79. i.9 .2 -3 .T rB .
13
Indological Truths
some centuries before the Christian era. We shall mention
here only a few examples.
Apastamba says that the presence of a corpse—like that
of the meanest human beings called Candalas—is so polluting
for the entire atmosphere that even the study of the holy
scriptures has to be suspended there. As he puts it, “ (One
must not study the scriptures in a village) in which there is a
corpse or in such a one where the Candalas live. One must
not study where corpses are being carried to the boundary of
a village.” ®®
Gautama says, “ On touching (i.e. on carrying) a corpse
from an interested motive (i.e. with the intention of gaining
a fee or the like), the impurity lasts for ten days.” ®‘ The
commentator Haradatta explains, “ The word impurity indi­
cates here merely that the performer of the act must not be
touched and has no right to perform sacred ceremonies.” ®^
Gautama continues, “ On touching an outcast, a Candala,
a woman impure on account of her confinement, a woman in
her courses, a corpse, and on touching persons who have touched
them, he must purify himself by bathing dressed in his clothes.
Likewise, if he has followed a corpse that was being carried, and
if he has come into contact with a dog.” ®® Manu declares,
“ Those who have touched a corpse are purified after one day
and night, added to three periods of three days... A pupil who
performs p itrm ed h a for his diseased teacher, becomes also pure
after ten days, just like those who carry the corpse to the crema­
tion ground.” ®* Again, “ When he has touched a Candala, a
menstruating woman, an outcast, a woman in childbed, a
corpse, or one who has touched a corpse, he becomes pure by
bathing.” ®“ And so on. A large number o f passages like these
can easily be quoted from the Indian legal literature, beginning
from its earliest phase. ■
It is not necessary for our present purpose to trace the origin
of the belief according to which the very act of touching a corpse
is a pollution. The belief may have its origin in the primitive

80. Apastamba i.3.9.14-6 81. Gautama xiv. 23. 82. SBE ii.252n.
83, Gautama xiv.30-2, 84. Manu v.64-5. 85. Ib. v.85.

Indological Truths
ignorance concerning the possible magical contamination
by death. But the more important point is to note that the
belief, as we come across it in the Indian legal literature, acquires
the form in which the primitive ignorance is already institu­
tionalised by the powerful priest-class. Outside the ideological
underworld usually called Tantrism, any act of deliberately to­
uching the corpse is a gross transgression of the code of conduct
as outlined by the law-givers. This creates formidable difl&cul-
ties for the progress of medical science in the country. We need
not necessarily go back to the ancient period to see the nature
of the difficulty. Here is a passage from A Biographical Sketch
o f D avid H are by Peary Chand Mitra, which enables us to see
vividly how the difficulty continues even in the thirties of the
nineteenth century, when the Calcutta Medical College is
founded :
“ I will state however one fact which will show how Mr. Hare
was anxious to see the project of the Medical College finally
brought about and settled without opposition. One evening as
I was sitting with him, I saw Baboo Muddosuden Gupta, the
then Professor of Sanskrit Medical Science of the Sanskrit
College, entering the room in all haste. Mr. Hare viewing him
said at once—‘Well, Muddoo what have you been doing all this
time ? Do you know what amount of pain and anxious thoughts
you have kept me in for a week almost ? I have met Radhacant,
and I am hopeful from what he said to me. Now what have
you to say ? Have you found the text in your Shester authoris­
ing the dissection of dead bodies ? ’ Muddoo answering in the
affirmative said, ‘Sir, fear no opposition from the orthodox
section of the community. I and my pundit friends are prepared
to meet them if they come forward, which I am sure they will
not do.’ Mr. Hare felt himself relieved at this declaration on
the part of the professor, and said he would see His Lordship
tomorrow positively, meaning as far as I can recollect Lord
Auckland. ” 8®
W hat trump card Madhusudan Gupta was then holding

86. I am indebted to Professor Barun D e for drawing my attention to

this passage.

Indological Truths
against the orthodox community is not known to us. This
much is known, however, that when—in 1836—scalpel in hand
he followed Dr. Goodeve to the godown for the actual dissection
of a corpse kept there, his courage had to be boosted by the
booming guns from Fort William.®^
If, hardly about hundred and fifty years back, so much of
courage is needed to overcome the orthodox opposition to dissec­
tion—and all this even under the protection and patronage of a
powerful Government—it is not difficult to imagine how much
greater courage must have been required of the ancient scien­
tists to prescribe a detailed mode of dissection as an essential
precondition for attaining medical proficiency. But this courage
of the pioneers of medical science must have made them the
objects of intense contempt in the eyes of the spokesmen of
Indian orthodoxy—the law-givers. If the bold defence of the
need for dissection is a unique feature of the Indian medical
literature, the hatred for the doctors and surgeons is also a
unique feature of the Indian legal literature. But more of this
later.

14. THE ANCIENT GREEK DOCTORS

The great care taken in Indian medicine for direct observation

cannot but be reminiscent of what is usually described as one of
the greatest achievements of ancient Greek medicine. Sigerist
in his M an and M edicine enthusiastically describes the latter :
“ Greek medicine accomplished prodigies in the observation and
classification of pathological symptoms. All ihe senses were
called into service for this task, and that in a degree far beyond
what is done today. The Hippocratic doctor observed the face
of the sick man, its form, colour and expression ; also the differ­
ent parts, the eyes, ears, nose and tongue. He took note of the
way in which the sick man held himself in the bed, and the part
of the bed in which he lay, whether the top or the bottom ; what

87. Subbarayappa in CHSI (ed. Bose et al) 552.

Indological Truths
he was doing with his hands, whether they were still or agitated
as if in pain, as if the patient was trying to catch flies or scratch
the wall. The skin, the nails, the hair were observed, the form
and colour of the body, the state of strength, the appetite,
shiverings, tremblings, also the urine, stools, expectorations and
blood. An ear was put against the wall of the chest, and the
doctor heard a kind of gurgling—the rattling of the cavities—or
again a kind of crepitation like that produced by a leather b e lt;
the rubbing of the pleura attacked by a dry inflammation. Or
else he shook the sick man and heard the ripple of the pleural
eff’usion.
“By means of touch he noted the temperature of the patient,
his pulse, the resistance to pressure ofl'ered by certain parts of
the body, the situation, size, shape, consistence and sensitivity
of tumours, etc.
“ But smell and taste were also put at the service of the examina­
tion. ‘With feverish patients the nose furnishes many valuable
indications, for the smells are very different from one another’,
says the Hippocratic work on Predictions. And the Greek
doctor did not shrink even from tasting the excreta.
“ What could not be learned in this way was sought to be
supplied by interrogating the p atien t: the onset of the disease,
the subjective state of the invalid, his sleep and dreams, his
hunger and thirst, his pains, his itchings, and other complaints.
“ Without exaggeration it can be said that the Greek doctor
allowed none of the pathological symptoms which can be per­
ceived by the aid of the five senses to escape him.” ®®
This tendency of ancient Greek medicine has commanded
very great respect for it even in modern times. “ Before World
War 11” , adds Sigerist, “ a movement arose which was called
neo-Hippocratic ; it emphasised the value of clinical observation
at a moment when physicians were relying more and more on
laboratory findings.” ®® It is not the place for us to evaluate
such modern tendencies, but it is of importance to note how
this historian of medicine wants to pay tribute to what survives
for us as the medical works of ancient Greeks usually called

Indological Truths
the Hippocratic corpus. “ One of them,” observes Sigerist,
“ which has the simple title Prognostic, is one of the finest books
of the entire Corpus. It reveals a power of observation on
the part of the physician and a wealth of clinical experience
that command greatest admiration. The second chapter gives
the description of the face of a moribund patient for which the
technical term f a d e s hippocratice was coined and is still used
today.” ®®

15. KNOW LEDGE A N D INTERVENTION :

IN D IA A N D GREECE

There is another point which we cannot possibly ignore in

the present context. Observation of pathological symptoms
gives us clinical knowledge no doubt. For the doctors, how­
ever, this knowledge cannot be an end in itself. It is only a
means to an end and the end can only be the cure of the
patient. The Susruta-sarnhita wants to be very clear about
this. Thus, immediately after the passage we have already
quoted, in which it prescribes how the physician should employ
all his sense-organs for obtaining clinical knowledge, the text
says,
“ Having made these observations, the physicians will try to
cure diseases that are curable, adopt palliative measures in
cases where palliation is all that can be offered, and should not
take up a case which is beyond all medical treatment, and
mostly give up those cases which are of more than a year’s
standing” : evam abhisam iksya sadhyan sa d h a y e t; yapyan
y a p a y e t; asadhyan na u p a k ra m et; parisam vatsarotthitan ca
vikarSn p ra y a so varjayet. ®^
The ancient Indian doctors apparently knew the limits of
their therapeutic technique. There were many diseases which
they could not and therefore did not pretend to cure. Chronic

Indological Truths
cases of more than a year were mostly so. This honest acknow­
ledgement of the limitations of their therapeutic technique
seems to be an important feature of their science consciousness.
But there is a more important point about them. Knowledge
for them is not a mere matter for meditation, but a very practi­
cal matter. It is a guide to action. It teaches the physicians
how to intervene intelligently for the purpose of ensuring actual
cure or at least effective palliation. Knowledge for them is
important only in so far as it ensures practical success. The
Caraka-sam hitd wants to emphasise this point in various ways.
Here is only one example of i t :
“ He is the best of physicians who can in actual practice cure
people of diseases. Practical success depends on the right
application of all the relevant measures. Thus it is practical
success which makes one a first rate physician endowed with
all the required medical qualifications.”
sa ca eva bhisajam sresth ah rogebhyah yah pram ocayet jj
sam yak-prayogam sarvesam siddhih akh ydti karmandm /
siddhih akh ydti sarvaih ca gunaih yu ktam bhisaktam am //® ®
We have emphasised this aspect of Ayurveda, because it
is one of the important points in which medicine of ancient
India differs from that of ancient Greece. However great may
be the achievement of ancient Greek doctors from the view­
point of clinical knowledge, it is strange to note that even the
“ prodigies” accomplished by them in the observation of patho­
logical symptoms do not inspire in them any notable confidence
in the actual therapeutic technique. Here is how J. D. Bernal
sums up the situation ;
“ Unfortunately, in spite of their careful clinical studies, the
School of Cos (i.e. the Hippcratic school) were also in no posi­
tion to prescribe effective treatment. They excelled in prognosis
and relied on the patient, if not given violent and unsuitable
treatment, getting well through the curative power of N a t u r e . ” 9 S
This criticism of the Hippocratic doctors is not a new one.
Already in the first century B.C. the Roman physician Ascle-
piades called the Hippocratic treatment a “ meditation upon

Indological Truths
death.” ®* “ In 1836” , says Jones, “ a French doctor, M. S.
Houdart, violently attacked this medical doctrine on the ground
that it neglected the physician’s prime duty, which is to effect
a cure. Diagnosis, he urges, is neglected in the cult of prog­
nosis : no attempt is made to localize the seat of disease ; the
observations in the Epidem ics are directed towards superficial
symptoms without any attempt to trace them to their real cause.
The writer is an interested but callous spectator who looks on
unmoved while his patient dies.” ®®
W. H. S. Jones, one of the greatest authorities on Greek
medicine, wants to defend it against such a criticism. “ In this
rather rabid criticism,” he says, “there is a morsel of truth.
The centre of interest in these treatises is certainly the disease,
rather than the patient. The writer is a cold observer of morbid
phenomena, who has for a moment detached himself from pity
for suffering. But this resetraint is in reality a virtue ; concen­
tration on the subject under discussion is perhaps the first duty
of a scientist. Moreover, we must not suppose that the fatally-
stricken patients of the Epidem ics received no treatment or
nursing. Here and there the treatment is mentioned or hinted at,
but the writer assumes that the usual methods were followed,
and does not mention them because they are irrelevant.” ^®
This looks more like an apology for the medical writings
than the defence of medicine proper. The detachment of the
scientist—the importance of his keen interest in morbid pheno­
mena—need not be belittled. However, from the standpoint of
medical science, all this cannot be an in end itself. The ultimate
end can only be effective help rendered to the patient,—if not
immediately, at least in the long run,—unless medical research
is identified with that perverse pursuit of allegedly pure wisdom
called metaphysics., Besides, it is not at all clear why the men­
tion of treatment should be considered irrelevant for medical
literature. If viewed as irrelevant for medical literature itself,
where else can the mention of actual treatment be considered
relevant ?

94. Jones i. intro, p. xviii n. 95. Ib. i. intro, p. xvii-xviii.

96. Ib I. intro, p. xviii-xix.

Indological Truths
 Sigerist attempts a somewhat different line of defence. The
Hippocratic doctors, he argues, do not ignore the question of
actual treatm ent; only they have their special form of treatment
to recommend. As he puts it, “ Treatment in Hippocratic medi­
cine was primarily dietetic. Diets were reinforced with drugs
and only as a last resort was the knife used. Hence we expect
to find in the collection books specially devoted to therapeutics.
It goes without saying that all clinical books, whether they be
dietetic, pharmacological, or surgical, discuss treatments ; we
have however special monographs on these subjects, such as the
one On D iet in A cute D iseases.” ^’’
One naturally feels hesitant to differ with an authority as
eminent as Sigerist. But the actual reading of the Hippocratic
corpus inevitably gives one the impression that the claim that
all clinical books in it discuss treatment is an exaggeration.
But let us leave that point and see what the “ special mono­
graph” on treatment, viz. On D ie t in A cute D iseases, has to
say about it.
Jones, who translates the title of this work as Regimen in
Acute D iseases, has already summed up its therapeutic content.
We quote here two of his observations :
“ I have just pointed out that the silence of the Epidem ics on the
subject of treatment must not be taken to mean that no treat­
ment was given, but it renjains to be considered whether all was
done that could have been done. What remedies were used by
the author of Regimen in Acute D iseases ? They were :—1)
Purgatives and, probably, emetics. 2) Fomentations and baths.
3) (a) Barley-water and barley-gruel, in the preparation and
administering of which great care was to be taken, (b) Wine,
(c) Hydromel, a mixture of honey and water ; and oxymel, a
mixture of honey and vinegar. 4) Venesection. Care was taken
not to distress the patient.” ®®
Introducing the translation of Regimen in Acute Diseases,
described as “ indisputably one of the great Hippocratic group
of treatises” ,®* Jones returns to the question of actual remedies
and observes :

97. Sigerist ii. 282-3. 98. Jones i. intro, p. xix-xx. 99. lb. ii.59.
14
Indological Truths
“ The Hippocratic treatment is gentle and mild. Little use is
made of drugs ; those employed are purges and simple herbals.
Fomentations and baths are features of Hippocratic regimen,
and, did occasion call for them, the enema, suppositories, and
venesection were employed. A sparing use was made of water,
the drinks recommended being hydromel (honey and water),
oxymel (honey and vinegar) and wine. But the great stand-by
of the physician in acute diseases was the decoction of barley,
‘ptisan’, which I have translated by ‘gruel’ for the sake of
convenience.” 100
As a list of actual remedies for diseases, this looks hardly
imposing. Nor is the argument convincing that in the ancient
period nothing more could perhaps be done, because it is well-
known that the ancient Egyptians for example could do much
more.i®!
Yet the Regimen in Acute D iseases is viewed by the experts
as not only one of the best works on ancient Greek medicine
but moreover richest in therapeutic content.
It is thus no use overlooking the fact that in the Hippocratic
corpus there is on the whole less attention given to the question
of what is to be done by the doctors. These writings sliow
much greater enthusiasm for philosophy than for the technique
of curing the sick. In fact Jones himself has to admit, “ they
belonged to theory without serioysly affecting p r a c t i c e . ” ^ “ 2
But it is not even genuine medical theory in which these works
show interest ; what these discuss is more often some precon­
ceived philosophical theory, the medical context being no more
than a mere apology for introducing it. Even simple medical
observations soon make room for pure philosophical specula­
tion. Here is an example of this :
•‘Clinical monographs of another kind are those On C rises and
On C ritical D ays. In a region in which malaria was endemic,
nothing struck the medical observer’s imagination more forcibly
than the iron rhythm that the disease followed, with attacks of
fever and remissions that could be predicted to the very hour.
It was soon found that other diseases such as relapsing fever,

Indological Truths
pneumonia and the like also had a certain rhythm, taking a turn
for the better or the worse on definite days. This opens the
door to speculation with numbers, particularly in a coimtry that
was subject to Babylonian influences and where, on the other
hand, the Pythagoreans had considered number the essence of
all things. Thus the Corpus H ippocraticum contains not only
treatises on the critical days but also a very puzzling one On
P eriods o f Seven D ays, transmitted partly in Greek and partly
in three different Latin versions. We mentioned in another
connection the treatises On the Seven-M onth Em bryo and On
the Eight-M onth Em bryo in which speculation on numbers plays
an important part.” ^®^
There is thus in the Hippocratic corpus not merely a neglect
of the practical aspect of the physician’s work but also a strange
tendency to be easily lured by the fascination for pure specula­
tion, inclusive of such semi-mystical speculations on “ numbers”
characteristic of the Pythagorean school of philosophy.^®*
Therefore, instead of trying to defend the appallingly thin
therapeutic content of this medical literature, we are confronted
with the more serious question concerning its strange proclivity
for pure speculation. Why do the authors of the Hippocratic
works, in spite of choosing to write on medical matters, take so
much delight in pure contemplation as to be on the whole in­
different to medical practice proper ?
This question is crucial for understanding the general trend
of these medical writings specially as contrasted with the scienti­
fic core of the Ayurvedic literature, in which the practical
efficacy of medical science is very prominently emphasised.
Besides, the question has a much wider interest than the limited
one of understanding the peculiarity of the Hippocratic writings
alone. We shall see that the answer to this contains the clue
to the eventual decline of medical science not only in ancient
Greece but also in ancient India, and this because of certain
forces generated in society—forces that become inimical to

103. Sigerist ii.279-80. 104. Schweglar 14 aptly describes this’

‘arthimetical mysticism’ as the ‘phantasies o f a fanaticism at once unbrid­
led and cold’.

Indological Truths
science. Pending a fuller discussion of this, we shall note here
only a few points that are quite obvious.
One of the most brilliant pieces in the Hippocratic corpus is
a brief work in defence of medical science. It is called Ancient
M edicin e. Though its author is really unknown to us^®®, the
significance of the title he chooses for it is not to be overlooked.
He defends ancient medicine and this mainly against the prevail­
ing trend in medicine during his own times, which, according to
the modern scholars, is roughly the middle of the fifth century
B. C.106
In other words, he strongly feels that the great glory and
supreme importance of this ancient discipline are being seriously
threatened by certain fashions that are assuming increasing
importance during his times. W hat then is the main point of
this glory and what are the new trends threatening it ?
The essence of this glory, as he puts it, is that medicine “ is
an art, and one which all men use on the most important
occasions, and give the greatest honours to the good craftsmen
and practitioners in it.” ‘°’ The difference between a good
doctor and a bad doctor, accordingly, is analogous to the
difference between a good craftsman and a bad craftsman : “just
as in all other arts the workers vary much in skill and in
knowledge, so also it is in the case of medicine.” ^®® Elsewhere,
emphasising the point, he speaks of the “ physician, who is an
acknowledged handicraftsman.” * S u c h an understanding of
the role of the doctor leads the author of Ancient M edicine to
take a remarkable view of medical science itself not only as a
discipline striving after progressive perfection on the basis of
patient researchers of successive generations of workers inherit­
ing the results of the earlier ones but moreover as a discipline
with clear commitment to democratic values. The passage
expressing these, having significance even for our times, may be
quoted at some length :
“ But medicine has long had all its means to hand, and has dis­
covered both a principle and a method, through which the dis-

105. Jones i.3. 106. Farrington GS 67. 107. Jones i.l3 .

Emphasis added. 108. Ib. 109. lb. i.25.

Indological Truths
coveries made during a long period are many and excellent, while
full discovery will be made, if the inquirer be competent, conduct
his researches with knowledge of the discoveries already made,
and make them his starting-point... But it is particularly
necessary, in my opinion, for one who discusses this art to dis­
cuss things familiar to ordinary folk. For the subject of enquiry
and discussion is simply and solely the sufferings of these same
ordinary folk when they are sick or in pain. Now to learn by
themselves how their own sufferings come about and cease, and
the reasons why they get worse or better, is not an easy task for
ordinary folk ; but when these things have been discovered and
are set forth by another, it is simple. For merely an effort of
memory is required of each man when he listens to a statement
of his experiences. But if you miss being understood by
laymen, and fail to put your hearers in this condition, you will
miss reality.” ^‘ ®
Such then is the understanding of medicine of our unknown
author. It is essentially of the nature of a technique or craft—
i.e. predominantly a form of manual operation—concerned
above all with the sufferings of the ordinary folk, by whom it
needs to be understood. But it is ancient medicine that he
speaks of, which he wants to protect, as he himself puts it,
against “ the theory of those who prosecute their researches in
the art after the novel fashion” or “the theory of the new
school.” *‘ * In other words, he wants to argue with great pas­
sion in defence of a tradition which, he feels, is basically threa­
tened by the new fashions becoming increasingly prominent in
his own times. Before passing on to see how our author
describes these new fashions, it may be useful to quote some of
his contemporaries—some Greek authorities belonging roughly
to the fifth century B.C.—who describe for us more vividly the
fast vanishing status of manual work or craftsmanship itself, to
the general category of which ancient medicine belongs.
Xenophon makes Socrates deliver the following judgment
on manual work :
“ What are called the mechanical arts carry a social stigma and

110. /6 . i. 16-7. 111. /Z». i.35. 112. Ib.

Indological Truths
are rightly dishonoured in our cities. For these arts damage
the bodies of those who work at them or who have charge of
them...This physical degeneration results also in deterioration
of the soul. Furthermore, the workers at these trades simply
have not got the time to perform the offices of friendship or of
citizenship. Consequently they are looked upon as bad friends
and bad patriots. And in some cities, especially the warlike
ones, it is not legal for a citizen to ply a mechanical trade.” ‘ ‘ ®
Writing in the fifth century B. C., Herodotus also observes :
“ With the Greeks, as with the Egyptians, Thracians, Scythians,
Persians. Lydians, and almost all non-Greeks, those who learn a
craft and the children of those who learn a craft are held in less
esteem than the rest of the citizens. The noble are those who
have escaped the yoke of manual labour.”
These are two competent judgments on the status of manual
work in Greece during roughtly the same period in which the
author of Ancient M edicine wants to look back at the healing art
as essentially a form of technique or handicraft. Could the prac­
tice of medicine remain unaffected by the general contempt for
the crafts and craftsmen in the society in which our author lived?
Farrington observes, “ Obviously a social division so deep as this,
a cleavage which, when complete, made it impossible for the
same man to be both worker and citizen, could not be with­
out effect on the science and practice of medicine, which touch
the life of every man.” “ “
But what is the mode in which medicine is affected by this
cleavage in society ? Answers Farrington :
“ I shall consider a phenomenon contemporary with the dawn of
Greek medical writing, though not with the dawn of Greek medi­
cine. I mean tbe invasion of medical science by a priori philo­
sophical concepts. In my view this is very germane to the subject
of the hand in healing, for those a priori speculations emanated
from medical amateurs who had continued to use their heads but
had given up using their hands. The empty hypotheses, which
began to threaten the science of medicine from the fifth century

113. Quoted by Farrington HHAG 28-9. 114. Herodotus ii. 167.

Quoted by Farrington H H AG 3J. 115. Farrington HHAG 29.

Indological Truths
B. C. onwards, represented primarily not an aberration of the in­
dividual mind, but the emergence of a new class in society, the
leisured class. For them theory bore no relation to practice. The
head was independent of the hand. They were what Professor
Gordon Childe has called ‘theoretical researchers.’ So far as
they succeeded they transformed medicine from a positive science
into a speculative philosophy.” ^'®
We do not expect the author of Ancient M edicine to give us
such an illuminating sociological analysis of the actual cause that
threatened the development of medicine in ancient Greece.
However, conscientious scientist that he is, he comes out sharply
against the tendency of encouraging metaphysics to invade medi­
cine. His passionate defence of medicine is in fact primarily a
protest against this invasion, which, as he feels, is the invasion
of a useful positive science by the empty postulates fabricated by
the philosophers’ brains. The opening chapter of his work
needs to be quoted here in full :
•‘All who, on attempting to speak or to write on medicine, have
assumed for themselves a postulate as a basis for their discus­
sion—heat, cold, moisture, dryness, or anything else that they
may fancy—who narrow down the causal principle of diseases
and of death among men, and make it the same in all cases,
postulating one thing or two, all these obviously blunder in many
points even of their statements, but they are most open to cen­
sure because they blunder in what is an art, and one which all
men use on the most important occasions, and give the greatest
honours to the good craftsmen and practitioners in it. Some
practitioners are poor, others very excellent ; this would not be
the case if an art of medicine did not exist at all, and had not
been the subject of any research and discovery, but all would be
equally inexperienced and unlearned therein, and the treatment
of the sick would be in all respects haphazard. But it is not so ;
just as in all other arts the workers vary much in skill and in
knowledge, so also it is in the case of medicine. Wherefore I
have deemed that it has no need of an empty postulate, as do in­
soluble mysteries, about which any exponent must use a postu-

Indological Truths
late, for example, things in the sky or below the earth. If a man
were to learn and declare the state of these, neither to the
speaker himself nor to his audience would it be clear whether his
statements were true or not. For there is no test the application
of which would give certainty.
This polemic, as it is well-known, is directed specially against
the school of Empedocles, the postulates of which “ produced
its worst ejffects on the healing art.” ^^® At the same time, it is a
protest against the general tendency of the age of exalting theory
over practice—a tendency which is attested to by many works in
the Hippocratic corpus itself. An immediate result of this ten­
dency is the arbitrariness of the medical prescriptions, against
which another conscientious scientist—the author of the Regimen
in Acute D iseases —storngly protests, though he also opens his
work with the criticism of a rival school and its treatise with the
title Cnidian Sentences. Here is his judgment on the arbitrary
recommendation of drugs and diets which he finds prevalent in
his times : ‘‘For instance, it has not been ascertained why in
acute diseases some physicians think that the correct treatment
is to give unstrained barley-gruel throughout the illness; while
others consider it to be of first-rate importance for the patient to
swallow no particle of barley, holding that to do so is very
harmful, but strain the juice through a cloth before they give it.
Others again will give neither thick gruel nor yet juice, some not
before the seventh day, others at no time until the disease reach­
es a crisis. Now certainly physicians are not at all in the habit
of even raising such questions; even when they are raised per­
haps nothing is learned. Yet the art as a whole has a very bad
name among laymen, so that there is thought to be no art of
medicine at all. Accordingly, since among practitioners there
will prove to be so much difference of openion about acute
diseases that the remedies which one physician gives in the belief
that they are the best are considered by a second to be bad, lay­
men are likely to object to such that their art resembles divina­
tion ; for diviners too think that the same bird, which they hold
to be a happy omen on the left, is an unlucky one when on the

Indological Truths
right, while other diviners maintain the opposite. The inspection
of entrails shows similar anomalies in its various departments.
But I am confident that this inquiry is wholly profitable, being
bound up with most, and the most important, of the things emb­
raced by the art. In fact, it has great power to bring health in
all cases of sickness, preservation of health to those who are
well, good condition to athletes in training and in fact realiza­
tion of each man’s particular desire.” "®
Thus, with this confidence in the efficacy of the physician’s
technique, the author of the Regimen in Acute D iseases sees the
actual practice of medicine becoming so arbitrary as almost
to degenerate to the level of divination. This neglect of
practice takes its revenge on the theoretical aspect of medicine
as well, by condemning it to emaciation and emptiness. We
shall mention here only two examples.
In a slave-owning society in which manual work is looked
at with contempt, we do not expect the doctor-philosophers—
who belong to the class of the elites—to take an active interest
in the work of herb collection. And the fact is that they do
not take such an interest. The work is relegated to the class of
manual workers—the herb-collectors. This deprives the doctor-
philosophers not only of the knowledge of the drugs proper
but also of the opportunity of enriching their general outlook
in various other ways. Thus, referring to the use of drugs in
the medical literature of ancient Greece, Sigerist*^®' observes :
“ Drugs are mentioned in a great many books, whenever
treatments are discussed, but in its present form the Corpus
Hippocraticum contains no pharmacological book. A herbal
listing of various drugs describing their preparation and medical
indications would have been very useful, as would also have
been a collection of recipes such as we find in Egyptian papyri.
Actually there are references to a lost book on drugs and some
printed editions have a short treatise of only a page and a half
On Drugs, which deals with purgative remedies and must be a
late interpolation, for it is never mentioned in antiquity. Phar­
macological therapy does not play an important part in Hippo-

Indological Truths
cratic medicine. Its drugs were mostly house remedies, the kind
of plants that the rhizotom oi and pharm acopolai gathered and
kept for sale.”
When we compare this with the information of the creative
period of Ayurveda as preserved in the major compilations of it,
we can easily see how much of the opportunity of enriching
medical theories with scientific contents is actually missed by the
Hippocratic writers by their indifference to the work of herb-
collection. The Ayurvedic compilations lay special emphasis on
the work of herb-collection by the physician himself. This pro­
vides him with the opportunity also of vastly improving his
theoretical equipment. Here is a discussion of this from the
Susruta-sam hita :

“ These are the general features of a ground which is recommen­

ded for the culture of medicinal plants or herbs. A plot of
ground, whose surface is not broken or rendered uneven by the
presence of holes, ditches, gravel and stones, nor is loose in its
character, and which is not disfigured by ant-hills, nor used for
the purposes of a cremation or execution ground, and which
does not occupy the site of a holy temple, is favourable for the
growth of medicinal herbs. A ground which possesses a soil
which is glossy, firm, steady, black, yellowish or red and does
not contain any sand, potash or any other alkaline substance,
and is favourable to the germination of plants and easily per­
vious to the roots of plants growing thereon, and which is
supplied with the necessary moisture from a close or adjacent
stream or reservoir of water, is recommended for the growth of
medicihal plants and herbs. Plants should be regarded as par­
taking of the virtues of the ground they grow upon. A plant,
growing in such a commendable site, should be examined as to
its being infested with worms or insects, or as to its being any­
wise infected with poison, or cut with an arm, or affected by
winds, atmospheric heat, or an animal’s body. It should be
culled or uprooted in the event of it being found sound, healthy,
deep-rooted, full-bodied, and of matured sap...
“A plot of ground with a pebbly, steady, heavy, dusky or dark
coloured soil, and which conduces to the growth of large trees.

Indological Truths
 and yields rich harvests of corn, should be regarded as permea­
ted with the specific virtues of essential earth-matter (svaguna-
bhuyistha, literally earth abounding in the specific qualities of
itself).
“ A ground having a cool, glossy, white-coloured soil, which is
adjacent to water, and whose surface is covered with a lavish
growth of glossy weeds and luscious shady trees, should be
considered as characterised by the essential properties of water
{ambuguna-bhuyistha, literally soil abounding in the specific
qualities of matter in water-form).
“ A ground having a gravelly soil of varied colours, and which
contributes only to the germination of scanty and yellowish
sprouts, should be looked upon as permeated with the essential
attributes of fire (agniguna-bhuyistha, literally soil abounding
in the specific qualities of matter in fire-form).
“ A ground with an ash-coloured or ass-coloured (grey) soil, and
on which withered looking, sapless, large-holed trees of stunted
growth, somehow eke out a miserable existence, should be
considered as being controlled by the specific properties of air
{anilagm a-bhuyistha, literally soil abounding in the specific
qualities of matter in air-form) ; while the one having a soft,
level surface with large trees and lofty hills cropping up at
intervals thereon, and which is covered with growths of weeds
and under-shrubs, and is endued with a dark soil, kept moist
and sappy by the percolation of invisible (subterranean) water,
should be looked upon as permeated with the essential properties
of sky {akasaguna-bhuyistha, literally soil abounding in the
specific properties of matter in 5A:fl5a-form)...
“ Herbs of purgative properties, which are grown on a soil
permeated with the specific virtues of water or earth matter,
should be culled as the most effective of their kind. Similarly,
harbs of emetic virtues should be culled from a ground per­
meated with the essential virtues of fire, sky akasa and air.
“ Herbs exercising both purgative and emetic virtues should
be culled from ground exhibiting features common to both
the two aforesaid classes of soil. Similarly herbs possessed
of soothing properties {samsamana : herbs or drugs, which in
virtue of their own essential properties soothe or subdue a

Indological Truths
disease without eliminating the morbid matters or without
exercising any emetic or purgative action) are found to exert
a stronger action in the event of their being reared on a soil
permeated with the essential properties of sky {akasa).
“All medical herbs and substances should be used as fresh
as possible, excepting Pippali, Vidanga, madhu (honey), guda
(molasses) and gh rta (clarified butter) (which should be used
in a matured condition, i.e. not before a year). The milky
juice or sap of a medicinal tree or plant should be regarded
as strong and active under all circumstances. Herbs and
drugs, that had been culled or collected within the year, might
be taken and used in making up a medicinal recipe in a case
where fresh ones would not be available.
“ Medicinal herbs and plants should be recognised and identi­
fied with the help of cowherds, hermits, huntsmen, forest-
dwellers, and those who cull the fruits and edible roots of
the forest. No definite time can be laid down for the culling
of the leaves and roots of medicinal plants, etc., such as are
used in compounding the recipe, which is called the patra-
lavanam, and which covers, within its therapeutic range, diseases
which are peculiar to the entire organism.
“ As soil admits of being divided into six different classes
according to its smell, colour, taste, etc., so the sap of a medi­
cinal plant may assume any of the six different tastes through
its contact with the peculiar properties of the soil it grows
on. Tastes such as sweet, etc., remain latent in water, which
imparts them to the soil in a latent or perceptible condition.
“A plot of ground, exhibiting traits peculiar to all the five
fundamental material principles (such as the earth, water, fire,
etc.) is said to be possessed of a soil of general character
(sadharani bhumi) and medicinal plants and herbs partake
of the specific virtues of the soil they grow up .” *21

Thus a physician, as an active herb-collector himself, has

also to acquire knowledge of soil-science, and this for the
simple reason that the qualities of the herbs are largely deter-

121. Suiruta-saitihitai.'il.l-ll.'Xt'B.

Indological Truths
mined by the nature of the soil on which these grow. That
this soil-science is discussed in the ancient medical compilations
in terms of the theory of five forms of matter (panca-bhuta)
indicates nothing more than the simple historical fact that
the pioneers of science are only beginning to understand the
nature of matter. But it proves nothing against the signi­
ficance of their profound realisation that medical knowledge
requires to be enriched by various disciplines, inclusive for
example of soil-science, which, in the ancient period, is yet to
acquire the status of a separate specialisation.
The authors of Hippocratic corpus are deprived of this
realisation, because their consciousness is determined by the
structure of a society in which the actual work of herb-collec-
tion—like many other aspects of the physician’s work—is rele­
gated to a special class of manual workers, whose experience
has nothing to contribute to the allegedly prestigious specula­
tions of the leisured elites. It is thus not difBcult to see why
the content of such speculations should be increasingly ema­
ciated and the medical discussions tend to degenerate into
empty postulates, against which the author of the Ancient
M edicine strongly protests. Significantly, the passage of the
Susruta-sam hita just quoted advises the doctors not only to
be herb-collectors themselves but also to seek the active co­
operation for the purpose of identifying the herbs of those who
are best acquainted with these, but who—in the slave society
of ancient Greece, as in the varnasrama model of ancient
India—are supposed to be intrinsically inferior human beings,
like the cowherds, hunters and other jungle peoples. Thus,
what infuses vitality to the Ayurvedic theory in its creative
period is its bond with manual work, or, in the words of
Farrington, the head being enriched by the working hand.
We shall mention here another example. Farrington observes,
“ the word ‘surgery’ is, of course, simply the modern form of the
Greek cheirourgia, which means manual operation.” ^^^ Accord­
ingly, as Farrington adds, the author of the Ancient M edicine
lays special emphasis on the view that “ the true doctor is a cheiro-

Indological Truths
technes and a demiourgos ; that is to say a manual worker and
public servant.” But the prejudices of a slave-owning aristo­
cracy do not allow the doctors and surgeons to take legitimate
pride in such a role. We have already seen how this results in
the arbitrariness of the physician's prescriptions. We shall now
see how the same prejudices eventually destroy the ancient tradi­
tion of surgery and anatomical studies, though it takes perhaps
a few more centuries for the full horror of this destruction to
reach its final form. We are indebted to no less a scientist than
Vesalius for a vivid description of the situation that ultimately
results. Here are his observations as translated by Farrington :
“ When the whole conduct of manual operations was entrusted
to barbers, not only did doctors lose the true knowledge of the
viscera but the practice of dissection soon died out, doubtless
for the reason that the doctors did not attempt to operate, while
those to whom the manual skill was resigned were too ignorant
to read the writings of the teachers of anatomy. But it is utterly
impossible that this class of men should preserve for us a
difficult art which they have learnt only mechanically. And
equally inevitably this deplorable dismemberment of the art of
healing has introduced into our schools the detestable procedure
now in vogue, that one man should carry out the dissection
of the human body and another give the description of the parts.
The latter is perched up aloft in a pulpit like a jackdaw and
with a notable air of disdain he drones out information about
facts which he has never approached at first hand but which he
has committed to memory from the books of others, or of which
he has a description before his eyes. The dissector, who is
ignorant of languages, is unable to explain the dissection to the
class and botches the demonstration which ought to follow the
instructions of the physician, while the physician never applies
his hand to the task but contemptuously steers the ship out of
the manual, as the saying goes. Thus everything is wrongly
taught, days are wasted in absurd questions, and in the confu­
sion less is shown to the class than a butcher in his stall could
teach a d o c t o r . ” > 2 4

Indological Truths
 Such then is the ultimate disaster to surgery and anatomy
caused by the social prejudices against manual labour or against
the working hand. “ N or,” comments Farrington, “ indeed, is
the use of the hand confined to surgery. The hand also has
its part to play in the preparation of food and in the
compounding of drugs. Thus, if the hand is despised, every
part of medicine s u f f e r s . T h e beginning of the process of
which all this is the ultimate result is to be traced to the fifth
century B.C., when the medical writings, deprived of scientific
content, are left with some kind of compensatory delusion of
lofty speculations easily tending to become sheer empty pos­
tulates. The more conscientious scientists protest against this
no d o u b t; but the way in which the general drift of the slave-
society corrodes and destroys the science-consciousness with its
contempt for the working hand is far too strong to be effectively
resisted by such stray protests.
In the creative period of Ayurveda, however, the attitude to
the working hands is quite different. The Caraka-sam hita
emphasises in various ways their importance for the succsesful
physician. The text says that one of the essential qualities of a
good physician is that he must have deft hands—Jitahasta.
Significantly, this alone is not enough for medical purposes.
The good physician is required to have many more qualities,
inclusive of course of a sound theoretical knowledge of the
medical science. Describing the accomplishments of the model
physician'-^® as well as of the ideal teacher of medicine’^? the
text repeats practically the same passage. We quote here the
second version :
“ The teacher selected should be one with adequate knowledge
of the medical texts, a wide experience of the actions of
drugs, skilful, upright, clean, with deft hands, well-equipped
with the medical paraphernalia, possessed of all the sense-organs,
having knowledge of nature and the capacity for rational applica­
tion, possessing insight into medical science, free from arrogance,
envy and anger, capable of withstanding great strain, is affec­
tionately disposed towards the students as well as accomplished

Indological Truths
 in the technique of communication” : paryavadata-srutam pari-
drsta k a rm a n a m daksam daksinam sucim jitahastam upakara-
navantam sarvendriyopapannam p ra k rjijn a m p ra tip a ttijn a m
anupaskriavidyam anahamkr.tm anasuyakam akopanam klesa-
ksam am sisyavatsalam adhyapakam jnapana-sam artham ca
'
Among other things, what is magnificently emphasised here
is the importance of the unity of theory and practice from the
medical standpoint—a theme to which the Caraka-samhita
repeatedly returns, What saves the medical theories of
Ayurveda from degenerating into empty postulates of the meta­
physicians is thus not difficult to see.
The way in which the Susruta-sam hitd wants to glorify the
working hand is as simple as it is eminently logical. As a work
with primary importance attached to surgery, it feels the obvious
need of discussing the nature and number of the surgical instru­
ments. While introducing the discussion, however, the text
insists that notwithstanding their importance, the working hand
of the surgeon is the most important of them all. As the text
puts it,
“ The number of surgical instruments is one hundred and
one (perhaps in the figurative sense of a very large number).
But the hand itself is to be viewed as the most important
of the instruments. Why is it so ? Because all these instru­
ments are ineffectual without the hand and only as subjected
to the hand the instruments acquire their function” : yantra-
satam ekottaram ; atra hastam eva pradhanatamam yantranam
avagaccha. kim k a ra m m ? yasm at hastad rte yantranam apra-
vr.ttih eva, tat-adhinatvdt yantra-karm anam P^
Such a simple truth would have surely escaped the writers of
the Hippocratic collection, when, with the growth of slavery, the
working hand is shorn of all social prestige.^^* But things are

128. lb. 129. /* . i . ] .134-5 ; i .4 .2 9 ; i.9 .6 ; i . 9 . 1 8 ; i . l l .5 3 ; i.1 5 .3 ;

etc. 130. SuSruta-sarfihitai.1.1 131. Engels D N 180:
“ the more modest productions o f the working hand retreated into the
background, the more so since the mind that planned the labour was
able...to have the labour that had been planned carried out by other hands
than its own.”

Indological Truths
 different in the ancient tradition of Ayurveda. Far from
rationalising the contempt for the working hand, surgeons
of the Susruta-sam hita are concerned with another serious
question. Admitting that the surgeon’s hand is his supremely
important instrument, the fact remains that he is also required
to add to its natural capacity, or, as Gordon Childe puts it, add
extracorporeal organs to this corporeal one. ‘ ®^ In other words,
howsoever skilful the hand may be, it becomes much more
effective only by holding the surgical tools. Wherefrom then
are these tools to be acquired ? The pioneers of surgery hope
to get their basic models suggested by the special armoury
with which p a s various animals are naturally endowed. Thus,
enumerating the main types of the surgical instruments, the
S u h u ta-sam h ita says :
“ Surgical appliances may be divided into six different
groups or types, such as the svastika, the sandam sa, tala,
nadl, sa ld k a , besides those that are called the minor or acce­
ssory apppliances (upayantra-s).
“ The svastika instruments (forceps), in their turn, are divided
into twentyfour sub-classes ; the sandamsa instruments (tongs)
into two ; the tala-yantra-s into tw o ; the nadi-yantra-s
(tubular) into twenty ; and the salaka-s (probing instru­
ments) into twenty-eight ; while the upa-yantra-s admit of
being divided into twenty-five different types. These instru­
ments are all made of iron, which may be substituted for any
other similar or suitable substance where iron would be
unavailable.
“ The mouths of these appliances are usually made to resemble
those of birds and beasts and hence they should be made to re­
semble the mouths of some particular animal in shape, or other­
wise, according to the advice of old and experienced physicians
(surgeons), or according to the directions as laid down in
the sastra-s ( medical books of recognised authority), or
according to the exigencies of the case, or after the shape
and structure of other appliances used on similar occasions.
“Appliances should be made neither too large nor too small,

Indological Truths
and their mouths or edges should be made sharp and keen.
They should be made with a special eye as to strength and
steadiness, and they should be provided with convenient
h a n d le s.” i3 3
Such then are the general requirements of the surgeons.
To add stature to their skilled hand, they are in need of various
instruments, made preferably of iron and modelled on the natu­
ral armoury of the beasts and birds, with certain specialities
added to those. However, all this cannot but raise another ques­
tion. How to get these general requirements translated into the
concrete surgical instruments ? Who, in other words, are actually
to fashion these surgical instruments ? Evidently, there are two
possible answers to this. Either the surgeons themselves should
do the work or they should get it done by others. The Susruta-
sam hita is too realistic to suggest the former : the surgeons them­
selves are already confronted with a vast range of theoretical and
practical problems, and hence it is no use advising that
they should acquire also the labour specialisation necessary
for instrument making. What is sensible therefore is to suggest
that the surgeons should approach for this purpose those that
have already this labour specialisation, seek their active coopera­
tion and thus get the surgical instruments prepared by them.
Such persons are the blacksmiths, who, by virtue of their specia­
lised skill, should be able to prepare the instruments according
to the specifications suggested by the surgeons. This is precisely
what the Susruta-sam hitd advises.. It says,
“ It is imperative for the intelligent doctor to get his surgical
instruments fashioned by the skilled and experienced blacksmith,
using pure, strong and tempered iron.”
sastrani etani matiman suddha-saikydyasani tu /
kdra yet karanapraptam karmdram karmakovidam
Thus, only by seeking the active cooperation of the black­
smith can the surgeon hope to have effective surgical instruments
essential to add to the skill of his own working hand.
With the advance of slavery in ancient Greece, we do not
expect the doctor to retain the realisation of this elmentary

Indological Truths
 truth. But the more important point for our understanding of
the history of ancient Indian medicine is to note that we do not
expect such a reaHsation to survive also in ancient India, specially
in the strongholds of the varnasrama norm, where the social
prejudice against manual operation—and therefore also against
the craftsmen in general—asserts itself in its own way. Along
with the blacksmith, on whose active cooperation the surgeons
so basically depend, the surgeons themselves are declared as
impure persons by the spokesmen of the varnasrama norm.
Here is just one example. Food given by a physician, says
Manu, is as filthy as food given by a blacksmith. *®® We shall
see many more examples like this. For the present the point is
that when such a view is sought to be enforced as the law of the
land, medical science cannot but be very seriously threatened.
What endangers and eventually destroys the medical tradition
in ancient Greece is thus not something basically different from
what ultimately stifles it in ancient India. It is the general
corruption of thought caused by a corrupt attitude to manual
work generated by a society split into a leisured minority and a
toiling but underprivileged majority. The details in which this
split society takes shape in the two areas—the details, in other
words, of Greek slavery and varnasrama hierarchy—are different
no doubt. But not their basic nature, and therefore not also
the general drift of their ideological consequences. These con­
sequences are the hostilities to science-consciousness demanded
by the more urgent need for the counter-ideology required to
keep the working masses under control. We shall later return
to discuss the nature of this counter-ideology, as we find it
specially in ancient India. For the present we are trying to
discuss another point. It is concerned with the difference be­
tween the medical literature of ancient Greece and India as
these reach us.
We do not have more than a few stray glimpses of the grand
promises of science in the Hippocratic corpus. The author of
the Ancient M edicine, in his great anxiety to defend the tradi­
tion, is left with comparatively less scope to describe it. Others

Indological Truths
among the significant scientists whose writings find place in the
Hippocratic corpus are the authors of small tracts like Epidemics
I and III, Regimen in Acute D iseases, The S acred D isease, etc.
Though magnificently defending rationalism and the importance
of direct observation of natural phenomena against superna­
turalism and mystification, even these tracts retain for us little
material for understanding any coherent and positive view,
which may be taken as the medical theory of ancient Greece.
The major parts of what come down to us as the medical writ­
ings of ancient Greece are not only appallingly thin in therapeu­
tic content but are moreover dominated by the empty specula­
tions of the leisured elites—speculations in which even the
medical or near-medical concepts of “ humours” , “ coction” ,
“ crisis” etc., tend on the whole to lose their scientific contents.
In short, Greek medicine as recorded in the Hippocratic corpus
is already largely devastated by the metaphysicians.
The form in which the medical writings of ancient Tndia
reach us is different. The Caraka-sam hita and Susruta-samhita.
are indeed full of tedious digressions into alien metaphysical
speculations. The way in which these works concede to the
counter-ideology is not to be overlooked. They show very
frequently the tendency to abject submission to the law-giver’s
demands, howsoever alien these may be to the standpoint of
science proper. All these are there in the enormous medical
compilations of ancient India. But these are on the whole of
the nature of intellectual debris allowed loosely to accumulate
in the compilations. Such debris can be removed and, when
removed, the same works enable us to see something magnificent
from the scientific viewpoint surviving under these. It is the
hard core of medical theory patiently worked out on the basis of
experience and reason perhaps by generations of doctors. How
much of open defiance of the law-givers and of other spokesmen
of the hierarchical norm was required by them for the purpose
of working out this medical theory is not known to us. What
is known, however, is that this medical theory has to question
many major features of the ofiicially boosted ideology. Hence
its preservation specially after the growing strength of the
varnasrama society must have been formidably difiicult. The

Indological Truths
accumulation of the intellectual debris in the extant medical
compilations is thus not so bewildering as it may at first appear.
These are needed to conceal from the law-givers and others the
hard core of medical science flouting the law-givers’ demands
on many major issues.
In the context of our present discussion the more important
question is : W hat is it that infuses the peculiar vitality of science-
consciousness to the hard core of medical theory surviving in
the medical compilations under the cover of the alien ideas and
attitudes loosely superimposed on these ? We have seen the ans­
wer to this. This hard core of medical science does not segregate
theory from practice, knowledge from intervention. The ancient
doctors are fully conscious of the role of the working hand, which
they consciously glorify. This not only enriches the actual
therapeutic content of ancient Indian medicine but moreover
enriches its theoretical aspect. In other words, in the hard
scientific core of Ayurveda also we come across a good deal
of enthusiasm for theory. But it is theory determined basically by
the needs of medical practice and the validity of which is requi­
red to be tested by actual therapeutic success. Unlike most of
the theoretical discussions in the Hippocratic tracts, the genuine
Ayurvedic theory is not the outcome of pure contemplation of
the leisured elites but of the zeal to interpret a vast amount of
empirical data by the working doctors interested in knowing
nature for the purpose of mastering it.

16. PERPETUAL FLU X

With the above clarification, let us return to the main theme of

our persent discussion, namely the theoretical achievements of
ancient Indian medicine.
Its starting point, as we have already seen, is the simple
observation of how the human body is being affected in various
ways by all sorts of natural substances consumed as food
and drink. This is interpreted by the physicians as the interac-

Indological Truths
tion between natural matter and body-matter. We now pass
on to see what follows from this understanding.
Since the absorption of natural or environmental matter by
body-matter is a ceaseless process for the living beings—since,
in other words, the fact of nutrition shows the perpetual
replacement of the material constituents of the body—the body
itself and everything about it is viewed in Ayurveda as being
involved in the process of ceaseless flux. For the ancient physi­
cians this means that the old body is being constantly replaced
by a new one and the apparent impression of the persistence of
the same body is due only to the similarity between the old body
and the new body. As the Caraka-sam hita says,
“ Nothing about the body remains the same. Everything in it is
in a state of ceaseless change. Although in fact the body is
produced anew every moment, the similarity between the old
body and the new body gives the apparent impression of the
persistence of the same body.”
na te ta t-sa d rsa h tu anye param parya-sam utthitah /
sd ru p ya t y e ta eveti nirdisyante nava navah
But man is viewed as a microcosm—an epitome of nature.
If, on the one hand, it means that without the knowledge of
nature the knowledge of man remains incomplete, the same
formulation on the other hand implies that what is true of man
is also true of nature as a whole. Thus the view of man as
ceaselessly changing leads the physicians to develop the same
or a similar view of nature. Everything in nature is involved
in the eternal process of coming into being and of passing out of
existence. In expressing this view, the ancient physicians want
specially to deny any external agency accounting for the cessa­
tion of things that come into being and they propose to explain
everything on the model of “ time” (kala), the essence of which
is ceaseless change. Says the Caraka-sam hita,
“Just as there is no external cause for the destruction of time,
which, by nature, is perpetual flux, so also no (external) cause
is known for the destruction of things, because of the simple

Indological Truths
reason that no such cause exists. Being evanescent by nature,
things cease to be just as they come into being.”
na nasa-karana-abhavat bhavanam nasa-karanam /
jn a y a te nityagasya iva kalasya atyaya-karanam //
sighragatvat yath d bhutah tatha bhavo vipadyate
Understandably, the phenomenon called life—in which the
physicians are so keenly interested—cannot be an exception to
this universal process of coming into being and passing out
of existence. Hence it is only natural that the physicians should
want us to note the essential transitoriness of life. In their view,
life is nothing but the right combination of certain material
substances, which they call the desirable kind of food materials.
The ceaseless process of further absorption of food materials by
the living beings makes them perpetually changing. Because of
the laws inherent in nature, however, this process of ceaseless
change in the matter-constituents of the body reaches a stage
where the body-form itself disintegrates and its matter-cons­
tituents start reverting back to their original or natural state.
Life, which comes into being, thus ceases to be. This is
ordinarily called death or marana. Since, however, in the
physicians’ view this is nothing but the return of body-matter
to matter in its environmental or natural condition, one of the
synonyms they propose for marana is svabhava, by which is
meant “ nature” , or perhaps more appropriately, the “law of
nature” . Significantly, another synonym proposed for the
same is anityatd or impermanence. Referring to the symptoms
of the approaching end of a man's life, the Caraka-sam hita
says,
“ From these it can be predicted that he would revert back to
nature during such and such moment and such and such hour.
... Here (in ayurveda) ‘nature’ (svabhava), ‘end of activities
(pravrtteh uparamah), ‘death' (m arana), ‘impermanence’ (anit-
y a ta ) and ‘cessation’ (nirodha) are all synonymous t e r m s . ” i 3 8
All this gives us an idea of another notable feature of the

137. 76.1.16.32-3. 138. 76. i.30.27. Interestingly, this view seems

to be at the basis o f the commonly used Sanskrit word for death, viz.
pancata (Monier-Williams 576), lit. the return to the five forms o f matter.

Indological Truths
 general theoretical position which the ancient physicians try to
work out. This, along with their conviction that from the
medical viewpoint, at any rate, only the materialist outlook
has relevance, gives us the glimpse of a world-view, magnificent
for its ancient context. In this world-view, everything in the
universe is made of matter (bhuta) and everything is in a
state of perpetual flux (n ityaga). Under certain favourable but
essentially natural conditions, organised matter assumes the
form of what is called “ life” or p r a m of the living creatures.
These living creatures, constantly absorbing environmental
matter for their mode of existence, which is medically called
nutrition, are themselves involved in the process of ceaseless
change. But life, which under certain conditions comes into
being, also passes out of existence because of the laws inherent
in nature, when matter constituting the organism reverts back
to its natural state, i.e. to the state of environmental matter
from which life originates and which sustains life, subjecting it
to the process of constant change. And this is death, alterna­
tively called ‘nature’ or ‘impermanence’.
The general importance in world philosophy of the view just
sketched—of understanding man and nature in terms of matter
involved in the process of ceaseless change—is wellknown. So
also are its radical implications specially in the ancient Indian
context, where the law-givers insist that only the view of the
spirit and the laws of the “ unseen” effects of actions performed
in past lives deserve recognition. It is therefore not for nothing
that the Indian law-givers are angry with the physicians.

17. SCIENCE A N D PHILOSOPHY : GREECE A N D IN DIA

What we have just discussed cannot but be reminiscent of a brief

work surviving in the Hippocratic corpus with the title N utri­
ment. In this also, the basic fact of nutrition is somehow sought
to be related to the general view of perpetual change. At the
same time, where this work differs from the medical literature
of ancient India is not to be overlooked. The source-books of

Indological Truths
 Ayurveda leave us with no doubt that the view of perpetual
flux develops among the working doctors as part of their
theoretical equipment, i. e. as required by their essentially
practical purposes. But the same thing cannot be said of
the Hippocratic tract N utrim ent. The presumption, on the
contrary, is that the view of matter in ceaseless change is
originally developed in ancient Greece not by the practising
physicians but by the early “ nature philosophers,” though
among them Heraclitus gives it the most classical form .‘ *®
But the Hippocratic tract N utrim ent is quite different. Modern
scholars do not rule out the possibility of its being the product
of some unknown philosopher—a mediocre follower of Hera­
clitus—who wanted somehow to graft the philosophy of
Heraclitus on medical matters, though without effecting any
real coherence between philosophy and science. As W.H.S.
Jones observes,
“ Heraclitus held that matter is, like a stream, in a state of
continuous change. His system contained other hypotheses
(some perhaps, e. g. the union of opposites, being more
fundamental), but this was the most fruitful, and the one which
commended itself most to his followers and to his successors.
“ A later Heraclitean, whether a professional doctor or not is
uncertain, applied the theory of perpetual change to the
assimilation of food by a living organism, and N utrim ent is
the result. He has copied the aphoristic style and manner of
his master, as well as the obscurity, with considerable success,
and whole paragraphs might well be genuine fragments of
Heraclitus.” 1*®
Whatever little meaning we can manage to read in it today
seems to be devoid of any scientific interest. Here is. just an
example :
“ xviii. Purging upward or downward, neither upward nor down­
ward.
“ xix. In nutriment purging excellent, in nutriment purging
bad; bad or excellent according to circumstances.
“xx. Ulceration, burn-scab, blood, pus, lymph, leprosy, scurf,

Indological Truths
dandruff, scurvy, white leprosy, freckles, sometimes harm and
sometimes help, and sometimes neither harm nor help.
“xxi. Nutriment not nutriment if it have not its power. Not
nutriment nutriment if it can nourish. Nutriment in name, not
in deed; nutriment in deed, not in name.” ’^'“
These may be excellent examples of philosophical puzzles
with which some leisured elites amuse themselves, but these can
be of no use whatsoever either for the theory or practice of a
serious doctor. Comments Jones,
“N utrim ent is more important as a philosophical than as a
medical document. The teaching of Heraclitus did not die out
with his death; he had followers who emended and developed
his theories, and one of these wrote N utrim ent to bring a branch
of physiology into the domain of philosophy. The tract is a
striking p r o o f o f the difficulty o f uniting philosophy and science
and of pursuing the latter on the methods of the former.” **®
We have added emphasis to one of the observations above,
because it is in need of degeneralisation. The Hippocratic tract
N utrim ent, as Jones very convincingly shows, is indicative of
the failure of uniting science with philosophy. But this evidence
can hardly prove the intrinsic incompatibility of the two. The
special reason for the incompatibility in this particular tract is
that there is very little of science in it and even this modicum is
put at the mercy of a pre-conceived philosophy. Whatever
little is actually conveyed by its deliberate use of obscure
expressions and paradoxes about the facts of digestion and
nutrition is too thin to justify the momentous theoretical
generalisation concerning matter in ceaseless motion or change.
In this work, in other words, the theoretical generalisation does
not grow out of a serious preoccupation with the observed
facts of nutrition. It is borrowed from elsewhere and is
arbitrarily imposed on physiology. Hence the difficulty of
uniting science with philosophy is so glaring in this work.
But such a difficulty does not exist in the source-books of
Indian medicine. In these, the ancient doctors appear to be
very earnest about understanding the fact of nutrition, because

Indological Truths
 they feel that it is crucial for their therapeutic technique. This
technique, as far as they can understand, consists mainly in
prescribing the right kind of environmental matter in the natural
substances for matter-readjustment within the body. Hence it
is imperative for them to try to understand the process of the
transformation of natural matter into body-matter, the essence
of the phenomenon called nutrition. Not that they are
historically in a position to understand this process beyond a
certain early groping stage. The technological and other
equipments necessary for a fuller understanding of the fact of
nutrition do not exist for them. But that is a different
point. Whatever progress they make towards this understanding
enables them to realise the broad fact that the human body
requires for its maintenance the ceaseless process of replacement
of body-matter by environmental matter. This realisation
leads them to their theoretical generalisation that the living
body is involved in the process of ceaseless change. So must
also be everything in nature, because everything in nature is
made of the same stuff—the same matter—and subject to the
same natural laws. The ancient Indian physicians thus do not
try to force physiology into the mould of a pre-existing
philosophy. They do not give the impression of arbitrarily
uniting science with philosophy—an arbitrariness which Jones
sees in the Nutrim ent. In Indian medicine, on the contrary,
the effort to grasp the nature of a fundamental physiological
phenomenon leads as a matter of course to a theoretical posi­
tion, which, because of its generality, may as well be called a
philosophical view.
This brings us back to the point we have already mentioned.
A comparison of what survives as the Hippocratic corpus with
the hard core of medical science in the source-books of
Ayurveda shows an important difference between the two. The
former frequently gives us the impression of medical science
being invaded by philosophical ideas of non-medical origin—an
invasion against which the author the Ancient M edicine
passionately protests. Notwithstanding such protests, the
medical literature of ancient Greece eventually suffers the fate
of very large-scale invasion by philosophy of different sorts.

Indological Truths
 As Sigerist, referring to the theoretical writings in the
Hippocratic collection, observes, “ They are as different as
possible in character and content.” “ The Hippocratic
collection,” says Jones, “ is a medley, with no inner bond of
union except that all the works are written in the Ionic
dialect and are connected more or less closely with medicine or
one of its allied sciences. There are the widest possible
divergences of style, and the sharpest possible contradictions in
doctorine.” ^**
The reason for this, given by Jones, is an external one ; “ The
Hippocratic collection is a library, or rather, the remains of a
library. W hat hypothesis is more probable than that it
represents the library of the Hippocratic school at Cos
But the hypothesis does not explain the problem we have been
discussing. Why should there be so much of heterogeneous
philosophical theories in these tracts and why should there be
in these such an appalling lack of physiology and therapeutics ?
Jones says, “ The ancient biographies of Hippocrates relate a
a fable that he destroyed the library of the Temple of Health at
Cnidos (or, according to another from of the fable, at Cos)
in order to enjoy a monopoly of the knowledge it contained.” i^®
Evidently, such fables do not grow out of nothing, specially
about a name which ancient Greece wants to hold in very
high esteem, as the greatest authority on medicine. Could
it then be that the uncanny professional greed of some ancient
doctor or doctors account for the loss of the more genuine
medical literature of ancient Greece ? We shall have to return
to this question while discussing humanism and medical s cience.
For the present, the relation between science and philosophy.
Whether the genuine medical literature of ancient Greece
actually suffered the fate just mentioned is no doubt conjectural.
W hat is not conjectural, however, is that the tracts surviving
for us as the only medical literature of ancient Greece contain
much more philosophy than science, and, what is worse, the
philosophies are usually unrelated to science. At least in a very

143. Sigerist ii.277. 144. Jones i.intro, p. xxviii.

J45. i.intro. p. xxix. 146. lb.

Indological Truths
large number of these tracts, the conflict between philosophy
and science is obvious.
But the source-books of Ayurveda give us the impression of
a very wide range of general theoretical agreement among the
ancient Indian doctors, which, as we have seen, are called the
sarva-tantra-siddhanta-s by the Caraka-samhita.^*’’ This is the
result of the conscious attempt at interpreting a vast amount of
empirical data with the awareness of the parctical requirements
of the physicians. Thus, instead of coercing science into some
pre-existing theoretical mould, Ayurveda allows science to develop
a m edically relevant philosophy. The result is that while the
Greek medical literature fails to resist the invasion of science by
assorted and irrelevant philosophies, Ayurveda bequeaths to
Indian philosophy certain highly significant positions.
The view we have been just discussing is an example of this.
According to it, the human body—like everything else in
nature—is involved in the process of ceaseless change. This
seems to be one of the profoundest contributions of the ancient
doctors to the general fund of Indian thought. It may be of
interest to note how some of the later Indian philosophers
inherit this basic idea and what crisis is created for their philo-
sopoy when they mix it up with an empty postulate borrowed
from some other quarter.
As just discussed, the view of human body as ceaselessly
changing is arrived at by the ancient physicians from the simple
observation of the fact of nutrition. Among the later and highly
sophisticated exponents of the Nyaya-VaiSesika philosophy,
Jayanta Bhatta and Udayana repeat the view. Argues Jayanta
Bhatta :
“ That the body is ever-changing is conclusively proved by
the fact of the digestion of food going to the maintenance of
the body. Without admitting this (view of the body ceaselessly
changing), there is no explanation for what happens to the food
when it is digested, no explanation for the fattening of the body
because of the consumption of milk-products, no explanation
for the increased blood-supply in the body because of medicines

Indological Truths
containing gold etc. All these prove that the body is ever-
changing. Is it not absurd to imagine that a body with lean
limbs is identical with a body with stout and fat limbs ?
According to Jayanta Bhatta, all these conclusively prove
that “ from infancy to youth and from youth to old age,
the body is always changing, i.e. is always a different one, like
the ever-changing flow in a stream” (sariram ca balyadi-avasthd-
bhedena bhinnam, atah tasya nasrayo bhavitum arhati, santanan-
taravat).^*^ Such a view, Jayanta reahses, is open to an
obvious objection. “If the body of Devadatta as a boy is totally
replaced by another body, namely that of Devadatta as a young
man, how can we at all recognise the latter as : This is the
same Devadatta that was once a boy ? ” To this objection,
Jayanta’s answer is quite simple. “ Such a fact of recognition is
only an illusion due to the misleading suggestion of same simi­
larity between the two. Just as the newly grown nail or hair
may be wrongly imagined as the old nail or hair already cut
off, so also the new body of the young man may be wrongly
imagined as the same body of the boy, because of some similar­
ity between the two.” ^ “ ®
There can be no doubt that all this is taken verbatim from
the ancient doctors, for whose therapeutic technique it is obliga­
tory to take the keenest interest in the human body and its
nutrition, and therefore also in the fact of its perpetual change. So
also are the basic arguments of Udayana intended to prove the
same view. Here is a brief summary of the elucidation of his
arguments by Phanibhiisana Tarkavagiga :
“ From the loss or gain in the body it is indisputably proved
that the old body ceases to be and is replaced by a new body.
Therefore, it is imperative for us to admit that the boyish body
is different from the youthful body and the latter different from
the aged body. Because of the differences in the quantities of
body-material, these bodies can by no means be viewed as
identical. Differences in quantities are surely indicative of diffe­
rences in substances. The daily change of this body is proved
by the daily change of body-material.” ‘ ®^
148. J a y a n ta B h a tt a N M ii.il. 149. 76.ii.10. 150. /6 . i i . l l .
151, Tarkavagisa N D (Bengali) iii.273.

Indological Truths
 This, then, is one of the very significant ideas taken by the
later Nyaya-Vai§esikas from Indian medicine. We shall later
see more examples of what this philosophy owes to the theoreti­
cal achievements of the ancient physicians. For the present,
however, we want to note another point. The view of the
body as ever-changing enables the physicians to solve their
therapeutic problem, for they think that this change can be
understood and therefore brought under control. But the
later Nyaya-Vaisesikas, as philosophers, are cut off from
the mainstream of medical science. They moreover find
themselves placed in a political climate in which the law­
givers insist that a view of the soul over and above the body
is the minimum mark of philosophical respectability. Such a
view of the soul can have nothing to do with the main preoccu­
pation of the physicians, who as we have seen, view purusa or
man exclusively as the body. However, perhaps largely because
of the legal pressure on them, the later Nyaya-VaiSesikas try not
only to relate the physician’s view of the perpetually changing
body to the concept of a changeless soul, but moreover to prove
the latter on the evidence of the former. They argue that since
the body is perpetually changing—since, for example, the body
as a boy is totally replaced by the body as a young man—some­
thing experienced by the former body cannot be recollec:ed by
the latter body, inasmuch as it is impossible for one to
recollect the experience of another. But recollection is a fact,
which it is impossible to explain on the admission of the body
alone. To explain this fact, therefore, it is necessary to postu­
late a permanent agent different from the ever-changing body.
This agent, according to the later Nyaya-Vaisesikas, must be
the immutable “ soul” : though quite different from the body,
this soul is somehow or other temporarily connected with the
body.
I have elsewhere gone into some details of this argument,
wanting to show that it rests on an inadequate understanding
of the body itself, inclusive of the physical basis of the pheno­
menon called memory—a limitation which is inevitable for the
historical context to which these philosophers belong. It is
now being shown by centuries of patient research that the fact

Indological Truths
 of memory is not so mysterious as to overwhelm the philoso­
phers to the extent of submitting to the legally sanctified ancient
superstition of an extra-corporeal soul, because the more this
mystery is being penetrated by contemporary science the
better it is realised that deeper knowledge of physiological
processes alone holds the prospect of its right understanding,
relegating the concept of an extra-corporeal soul to the limbo
of redundant hypotheses.^
For the present, we want to note another point. It is the
difficulty created by these later philosophers themselves when
they try to substantiate their postulate of the soul on the
evidence of the scientific data concerning the body. The soul
allegedly proved by them remains in their philosophy as some
kind of a quaint dummy for it. If viewed as something
genuinely extra-corporeal, the least that is expected of the soul
is the discharge of the truly spiritual or psychical functions and
be itself spiritual in essence. But in the Nyaya-VaiSesika philo-
sopy, the soul is something peculiarly, unconscious—as uncon­
scious as a lump of clay or stone (sila-sakala-kalpa)^'^^. It
acquires spiritual qualities only when aided by certain other un­
conscious entities, most of which are frankly material ! Thus,
though strenuously conceived as extra-corporeal or immaterial,
there is no question for such a soul discharging real spiritual
functions or to establish its claim of being itself spiritual. All
this leaves even the orthodox scholar like Hiriyanna to wonder,
why should a philosophy with such a peculiar view of the soul
at all try to differentiate its own position from that of the
plain-speaking materialists, when this essentially unconscious
entity called soul by courtesy as it were is precariously near the
materialist position identifying the soul with the body ! As he
puts it, “The position is scarcely distinguishable from that of
the Carvakas.” “ ^
Such then is the anomaly created in the Nyaya-Vailesika
philosophy when it tries to use something clearly inherited from
medical science to serve the purpose of a metaphysical postulate

152. Chattopadhyaya WLWD 462fF. 153. lb. 438.

154. Hiriyanna 260n .

Indological Truths
borrowed frora somewhere else. Science becomes incompatible
with philosophy and philosophy itself takes a queer turn. But
this does not mean that the theoretical positions evolved by the
physicians have necessarily a similar fate in the subsequent
history of Indian thought. But more of this later.

18. THEORY A N D THERAPEUTIC TECHNIQUE

According to the basic theoretical generalisation of Ayurveda,

everything is made of matter and everything is involved in the
ceaseless process of coming into being and passing out of
existence. From the medical viewpoint, all this raises a crucial
question. Where and how, in this general scheme of things,
do the doctors come in ? They are not philosophers. Their
purpose is to help maintain health and cure diseases. With all
its enthusiasm for discussing questions of general theoretical
interest, the Caraka-sam hita wants to be quite categorical about
this role of the physicians and their science. Explaining the
viewpoint of Ayurveda, it says,
“ Its purpose is to maintain the health of the healthy persons
and to remove disorders in the ailing’" : prayojanam ca asya
svasthasya svasthya-raksanam ; aturasya vikara-prasamanam
ca.i55
If therefore the physicians feel the need for some general
theoretical understanding as well, it is presumably considered
essential for their basic therapeutic purpose.
W hat then is the relevance of their theory for medical
practice ?
From the physician’s viewpoint, the answer to this is not
dif&cult to see. To ensure health or cure sickness, it is first of
all necessary to understand what these mean. Serious pre­
occupation with this problem leads them to the view of the inter­
action between environmental matter and body-matter, because,
according to their understanding, everything about the body—

Indological Truths
inclusive of health and disease—depends on it. Environmental
matter existing in the forms of different natural substances goes
to the making of the body-constituents, called dhatu-s. But
there is a right way as well as a wrong way in which this trans­
formation can take place. Environmental matter consumed
in the right form, in right proportion and right combination,
results in what is supposed to be the proper balance or harmony
or equilibrium of the body-elements. Health means nothing
but this balance. Disease again is the loss of this balance
resulting from the wrong way of absorbing environmental
matter, i.e. either the over-absorption or under-absorption of a
specific form of it.
From this understanding of the body and the causes of its
diseases, immediately follows the main point of the therapeutic
technique. To put in very general terms, it is matter-readjust-
ment within the body aiming at the restoration of the balance
of the body-elements. The Caraka-sam hitd wants repeatedly to
emphasise this point. Thus :
“ Here (in medical science), the effect aimed at is the balance of
the body-elements. The purpose of the present work is to
instruct on the effective measures ensuring the balance of the
body-elements'’ : karyam dhatu-sam yam iha ucyatejdhatu-sam ya-
kriya ca u kta tantrasya asya prayojanam}^^
Again :
“ By treatment of diseases is meant those operations that lead
to the balance of the body-elements. This is to be understood
as the function of the physician. W hat the physician does is
done with the purpose of not allowing the loss of balance of
the body-elements or of ensuring the continuation of this
balance.”
yabhih kriydbhih ja y a n te sarire dhatavah samah
sd cikitsd vikdrdndm , karm a tat bhisajdm sm rjam //
katham sarire dhatundrn vaisamyarn na bhavet iti /
samdnarn ca ambandhah sy d t ityartharn k riya te k riyd / / ‘57
But how is the physician expected to ensure the balance of
the body-elements ? From the viewpoint of Ayurveda, there

Indological Truths
 is only one answer to this. Since the body-elements are
nothing but transformations of various natural substances,
the only way of ensuring their balance is the regulation of the
natural substances to be consumed. As our text puts this,
“ By avoiding things that cause the loss of the balance and by
consuming things that favour it, the discordance of the body-
elements is not allowed to persist and their concordance brought
into being.”
ty a g d t visam a-hetunam samanam ca vpasevanat /
visam d na anubadhnanti jd y a te dhatavah samah //
But everything in nature as well as in man is made of matter
in its five forms. Hence the therapeutic principle, put in more
general terms, means that if there is an excess of body-matter
in some particular form resulting from the wrong absorption
of environmental matter, the physician has to prescribe as diet
or drug the kind of substances that have the efficacy of bringing
down this particular form of body-matter to its normal level,
i.e. to the level at which it retains balance with body-matter
in other forms. Secondly, if there is diminution of body-matter
in some specific form resulting from the lack of absorption or
inadequate absorption of environmental matter in this form,
the physician has to prescribe as drug or diet certain specific
substances which, when transformed within the body, raises
the affecied body-matter to its required level. Thus, another
way of viewing the essential point of the therapeutic technique
is to call it the ' ‘use of the opposite” , i.e. the use of substances
having “ opposite” effects on the body-matter aggravated or
diminished. We quote here two examples of how this is for­
mulated in the Caraka-samhitd.
“ By treating disorders of the body with what are opposite to
their origin, we restore the normal condition of the patient.
Thus administered by us, the drugs show themselves to the best
of their glory” : vyddhin mula-viparyayena upacarantah sam yak
p ra k rta u sthapayamah ; tesam nah tathd kurvatdm ayam
bhesaja-samudayah kantatam ah bhavati.^^^
Again,

Indological Truths
“ Diseases that are curable are cured by drugs (substances) with
antagonistic qualities, administered with due consideration of
place {desa, i.e. the environmental condition of the patient),
dose {m atrd) and time {kdla i.e. seasonal variation or variation
of climatic conditions).”
viparltagunaih desa-m atra-kala-upapaditaih /
bhesajaih vinivartante vikarah sddhyasammatah

19. SA M AN YA A N D VISESA

This expression for the therapeutic technique, namely “ the use

of the opposite” , is in need of some explanation. It means
no doubt that the physician’s task is to increase what has
become diminished and to diminish what has become excessive
among the body-elements. Concretely speaking, however, the
only way open before him to try both the procedures is to
prescribe certain substances as diet or drug. From the stand­
point of their effects on the body-elements, therefore, the
substances prescribed may also be viewed as having twofold
effects. Certain substances have the inherent nature of increasing
some particular body-element, just as certain other substances
have the inherent nature of decreasing some particular body-
element. In relation to their effects on body-elements, the
substances are thus to be classified under two heads, namely
“ increasers” of body-elements and “ decreasers” of body-
elements. This way of looking at the substances leads the
physicians to develop two key concepts. They call these
sdmanya and visesa.
Let us first see what these mean in the medical texts and
why, as conceptual tools, these are considered crucial by the
physicians. The C araka-sam hitd introduces the concepts as
follows :
“ That which causes the increase of everything (of the same
nature) at all times is called sam anya, while by visesa is meant

Indological Truths
the cause of the decrease. Thus the tendencies of the two (for
increasing and decreasing the body-elements) are : Sam anya is
that which combines, visesa is that which disunites. Hence,
sam anya is that which is similar, and visesa is its opposite.’'
sarvadd sarvabhavanam sam anyam vrddhikaranam /
hrasa-hetuh visesah c a ,p r a v n tih ubhayasya tu //
samanyam ekatva-karam , visesah tu p rjh a k tva-kr.t /
tu lyarth atd hi sam anyam , visesah tu viparyayah
It is well-known that these two concepts acquire great
importance in the Vaigesika philosophy. But it needs to be
noted that in the C araka-sam hita, sam anya and visesa mean
something quite different from what these mean in the philoso­
phical literature. We quote S.N. Dasgupta, who makes this
difference very clear :
“ In the VaiSesika system the word sam anya means a class
concept; but here (in medicine) it means the concrete
things which have similar constituents or characteristics ; and
visesa, which means in the VaiSesika ultimate specific properties
differentiating one atom from another, means in Caraka con­
crete things which have dissimilar and opposite constituents or
characteristics. Sam anya and visesa thus have a significance
quite different from what they have in the V aisesika-sutras.
The principle of sam anya and visesa is the main support of
Ayurveda ; for it is the principle which underlines the application
of medicines and the course of diets. Substances having
similar constituents or characteristics will increase each other,
and those having dissimilar constituents or characteristics will
decrease each other...Instead of having only a conceptual value,
samanya and visesa are here seen to discharge a pragmatic
work of supreme value for Ayurveda.” ‘ «*
Dasgupta himself is inclined to see in this view of sam anya
and visesa an “ indebtedness” of Ayurveda to the VaiSesika
philosophy.*®® “ It is well to note in this connection,” says he,
“ that the Caraka-sam hita begins with an enumeration of the
Vai§esika categories, and, though it often differs from the

Indological Truths
VaiSesika view, it seems to take its start from the VaiSesika.” !®*
“ In the case of sam anya and visesa, again, Caraka seems to
add a new sense to the words.” *®® Such an understanding of
the relation between VaiSesika philosophy and the medical
theories, as we shall later argue, is in need of amendment.
Historically speaking, there are many grounds to think that the
fundamental categories of the Vai^esika philosophy originally
take shape in the medical school to meet the theoretical
requirements of the practising physicians.

20. A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF

M EDICAL THEORY

We shall quote here a passage of the Caraka-sam hita, which

sums up some of the main points of the medical theory we
have discussed so far, as well as adds a few more points to those
already discussed. Roughly translated, the passage is as follows :
“ The exact knowledge of the body subserves the purpose of
maintaining its health, because it is only on the strength of the
knowledge of the body that we can determine the factors
contributing to its well-being. Hence do the experts extol the
knowledge of the body.
“ By the body is meant that combination of matter in five forms
which serves as the substratum of consciousness and which
(normally) maintains the balance (of the body-elements).
“ When therefore the body-elements become discordant, the body
suffers disease and even death. This tendency towards discor­
dance of the body-elements, again, is brought about by their
hypertrophy or atrophy, whether partial or complete.
“ This hypertrophy or atrophy of the body-elements resulting
from their mutual conflict takes place simultaneously, because
whatever factor tends to increase one body-element tends at the
same time to decrease another body-constituent which is

Indological Truths
opposed to it. (That is, when one body-element is by nature
opposed to another, the increase or decrease of the former
naturally leads to the decrease or increase or the latter.)
“ Therefore, medicine is that which, when rightly administered,
becomes at the same time a harmoniser of the increased or
decreased body-elementl It brings down the element that has
become excessive and at the same time augments the deficient
one (opposed to it).
“ Indeed, this alone is the end sought by the use of medicine as
also by the observance of desirable habits. It is the balance of
the body-elements, to be achieved or maintained as the case may
be. It is only with the view of maintaining the balance of the
body-elements that the intelligent person, while being healthy,
would use by rotation a variety of dietary substances with
different taste-qualities and other properties, the effects of which
are ascertained to be agreeable to the body, i.e. as contributing
to its balance. However, those who have to depend on one
particular variety of food should endeavour to balance its
over-use by physical exercise, which is known to be counter­
active to it.
“ Right mode of living ensuring the balance of the body-elements
comprises the proper performance of acts and use of diets, which
are counter-active to local, seasonal and individual idiosyncrasies.
It includes also the suppression of all tendencies to excess, the
non-suppression of the excretory impulses, i.e. non-suppression
of the tendency of the body to expel the excretions from within
the body, and the avoidance of violent activities. Right mode
of living comprising these, it is taught, brings about the balance
of the body-elements.
“ The body-elements, again, increase by the repeated consump­
tion of substances that either wholly consist of or predominate
in like qualities, and those diminish by the repeated consump­
tion of things that either wholly consist of or predominate in
unlike qualities.
“ Here is an enumeration of the qualities of the body-elements ;
heavy, light, cold, hot, unctuous, dry, slow, acute, stable, mobile,
soft, hard, clear, slimy, smooth, rough, subtle, gross, dense
and liquid.

Indological Truths
“ Of these, the body-elements that are heavy increase by the
repeated intake of substances that are heavy ; these at the same
time reduce the body-elements that are light. The light ones,
again, increase by the intake of light substances, which, at the
same time, reduce body-elements that are heavy. In this
manner, there is increase of body-elements by the intake of
substances with like qualities and decrease of body-elements
by intake of substances with unlike qualities.
"Hence the body-element in the form of flesh grows more by
the intake of flesh, i.e. relatively to the rest of the body-elements.
Similarly, the body-element in the form of blood increases by
the intake of blood ; the body-element in the form of fat in­
creases by the intake of f a t ; the flesh-marrow (vasa) by the in­
take of flesh-marrow ; the bones by cartilage, the bone-marrow
by bone-marrow, the semen by semen and the foetus by foetus.
“ Now, in cases where substances of identical nature, in con­
formity with this rule, are not available—or, even if available
the substances cannot be used either because they are unsuitable
or because they are disgusting or because of some-other reason,
and, nevertheless, it is necessary to increase a particular body-
element whose perfectly corresponding one cannot be used as
food-substance—recourse must be taken to substitute food-
substances abounding in qualities of the specific body-element
the increase of which is required.
“ Thus, for instance, in the case of the diminution of semen, use
may be made of milk and clarified butter, and also other articles
listed as sweet, unctuous and cooling ; in diminution of urine,
use may be made of sugar-cane juice, Varuni wine, and also
substances having liquid, sweet, acid, salt and moisture-produc­
ing properties ; in diminution of faecal matter, use may be made
of horse-gram, black, gram, mushroom, the viscera of goats,
barley, vegetables and the sour gruel of grains ; in diminution
of vata, use my be made of substances that are bitter, astringent,
dry, light and cold ; in diminution of p itta , use may be made
of substances that are sour, salt, pungent, alkaline, hot and
acute ; in diminution of kapha, use may be made of substances
that are unctuous, heavy, sweet, dense and slimy.
“ Recourse is to be sought also to physical exercise which

Indological Truths
stimulates a particular body-element whose growth is sought.
In this manner, by the use of like and unlike substances and
also by physical exercise, the increase or diminution of body-
elements is to be brought about. Thus we have explained the
direct and indirect methods of bringing about the increase or
decrease of body-elements.” i®®

It is already evident from this passage that in trying to expl­

ain the theoretical foundations of therapeutic technique, the
ancient physicians are confronted with a situation which is
actually far more complicated than is covered by their simple
formula of restoring the balance of the body-elements by in­
creasing or decreasing some specific form of it, using natural
substances with like or unlike qualities. Assuming, for example,
that the use of milk, clarified butter and other articles listed
as “ sweet, unctuous and cooling” is observed to have an
appreciable effect in curing what is called “ the diminution of
semen in the body” , it is not easy to work out the explanation
of this phenomenon in terms of the medical formula which it is
supposed to illustrate. Besides, admitting that as physicians
they observe the desirable effect of physical exercise for
maintaining health, how can they at all hope to relate also
this phenomenon to their set formula and claim that physical
exercise stimulates a particular body-element ? Are all these
dogmatic assertions pure and simple or is there anything
behind these assertions to indicate the gropings at scientific
explanation on the part of the pioneers of medical science ?
Before answering the question in haste, let us try to understand
the way in which their mind seems to be working.

21. M EAN IN G OF THE M EDICAL FORM ULA

The Caraka-sam hita speaks of twenty qualities of substances.

The list of these begins with two antagonistic ones, which the

Indological Truths
physicians call heavy (guru) and light (laghu). What exactly
is meant by these ? From their viewpoint, the answer is quite
simple. They observe that certain substances are rather easily
digested while it is difficult to digest certain other substances.
This difference, they feel convinced, is due to the inherent nature
of the substances. Thus, the substances observed to be easily
digested are in their view “light b y natuTd” (svabhava-laghu),
while substances observed to be difficult to digest are viewed as
“heavy by nature” (svabhava-guru). Depending on this, they do
not find much difficulty in classifying the various substances
under these two main groups. Thus the Caraka-sam hita says,
“ In view of this, sM i rice, s a s tik a rice, mudga or green gram,
common quail, grey partridge, antelope, rabbit, wapiti, Indian
sambar and such other articles of food are light by nature...
Similarly, cakes of flour, preparations of sugar-cane juice and
condensed milk, til, black gram, the flesh of aquatic and wet­
land animals and such other articles of food are heavy by
nature.” !®’
This much is perhaps simple observation and the lack of
accuracy—if any—in this is only due to the want of controlled
conditions, the importance of which takes many centuries for
the scientists to realise. For the ancient doctors, however, the
facts thus observed also raise a theoretical question. How are
they to account for the fact that certain substances are not
easily digested while others are digested easily ? In other words,
what is it that makes certain substances “ heavy by nature” and
others “ light by nature” ? The physicians are supposed to
answer this question in accordance with their fundamental pro­
position that all substances in nature are made of matter in five
forms, viz, earth, water, air, fire and akasa. Accordingly, after
stating the list of substances ‘by nature light’ or ‘by nature
heavy’, the Caraka-sam hita adds that such nature of substances
is not to be viewed as accidental or without cause. The fact on
the contrary is that substances which by nature are light are so
because of the predominance of fire and air in these, just as

Indological Truths
substances which are by nature heavy are so because of the
predominance of earth and water in these. As the text says,
“ In this statement, the substances being heavy and light are not
to be viewed as uncaused. Because of the predominance of the
qualities of air and fire, certain substances are naturally lig h t;
the other substances (i.e. those which are by nature heavy) have
predominance of the qualities of earth and water” : na ca evam
ukte dravye guru-laghavam akaranam m a n y e ta ; laghuni hi
dravyani vayu-agni-guna-bahulani bhavanti; pr.thm-soma-guna-
bahulani itarani.^^^
We can thus see, when the physicians speak of substances as
heavy or light, they have in mind something else altogether
than their weight. What they are really groping for is some­
thing more fundamental, viz the kind of matter constituting the
substances. But how is this matter-composition of substances
related to the basic fact of observation, viz. that some of these
are easily digested while the others are not ? From the phy­
sician’s viewpoint, the answer to this is to be sought in the
nature of the digestive process itself. We have seen how, de­
pending on the technological developments of their times, they
are led to attach the greatest importance to the role of fire in
this process. Accordingly they think that a substance made
predominantly of fire adds to the fire in the body ; and this
makes it easily digested. But a substance made predominatly
of earth and water, because of the insufficiency of fire in it,
makes it comparatively difScult to digest. The fact that even
such a substance is digested after all is due to the presence of
fire in it also, though secondarily or in a subsidiary form. The
physicians, as we have already noted, conceive every substance
as made of matter in all its five forms. It is only because of
the predominance of some matter-form in a substance that it is
called “made of earth” or “made of water” , etc. Thus fire
exists in each substance, which makes it more or less digestible.
But the predominance of fire in “ substances by nature light”
makes them easily digested. Thus the Caraka-sam hita asserts,
“ Consequently, substances that are light stimulate by their

Indological Truths
inherent nature the fire (within body). Hence these do not cause
much harm even though taken in excess” : tasm at svagundt api
laghuni agni-sandhuksana-svabhavdni alpa-dosani ca ucyante api
sauhitya-upayuktani.^^^
Such an understanding of the role of fire in digestion cannot
but raise another problem for the ancient physicians. Interested
in the well-being of the human body as they above all are, they
do not fail to observe the simple fact that physical exercise also
helps digestion and increases appetite. How are they to account
for this fact consistently with their understanding that diges­
tion depends on matter in its flre-form ? For them there can be
only one answer to this. Physical exercise must be viewed as
somehow or other generating fire within the body. So they speak
of vyayama-agni or “fire resulting from physical exercise.” This
helps the digestion of “ substances that are by nature heavy” ,
which, medically speaking, means “ substances that are by nature
deficient in fire.” Thus the C araka-sam hitd says,
“ Again, substances that are heavy—because of having contrary
quality—do not by nature stimulate fire within the body. Unless
therefore fire is increased within the body by physical exercise,
over-eating of these is very harmful” : guruni punah na agni-
sandhuksam-svabhavani, a -sd m a n y a t ; atah ca atim atram dosa-
vanti sauhitya-upayuktdni ; anyatra ca vyayama-agni-baldt.'^'^'^
How are we to look at this explanation ? Is it to be viewed
as merely the tendency to add one assumption to another for
the sake of supporting a pre-conceived theoretical view ? Or,
could it be that by assuming this vyaydm a-agni the physicians
are also trying to take note of another fact of simple observation,
namely that physical exercise makes the body hot ? Evidently,
to the pioneers of rational medicine, heat generated in the body
is inconceivable without the assumption of the generation
or provocation of fire within. The rise in body temperature
etc. due to physical exercise can thus be only because of
the increase of fire in the body. To the ancient physicians, this is
corroborated by the further fact of- simple observation, namely

Indological Truths
that physical exercise helps the digstion of substances otherwise
not easily disested.

22. U N D E R ST A N D IN G THE SUBSTANCES : D R A V Y A ,

G U N A , K ARM A & SAM AVAYA

We have discussed all these specially to see how the minds of

the ancient scientists are possibly working. They are keen on
understanding certain qualities (guna-s) of substances (dravya-s),
because these are supposed to be pointers to their matter-
composition. Thus, the flesh of wet-land animals like buffalo
and pig is “ heavy” while that of the wapiti and sambar is
•‘light” , not because the former weighs more than the latter but
because the matter-composition of the former is diflferent from
that of the latter.
Obviously enough, it requires centuries of patient research
to move towards a gradually perfected knowledge of the nature
of matter and of the laws of its transformation, only on the
strength of which this problem of matter-composition of things
can possibly be better grasped than is actually done by the
ancient doctors viewing matter merely as earth, water, air, etc.
W hat interests us, however, is to see how the theoreticians of
medical science do the pioneering work not only in formulating
the problem but also in developing some conceptual tools for
solving it.
This theoretical work presupposes the compilation of empiri­
cal data specially about the therapeutic agents. The enormity of
such data, as found in the C araka-sam hitd and S u h u ta-sam h ita
in already mentioned. But Ayurveda would have remained
at a more empirical leavel—as something like the medical lore of
the tribal peoples—if the empirical data were left as such. What
the theoreticians of Indian medicine attempt moreover is a
systematic interpretation of these. Of the conceptual apparatus
developed for the purpose, three are most important. These
are called dravya or substance, g u m or quality and karm a or
action, though—specially for explaining the relation between the

Indological Truths
substance and its qualities—the need is also felt for a fourth
category, which is called sam avaya, meaning eternal and
inseparable relation. Like the sam anya and visesa of the
physicians already discussed, we meet also these four categories
in the Vai^esika philosophy. For the present, we shall avoid
the question of this philosophy being influenced by medicine or
medicine borrowing from this philosophy. We shall discuss
instead these categories as understood by the ancient doctors
for the purpose of systematising their empirical data.
The therapeutic agents are viewed as belonging to the general
category of natural substance or dravya. Medically speaking,
what interests the scientists most is their action or karm a on
human beings. The need for these two categories is thus quite
obvious. But there is another special problem. Rejecting
supernaturalism and mysticism, all substances are viewed by
them as made of matter or bhuta. But how to determine the
matter-composition of a substance, only in terms of which its
action on the ^body is to be judged ? The ancient doctors give
us the impression that in their view the qualities or guna-s of a
substance can give us the clue to its matter-composition, and
therefore also to its actions. Hence is the need for this third
category, namely guna or quality. Accordingly a great deal of
emphasis is put in the C araka-sam hita on the importance of
these three categories for medical science. It declares,
“ Thus, only in this treatise are discussed the substances, quali­
ties and actions, as promotive or otherwise of life” : tatra
dyusyani anayusyani ca dravya-guna-karmani kevalena upade-
k syan te tantrena. *^ ‘
But how far is the procedure of judging a substance from the
qualities really dependable ? It cannot at all be dependable if
the relation between the two is accidental, transitory or detach­
able. However, the physicians think that their relation is not
always so. There are cases in which the relation between the
qualities and substances is peculiarly inseparable or undetach-
able, and in this sense eternal. A relation like this is called
sam avaya, as for example the relation between matter in its

Indological Truths
earth-form and its specific quality, which, according to the
physicians, is smell. Explaining this, the C araka-sam hitd says,
“ The relation between earth etc. and their (specific) qualities is
inseparable. Such a relation is called sawavaj/a. It is eternal.
Wherever there is a substance, there is also its (inseparable)
quality. There cannot be any instance to the contrary.”
samavayah aprthagbhavah bhumyadlnam gunaih matah
sail nityah ; ya tra hi dravyam na tatra aniyatah gunahjj^'^^
This relation of inseparableness or samavaya is therefore
exceedingly important from the medical viewpoint. When such
a relation exists between a quality and a substance, the former
is an unmistakable pointer to the latter. Thus, for example,
all sorts of qualities may be found associated with a substance.
But the physician has got to determine which of these are just
accidentally associated with the substance and which of these
are so inseparably related to the substance that these are
inconceivable without the substance ; wherever the substance is
there must be these qualities or that any case of the presence of
these qualities without the substance is inconceivable. Only
when the qualities are thus impossible without the substance,
they are infallible indices to the nature of the substance.
But this identification of the nature of a substance by its
inseparable qualities is for the physician only a means to an end
The end is to know—and thereby to regulate—the action
(karm a) of the substances on our bodies. This action is
determined by the inherent nature of the substance, i.e. by its
matter-composition. Thus the qualities apart, there exists in
the substance also its specific action.
From the medical viewpoint therefore the substance is the
substratum not only of its inseparable qualities but also of its
inseparable action. The specific action of a substance is no
more detachable from it than its specific quality. If it is
impossible for a substance to exist without its specific quality,
it is also inconceivable for it to be without its specific function
or action. The nature of a substance, once identified by its
inseparable qualities, can thus be effectively recommended by

Indological Truths
 the physician for regulating the change required for the body.
This means that though both the inseparable quality and the
inseparable action have for their substratum the same substance,
the status of the former is quite diiferent from that of the latter.
The inseparable quality of a substance is only a passive pointer
to the nature of the substance. But the medical effect of a
substance is due to the function it has because of its inherent
matter-composition. As the Caraka-sam hita, in the course of
explaining the basic theoretical principles of medicine, asserts :
“ Substance is that which serves as the substratum of the actions
and qualities related inseparably to it. The quality, though
inseparably related to the substance, is cause only in the passive
sense. As residing in the substance, that which serves as the
(real) cause of conjunction or disjunction (of the body-elements)
is action (k a rm a ), by which is meant its actual function. This
action is not determined by anything else ( than the inherent
nature of the substance itself).”
ya tra asritah karma-gunah karanam santaVayi y a tj
ta t dravyam ; sam avdyl tu n iscestah karanam gunamU
sam yoge ca vibhage ca karanarn dravyam asritam j
kartavyasya kriyd karm a \ karm a na anyat apeksatejj ^’ *
K arm a or action is thus the function of a substance inherent
in it. It has two forms, called conjunction (sam yoga) and
disjunction {vibhaga), which, as we have repeatedly seen, mean
the addition and diminution of some particular form of body-
matter. We have also seen that from the viewpoint of these
two forms of functions, the natural substances, in relation to
body-elements, are technically called sdmanya and yisesa. A
substance causing conjunction to a specific from of body-element
—i. e. as adding to it—is sdm anya in relation to this body-
element. A substance causing disjunction to a specific form of
body-element—i. e. as diminishing it—is visesa in relation to
this body-element. These two complete the list of the six
categories, viz. dravya (substance), guna (quality), karm a
(action), sam avaya (inseparable relation), sdm anya (similar,
alternatively also called vrddhi-kdrana or “the cause of

Indological Truths
increase” ) and visesa (dissim.i\a.T = hrasa-hetu or “ the cause of
diminution). These then are the basic conceptual tools with
which the ancient theoreticians of medicine ti^ to systematise a
vast stock of empirical data concerning the natural substances
consumed and of the ways in which these variously affect our
body-elements.

23. BHARADVAJA : A N EARLY THEORETICIAN

With this list of the six categories, we can now try to under­
stand what otherwise appear to be two strange features of the
extant Caraka-sam hita.
First, the history of Ayurveda, with which the medical com­
pilation begins. Shorn of the mythological elements added to
it, it mentions a certain Bharadvaja as the earliest authority on
medicine. Strangely, however, instead of attributing to him any
discourse on health, disease and drugs—which is only normally
expected of such an authority—the text attributes to him a very
cryptic statement, the essence of which is the enumeration of
these six c a t e g o r i e s . T h o u g h apparently extremely peculiar
as an account of an outstanding .event in the history of Indian
medicine, the presumption is that this cannot be without some
very good reason. This reasons, as we have just seen, is the
importance of these categories for the theoretical fundamentals
of Ayurveda. In other words, the medicnl compilation seems
to retain in its own way the memory of a very early theoretician
of the medical school—in fact the first that our text is aware of—
who strives after a systematic understanding of an aggregate of
empirical data before him. The vastness of this empirical data
leads us to presume that these could be compiled only by genera­
tions of ancient healers—the “ roving physicians” or caraka-s or
carana-vaidya-s —exploring a wide geographical area in search of
the healing agents. Admitting this, from the viewpoint of the
Caraka-sam hita the genius of Bharadvaja consists in his develop­

Indological Truths
ing or using the conceptual apparatus suitable for the syste-
matisation or theoretical understanding of this data. The con­
ceptual apparatus consists of the six categories—-Jravja, guna,
karm a, samavUya, sam dnya and visesa —the enumeration of
which is therefore only expected of him. Thus the cryptic
statement of the Caraka-sam hitd, according to which Bharadvaja
is supposed to expound to the assembly of doctors the view
of these six categories (sam onyam ca visesam ca gunan dravyani
karma ca Isamavayam ca) may as well be very relevant from
the viewpoint of the history of Indian medicine.
But does Bharadvaja develop the view of these categories
or does he simply adopt it from some pre-existing philosophy ?
We cannot ignore this question because, as it is well-known,
these categories constitute the essential theme of the VaiSesika
philosophy. Nothing is therefore easier for the historian of
Indian philosophy to assume that the ancient physicians borrow
extensively from the VaiSesika philosophers for the purpose of
providing medical science with a philosophical foundation. But
we shall later see how many difficulties are involved in such an
easy assumption. For the present we shall note another pecu­
liarity of our extant Caraka-sam hiia.
In spite of paying great tribute to Bharadvaja as the earliest
theoretician of Ayurveda, the opening chapter of our Caraka-
sam hitd abruptly stops saying anything more about him. The
text returns to him much later^^ though this time with the
purpose of urging him to renounce his heretical views in favour
of an ideology approved of by Indian orthodoxy. Why is this
peculiarity of the text ?
We have perhaps a clue to this in the passage of the Caraka-
sam hita we have quoted last. It ends with the assertion that
the action of a substance is determined exclusively by the
substance itself and it is not influenced by anything else : karma
na anyat apeksate.^ ’’^ Why is this emphasis on the exclusion
of any other factor as possibly influencing the action of a
substance on the human body ? Could it be because of the
anxiety to disown the view of supernatural causation widely

Indological Truths
 current in ancient India—specially the view that human
happiness or suffering is determined by the “ unseen” (a d r s ta )
hangovers of actions performed in past lives? According to this
view, even when a particular drug is observed to cure a specific
disease, the cure is not really due to the intrinsic efiBcacy
of the drug itself but to the a d r s ta ox the “ unseen” , the drug
having at best the status of an auxiliary at the service of a d r s ta .
In any case, there can be no doubt that the emphatic claim of
the ancient doctors that the action of a substance is determined
by the substance itself leaves no scope for any supernatural
view of the efficacy of a substance being influenced in any way
by a d r sta or god or any other factor like that. With this
rejection of the possible supernatural views, what can the doctor
be left with ? There is only one answer to this. It leaves him
with a purely naturalistic view of the actions of substances—the
view that the svabhava or the inherent nature of a substance
produces its specific result. In Indian terminology, this is known
as svabhava-vada, literally “ the doctrine of nature” , or according
to the modern way of putting it, “ the doctrine of the laws of
nature”.
We shall see, though such a view is strongly condemned as
heretical by Indian orthodoxy because of its overt materialist
implications, it cannot but be a fundamental proposition for
defending the intrinsic efficacy of medicine—a point on which
the ancient Indian doctors are most keen. The view of
svabhava, in other words, belongs to the theoretical fundamentals
of Ayurveda.
We can perhaps now understand the second peculiarity of
the Caraka-sam hita we have just mentioned. If it remembers
Bharadvaja as the earliest theoretician of Indian medicine and
if the view of svabhava is required by the basic theoretical
position of Ayurveda, the possibility of Bharadvaja having been
a defender of this view cannot be easily ruled out. To the later
“ reconstructors” of our Caraka-sam hita such a possibility— or
perhaps some ancient tradition actually attributing the view of
svabhava to Bharadvaja—must have been extremely embarassing,
because of the intense contempt of Indian orthodoxy for this
view. What then can they do but to insert a special chapter

Indological Truths
into the medical compilation, describing how Atreya—the pious
spokesman of Ayurveda—urges Bharadvaja to renounce his
heretical view, which is specially the view of svabhava ? This
precisely forms the theme of the entire third chapter of the
S a rira sth a m of our Caraka-sam hita, which we shall discuss
later.

24 DISEASES : V A Y U , PITTA & KAPHA

From what is already discussed, it is clear that two problems are

crucial for the ancient physicians. First, in the case of every
disease, they have to detemine the nature of matter-imbalance
in the body causing it. Secondly, they have to identify some
substance or combination of substances the matter-composition
of which is such that—when transformed within the body—it
should rectify the said matter-imbalance.
It is evident for us today that both the problems are immen­
sely more complicated than can possibly be solved with the
panca-bhuta theory or the view of matter as earth, water, air, fire
and akdsa. For the pioneers of medical sience, however, there
is no possibility of developing a more adequate understanding of
the nature of matter. In so far as they are lured by the fascina­
tion for a theoretically complete explanation of diseases and
drugs on the strength of this view of matter, they run the risk of
being drifted towards a schematic understanding of both.
After the decadance of Indian medicine, such schematic
understanding increasingly assumes the form of dogmatic for­
mulas indiscriminately used specially in diagnosis and even in
therapeutics, though what saves the latter at least partially is the
undercurrent of vitality derived from the empirical knowledge
once acquired by the physicians. This aspect of Ayurvedic
theories has naturally no abiding interest for us. We shall
mention it very briefly and then return to the general features
of science consciousness with which rational medicine (yu kti-
vyapasraya bhesaja) begins in ancient India.
The schematic form of Ayurvedic theories and their eventual

Indological Truths
dogmatic degeneration is obvions in the formulas of vdyu, p itta
and kapha, with which the causes of all diseases are sought to
be explained. We have already seen what these mean. Foods,
consumed undergo a twofold transformation, called the nourish­
ing substance or p ra sa d a and excrements or mala. Of the
various products of the latter, three are called vayu, p itta and
kapha, meaning wind, bile and phlegm. It seems that in a large
number of diseases the physicians observe that there is an abnor­
mal accumulation of one or more of these waste-products of
food in the body. Hence they think that, though in their
normal proportion even these waste-products of food are essen­
tial for the maintenance of the proper balance of body-consti-
tuents^'^^, the excess of any of these—which usually causes
the abnormal diminution of the others—results in various
diseases. But the physicians do not remain satisfied with this
view. They seem to strive after a universal solution of the
problem of aetiology of all diseases. So they seem to drift
towards some set formulas of vayu, p itta and kapha, in terms
of which the origin of all diseases is imagined to be explained.
Already in the C araka-som hitd and Susruta-sam hitd in their
extant forms this .tendency becomes highly prominent. But
Vagbhata*'^* says that Kapilabala—the father of the final
“reconstructor” of our Caraka-sam hita develops his own un­
derstanding of vdyu, p itta and kapha. So we cannot outright
reject the possibility of these three waste-products of foods
acquiring increasing prominence in the medical compilations
from those through whose hands these pass before assuming
their present form. In any case, what we read about vdyu,
p itta and kapha in the extant medica Compilations are on the
whole a bundle of dogmatic assertions about how these cause
all possible diseases’^®—assertions that become all the more
cumbrous, arbitrary and often mutually conflicting in the later
commentaries and digests on Ayurveda. Readers interested in
this aspect of the Ayurvedic view are referred to Dasgupta'®°,

177. Caraka-sanihlta i 20.9 ; i.'is.4. 178. Astahga-samgraha (_KSS-

ed) i.20, p. 193, 179. Caraka-samhita i 28.10-19. 180. Dasgupta
ii.319-339.

Indological Truths
who has discussed it in detail. What perhaps interests more
the historian of Indian science is another point. In spite of
the arbitrariness and dogmatism caused in the medical view by
the ever-increasing importance attached to the formulas of vayu,
p itta and kapha, the medical compilations retain for us evi­
dences also of a broader—and perhaps earlier—view according
to which any excess or diminution of the body-constituents
caused by foods transformed both as nutritional substances
(prasada) and excrements (m ala) results in disease. We have
already quoted some passages of the Caraka-samhita'^^^ expre­
ssing this pre-schematic view of disease and health, which is
nearer the general materialist hypothesis concerning the inter­
action between environmental matter and body-matter. This
hypothesis seems to contain much greater science potential :
instead of dragging the medical theory to some dogmatic dead­
end, it can attract the doctors to probe deeper into the problem
of the nature of matter and thereby pave the path for creative
development of medical theory.
But the ancient physicians fail to develop an insight into
the nature of matter deeper than the view of it as earth,
water, air, etc., with which they try to understand the matter-
composition of all substances in nature and of their transforma­
tions in the body. This, to say the least, is too ambitious for
the ancient scientists. In trying to arrive at a complete solu­
tion of the problem, the obvious risk again is that of being
drifted to certain schematic formulations. The source-books
of Ayurveda show how serious is the risk, because the texts
do strive after certain arbitrary conclusions only with a decep­
tive appearance of completeness. What partially saves this
aspect of Ayurvedic theory from degenerating into dogmatism
is the physicians’ fidelity to the observation of facts.

25. D R U G S ; RASA, V lR Y A , VIPAKA & PRABHAVA

As we have already seen, the physicians try to understand the

18]. See pp. 78-9 and 142 if.

Indological Truths
nature of substances depending mainly on their qualities. What
is apparently peculiar is that the C araka-sam hita enumerates
the qualities in two separate lists. The first of these lists—
mentioned as ‘sound etc.’—contains five qualities, viz. sound,
smell, touch, colour and taste. The second list—cryptically
called ‘heavy etc. ending with the liquid’—contains twenty
qualities, viz. heavy, light, cold, hot, unctuous, etc. ‘ ®® Our
first question naturally is : Why, instead of one list of twenty-
five qualities, does the text give two separate lists ? The answer
is that there is obviously some basic difference between
“ qualities” as understood in these two lists. The qualities of
sound etc. are directly perceived by the sense-organs ; but the
qualities in the other list are not so. We have already discussed
two of these viz. light and heavy, and we have seen that these
mean easy digestibility or otherwise of a substance. This easy
digestibility or otherwise of a substance, it needs to be noted,
does not belong to the category of “action’" (karm a), by which
is meant the medically significant change produced by the
substance in the body-constituents. Thus the “ action” of
buffalo-flesh, which is considered “ heavy” , is that it “ promotes
firmness and corpulence of the body and it gives energy and
sleep.” ^®* The flesh of wapiti and sambar is by contrast
“ light.” As belonging to the jah gala class of animals'®*
their flesh has the “ action’' of restoring the blance of the body-
elements when their disturbance is due to the excess of bile and
deficiency of phlegm.
Thus “ light’'a n d “ heavy’', though having the substance as
their substratum, do not belong to the category of “ action” and
are hence considered “ qualities” . But these are qualities not
in the sense of being directly apprehended by the sense-organs,
as sound, colour, taste, touch etc. are., “ Light”, “ heavy” etc.—
and therefore also the other eighteen qualities mentioned in this
list—are qualities in some technical sense immediately relevent
for medical purposes. Hence the Caraka-sam hita wants to equip

182. see pp. 67-8. 183. Caraka-samhita i 26.80-1.

184. / 6 . i 27.45-6. 185. /6 . i.27.59-60.

Indological Truths
the physicians with the knowledge of these. Here are only a few
of the hundreds of examples we read in the text.
The s a s tik a rice is cold, unctuous and light,'®® while the
vrthi rice is heavy.*®’ The common millet is light and cold*®®
and so is barley*®^ but wheat is unctuous and heavy.*®® Among
the pulses, green gram is dry, cold and light*®’ though black
gram is unctuous, hot and heavy. *®^ The flesh of the five
classes of animals called “ tearer” , “ burrower” . etc., is heavy,
hot and unctuous*®^ but those of the ja h g a la animals is light
and cold.*®”* The flesh of the goat is not very cold nor very
heavy nor very unctuous*®^ while that of the sheep is heavy and
cold *®^ The milk of animals with uncloven hoof is hot and
dry,*®’ that of the goat is cold*®® and that of the sheep is hot.*®®
And so on.
From what we have discussed about '‘heavy” and “ light” ,
there are grounds to think that the twenty qualities mentioned
in this list are supposed to be pointers to the matter-composi-
tion of substances and the Caraka-sam hita gives us the impre­
ssion that the view of these is arrived at by the observation of
the various efl"ects of substances on our bodies. Once therefore
the physicians can prepare a ready reckoner of different subs­
tances having these qualities, there is hope of easily solving
their problem of prescribing the appropriate durg or diet for
the patient. But since these qualities are not directly appre­
hended by the sense-organs, these cannot solve the problem
of identifying the nature of a substance from its qualities. It
seems that for this purpose the physicians feel obliged to
depend on the qualities mentioned in the other list, viz. sound,
smell, taste, touch and colour.
It is obvious, however, that all these sense-qualities cannot
be equally important or equally essential for the purpose of
identifying the nature of a substance. At any rate, the physi­
cians somehow feel convinced that of these sense-qualities, the

186. /6 .i.2 7 .l3 . 187. / 6 . i.27.14. 188. A . i.27.16

189. / 6. i.27.19. 190. 76. i.27.21. 191. 76. i.27.23.
192. Ib. i.27.24. 193. Ib. i.27.56-7. 194. Ib. i.27.59-60.
195. / 6 . i 27.61. 196. 76. i.27.62. 197. Ib. 121.221.
198. Ib .i.n .2 2 2 . 199. 76.1.27.223.

Indological Truths
 most important one is taste, which they call rasa. Hence is
the great importance of the view of rasa or taste-quality in
the medical theory of natural substances.
It needs immediately to be noted that in the context of
nature or natural substances, the word rasa means something
else than what it means in the context of the body. In the
latter context, it means the “ organic sap” produced from the
digested food. But what is meant by rasa in the context of
nature or natural substances ? It is evident from the
Suhuta-samhita^°° as well as Caraka-sarnhita.^^^ that there is
a great deal of confusion and controversy on this question
among the ancient physicians. The Caraka-sam hita contains
in fact the account of a long debate on it, in which no less than
ten different authorities express widely different views of the
rflsa-s.202 But the text wants us to give the impression that
out of this chaos of divergent views, some standardised under­
standing of rasa is evolved in the medical school. It is summed
up as follows :
“ R a s a s are only six—sweet, sour, salt, pungent, bitter and
astringent...Their substrata are the substances resulting from
five forms of matter as transformed by their nature (p ra k rti),
the laws of their modification (v ik rti) and combination
(vicara), as well as the influences of place (desa) and season
(kala). In these substances exist the qualities (g u m s ) called
heavy, light, cold, hot, unctuous, dry, elc.”^®^
Elsewhere, the text defines rasa as that which is apprehended
of a substance when our tongue comes in first contact with it.^o*
Further, we are told, “ By rasa is meant the object of the gusta­
tory sense. It has for its origin water and earth, though in
special cases also the other three, viz. akasa, etc.” ^®^ There is
thus no doubt that, in the context of natural substances, rasa
means taste-quality, though for the purpose of identifying the
nature of a substance it is considered so important that the text
often figuratively uses the word rasa to refer to the substance in
which it inheres.®®®

200. Susruta-sarrihita iAO. 201. Caraka-samhita i,26 202. Ib.

203. / 6 . i.26.9. 204. 76. i.26.28. 205. / 6 i . l . 6 4 .
206. Dasgupta (ii.361) quotes C akrapani; rasah iti rasayuktani dravyani—

Indological Truths
 Such then is the position of the ancient physicians. It is
imperative for their therapeutic purposes to understand the
nature of the various substances of the world, v/hich they have
to prescribe as diets or drugs. But the only possibility they find
open for this purpose is to depend on their tastes or r a sa s,
which are in fact considered so important as almost to be inter­
changeably used for the substances in which these inhere.
Accordingly, great care is taken by both Caraka-samhita^^’’ and
Susruta-samhita^^^ to instruct the doctor how to determine
these taste-qualities of substances. There is also the effort to
correlate these taste-qualities with the twenty other qualities
called “ heavy” , “ light” , etc. Thus the Caraka-sam hita for­
mulates, “As regards the quality called dry (ru ksa), the astr­
ingent taste possesses it in the highest degree, the pungent in the
moderate degree and bitter in the minimum degree. Similarly,
as regards the hot (usna) quality, salt possesses it in the highest
degree, sour in moderate degree and pungent in the lowest
degree. As regards the unctuous (snigdha) quality, the sweet
taste possesses it most, the sour taste moderately and th^ salt
taste the least. Regarding the cold (s ita ) quality, sweet taste
possesses it in the highest degree, astringent in moderate degree
and the bitter in the lowest degree. With reference to heavy
(guru) quality, sweet taste possesses it in the highest degree, the
astringent in the moderate degree and the salt in the lowest
degree. As regards light ( laghu) quality, the bitter taste
possesses it in the highest measure, pungent taste in moderate
measure and the sour taste in the lowest measure.” 2oo
There is also the attempt in both Suhuta-sam hita^^^ and
the Caraka-sam hita to explain the origin of the taste-qualities
in different substances in terms of the view of five-fold matter.
We quote here from, the Caraka-sam hita, in which Atreya says,
“ I shall now explain the origin of the six tastes from the five
forms of matter (panca bhuta-prabhavdh rasah).
“ Water originating in the sky is by nature pure (saum ya).

‘'rasas mean the substances in which the rasas inhere.”

207. Caraka-samhita i.26.74-9. 208. Susruta-somhita i.40.10. Tr B.
209. Caraka-santkitai.26.53-6. 210. Susruta-samhita iA 2 .l-4 .K S S -sd .

Indological Truths
cold, light and without any manifest taste. However, while
falling from the sky—and after having thus fallen—it gets
endowed with the characteristics of the five forms of matter, and
sustains the bodies of all creatures—both the immovable ones
(sthavara=^\3.n\.s) and movable ones ( jawgama = animals ). In
these bodies become manifest the six r a sa s.
“ Of these six r a s a s , sweet is due to the predominance of water,
sour is due to the predominance of earth and fire, salt is due
to the predominance of water and fire, pungent is due to the
predominance of air and fire, bitter is due to the predominance
of air and d kasa, astringent is due to the predominance of air
and earth.
“ Thus originates the distinctness of the six tastes from the
paucity or predominance of the five forms of matter, in the
way in which the peculiarities of colour and form originate
in all the living creatures, both immobile and mobile (i.e. from
the same five forms of matter).” 2*1
For the practical purpose of the doctor, however, what is
supposed to be most important is the table of actions and
other qualities of the different substances according to the pre­
dominance of the taste-qualities or r a s a s in these. Both the
Susruta-sarnhita^^^ and the Caraka-sam hitd prepare such a
table. We quote here the one given in the Caraka-sarnhita :

“ Among these six r a s a s , the sweet taste (i.e. a substance with

madhura-rasa), being homological with the body-constituents,
increases ‘the organic sap’, blood, flesh, fat, bone, marrow,
‘corporeal vigour’ (ojas) and semen. It promotes life and invi­
gorates the sense-organs. It adds to strength and complexion,
destroys p itta , poison and vdyu, alleviates thirst and burning
sensations. It has a beneficial effect on skin, hair, voice and
strength. It promotes cheerfulness, vitality and satisfaction,
makes the body plump and firm, mends pectoral lesions, acti­
vates the functions of the nose, mouth, throat, lips and tongue.
It removes internal burning sensations and fainting. It is extre-

Indological Truths
mely attractive to the bees and ants. It is unctuous, cold and
heavy.
“In spite of these desirable qualities, if exclusively or excessi­
vely taken, it produces corpulence, softness, lethargy, hypersom­
nia, heaviness, loss of appetite or weakness of digestive fire,
excess of flesh in mouth and throat, respiratory trouble, cough,
coryza, intestinal torpor, algid fever preceded by cold. It causes
constipation, an undesirable sweet taste in the mouth, vomiting,
loss of consciousness and of voice ; deradenoncus, chain of
deradenoncuses, elephantiasis ; swelling of throat ; increase of
mucus ; discharge from bladder, vessels and throat ; eye-diseases
with excessive mucus ; and similar other morbid conditions
caused by the excess of kapha.
“ The sour taste (i.e. a substance with amla-rasa) adds rehsh to
the food ; increases digestive fire and thereby builds up the
body and invigorates it. It improves mental function {manah
bodhayati), sharpens the sense-organs, promotes strength and
increases vayu. It stimulates the heart (hrdayam tarpayati),
increases salivation and thereby helps what is eaten to move
downwards. It moistens, digests and gives pleasure. It is light,
hot and unctuous.
“ In spite of these desirable qualities, if exclusively or excessively
taken, it sets the teeth on edge, causes morbid thirst, flinching
of eyes and horripilation. It dissolves kapha and increases p itta ,
vitiates blood, makes the flesh sluggish and the body flabby,
causes oedema in those that are thin, cachectic, emaciated and
debilitated. Besides, because of its fire content, it causes pus
formation in injuries due to wound, contagious bites, burns,
fractures, swellings, dislocations, toxic urine or contact in other
forms with venomous creatures, bruise, excision incision, separa­
tion, puncture, crushing, etc. In the throat, chest and heart, it
causes a general burning sensation.
“ The salt taste (i.e. a substance with lavana-rasa) is digestive,
liquefacient, appetising, defluxion-inducing, depletive and disrup­
tive. It is acute (tik s m ), mobile (sara) and radiant (vikasi). It
is laxative and de-obstruent. It cures vayu, stiffness, obstruction
and accumulations. It overpowers all other tastes and increases
secretion in the mouth. It liquefies mucus-secretion, cleans the

Indological Truths
passages, softens the body-limbs, gives relish to food and is
always used in foods. It is neither very heavy nor very unctuous
and it is hot.
“ In spite of these desirable qualities, if exclusively or excessively
used, it provokes p itta , over-increases blood, causes morbid
thirst, fainting, great heat, disruption and corrosion of flesh. It
causes skin-diseases, aggravates toxicosis, causes rupture to
swellings and premature fall o f teeth. It causes sexual impo­
tence, impairs the functions of the sense-organs, induces pre­
mature wrinkles, grey hair and baldness...
“ The pungent taste (i.e. a substance with katu-rasa) purifies the
mouth, stimulates gastric fire, desiccates the food, causes water
to run from nose and eyes, invigorates the sense-organs, cures
intestinal torpor, oedema, obesity, urticaria, excessive fluidity
and unctuousness. It causes perspiration, softening and elimina­
tion of excreta. It adds relish to food, cures pruritus, removes
excessive granulations and intestinal worms, lacerates the
flesh, splits open the accumulation of blood, removes
obstructions, dilates the passages and subdues kapha. It is
light, hot and dry.
“ In spite of these desirable qualities, if exclusively or excessively
taken, it impairs sexual potency, induces stupefaction, causes
weariness, asthenia, emaciation, fainting, flexion, choking, giddi­
ness, a general burning sensation in the throat, excessive heat
in the body, diminution of strength and morbid thirst...
“ Further, because of the predominance of fire and air in it, it
leads to various kinds of disordered vayu affecting the legs,
arms, sides and back, which are attended with giddiness,
burning sensation, tremors and pains in the forms of pricking
and stabbing.
“ The bitter taste (i.e. a substance with tikta -rasd), though
unpalatable, removes the general aversion for food. It is an
antidote to poison and it destroys the intestinal worms. It cures
fainting, burning, itching, skin diseases and morbid thirst. It
makes the skin and flesh firm, cures fever, increases appetite,
helps digestion and purifies breast-milk. It dries up moisture
in fat, flesh-marrow, bone-marrow, lymph, pus, sweat, urine,
faeces, p itta and kapha. It is dry, cold and light.

Indological Truths
“ In Spite of these desirable qualities, if exclusively or excessively
taken—^because it is by nature rough, clear and dry—it dries up
the organic sap, blood, flesh, fat, bone, bone-marrow, and semen.
It makes the body channels shrink, saps up strength, causes
emaciation, weariness, fainting, giddiness. It dries up the
mouth and leads to various disorders of vayu.
“ The astringent taste (i.e. a substance with kasaya-rasa) is sooth­
ing and constipating. It sustains the body-elements, makes the
swellings to shrink and the boils etc. to subside. It causes dry­
ness and obstructions, reduces Jcapha, blood, p itta and other defil­
ing elements in the body. It is dry, cold and heavy.
“ In spite of these desirable qualities, if exclusively or excessively
taken, it dries up the mouth, afflicts the heart, distends the sto­
mach, adversely affects the voice, constricts body-channels, causes
cyanosis and impairs sexual potency. It first retards and then
only slowly allows the digestion of food. It inhibits the passing
of flatus, urine, faeces and semen. It causes emaciation, weari­
ness, thirst, stiffness. Further, because it is by nature rough
(khara), clear (yisada) and dry {ruksa), it causes various diseases
due to vata, such as hemiphlegia, spasm, convulsion and facial
paralysis.” ®'®

In trying to follow these principles, the physicians are con­

fronted with a practical problem. Most of the substances of
nature are found to possess more than one rasa. So they
prepare a list of sixtythree prominent types of substances possess­
ing one or more r a s a s — 15 in which 2 r a s a s predominate {dvi-
rasani dravyani), 20 in which 3 r a s a s predominate, 15 in which
4 r a s a s predominate, 6 in which 5 r a s a s predominate, 6 in
which a single rasa predominates and 1 in which all the 6 r a s a s
are prominent. ^ ^^ This, they hope, serves the basic practical
requirements of the doctors ;
“ In this manner are the substances divided into sixtythree groups
according to the distribution of tastes. This number of sixty­
three swells into an incomputable figure if the after-tastes are

213. Caraka-satnhita i.26.43.

214. lb. i.26.15-7. Cf Susruta-sarnhita i.42.23. Tr B.

Indological Truths
taken into c o u n t; likewise if the comparative and superlative
degrees of tastes are taken into consideration, the sum goes
beyond computation.
“ In view of the above, the experts conversant with the science of
tastes have limited the practical requirements of medicine to 57
groups of combined tastes and 63 groups of all tastes, single or
combined.
“ The physician desirous of success, considering well the nature
of the disease and the action of the remedy, must prescribe
either a single taste or a combination of tastes as required.
“According to the disease, substances of two or more tastes or
of combination of multiple tastes or of one only are used by
wise physicians.” ^ ‘ ®
The medical problem would have been quite simplified had
such an understanding of substances based on their tastes been
really adequate for the physicians’ purpose. But the medical
compilations give us a different impression. The ancient doc­
tors themselves feel that, while trying to grapple with the prob­
lem of the effects produced by the substances in our bodies, they
are confronted with a situation which is far more complicated
than is covered by the formulations just quoted. Hence the
texts introduce the concepts of virya or “ potency-in-chief for
producing medical effects”, of vipaka or post-digestive change
of a substance within the body and even of prabhava or some
peculiar operations of the substances on us, which, being frankly
beyond the depth of their understanding, are viewed as my­
sterious. As Dasgupta observes,
“ As none of the chemical effects (in the modern sense) of medi­
cines on human organs were known, the most obvious way in
which the medical effects of herbs, roots, etc., could be classified
was on the basis of taste...But it is obvious that such a classi­
fication, though simple, could not be universally true ; for
though the taste is some indication of the medicinal property of
any substance, it is not an infallible one. But no other mode
of classification was known ; it was supposed that the taste
(rasa) of some substances changed altogether after digestion and

Indological Truths
that in such cases the taste which changed after digestion (paka)
could be operative...But even this was not sufficient, for there
were many other effects of medicine which could not be explain­
ed on the above suppositions. In explaining this, the theory of
vlrya was introduced...It was only in the cases where no sensible
data of any kind could be found to indicate the medical proper­
ties of the things that the idea of prabhava was introduced. The
chapters in Ayurveda on dravya and guna deal with the enumera­
tion of prabhava and also of rasa, vipaka and virya, wherever
there is a divergence among xhem, as determ ined by empirical
observation."
Emphasis is added above to show what at least partially
saves the physicians’ view of substance from dogmatic degenera­
tion, into which their view of diseases obviously sinks. It is,
in short, the fidelity to empirical data. This leads them to
realise that the theory of the physiological effects of substances
identified by their taste-qualities is in need of degeneralisation.
As the Caraka-sam hita admits,
“ Some substances with sour taste are observed to be constipa-
tive, while other substances with the same sour taste are obser­
ved to be laxative. Thus, for example, both wood apple
(kapittha) and emblic myrobalan (am alaka) are sour in taste.
But the former is constipative and the latter laxative. Again,
though substances with pungent taste are contra-aphrodisiac,
long pepper {pippali) and dry ginger are aphrodisiacs. Subs­
tances with astringent taste are constipative...but chebulic my­
robalan is otherwise. Therefore, all substances are not to be
judged by their tastes alone, because, as we have just seen,
substances may possess the same taste and yet differ from each
other in medicinal proprties.” ^ ^ ^
One way in which the doctors amend their general theory of
how substances affect our body is to introduce the concept of
vipaka. Roughly it means the post-digestive change of a
substance. Thus, though generally speaking the way in which
a substance affects our bodies is to be judged by its taste, the
doctor has also to take note of the transformation of the nature

Indological Truths
 of the substance resulting from the process of its digestion. A
substance with sweet taste may retain the usual properties of a
sweet substance even after it is digested, but the process of
digestion may also change it so basically as to make it acquire
the properties usually characteristic of a substance say with
sour taste. In Ayurvedic terminology, the former would be a
case of the vipaka of sweet into sweet, while the latter a case of
the vipaka of sweet into sour. The physicians hope to see some
general rules concerning even this phenomenon called vipaka.
As the Caraka-sam hita formulates,
“ Generally speaking, substances with pungent, bitter and astrin­
gent tastes are, on post-digestion, changed into substances having
ordinarily the pungent taste. Substances with sour taste remain
after digestion substances with sour taste, and so also the vipaka
of sweet is sweet. By vipaka, however, substances with salt taste
are transformed into substances with sweet taste” .**is
But the doctors apparently realise that such a formulation
cannot be mechanically followed. The better course is to study
as far as possible the vipaka or post-digestive changes of diffe­
rent concrete cases. Here are a few examples of innumerable stu­
dies like this.
Though many varieties of rice are sweet both by taste and
post-digestive effect,® ‘ ® the vrihi rice is “ sweet in taste and
acid on pos>t-digestion.” ^®“ The flesh of iguana is astringent
and pungent in taste, but it becomes sweet by The
flesh of pangolin is sweet and sour in taste, but it becomes
pungent by vipaka.^^^ The flesh of green parakeet is astringent
and pungent in taste, and it becomes pungent by vipaka.'^^^
The flesh of the black buck is sweet both in taste and by
vipaka.^^^ And so on. The full list of su:h instances mentioned
by the C araka-sam hita would indeed be a very long one.
Apparently, the medical effects of the large variety of sub­
stances as actually observed by the ancient physicians are not
fully explained by the assumption of taste (rasa) and post-diges-

218. /*. i. 26.57-8. 219. / 6 . i.27.10. 220. / 6 . i.27.15.

221. / 6 . i.27.70. 222. I b .i.n .li. 111. / 6 . i.27.71.
224. lb. ll.n -% .

Indological Truths
tive change (vip a k a ). It seems that this leads them to introduce
another concept, which they call virya. Dasgupta translates it
as “ potency-in-chief for producing medical effects.”225 The
Caraka-sam hita defines it as that by which a substance acts on
our bodies (yena kurvanti ta t vlryamP'^^ and adds :
“ The taste of a substance is felt when the substance first comes
in contact with the tongue, the vipaka of a substance is felt
when the substance produces its final effect. But the virya of a
substance is felt throughout its presence in the body, beginning
with the first contact of the substance with the tongue.’’^^?
Apparently, the virya or potency of a substance is medically
much more important than its taste (rasa) and post-digestive
effect (vipaka).
The ancient doctors do not give us the impression of a clear
and agreed understanding of potency or virya. But there are
some indications in the medical compilations from which we
may perhaps guess what they are groping for. The Caraka-
sarnhita says,
“ According to some, potency has eight forms. ■-These are soft
(m rdu), acute (tiksna), heavy {guru), light {laghu), unctuous
(snigdha), dry (ruksa), hot (usna) and cold {sitala). According
to others, potency has two forms. These are hot and cold.
Potency is that by which a substance actually acts. Shorn of
potency, there is no action at all. All actions are due to
potency, (yiryarn tu kriya te yena y d kriyajna aviryam kurute
kirncit ; sarvd virya -k rtd k riy d ).” ^^^
We have already come across in the Caraka-sarnhitd what
is mentioned here as the different forms of potencies or virya-s,
which, according to some are eight while according to others
are two. But these are mentioned elsewhere as belonging to
the list of “ twenty qualities” {virnsati gundh). cryptically ex­
pressed as “ heavy etc. ending with the liquid” (gurvddayah
dravdntdh).^^^ Of these twenty “ qualities”, we have discussed
two, viz. “heavy” and “ light” , and we have seen that these
are called “qualities” not in the ordinary sense of being the

225. Dasgupta ii.364. 226. Caraka-samhita i.26.13. 111. 76. i.26.66.

228. /Z). i.26.64-5. 229. supra p.

Indological Truths
 direct objects of sense-organs, but in the technical sense of being
pointers to the matter-composition of substances : a substance
with the predominance of fire and air is “ light” , while one with
the predominance of earth and water is “heavy.” Not that the
Caraka-sam hita provides us with any exhaustive discussion of
the kind of matter-composition indicated by the other “ qualities”
included in the same list. Since, however, the evidence of what
is clear cannot be set aside by what is not so, what is on the
whole clear in the case of “ heavy” and “ light” leaves us with
the presumption that by the other eighteen “ qualities” of the
same list the ancient physicians are trying to understand in
their own way the matter-compositions of various substances.
If so, what are called “ qualities” in this list—or the more pro­
minent ones in the list—are only likely to be viewed as forms
of the real potency or virya of substances, because in the medical
view all substances are made of matter and hence whatever
action a substance may have must be ultimately determined by
its matter-composition. In other words, once the substances
are viewed as made essentially of matter, the peculiar potency
or virya of a substance can only be because of its peculiarity of
matter-composition.
We do not expect the ancient doctors to work out a com­
prehensive view of the actions of different substances as deter­
mined by their matter-composition. Neither in the Caraka-
sam hita nor in the Susruta-sam hita v/e read of any systematic
attempt at it. But the doctors find it impossible to evade the
question of how all sorts of natural substances act on our bodies.
In trying to answer this with their views of rasa (taste), vipaka
and virya, they want to evolve some formula correlating the
three. Such a formula, as found in the Caraka-sam hita is : A
substance which is sweet in both rasa and vipaka is “cold'’ in
potency, while a substance which is either sour or bitter in both
rasa and vipaka is “ hot‘’ in potency.®*® Apart from the diffi­
culty evidently felt by the text to be very clear about the nature
of matter-composition indicated by “ cold” and “hot” , the fact
remains that the ancient doctors themselves realise that such

Indological Truths
a formula cannot be fully tenable, inasmuch as it often fails to
agree with what is actually observed by them. Thus, for exam­
ple, the flesh of aqtiatic and wet-land animals is sweet in taste
but “ hot” in potency, as are many other cases actually observed
to go against the formula.^si Hence the Caraka-sam hita warns
the doctors against mechanically relying on the formula.^^^
Here again we see how the empirical data partially save the
medical theory of substances and their actions from dogmatic
degeneration.
All this brings us back to one of the main points we
have-been trying to emphasise. To the theoreticians of Indian
medicine comes down an enormous amount of empirical data
compiled presumably by generations of ancient healers, who
might have been the roving physicians—the carana-vaidya-s or
caraka-s, from whom our medical compilation receives its
name. These theoreticians, in trying to build up a rational
system of medicine or yukti-vyapasraya-bhesaja, outgrow the
old standpoint of magico-religious medicine or daiva-vyapasraya-
bhesaja. Thus rejecting supernaturalism and mysticism, they
are led to view all healing agents simply as material substances
of nature. These healing agents are mostly intended to be
consumed by the patients and hence—excepting for some
preparations of oils, pastes, etc, recommended for external
application—the medical compilations want on the whole to
identify drugs with diets. According to the C araka-sam hita, a
synonym for bhesaja or medicine is pathya or food.^ss Hence
is the great importance of food in the medical view. It is food
in the form of various natural substances that goes to the
making of man and determines his conditions called health and
disease. But these natural substances are made of matter,
hence also everything about man. This leads the ancient physi­
cians to realise that the real crux of the medical problem is
that of the interaction between enviornmental matter and body-
matter. The principles of rational medicine thus lead to the
materialist world-view.
Historically, however, this materialism is inevitably a naive

Indological Truths
 one. The ancient doctors are only beginning to understand the
nature of matter. They are in no position to go deeper than
the view of it as earth, water, air, fire and akasa. All this
enables us to see the grandeur as well as the limitations of
thsir theories. Their realisation of the profound significance of
the interaction between environmental matter and body-matter
is of abiding importance for the history of science. But the
attempt to solve the problem of this interaction in terms of
pahca-bhuta theory is the most serious limitation of Ayurveda.
This limitation becomes particularly serious in so far as the
doctors are lured by the fascination for theoretical completeness,
which creates for the medical theories the risk of dogmatic
degeneration. The effort to understand all substances of nature
with the theory of matter is five forms is just impossible, though
in this case what seems partially to save the medical theory from
dogmatism is its strong mooring is empiricald ata. Though
trying to determine the nature of substances and their medical
effects by the tastes (ra sa s), the ancient doctors feel the need of
introducing the concepts of vipaka and virya so that their theory
can retain fidelity to what is actually observed about the effects
of various substances on our bodies. But even such amend­
ments do not fully succeed. While trying to remain true to
their empirical data, the theoreticians of ancient medicine have
virtually to confess that the way in which enviornmental matter
acts on body-matter is often beyond the depths of their under­
standing, This is evidenced by their theory of prabhava, which
Dasgupta translates as “ the mysterious operation of a medicine
acting in an unaccountable way.”234 jg j-jjg Caraka-
sam hita says about prabhava : “ When, in spite of the similarity
between taste {rasa), potency {virya) and post-digestive change
{vipaka), two substances are actually observed to differ in their
actions—such difference is to be accounted for by the prabhava.
Thus, for example, citraka {Plumbago zeylanica^^^) is pungent in
taste {rasa) as well as in post-digestive effect {vipaka), and it is
hot in potency {virya). So also is d a n ti {Baliospermum monpa-
nurtf^^). Still (unlike the former), when the latter is adminis-

Indological Truths
tered to a man, it is found to have a purgative action. This
difiference is due to the prabham . Similarly, when poison itself
is found to counteract the effects of poison, the real cause is to
be viewed as prabhava. Again, whether a substance should
act on the morbidity in the upper part of the body or in the
lower part of the body, is determined by its prab h d va ”^^’’
But what exactly is meant by prabhava 1 The Caraka-
sam hita comes out with the frank admission that at the stage
of knowledge represented by it, prabhava is something beyond
the comprehension of the doctors : prabhdbah acintyah
u cyateP ^ To this may be added what the Susruta-samhitd
says : “ Why should certain drugs have by nature certain specific
efficacies can neither be settled by arguments nor fully explained.
Hence the wise physician should prescribe those according to
the medical wisdom recorded in the authoritative works.”
amimdrnsyani acintyani prasiddhani svabhdvatah /
dgamena upayojydni bhesajdni vicaksanaih
Thus, with all the gropings for the understanding of the
nature of substances and of their actions on our bodies—grop­
ings, in other words, for the knowledge of the interaction
between environmental matter and body-matter—the ancient
physicians feel in their own way that they can comprehend it
only up to a certain preliminary stage, and not beyond that.
There remain unsolved problems about the way in which the
natural substances affcct our bodies and it is unwise for the early
scientists to offer any definite theory about it.
This honest acknowledgement of the limits of their science
may not be unrelated to their materialist outlook, because—as
contrasted with religion and idealist philosophy which pretend
to attain final and absolute truth—one characteristic of material­
ism is the admission of problems yet unsolved. “Materialism
clearly formulates the as yet unsolved problems and thereby
stimulates the attempt to solve it.’’^'*® If the ancient doctors
fail to remain true to this spirit about the problem of aetiology
of diseases, their fidelity to empirical data enables them to retain

237. Caraka-satrihUai.26.61-9. 238. /6 . i.26.70 239. SuSruta-

sartihita i 40.22. KSS-ed. 240. Lenin MEC 33.

Indological Truths
it at least to a considerable extent in their understanding of the
substances.

26. LAWS OF NATUR E : KNOW LEDGE A N D POWER

It is evident from what is already discussed that all aspects of

Ayurvedic theory do not have for us the same interest. The view,
for example, that all diseases are due to the three waste-products
of food— vayu, p itta and kapha —is not of abiding significance
for the history of science. But the realisation that science con­
sciousness demands an affiliation to the materialist view con­
tinues to have significance even for our times. We shall note
here a few more features of Ayurvedic theory connected with the
latter.
In the passage of the Susruta-sam hita last quoted, it is
admitted that the efficacy of certain drugs cannot, be determined
by arguments, nor can it be fully comprehended at the stage
of medical research represented by the text. At the same
time, it is emphasised that there is nothing about the pheno­
menon to make the doctor submit to any supernatural view of
things. Such an efficacy belongs to the drug because of its in­
herent nature : prasiddhani svabhavatah. What exactly does this
mean ? Elsewhere the text gives a very clear answer to this : “The
understanding of certain substances as heavy and of others as
light must be considered as being determined by nothing but
their inherent nature or svabhava” : guru-laghava-cinta iyam
svabhavam na ativartate?^^
Here is the typical example with which this is illustrated.
The flesh of aquatic and wet-land animals is heavy (.guru) while
that of the jd h g a la animals is light. Why is this difference
between the two ? For the ancient physicians, there is ultimately
only one answer to this. The difference is due to their inherent
nature or svabhava. Put in modern way, this means that the
difference is due to the laws of nature.

Indological Truths
 In this connection, the Susruta-sam hita wants to go into
greater detail of the problem. It discusses how, when a subs­
tance is qualitatively changed, it acquires altered svabhava. Thus,
for example, though the vrthi rice is by nature heavy, when
baked in heated sand and transformed into puffed paddy the
latter becomes by nature light.^'*^ But let us not go here into the
complicated details of all these. Let us concentrate instead
on the more basic point, namely that of the importance of the
view of the law of nature or svabhava for Ayurveda. The
Caraka-sam hita gives us some glimpses of this. Certain subs­
tances—call these drugs of diets—are observed to have certain
specific actions on our bodies. The ultimate explanation of
this is to be sought in the view of svabhava or law of nature.
As the text puts it,
“ It is only because of svabhava that water moistens, salt liquefies,
alkali digests, honey synthesises, ghee adds to unctuousness,
milk promotes vitality, flesh adds to strength, flesh-broth nouri­
shes, alcohol inebriates ( ja r ja r ik a r o ti ), sidhu wine emaciates,
grape wine stimulates digestion, liquid molasses causes accumu­
lation of morbid matter, curd produces oedema, the pin yaka
plant causes depression.”243
A definite philosophical position is involved in this medical
assertion, for the understanding of which let us first refer to cer­
tain “ authentic popular verses” ( pram anika-lokagatha ) current
in the country from a distant past. Madhavacarya, in his Sarva-
darsana-sam graha, quotes one :
“ Fire is hot, water cold and air is neutral (neither hot nor cold)
to touch. By whom are all these created ? Because of svabhava
these are so.” ^**
Commenting on Haribhadra's Sad-darsana-samuccaya, Guna-
ratna quotes other verses :
“ Who makes the thorn sharp ? And the beasts and birds so
varied ? All these come into being by svabhava. There is
none whose desire makes them so.
It is useless to postulate anybody’s will to account for these.

242. Devendranatha & Upendranafha Sengupta 261. 243. Caraka-

satrihita i.27.4.244. Madhava SD S Anand-ed. 4.

Indological Truths
The thorns of the palm-tree are sharp. Some of these are
straight, others twisted. But its fruits are round. Tell us, who
could have shaped these ! (That is, there is none like that.)” 2 *®
Where these verses differ from the medical texts is on the
instances selected to illustrate the view. Why is fire hot and
water cold ? The only answer is that these are due to svabhava
or laws of nature. Why is the flesh of aquatic animals heavy,
while that of the Jahgala animals light ? The answer again is
the same. These are so because of svabhava or laws of nature.
But the popular verses just quoted are from the two most
famous compendia of Indian philosophy. The authors of these
compendia mention the popular verses to clarify the philosophi­
cal implications of the “ view of svabhava'". What then are
these implications ?
Madhavacarya explains that the view is characteristic of
the materialists, who are keen on deying the law of karm a, and
hence also the concept of adr.sta or the “ unseen” effects of past
actions determining everything. At the same time they want to
prove that this does not oblige them to accept “ accidentalism” ,
the view that everything in nature is due to pure accident or
chance. Apart from these two alternatives there is a third way
of looking at things. In this view, everything in the world is
due to the laws of nature or svabhava. As Madhavacarya
makes the materialists argue : “ But an opponent will object:
‘If you thus reject a d r s ta , you would be obliged to admit that
all phenomena of the world are just fortuitous (a k a sm ik a ).’
The materialists answer : ‘The objection is unsustained, inasmuch
as the causation of all phenomena is adequately explained by
svabhava'.
Gunaratna says, “ The naturalists (svabhavavadinah) argue
as follows. By svabhava is meant that the transformation of
objects is due to their inherent nature (i.e. without the
interference of any supernatural agency). Everything that
exists comes into being because of the laws of nature (svabhava).
Thus, for example, clay is transformed into pot and not into
cloth, etc. ... From the threads again is produced the cloth,

245. Gunaratna TRD 30. 246. Madhava SDS 4.

Indological Truths
and not the pot etc. Such regular occurrences cannot happen
without the operation of svabhava ... Therefore everything is to
be finally viewed as,due to svabhava ... Let alone the causes of
other effects, even the boiling of beans (mudga) cannot take
place without svahhava. Thus in spite of the presence of the
cooking pot, fuel, time, etc., the boiling of kahkaduka-mudga
(another form of bean) is not possible ... Even the boiling of
beans then depends on svabhava. So it is concluded that all
phenomena are due to svabhava.”^^'^ One of the main points
of this view, Gunaratna takes care to emphasise, is the defence
of the causal law specially against “ accidentalism” which, while
denying supernatural causation, rejects the concept of causality
as such. Gunaratna explains “ accidentalism” specially for
contrasting it with the view of svabhava ; “ Accident (yadnccha)
means the occurrence of a phenomenon without being deter­
mined by anything. Now, who are the champions of this view ?
Those who do not admit any cause-effect relation of the pheno­
mena as occurring in a series—i.e. those who consider these as
due to pure chance—are the defenders of accWentalism. This
is how they argue : No regular cause-efiFect relation among the
phenomena can be admitted, because such a relation cannot be
proved by any valid way of knowing. Thus it is observed that
the lily grows out of a lily as well as out of cow-dung. Fire is
produced by fire as well as by the flints. Smoke originates from
smoke as much as from fire-cum-fuel. The plantain tree grows
out of the stem as well as out of the seed .. Therefore, there is
nowhere any regular cause-effect relation. This means that
things are caused by pure chance. The wise are those that do
not unnecessarily bother themselves to discover the cause of
things.”^'*®
It is not difficult to see why such a view should be completely
unacceptable to the ancient physicians. The admission of the
causal principle is absolutely essential for their science. We
have already mentioned the reasons for this and we quote
Dasgupta who rightly emphasises this p o in t; “ We know that
Ayurveda was primarily concerned with three questions, viz.

Indological Truths
how diseases originated, how they were known, and what were
their cures. It was in this connection that the principle of
causahty was first from a practical necessity appiled in
Ayurveda.” 249 The rejection of accidentalism is thus imperative
for the ancient physicians. What Dasgupta does not note,
however, is that it is equally imperative for them to reject the
view of karm a and a d r s ta : if it is imagined that both disease
and cure are completely determined by the actions performed by
the patients specially in their past lives, medical science as such
can be left with no intrinsic efficacy of its own. In defence of
their science, therefore, the physicians are obliged to reject
accidentalism as much as the law of karm a. Logically at any
rate they are left only with the third possibility and that is to
accept the view of svabhava.
But the question is ; How far do the medical compilations
clearly commit themselves to the view of svabhava ? Some
confusion about this is created by the extant Susruta-sam hita,
one of the frequently quoted passages of which^^o apparently
attributes to the physicians a somewhat garbled philosophical
position. According to this, they accept the view of svabhava
along with certain other views that go flatly against it, like
accidentalism. Phanibhusana Tarkavagi^a^^^ has already
discussed the problem raised by this for the commentators of
the Susruta-sarnhita, though it is significant that among them
the earlier ones like Dalhana and Jejjata seem to explore the
possibility of how best to commit the physicians to the view of
svabhava.
For a better understanding of the view of svabhava in the
Ayurvedic theory we may leave this rather doubtful passage
of the Susruta-sam hita in its present form and turn more
profitably to certain passages of the Caraka-samhita. When
we do this we can clearly see that the view of svabhava or
laws of nature goes to the formation of the very concept of
Ayurveda and that moreover in trying to develop such an
understanding of Ayurveda the ancient physicians seem to

249. Dasgupta ii.396 250. Siisruta-sanihita 1 5,'K SSsd.

251. Phanibhusana Tarkavaglsa N D (Bengali) iv.l48f.

Indological Truths
anticipate the modern idea that knowledge is power. It may
be convenient for us to begin with the latter point, a few words
on which serve to introduce the way in which the ancient
doctors propose to understand their science.
As we have repeatedly seen, the physician’s knowledge con­
sists mainly of all sorts of material things or natural substances
and of their actions on human body—the knowledge on which
depends his therapeutic technique of adjusting the interaction
between environmental matter and body-matter. But the phy­
sicians are anxious to explain that this technique is not to be
misunderstood. The interaction between environmental matter
and body-matter takes place according to the laws of nature,
and, as laws of nature, these are immutable. The physicians
cannot tamper with these laws in any way. They can neither
create these laws nor alter their course of action. All that
they can do is to acquire better insight into these laws, so that
their natural course is best utilised in the interest of the patient,
i.e. to ensure his health or cure his diseases. This is easily
explained with the analogy of fire. Fire burns or radiates heat,
and this because of the laws of nature. There is no way of
changing the law itself. But there are ways of using the know­
ledge of this law to serve our purposes—inclusive of medical
purposes, as for example, in cauterization and cooking, two of
the most useful techniques from the standpoint of ancient Indian
medicine.2^2
Thus, all the mastery over nature that the doctor can aspire
after is conceived in terms of the knowledge of nature. If any­
where in ancient Indian thought we are permitted to see the real
anticipation of the view that knowledge is power—which, when
further worked out, assumes the formulation that freedom is the
recognition of necessity—it is to be found among the practi­
tioners of the healing art.^53 But it is not easy for the ancient

252. Proficiency in ten techniques is essential for a physician ; one o f

these is cooking : see Keswani 27, Mehta i . l 88. A great deal o f impor­
tance is attached to cooking also in the Ancient Medicine (Jones iA7f),
from which Farrington (GS 67) argues that Greek medicine owes much
to the cook.
253. The power attributed to knowledge in the Upanisads is primarily

Indological Truths
scientists to develop expressions adequate for conveying such a
profound view. Here is one of the ways in which they grope
forsuch expressions : “Like poison, like weapon, like fire, like
lightning—the drug whose nature is not understood remains a
source of unknown terror. When understood, however, it pro­
ves as beneficial as nectar.”
yatha yisam , yatha sastram , yathd agnih asanih yath aj
tatha ausadham avijnatam vijnatam a m rta m yath aj
This is an ancient way of putting the point no doubt. But
the point itself is not primitive. Fire, poison, etc. are for us
sources of disaster only so long as their real nature remains un­
understood. But as we acquire insight into these, we can use
these for our great benefit. So also is the case of the drugs.
Knowledge is power.
Elsewhere in the basically the same idea is
expressed in a way which may at first appear to be quite pecu­
liar. We have to re-read it to see its real implication. It is
argued that Ayurveda—in the sense of a body of natural laws—
is beginningless or anadi, because nature exists from a begin-
ningless past and, along with nature, the laws that are inherent
in it. Medical science can be said to have a beginning only
from the standpoint of acquiring the knowledge of these laws or
of spreading the knowledge. So also it is necessary not to
misunderstand the meaning of the therapeutic technique. Dis­
eases are cured not by any artificial technique of which the
doctors are the inventors. These are cured by the laws inherent
in nature, which the doctors can only know and rightly apply.
Here is how the Caraka-sam hitd tries to express all this :
“ Ayurveda is called eternal, because it is without beginning,
because it is nothing but the laws inherent in nature (svabhava-
samsiddha-laksanat) and because the natural properties of the
real substances are unalterable ( bham -svabhava-nityatvat ) .
There had never been any break in the continuous stream of
life, nor in the continuous stream of knowledge. Living beings
are always there. Pleasure and pain—along with the substances

magical and m y s tic a ls e e Chattopadhyaya WLWD 120 ff.

254. Caraka-sarphita i.1.24.

Indological Truths
causing these—are beginningless, because so are their inter­
dependent relations. The subject-matter of medical science is
th is : body-materials that are heavy or light, cold or hot,
unctuous or dry, etc, increase or decrease by the repeated use
of like and unlike substances respectively. Thus, that which is
heavy in the body increases and that which is light in the body
decreases by the continued consumption of substances that are
heavy, and conversely (that which is light in the body increases
and that which is heavy decreases by the repeated consumption
of light substances). Such inherent nature of substances is
beginningless, as is the inherent nature of matter in earth-form
etc. But the substances themselves and their properties may or
may not be permanent (esah bhava-svabhavah, nityah, svalak-
sanam ca dravyanam pr.thivi-adinam ; santi tu dravyani gunah
ca n itya-an ityah ).
‘‘Apart from the restricted sense of acquiring this knowledge
and of spreading it, there is no meaning in saying that medical
science came into being having been non-existent before. It is
indeed only with reference to these two circumstances (i. e. of
acquiring the knowledge of the laws of nature and of spreading
such knowledge), that the origin of Ayurveda is alluded to by
some. But there is nothing about these laws (and therefore
about medical science, which is only a body of these laws) that
is created by anybody (a k rta k a ). As is said in the present
chapter as well as in the first chapter, these laws are but the
laws of nature (svabhavika) —just like the laws because of which
fire is hot and water liquid-’’^^^
The point mentioned last needs to be very carefully noted :
svabhavikam ca asya laksanam a k rta k a m y a t uktam iha adye
adhydye ca ; yathd agneh ausnam apam dravatvam. From the
need felt to repeat the same point already stated earlier, the
importance intended to be attached to it is obvious. The view
of the laws inherent in nature—technically known as svabhava
in Indian philosophy—is an essential postulate of medical
science. It is specially emphasised in the passage just quoted
that, without the assumption of such immutable laws, what is

Indological Truths
considered as the main point of the therapeutic technique by the
ancient doctors remains inexplicable. It is because of such laws
that the excessive absorption or lack of absorption of an environ­
mental matter by man results in the excess or diminution in him
of body-matter in some form. And disease means nothing but
this. It is because of these laws of nature, again, that the
absorption of counter-matter by body-matter results in the res­
toration of the balance of body-matter, which, in other words,
means cure. These laws of nature are inviolable—as inviolable as
those because of which fire is hot and water liquid. There is no
way of changing these laws. Still the physician can and does
intervene. He cures sickness and helps people to maintain good
health. But he does this not on the strength of any artificial
technique invented by him for the purpose o f flouting these laws
of nature. What is possible for him is to know these laws and
thereby to make the best use of these in the cause of the patient.
Since these laws are beginningless and since medical science is
nothing but the knowledge of these laws, it is impermissible to
imagine that medical science came into being at some particular
time, having been non-existent before. Only from the viewpoint
of knowing these laws and of propagating their knowledge can
one speak of the origin of medical science.
Thus the fundamental postulates of Ayurveda are : 1) every­
thing in nature takes place according to the laws inherent in
nature, 2) though immutable, these laws are nevertheless know-
able, and 3) the knowledge of these laws brings power over
nature, which, medically speaking, means ensuring long life.
Only with these points in mind, we can see the real significance
of the basic understanding of Ayurveda given in the Caraka-
sam hita. As a preliminary definition of the science, the text
says :
“ That is called Ayurveda in which is explained and proved what
is good and what is bad for life, what is pleasant and what is
painful for life, what is wholesome and what is unwholesome for
life.”256
But the question is : How can the physicians hope to prove

256. I b .i .l A l .

Indological Truths
and explain what is good etc. for life ? There is only one an­
swer to it. They have to study the inherent nature of different
substances and the laws according to which these act on our
bodies. Hence the Caraka-sam hita adds,
“ It is called Ayurveda, because it gives knowledge of long life.
But how does it give this knowledge ? The answer is as follows :
It is called Ayurveda because—depending on definite proofs and
disproofs—it gives us the knowledge of substances, their qualities
and actions, as these are by their inherent nature and (by this
inherent nature) cause pleasure or pain, prove wholesome or
unwholesome, promote or adversely affect long life” : ta t ayuh
vedayati iti ayurvedah. katham iti cet ? ucyate : svalaksam tah
sukha-asukhatah hita-ahitatah pram ana-apram am tah ca yatah
dyusyani-anayusydni ca dravya-gum -karm ani vedayati atah api
ayurvedah.^’^’
All these make sense only when it is assumed that there are
definite laws according to which the natural substances affect
our bodies, that these laws are knowable—i.e., in the Ayurvedic
terminology, are subject to definite proofs and disproofs—and
that therapeutic success essentially depends on these laws.
We have discussed all these mainly to emphasise one point.
The view of svabhava or of nature being governed by laws of its
own is essential for Ayurveda. Why should a natural substance
with its specific matter-composition affect the matter-composi-
tion in our bodies in a specific way is, in the physician’s view,
determined only by the laws of nature or svabhava. The commit­
ment to the view of svabhava is indispensable for Ayurveda.
But it is also a risky commitment, because Indian orthodoxy
considers it as characteristic of the materialists, and hence as
something highly heretical.
The M ahabharata pointedly asserts that those who think
only in terms of matter subscribe to the view of svabhava :
svabhavam bhuta-cintakah.^^^
Since in Indian philosophy, plain-speaking materialism is
usually called Lokayata or Carvaka, other sources attribute the
view to its followers. Commenting on B rhatsam hita, Bhatta

Indological Truths
 Utpala says, “ Others, i.e. the Lokayatas claim that the cause
of the world is svabhava. ' From svabhava arises this variegated
world and because of svabhava it eventually comes to its
end.” ®®® Agnicit Purusottama asserts, “ According to the
Carvakas, svabhava itself is the cause.” The authors of the
compendia of Indian philosophy like Haribhadra and Madhava
take care to show how important is this view for the Lokayatas
or Carvakas.
In accordance with all this, it has practically become a part
of the commonsense of the modern scholars to assume that the
view of svabhava is characteristic of the Lokayatas. We quote
here two eminent authorities. Gopinath Kaviraj says, “ The
earliest representatives of the extreme form of svabhava-vada
seem to have been a set of free thinkers in ancient India, who
were originally called the Lokayatas but subsequently came to
be more widely known under the name of Carvakas. Rank
materialism, an absence of belief in the ‘unseen’ and of regard
for authority, an uncompromising rationalism—more properly
causistry—were their original characteristics.”^®' Hiriyanna
observes, “ What needs to be noticed about it {svabhava-vada)
first is its positivistic character which is implied by the contrast
that is sometimes drawn between it and the a d rsta -va d a or ‘be­
lief in the supernatural’. In this it differs from the superna­
turalism of the Mantras-s and Brahmana-s on the one hand, and
on the other from the metaphysical view of the Upanisads.
This positivistic character of the teaching—its ‘mundane meta­
physics’—seems to have been the original significance of the
term lok a ya ta ( ‘restricted to the experienced world’ ) more
generally applied to the doctrine in later l i t e r a t u r e . ” 262
It is not the place for us to discuss the Lokayatas. What
motivates these philosophers to develop or accept a form of
uncompromising materialism is a question outside our present
scope. But it is important to note one point. According to the
standard interpreters of Indian philosophy, their view of sva-
bhdva is a necessary corollary of their materialism. The reason

259. Quoted by G. Kaviraj in SBS ii.95n. 260. Ib. ii.98n.

261. 76. ii.95. 262. Hiriyanna 104.

Indological Truths
given for this is quite simple. Materialism necessitates the rejec­
tion of supernaturalism—specially the view of karm a and d d r-
s ta —i.e. supernaturalism in the form in which it is most widely
current in ancient India. This could be done in two ways.
First, by viewing all phenomena in nature as determined by the
laws of nature or svabhava. Secondly, by accepting pure acci­
dentalism or which means the surrender of the
concept of causality as such. It seems that in ancient India
the latter is deprecated as a mark of philosophical disrespecta-
bility, because it amounts to the surrender of the philosopher’s
work of explaining things. In any case, the materialism of the
Lokayatas is equally repugnant to accidentalism and super­
naturalism. Hence it finds the view of svabhava obligatory for
itself.
With this clarification about the implication of the view of
svabhava in the general context of Indian thought, we may now
return to the position of the ancient Indian physicians. We
have already seen how they are led to realise that at least for the
restricted purpose of medical science the materialist outlook
alone is relevant. But the physicians are not philosophers.
Hence there is no ground to think that they are led by considera­
tions of logical consistency alone to accept the view of svabhava
as a necessary corollary of the materialist outlook, as the
Lokayatas apparently do. Still the fact is that this view of
svabhava is as much required by their general theoretical
understanding as the materialist outlook itself. In other words,
they can easily see why their science becomes impossible without
rejecting supernaturalism on the one hand and accidentalism on
the other. Supernaturalism—specially in the form of the law of
karm a and adrista —requires that health and disease are
determined ultimately by the actions performed by the patient
in his past life. Since in the Indian view the law of karma is
absolutely omnipotent—since, in other words, there is no way
whatsoever of modifying the course of events being determined
by actions once these are performed^®®—the acceptance of
supernaturalism in this form leaves medical science with no

263. E.W.Hopkins in JRAS. 1906 : ‘Modification of Karma Doctrine.’

Indological Truths
 efficacy of its own. It is supernaturalism not in the sense of the
course of events being determined by a personal god, whose
will the believers can at least hope to influence by prayer and
propitiation. Supernaturalism in the form of the law of karm a
is far more relentless than that : even the mighty gods are
supposed to be helpless pawns before it. How then can the
physicians at all talk of their therapeutic technique without
rejecting it ?
So also is their need for rejecting accidentalism, according to
which nothing in nature has a cause. We have already seen
how the concept of causality is considered essential by the
Caraka-sam hita for all schools of medicine, howsoever these
may mutually differ on other points.
Thus the rejection of accidentalism is as imperative for
Ayurveda as the rejection of supernatural ism. With the
rejection of these two, Ayurveda is left with only one possibility.
It is the acceptance of the view of svabhava.
The rejection of accidentalism or yadrcch d-vada may not
have a serious political risk. But the rejection of supernatural­
ism is not so—specially the rejection of karm a and a d rsta .
Supernaturalism in this form is sanctified by powerful priestly
corporations and it is the main ideological prop of the
hierarchical society defended by the Indian law-givers. The
different castes in which different persons of the varnasrama
society are born are supposed to be determined by the kind of
actions they perform in their previous lives. Further, the law­
givers want people to believe that this view of the castes being
determined by the actions of past lives has direct scriptural
sanction. Already in the Chandogya Upanisad it is declared :
“ Accordingly, those who are of pleasant conduct here—the
prospect is, indeed, that they will enter a pleasant womb : either
the womb of a Brahmin, or the womb of a Ksatriya, or the
womb of a Vai^ya. But those who are of stinking conduct
here—the prospect is, indeed, that they will enter a stinking
womb : either the womb of a dog, or the womb of a swine, or
the womb of an outcast (Candala).” ®*® From the law-giver’s

Indological Truths
point of wiew, therefore, it is a heresy and a sacrilege to
question karm a and a d r s ta . The defence of the view of
svabhava, in so far as it entails the rejection of supernaturalism
in this form, is obviously of considerable political risk.
What then are the physicians to do if the general theoretical
requirements of their science necessitate the acceptance of the
view of svabhava 1 From the extant Caraka-sam hita it appears
that at least some of the early theoreticians of medicine boldly
face the risk. Thus, apart from some of the passages of this
medical compilation we have already quoted showing clear
acceptance of the view, the earliest theoretician of Ayurveda
mentioned as Bharadvaja remains a staunch defender of it. But
the later editors or reconstructors of the work apparently
hesitate. To evade the censorship of the law-givers they not
only make a show of converting Bharadvaja to a follower of
orthodoxy but also graft on the text long discourses ennobling
the view of karm a and rebirth, going so far as to be reckless to
the internal consistency of the medical work. But notwithstand­
ing all the later grafts of orthodox religious views on the text,
its later reconstructors do not go to the fanatical extent of des­
troying or obliterating the theoretical positions once achieved by
Indian medicine. This gives the extant Caraka-sam hita a pecu­
liar appearance. The metaphysical and religious views intro­
duced into it presumably by its later reconstructors—inclusive
o f th tw ievj o f karm a and a d r s ta —remain on the whole loosely
superimposed on its genuinely scientific content.

27. DEFENCE OF M EDICINE

An entire chapter of the Caraka-sarnhitd is in defence of the

intrinsic efiicacy of medical science. It is reminiscent of a brief
tract surviving in the Hippocratic collection with the title The
A rt, which has ostensibly the same theme. Besides, some of
the objections raised and answered against the possible eflSicacy
of medicine in both are at least apparently similar. But the
similarity ends there. What is of greater importance for us is
that which differentiates the Caraka-samhita from The A rt.

Indological Truths
Specially in the context of the general ideological situation of
ancient India, the defence of the intrinsic efficacy of medicine
in the Caraka-sam hita cannot but have a very radical implica­
tion. It amounts to the rejection of the law of karm a, if not
in so many words at least by clear implication. The risk
involved in this is obvious ; to question the law of karm a is
one of the surest ways of being viciously attacked by the law­
givers. But the ancient doctors of India apparently feel that
it is not an avoidable risk. As practising physicians they have
to defend their own knowledge and their own technique,
notwithstanding the lawgivers. In this chapter of the C araka-
sam hita, in other words, we have the impression of how science
is obliged to come in open confrontation with the vested
interests in society. But The A rt gives us no impression of
such a confrontation. One important reason for this is that
The A rt is not at all the product of an active scientist keen on
defending the knowledge and technique he stands for. It is on
the contrary written by some leisured elite seeking delight in
sophistry and rhetoric. His choice of the subject-matter for
the purpose—viz. medical science—is on the whole an
arbitrary one, because he hardly gives us the impression of
having any sound and first-hand knowledge of this science
itself. As W.H.S. Jones, introducing his translation of The
A rt, remarks : “ It is quite plain from even a cursory reading of
the treatise that its author was not a physician. His interest
lies in subtle reasonings and in literary style, not in science.
Besides this, in the last chapter he speaks of ‘those who are
skilled in the art’ as giving a proof of the existence of medicine
based on works, and not, like the proofs given in the present
book, on words. He evidently distinguishes himself from medical
men. The two most striking characteristics of The A rt are an
attenuated logic and a fondness for sophistic rhetoric. The
rhetorical character of the whole book is so striking that
without doubt it must be attributed to a sophist. The elaborate
parallels, verbal antitheses, and balancing of phrase with phrase,
can have no other explanation.” ®

Indological Truths
 But the defence of medicine in the C araka-sam hita is quite
different. Those who are defending it give us the unmistakable
impression of being practising physicians, for whom the intrinsic
efficacy of their knowledge and technique is far too important a
proposition to allow them seeking delight in the subtleties of
sophistry, rhetoric and literary style. The main question with
which they are confronted is : How far, from the medical view­
point, is it valid to claim that the disciplined knowledge of
nature enables man to master it ? In the Indian context, at any
rate, this is the basic question of science versus the counter-
ideology, for the latter demands of man the submission to un­
questioning faith in some supernatural or “ unseen” power con­
trolling his destiny—his birth and death, his pleasures and pains,
his health and disease.
Before passing on to see all these, let us sum up the defence
of medicine in the Caraka-sam hita.
In the Ayurvedic view, successful medical treatment depends
on four factors. These are ; the physician, substances (drugs or
diets), nurse and patient. Accordingly, a chapter of the Caraka-
sam hita is designed to explain these four factors, or more pro­
perly, the desirable qualities or qualifications of each of these
four, the combined operation of which leads to therapeutic
success. The text mentions in this connection four such qualities
of each of these four factors. We quote these not only to see
how remarkably free the medical view is from supernaturalism
and scriptural cant but moreover because some of ti^ things said
by the ancient doctors retain profound significance even for our
times.
The. four essential qualifications of the physician are :
1) clear grasp of the theoretical content of the science, 2) a wide
range of experience, 3) practical skill and 4) cleanliness :
h u te paryavadaiatvarn bahuso d rsta k a rm a ta j
d a k sya m saucam itijn e y a rn vaidye guna-catustayamU^^’’
The four essential qualities of the drugs or substances are :
1) abundance, 2) applicability, 3) multiple use (or, what is per­

Indological Truths
haps called “ broad spectrum” in modern medical jargon) and
4) richness in efficacy :
bahuta tatra-yogyatvam anekavidha-kalpanaj
sam pat ca iti catuskah ayam dravyanam g u m ucyatejl^^^
The four essential qualifications of the nursing attendant
are : 1) knowledge of nursing technique, 2) practical skill,
3) attachment for the patient and 4) cleanliness :
upacdrajnata daksyam anuragah ca bhartari /
saucam ca iti catuskah ayam gunah paricare jane
The four essential qualifications of the patient are : 1) good
memory, 2) obedience to the instructions ( of the doctor ),
3) courage and 4) ability to describe the symptoms :
sm rtih nirdesa-kdritvam abhirutvam at ha api ca /
jn ap a k a tva m ca roganam aturasya gunah sm rtah //^™
Something is so striking about this enumeration of the quali­
ties of the “ four factors” ensuring medical success that it is
impossible for us to overlook it. While enumerating the
desirable qualities of the patient, the medical compilation is
absolutely silent about the accumulated merits of his past
actions contributing to his recovery. In other words, it is
totally silent about karm a and a d r s ta . How are we to account
for this silence ? Could it be that the ancient physicians were
unaware of the importance attached to this view in the offici­
ally boosted world-outlook of ancient India ? It is obviously
impossible to take such a possibilty seriously. Could it then
be that the <doctors believed in karm a and yet forgot to mention
it in this context ? This again is inconceivable, because the
discussion of the merits of the patient is about the surest con­
text of mentioning the a d r.sta of the patient on the part of
those who believed in it. The silence of the C araka-sam hitd
about karm a and adr^sta of the patient, even in this context
of discussing the qualities essential for his recovery, can thus
have only one significance for us. From the medical viewpoint,
karma is considered a redundant hypothesis. So the physici­
ans prefer to ignore it altogether. They have far more serious
things to discuss instead, namely the real merits of the patient

Indological Truths
really contributing to his recovery. These are good memory,
obedience to the doctors, fearlessness and the ability to commu­
nicate the exact nature of his troubles. A doctor today has
perhaps little to add to the ancient doctors on the basic
desirability of these qualities in the patient. But the situation in
which he is placed is quite different. A great deal of political
courage is not required today to say all these. But this political
courage is required of the ancient doctors, because they live in a
world in which the law-givers declare that any indifference to the
law of Ara/-ma—which this assertion obviously entails—is nothing
short of heresy. The ancient Indian doctors, however, cannot
help this. Their science and the law of karm a do not go
together. This becomes all the more obvious when they defend
the intrinsic eflScacy of medical science. The defence of
medicine in the Caraka-sam hita is thus much more than a
matter of mere intellectual exercise, which it largely is in the
Hippocratic tract called The Art.
The discussion of the four basic factors on which medicine
depends and of the four marks of excellence of .each of these,
forms the theme of the ninth chapter of the Sutra-sthana
of the Caraka-sarnhita. In the next chapter of the work is
taken up the question of the intrinsic eflScacy of medicine. The
discussion is introduced as follows :
The chapter opens with the declaration that the rational
application of medicine depending on these four factors
characterised by their sixteen marks of excellence are sure to
lead to the cure of disease. But there is a prim a fa c ie
objection against such a claim. The fact is that in spite of
receiving medical treatment characterised by these four factors
a patient is often found to die, just as a patient is often found
to be cured in spite of the absence of these four factors. Thus
it is impermissible to claim that medical treatment characterised
by these four factors causes the cure of diseases. The actual
role of medical treatment in the cure of the patient is at best
an extremely negligible one. As a certain Maitreya—about

Indological Truths
whom the medical compilation tells us hardly anything more—
expresses this objection in the C araka-sam hita :
“ Maitreya said : No, this is not so. Why ? It is observed no
doubt that a patient for whom the medical substances are
available, who is attended by the nurse and who is possessed of
all these qualities—when treated by an expert doctor—gets
cured. But it is also observed that another patient—in spite of
the presence of all these in his case—is led to death. Medical
treatment is thus of no real significance {tasm at bhesajam
akim citkaram bhavati). It is like dropping just a little water
into a well, a lake or a river, or like scattering a handful of
dust on a sand dune.
“ It is also observed that a patient without the supply of drugs,
unattended by a nurse, lacking in the personal qualities and
treated by an unqualified doctor gets cured, while others—■
similarly circumstanced—die all the same.
“ Thus medical treatment is followed by recovery as well as
death. Also, the want of medical treatment is followed by
recovery as well as death. Therefore, medical treatment is of
no more consequence than the absence of it (bhesajam a-
bhesajena a -visista m ).” ^''^
Let us first note that in the ancient Indian context there is a
special risk for the scientists in raising this discussion. The
risk is that while answering the objection raised they have
either to acquiesce in an ideology opposed to science or to
come in open confrontation with the ideological requirements
of the vested interests. The way in which Maitreya is made to
raise the objection in the Caraka-sam hita is not perhaps without
a hint of such ideological requirements inspiring the objection.
From the observed cases of recovery as well as death resulting
from both the presence and absence of medical treatment, he
does not argue that both recovery and death are just fortuitous
or without any cause whatsoever. The main drift of his
arguments is that there is something infinitely more important
than medical care which determines recovery as much as death.
Compared to it, medical treatment is as insignificant a factor

Indological Truths
as a few drops of water for a lake or a handful of dust for a
sand-hill. What then is this something supposed to be deter­
mining both recovery and death ? Though in the present
context our Caraka-sam hitd does not specify it'in so many
words, from what is known in general about the ideological
climate of the country it may not be impermissible to presume
what the objector has in mind. There is a theory widely
circulated in ancient India with the powerful backing of the
priests and law-givers according to which both recovery and
death are being determined by some omnipotent law other than
the one the physicians speak of. That is the law of karm a.
When therefore our Maitreya speaks of something vastly more
important which really determines recovery as well as death—
something compared to which medical science is supposed to be
insignificant—the possibility of his having the law of karm a in
mind cannot be easily rejected.
All this, it will perhaps be argued, is more or less conjectural.
What is not at all conjectural, however, is another point. While
answering the objection raised against the efi^cacy of medical
science, the physicians do in fact completely ignore the law of
karma. They seem to brush aside the oflScially boosted view
that life and death, health and disease—in fact all that a man
enjoys or suflFers—are being determined by the “ unseen”
hangovers of actions performed by him in his past life. They
argue, on the contrary, that the knowledge and technique which
they represent have the efiicacy of ensuring long life or of
effecting actual cure.
Not that they make the absurd claim that they can cure all
diseases. Like the modern doctors the ancient doctors are also
aware of the fact that medicine notwithstanding, certain diseases
remain incurable, though of course the range of incurable
diseases for them is much wider than it is for the modern
doctors. But they very strongly assert that a right doctor rightly
applying the therapeutic technique can never fail to cure a
curable disease. But what about the objection supposed to be
based on actual observation that only some patients get cured
by medical care while others die in spite of it ? From the
physician’s point of view, such an objection is based at best on

Indological Truths
pseudo-observation or inadequate observation. It is not enough
to observe whether a patient gets cured by medical treatment or
not. It is essential to note moreover the nature of the disease
he suffers from. If the disease is incurable by nature, the
patient dies in spite of full medical care, or, according to the
Ayurvedic way of putting it, in spite of all the four factors of
medicine along with their sixteen qualities being present. But
this cannot be true when the disease is a curable one. As the
Caraka-satnhita puts it,
“ It is wrong to claim that in spite of the presence of medical
treatment with the sixteen desirable qualities (of the four, factors
of medicine) some patients are observed to die. In cases of
diseases amenable to medical treatment, medicine can never be
ineffective, {na hi bhesaja-sadhyanam yyddhinam bhesajam
a k aram m bhavati).” ^^^
This is illustrated with the analogy of a good archer :
“ As a bowman who is a good marksman and given to constant
practice, taking up a bow and releasing an arrow does not fail
in hitting a big target that is not far off, and achieves his pur­
pose, so does a physician of accomplishment and means who
starts treating a curable disease after full investigation, without
fail bestow health on the patient. Hence it cannot be said that
treatment is no better than no-treatment.” ^’'*
We hear in this the unmistakable voice of a confident scien­
tist sure of the efficacy of his knowledge and technique. The
right physician rightly treating his patient cannot but cure his
curable disease. We shall presently see how the Caraka-samhita
explains the actual basis of this self-confidence and what more­
over it means by curable disease. But it needs at once to be
noted that the assertion just quoted leaves no scope either for
the view of a d r s ta or that of chance or luck in the physicians’
defence of the efficacy of medicine.
In the Hippocratic tract called The A rt, there is naturally no
question of compromising with the theory of ad r s ta , which is
peculiarly important in the Indian context. However, being
the product of an amateur rather than a practising doctor,

Indological Truths
the work does not eliminate the possibility of luck or chance
coexisting with real medical efficacy. Here is how the tract
answers a similar objection.
“ The beginning of my discourse is a point which will be conce­
ded by all. It is conceded that of those treated by medicine
some are healed. But because not all are healed the art is
blamed, and those who malign it, because there are some who
succumb to diseases, assert that those who escape do so through
luck and not through the art. Now I, too, do not rob luck of
any of its prerogatives, but I am nevertheless of opinion that
when diseases are badly treated ill-luck generally follows, and
good luck when they are treated well.” 2 V6
The cleverness of the literary style of this is not to be denied.
But the answer to the objection against medicine given here is
based on the same fallacy of observation on which the objection
itself is based. From the standpoint of the Caraka-sam hita, it
is the generalised view of patients and their diseases, without
going into the medically important question of the specific
nature of the disease a particular patient is' Suffering from.
Once this erroneous view of patients and diseases is conceded,
the author of The A rt cannot possibly reject the element of luck,
because he cannot escape the fact of pseudo-observation that
some patients get cured while others do not in spite of the same
medical treatment. When, however, the specific nature of
disease is taken into account—as the Caraka-sam hita does—the
intrinsic efficacy of medicine need not be defended by saying
that good luck usually follows good treatment and ill-luck
generally follows bad treatment. One reason why the author of
The A rt fails to assert that the specific nature of the disease
needs to be noted is that he is not a practising doctor, though
what makes it also, easy for him to make room for the element
of luck in the actual cure of the patient is the thinness of the
therapeutic technique itself of the times of which The A rt is the
product : “ in the Hippocratic age little could be done for
patients suffering from acute diseases except to keep them warm
and comfortable, and to restrict their diet.”^’ ’

Indological Truths
 The physicians of the Caraka-sam hita feel differently. They
feel that the vast empirical data before them help them to
develop insight into certain laws of nature, which rightly follow­
ed enable the doctors to cure the curable diseases without fail.
Thus immediately after explaining the infallibility of the quali­
fied doctor’s technique on the analogy of the trained archer, the
Caraka-sam hita explains that this is not to be misunderstood as
empty bragging. What makes the medical technique infallible
is that it is based on some well-defined principles justified by
empirical data : “ We follow the following principles because
all these are well-established by our direct observations : We
cure the sick by sickness-removing drugs, the emaciated persons
with emaciation-removing agents. We cure the thin and sick
persons with nourishment, just as we prescribe restrictions of
food for the flabby and fatty persons. We treat with ‘cold’
those who are afflicted with ‘hot’ and with ‘hot’ those who are
afflicted with ‘cold’. When some body-element becomes dimini­
shed we prescribe for its increment, just as when some body-
element becomes excessive we prescribe for its diminution.
Thus enumerating the empirically justified basic principles
of medicine, the Caraka-sam hita quotes an authoritative verse
reiterating the self-confidence of the skilled physician : “ A
physician who knows how to differentiate between the curable
and incurable diseases and who, with proper medical knowledge,
begins the treatment of the patient in time, is absolutely certain
of attaining success {ta t dhruvarn sadhayati).”^'^^
Lest this emphasis on the absolute certainty of the phy­
sicians’ knowledge and technique gives us the wrong impression
that by “ curable diseases” they mean only certain minor ail­
ments, the Caraka-sarnhitd wants to be quite clear about these :
“ The curable diseases are of two kinds : those that are easily
cured and those that are cured with difficulty . The curable ones
are, again, classed in three main categories by reason of their
requiring mild, moderate or strong treatment ..
“ The characteristics of an easily curable disease are : the causes,
premonitory symptoms and symptoms are mild; the morbific

Indological Truths
factor is homologous neither to the affected body-element nor
to the habitat of the patient, nor to the traits of the prevailing
season; the place of disease is not inaccessible to treatment; the
course of disease is localised in one system, is recent, has no
complication and is due to the predominance of one dosa (i.e.
due to the excess or diminution of only one of the three waste-
products of food called vayu, p itta and kapha) ; the body is in
a condition to withstand all treatment and the fourfold
requisites of treatment are at hand. These are the circumstances
in which a disease is easily curable.
“ The diseases cured with difficulty are ; those wherein the
causes, the premonitory symptoms and symptoms are of
moderate strength; when any one of the three—the season, the
habitat and the susceptibility of body-elements—is homologous
with the morbific factor; the diseases of a woman in pregnancy
or of a man of old age or of an infant though not very seriously
aggravated by complications ; those that require surgical
operation, caustic and cauterizing procedures; those whose
diseases have gone beyond the incipient stage; those whose
diseases are located in some part of the body to which access
is difficult; those for whom the four factors of treatment are not
fully available; those whose diseases have spread to more than
one system but have not yet become very chronic and those
whose disturbance is due to two dosa-s.” ^^'^
When therefore the physicians declare that the curable
diseases can be cured by them with certainty {ta t dhruvam
sadhayati), they do not have an over-simplified view of such
diseases. They are fully aware that some of these are extremely
difiicult to cure. Still they feel convinced that granted all the
four factors of medicine with their sixteen qualities, they cannot
but succeed in curing such diseases. The medical technique is
infallible even in such difi&cult but curable cases.
But what about the incurable diseases ? The Caraka-
sam hitd says, “ The incurable diseases also fall into two
categories : those that respond to palliatives and those that are
not even so.” ^®‘

Indological Truths
 The need is accordingly felt to explain the nature of these two
types of incurable diseases. So the Caraka-sarnhita continues,
“ The diseases of the following description are to be regarded as
incurable but responding to palliatives : those in which the
patient, being left with some hope of living a little longer, may
be given some relief with strict regimen etc, but the diseases get
easily aggravated by slight causes, because the diseases are
very deep-seated, affect many body-elements, are located in
vital parts and joints, are liable to constant relapse, have become
very chronic and are caused by two dosa-s. The following
diseases are incurable and the physicians can do nothing about
these: over and above having the marks just mentioned,
diseases that are due to the complete disturbance of all the
three dosa-s; those that affect all the systems of the body and
hence are totally beyond the range of any treatment; those
that cause great excitement, restlessness, stupefaction and
destruction of all sense-faculties ; those that get greatly aggravated
by afflicting weakened constitution and those that are accom­
panied by fatal prognostic signs.”
All this gives us some idea of the limits of therapeutic power
as understood by the Caraka-sarnhita. Since this is ancient
medicine after all, we do not perhaps expect more from it.
However, precisely because it is ancient Indian medicine,
something really remarkable about this discussion is not to be
overlooked. It is the claim that even in some cases of incurable
disease, the doctors can prescribe effective palliatives, and
thereby relieve the patients of the inevitability of suffering caused
by the diseases. Is this not another way of disowning the law
of karm a, according to which—like the disease itself—the
suffering caused by it is completely determined by the bad
actions performed in the past ?
It remains for us to discuss another point in this connection.
The objection raised against the intrinsic efficacy of medicine is
based on two main grounds. First, patients are observed to
die in spite of receiving full medical treatment. Secondly,
patients are found to recover even without any medical treat­

Indological Truths
ment. We have seen how, in refutation of the first ground,
the Caraka-sam hita insists on determining the nature of the
disease. But what about the second ground of the objection ?
The text says,
“ And, again, as regards those who recover without the aid of
any treatment—even in their case there is a special reason for
giving them a complete course of treatment. Just as a man, by
lifting another who has fallen—although the latter is able to
rise by himself—gives him support, in consequence of which he
rises sooner and without difficulty; in like manner do patients
receiving the aid of a complete treatment recover more easily
and without difficulty.'’
Thus the ancient doctors do not deny the natural power of
the organism helping it to get cured of certain diseases, though
their actual knowledge of this natural endowment of the body—
compared to that of the modern doctors—is understandably
negligible. But the point they want to argue remains valid
today. This cannot be an evidence against the intrinsic efficacy
of medicine, because medicine ensures quicker and surer recovery
even for those that may eventually get cured by the natural
endowment of the body.
Let us compare this with the answer to a similar objection
given in the Hippocratic tract called The A rt. “Now” , its
author says, "my opponent will object that in the past many,
even without calling in a physician, have been cured of their
sickness, and I agree that he is right. But I hold that it is
possible to profit by the art of medicine even without calling in
a physician, not indeed so as to know what is correct medical
treatmejit and what is incorrect, but so as by chance to employ
in self-treatment the same means as would have been employed
had a physician actually been called in...For even those who,
without calling in a physician, recovered from a sickness must
perforce know that their recovery was due to doing something
or to not doing something.” ®
This, to say the least, is a very strange defence of medical
science from the standpoint of the working doctors. People

Indological Truths
may “ by chance employ in self-treatment the same means as
would have been employed had a physician actually been called
in” and thus “ perforce know that their recovery was due to
doing something or to not doing something.” Does this mean
that sometimes by pure accident people may stumble upon the
knowledge and technique which make one a physician ? If so,
medicine as a discipline consciously striving after the knowledge
of the causes of disease and of its cure becomes largely redun­
dant. In the hand of the sophist, thus, the defence of medicine
easily passes into its opposite.
From the viewpoint of the Caraka-sam hita at any rate, such
a defence of the efficacy of medicine is inconceivable. We have
already seen that while talking of the actions of the different
substances on our bodies, it takes special care to add the
expression pram anatah-apram anatah —“ based on definite proofs
or disproofs.” ^®®
Those who defend the healing art in this medical compilation
are interested above all in the cure of the patient no doubt. But
they are also fully aware that their healing technique is raised
to the level of genuine science only when its rationale is adequa­
tely understood. This leads us to see another important aspect
of rational medicine or yukti-vyapasraya bhesaja defended by
the Caraka-sam hita.

28. METHODOLOGY A N D EPISTEMOLOGY

The Caraka-sam hita says, “ Any success attained without reason­

ing {tarka) is as good as sheer accidental success” : vina tarkena
y a siddhih yadrccha-siddhih eva sa.^^^
The Katha Upanisad declares, “ Not by reasoning {tarka) is
this wisdom {m ati) to be attained” ; na esa tarkena matih
apaneya?'^'^

Indological Truths
 Manu advises, “ Greet not even by words one who is a
logician” ; haitukam ...vak-m atrena api na arcayet.'^^^
We have here three clear policy statements on rationalism
and logic. The physicians find their therapeutic technique
useless if it is not based on reason. The metaphysicians of
the Upanisads, striving after some supra-rational wisdom of
the pure self, express disapproval of the rational approach. The
law-giver, convinced of the political utility of imphcit faith in the
scriptures, detests the logician or rationalist. There is thus
something that unites the metaphysician with the law-giver. ®®®
It is the negative attitude to rationalism or logic, though,
while the law-giver simply decrees it, the metaphysician has
to seek philosophical grounds justifying his damnation of reason­
ing. This becomes clearer in the case of the most influen­
tial of the later champions of the Upanisadic metaphysics, the
Advaita Vedantists. Samkara, for example, tries to prove at
some length why tarka or reasoning cannot have an efficacy of
its own ; the only efiSicacy that it possibly has is to rationalise
what is already revealed in the scriptures.®®^
This, he realises, necessitates the rejection of the very possi­
bility of any valid system of logic and epistemology. Hence he
opens his philosophical magnum opus with the claim that what
are ordinarily called pramana-s or “instruments of valid know­
ledge”—specially experience and reason—operate only within the
general framework of ignorance or avidya?^^ Sriharsa, a later
follower of Sarnkara, shows the most imposing scholastic skill to
refute the pramana-s?^^
Thus, is short, the idealist outlook of the Upanisads, though
with the most powerful financial and political support behind
it,2®3 leads ultimately to the total eclipse of logic and epistemo­
logy. The humble researches of the physicians in man and nature
have a different destiny. They find that the commitment to
rationalism is essential for their researches, on which depends

288. Manu iv. 30. 289. Cliattopadhyaya WLWD 171 ff.

290. Sarnkara on Br. Sii. ii. 1.11. Cf. Chattopadhyaya WLWD 201 ff.
291. Sa.mk&Ta. a d h y a s a -b h a s y a . 292. Mookerjee N N M R P i. 47 fF.
293. Chattopadhyaya WLWD 124 ff.

Indological Truths
 their therapeutic success. This, as we shall see, leads them to
bequeath to Indian thought the fundamentals of a sound system
of logic and epistemology.
But let us first try to be clear about the general need felt for
rationalism by the practitioners of the ancient healing technique.
The maxim we have just quoted from the Caraka-samhita
occurs in a chapter added to it by Drdhabala, its final “ recons­
tructor”. But there is no doubt that the maxim itself is true
to the actual spirit of the ancient doctors. The medicine they
stand for is characteristically rational. An important reason for
this is their basic commitment to the causal law. The Caraka-
sam hita allows the possibility of the doctors belonging to
different schools to differ from each other on various medical
matters. Each school o f medicine is entitled to have certain
conclusions characteristic of itself {prati-tantra-siddhanta)?-^*
What the physicians do not allow, however, is the possibility of
any serious school of madicine remaining indifferent to the
principle of causality. The causal principle is one of the three
fundamental propositions absolutely binding on all schools of
medicine (sarva-lantra-siddhanta)?^^ How can one be a serious
doctor without being convinced that there must be a specific
cause of a disease, and also of its cure ? But any non-rational
way of knowing the cause is inconceivable. Hence rationalism
is obligatory for all physicians.
There is no doubt that even without a rational understanding
of the actual cause of cure, somebody may stumble as it were on
some curative procedure. Cases like these are ordinarily called
cases of accidental success or success due to mere chance—
yadr.ccha-siddhi. From the medical viewpoint, such a success
is accidental not in the sense of having no cause but in the sense
of unknowingly hitting upon some cause which turns out to be
the real cause of cure. In other words, there may sometimes
be a right way of doing something, though without at all
knowing why this—rather than any other—is actually the right
way of doing it. The Indian doctors feel that something like
this accounts for the occasional success of the medical quacks

Indological Truths
or charlatans. It is success without any rational insight into
the cause of the success, i.e. without the awareness why only
one specific course of treatment rather than any other leads to
the actual cure of disease. The occasional suecess of the quack—
because it is not rationally understood—creates special danger
for the patients in general. It gives him a false sense of self-
confidence, with which he tries his random technique on many
others and thereby brings disaster to them. Describing the
quack, the Caraka-sam hita draws our attention to the danger
created specially by his occasional success :
“ Like a man without eyes or like a canoe left at the mercy of
winds, the ignorant physician gropes about timidly because of
his lack of knowledge. However, when he meets accidental
success in the case of some otherwise assured of life (jiiyatayusa),
the pretentious quack gathers courage with which he hastens the
death of many others whose lives are not thus assured
{a-niyatayusa)” .^^^
From the viewpoint of the C araka-sam hita, the qualified
physician creates no such risk for the patient, because his
knowledge of what is conducive to life and what is not is based
on definite proofs and disproofs {pramanatah-apramanatahy-^~'
or because he possesses the “ knowledge of cause and rational
application” {hetii-yuktijna).^^^ Hence is the maxim of the
ancient doctors just quoted : Any success attained without
reasoning is as good as sheer accidental success.
This leads us to see another aspect of ancient Indian medicine.
We have seen before how much of importance is attached in it
to the direct observation of man and nature. A very imposing
amount of empirical data forms indeed the ultimate basis of
Ayurveda. But the ancient doctors also feel that this by itself
is not enough for their science. What it also requires is a
rigorous discipline of reasoning, Only being processed by it
mere empirical data can be raised to the status of scientific laws.
The knowledge of these laws alone ensures therapeutic power.
Driven by their methodological requirements, therefore, the
ancient doctors are led to develop very serious interest in the

Indological Truths
problems of experience and reason, i.e. in problems that are
really epistemological. Understandably, the Caraka-sam hita
contains extensive disussions of epistemology. We propose
to review this in some detail in the third part of the present
study, w^hich is designed to discuss the question what Indian
medicine possibly bequeaths to the general fund of Indian
philosophical thought. We shall see there that it is not easy to
dismiss Dasgupta’s view^^s that such epistemological discussion
of the physicians “ was probably the origin of the logical
speculations subsequently codified in the N yaya-sutra-s." The
plausibility of this becomes specially prominent when we
remember that, of all the disciplines of ancient India, Ayurveda
alone needed a serious system of logic and epistemology as part
of its practical requirements. We shall note here only a few
points to illustrate this.
As we have repeatedly said the causal principle is abso­
lutely essential for Ayurveda. None can be a qualified doctor
unless he is clear about two points : what causes a disease and
what casuses its cure. The starting point of understanding
the cause of both disease and cure is no doubt the observation
of phenomena, for without this any view of the cause would
be arbitrary, fanciful and purely speculative. But the ancient
doctors also realise that it is impossible to establish the causal
connection between two phenomena depending on perception
alone. For this purpose, it is necessary to supplement precep-
tion (pratyaksa) by inference (anumana). This inference, again,
is basically of two kinds ; i) from effect to cause and iij from
cause to effect. Disease is an effect of certain factors, which
constitute its cause. When therefore the doctors want to infer
the factors causing the disease, they have to infer the cause
from the effect. When, however, they prescribe certain drugs
for the cure of the disease, they have to infer the effect from
the cause : from the drugs, which constitute the cause, is
inferred the cure, which constitutes the effect. But the doctors
want to introduce a further distinction, depending on the
time-context to which the cause and the effect belong. Thus,

Indological Truths
 for example, when from the cause one infers the effect, one
infers the future from the present : the drugs belong to the
present and the cure belongs to the future. But when
one infers the cause from the effect, the cause may belong
either to the same time-context to which the effect belongs or
it may belong to the past time-context. In other words, when
one infers the cause from the effect, the cause may be co-existing
with the effect (as for example some form of matter-imbalance
in the body causing some specific disease) or, compared to the
effect, the cause may belong to the past (as for example some
faulty diet causing a disease).
To sum up : 1) the inference must presuppose some previous
perception, and 2) taking note of the time-contexts, it assumes
three basic forms, viz. a) from the present effect to the present
cause, b) from the present effect to the past cause and c) from
the present cause to the future effect. Accordingly, the Caraka-
sam hita sums up its view of inference as follows :
“ Depending on previous perception, one infers in three ways
phenomena belonging to three time-contexts. Thus one infers
the presence of fire from the smoke, though the fire itself
remains unperceived. Similarly, the wise men know by inference
the past, when for example they infer (past) copulation from
the observation of the signs of pregnancy. Again, depending on
the observation of the fruits growing from seeds, from the obser­
vation of the present seed they similarly know the future fruit.”

pratyaksa-purvam trividham trikalam ca anumlyate /

vahnih nigudhah dhumena maithunam garbha-darsanat //
evam vyavasyantl atltam b lja t phalam anagatam j
d r .s p d b lja t phalam ja ta m iha eva sadrsam budhaih // s"®

300. Caraka-sarrihita i.l 1.21-22. Cf. Vatsyayana on Nyaya-sutra i.1.5 :

“ Perception has for its objects things present {sat). Inference has for its
object things both present and absent {asat). Why ? Because o f its capacity
for knowing objects belonging to the three time-contexts (trikala-yukta, i.e.
past, present and future). By inference are known objects belonging to the
three time-contexts. We infer : ‘it will be’, ‘it is’ and ‘it was’. By absent
(asat) is here meant the past and the future (objects).” Chattopadhyaya
& Gangopadhyaya NP i. 65.

Indological Truths
 But the physicians’ problem is much more complicated than
inferring a simple cause from a simple effect or a simple effect
from a simple cause. Their therapeutic problem is usually con­
cerned with the conjunction of a number of causes leading to
some specific effect. This follows from their understanding of
medicine as dependent on “four factors’' : the cure of a
curable disease is assured not by any of these factors in its
isolation but by the right form of cooperation of all these four
factors. Thus, in other words, though according to them the
causal principle is absolutely essential for their science, their
therapeutic technique depends on the knowledge of this causal
principle in a much more complex form. Over and above anu-
mana —which is adequate for knowing a simple cause from a
simple effect or a simple effect from a simple cause—the physician
want to specify the nature of the intellectual discipline which more
appropriately refers to the way of knowing such complex cases
of causation. For this purpose, they introduce the concept of
yu kti, which usually means “ rational application” but which, in
the medical text, means the technique of determining how a
number of factors jointly produce a specific effect. As the
Caraka-sam hitd explains :
“ Yukti or rational application means the way of knowing how
from the conjuction of water, tilling, seed and season results the
harvest, or how the foetal body results from the conjuction of
the six dhatu-s ( body constituents ), or how from the conjuc­
tion of the flints, fire drill and the act of rightly striking it
results fire. By the rational application of the four factors
of medicine is thus effected cure.”
jala-karsana-blja-^tu-sam yogat sasya-sambhavahl
yuktih; sad-dhatu-sarnyogat garbhSnam sambhavah tathaH
mathya-manthana-manthdna-samyogat agni-sambhavahj
yu k ti-yu k td catuspada-sam pat vyadhi-nibarhaniU^''^
Thus the serious preoccupation with the causal principle
does not allow the doctors to remain indifferent to the
problems of logic and epistemology. But there is another
aspect of their science-consciousness, which draws them to

Indological Truths
discuss these problems in greater details. They realise that the
knowledge gained by an individual physician under the guidance
of an individual teacher, howsoever earnest both may be, is
bound to have serious limitations. Hence it is necessary to
evolve some technique to expand the horizon of his medical
knowledge. This can be best done by intra-disciplinary discus­
sion and debate, technically called sambhasa. So the C am ka-
sam hita advises, “ A physician must enter into debate with ano­
ther physician” : bhisak bhisaja saha sambhaseta.^^'^ Explain­
ing the desirability of it, the text adds :
“ Debate with one belonging to the same discipline contributes
to the perfection of one’s knowledge and clarifies one’s own
understanding. It improves one’s power of expression and
thus adds to one’s reputation. By creating scope for listening
to what is already heard before, it dispels many doubts and
confirms the truth of many a matter already learnt before, just
as it enables one to know many things about which one had no
previous opportunity of knowing. Sometimes a preceptor,
pleased with the devoted services of a disciple, gradually imparts
to the latter some aspect of medical knowledge otherwise kept
secret by him (which the disciple too is supposed to keep secret).
In the heat of debate, however, this care for secrecy is forgotten
and, in the zeal of attaining victory in debate, the disciple
comes out with these aspects of medical knowledge, thereby
allowing his opponent to know it (which he would never have
otherwise known). Those who are wise, therefore, strongly
recommend intra-disciplinary debates.” ®®®
Evidently the ancient physicians were putting this norm into
actual practice, for the Caraka-sam hita itself records for us the
accounts of many debates among the physicians. But the
general desirability of debates once felt does not allow the
ancient doctors to remain indifferent to the rules and regulations
to be followed in the course of the debate, i.e. to the right and
wrong ways of arguing a case. This, it is presumed, formed
the originat core of the N yaya-sutra, which contains for us the
first systematic account of Indian logic, and is still largely

Indological Truths
concerned with the technique of debate. As Dasgupta argues,
“ The art of carrying on a dispute successfully was considered an
important acquisition among medical practitioners. Thus we
have a whole set of technical terms relating to disputes, such as
are never found in any other literature, excepting the N yaya-
su tra. In the Caraka-sam hitd almost the whole of the chapter
called Roga-bhisag-jitiya-vim ana (iii.8) is devoted to this
purpose. It is well to remember that different kinds of disputes
and fallacies are mentioned in the N yaya-su tra, and it will be
useful to refer to these when dealing with similar topics from
either the C araka-sam hita or the Susruta-sam hitd”.^'^^ But
the original core of the discussion of the technique of debate
and of the logico-epistemological questions connected with it
seem to belong to Ayurveda. Thus, Dasgupta continues his
argument, “ since we find no work of an earlier date, Hindu,
Buddhist or Jaina, which treats of the logical subjects found in
the Caraka-sam hitd, and since these logical discussions seem to
be inextricably connected with medical discussions of diagnosis
of diseases and the ascertainment of their causes,” ®®® it is only
reasonable to think that all this originally develops among the
medical practitioners. “The origin of the logical art of debate
in the schools of Ayurveda is so natural, and the illustrations
of the modes of dispute and the categories of the art of debate
are so often taken from the medical field, that one has little
reason to suspect that the logical portions of the Caraka-samhitd
were collected by Caraka from non-medical literature and
grafted into his work.” 306 x h e strong presumption, therefore,
is that the medical schools give to Indian thought the first
systematic effort towards logic and epistemology. But more of
this later.

29. SCIENCE AND HUM ANISM

To these outstanding features of ancient Indian medicine, we

propose to add only another. It is the ideal of humanism that

304. Dasgupta ii.377. 305. lb. ii 399. 306. lb. ii,402.

27
Indological Truths
inspires the ancient scientists. Here is a passage of the Caraka-
samhita which gives us a glimpse of this humanism :
“ (Among the physicians) he surpasses all who practises medicine
neither for the sake of money nor for the sake of sensual
gratification in any other form, but is motivated only by the
compassion for living beings.
“ Those who, as a source of income, want to sell medical skill as
any other commodity, appear to run after a heap of dust,
overlookmg the real hoard of gold.
“ Compared to the physician who cuts off the noose of death and
brings back to life those who are being dragged by fierce diseases
towards death, nobody confers greater blessings—moral or
material—to the human beings.
“ One who practises the healing art with compassion for the
living beings as the noblest of all duties is a person who really
fulfils his mission and thereby gets entitled to the highest form
of happiness.”

na arthartham na api kam artham atha bhuta-dayam p ra ti /

yartate yah cikitsayam sa sarvam ativartate //
kurvate y e tu vrtyartham cikitsa-panya-vikrayam /
te hitvd kancanam rasim pam surasim upasate //
darunaih kr.syamantmam gadaih vaivasvata-ksayam j
chittvd vaivasvatan p d sa n jlvita m yah prayacchati //
dharmdrthadata sa d rsa h tasya na iha upalabhyate /
na hi jlvita d a n a t hi danam any at visisyate //
paro bhutadayd dharma iti matvd cikitsayd /
yartate yah sa siddharthah sukham atyantam asnute // so?

Here at any rate we read in ancient medicine something from

which physicians today have surely much to learn.
We see in the ancient doctor the seeker of the knowjedge of
nature {p ra k rtijn a ), not only hoping to convert this knowledge
into successful healing technique but also boldly protesting
against the merchandisation of his knowledge and skill, which
is so aptly described as cikitsd-panya-yikraya. If, in view of the

Indological Truths
rudimentary technological development on which he historically
depends, it is necessary for him to be patient in investigating
nature, the way in which he chooses to be patient also in serving
humanity—pinning his hope on the conviction that the know­
ledge of the laws of nature alone holds the prospect of alleviating
human sufferings—cannot but be judged as highly remarkable.
That is the image of the real scientist we have in the Caraka-
sam hita —“ the composite image...devoted equally to the patient
investigation of nature and the patient service of humanity” ,
with scant respect for the idea that professional fee establishes
the only bond between the healer and the healed. “ To one
who understands, knowledge of nature and love of humanity
are not two things but one.” ®°® This indeed would be a very
lucid way of putting what the genuine physician in the Caraka-
sam hitd stands for.

Indological Truths
 CHAPTER 2

COUNTER-IDEOLOGY

1. PRELIM INARY REMARKS

An attempt is made in the first chapter to read in the extant

medical compilations some of the promises of science with which
rational medicine begins in ancient India. While noting these
it is argued that despite “ the prodigious difficulty of the first
steps in any science, and the tentative and groping thoughts
that accompany these steps’’!, it is impossible for the historian
of science in its restricted sense—and even for the historian
of ideas in general—to ignore the significance of a number of
theoretical achievements of the ancient physicians. But it is
equally impossible for the historians to overlook the basic
fact that the promises of science remain unfulfilled in ancient and
medieval India. These do not lead to the creation of science
in the modern sense, as expected of the normal course of their
development. Evidently there is also something in ancient
India which inhibits or injures science, wanting even to destroy
what is once achieved by it. Since, as Needham says, the
inhibitory processes concern the historian of science as much as
the adjuvant ones,® an attempt will be made in the present chap­
ter to identify the former. For this purpose, we propose to depend
primarily on literary sources. Of these sources, what comes
down to us as the Indian legal literature has its obvious impor­
tance. We begin with a brief review of it.

2. LAW -GIVERS’ CONTEMPT FOR DOCTORS

Though apparently bewildering, a prominent feature of Indian

1. Farrington GS 140. 2. Needham ii. 396.

Indological Truths
legal literature is the intense contempt for the physicians and
surgeons. The usual way of expressing it is to declare that the
doctors are intrinsically impure human beings—so impure indeed
that their very presence pollutes a place, that food offered by
them is too filthy to be accepted and that even the food offered
to them turns into something vile. Here are some examples :
The law-codes of Apastamba declare, “ The food given by
a physician, a hunter, a surgeon, a fowler, an unfaithful wife or
a eunuch must not be eaten.” ® The same authority adds : food
given by a g a m ( ? tribal collective*) must not be eaten, and
so also is the food offered by an artisan or a physician. ®
Gautama’s law-codes assert that a Brahmin may accept food
from “ a trader who is not an artisan'’® ; but be must not accept
food from an artisan, an unchaste woman, a criminal, a carpen­
ter, a surgeon and such other persons.” ’
All this fully agrees with the law-codes of VaSistha. “ Now
therefore” , says he, “ we will declare what may be eaten and what
may not be eaten. Food given by a physician, a hunter,...a thief,
...an outcast must not be eaten. Nor that given by a miser,...a
carpenter,...a washerman,...a spy, a cobbler ; nor that given by
a su d ra ,...n o r food offered by the gana, nor by the harlots.” ®
Even alms received from the physician is supposed to be impure :
“ But alms, though offered without asking, must not be accepted
from a physician, from a hunter, from a surgeon, or from a
a very wicked man, or from a eunuch, or from an unfaithful
wife.” ®
The authorities we have just quoted—Apastamba, Gautama
and VaSistha—belong to the earliest group of Indian law-givers.
P. V. Kane proposes to place their law-codes—called the dharma-
sutra-s —between 600 B.C. and 300 B.C.io R.S. Sharma wants
to modify this date as circa 500-200 B. C .‘ * Therefore, judged
by what is just quoted from Apastamba and others we can
piesume that the legal contempt for the doctors—and therefore

3. Apastamba i.6.19.14 4. Chattopadhyaya L 151ff.

5. Apastamba i.6.1 8. 06-8 & 21. 6 . Gautama xvii.7.
7, lb. xvii. 17. 8. Vasistha xiv. 1-10. 9. Ib. xiv. 19.
10. Kane ii. pp.xi-xii (Chronological Table). 11. Sharma 15.

Indological Truths
also for their science—is to be traced as far back as the sixth
or fifth century B. C. The later legal literature shows how
it continues.
“The Dharmasutras—also known as Dharma§astras which
cover all kinds of legal texts including commentaries—deve­
loped into the Smytis, written in verse. The oldest and most
well-known of the Smrtis is that of Manu, also called Manu-
sam hitd or M anava-dharm aM stra.” ^^ Buhler proposes to
place it between 200 B. C. and A. D. 200. Kane accepts this
date, though Sharma says, “ its style and contents suggest its
final compilation in the first or second century A.D.’'i s An­
other work, considered to be of considerable importance in
the history of Indian law, is attributed to Visnu, which,
though wanting to be recognised as a su tra by its title Visnu-
dharm a-sutra, is placed by Kane between A .D. 300-600.
Besides, the redactors of the M ahabharata insert into the
Anugasana and Santi parva-s o f the great epic long discour­
ses on law and politics, fully in accord with the general spirit
of the older low-codes. The chapters containing these dis­
courses are usually dated roughly the fourth century A. D,
Thus, in short, the time span between the- law-codes of
Apastamba and Visiiu ( and the legal discourses added to the
M ahabharata ) is roughly a thousand year.
It is of considerable inportance to see that the legal con­
tempt for medicine continues to have practically the same
form during this long stretch of time.
Like the other law-givers, Manu declares that it is prohibi­
ted for members of higher castes to accept food from the
physicians. What he adds to the declaration is only a greater
intensity of contempt for such food : “the food received from
a doctor is as vile as pus” (puyam cikitsakasya annam).'^^
There is thus no question, from his point of view, of a snataka
( or one who has finished the scriptural studies ) to accept
such food : “ the snataka must not accept food given by a
physician” *®. But not merely this. The physician is supposed
to be so impure that even food offered to him turns into some-

Indological Truths
thing vile. The food given to the physician, says Mahu, is like
pus and blood (bhisaje p u ya -so n ita m )J ^ Accordingly, Manu
takes care to mention that like the other intrinsically impure
persons, the physicians are not to be alowed to attend sacri­
fices offered to the gods and manes, because their very presence
destroys the sanctity of the sacrifice .
The law-book attributed to Visnu appears in one place to
take a somewhat realistic attitude. In spite of possessing the
knowledge of the scriptures, it is obviously risky for one to live
in a place where medical attention is not available. So the law­
giver says, the snataka “ must not live in a kingdom in which
there are no physicians.” He requires of the physician the
faultless application of the healing technique specially when
treating a person of the privileged class. Hence he prescribes
punishment as severe as that for theft for “ a physician who
adopts a wrong method of cure in the case of a patient of high
rank.”'® However, in spite of such exacting demands of him, the
physician’s status does not at all improve in the law-giver’s view.
The doctor remains as impure in Visnu’s law-codes as he is
supposed to be in the law-codes of Apastamba and VaSistha.
Following these, Visnu prescribes the penance of fasting for
three days for the offence of eating food offered by any of the
following : a carpenter, leather worker, hypocrite, physician,
hunier, etc.^° Further, declares Visnu, as persons following
occupations considered undesirable by the scriptural tradition,
the physicians—like those performing sacrifices for the sudra-s —
must be excluded from attending the funeral rite or haddha,^^
about the purity of which the Indian priest-class is most parti­
cular.
To these, we want to add here only two more prescriptions
of the M ahabharata.
In the Santi-parva of the epic, Bhisma—in accordance with
the demands of the law-givers—is made to enumerate a long
list of persons, the acceptance of food from whom is specially
polluting for the Brahmins. In this list, we see the physician

16. 7Z>.iii.l80. 17. 76 iii.152. 18 Visnu lxxi.66. 19. 76. v.175.

20. 76. li.8-11 21. 76. lxxxii.3-14.

Indological Truths
again. Accepting food from him is as defiling as accepting it
from the whore, the blacksmith, the washerman etc.^^
In the AnuSasana-parva, again, the same Bhisma is made
to recite another list of persons to whom no gift is to be offered
a t the funeral rite, in which, as it is well-known, gift offered to
undesirable types of persons is supposed to be most harmful
for the departed soul. In this list, we see the physician again.
Echoing Manu, Bhisma is made to declare : gift offered to
the physician becomes as vile as pus and blood.^^
Such then are some of the examples of the contempt for
the physicians and surgeons expressed in Indian legal litera­
ture. Not that the law-givers are unaware of the obvious
use and need of medical care. As Visnu admits in so many
words, it is dangerous to live in a kingdom where there is no
physician. The law-givers are aware of the obvious use of
medicine, as they are aware of the obvious use of various
other crafts—like those of the blacksmith, tanner, washerman,
etc., with whom the physicians are freely bracketed. Its utility
notwithstanding, medical practice is viewed as by nature
degrading.
There is therefore no question from the law-giver’s point
of view for a dvija or a member of the privileged class to go
in for medical practice. This point is already emphasised in
the ancient laws-codes attributed to Vaiistha, which declare :
"A dvija who does not know the Veda cannot be called a
Brahmana, nor he who lives by trade, nor he who lives as an
actor, nor he who obeys a sudra's command, nor a thief, nor
he who makes his living by the practice of medicine.’’^^
This raises a practical problem for the law-givers. If medi­
cine, in spite of its obvious use, is too derogatory a profession
to be followed by any member of the higher castes or dvija-s,
on whom then is its practice to be entrusted ? Manu gives an
answer to this question : “ Those who have been mentioned as
baseborn offspring of Aryans, or as begotten in consequence
of a violation of law, shall subsist by occupations reprehended
by the dvija-s. To the Sutas belongs the managemet of horses

Indological Truths
and chariots ; to the Ambasthas the art of healing ; to the
Vaidehakas, the harem service ( strikarya ) ; to the Magadhas,
trade.” 2 8
Thus the practice of medicine is supposed to remain con­
fined to the Ambasthas : am basthanam cikitsitam . Who then
are these Ambasthas ?
There are many grounds unmistakably indicating that the
name is that of some ancient Indian tribe. The Greek histo­
rians associated with Alexander’s campaign refer to them as
Abastanoi or Sabastanoi, living on the lower Acesines (Chenab)
of the present West Pakistan.^® The M ahabharata mtnW om
the Ambasthas among the western tribes conquered by Nakula
during the campaign (digvijaya) of the five Pandava brothers^'^.
Various other sources refer to these tribal p e o p l e , w h i c h
make their historicity unquestionable.*^® But the law-givers
are not interested in history. What is much more important
for their main purpose is plain myth. Hence they are keen
on concocting fanciful genealogies of various tribal pepoples
specially connected with the arts and crafts. The main point
of such genealogies is to show how they are but base-born
offsprings of Aryans born in violation of mating laws, or more
simply, as bastards or varna-samkara-s in caste nomenclature.
In accordance with this general tendency, Manu^® wants us to
believe that the Ambasthas are born of the mating of Brahmin
males with VaiSya females—a quaint story evidently taken up
from the ancient law-codes of Baudhayana,^* though according
to the law-codes of Gautama, as interpreted by Haradatta, an
Ambastha is supposed to be “ the oifspring of a Ksatriya from
a Vaigya woman.” ®®
No less quaint than such genealogies of the Ambasthas is
Manu’s claim that medical practice must remain restricted to these
base-born persons. But this intention of the law-giver seems to
acquire a firm basis in the orthodox outlook. As Kane sums
up, “ Manu prescribes the profession of medicine for him

25. Manu x.46-7. 26. Sircar 76n. 27. lb. 63 & 65.
28. 7 6 .29n. 29. K aneii.71. 30. Manu x,8.
31. Baudhayana i.8.7. & i.9.3. 32. K aneii.71.

Indological Truths
 (Ambastha) and USanas says that he may subsist by agriculture
or may be a fire-dancer or he may be a herald or live by
surgery. Vaikhanasa-sm arta-sutra has almost the same words ;
the Sahyadri-khanda says the same. Haradatta on A pastam ba-
dharma-sutra (i.6.14) says that am bastha and sa lya k rn ta (sur­
geon) are synonymous. The Vaidyas of Bengal come to be the
Ambasthas of Manu (vide Risley’s Peoples of India, p. 114).” ®*
Such then is the intention of the law-givers.
This, we repeat, is not a stray thought. Beginning roughly
from the sixth or fifth century B.C., the Indian law-givers go on
repeating it for about a thousand years. Or, if we take into
account also the late commentators of Manu like Kulluka
Bhatta—placed by Kane between A-D. 1150-1300—the legal
contempt expressed for medicine and its practitioners covers a
much longer period. Yet there is something apparently very
strange about all this, because nowhere do the law-givers care
to explain the real ground for their contempt for medicine.
The condemnation of the doctors is just decreed, as if the sense
of degradation and filth attached to them is too obvious to
require any explanation.
The medical compilations at any rate give us the impression
that there is nothing in the medical norm itself to justify the
sense of filth or pollution attached to the doctors. Personal
cleanliness or sauca, as we have already seen, is considered
as important for the ideal physician as his theoretical know­
ledge, wide range of experience and practical skill.^'^
It is tempting to quote here two passages from the medical
compilations to show the kind of persons and their personal
qualities, in whom the law-givers sense so much of defilement.
Describing the young men who alone are entitled to medical
studies, the Caraka-samhita says,
“ He should be peaceful (prasanta), noble in disposition, incapa­
ble of any mean act {a-ksudra-karman), with straight eyes, face
and nose, with slim body, having a clean and red tongue, with­
out distortion of teeth and lips, with clear voice (i.e. with voice
neither indistinct nor nasal), persevering, without egotism,

Indological Truths
intelligent, endowed with powers of reasoning and good
memory (vitarka-sm rti-sam panna), with broad mind (udara-
sa ttv a ), inclined to medical study either because of being born
in the family of physicians or by natural aptitude, with eager­
ness to have the knowledge of truth {tattva-abhinivesin), with
no deformity of body and no defect of sense-organs, by nature
modest and gentle, contemplating on the true nature of things
(artha-tattva-bhavaka), without anger and without addiction,
endowed with good conduct, cleanliness, good habits, love,
skill and courtesy {sila-sauca-acara-anuraga-daksya-pradaksi-
nya-upapanna), desirous of the welfare of all living beings,
devoid of greed and laziness {alubdham analasam sarva-hhuta-
hitaisinam) and having full loyalty and attachment to the
teacher.” 35
This passage of the Caraka-sam hita is to be read along
with the following from the Susruta-sam hita, which describes
“ the essential qualifications of a physician before he formally
enters his profession” ;
“ He should be cleanly in his habits and well shaved, and
should not allow his nails to grow. He should wear white
garments, put on a pair of shoes, carry a stick and an umbre­
lla in his hands, and walk about with a mild and benign look
as a friend of all created beings, ready to help all, and frank
and friendly in his talk and demeanour, and never allowing
the full control of his reason or intellectual powers to be in
any way disturbed or interfered with.” ®®
These passages are quoted for emphasising only one point.
If from the viewpoint of the medical norm so much care is
taken by the physicians for selecting their students and allow­
ing them to enter the medical profession, there is no reason to
imagine that the doctors and surgeons lived some kind of
unclean or undignified life, justifying the law-givers’ contempt
for them. The actual reason for this contempt is evidently
to be sought elsewhere. Pending a fuller enquiry into this, we
shall mention here only one evidence of the legal literature,
which seems to indicate that certain basic ideological issues

Indological Truths
 may not be unconnected with this otherwise unexplained
contempt.
According to Manu, certain modes of obtaining the liveli­
hood are too derogatory to be normally allowed to the dvija-s
or members of the privileged classes. Only under excep­
tional conditions causing dire distress, the law-giver grudgingly
allows the dvija-s to go in for these. Their list, as given by the
law-giver, is : vidyd iilpam bhrtih seva goraksam vipanih
krsih,^’’ i.e. learning, crafts, wage-earning, servitude, cattle-
raising, shopkeeping, agriculture, etc. Specially puzzling about
this list is the item mentioned first, viz. vidyd, which
means ‘learning’ or cultivating some branch of knowledge.
There is not much difficulty to understand why wage-earning,
servitude, etc., are to be considered normally incompatible
with noble birth. But what possibly is wrong about vidyd
or learning, so that a dvija should be advised to avoid it
normally, or to accept it only under conditions of dire
distress ? The commentators Medhatithi and Kulluka Bhatta
naturally feel that some clarification is necessary about this
point. The clarification offered by both is quite striking. The
word vidyd or learning is to be understood here in a specific
sense. It is learning or ‘discipline’ in its non-scriptural or
anti-scriptural form, i.e. in the form in which the physicians,
logicians, poison-removers, etc., understand it. As Kulliika
Bhatta very pointedly says ; vidyd vedavidyd-vyatirikla-vaidya-
tarka-visapanayana-adi-vidyd —“ by learning is meant here those
specific forms of learning which arb different from the learning
of the Vedas, as for example the kind of learning cultivated by
the physicians, logicians, poison-removers etc.”
Two points about this clarification need specially to be
noted. First, the kind of learning the physicians cultivate is
not only characteristically different from scriptural learning
but also derogatory from the standpoint of the latter. Hence,
though the persons of noble birth are encouraged to cultivate
learning in the scriptural sense, they are under normal conditions
forbidden to study medicine. This is in full agreement with

Indological Truths
what the law-givers elsewhere declare : persons with noble birth
must not go in for medicine. Secondly, to the general class
of learning considered derogatory from the scriptural standpoint
belong—along with medicine—certain other disciplines, two of
which are specially prominent. These are learning or vidya-s
in the sense in which the logicians and poison-removers are
specially concerned. There may not be anything odd in the
mention of the poison-removers along with the physicians,
because poison-removing is considered an important part of the
ancient medical technique.®® But why is the mention of the logi­
cians in the same context ? There is only one answer to this. In
the law-giver’s understanding, medicine and logic are very closely
related. Here, at any rate, the law-giver’s thesis is not fanci­
ful. We have already seen how the physicians themselves
fully approve of it. Accomplishment in logic is a necessary
prerequisite for medical studies. At the same time, where the
law-givers differ from the physicians must not be overlooked.
The former detest logic and this for the simple reason that
an excessive indulgence in logic encourages heresy or the
tendency to question the scriptures. Assuming therefore
that the commentators like Medhatithi and Kulluka Bhatta
do not misunderstand Manu, we may see in the law-giver’s
declaration some indication of ideological considerations in­
volved in the otherwise unexplained legal contempt for the
physicians.
Our next question is : Can we follow up this indication
of M a n u - s m r ti and have a fuller idea of the ideological
grounds for the contempt heaped on the physicians and
surgeons ?

3. NATURE A N D SOURCE OF LAW-CODES

That the real ground for the damnation of doctors by law­

givers is primarily ideological can perhaps be better seen by

38. Caraka-samhita vi.23 & Susruta-samhita Kalpa-sthana.

39. Chattopadhyaya WLWD 185fF.

Indological Truths
US if we take note of the actual source and nature of the
Indian legal literature. This literature originates in the priestly
corporations, and has primarily the purpose of validation
and preservation of hierarchical society of which the priests
are the earliest theoreticians. The ideological requirements
they feel for the purpose flatly go against the theoretical
positions felt indispensable for positive science by the ancient
doctors. In the legal contempt for the physicians, in short,
we see the counter-ideologey taking its stand against positive
science or the promises thereof. That is why it is not a
stray theme of the Indian legal literature. Further, as we
are going to see, this contempt takes shape in the priestly
Iherature, already before the law-codes assume a relatively
independent form.
The earliest Indian law-codes, as already mentioned, are
called the D harm a-sutra-s. In these works, as Kane shows,
the word dharma already acquires the sense of “ the privi­
leges, duties and obligations of a man, his standard of conduct
as a member of the Aryan community, as a member of the
castes, as a person in a particular stage of life.” The dis­
cussion of all these necessitates the clarification of many
topics that belong to law in the later restricted sense. Some
of these ar e: “ the pecuhar duties of the four castes, the
responsibilities of the king, taxation, sources of ownership,
treasure-trove, guardianship of minor’s wealth, punishments
for libel, abuse, assault, hurt, adultery and rape, theft in the
case of several varna-s and rules about money-lending and
usury and adverse possession, special privileges of brahmanas
as to punishments, payment of debts, deposits, rules about
whnesses, falsehoods when excusable,” etc.
Had the Dharm a-sutra-s been concerned only with topics
like these, they could have been considered “ law-literature”
in our sense. But the fact is that over and above the discussion
of all these, the texts also prescribe—usually with greater
zeal—rules about many practices which more properly belong
to the context of the religo-ritual techniques in which the

Indological Truths
ancient priests are most keenly interested. Here are some
examples of what appear to us to be extra-legal matters in
the earliest law literature : upanayana or initiation, rules about
sauca and acamana, rules about those not invested with sacred
thread, the five great daily sacrifices, the rewards of gifts,
madhuparka, methods of honouring guests of the several castes,
rules about the avocations of a brahmana, avocations for
him in distress, the forty sam skara-s and the eight spiritual
qualities (such as daya, forbearance, etc.), rules of impurity
on birth and death, sraddha of five kinds, persons not fit
to be invited at sraddha, period of Vedic study in the year,
holidays and occasions for them, rules about food allowed
and forbidden to brahmanas and other castes, causes and
occasions of p r a y a h itta , five things that remove sin, purifi­
catory Vedic prayers, sinners of various grades, m ahapataka-s,
upapataka-s, etc., p ra ya scitta -s of various sins, etc , etc. ^ ®
Therefore, though in the course of time the Dharma-sutra-s
acquire the absolute authority in legal matters, they actually
represent Indian law still bound by the umbilical cord as it
were with the ancient priest-craft from which these are born.
As Winternitz puts it, “ the D harm asutras origitiated in the
closest association with the literature of rituals (Vedanga-kalpa).
This association with the literature of rituals is still wholly
manifest in the D harm asutras. Hence they are neither mere
collection of rules, nor pure lectures on jurisprudence; but
they, with predilection, deal with religious duties of man. They
form the constituent elements of religious and Vedic literature.
They, exactly as the old manuals, had sprung up in the
Vedic schools and were written by Brahmins, priests and
scholars for the purpose of imparting instruction and were
not written as codes for practical use in the courts of law.”
From the viewpoint of the history of Indian literature also,
many of the D harm asutras are known to have formed part
of a wider class of literature—called Kalpa-siitra—which are but
priestly manuals concerned mainly with the rules and regula­
tions concerning the ritual techniques. “ It seems” , says Kane,

Indological Truths
“ that originally many, though not all, of the Dharm asutras
formed part of the Kalpa-siitras” . Thus, some of the
D harm asutras “like those of Apastamba, Hiranyakesin and
Baudhayana form part of a larger Sutra collection, while
there are others like those of Gautama and VaSistha which
do not form part of a larger collection.”
Significantly, it is mainly in the tradition of the K rsn a -
yajurveda —which is the earliest ritual work with explanatory
passages added to the ritual formulas—that the original pattern
of Dharm asutras forming part of priestly manuals of wider
range is best preserved for us. As Winternitz observes,
“ Only in the Black Yajurveda schools of Baudhayana and of
Apastamba do we find Kalpa-sutras containing all the four
kinds of su tra texts,— Srauta, Grhya, Dharma and Sulva—
sutras; and in these cases it can also be proved that these
works are indeed, so interconnected that, to a certain extent,
they cab be regarded as the four volumes of a uniform work.
It is possible that Baudhayana and Apastamba were actually
the authors of complete Kalpa-sutras comprising all the four
kinds of texts. But even if they were not the actual authors,
at all events, the Srauta, Grhya, Dharma and Sulva-sutras
of the Baudhayana and Apastamba schools are works compo­
sed in each case on a uniform plan, of these two schools
of Yajurveda.”
We have mentioned all these in order to emphasise that
what come down to us as law-codes of ancient India do
not embody laws in the secular sense. These have their origin
in the priestly manuals concerned mainly with ritual techniques
and come down to us as completely dominated by the aims and
aspirations of the ancient priest-class. Indian legal literature
retains this character throughout its subsequent career. Much
that is discussed in it are frankly the components of the
religo-rituaUstic complex and even what are declared in these
as laws in the comparatively later sense remain under the
commanding influence of this complex. Thus, in short, begin­
ning from its earhest career of incomplete emancipation from

Indological Truths
the religo-ritualistic complex, Indian law-codes remain through­
out their subsequent career under the spell of the ideology
or manner of viewing things characteristic of the ancient
priests.
Since the science-policy of the Indian law-givers is the
direct outcome of this ideology, we shall have to . take note
of some of its prominent features for a proper understand­
ing of the law-givers’ contempt for the physicians. For
this purpose, we shall have to move backwards from the
Kalpa-sutras to the vast prose literature called the Brahmana-s
and also to the Yajurveda, which are the earliest literary
records of the class-conscious priests formulating their ideologi­
cal requirements.

4. FROM RGV ED A TO BRAHM ANA-S !

BIRTH OF COUNTER-IDEOLOGY

The Brahmana texts are traditionally viewed as forming parts of

the Vedas, and these come down to us as appended to the
ancient samhitd-s.
The word veda means knowledge, though to the followers of
Vedic orthodoxy it means the most infallible knowledge directly
revealed. Concretely the name stands for the literary products of
those people who call themselves the Aryans or ‘nobles’ and
who, it is usually assumed, migrate into northern India as
pastoral nomad tribes, without the art of writing but with a
fabulous literary gift strangely combined with tremendous skill
in warfare.
The earlier portions of this literature consist of songs, charms
and hymns. These are orally composed and transmitted to later
generations by an amazingly meticulous retentive memory—a
circumstance that accounts for their descriptive epithet sru ti or
“that which is heard.” To us these come down in the form of
enormous compilations or sam hitd-s, a form traceable to con­
siderable antiquity. Of these compilations, the earliest and

Indological Truths
considered most important is the Rgveda. There are in addition
three other compilations, called the Atharvaveda, Sam aveda and
Yajurveda.
The Rgveda contains 1,028 songs with a total of 10,552
verses. The composition of all these must have taken a very
long period. For the modern scholars, its inner chronology is
naturally a formidable problem, which they are still groping to
solve. This much is certain that some of these songs are con­
siderably earlier than the others. Any hasty generalisation
about the early Vedic people based on some stray Rgvedic
evidence is thus liable to be fallacious. The oft-quoted hymn
called the Purusa-sukta, for example, speaks of the four castes.
Judged by the standard of modern scholarship, however, the date
of this particular hymn proves to be very late. Serious modern
scholars are on the whole agreed that the genuinely earlier strata
of the Rgveda are unaware of the society split into different
castes.
The early songs of the Rgveda, which often surprise us by
their primitive vigour and uninhibited imagination, have for
their main theme the almost complete obsession with the
problem of physical survival. These express endlessly as it
were the desire for food, cattle, progeny, victory, and so on.
All this is mixed up with the mythological imagination of a
people who see deities in things they do not understand and
which, therefore, fill them with awe easily passing into rever­
ence—in the natural phenomena like the sun and wind, fire and
forest, in the extraordinary might of their war chiefs and
heroes, in the intoxicating power of their drink soma, and so on.
The deities are important for them, because they are supposed
to be aids to the fulfilment of elemental desires. As people with
rudimentary control over nature, the poets see deities even in
their frankly pathetic wishfulfilments like the prevention of
abortion and the cure of pthisis.
People at such a stage of development are not expected to
develop ideology in the later priestly sense and the fact is that
the earlier strata of the Rgveda —though aware of the priests—
are unaware of the later priestly ideology. Except for some

Indological Truths
late songs in this vast collection, the question of the castes and
caste-privileges does not have any place in the Rgveda. We
shall presently see the implication of this for our main question
concerning the social status of the physicians and surgeons.
The next phase of the Vedic literary activity can be traced to
the Yajurveda, which is a compilation mainly of sacrificial
formulas, the more typical of which are in prose sentences called
the yajus, from which the Yajurveda takes its name. This
compilation reaches us mainly in two versions, called Sukla-
yajurveda or White Yajurveda and Krsna-yajurveda or Black
Yajurveda. The main difference between the two consists in
this that while the former contains only the Mantras or sacri­
ficial formulas, the latter contains over and above such formulas
“theological discussions” on the rituals—discussions that are
technically called the Brahmana-s. These theological discussions
eventually assume the form of a vast literature, the Brahmana-s
proper, which take an all-absorbing interest in the sacrificial
rituals called ya jn a .
The rituals must have originally been among the ancient
Vedic tribes something like the magic rites still to be observed
among some present-day primitive tribes surviving in certain
pockets of the modern world. Their essence, as is shown by the
right analysis of ethnographical materials, consists in enacting
“ in fantasy the fulfilment of the desired reality. That is magic,
an illusory technique supplementary to the real technique. But
though illusory it is not futile.” The ritual performance cannot
have any appreciable effect on nature ; but it can and does have
an appreciable effect on the otherwise helpless primitive perfor­
mers themselves. Inspired by the belief that it will bring into
being the desired reality, they proceed to the task of actually
bringing it into being with greater confidence, and so with
greater energy than before. Hence it does have some effect on
nature after all. “ It changes their subjective attitude to reality,
and so indirectly it changes reality. The magic dance of the

Indological Truths
primitive hunters makes them better hunters and, in this sense,
ensures for them greater success in actual hunting.
As illusory techniques intended to aid the real technique,
magic rites are originally not unconnected with man’s struggle
with nature. As discussed in the Brahmana texts, however, the
yajn a-s or magic rituals are uprooted from their original context
of tribal life, and their function passes into its opposite. These
tend to become consciously enforced illusions and hence tools
for a new technique—that of m an’s struggle against man.
This point is crucial for the new ideology of the priest-class
and is in need of some elucidation. That the main features of
the hierarchical society—or at least its norm—assume very
clear forms in the Yajurveda and Brahmana texts is generally
admitted. W hat requires to be added to it is that along with
the emergence of the hierarchical norm, the need is also felt for
ways of implementing and stabilising it. These are ruthless
violence and massive superstition. If the early despots—the
kings and nobles—take charge of the former, the priests take
charge of the latter. The priestly way of describing this job-
division is to say how the “ lordly power” requires to be supple­
mented by the “holy power.” The A itareya Brahmana says,
“ The weapons of the holy power are the weapons of sacrifice ;
the weapons of the lordly power are the horse-chariot, the
corslet, the bow and arrow.” "^® In the priestly version of the
mutual relation of the two, the lordly power, while wanting to
derive full benefit of sacrificial technique for itself, has to
surrender to the holy power. “ Thus the lordly power’', con­
tinues the A itareya Brahmana, “ having laid aside its own
weapons, with the weapons of the holy power, with the form of
the holy power, becoming the holy power, went to the sacrifice.
Therefore now also the Ksatriya, as sacrificer, having laid aside
his own weapons, with the weapons of the holy power, with the
form of the holy power, becoming the holy power, goes to the
sacrifice.” ^® Admitting some exaggeration of the importance of
holy power in this, there is no reason to reject the entire state-

Indological Truths
ment as fictitious, because lordly power or raw violence is known
also to depend on holy power for the simple reason that super­
stition too is a very effective instrument for keeping the masses
under control. Confronted with this problem, Plato and Isocrates
look back admiringly at the petrified culture of ancient Egypt,
where the law-givers make the most marvellous use of supersti-
tion.50 Admiring the Romans, Polybius says that superstition is
the very foundation of Roman greatness. “ It is not for nothing” ,
he adds, “but with deliberate design that the men of the old
introduced to the masees the notions about gods and the concepts
of after life. The folly and heedlessness is ours who seek to
dispel such illusions.” ®^
In the Brahmana texts we do not have such a lucid analysis
of the social function of superstition. But these leave us with
no doubt about the magnitude of the problem of keeping the
masses under control felt by its authors. In the hierarchical
society visualised by it, apart from the Ksatriyas and Brahmins
representing the lordly power and holy power, there are the
farmer-traders called VaiSyas and the vast masses of direct
producers lumped together under the general category of the
Sudras. From the standpoint of the direct plunderers—the
kings and nobles—the A itareya Brahmana wants to define the
exact status of the other three and declares : the Brahmin is “ an
acceptor of gifts, a drinker (of Soma), a seeker of livelihood” ;
a Vai^ya is “a tributory to another (i.e. the king or noble),
to be eaten by another, to be oppressed at will” ; a Sudra is
“ the servant of another, to be removed at will, to be slain at
will.” 6 2
With all their ponderous discussions of the rituals or yajna-s,
the Brahmana texts are throughout motivated—directly or
indirectly—to defend this hierarchical norm. The point is too
obvious to be missed and Eggeling, in the introduction to his
translation of the Satapatha Brahmana, observes : “ The Brah-
mana-s, it is well known, form our chief, if not our only, source

50. Chattopadhyaya WLWD 17Sff. 51. Polybius quoted by Farring­

ton H H AG 102. 52. Ait. Br. vii. 29. Tr Keith.

Indological Truths
of information regarding one of the most important periods in
the social and mental development of India. They represent
the intellectual activity of a sacerdotal caste which...was ever
intent on deepening and extending its hold on the minds of the
people, by surrounding its own vocation with the halo of
sanctity and divide inspiration. A complicated ceremonial,
requiring for its proper observance and consequent efficacy the
ministrations of a highly trained priestly class, has ever been
one of the most effective means of promoting hierarchical aspira­
tions. Even practical Rome did not entirely succeed in steering
clear of the rock of priestly ascendancy attained by such-like
means...The Roman statesmen submitted to these transparent
tricks rather from considerations of political expediency than
from religious scruples ; and the Greek Polybius might well say
that ‘the strange and ponderous ceremonial of Roman religion
was invented solely on account of the multitude which, as reason
had no power over it, required to be ruled by signs and
wonders.” ®®
This change in the content of the Vedic literature—the great
anxiety for the strange and ponderous ceremonials—transforms
also its form. Instead of the inspired poetry of the Rgveda.
we have in the Brahmana texts only insipid prose—in fact the
dullest and most cumbrous style in Indian literature. One
reason of this insipidity is the untiring effort to evolve symbolic
interpretations of ritual trivialities, in the course of which scraps
of Rgvedic verses—invariably torn out of their original context
and usually with strange meanings read in them—are quoted in
the Brahmana-s.
Such trivialities, though meaningless for us®^, are not irre­
levant for the authors of the Brahmana-s, who try their best to
use these to validate the new hierarchical norm that emerges
on the ruins of the ancient tribal one, inspiring the early “ seers”
of the Rgveda. This new norm is that of the split society in
which the powers and privileges belong to the kings and nobles,
though secondarily also to their ideological apologists, the

Indological Truths
priests, who, strongly insist that their ideological service must
be paid for.^^ For the purpose of feigning continutity with the
ancient Vedic tradition, the essential features of the new social
norm are sometimes projected back on early Vedic mythology.
Thus for example the group of gods called Maruts are now
made to stand for the common people while despotic power is
represented by Indra and Varuna. Here are only a few examples
from the Satapatha Brahmana :
“ Varuna, doubtless, is the nobility, and the Maruts are the
people. He (the priest) thus makes the nobility superior to the
people. And hence people here serve the Ksatriya, placed above
them.”56
“ He muttered that verse addressed to Indra and referring to
the Maruts. Indra indeed is the nobility, and the Maruts are
the people... ‘They shall be controlled’, he thought, and there­
fore that verse is addressed to Indra.” ^’'
“ Now some., on noticing some straw or piece of wood among
the Soma plants, throw it away. But let him not do this ; for—
the Soma being the nobility and the other plants the common
people, and the people being the noblemen’s food—it would
be just as if one were to take hold of and pull out some food
he has put in his mouth, and throw it away.” ^*
Some ritual detail is sought to yield the symbolic interpre­
tation of what “ makes the Ksatra superior to the people. Hence
the people here serve, from a lower position, the Ksatriya above
them.” ^® Similarly, another ritual detail is intended to show
how “ the Ksatriya, whenever he likes, says, ‘Hallo VaiSya, just
bring to me what thou hast stored away.’ Thus he both sub­
dues him and obtains possession of anything he wishes by dint of
his very energy.” *®
And so on and on—almost endlessy in the Brahmana texts.
Though with the exterior of religion and ritual, all this is

55. A persistent theme o f the Brahmana texts is that the sacrificial fee is
indispensable for their efficacy ; Ait. Br. vi. 36 ; Kaus. Br. x v .l ; ^at. Br,
x i.1.3.7 ; x ii.7 .1.4 ; x iv .l.1.32 ; etc. 56. :Sat. Br. U.S.2.6.
57. Jb. ii 5.2.27. 58. lb. iii.3.2.28. 59. lb. i.3.4.15,
60. /6.i.3.2.15.

Indological Truths
crass politics. The main point of this politics is man’s struggle
againt man—to keep the masses subdued, so. that the plunderer
may feel free to extract from them whatever he wants. In short,
we have in the Brahm am -s the political philosophy of free
exploitation dressed in the holy robe of ritual and religion.
The science policy of the Indian law-givers, we shall see, not
only follows from this political philosophy but is also fully
anticipated by it.

5. EARLY RGVEDIC PERIOD

But this political philosophy, it needs at once to be noted,

is something new altogether in the Vedic tradition. When we
move backwards from the Yajurveda and Brahmana texts to the
genuinely earlier strata of the Rgvedic songs, we seem to enter
into a totally different thought-world as it were. With their
control over nature still extremely. jrudimentary, the ancient
Vedic peoples are yet to visualise any situation in which a
section of the community wants to thrive on the plunder of the
surplus produced by another. What the poets care for is the
collective life of the community in which they see the hope of its
survival and safety. I have elsewhere attempted an extensive
survey of the inspired songs of the Rgveda in praise of this
collective life or its memory®' only a few of which may be
repeated here.
We read in one hymn : “Those ancient poets (kavayah
purvyasah), the observers of r ta were in joyful company of the
gods {devanam sadha-madah dsan)... Being united with com­
mon cattle {samane urve, interpreted by Sayana as sarvesam
sadharane go-samuhe) they become of one mind (te sam ja n a te,
interpreted by Sayana as te ekabuddhayah bhavanti) ; they seem
to make common effort {na yatan te mithah te), nor do they
injure the rituals of the gods. Not injuring each other, they

Indological Truths
 move with wealths (amardhantah vasul hih ya d a m a n a h )”^'^ The
“ wealth” spoken of by these ancient poets may be extremely
meagre compared to what is being produced by their descen­
dants during the age of the Yajurveda and B rShm am -s. Still
there is no question yet of a handful of plunderers trying to
grab it; it is the common wealth of the community, or, as
Sayana explains, “ the common cattle of all” —sarvesam
sadharane go-sam uhe. This is the clue to the simple moral
grandeur of the primitive poets—their conception of the rta,
which, as we have noted, means some kind of primordial
understanding of everything being governed by the moral-cum-
natural law.’^
Here are some other examples of songs in praise of the
ancient collective life. “As in the past, he (Agni) generated the
common wealth (samdnam dhanam) for the living beings.”®'*
“ Let the common cow {samdnam ndma dhenu) be moving
swiftly.” ®^ “ We invoke Indra, the custodian of the common
wealth {samanam vasavanam) and the giver of wealth for
protection.”®* Significantly, the common ownership of wealth—
mainly cattle—is not unconnected with the sense of instinctive
morality or rta of the ancient days ;
“ Oh Agni, your brilliance comes to us and you brought the
cows of rta equally to us [rta sy a dhenah anayanta sasrutah.
Sayana interprets sasrutah as samanam gacchantyah).” ^’
The human beings, the assistance of whom the gods are
frequently enjoying, are equal among themselves as are the gods
whose company they keep. “ Along with men, who are equal
among themselves {samanaih nr.hhih y a t uktam ). Oh Agni, you
killed the demons.” ®® Men become equal to gods®’ and this
from the times of “ the fathers” .'^® Indra protects the cows,
kills Vrtra and is equal to all.^‘ The Nasatyas sit in assemblies
and drink som a with the human beings.'^^ The ASvins are
equal in origin and in friendship.^^ And so on. Hundreds of
verses like these may easily be cited from the Rgveda.

62. vii. 76. 4-5. 63. see supra 55 ff. 64. ^v. iii. 2. 12.
65. /*. vi. 66. 1. 66. 76. viii. 59. 8. 67. 76. i. 141. 1.
68. lb. i. 69. 8. 69. 76. iii 58. 6. 70. lb. vii. 72. 2.
71. lb. i . l l l . i . , 72. 76. vii. 73, 2. 73. 76. viii. 73. 2.

Indological Truths
 But the ancient collective life is eventually disturbed—an
assumption which alone accounts for the intense longing to get
it back, as expressed in the admittedly latest stratum of the
R g v e d a : “ Do ye concur ; be ye closely combined; let your
minds be concurrent, as the gods of old sat concurrent about
their portion {devah bhagam yath d purve samjananSh upa-asate).
Be their counsel the same, their gathering the same, their course
the same, their intent alike. I offer for you with the same
oblation; do ye enter together into the same thought. Be your
design the same, your hearts the same, your mind the same,
that it may be well for you t o g e t h e r . T h i s is to be read along
with what we have already quoted from the Rgveda’^—the
intense desire of a comparatively later Vedic poet for the revival
of rja of the ancient days.
But such desires of the ancient poets remain unfulfilled and
we find the hierarchical aspirations along with the ideological
requirements for these emerging in the Yajurveda, which assume
the most grotesque and ruthless form in the Brahmana texts.
We are going to argue that the science-policy of the Indian
law-givers—the characteristic expression of which is the damna­
tion of the doctors—directly follows from these ideological
requirements. Two sets of literary data need immediately to be
mentioned in substantiation of this argument.
First, the early Rgvedic songs—far from showing any adverse
attitude to the physicians and their healing art—are in fact
ecstatic in praise of these.
Secondly, the Yajurveda and the Brahmana texts violently
depart from the spirit of these early songs and come out with
the clear denunciation of the doctors.

5. HEALING A N D HEALERS IN RGVEDA

The Dharmasutras or early Indian law-codes persistently declare

that the ultimate source from which they derive their authority

Indological Truths
 is the Veda. Here are only two examples. The law-codes of
Gautama open with the claim, “The Veda is the source of the
sacred law” {vedo dharmamulam)7^ So do the law-codes of
Apastamba, “ The authority is the agreement of those who know
the law and the authorities for the latter are the Vedas alone.”^^
It is well-known that according to the Vedic tradition itself
the very foundation of the entire Vedic literature is the Rgveda.
Manu himself, carried by his zeal to declare that of all the Vedas
the highest authority is possessed by the Rgveda, says, “ The
Rgveda is declared to be sacred to the gods, the Yajurveda sacred
to men” {rgvedo devadaivatyo yajurvedah tu mmusah)?^
When therefore the law-givers express the most intense
contempt for the physicians and surgeons, we are logically
expected to see at least some sanction for this attitude in the
Rgveda itself. But the Rgveda completely belies such an
expectation. In fact, it introduces us to a thought-world altoge­
ther different, in which the healers and everything connected
with the healing art are held in very high esteem.
An entire hymn of the Rgvedd^^ is in praise of the healing
herb or osadhi. The poet to whom it is attributed is mentioned
as “ the seer called Physician, son of the Atharvans’*— atharvanah
pu trasya bhisak-nama arsam . We quote in rough rendering
only two verses from it :
“ Oh bright herbs, you are like the mothers. In your presence
I promise to offer to the physician cows, horses, clothes and
even myself...
“ The wise physician' is one round whom the herbs gather, in the
way in which the chiefs gather round the king in the war-
council. He wages war on sickness in all forms.”®®
Can this “ seer” of the Veda, remembered in the Vedic
tradition by the name Physician, really see a distant future in
which the law-giver like Manu, while pretending to have the
highest reverence for the Rgveda,^' goes to the extent of
declaring that the physician is so impure that even food offered
to him becomes as filthy as pus and blood ? Evidently, whatever

76. Gautama i. 1. 77. Apastamba i, 1. 1. 2-3 78. Manu iv. 124.

79. J^v X. 97. 80. /6. X. 97. 4 & 6. 81. Manu ii. 158; iii. 131, etc.

Indological Truths
 may be the source of this contempt for physician, it has no
sanction in the ancient poetry of the Rgveda. There is in other
words something palpably dishonest about the law-givers ill so
far as they want to justify their laws on the authority of the
Rgveda. The fact on the contrary is, as I have elsewhere tried
to show in some detail,®^ the really ancient songs that remain
compiled in the R gveda are totally unaware of the hierarchical
society and therefore also of any ideological need to justify it
with the contempt for the techniques and the technicians, to
which healing and the class of healers belong.
The analogy used in the hymn just quoted is archaic no
doubt. $ 0 also is the mythological imagination in terms of
which niedical practice is often eulogised in the Rgveda. What
concerns our present discussion, however, is the f a c t o f eulogising
it rather than the way in which that is done.
Some of the famous Vedic gods are specially praised in the
Rgveda because o f their skill in medical practice, or more simply
for being outstanding physicians.
Rudra is invoked as the ablest of the physicians. “ I have
heard that you are the ablest of the physicians” : bhisaktam am
tvd bhisajam srnomi.^^ The same hymn specially praises the
hands of Rudra with which he prepares medicines for all : kva
sya te rudra m rjayakuh hastah yah a sti bhesajah ja la sa h —“ Oh
Rudra, where are your beautiful hands with which you prepare
medicines benefitting all In another hymn, the same god
is praised as lording over all the medicines that exist on earth :
yah visvasya k sa ya ti bhesajasya.^^
Among the physician deities of the Rgveda is included Soma,
who treats the ailing ones on earth : bh isakti visvarn y a t turam.^^
Varuna is eulogised as possessing a hundred bhisajah, which,
as interpreted by Sayana, means either a hundred medicines or
a hundred physicians : satasarnkhyani ausadhani vaidyd va
santi.^’’ Along with Mitra, Varuna is connected with Soma
and this in the sense of medicine for the ailing.*®

82. Chaltopadhyaya WLWD 139 ff. 83. ]}v. ii. 33. 4.

84. /6. ii. 33. 7. 85. Ib. v. 42. 11. 86. 76. viii. 79. 2.
87. lb. i. 24. 9. 88. Ib. viii. 11. 17.

Indological Truths
 Water—deified in Vedic imaginalion—is specially praised as
containing remedies or medicines : “ In the waters exists am­
brosia, in the waters exist all medicines {apsu bhesajam). Let
the sages be prompt in praise of waters. I am told by Soma
that all the remedies exist in the waters (apsu me somah abravit
antah -visvani b h e sa jd )P In the custody of the All-gods (Vigva-
deva), water becomes the healing agent or medicine : apah it
vd u bhesajlh dpah am ivacdtanihj apah sarvasya bhesajih tah te
krnvantu bhesajam —“ Water itself is medicine : water causes
the cure of diseases ; water is medicine for all diseases. Let
that water act as medicine as administered by you.”®° In the
same song wind or air is also eulogised as blowing in beneficial
medicines.®*
A song in praise of the Maruts says, “ Oh dancing Maruts,
with bright plates decorating your chests, men are moving
towards you desiring your friendship... Oh Maruts, you are
beautiful and magnanimous friends of ours, bring your medicines
for us... Oh Maruts with beneficial rituals, aware as you are of
medicines that exist in the Sindhu, in the Asikni, in the oceans
and mountains—bring all these for the welfare of our bodies
and instruct us in their use for curing sickness. Oh Maruts,
cure those that are sick among us and remove their physical
imperfections.” ®^
Many more examples like these may be easily quoted from
the Rgveda. But that is not necessary. It is necessary only to
note that all these do not represent any trend of stray thought
in this vast collection of ancient hymns. These represent instead
an important feature of the general theoretical temperament of
the ancient poets, which they express by way of eulogising their
deities for the superb skill in medical practice or for being
directly or indirectly connected with the healing agents. There
is no doubt that this poetry is basically of the nature of wish-
fulfilment on the part of peoples with only rudimentary control
over nature and as such it will be wrong to expect of it any
impression of a sophisticated medical science. Indian medicine

89. Ib. i. 23. 19-20. 90. Ib .x . 137. 6. 91. Ib. x 137.3.

92. /6. viii.20.20-6.

Indological Truths
has indeed to develop a great deal in order to reach the stage
represented by the Caraka-sam hita and Susruta-sam hita. But
that is a different point. What we are concerned with at present
is not the stage o f development of medicine but the attitu de to
it. If the ancient hymns show that medicine has yet to cover
a long course to be anywhere near the stage it attains in the
classical compilations on it, these also show that the contempt
for it characteristic of the law-codes of later times is not even
remotely foreshadowed in these early songs. The reason for
this seems to be that these songs or hymns are not the products
of the hierarchical society and are hence without the need of an
ideology more interested in controlling man than struggling
with nature, an ideology of which the science-policy of the law­
givers—specially their damnation of medicine—is the outcome.
If the earlier strata of the Vedic literature want us to cor­
relate the absence of the hierarchical aspiration with the absence
of an attitude that proves hostile to medicine, the comparatively
later development of the same literature indicates a positive
correlation between the presence of the two. When we move
forward from the ancient hymns of the Rgveda to the compara­
tively later works belonging to the same literature, we see one
of the most amazing transformations in ancient Indian history.
Just as there emerges the hierarchical norm on the ruins
of the early Vedic one still full of the memory of the
collective tribal life, so also there emerges a new theoretical
temper on the ruins of that of the early poets—a theoreti­
cal temper completely under the grip of the hierarchical aspira­
tions, or, in the language of the Brahmana texts, the aspirations
of the “ lordly power” in collusion with the “ holy power.”
From these aspirations follow the contempt for medicine and
its practitioners. This contempt assumes indeed a very dramatic
form, inasmuch as the priests of the later Vedic literature find
it obligatory for themselves to degrade and denounce some of
the ancient gods, and this on the specific ground of their medical
past.
The gods thus degraded and denounced are the ASvins, who
are physicians pa r excellence in the ancient Vedic mythology.
We begin with some idea of their status in the Rgveda.

Indological Truths
 6. ASVINS, THE D IV IN E PHYSICIANS

“ Next to Indra, Agni and Soma,” observes Macdonell, “ the twin

deities named the ASvins are the most prominent in the Rgveda
judged by the frequency with which they are invoked. They are
celebreted in more than fifty entire hymns and in parts of several
others, while their name occurs more than four hundred
times.”®3
Of their prominent qualities in the Rgveda, it is impossible
to miss two. They are most “ wonderful” and they are by nature
‘‘opposed to falsehood.” “ The two most distinctive and fre­
quent epithets of the Alvins are dasra, ‘wondrous’, which is
almost entirely limited to them, and nasatya, which is generally
explained to mean ‘not untrue’ {n a-asatyd)'’^^^ Their aversion for
untruth is indeed so fundamental that in the Rgveda Nasatya is
freely used as an alternative proper name for them. Like many
other gods, they are frequently described to have very great
wisdom.®^ But the distinctive feature of this wisdom—like
their wonder-works—appears to be their grea tknowledge and
skill in medicine.
This is crucial for understanding the special glory of the
A§vins in the mythological imagination of the early poets. We
have just seen how in this mythology various gods are praised
as superb physicians. Rudra, Soma, Varuna, Mitra, Ap, Maruts,
Dyavaprthivi, ViSvadevas and others are variously connected
with medicine and its practice. Compared to the ASvins,
however, their connection with healing appears to be secondary.
In Vedic mythology, the ASvins are physicians p a r excellence.
When the gods themselves are in need of medical help, they
have to rush to the Asvins. And so do the mortals, for whom
the Asvins are dearest deities specially in the capacity of the
healers.
The Alvins are addressed as the physicians of gods—daivya

93. M acdonell VM 49 94. Ib. 95, vi.63.5 ; viii.8.2 ; x.93.7 ; etc.

Indological Truths
 bhisaja, which Sayana'interprets as devesu bhavantau cikitsakau,
“ You two, who are the doctors of gods” .®'' They also cure the
diseases of all the suffering mortals.®’ It is because of this
that they are so dear to the gods and men, in fact to everybody.
As the refrain of one of the songs in praise of these “ wonderful
physicians” (dasra bhisaja) puts it, “ May our friendship with
you be never snapped ; may we be freed from diseases” : ma
nah vi ya u sta m sakhyd mumocatam?^ The grand physicians,
as the poets so intensely feel, are also the dearest friends of all.
A number of hymns of the Rgveda^^. describe the most
“wonderful” feats of the ASvins. They rejuvenate the old,
effect safe and painless delivery, give artificial limb to one who
lost it, cure the burns, heal the wounds caused by leopards, etc.,
etc. Along with all these, the poets tell us how compassionate
they are. “The story most often referred to is that of the rescue
of Bh.ujyu, son of Tugra, who was abandoned in the midst of
the ocean...The sage Rebha, stabbed, bound, hidden by the
malignant, overwhelmed in the waters for ten nights and nine
days, abandoned as dead, was by the ASvins revived ...T hey
delivered Vandana from calamity and restored him to the light
of the sun, raising him up from a pit in which he lay hidden
away as one dead ... They succoured the sage Atri Saptavadhri
who along with his companions was plunged in a burning pit by
the wiles of a demon ... The ASvins even rescued from the jaws
of a wolf a quail which invoked their aid ... They befriended
Ghosa when she was growing old in her father’s house by giving
her a h u s b a n d . A n d so on.
The details of all these legends—like those of the obviously
legendary accounts of the surgical and medical feats of the
ASvins—need not be taken at their face value. This is mythology,
not history. Still, historically speaking, all these are not
irrelevant, because they are undoubtedly indicative of a historical
fact, viz. the general trend of the ancient Vedic thought. The
poets dream of the model physicians as endowed not merely

96. iZ).viii. 18.8. C f.^ v .v ii. 53,1. 97. J?v. viii. 22.10
98. viii. 86.1-5. 99. 76. i . l l 6 ; viii. 22 ; x. 39.
100. Macdonell VM 52.

Indological Truths
 with the most wonderful medical skill and knowledge but also
with a very strong compassion for all—a compassion that makes
them the friendliest of all friends. To these the poets add that
they have the firmest commitment to truth {nasatya).
The level of medical knowledge and technique in the Caraka-
sam hitd and Susruta-sam hitd is understandably much higher
than we can possibly expect in the ancient Vedic period. But at
least a section of the later doctors seem to remain inspired by
the image of the ancient Asvins—a composite image of skill and
wisdom, combined with the commitment to truth and compassion
for all.

7. C EN SUR IN G THE ANCIENT GODS : TAITTIRIYA SAMHITA

In the Yajurveda however it is all different. The A§vins are

censured precisely for the reason for which the ancient poets of
the Rgveua go ecstatic over their glory. The gods have to atone
for their medical past in order to regain a place in the holy
order approved of by the later priests. These priests moreover
leave nothing vague about the need felt for censuring them. It
follows clearly from their hierarchical aspirations. Medical
practice demand of the ancient ASvins far more commitment to
democratic values than can possibly be tolerated by the social
norm which the priests are so anxious to validate. Bloomfield
is about the only modern scholar to note this point. As he
puts it, medicine is condemned in the Yajurveda because “the
practice entails promiscuous, unaristocratic mingling with
men” ’®i
Accordingly, the Yajurveda formulates the rule in so many
words that a Brahmin must never practise medicine. If
therefore the later law-givers have any Vedic sanction for thier
condemnation of the physicians and their science, it is to be
found in the Yajurveda. But the point is that the Yajurveda
itself has to flout the more ancient Vedic values for the new

1 0], Bloomfield SBB xlii. intro p. xl.

31
Indological Truths
purpose of condemning the physicians. In short, compared to
the ancient times, the priests have a different ideological temper
altogether. This temper proves inimical to medicine, i. e. to the
ancient discipline with the greatest science-potentials because of
its commitment to certain values found irreconcilable with the
hierarchical norm.
Of the two main versions of the Yajurveda —viz. the White
Yajurveda and Black Y ajurveda-the second one is preserved
for us in a number of recensions. One of these is called the
T aittinya-sam hitd. We shall quote this first, because the priestly
contempt for medicine and its practitioners is very clearly
expressed in it. The context in which it is expressed is an
apparently peculiar legend, according to which ya jn a or the
sacrificial ritual was itself once in need of medical attention,
because “ its head was cut.” The legend occurs also elsewhere
in the Vedic literature and some of the modern scholars have
tried to discuss its possible s i g n i f i c a n c e . More important for
our purpose than this legend is the sacrificial formulas in the
context of which the Taittiriya-sam hita, reiterates this legend.
As one of these sacrificial formulas, the text’°^ quotes a scrap
of a Rgvedic verse'°‘* though, a Keith'°^ shows, in a somewhat
corrupt form. It invokes the ASvins ; “ ... Oh ASvins, come
hither to drink this soma". The Yajurveda prescribes that
this Rgvedic scrap is to be recited as an appropriate incantatioi^
at a certain stage of performing the Soma sacrifice. But the
texts of the Black Yajurveda give us not merely sacrificial
incantations or formulas; to these are also added explanatory
comments, which eventually become the special theme of the
B rahm am texts. As an explanatory comment like this on the
ritual use of the Rgvedic scrap, what the Taittiriya-sam hita says
is startling. In rough rendering, it is as follows :

“ The head of the sacrifice was cut.

The gods said to the Asvins : ‘You are the physicians. Repair

102. Sat. Br. xiv. l.l.S .ff. Cf. Muir OST iv. 124.
103. Tait S a m A A .l. 104. i.22.i. 105. Keitli VBYS i. 54n.

Indological Truths
 (replace) the head of the sacrifice.’ (The ASvins seem to
bargain for the medical service requisitioned.)
They replied, ‘Let us choose a boon. Let there be a liba­
tion for us also herein’. (The implication evidently is that
in this Soma sacrifice the ASvins are normally supposed
to be denied of any share.)
(The gods agreed to this.) They drew this libation for
them—for the A§vins.
Then indeed did they (the Alvins) repair the head of the
sacrifice. In that (the libation) for the ASvins is draw n;
(it is) to restore the sacrifice.
The gods said of these two : ‘Impure are they, wandering
among men as physicians.’
Therefore, a Brahmin must not practise medicine, for the
physician is impure—unfit for the sacrifice.
Having purified them (the ASvins) by the Bahispavamana
(stotra ), they drew for them this libation for the ASvins.
Therefore, the libation for the Alvins is drawn when (the
purifying) Bahispavamana (stotra) has been sung. Therefore,
by one who knows thus the Bahispavamana should be
perform ed; verily he purifies himself.” ‘ ®®

Let us first try to be clear about the implications of

this remarkable passage.
It is of the nature of a didactic or theological discourse
on the ritual use of a morsel of a Rgvedic text. Read
in its actual context, it gives us the obvious impression of
a simple and unqualified admiration for the A§vins, which
is characteristic of all the Rgvedic hymns mentioning them.
But the theological discourse of the Taittiriya-sam hitd pro­
poses to amend it. The reason for this proposed amendment
is not that the ASvins suffer any loss of their wonderful
medical skill ; the real reason on the contrary is that they
are supposed to retain it. In other words, in the later priestly
view, the A§vins remain excellent physicians—so excellent
indeed that the gods have to approach them for healing

Indological Truths
the injured yajna. In this, the later priestly view continues
to be the same as that of the ancient poets or “ seers” of
the Rgveda. Where the priestly view breaks away from the
older one is another point. There is obviously something
wrong—something polluting—about the ASvins, because of
which they do not normally qualify themselves to receive
the sacrificial share, as do the other gods. In the priestly
way of thinking, bargaining is the most normal thing to do.
In accordance with this, in the priestly theology the ASvins
are made to make a bargain, flouting again the Rgvedic spirit
in which they cure the sick, moved only by the compassion
and love for all. In the T aittiriya-sam hita, the ASvins
agree to render the medical service only on condition of
being allowed a sacrificial portion. The other gods have
to agree to this, though with some obvious reluctance. They
are allowed the sacrificial share only after undergoing some
process of ritual purification, i. e. after what the text calls
purification by the Bahispavamana-stotra.
But what exactly is so wrong about these two ancient
gods, so that they can be entitled to the normal status of
the other gods only after being properly purified ? This
question is crucial for our present discussion. So also it
is for the Yajurveda priests, who want to leave nothing vague
about their answer to it.
The text says,
“ The gods said of these two : Impure are they, wandering
among men as physicians”—tau deva abruvan, aputau vd imau
manusyacarau bhisajau iti.
To remove any possible uncertainty about the priestly norm,
the text adds,
“ The physician is impure, unfit for sacrifice. Therefore, a
Brahmin must not practise medicine” : tasm at brahrnanena
bhesajam na karyam . aputah hi esah amedhyah yah bhisak.

8. OTHER RECENSIONS OF BLACK YAJURVEDA

The other recensions in which the Black Yajurveda survives for

Indological Truths
US are called the K dthaka-sam hita, K apisthala-katha-sam hitd
and the M aitrayan i-sam kita. These also tell practically the same
legend of purifying the doctor-gods, enabling us to see that
the legend itself is a persistent theme of the Black Yajurveda.
The K athaka-sam hitd says, “The head of the sacrifice has
been cut. The Alvins who did not drink soma were the doc­
tors of the gods. The gods said to them, ‘You are doctors ;
put back the head of the sacrifice’. They replied, ‘Let us
demand a boon : that we may drink som a among the gods,
that the libation be drawn for us also. The gods, having purified
them by the Bahispavamana-stctra, drew the libation for them
(and made them) the pure ones, the ones worthy of sacrifice.
Thus it is that after the Bahispavamana has been recited, that
the libation for the Alvins is drawn’.*®^
The K apisthala-katha-sam hitd repeats the passage only with
minor verbal variations. 1 ®7
The M aitrdyanl-sam hitd says, '“The head of the sacrifice has
been cut. For him the gods searched an expiation. The
ASvins, who did not partake of som a, were the doctors of the
gods. They ran to these two, as people rush to the doctors,
and said, ‘Put back the head of the sacrifice.’ They replied,
‘(We shall do it provided) we should also have a share in the
same.’ ‘Select’, said the gods. They said ‘That libation be
drawn for us that we may be entitled to soma drinking. The
ASvins then put back the head. The gods having purified them
by the Bahispavamana-stotra, drew the libation for them, who
had become pure and worthy of sacrifice. Thus it is that after
the Bahispavamana has been recited that the libation for the
ASvins are drawn.” i®®
Among the texts quoted, only the T aittiriya-scm hitd speci­
fies the actual reason for the- impurity of the A§vins. Their
medical career obliges them to move about among people,
which, from the priestly viewpoint, causes impurity. Hence
the text explicitly prohibits medical practice for the Brahmins.
The other recensions of the Black Yajurveda do not tell this in

107. Kafhaka Sam. xxvii.4. 108. Filliozat 20n.

109. Mait. Sani iv.6.2.

Indological Truths
SO many words. But these do not even hint at any other
ground for the alleged impurity of the ASvins. Hence the
presumption is that these other texts take it for granted that
the Alvins are impure because they are doctors, and the doctors
are impure because medicine commits them to the democratic
practice of mingling with the common people. Bloomfield
argues that this point is suggested also by the M a itra ya n i
-sam hitd when it says, “ as men run to the physicians” : ya th d
bhisajam upadhdvanti. *^®
This, Bloomfield continues,^*’ seems to be corroborated by
the later legal literature, which grows out of the priestly one.
Contact with the masses in any form is detested in the law-
codes. Even ritual undertaking on behalf of the masses is
prohibited by the law-givers. In the. funeral rite, declares
Gautama, “ Let him not feed a thief, a eunuch, an outcast,
an atheist, a person who lives like an atheist, .......a person
who sacrifices for women or a multitude of men.” *^ ® Manu
declares, “ Let him not entertain at a sraddh a...th ose who
sacrifice for a multitude {pugayajniyah=^yepugan yajayan ti)”
The same law-giver adds, “ A Brahmin must never eat at a
sacrifice that is offered by.......one who sacrifices for a multi­
tude o f men {g ra m a ya jik rte).” ^^^ Visnu declares that one must
not invite to a sraddha “ those who sacrifice for a multitude of
persons.” "^

9. THE TRADITION OF WHITE Y AJURVEDA : SATAPATHA

BR A H M A N A

The White Yajurveda contains • only m a n tra s or sacrificial

formulas, without any theological discourse on these in prose.
The theological discourses are added to. it in the form of sepa­
rate Brdhmana texts. The most important of such texts

110. Bloomfield SBE xlii, intro, p. xl. II I. /6. p. xl. note.

112. Gautama XV. 16. 113. Manu iii, 151.
114. Manu iv. 205. 115. Visnu Ixxxii. 12.

Indological Truths
appended to the White Yajurveda is the Satapatha Brahm am .
We can therefore take it as representing the true tradition of
the White Yajurveda.
The Satapatha Brahmana also tells us of the degradation of
the physician-gods, though adding to the discourse on it a more
complicated legendary context. To the “ loss of the head of
sacrifice” it adds with greater prominence and some erotic touch
the Rgvedic legend of the A§vins restoring youth to Cyavana“ ®.
But the essential point so clearly expressed in the T a ittiriya-
sam hita is retained in the Satapatha Brahmana ; the Alvins are
degraded for their medical career, because this career made them
committed to indiscriminate association with all sorts of peoples.
The passage of the Satapatha Brahmana, though lengthy,
has its own interest and may be quoted here in full :

“ Now when the Bhrgus, or the AngiraS; attained the heavenly

world, Cyavana, the Bhargava, or Cyavana the Angirasa, was
left behind here (on earth), decrepit and ghostlike.
“ But Saryata, the Manava, just then wandered about here with
his tribe, and settled near by that same place. His boys, while
playing, setting that decrepit, ghostlike man at nought, pelted
him with clods. He was wroth with Saryatas, and sowed
discord among them; father fought with son, and brother with
brother.
“ Saryata then bethought him,—‘This has come to pass for
something or other I have done !’ He caused the cowherds and
shepherds to be called together, and said—
“ He said, ‘Which of you has seen anything here this day ?’—
They said, ‘Yonder lies a man, decrepit and ghostlike; him the
boys have pelted with clods, setting him at nought.’ Then
iSaryata knew that this was Cyavana.
“ He yoked his chariot, and putting his daughter Sukanya
thereon, he set forth, and came to the place where the r s i (sage)
was.
“ He said, ‘Reverence be to thee, O r s i ; because I knew thee
not, therefore have I offended thee; here is Sukanya, with her

Indological Truths
 I make atonement to thee : let my tribe live at peace together !’
And from that same time his tribe lived at peace together. But
Saryata, the Manava, departed forthwith, lest he should offend
him a second time.
“ Now the A§vins then wandered about here on earth performing
cures. They came to Sukanya and desired to win her love; but
she consented not thereto.
“ They said, ‘Sukanya, what a decrepit, ghostlike man is that
whom thou liest with; come and follow us !’ She said, ‘To
whom my father has given me, him will I not abandon, as long
as he lives !’ But the r.si was aware of this.
“ He said, ‘Sukanya, what have those two said to thee ?’ She
told him all; and, when she had told him, he said, ‘If they
speak to thee thus again, say thou to them. “ But surely ye are
neither quite complete nor quite perfect, and 3 et ye deride my
husband!” and if they say to thee, “ In what respect are we
incomplete, in what respect imperfect ?” say thou to them,
“ Nay, make ye my husband young again, and I will tell you !”
“ They came again to her, and said to her the same thing.
“ She said, ‘But surely ye are neither quite complete nor quite
perfect, and yet ye deride my husband !’ They said, ‘In what
respect are we incomplete, in what respect imperfect ?’ She said,
‘Nay, make ye my husband young again, and I will tell you !’
“ They said, ‘Take him down to yonder pool, and he shall come
forth with whatever age he shall desire !’ She took him down
to that pool, and he come forth with the age he desired.
“ They said, ‘Sukanya, in what respect are we incomplete, in
what respect imperfect ?’ The r.si himself answered them,—
‘In Kuruksetra yonder the gods perform a sacrifice and exclude
you two from it; in that respect ye are incomplete, in that
respect im perfect!’ And the Alvins departed forthwith, and
came to the gods as they were performing a sacrifice, after the
chanting of the Bhaispavamana.
‘They said, ‘Invite us thereto !’ The gods said, ‘We will not
invite you : ye have wandered and mixed much among men,
performing cures.’
“ They said, ‘But surely ye worship with a headless sacrifice !’—
‘How with a headless (sacrifice) T —‘Nay, invite us, and we will

Indological Truths
tel] you !’ —‘So be i t !’ so they invited them. They drew this
ASvin cup for them; and those two became the Adhvaryu
priests of the sacrifice, and restored the head of the sacrifice...
—Hence this libation is drawn after the chanting of the
Bahispavamana, because it was after the chanting of the
Bahispavamana that they arrived.”“ ^

10. A SVIN S IN THE M AHABHARATA

In the Anugasana-parva of the M ahdbharata we read another

version of the old legend of Cyavana and the ASvins. Its
special interest consists in working out the intensity of the
contempt for the Alvins.
Here is a brief summary of the M ahabharata legend ;

In ancient times, the great sage Cyavana—evidently pleased with

the medical service received—promised to make the Agvins
entitled to Soma drinking. So he approached Indra, the lord
among the gods, and said : ‘Oh lord of gods, please permit the
ASvins to drink Soma in the company of the other gods’.
To this Indra replied, ‘Oh venerable one, these two gods
are outcasts for us and for us they are most degraded. There­
fore, we can never drink Soma in their company. The request
you have made is most undesirable. I shall certainly comply
with any other request of yours.’
Cyavana said, ‘Oh lord of gods, these two are but the
sons of the Sun. Hence, (from the point of view of the nobility
of their birth), they are surely entitled to drink Soma in your
company. So agree to what I ask for ; that will make you
happy. If, on the other hand, you disobey me, there would
be no end to your danger.’
Indra said, ‘Oh great sage, I shall never drink Soma in the
company of the ASvins, even though the other gods agree to
this.’

Indological Truths
 Cyavana then said; ‘Oh lord of gods, if you do not easily
listen to what I say, I shall this very day torture you and
thereby coerce you to drink the sacrificial Soma in the company
of the ASvins.’
Saying this, Cyavana immediately started performing a ritual
for the benefit of the Alvins, and with charms and incantations
he overpowered the gods. This made Indra mad with anger ;
with a huge rock on hand and his thunderbolt raised, he rushed
at the sage Cyavana. Cyavana—the greatest among the
ascetics—sprinkled some charmed water at him, which imme­
diately immobilised Indra with his rock and thunderbolt. He
also created, with his incantations and oblations, a terrible
monster called Mada, which was about to swallow Indra and
other gods, like a huge whale swallowing up the fishes.
Such a grave danger being created for the gods, they collec­
tively addressed Indra : ‘Oh lord, we have all decided to drink
Soma in company of the Alvins. Forget about your reluctance
to it and bow down before Cyavana to pacify hirii.’ Thus
urged by the other gods, their lord, Indra fell at the feet of
Cyavana and agreed to the demand of the latter.
In this way, Cyavana forced Indra to allow the Asvins to
drink Soma in the company of the other gods. He relegated
the monster Mada to gambling, boozing and womanising.” *

The narrator of the M ahabharata legend does not tell us

why, in spite of their noble birth, the ASvins are considered
so degraded by the other gods, specially by their lord Indra.
Apparently he takes it for granted that the reason for this is
too well-known to be repeated.

11. CONCEALING THE COUNTER-IDEOLOGY : COBWEBS

OF PEDANTRY

To sum up the discussion so far :

The counter-ideology taking shape from the Yajurveda

Indological Truths
 onwards breaks away violently from the inspired poetry of the
R gveda and, in its zeal to keep the masses under control, finds
itself compelled to censure even some of the noblest Vedic gods,
whose healing career was characterised by an unaristrocratic
mingling with the common people. All this is clearly and
categorically explained by the Taittiriya-sam hitd and the
Satapatha Brahmana, the crucial passages of which may be
reiterated.
The Taittiriya-sam hita says, “ The gods said of these ' two
(Alvins) : Impure are they, wandering among men as physicians.
The physician is impure, unfit for sacrifice. Therefore a Brah­
min must not practise medicine.” The Satapatha Brahmana
repeats, “The gods said to the ASvins : We will not invite you ;
you have wandered and mixed much among men, performing
cure.”
All this is mythology no doubt. But this is mythology with
the most devastating implication for positive science, because
it provides scriptural sanction to the hostility to science of the
Indian law-givers.

In spite of this, some of the modern scholars like to imagine

that the subsequent development of Indian medicine maintained
continuity with the Vedic tradition. It proves specially unfor­
tunate for the understanding of ancient Indian history when
such scholars include Indologists of real eminence. One of
them is Filliozat, before criticising whom one cannot but
hesitate. But the criticism is not avoidable, because his zeal to
trace the origin of the classical doctrine of Indian medicine to
the Vedic tradition has the disastrous result of virtual denial of
such doctrine and the substitution of it by some second-rate
mythological cosmogony already discarded in the Caraka-
sam hita. Before passing on to see this, it is necessary to note
another point. As a precondition for this substitution, Filliozat
finds it necessary to invent some tortuous interpretation of the
Yajurvedic evidence so clearly condemning the physicians and
their healing practice. The passage of the Taittiriya-sam hita
censuring the doctors, he argues, is rather to be understood
as the simple expression of sectarian differences among the

Indological Truths
schools of Yajurvedic priests themselves. Let us first see how
he attempts this.
“ The name of Caraka” , says Filliozat, “ is an old one.
It is that of a school of the Black Yajurveda, the Caraka-Sakha,
which consists of, besides other subdivisions, those whose
sam hita-s have reached us in a more or less complete form
under the names of K a th a k a , K apisthala-katha-sam hita and
M aitrayanl-sam hita. This school is opposed to that of the
Taittirlyas, which has given us the T aittiriya-sam hita, and for
stronger reasons, to the schools of White Yajurveda repre­
sented by the V ajasaneyl-sam hita. The scholars of the
White Yajurveda and the Taittiriyas often blame the
Carakas.” ” ^ Hence, argues Filliozat, the passage of the
T aittiriya-sam hita under discussion ‘‘could be interpreted as
covering under the same reprobation the Carakas and the
Doctors.'’^^°
Something is obviously very strange about the entire argu­
ment. N ot that there is no school of Yajurvedic priests
usually referred to as the Caraka-adhvaryus. But, as we shall
presently see, the reading of any reference to them in the
passage of the Taittiriya-sam hita is completely unwarranted.
Besides, even admitting any reference like this, why should
the passage cover under the same reprobation the Caraka-
adhvaryus and the doctors, unless there is any connection
between the two ? The minimum onus for the thesis is thus
the establishment of such a connection. Filliozat makes no
efifort whatsoever to do it. He simply exploits instead the
association of the word caraka with the medical compilation,
without trying to be clear about its possible significance.
Moreover, the obvious question remains : why should the
Taittiriya-sarnhita drag in the ASvins and pronounce impurity
on them, if its main purpose is to censure the rival priests
called Caraka-adhvaryus ? It needs to be noted that this
censuring of the ASvins is a persistent theme of the entire
Yajurvedic tradition that comes down to us : it is expressed also
in the texts which, according to Filliozat, belong to the Caraka-

Indological Truths
adhvaryus themselves—the K a th aka, K apisthala-katha-sam hita
and M aitrayan l samhita.
Filliozat’s solution of all these problems is quite simple. He
observes, “ The different sam hita-s are thus unanimous in admitting
the impurity of the Alvins who are not jowa-drinkers originally,
although as says the Rgveda, ‘the drinkers of nectar’ (madhupa :
1.180.2). But the T aittiriya-sam hita goes a step further than
the rest; it vilifies the doctor and says that the ASvins are impure
like the ‘doctors roving among men.’ Certainly the promiscuity
with human beings places them below the gods, but the term
employed to say that they are ‘roving’, cara, is a synonym of
the name of the Carakas, and one may believe that the
Taittiraiyas have fired a passing shot at the rival school of
Carakas, who have not inserted anything similar in their
samhita-s.”^^^
This is but a cobweb of pedantry fabricated with tissues of
oblique hints. We could have ignored it if it did not amount to
concealing the fact of the first hostility to medicine as the
necessary outcome of the counter-ideology taking shape in the
priestly corporations. The story of intra-priestly rivalry which
Filliozat wants us to see in the Yajurvedic passages is only an
academic trick intended to distract our attention from this fact.
In order not to be deceived by it, we have to examine it in
some detail.
The other texts of the Black Yajurveda, Filliozat agrees,
censure the ASvins, as does the T aittiriya-sam hita. But though
this is done in terms of the same legends and ritual formalities,
the actual reason for it is not the same as explained in so many
words in the Taittiriya-sam hita. On the contrary, there is some­
thing about the ASvins in the more ancient Vedic tradition
which justifies the main points on which all the versions of the
Yajurveda are agreed. First, the A§vins are not jowa-drinkers
even in the Rgveda. Secondly, their promiscuity with human
beings places them below the other gods. Along with the texts of
the Caraka-adhvaryus, the Taittiriya-sarnhitd continues the
ancient Vedic tradition. Where the Taittiriya-sam hita differs

Indological Truths
 from these other texts is to pronounce some passing aspersion
on the Caraka-adhvaryus, and this is proved by the use of the
word cam , an equivalent of Caraka.
Let us first examine the grounds for the alleged continuity of
the basic Yajurvedic tradition with the Rgvedic one.
The priestly way of censuring the ASvins is to say that they
are not entitled to sowa, as the other gods normally are. But
Filliozat wants us to believe that it will be wrong to see in this
any changed attitude to the ASvins, because the Alvins are not
originally sowa-drinkers inasmuch as in the Rgveda also they
are described instead as drinkers of madhu. This, if true, estab­
lishes some continuity between the Rgvedic tradition and the
Yajurvedic legends. But this is not true. Not that the Rgvedic
mythology does not connect the ASvins with madhu or honey;*^^
but this is not done by excluding them from the normal company
of the other gods delighting in soma. Only a few passages of
the Rgveda in rough rendering are enough to show how much of
suppression of direct evidences is required by the oblique hint
on which Filliozat hopes to build up his thesis. In a hymn
addressed to the Alvins in the Rgveda, we read :
“ Oh A§vins, along with Usas and Surya, drink soma in the
company of Agni, Indra, Yaruna, Visnu, the Adityas, Rudras and
Yasus. Mighty A§%ins. drink soma with the intelligent, with
all creation, with heaven, with earth, with mountains, with Usas
and Siirya. Oh ASvins, drink jo/wa with the thirtythree gods,
be the partakers in this rite, along with the Maruts and Bhrgus,
with Usas and Siirya ... Oh divine ASvins, come to the effused
som a like a pair of haridravas (bird with yellow-coloured plumes)
plunging into water or like a pair of buffaloes plunging into
water. Do come with Usas and Surya from the three directions.
Oh A§vins, come down—with Usas and Siirya—to soma
from three directions, like a pair of geese, like a pair of
travellers, like a pair of buffaloes rushing to water ...” ^23
The hymn is a long one. Its most prominent theme is the
invitation of the ASvins to drink soma in the company of
other renowned Yedic gods. In another hymn, the poet sings,

Indological Truths
“ Oh ASvins, your old friendship with us is so desirable and
beneficial ! Oh the two leaders, you have wealth in Janhu.
Receiving your friendship over and over again, we have become
equal to you two. We are going soon to please you with exhila­
rating soma. Oh the ever-young ASvins endowed with power,
completely uncontaminated by untruth, unwearied, munificent,
acceptors of libations, with Vayu and your steeds, drink and
rejoice together the som a libation offered at the close of the day.
Oh Alvins, profuse libations are moving towards you, you are
being praised and served by skilful singers. ... Oh ASvins, the
sweetest soma is mixed for you, drink it and come to our
dwellings; your car—bestowing wealth all the time—is coming to
the place of the offerer of the libation.” *^'*
More evidences from the Rgveda are not necessary. It is
already obvious that Filliozat’s claim that the ASvins are
originally not sowa-drinkers is fictitious. When therefore the
Yajurveda says that they are not normally (i. e. without being
purified) entitled to soma, it does break away with the more
ancient Vedic tradition.
Equally fictitious is the other point of Fiiliozat with which
he tries to establish continuity of the Yajurvedic view with the
earlier Vedic tradition. “ Certainly, the promiscuity with human
beings places them (the ASvins) below the gods.” This, as we
have seen, is true of the Yajurvedic view. But this, it is
essential for us to note, also means a violent departure from
the mythological imagination of the early poets, in which the
gods are not so much deified as to shun the company of the
ordinary human beings. In the ancient Vedic thought, in other
words, promiscuity with the human beings—far from being a
mark of the degradation of the gods—is in fact supposed to be
one of the characteristic traits of the nobler gods. In fact, in
the dim antiquity of Rgvedic poetry, the very difference
between man and god is yet to take a clearly defined form. We
shall mention here just a few examples.
Indra is invoked simply as man : “ I invoke Indra, the man
(naram); who fulfils the desires of many from his ancient dwe-

Indological Truths
llings, in the same way in which my ancestors did in the
past.” *®® Agni is said to be nryatsakha sabhavan —a friend of
the most human type and a member of the tribal assembly.*®*
Indra and Agni knew the ancient sages Kanva, Atri, Manu,
"who were skilled and who had abode among the gods.” *®’
The ancient sages sat in joyful company with the gods and with
true spells generated Usas.*®® Indra is praised as the chief
among men {nrtam ah) and one who shares out wealth along
with other human beings {nrbhih sakaih)^^^ Agni is add­
ressed as the chief human being among the human beings
{nrnam nrtamah),^^o or simply the chief among men {nrnam
nrpate),^^^ the best of men (nrtamah).'^^^ He is invoked to
produce—like human beings (n rv a t )—food in large quantity
among human beings ( n r n a m ) . Like human beings, he
gives wealth and cattle to us, to our sons and our grandsons.**^
M itra and Varuna are invoked to come and join som a drinking
in the company of human beings.*® ® “ May Indra and Visnu,
like human beings, give us house.” * Indra is praised as the
best man among human beings (nrnam nrtamam).^^'' Accom­
panied by other human beings he wins battles’^* and in their
company he eats good food.*^® He is the bravest among
human beings (nrnom viratarna).^^° As foremost among men
(n^nam nrjam a), he destroys enemies in battle-fields.*"** “ We
shall prepare som a for Indra, who is the leader of all works
beneficial for human beings and who is the best man among
men (nare naryaya nrtam aya nr^nam).^'^^ As the chief of men,
Indra rends asunder the clouds and causes showers. As the
chief of human beings again he has dwellings similar to those
of other human beings (manusanam sarn okah nrtamah).^'**
And so on. Hundreds of examples like these may without

125. Ib. i.30.9. 126. Ib. iv.2.5. 127. Ib. i.139.9.

128. Ib. vii.76.4. 129. Ib. iv .1 7 .ll. 130. Ib. i-77.4.
131. 76. ii.1.1. 132. /* . v.4.6 ; iii.1.12 ; iv.5.2. 133. 76. v.18.5.
134. Ib. vi.1.12. 135. Ib. i.137.3. 136. Ib. iv.55.4.
137. 76. iii.5 1 .4 c .f.iv .l6 .4 ; vii.19.10. 138. 76. i.178.3.
139. Ib. i.178.4. 140. Ib. iii.52.8 141. Ib. iv.33.3.
142. 76. iv.25.4. 143. 76. iv.22.2. 144. 76. vi. 18.7.

Indological Truths
 difficulty be cited from the Rgveda}*^ In the early Vedic
mythology, promiscuity with human beings is yet to become a
ground for placing some god below the others. In spite of
Filliozat, therefore, there is no way to ignore the fact that
this becomes a ground for degrading the gods only from the
days of Yajurveda. If some of the other mighty gods of the
Rgveda are spared such degradation in the priestly view, the
ancient Alvins do not escape it. They are physicians after all,
and as physicians they remain necessarily committed to the
norm of “indiscriminate, unaristocratic mingling with men.”
From the standpoint of hierarchical aspirations it is obligatory
for the Yajurvedic priests to censure them. It is because of
this—and not because of the imaginary argument of Filliozat
—that all the versions in which the Yajurvedic tradition reaches
us are agreed on the degradation of the ASvins.
But, argues Filliozat, the passage of the Taittiriya-sam hita
which makes all this abundantly clear, is to be interpreted to
yield an altogether different meaning. It is to be understood
simply as the expression of some intra-priestly sectarianism
f —the priests of the Taittiriyi^ school censuring the rival school
of the Caraka-adhvaryus. Siich a thesis, as is only to be ex­
pected, is built up on questioiiable Vedic interpretation aided
by fiction.
First, the assumption that the school of Taittirlya priests
was basically opposed to that of the Carakas or Caraka-adh­
varyus cannot be as smooth as Filliozat wants us to accept.
There is a tradition recorded in the P ratijn a-su tra according to
which the name Caraka in the priestly sense is applicable to all
the schools of Black Yajurveda—a tradition to which Weber
wants fully to subscribe.*"*® If there is anything in this tradi­
tion, the Caraka-adhvaryus include also the Taittiriyas, who,
Filliozat says, “ have fired a passing shot at the rival school of
the Carakas.” In any case, modern Vedic scholarship is yet
to be sure about the real identification of the Caraka priests or
Caraka-adhvaryus. This much alone seems to be unques-
145. Chattopadhyaya L 534 if.
146. Eggeling in SBE xii. intro, p. xxvi note ; Keith VBYS intro, p. xc.
147. Keith VBYS inlro. p. xc.

Indological Truths
tionable that the Vajasaneya school of White Yajurveda—i.e.
the school whose theological manual p a r excellence is the
Satapatha Brahmana —often strongly differs from the Caraka
priests or Caraka-adhvaryus. But this difference has abso­
lutely nothing to do with the question of medical practice or
with that of the status of the ASvins. As is evident from the
Satapatha Brahmana, the Vajasaneya and Caraka priests differ
from each other in matters of ritual trivialities. Here are some
examples of the questions on which the two schools of priests
very sharply differ. Is clotted ghee or omentum to be first
poured on the ritual fire What exactly is the incantation
to be chanted at the time of performing a particular ritual
act What precisely should be the mode of dividing a
libation Which animal is to be slaughtered for a deity
What should be the way of laying bricks for building the sacri­
ficial alter And so on. Though the priests want to make
these questions look momentous, these cannot have a great
deal of significance for us today. Further, what is immediately
relevant for our present discussion is that nowhere in the course
of explaining such differences is there any remote hint of medical
practice. It is therefore only on the strength of the association of
the medical compilation with the word caraka that FilMozat
creates confusion about the passage of the' Taittiriya-sc^rnhita.
His argument boils down to this : Since in this passage th^re is a
disparaging mention of medical practice and since the medical
tradition is associated with the word caraka, we are supposed
to see in this passage a disparaging reference also to the
Caraka-adhvaryus. This is not the way of interpreting a Vedic
passage.
First, there is no reference whatsoever to the Caraka-
adhvaryus in the Taittiriya passage under consideration. What
we have in it is only the expression manusya-carau —“ the two,
wandering among men”—not connected at all with any rival
priestly school but simply describing the Alvins as healers.
It is impermissible to propose that manusya-carau is to be

J48. Sat. Br. iii.8.2.24-S. 149. Ib. ivl .2.19 f. 150. lb. iv.2.3.15
151 Ib. vi.2.2.1 f 152, Ib. viii.i.3.7.

Indological Truths
 interpreted as referring either to the Caraka-adhvaryus or to the
medical compilation called the Caraka-sam hita. The Rgveda,
for example, frequently uses the word and so is the
famous passage of the A itareya Brahmana in which SunahSepa
is advised : caraiveti caraiveti. “ Do thou wander. Do thou
wander.” * If the mere descriptive eqithet of the Alvins, viz.
“ the two wandering among men” , justifies seeing the Caraka-
adhvaryus as well as Caraka-physicians in the Taittiriya passage
under consideration, what prevents one to see the same also in
the Rgveda and more specially in this famous passage of the
A itareya Brahmana ?
Secondly, nowhere in this book Filliozat has given any
evidence indicating any connection—direct or remote—between
the Caraka-adhvaryus and the physicians. The reason for this
is quite simple. There is no evidence like that. The fact on
the contrary is that the Satapatha Brahmana, which among the
Vedic texts is the best source of our information about the
Caraka-adhvaryus,!®® nowhere suggests any interest taken in
medical matters by these Yajurvedic priests. What then is the
worth of Filliozat’s thesis that the passage of the Taittirlya-
sam hita, while having the primary purpose of censuring the
Caraka-adhvaryus, chooses also to censure the doctors ? The
plain meaning of the text, on the contrary, is abundantly clear.
The purpose of the passage is only to censure the doctors and it
has nothing to do with the Caraka-adhvaryus. However, since
the ASvins have the greatest medical reputation in the Vedic tradi­
tion, the passage has to censure also the Alvins. Moreover, as
this adverse view of the doctors is the outcome of the priestly ideo­
logy as such, all the schools of Yajurvedic priests are fully agreed
on it, notwithstanding some sectarian rivalry among themselves.
The K athaka-sarnhita and M aitrayani-sarnhita of the Black
Yajurveda—which, according to Filliozat embody the tradition
of the Caraka-adhvaryus—thus tell us the same legend about
the same impurity of the ASvins. Where the Taittiriya-sarnhita

153. i.10.3; i.91.19 ; i.114.3 ; i.187.3 ; vii.31.10 ; vii.46.2 etc. etc.

154. A it.B r. vii.l4. 155. SBE xxvi. 197 ff ; 262 ff ; 297 ff ; 406 n ;
xli. 171 ; 175 ; xliii. 15 ; 129 ; 131 ; xliv. 416.

Indological Truths
and Satapatha Brahmana differ from these other texts is the
clarification of the real cause of this impurity, namely the medi­
cal career of these Vedic gods. There is surely no ground to
imagine that the impurity of the Alvins assumed in the other
texts of Black Yajurveda is due to some other unexplained
ground, specially because medical career is an absolutely inse­
parable feature of the ASvins in Vedic mythology.
Thirdly, that the grand medical compilation acquires the
name Caraka-sam hitd indicates no doubt that sometime in
ancient Indian history, the word caraka becomes specially
associated with Indian medicine, or, perhaps more strictly, with
the particular school of Indian medicine represented by this
compilation. But when and how the word acquires this
association is not known to us with any reasonable assurance
and the assumption that already in the age of the Yajurveda
Caraka means the Doctor is unfounded. More absurd is the
claim that the simple epithet manusya-carau— ‘the two roving
among men’—describing the Alvins is reminiscent both of the
Caraka school of priests and the Cajraka school of doctors,
because it contains the word carau. Even the B r.hadaranyaka
Upanisad, appended to the Satapatha Brahmana, does not
insist on necessarily seeing any sect in the use of the word
caraka. In this text, a priest-philosopher says, m adresu carakah
paryavrajam a: “ while we were travelling around as wanderers
anong the M adras/’^^* The evidence of the Caraka-adhvaryus
specially of the Satapatha Brahmana indicates no doubt that
already in the ancient period Caraka tends to become a sect-
name of some Yajurvedic priests. But there must have been
many wandering sects in ancient India of which the Caraka-
adhvaryus were only one. The Jaina canonical work Sutra-
k rta h g a refers to the theoretical position of one of the ancient
Caraka s c h o o l s . The Buddhist work Saddharma-pundarika
also speaks of the Carakas along with the Parivrajakas.
Ajivakas, Nirgranthas, Lokayata-mantradharakas and Lokaya-
tikas.'^* Other references to some ancient wandering sects

156. Br. Up. ni.3.1. 157, SBE xlv. 237 & note,
158. S B E xxi. 263.

Indological Truths
mentioned as Carakas are to be found in Rhys Davids’ Indian
Sects or Schools in the Time o f the Buddha^^^ and C. Bendall’s
observations on it.'*° But all these are references to religious
mendicants, not to be confused either with the Caraka-adhvaryus
or Caraka-physicians. Besides, there may be some ground to
think that the association of the physicians with the word
Caraka becomes firmly fixed sometime after the Buddha. As
we shall presently see, the system of rationalist medicine of the
Caraka-sam hitd seems to be known to the Vinaya-pitaka,
which, however, is peculiarly silent about the word. Whatever
may be the historical significance of this, Filliozat’s attempt to
discover in the simple epithet manusya-carau a reference to both
the Caraka-adhvaryus and Caraka-physicians is not acceptable.
We felt obliged to examine Filliozat’s interpretation of the
Yajurvedic evidences at some length in order only to show how
he wants virtually to remove from ancient Indian history by
far the most serious clue to the damnation of the doctors by
the law-givers. As is only to be expected, in his account of the
history of Indian medicine the prolonged condemnation of the
physicians by the law-givers deserves no more than a cursory
mention in an obscure foot-note. The foot-note reads : “ The
notion of the impurity of doctors has remained a classic thing,
c.f. Manu iii. 180, iv.212, although the prohibition ordained
by the Taittiriya-sam hita to the Brahmin against his practising
medicine, has not had the force of law.” '®* This, again, is
is a strange statement. The “ prohibition ordained by the
T aittiriya-sam hita” has actually the force of a super-law. It
provides the law-givers with direct scriptural sanction for
decreeing that the dvija-s —specially Brahmins—must not go in
for medicine. Its practice must remain restricted to those that
are base-born.

12. SCIENCE REPLACED BY MYTHOLOGICAL METAPHYSICS

Thus, his im posing scholarship notw ithstanding, the m ain drift

Indological Truths
of Filliozat’s argument has the tendency to conceal the fact that
with the growth of the hierarchical aspirations in the Vedic
tradition there takes shape an ideology that proves inimical to
medicine or ancient science in its most promising form. But
why is this concealment ? Filliozat assumes that the develop­
ment of the classical doctrine of Indian medicine maintains
smooth continuity with the ancient Vedic tradition, or more
properly with the hoary Indo-Aryan tradition. This assumption
eventually enables him to see very close parallel between medical
ideas of ancient India and ancient Greece. The most devasta­
ting result of the preoccupation with such a thesis seems to be
some kind of cultivated indifference to the real intellectual
achievements of the ancient Indian doctors and the replacement
of these by a primitive metaphysics incompletely emancipated
from mythology.
With a perfunctory account of what he chooses to consider
the “ essential Doctrines of the Ayurvedic texts” , for which
about six pages of the book are considered enough by himi®^
Filliozat passes on to discuss “ the pre-Aryan and Indo-Aryan
data on medicine” and “ the data of the Vedic samhita-s on
pathology, anatomy and physiology” —discussions covering
over one hundred and fifty pages of the book. Throughout
these discussions he wants to focus the attention on a proto­
metaphysics — slowly emerging from mythology — according
to which Wind or Vayu is the ultimate reality or perhaps the
great deity controlling everything. With sophisticated Indology
intended to establish the central importance of such a view in
early Vedic speculations, Filliozat passes on to prove that this
view forms also the essence of the classical doctrine of Indian
medicine, which has moreover a very close parallel in the medi­
cal view o f , ancient Greece. The passages extensively quoted
by us from the Caraka-samhita and Suiruta-sam hitd make such
a view prim a fa cie absurd. Filliozat has therefore to ignore all
these and search for some other textual evidence from the medi­
cal compilations to substantiate his own thesis. The evidence
he collects from the Caraka-sam hita in defence of this is unfor-

Indological Truths
tunately puerile. Aided by an equally puerile evidence from
the extant Hippocratic corpus, he proceeds to show the close
parallel between “Ayurvedic theory of Wind and Greek
pneumatism.” *®'*
The evidence of the Caraka-sam hita first. In a colloquium
described in it is discussed the question of vayu, which, as we
have already seen, is considered in Ayurveda as one of the
three important morbid matters causing various diseases. The
first four participants in the colloquium—Ku^a Sankrtyayana,
KumaraSira Bharadvaja, the Central Asian physician Kankayana
and BadiSa Dhamargava—discuss the question, remaining on
the whole within the general framework of Indian medicine.
But another participant, rajarsi Varyovida or ‘Varyovida the
royal sage’, finds all these inadequate. He wants to reiterate
the deified view of Air as a cosmic principle, with which we
are already familiar in the metaphysical speculations of the
Upanisads.*®® Therefore, after duly propitiating Vayu or
Wind (yayave n am askrjya), he delivers a longish discourse on
it. It would be tedius to quote his entire speech. We give here
some extracts from i t :
“ The Wind or Vayu is the upholder of both structure and
function in the body. It is the very soul of the five forms of
wind in the body, namely p r a m , udana, samana, vyana, and
apana. It is the impeller of upward and downward move­
ments, the controller and conductor of the mind ; the inspirer
of all the senses, the conveyer of all sense-stimuli, the mar-
shaller of the body-elements....... Wind is the sustaining prin­
ciple of all life. All these are functions of the peaceful con­
dition of Wind in the body.
“ When, however, Wind becomes wrathful within the body, it
afflicts the organism with diverse kinds or disorders, tending to
impair its strength, complexion, well-being and life...

164. lb . 196-228. To the evidence o i ih s Caraka-samhita, he also adds

passages from the Susruta-samhita and Bhela-samhita. These being
equally irrelevant for the theoretical plank o f Ayurveda, we pro­
pose to concentrate here only on the one from Caraka-samhita,
165. B r.U p . i.5.22-3 : iii.7.2 ; Ch. Up. ii.24.9 ; iii.16.2 ; iv.S .lff ;
Taitt. Up. i.5 3 ; 1.7 ; M ait. Up. vi.33 ; KauL Up. ii & iii etc.

Indological Truths
“ Of the Wind which is at large in the universe and is in its
peaceful condition, the following are the works—setting the
fire ablaze; governing the courses of the sun, moon, constella­
tions and planets...
“ Of the Wind moving in the universe in a wrathful condition,
the following are the works—the grinding down of the peaks of
mountains, the uprooting of the trees, the churning up of the
seas, the upsurging of the lakes, the reversing of the courses
of the rivers, the quaking of the earth...
“ He (Wind) is God, the Creator, the Everlasting One, the
Maker and Unmaker of all creatures, the Dispenser of happiness
and misery, the Death-god (Yama), the Ruler of the under­
world, the Controller, the Lord of creatures, the Undivided
One, the Universal Artificer, the Omniform, the All-pervading,
the Dispenser of everything, the Ultimate Constituent of all
existence, the Omnipresent, the Immanent, the Outstripper of
all the worlds. Wind verily alone is god (yayuh eva bhagavan

That this is mythology or theology of some sort can hardly

be overlooked, no more than the fact that its acceptance nece­
ssitates th e replacement of medicine by prayer. If Wind is the
only god determining everything both within and outside the
body, the remedies for diseases—like protections against natural
calamities—are to be expected only by appeasing this Wind-god
with suitable prayers and propitiations. In fact, the royal sage
Varyovida wants us to make no mistake about it. He adds,
“ The right way of praying to the Wind-god {yayoh yathartha
stiitih) in itself ensures freedom from diseases as well as the
attainment of strength, complexion, body-lustre, physical
growth, knowledge and the blessings of optimum longevity.” ’ ®^
It is not difl&cult to see that such a view, if accepted, makes
all the theoretical achivements of ancient Indian medicine mean­
ingless and the therapeutic technique based on these quite
irrelevant. In short, it is anthropomorphic metaphysics, not
medicine. Therefore, somewhat in the manner of the author
of the Ancient M edicine of the Hippocratic corpus protesting

Indological Truths
against the intrusion of metaphysics into medicine,’ ®® Marlci
—another participant of our medical colloquium—leaps to the
attack :
“Even if all these were true, what is the point in saying or
knowing these in the medical discipline ? Whatever is said
here must be said strictly in accordance with the requirements
of medicine” : y a d i api evam etat, kirn arthasya asya vacane
vijnane va sam arthyam a sti bhisag-vidyayam ? bhisag-vidyam
a d h ik rjya iyam katha p ra v rjta
This indignant protest attributed to Marici in the medical
colloquium—his strong resentment against the intrusion of
anything without definite relevance for medicine into the medical
discussion—is extremely significant. We shall letter see how it
fully agrees with the criterion preserved in the Caraka-samhitd
for differentiating between what is extrinsic and what is intrinsic
to medicine in the medical compilation.
It is our misfortune, however, that an Indologist of Fillio-
zat’s stature prefers to overlook all this. Carried by an illusory
assurance of the development of the classical doctrines of Indian
medicine from Vedic ideas, he goes to the absurd extent of
seeing in this medically irrelevant discourse of Varyovida the
real theoretical plank of Ayurveda. This is specially sad be­
cause even the Caraka-sam hita, in the form in which it reaches
us, does not apparently agree to attribute to the royal sage
Varyovida either a high medical authority or even much of self-
consistent thinking. His name does not occur in the long list
of the medical authorities, in whose great assembly the medical
compilation first takes shape.^’ “ The text would not have per­
haps ignored his name in this list if he had a great deal of repu­
tation in the ancient medical circles. Secondly, that he is some
kind of an amateur dabbling in medical matters seems to be
suggested by the Caraka-sam hita in so far as certain random
theories are attributed to him. Though in the present collo­
quium be is made to defend the view that Air is the greatest of
gods, in another colloquium of the Caraka-samhita, the same

Indological Truths
Varyovida is represented as defending a different thesis altoge­
ther. Apparently forgetting his Wind-god, in this other collo­
quium he declares : “ All creatures originate from rasa, so also
all forms of diseases. But rasa is made of water. Hence all
creatures as well as all diseases are to be viewed as originating
from water,”
rasajani tu bhutani vyadhayah ca pi^thagvidhahl
apah hi rasavatyah tah snn^tah nivrjti-hetavahj
In a third colloquium the same royal sage Varyovida comes
out with a peculiar theory of the r a s a s : “ The royal sage Var­
yovida exclaimed ; rasa-% are six in number, namely heavy,
light, cold, hot, unctuous and dry.” *'^^
Needless to say that none of these three views expressed by
him in three different contexts of the Caraka-sarnhita is accepted
by the medical compilation as forming part of the essential
theoretical position of Ayurveda. Nor is there any chance to
evolve some coherent interpretation of these three views.
Varyovida, it seems, cannot make up his mind about any speci­
fic theory. Still Filliozat wants us to believe that in the quaint
anthropomorphic metaphysics of Wind or Vayu expressed by
him in the first colloquium we are supposed to see the real
theoretical plank of Ayurveda. The main consideration leading
him to such a thesis seems to be that the acceptance of this
enables him to prove the continuity of the development of Vedic
thought into the Ayurvedic doctrines, or, as he puts it, to prove
“ the Vedic soil to which go the basic roots of Ayurveda.”
This is how he seeks “ to determine the exact position of the
Ayurveda in relation to the Veda.” ^^"* What he in fact achieves,
however, is only to show how some elements of Vedic mytho­
logical metaphysics somehow remain interpolated in the
Ayurvedic text.
After thus hoping to establish that the ancient Vedic view of
Wind or Air reasserts itself as the essence of Ayurvedic theory,
Filliozat passes on to show the close similarity between the
medical ideas of ancient India and ancient Greece. For this

171. lb. i.25.13. 172. Ib. i.26.8. 173. Filliozat 188.

174. lb 186.

Indological Truths
 purpose, he relies mainly on a brief tract called On Breaths
surviving in the Hippocratic corpus. Though free from the
anthropomorphism of Varyovida’s view of Wind, this text also
proposes to consider wind or breath as the root-cause of all
diseases and concludes with the following :
“ So breaths are seen to be the most active agents during all
diseases; all other things are but secondary and subordinate
causes. This then as the cause of diseases I have now expoun­
ded. I promised to declare the cause of diseases, and I have
set forth how wind is lord, not only in things as wholes, but
also in the bodies of animals. I have led my discourse on to
familiar maladies in which the hypothesis has shown itself
correct. If indeed I were to speak of all maladies, my dis­
course, while being longer, would not be in the least more true
or more convincing.” ^”
Quoting the tract elaborately, Filliozat concludes : “ The
general concordance of the doctrine of this text with that of
Indian pneumatism is evident. The similarities in detail of the
pathogenic representations are equally so. But there are also
differences ... It should, therefore, be recognised that there is
a profound analogy between the doctrine of the manual On
Breaths and the Indian pneumatism but not a close correlation.
It seems excluded that there was textual borrowing. On the
Indian side the doctrine propounded is too ancient, because of
its Vedic attachments and because of its Indo-Iranian pre­
history, to have been born under Greek influence: at the most
it could have been influenced in certain details. On the Greek
side, only a free imitation of an Indian model could be admitted
as there is no hteral concordance.” ''^®
What is apparently bypassed by these profound discussions
is only a simple point. How much of genuine scientific sig­
nificance the tract On Breaths is supposed to have in the general
structure of Greek medical thought ? We quote W.H.S. Jones,
who has already answered the question. Introducing his transla­
tion of the tract, Jones observes :
“ This work, like The A rt, is a sophistic essay, probably writ­

Indological Truths
ten to be delivered to an audience...Diogenes of Apollonia had
revived the doctrine that air is the primal element from which
all things are derived. The writer of On Breaths would prove
that air, powerful in nature generally, is also the prime factor
in causing diseases. He is a rhetorical sophist who — adopted
the fundamental tenet of a rather belated Ionian monist.
“The author shows no genuine interest in medicine, nor do
his contentions manifest any serious study of physiology or
pathology. Any impartial reader will detect in chapter xiv
( the discussion of epilepsy ) just the illogical but confident
dogmatism that is associated with half-educated, would-be
scientists. The account of dropsy ... is not only illogical but
ludicrously absurd.
“ The theme of the writer takes us back to the speculations of
Anaximenes, and even earlier still, for in the very infancy of
thought man must have noticed that air is an essential condition
of life. For centuries the conviction that air, or some essential
principle behind the manifestations of air as wind, breath and
vapour, was primal and elemental, kept, arising in one form or
another.”
It is thus not surprising that some sophist, not primarily
interested in medicine at all, should prefer to write such a
pseudo-medical tract. What surprises Jones.. however, is that
such a work should have a place in the collection of medical
writings of ancient Greece. As a possible explanation of this
anomaly, Jones proposes the following hypothesis : “ It is at
first surprising that a book of the character of On Breaths
should find its way into the Hippocratic collection. It is pro­
bable, however, that this collection represents, not works
written by the Coan school, but works preserved in the library
of the medical school of Cos. Knowing the vanity of the
Sophists we ought not to be surprised that they sent ‘presenta­
tion copies’ of their works on medical subjects to the chief
centres where medicine was studied. Perhaps in this way were
preserved both On Breaths and The A rt.” '^^
There is thus profound similarity not only between the

Indological Truths
views expressed in On Breaths and in the discourse attributed
to Varyovida in the Caraka-sam hitd ; there is moreover the
similarity between Jones’ assessment of the former and M arici’s
assessment of the latter in the Caraka-sam hita colloquium. In
both these assessments the views under consideration are irre-
levent for medicine. When we add this to Filliozat’s discussion,
little is left in his thesis of the sources of the Ayurvedic doctrines
in the Indo-Aryan tradition.

13. STRICTURE ON DIRECT KNOW LEDGE

We have discussed mainly two points about Filliozat’s thesis.

First, he misuses an imposing amount of scholarship to con­
ceal the fact that with the growth of hierarchical aspirations in
the Vedic tradition emerges also the counter-ideology inimical
to medicine. Secondly, on the basis of this concealment, he
proceeds to substitute the grand theoretical achievements of the
ancient physicians by some metaphysics incompletely emanci­
pated from mythology. The most serious consequlence of the
second point is the virtual denial of any genuine tradition
of science in ancient India. If we are supposed to see the crux
of Ayurvedic theory in some kind of an anthropomorphic view
of Wind, all the achievements of ancient Indian medicine—
achievements that give us the feeling of being at the threshold
of modern science as it were — are virtually overlooked or
forgotten. Hence is the need of critical rejection of the view
of the Vedic roots of Ayurvedic theory. This does not mean
that we are to take a totally negative view of the relation
between the Vedas and Ayurveda. We shall presently see to
what in the Vedas, Ayurveda is really indebted. However, the
rejection of the thesis of Vedic roots of Ayurveda does mean
that beginning from the times of the priestly literature — the
Yajurveda and Brahmana-s — medicine or positive science in
in the broader sense is practically dead in the Vedic tradition
proper. This explains why, in spite of all the legends of the
Upanisadic kings patronising' learning, the entire Upanisadic
literature is silent about the cultivation of medicine or positive

Indological Truths
science in any other form. We shall presently see how an
Upanisadic thinker, with a pronounced scientific temper, has
to go somewhere outside the stronghold of the Upanisadic
culture in search of the kind of knowledge he cares for. The
spirit of enquiring into the laws of nature ceases to have any
official recognition in the general theoretical climate created
by the counter-ideology of the later Vedic period — the period
of the Yajurveda, Brahmana texts and Upanisads, shortly
followed by the Dharm asutra-s.
We shall briefly note here a prominent feature of the counter­
ideology which cannot but make it hostile to science. It is the
stricture on direct knowledge of nature.
The ancient doctors — the scientists p a r excellence of the
age — aspire after the knowledge of nature as a whole, because,
as we have seen, they think that there can be nothing in nature
irrelevant for medicine.’^® Considering their technological
and other equipments, we can easily see that this is being too
ambitious for their period. They cannot succeed in developing
an insight into nature beyond a certain early or rudimentary
stage. This, however, is a different point. The pioneers of
science are to be judged not by the actual success of implement­
ing their programme but by the success of their formulation of
the programme. The ancient Indian doctors make an admirable
beginning in this formulation. As scientists they feel that they
have to strive after “ the simple conception of nature just as
it is, without alien addition” , because on this alone can be
based “ the system of behaviour by which man acquires mastery
of his environment.” '®®
With the emergence of the hierarchical aspirations, it is all
different. What is cared for is a system of behaviour by which
man acquires mastery over men and, for this purpose, also an
ideology interested in alien addition to the simple conception
of nature just as it is.
We have already seen how admirably the A itareya Brahmana
formulates this new norm of man acquiring mastery over men.
From the standpoint of the “'lordly power” or Ksatriya, the

Indological Truths
farmer-trader or Vai§ya is “ a tributory to another, to be eaten
by another, to be oppressed at will” , while the direct producer
or Sudra “ is the servant of another, to be removed at will, to be
slain at will.” ***
The “lordly power” has no doubt its own weapons with
which to enforce this norm. In the language of the A itareya
BrShmana, these are “ the horse-chariot, corslet, the bow and
arrow.” '®^ But the lordly power evidently also feels the need
of some ideology which can assist its self-justification. In other
words, the kings and nobles realise — perhaps not without
some surprise — that they also need men who can construct
theories, that is to say thinkers capable of manufacturing
speculative views justifying their powers and privileges. What­
ever may be the nature of such views, one point is absolutely
essential for these. It is the claim that things are not what
they appear to be. Thinkers catering to the political needs of
the ruling powers must begin with a distorted description of
reality. To administer a programme required by the privileged
class, they have suitably to distort the information on which
the programme is based. In short, since the ruling power
cannot afford to have the truth generally known, they need
ideologists who know first of all the technique of twisting,
concealing and mystifying the actual nature of the world along
with everything that goes on in it. Only after achieving this
can they add to the requirements of the ruling powers the halo
of supernatural sanction.
In ancient India the priests move forward with the claim that
they know the technique of obscuring the machinations of the
nobles and kings by ‘creating a nacreous haze of superstition’
with bombastic phrase-mongering. The voluminous Brahmana
texts take special pride in proclaiming that the purposive distor­
tion of reality is one of their noblest missions, inasmuch as
this distortion of truth delights the gods. Deliberate deceit is
thus eulogised as one of the outstanding achievements of the
“ holy power”. The usual way of eulogising this deceit is to
declare that the gods themselves are fond of making things

Indological Truths
purposively obscure, mysterious, unintelligible. An oft-repeated
formula of the Brahmana texts is : paroksapriyah iva hi devah.
We shall quote here only three passages from the Brahmana-s
to see how the priests try to illustrate this in their characteristi­
cally disgusting technique of inventing fanciful etymologies.
The A itareya Brahmana tells us that on the place whence by
offering sacrifice the gods went to the world of heaven, they
tilted over the goblets, and thus came into being the Nyagrodha
tree (fic u s in d ica ) , the roots of which grow downwards. To
this the text adds : “ It is called by the name nyagrodha, whose
meaning is hidden (to men), and not by the more intelligible
name nyagroha, for the gods like to conceal the very names of
objects from men, and call them by names unintelligible to
th em .” i83
The same fondness of the gods for obscurity and mystifica­
tion is retold by the same text in connection with the fanciful
etymology of the word manusa or man. Prajapati or the creator,
wanting to commit incest with his daughter, “ having become
a stag approached her in the form of a deer.” The gods,
outraged by it, created a diity to pierce Prajapati with an arrow.
“ Having aimed at him he pierced him; being pierced he flew
upwards: him they call ‘the deer’ ... The female deer is Rohini
... The seed of Prajapati outpoured ran; it became a pond. The
gods said, ‘let not this seed of Prajapati be spoiled.’ It became
‘not to be spoilt’; that is why ‘not to be spoilt’ (madusa) has
its name ; connected with man it is called ‘not to be spoilt’; that
being ‘not to be spoilt’ they call mystically ‘connected with man
(manusa)’, for the gods are lovers of mystery as it were.” !*"*
The Satapatha Brahmana also tells us of a fanciful etymology
of Indra satisfying the gods’ love for mystification : “This same
vital air in the midst doubtless is Indra. He, by his power
(indriya), kindled those other vital airs from the m id st; and
inasmuch as he kindled (indh), he is the kindler (indha) ; the
kindler, indeed, him they call Indra mystically, for the gods
love the mystic.” ’®^

183. Ait. Br. vii. 30. Tr. Haug. 184. Ait. Br. iii. 33. Tr. Keith.
185. Sat. Br. vi.l .1 2. Tr. Eggeling.

Indological Truths
 In the passages just quoted, three renowned translators of
the Brahmana texts render the priestly dictum in three different
ways. But the dictum is the same. The gods have an aversion
for direct knowledge, because they are fond of mysticism or
the distortion of objective truth. The way in which the priestly
texts express this—the illustrations used for the purpose—may
appear to us to be more or less nonsensical. But not the
dictum itself, the main point of which is to evolve divine sanc­
tion for the damnation of direct evidence. We shall presently
see how the great Upanisadic philosopher Yajnavalkya wants to
be clear about this implication of the priestly dictum. For the
present our point is that if the gods are fond of concealing the
actual nature of things, the mortals can search for the know­
ledge of nature as it actually is only by going against the gods.
Anything foreshadowing positive science is thus a sin or a
sacrilege. The counter-ideology wants to create an intellectual
atmosphere in which a discipline aspiring even remotely to be
science in our sense has got to be censured, condemned, des­
pised as inherently impure.
Understandably, medicine becomes the first casualty of all
this, because of all the disciplines of ancient India, medicine is
inescapably committed to aspire after the objective knowledge
of nature and man. It is therefore strange to see how some
of the modern scholars like to imagine that Indian priest­
craft contributes significantly to the development of Indian
medicine. Mehta, the general editor of the magnificent edition of
the Caraka-som hita, observes : “ From the actual record of medi­
cal wisdom in the Vedas, though in its most rudimentary
forms, we have a Vedic period of medicine. Next, as the
consequence of the elaborate ritual of the sacrifice and the
discussions, assemblies and discourses associated with it
during its long performance, there emerged a systematic and
rational method of the exposition of philosophy and of medicine.
This is the great Brahmana period of philosophy and also the
Samhita period or the period of systematic codification of
medicine. This may justly be called the scientific era of medi­
cine in India. Ayurveda then attained its age of maturity
emerging from its non-age of Vedic medley of charms and
35

Indological Truths
simple drugs, of inGalitatioii arid niagic ritual, into the
maturity of a rMionally expounded science of health atid disease
and a systematic practice of remedies, related to dOse, time and
constitution.” Any detailed comment on this fairy tale is
perhaps unnecessary, because the earliest authors of Dhar-
m asutfa-s —maintaining perfect continuity with the Brahmand
texts—have already clearly explained the actual attitude to
medicine taking shape in the priestly circles. Medicine is viewed
as a i>ollution, and necessarily so. The priests, rtialiing their
living on deliberate obscurantism, cannot but hate a discipline
aspiring after the rational understanding of nature and man-
Whoever else may be responsible for the transition from rnagico-
religiouB therapeutics to rational therapeutics, the priests can
have only a destructive role in the process.
Macdonell and Keith want to make the priestly contribution
to the development of Indian medicine look a little more plau­
sible. The priests may or may not have any great contribution
to the developriient of medicine as such, but their ritual tech­
nique does contribute to at least one itttportant component of
medical science, namely anatomy , Ancient Indian anatomy,
as Keith and Macdonell observe, owes itself “ no doubt to the
practice of dissecting animals at the sacrifice.” ^®’ “ Anatomy
had begun to be studied,” adds Keith, ‘‘probably as a result of
the constant slaughter of victims by the priests for the animal
offering” .!®®
That a certain interest in the organs of aninial bodies is
taken by the Brahmana texts and that moreover this is connected
with their ritual killing of animals need not be doubted. In
other words, the sacrificial slaughter of animals must have made
available to the priests some amount of empirical data, which,
rightly processed, could have developed into prOto-anatomy of
ancient period. But the fact is that this did not and could not
develop in this direction. The Brahmana texts enable us to see
on the contrary what a disaster it means for the development
of objective knowledge when an amount of empirical data—rudi-

186. Mehta i.l5 . 187. Macdonell & Keitli VI ii. 105.

188. Keith HSL 505.

Indological Truths
 mentary or otherwise—is left as the custody of those who are
interested only in the monstrous mystification of it, so that it
becomes part of their awe-inspiring ritual technique, As a
piatter of fact, the very passage of the Satqpatha B rahm am
which Keith’®® and o t h e r s c i t e as evidence of the knowledge
of skeletal anatomy contained in the text, shows the fate of the
rudimentary empirical knowledge under the custody of the
priests. We have to quote the passage here, howsoever tedious
that may be.
“ But indeed that fire-altar also is the body,—the bones are
its enclosing stones, and there are three hundred and sixty of
these, because there are three hundred and sixty bones in rpan ;
the marrow parts are the Yajusmati bricks, for there are three
hundred and sixty of these, and three hundred and sixty parts
of marrow in man ; and these thirty-six bricks which are over,
are the thirteenth month, the trunk, the vital air (of the altar),
—in his body there are thirty parts, in his feet two, in his vital
airs two, and in his head two,—as to there being two of these,
it is because the head consists of two skull-bones. And that
whereby these joints are held together in the Sudadohas ; and
those three whereby this body is covered—to wit, hair, skin and
flesh—are the earth fillings ; what he drinks is the oblations,
and what he eats the fire-logs ; and what is called the ‘body’,
that is the space-filling (brick) ;—thus this comes to make up
the whole Agni, and the whole Agni comes to be the space-
filler ; and, verily whoever knows this, thus coroes to be the
whole (Agni) who is the space-filler.” ’®*
This, to say the least, is sheer rigmarole from which is
drained out even any semblance of interest in anatomy proper.
But it also illustrates the necessary fate of empirical knowledge
left at the custody of those whose declared policy is to censure
direct evidence. Anatomy receiving any real impetus from the
priests is imagination, not history. Compared to them, the
butchers and hunters—though denied of cultural opportunities in
caste-soqiety-are much better placed for contributing to proto-

189. Ib. 505n. 190. see Dasgupta ii. 279.

191. Sat. Br. x.5.4.12.

Indological Truths
anatomy, because they are under no professional obligation to
mystify the information gained from their technique.
But the fact is that Indian anatomy is indebted neither to the
priests nor to the butchers. The physicians and surgeons,
aware of the importance of trained dissection of prepared corpse,
develop it. We have already seen,i®^ what leads them to
attach great importance to this technique of dissection. The
Susruta-sam hita claims, anatomical knowledge acquires cer­
tainty only when it is based on direct and personal observation
of the viscera etc. In the language of the Brahm am texts, this
may as well be translated to mean that anatomy becomes
possible only by flouting the desire of the gods for the purposive
distortion or mystification of direct evidence.

14. UPANISADS : METAPHYSICS MILITATING

AGAINST SCIENCE

In the traditional view, the Upanisads are appended to the

Brahmana-s and form the ending portions of the Veda. Hence
these are also called Vedanta or Veda-end. Our next question,
therefore, is : What happens to medicine—to positive science
in its most promising ancient form—in the Upanisads ?
The answer to this is quite simple. Medicine ceases to have
any significance whatsoever in the general theoretical temper
dominating these texts. In the principal Upanisads, even the
words ‘medicine’ and ‘physician’ are hardly allowed. In the
whole of the Upanisadic literature, we read the word bhesa-
ja k r ta h or healing only once. The Chandogya Upanisad, dis­
cussing the faulty way of performing a sacrifice which is sup­
posed to cause injury to it, says ; “ Verily, that sacrifice is
healed in which there is a Brahma priest who knows this.” i®^
The word bhisak or physician occurs only once in the M a itn
Upanisad,^^* and this again in a metaphorical sense, i.e. to
refer to something other than the doctor. Outside these two

Indological Truths
passages, there is not even the mention of the words bhesaja
and bhisak in the principal Upanisads.
In the Upanisadic literature, thus, a blanket of total silence
is drawn as it were on medical science. Why is it so ? We
shall try to answer the question here in so far as it illustrates
how the counter-ideology militates against science in general,
though in a form much more sophisticated than we see it in the
Yajruveda and Brahm anatexts.^^“
To begin with, it needs to be noted that the Upanisadic
thinkers are not free from the spell of the most calamitous
demand of the counter-ideology. The A itareya Upanisad
quotes the priestly dictum censuring direct knowledge and,
perhaps by way of adding emphasis or literary effect to it,
repeats it ; paroksa-priyah iva hi devah ; paroksa-priyah iva
hi devah —“ the gods are fond of the obscure; the gods are fond
of the obscure.’'
Yajfiavalkya, undoubtedly the most renowned metaphysician
of the Upanisads, also quotes the dictum. It seems, however,
that a thinker of his stature feels that it is in need of some
clarification. While reiterating it, therefore, he adds a brief
explanatory expression to it. Thus, in the B rhadaranyaka
Upanisad—vihWe, delivering a grand metaphysical discourse to
Janaka, king of Videha—he declares : paroksa-priyah iva hi
devah ; pratyaksa-dvisah —“ the gods are fond of the obscure ;
they detest direct knowledge.” ^®®
The brief expression pratyaksa-dvisah —conveying the gods’
distaste for direct evidence—speaks volumes. The great meta­
physician admirably clarifies the basic demand of the counter­
ideology. What is more important for our discussion is that he
fully endorses it. In the general theoretical climate created by
this endorsement, the zeal for the objective knowledge of nature
inspired by the conviction that it alone holds the prospect
of improving human lot, is quite dead. This means, complete
paralysis of science. The theoretical equipments of the Upani­
sadic thinkers have to explore other avenues for their expression

Indological Truths
and fulfilment. This is about the greatest misfortune to ancient
Indian thought. It not only breaks away from science but has
moreover to succumb to a peculiar delusion of the omnipotence
of thought as the only alternative to the scientific search for
truth and reality.
The magnitude of this misfortune needs specially to be
noted. In the Upanisadic India we come across our first philo-
phers. Some of them are extraordinarily gifted thinkers, for
whom is created the earliest scope for specialising in speculative
activity. They raise questions of momentous importance and
want earnestly to answer these. What is thus promised in
general to Indian thought is of very great significance. It is the
realisation and recognition of the power of human reason or
the real creative possibilities of consciousness. Without the
emancipation of consciousness from the almost total preoccu­
pation with other problems—the problem for example of bare
survival or of keeping the masses servile—there is no beginning
of philosophy in the true sense. In the Rgveda we come across
inspired poets or seers no doubt, but • they are inspired on the
whole by the vision of the fulfilment of elemental desires ensur­
ing the survival of the community. Their consciousness, en­
grossed with the problem of man’s struggle with nature, hardly
enables them to philosophise. In the Bmhnunta texts we have
indeed the glimpse of the emerging leisured class with objective
scope for theoretical constructions. But their consciousness is
engrossed with the problem of man's struggle with man—the
problem of stablising the political power of kings and nobles,
which they hope to do mainly with the technique of controlling
men with fear. In the Upanisadic India—i. e. in the first
stabilised states of the Indo-Gangetic plain of about the eighth
or seventh century B.C.—the picture is substantially different.
There is considerable progress of the control over nature,
thanks mainly to the introduction of iron implements on some
scale and the improved technique of agriculture and handicrafts,
which are now added to cattle-raising. Huinan labour acquires
the ability to produce much more than is required for its bare
maintenance. At the same time, there is improvement of the
technique of administration—specially tax collection—depending

Indological Truths
on which the kings and nobles can extract and amass the surplus
products from the direct producers with far more competence
and confidence. As one of our earliest law-givers, wi.ile des^
cribing the main duty of the king, wants to validate this
accomplished f a c t: “ But to the collection of these taxes he
shall always pay particular attention. He shall live on the
surplus.”
Depending on this surplus to maintain themselves in a grand
scale and assured moreover of the improved technique of
administration, the kings and nobles of Upanisadic India have
the serenity to delight in unrufiEled contemplation. They have
all the leisure of life to patronise and participate in philosophy.
The kings surrounded by their flatterers are often
described in the Upanisads as taking very keen interest in the
problems of philosophy. Evidences like these^®® lead some of
the modern scholars to connect the new theoretical temper of the
age specially with the nobles of Upanisadic India. Put in Indian
terminology, this is the theory of the Ksatriya origin of the
Upanisadic philosophy. Without ignoring what is true in it, we
have to note that, depending on patronage of these kings and
nobles, there also emerge some exceptionally gifted thinkers
outside the circle of the Ksatriyas. Such a philosopher, for
example, is the great Yajnavalkya, who is a priest by profession
but who thrives on fabulous gifts received from king Janaka for
his spectacular philosophical discourses.^®®
In any case, Upanisadic India witnesses magnificent flourish
of philosophical activity. What Indian thought gains from this
is obvious. Our present point, however, is the special danger
also created for it, notwithstanding its achievement. This danger
consists in the special direction to which philosophical activity
is on the whole enforced by the disastrous demands of the
counter-ideology. As we have just seen, even the great Yajna­
valkya feels the need of reiterating and explaining one of the
main points of this counter-ideology : the gods are fond of
obscurity and so they detest direct knowledge. It is not difficult

Indological Truths
 to see why philosophy, once it rejects the ideal of directly know­
ing things, should easily tend to lose the spirit of getting enriched
by the knowledge of nature. But the objective conditions in
which the Upanisadic philosophers live do not give them the
scope to realise how grave is this loss. The tendency to turn
away from nature fully agrees with the material conditions that
enable them to philosophise. These are conditions in which
the manual workers or direct producers are shorn of all prestige
and privilege. The tools and techniques by which nature is
interrogated belong to them. When therefore they recede to
the background, the growing stock of their experience and under­
standing ceases to have any vital significance for the kings,
nobles and thinkers subsisting on royal gifts. The essential
demand of the counter-ideology—its open distaste for direct
knowledge—fully coheres with the socio-political conditions
which it intends to safe-guard.
What then happens to philosophy when it wants to turn
away from the pursuit of the direct knowledge of nature ? The
philosopher’s quest turns inwards or as'th e psychologist would
prefer to put it, the philosophers are coerced to a peculiar process
of introversion. Knowledge no longer aspires to be the know­
ledge of the object. It wants to be the knowledge of the subject
itself—of the bare ego or of the pure self. In the Chandogya
Vpanisad, the philosopher Sanatkumara beautifully describes
this philosophical norm : atm aratih dtm akridah atmamaithuna
almanandah —“ the libido fixed on the ego, sporting with the
ego, copulating with the ego, delighting in the ego.” ^°° This
can perhaps be an apt description of extreme introversion even
for the psychiatrist today.
Extreme introversion, we are told, brings into operation a
delusion of grandeur. It is the delusion of the omnipotence of
the bare ego. This ego—this self—wants to dictate terms to
reality and even demands to be recognised as the only reality.
As Sanatkumara, describing the ecstasy of metaphysical illu­
mination, declares : “ I, indeed, am below. I am above. I am
to the east. I am to the west. I am to the south. I am to the

Indological Truths
 north. I, indeed, am the whole world ... The ego (atm an),
indeed, is below. The ego, indeed, is above. The ego is to
the west. The ego is to the east. The ego is to the south. The
ego is to the north. The ego, indeed, is this whole world.” ®®‘
The immediate result of all this is the lofty contempt for
nature or material world, which, in this metaphysics, has the
destiny of being reduced to some kind of foolish phantom
(m ayd) fabricated by sheer ignorance. Cut off from the active
intercourse with nature, the philosopher’s consciousness runs
the risk of imagining that it can rise to even more remote con­
ditions where only thoughts remain and the things thought of
fade out. This is the cult of pure reason, i.e. of reason only as
a faculty of illusion. Consciousness, estranged from the active
intercourse with nature, becomes a form of sick consciousness.
It is no longer consciousness o f something but something like
consciousness-in-itself—i\x%\. consciousness, sheer consciousness—
not the consciousness of real men and women engaged in active
communion with nature and getting progressively enriched by it.
Consciousness is now viewed as a ‘deified absolute’—too mys­
terious to be grasped by mundane thought and too awesome to
be described by mundane language. The great Yajnavalkya
declares, reality is just a mass of consciousness (vijnanaghana).^^°^
It can neither be grasped by the normal organs of knowledge
nor discussed in normal language. The only way of referring to
it is to say : “ It is not this. It is not this.” ®®® Only by dreaming,
and sinking further into the state of dreamless sleep (susupti),
one can have some kind of awareness of it, though the aware­
ness becomes clear only by the technique of the total withdrawal
of interest from everything external and thereby attaining a state
of trance (turiya) or some kind of cultivated catalepsy.
It is not the place for us to discuss the Upanisadic meta­
physics in greater detail. What concerns us here is the science-
policy necessarily following from it. This policy, as is only
to be expected, is completely nagative. The typical expression
of this is to be found in a legend of the Chandogya Upanisad?°^

201. Ib. vii.25.1-2 202. Br Up. ii.4.12. 203. Ib. iii.9.26.

204. Ch. Up. vii.

Indological Truths
Narada approaches Sanatkumara for metaphysical wisdom. He
is asked to declare the list of disciplines in which he is already
proficient. Narada enumerates a long list, evidently covering
the branches of knowledge cared for in Upanisadic India.
But the first thing that Sanatkumara tells him is that all these
have nothing more than mere nominal value (nama). Deussen,
a great admirer of the Upanisadic metaphysics (which usually
uses the word brahman for the ultimate reality), enthusiastically
comments :
"Very soon, however, it came to be realised that this know­
ledge of brahman was essentially of a different nature from
what we call ‘knowledge’ in ordinary life. For it would be
possible, like Narada in the Chandogya, to be familiar with
all conceivable branches of knowledge and empirical science,
and yet to find oneself in a condition of ignorance (avidya) as
regards the. brahman. This thought, originally purely negative,
becomes in the course of time more and more positive in cha­
racter. It was negetive in so far as no experimental knowledge
led to a knowledge of brahman, and it was positive in so far
as the consciousness was aroused that the knowledge of empi­
rical reality was an actual hindrance to the knowledge of
brahman.'”
It is indeed amazing to note how much one’s use of language
is influenced by one’s personal preoccupations. Anybody with
the least care for positive science would certainly prefer to subs­
titute the word “ positive” above by “ultra-negetive” or “ super­
negative.’' From the standpoint of the world-denying meta­
physics, the knowledge given by positive science in any form
is not merely worthless but moreover something definitely
obstructing the vision of truth. In Upanisadic India, this
world-denying metaphysics acquires the status of the official
world-view. What else do we expect in this intellectual climate
but a total wreck of positive science ?
Incidentally, in the Chandogya Upanisad, Narada, while de­
claring the intellectual assets he already possesses, is completely
silent about medicine. How can a respectable Brahmin like

Indological Truths
 him go to the extent of saying that he is already accomplished
in a discipline pronounced impure in the Yajurveda ? There is
no doubt that of all the disciplines cultivated in ancient India
medicine has the highest science-potential. But the total indi­
fference to it does not matter for the great Upanisadic thinkers.
Notwithstanding the greatness of their individual abilities, their
philosophy is coerced by the counter-ideology to develop only
in a special direction in which it is left with a sophisticated
general crusade against science.
We want to add only one point to the present discussion.
There are reasons for medicine becoming the special victim of
the general offensive against science. The philosophy of the
Upanisads or the Vedanta philosophy is also called sariraka.
The name tells its own story. The word is derived from sarira
or ‘body’ by adding to it the suffix kan implying derogation. In
other words, it the philosophy of the pure soul which, much to
the annoyance of the Upanisadic philosophers, is temporarily
imprisoned as it were in the defiled body. The underlying idea
is strongly reminiscent of Plato, who, in defence of basically
the same world-denying outlook, goes to the extent of charac­
terising the desire for death as the right philosophical temper.
As he puts it : “ as long as we are encumbered with the body,
and our soul is contaminated with such an evil, we can never
fully attain to what we desire ; and this, we say, is tru th ......
And then, as it seems, we shall obtain that which we desire,
and which we profess ourselves to be lovers of, wisdom, when
we are dead, as reason shows, but not while we are alive.”
Such, then, is the sariraka philosophy of ancient Greece.
I have elsewhere compared this with the enviable description of
a dying man given by Yajnavalkya in the Brhaddranyaka
Vpanisad —enviable because, while dying, the man is supposed
to be progressively relieved from the fetters of the body.*°^
The world-denying metaphysics, both in ancient Greece and
in ancient India, is naturally committed to the most intense
contempt for the body, i. e. for precisely that for which the
physicians care. This cannot but have its repercussion on the

Indological Truths
 attitude to medicine. It becomes a special ground for its
neglect and even damnation. Thus, while the sarlraka philoso­
phers of the Upanisads do not even speak of the doctors, the
sa n ra k a philosopher of ancient Greece shows a very unfavour­
able attitude to them. “ Plato’s chief criticism is that medicine
prolongs useless lives ; but we can see, wherever he refers to
medical men, that beheld them and their craft in no great
respect.” ®®® In the great prestige eventually attained by Pla­
tonic philosophy, W. H. S. Jones is inclined to see the final
doom of medicine—and therefore of science in general—in
ancient Greece. His observation needs to be quoted here at
some length. Introducing the defence of medicine against the
invasion of it by empty metaphysical postulates by the author of
the Ancient M edicine in the Hippocratic corpus, Jones says :
“ Plato would have nothing to do with the appeals to sense-
experience. According to him, if a postulate is not accepted,
it must be abandoned, and a more general postulate postulated,
until one is reached to which the opponent agrees.......
“In place of postulate the author of Ancient M edicine relies, as
a modern scientific thinker relies, on careful observation and
critical examination of phenomena, hoping thereby to reach,
not the complete perfect knowledge Plato hoped to attain
through his Ideas, but an approximation to truth.
“ So the two methods, that of Greek philosophy and that of
modern science, stand face to face---- - Medicine, almost the
only branch of Greek science scientifically studied, was worsted
in the fight, and medical science gradually degenerated from
rational treatment to wild speculation and even quackery and
superstition. The transcendant genius of Plato, strong in that
very power of persuasion the use of which he so much depre­
cated, won the day. The philosophic farvour which longed
with passionate desire for unchangeable reahty, that felt a lofty
contempt for the meterial world with its ever-shifting pheno­
mena, that aspired to rise to a heavenly region where change­
less Ideas might be apprehended by pure intelligence purged
from every bodily taint, was more than a match for the humble

Indological Truths
researches of men who wished to relieve human suffering by a
patient study of those very phenomena that Plato held of no
account. So for centuries philosophy flourished and science
languished, in spite of Aristotle, Euclid and Archimedes.” ®®®
Something is evidently in need of being added to this bri­
lliant analysis, for the question remains : “Why did Plato
think in this way ? Plato had one of the best brains of which
human history holds record.” 2‘ o Farrington has answered
this question. The eclipse of science in ancient Greece has a
far more deeper cause than can be discussed in terms of indivi­
dual talents. Farrington’s analysis of this needs to be read in
full.^*‘ We have the scope here to quote only a few extracts
from it.
“ Plato’s thought was corrupted by his approval of the slave
society in which he lived....... In his Laws Plato organises
society on the basis of slavery, and, having done so, puts a
momentous question : ‘We have now made arrangements to
secure ourselves a modest provision of the necessities of life :
the business of the arts and crafts has been passed on to others ;
agriculture has been handed over to slaves on condition of their
granting us a sufficient return to live in a fit and seemly fashion ;
how now shall we organise our lives ?’ A still more pertinent
question would have been : ‘How will our new way of life
reorganise our thoughts?’ For a new way of life did bring a
new way of thinking, and one that proved inimical to science.
It was henceforth difficult to hold to the view that true know­
ledge could be arrived at by interrogating nature, for all the
implements and processes by which nature is made to obey
man’s will had become, if not in fact yet in the political philo­
sophy of Plato and Aristotle, the province of the slave.” ®
“ We conclude that Plato not only made no direct contribution
to positive science, but did much to discourage it. That is not
to say, however, that he made no contribution to thought.......
As for what was corrupt in his thought, we shall best under­
stand it and most fairly judge it when we see in it the corruption

209. Ib.i.1-9. 210. Farrington GS 106. 211, 7Z). 79-133 ; 301-313.

212. Ib. 107.

Indological Truths
of the age....... When we observe him, who had such a lumi­
nous intellect, putting the lamps of knowledge out, we see
through his personal crisis into the crisis of ancient society.” ®’ ®
“ When we look for the causes of this paralysis (of science) it
is obvious that it is not due to any failure of the individual....
No, when science as a whole became a prey to creeping paraly­
sis, there was no lack of individual talent, no lack of individual
genius... The failure was a social one and the remedy lay in
public policies that were beyond the grasp of the age. The
ancients rigorously organised the logical aspects of science,
lifted them out of the body of technical activity in which they
had grown or in which they should have found their application,
and set them apart from the world or practice and above it.
This mischievous separation of the logic from the practice of
science was the result of the universal cleavage of society into
freeman and slave.” ^*^
And so on. Farrington’s analysis of metaphysics militating
against science in ancient Greece, we repeat, needs to be read in
full. When we do it, we can perhaps ■see basically the same
story in ancient Greece as we see in ancient India, the difiFer-
ences of details notwithstanding. It is the story of how the
ideological requirements of a hostile society force the conscious­
ness of even great thinkers to develop in a- direction which is
disastrous for science.

15. THE IDEOLOGICAL UNDERW ORLD

But let us return to the Indian context. In spite of the priestly

contempt for medicine followed by the philosophical hostility to
science in general in the official world-view of Upanisadic India,
there is an important ground to think that medical science some­
how or other makes progress even during this age. This is the
evidence of the Pali Vinaya-pitaka —the earliest canonical text
of the Buddhists, which is generally admitted to record much of

Indological Truths
tradition of the time of the Buddha. The level of medical
knowledge and technique we read in it is quite advanced. As we
shall see, it is rational therapeutics or yukti-vyapasraya bhesaja
of the medical compilations, which leaves behind the earlier
magico-religious therapeutics or daiva-vyapasraya bhesaja of
the Atharvaveda. The presumption, in other words, is that
sometime before the Buddha—i. e. not much later than the
Upanisads—Indian medicine takes this prodigious step, despite
the Yajurveda, Brahmana-s aud Upanisads. Pending the
discussion of this, our present question is a different one. How
are we to account for this progress of medicine, in spite of its
condemnation in the officially approved norm ?
We shall try to answer this question as far as the internal
evidences of the Upanisads enable us to do it. These evidences
want us to note two points. First, even within the strongholds
of Upanisadic norm, there continues an ideological underworld
of heretics flouting the officially approved view of the cultiva­
tion of knowledge. Secondly, there are areas in the country
outside the strongholds of the Upanisadic ideology where medi­
cine continues to be cultivated ; such an area seems to attract
even from Upanisadic India an exceptional thinker remaining
perhaps by personal preference committed to the norm of science.
That the Upanisads sometime refer to heretics in the Upani­
sadic norm is well-known.^ ‘ “ But the most picturesque des­
cription of the ideological underworld of heretics or disbelievers
of the Upanisadic age is preserved in the M a itr i Upanisad. We
quote it in rough rendering :

“ Now then, Oh king, the hindrances to knowledge.

Verily, the source of the net of delusion is the fact of the asso­
ciation of one who is worthy of heaven with those who are not
worthy of heaven. That is it. Although a grove is said to be
before them, they cling to low shrub.
( Who then are the persons unworthy of heaven ? They are : )
Now, there are some who are the continually hilarious (nitya-

215. Katha Up. i.20 ; ii.6 ; Ch. Up. viii.8.5 ; Svet. Up. i.2Q ■, Probably
also Br. Up. ii.4.12 & iv.5.l3.

Indological Truths
pram uditah), continually roving about (nitya-pravasitah) con­
tinually begging, continually living upon handicrafts {nitya-Hlpa-
upajivinah).
And moreover there are others who are town-beggars, who
perform rituals for the unworthy (aycj'ya-yajakah), who are
disciples of the sudra-s and who, in spite of being sudra-s, are
learned {sudrah ca sastra-vidvam sah).
And moreover there are others who are rogues, who wear
their hair in a twisted knot, who are dancers, mercenaries, wan­
derers, actors, renegades in royal service and the like {cata-
jata-nata-bhata-pravrajita-rahgavatarinah rdjakarm ani p a tita -
dayah).
And moreover there are others who say, ‘If professionally paid
for we can cure maladies caused by spirits, ogres, ghosts, gob­
lins, snakes, sharks and the like (yaksa-raksasa-bhuta-gana-
pisacah roga-grahadinam arlham p u ra sk rty a sam ayam ah— iti
evam bruvam h).
And moreover there are those who vainly wear the red robe,
ear-rings and skulls (vrtha kasaya-kurtdalinah kopalinah).
And moreover there are others who love to be a stumbling-
block among the believers in Vedas {vaidikesu paristhatum
icchanti) by the tricks of futile reasoning and observation of
facts {vr.tha tarka-dr.stanta-kuhaka-indrajalaih)
(Such are the undesirable persons.) With these one must not
associate. Verily, these people are but cheats, and they are
unfit for heaven. Thus has it been declared :
By the soul-denying doctrine based on the tricks of false
observation and reason
People are bluffed, disabling them to discern between what
is genuinely Vedic and not so.
(nairatm ya-vada-kuhakaih m ithya-drstanta-hetubhihj
bhramyan lokah na ja n a ti veda-vidyantaram tu yatH ” ^^^

That this is a picture of the ideological uiiderworld of Upa-

nisadic India can hardly be doubted. The Upanisad wants us
to believe that this underworld consists of a motley of heretics

Indological Truths
 united by their common apathy for the scriptures or Vedas.
The disciplines they are interested in are opposed to the Vedas.
The purpose of the passage is to warn the king of these heretics
—or perhaps to advise him .to ostracize them—because of the
grave ideological confusion they create among the people.
From the Upanisadic viewpoint, they are the sources of
delusion : m ohajalasya esa vai yonih. Lest this ideological
danger posed by them is missed, the Upanisad concludes its
discourse on the heretics with the advice : “ Hence, what is set
forth in the Vedias—that alone is true. The wise men must live
only according to what is told in the Vedas. Therefore a
Brahmin must not study what is non-Vedic. This should be the
purpose,” 2 17
So the main point is quite clear. Learning or knowledge is
either Vedic or non-Vedic. What is non-Vedic is a form of
heresy and a Brahmin must not go in for it. If, in spite of it,
they dabble in these, they forfeit thereby their prospect for
heaven. The main point of the passage, in short, is the
defence of what we have called the counter-ideology.
Thus far, there is nothing new about this passage. What is
specific about it, however, is the recognition of the fact of the
ideological underworld in the Upanisadic age. It seems that
towards the close of the Upanisadic period, this underworld of
heretics becomes specially annoying for Vedic orthodoxy, for
among the major Upanisads, the M a itrl is comparatively late,
if not the latest one.®
Let us have a closer look at the motley of heretics of the
Upanisadic passage. Among them are included those that are
constantly roving about (nitya-pravasitah), those who in spite
of being sudra-s are learned (sudrah ca sastra-vidvamsah).
Some of them, somewhat like the Taoists of ancient China,®
seem to be the followers of ancient folk-cults refusing to accept
not only the philosophy patronised by the royal courts but also
the royal services {rdjakarmani patitadayah ), perhaps because
of the democratic commitment of these cults. In any case, the
description nitya-pramuditah nitya-pravasitah...cata-jata-n ata

217. Ib. vii.lO. 218. Winternitz i.238. 219. Needham ii.35.

37
Indological Truths
-bhata-pravrajita-rahgavatarinah...kasaya-kundalim h kapalim h
is indeed too significant to be missed : there still exist the
followers of ancient folk-cults answering this vivid description,
and known in Bengal for example as Auls, Bauls, Sahajiyas,
Kapalikas, Tantrikas, etc., singing songs of deha-tattva —of the
human body being a microcosm of the universe.****®
Among these heretics we also see the logicians, denying soul
on the strength of observation and reasoning {dr,stanta-hetu-
bhifi), understandably pronounced as mere perverse tricks
(kuhaka-indrajala) by the author of the Upanisadic passage.
Along with the logicians, we see the physicians, though as far
as this author understands, they are still practising the magico-
religious therapeutics of the Atharvaveda—claiming to “cure
diseases caused by the spirits, ogres, ghosts, goblins, snakes,
sharks and the like.” Whether medicine as such remains at
this stage even towards the close of the Vedic period is a differ­
ent question. The intense contempt for it among the champions
of Vedie orthodoxy does not allow us to expect of them an ob­
jective knowledge of what is actually happening in the medical
circles. They feel sure of only one thing. Medicine, in what­
ever stage of development it may be, belongs to the ideologi­
cal underworld of the heretics. We are indebted to the M a itn
Upanisad for saying this in practically so many words.

16. U D D A L A K A A R U N I ; SCIENCE IN HOSTILE

IDEOLOGICAL CLIMATE

If the M a itr i Upanisad tells us of the motley of heretics consti­

tuting the ideological underworld of Upanisadic India, we read
in the Chandogya Upanisad of an outstanding individual thinker
trying earnestly to understand the mystery of man on the
strength of reasoning, observation and even experimental
demonstration. His name is Uddalaka Aruni, mentioned
in the Upanisads also as Gautama. As far as the literary

Indological Truths
 records enable us to judge, he is the pioneer of science-oriented
philosophy of India. In the general theoretical temper of
Upanisadic India, his keen interest in science appears strange.
The Satapatha Brahmana, however, seems to indicate that he
has to go somewhere outside the stronghold of Upanisadic
ideology to be initiated in the knowledge of anatomy and phy­
siology, which apparently forms the basis of the understanding
of his main problem, namely that of the making of man.
Notwithstanding everything that is said about Uddalaka
Aruni by the later Vedantists, the Upanisads themselves give us
the impression that he is somewhat maladjusted to the ofBcially
approved philosophy of the age. At any rate, compared to his
idealist colleagues, his prestige in Upanisadic India in secondary.
The reason for this is quite obvious. He is hardly interested in
the idealist metaphysics so much then in demand at the royal
courts. He prefers instead a rational and essentially secular
explanation of maU) inclusive of life, speech and mind.
The idealist metaphysics of the Upanisads is only the doc­
trine of the soul. Uddalaka Aruni is frankly uninterested in it.
According to a legend of the Chandogya Upanisad,^^^ five
great householders, greatly learned in sacred lore, raise among
themselves questions about the soul (atman) and reality
{brahman). They go to Uddalaka Aruni for possible clarifica­
tion concerning the Universal Soul. This being not a field of
his specialisation, Uddalaka feels hesitant. He tells himself,
“ These great householders, greatly learned in sacred lore, will
question me. I may not be able to answer them anything.
Come, let me direct them to another.” So he suggests that
he should accompany them to a certain king called Alvapati
Kaikeya, and says, “Verily, sirs, ASvapati Kaikeya studies
just this Universal Soul. Come let us go to him.” The king
imparts to them his theory of the Universal Soul. In course of
doing this, however, he asks each of them about their own
understanding of the Universal Soul. Uddalaka’s answer to this
is extraordinary.

Indological Truths
“ Then he said to Uddalaka Aruni, ‘Gautama, whom do you
reverence as the soul ?’
‘Only the earth (p rth iv ie v a ), sir, oh king’, said he.” ®^®
Is this a way of putcing that the philosopher is much too
earth-minded—much too committed to the understanding of
the material world — to indulge in the speculations concerning
the soul ? In any case, Uddalaka represents a trend of thought
quite different from the one most in vogue in the Upanisadic
literature.
An earth-minded philosopher like him is not supposed to
be greatly interested in the problem of the transmigration of
the soul after it leaves the mortal abode. And the fact is,
Uddalaka does not care for such a problem. A legend repeated
in the Upanisads^^® appears to be quite outspoken about it.
After Uddalaka teaches his son Svetaketu the views he himself
considers worthwhile, the son goes to the court of the Paiicalas.
Pravahana Jaibali, one of the king’s flatterers in the court, asks
Svetaketu five questions concerning the transmigration of the
soul. Failing to answer any of these, the humiliated Svetaketu
returns to his father and complains of being inadequately
instructed. Uddalaka frankly confesses that these qusetions
concerning transmigration are beyond his own depth ; “ If I had
known them, how would I have not told them to you ?” So
Uddalaka himself goes to the king’s court and patiently listens
to what the others have to say about transmigration.
It needs to be noted that what Uddalaka listens from king
ASvapati Kaikeya about the Universal Soul, like what he listens
from Pravahana Jaivali about the transmigration of the soul
has absolutely no impact on his own philosophy. He is at heart
interested in other problems and he wants to solve these in his
own w ay.. These remain recorded in Chandogya Upanisad vi,
which is for us a brilliant document of science-oriented philoso­
phy of ancient India. Here is the passage in outline :

222. Ib. v.17.1.

223. Br. Up. vi.2.1 ff ; Ch. Up. v.3.1 ff. C .f Kaus. Up. i. which mentions
the king by a different name.

Indological Truths
 Uddalaka Aruni has a son callled Svetaketu. In accordance
with the custom of the age, the son, when only a boy of twelve,
is sent to study the Rgveda etc., which, already during the
Upanisadic period, acquire scriptural status. Sveteketu, “having
studied all the Vedas, returned at the age of twentyfour, con­
ceited, thinking himself learned, proud” . But the father is not
impressed. As a philosopher, he is interested in the fundamen­
tal stuff underlying the infinite variety of things of the world.
So he asks the son whether he has been taught anything about
it. The son, having no idea of it, asks : ‘How, pray sir, is that
teaching ?’
Uddalaka says, ‘Just as, my dear, by one piece of clay
everything made of clay is known—the modification is only a
verbal distinction, a name; the reality is just clay. Just as my
dear, by one copper ornament everything made of copper is
known—the modification is only a verbal distinction, a name;
the reality is just copper. Just as my dear, by one nailcutter
everything made of iron is known—the modification is only a
verbal distinction, a name; the reality is just iron. So, my dear,
is that teaching.’
Thus the philosopher feels that it is important above all to
find out the first principle for the explanation of nature, assu­
ming as a matter of course that behind the bewildering variety
and multiplicity of things of nature, there is a discoverable or
knowable first principle or primitive ground or fundamental
stuff. Significantly this assumption itself stands on the plank
of essentially empirical data—clay underlying the multiplicity
of earthen things, iron underlying the multiplicity of all iron
implements, and so on. In the general drift of his thoilght
there is nothing that can be called scripture-orientation and
surely no trace of mysticism.
But how is one to proceed towards the understanding of this
first principle ? What is the starting point of enquiry ? Uddalaka
feels that in quest of this principle, it is necesssary first to reject
one theory which, as is evident from the Upanisads^® ^ is already
in circulation in his time. According to this, everything comes

Indological Truths
 into being from non-being—from nothingness or void- As be
argues,
“ In the beginning, my dear, this world was just being (sat )—
one only, without a second. To be sure, some people say,* In the
beginning this world was just non-being ia-sat )—one only,
without a second. From that non-being was produced being.’
But, verily, my dear, whence this could be ? How from non-
being could being be produced ? On the contrary, my dear in
the beginning this world was just being—one only without a
second.”
The general drift of the argument cannot but be reminiscent
of what is later known as the Samkhya philosophy, the starting
point of which is that since being cannot be produced from
non-being, the essential nature of the cause is to be inferred
from the essential nature of the effect. Depending on this, the
Samkhya is led to the view of a material first cause of the
world, for the world being material its cause also has to be so.
Judging from the close similarity between Uddalaka’s opening
argument and that of Samkhya, one is.easily tempted to think
that the first cause Uddalaka speaks of—his sa t or original
being—is something like the pradhana or primeval matter of
Samkhya. The later Vedantists like Samkara and Ramanuja
can clearly see such a materialist proclivity of Uddalaka’s line
of argument. Hence they vehemently argue that the sat of
Uddalaka can never mean an unconscious material principle like
the pradhana of Samkhya. We shall presently see how flimsy are
the arguments they have to use for the purpose and how impor­
tant are some of the Upanisadic evidences they have to ignore
for forcing Uddalaka’s view into the general mould of the
officially boosted metaphysics of the Upanisads. But let us first
sum up the main points of Uddalaka’s thoughts.
His sa t or ‘being’ is not anything like the ‘pure being’ of
Parmenides—something immutable excluding all origination and
decease, all diversity, divisibility and movement. Uddalaka’s
sa t is auto-dynamic, containing within itself the principle of
change and movement. It is from this being and because of
its inherent nature that everything in the universe—inanimate as
well as animate, physical as well as psychical—eventually

Indological Truths
evolve, though as intermediate stages of this evolution, Udda-
laka conceives of three principles, namely fire (teja s), water
(ap) and food {anna).
Thus, because of the inherent dynamism of original being,
first evolves from it fire. From fire evolves water, as evidenced
by the fact that “ whenever a person grieves or perspires from
heat, water (as tears and perspiration) is produced.” From water
evolves food, as is evident by the fact that “ whenever it rains,
then there is abundant food. So food for eating is produced
just from water.”
In the standard of modern knowledge, all this is but puerile
product of pseudo-observation. But we are not discussing here
modern science. We shall miss the real significance of Udda-
laka’s views if we forget that we are discussing here one of the
first philosophers of ancient India, as Thales is of ancient
Greece. W hat makes Thales the pioneer of European science
and philosophy is not the conclusion he arrives at but the
mode of his arriving at it. His view that water is the first
cause already forms part of the mythological speculations
of the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians. Still, his position
is remarkable, because he is the first in Europe to try
to arrive at a first principle based on a rational analysis of
empirial data, outgrowing for the purpose the spell of
religious and mythological fancies of earlier times.^^s So is
the position of Uddalaka Aruni in Indian history, who, chro­
nologically speaking, is earlier than Thales. With the tools of
observation and interpretation still extremely rudimentary, he
sees water (tears and perspiration) being produced from heat,
and he sees that food or vegetation is produced only when there
is abundant water. Hence he thinks that from fire evolves
water, and from water evolves food.
Thus arriving at the principles of fire, water and food,
Uddalaka moves on to show that everything in the world—both
inanimate aud animate—evolves from them. From the point
o f view of our present discussion, the most significant part of
his discourse is the way in which he proposes to explain the

Indological Truths
evolution of man—inclusive of his life, speech and mind—from
these three principles.
Uddalaka Aruni said to his son Svetaketu : ‘Food, when
eaten, becomes divided into three parts. That which is its
coarsest constituent becomes the faeces ; that which is medium,
the flesh ; that which is finest, the mind (mana).
‘Water, when drunk, becomes divided into three parts. That
which is its coarsest constituent, becomes the urine ; that which
is medium, the blood; that which is finest, the life c m ).
‘Heat ( ghee, butter, etc. ), when eaten, becomes divided
into three parts. That which is its coarsest constituent, be­
comes bone ; that which is medium, the marrow ; that which
is finest, the speech (vac).
‘For, my dear, the mind consists of food ; life consists of
water, speech consists of heat.’
Svetaketu said : ‘Do you, sir, cause me to understand even
more.’
‘So be it, my dear,’ said he and continued :
‘Of coagulated milk, my dear, when churned, that which
is the finest essence, all moves upward ; it becomes butter.
‘Even so, verily, my dear, of food, when eaten, that which
is the finest essence, all moves upward ; it becomes the mind.
‘Of water, my dear, when drunk, that which is the finest
essence, all moves upward ; it becomes the. life.
‘Of h eat,. my dear, when eaten, that which is the finest
essence, all moves upward ; it becomes speech.
‘For, my dear, the mind consists of food ; the life consists
of water ; the speech consists of heat.’
Svetaketu said ; ‘Do you, sir, cause me to understand even
more.’
‘So be it, my dear,’ said he and continued :
‘A person, my dear, consists of sixteen parts. For fifteen
days do not eat; drink water at will. Life, which consists of
water, will not be cut off from one who drinks water-.’
Then for fifteen days he (Svetaketu) did not eat. After that
he approached him, saying, ‘What shall I say, sir ?’
‘The Rg verses, my dear, the Yajus formulas, the Saman
chants.’

Indological Truths
 Then he said, ‘Verily, they do not come to me.’
To him he then said, ‘Just as, my dear, a single coal of the
size of a fire-fly may be left over from a great kindled fire, but
with it the fire would not thereafter burn much—so, my dear,
of your sixteen parts a single sixteenth part may be left over,
but with it you do not now apprehend the Vedas. Eat; then
you will understand from me.’
Then he ate. So then he approached him. Then whatsoever
he asked him, he answered everything. To him he then said :
‘Just as, my dear, one may, by covering it with straw, make
a single coal of the size of a fire-fly that has been left over from
a great kindled fire blaze up, and with it the fire would there­
after burn much—so, my dear, of your sixteen parts a single
sixteenth part has been left over. After having been covered
with food, it has blazed up. With it you now apprehend the
Vedas; for, my dear, the mind consists of food, the life consists
of water, the speech consists of heat.’
Then he understood from him—yea, he understood...
Uddalaka continued : ‘On this point, my dear, understand
that this (body) is a sprout which has sprung up. It will not be
without a root. What else could its root be than food ? Even
so, my dear, with food for a sprout, look for water as the
root. With water, my dear, as a sprout, look for heat as the
root. With heat, my dear, as a sprout, look for Being {sat)
as the root. All creatures here, my dear, have Being as their
root, have Being as their home, have Being as their support...
‘But how, verily, my dear, each of these three divinities
{devata), upon reaching man, becomes threefold, has previ­
ously been said.
‘When a person here is deceasing, my dear, his speech goes
into his mind, his mind into his life, his life into heat, the
heat into the highest divinity (i.e Being or sat). That which is
the finest essence—this whole world has that as its soul. That
is truth {satya). That is soul (atman). That art thou (ta t tvam
asi), Svetaketu.’

There are two—and only two—words in the entire discourse

on which one can possibly bank to ignore or overlook the strong

Indological Truths
materialist proclivity of the philosopher. These words are
devata and atman, ordinarily meaning divinity and soul. But
we have already seen the philosopher’s understanding of atman
or soul. By it he means nothing but the earth— eva.
Can he use the same word in the present discourse in more than
a figurative sense ? So is presumably the sense of his use of the
word devata. He uses it for the ultimate reality—Being or sat
—and also for the material elements successively evolving from
it, viz. heat, water and food.
Notwithstanding the use of such words, the strong material­
ist tendency of his entire discourse is there for all to see. Its
starting point is some form of sat-karya-vada or the potential
pre-existence of the effect in the cause. When, starting from this
he argues that from the original sa t or being successively evolve
three positively material elements—fire, water and food—the
implication seems to be that this original sat contains the poten­
tials of matter and in this sense is itself something material.
Otherwise, from his standpoint, there is the absurdity of
‘m atter’ being produced from ‘not-matter’—a form o f ‘being’
produced from ‘non-being’. This, in short, is the reason why
the Vedantic idealists apprehend the danger of understanding
Uddalaka’s sa t as something like the pradhana or primeval
matter of Sainkhya philosophy. The Brahma-sutra attempts to
discard this possibility and its later interpreters like Samkara
and Ramanuja try to argue elaborately against it.
Referring to Uddalaka’s sat, Samkara argues : “ It is impo­
ssible to find room in the Vedanta-texts for the non-intelligent
pradhana, the fiction of the Samkhyas ; because it is not
founded on . ” ^26
S c r i p t u r e Reiterates Ramanuja, “ That which
does not rest on scripture, i.e. the pradhana, which rests on
inference only, is not what is intimated by the text referring to
the origination of the w o r l d . B u t what does Uddalaka him­
self claim ? Does he claim that his view of the sat is based on
scriptures ? We have already noted the kind of enthusiasm he
shows for scriptural knowledge. When Svetaketu returns to
him after studying the scriptures for twelve years and is full of

Indological Truths
arrogance for his scriptural knowledge, Uddalaka asks him the
question concerning the ultimate cause of everything in the
world, only to be told that the son knows nothing about it, his
scriptural studies notwithstanding. Uddalaka, instead of using
even any scrap of scriptural evidence, depends only on observa­
tion and inference to substantiate his own view, and what is
most amazing for the ancient context—goes even to the extent
of an experimental verification of the view. The experiment,
we repeat, is quite simple : The son does not eat food for fifteen
days and he loses mind ; he eats food and his mind comes
back ; therefore mind is the product of food.^^* When there­
fore, Saipkara and Ramanuja argue that he cannot speak of
anything like the pradhana because that is based on inference
rather than scripture, one is not obliged to attach much weight
to the argument.
But, claim both Samkara and Ramanuja, there is a strong
philological evidence in favour of their spiritualist interpretation
of Uddalaka’s sat. As Ramanuja puts it, “ the text exhibits
the root f c —which means ‘to think’—as denoting a special
activity on the part of what is termed Being {sat ) : ‘It thought,
may I be many, may I grow forth’. ‘Thinking’ cannot belong
to the non-sentient pradhana : the term Being {sat) can there­
fore denote only the all-knowing highest Person who is capable
of thought.”229
There is no doubt that in the text the root ik s is used with
reference to the Being or sat. But the trouble is that in the very
next sentences describing the evolution of water from fire and of
food from water, we come across the use of the same r o o t:
“ That heat bethought itself, ‘Would that I were many. Let me
procreate myself. It emitted water...The water bethought itself,
‘Would that I were many. Let me procreate myself.’ It
emitted food.” It thus seems that the use of the root Iks is
only figurative—perhaps used by the ancient philosopher to

228. I have elsewhere shown that the argument attibuted by Jayanta

Bhatta N M ii.l2 is presumably based on this ; Chattopadhyaya
W LW D 443 ff.
29. Ramanuja on Br. Su. i.1.5.

Indological Truths
exclude the possibility of any outside agency or any external
will—for explaining the evolution of fire from Being, as of
water from fire and food from water. In fact, Ramanuja is
aware of the possibility. The opponent, he says, would argue :
“ The transference to non-sentient things of attributes properly
belonging to sentient beings is quite common ; as when we say
‘the rice-field looks out for rain’, ‘the rain delighted the seed’.”
So there is some limit beyond which Samkara and Ramanuja
cannot rely on this philological evidence. They need some
more argument to prove their case. As the decisive evidence
for an idealist interpretation of Uddalaka’s sat, therefore, they
raise the question of liberation. How can Uddalaka, asks
Ramanuja, speak of a material first cause to “ Svetaketu, who
is desirous of final release “ If, on the other hand” , con­
tinues Ramanuja, “the text would teach that the non-intelligent
pradhana is the general cause, it could not possibly teach that
the meditation on this pradhana being a man’s self is the means
towards liberation.” ^^* Samkara argues on the same line, acMing
that since the Upanisads elsewhere speak of an intelligent first
cause, these cannot—in the discourse of Uddalaka—conceive
the first cause or sat as something like the pradhana or primeval
matter, inasmuch as the Upanisads are scriptural revelations
with a consistent view of the ultimate reality, the realisation of
the nature of which leads to liberation. If Uddalaka speaks of
a material first cause, he can only create confusion and thereby
deny his son the prospect of liberation
From the viewpoint of Uddalaka’s actual discourse, all these
arguments are gratuitous. The text does not speak of Svetaketu
approaching Uddalaka “ being desirous of final release” , nor
does Uddalaka show anywhere in the Upanisids any interest in
liberation of the soul. The discourse attributed to him shows
only intellectual curiosity in the scientist’s sense. Therefore, in
spite of Sainkara and Ramanuja it is hard to dismiss the possi­
bility that by Being or sat, Uddalaka means something like the
primeval matter of Samkhya. Since, in his view, the body—
along with life, speech and mind—evolve ultimately from this

Indological Truths
original Being, it is only natural for him to tell his son tat tvam-
ai/,‘That thou art’—a formula about which there is almost
endless mystificr.tion in later Vedanta literature.
From the point of view of our discussion of science and
society in ancient India, the evidence of Uddalaka Aruni and
his view is significant for a number of reasons. The society in
which he lives is hostile to science. There is considerable
financial and political support for a philosophical outlook
which, by condemning experience and reason, condemns the
knowledge of nature. The material human body is despised,
and instead of any urge to know it and its making, the philoso­
phers are encouraged to think of the soul, its transmigration
and immortality. However, in spite of such a general intellec­
tual climate, the Upanisadic literature is not without a thinker,
who prefers to utilise his leisure for the purpose of working out
an essentially scientific understanding of man—i.e his body, his
life, his speech and his consciousness. To avoid humiliation
in the king’s court—and perhaps also to be ensured of the free
time he requires for theoretical specialisation—he goes no doubt
to the royal courts to listen to the theory of transmigration of
the soul, and even has the patience to hear something about
the Universal Soul from a petty king called ASvapati Kaikeya.
From his own discourse, however, it is obvious that all this
makes little or no impression on him. Instead of soul, he talks
only of the making of the body from fire, water and food—the
same principles accounting also for the origin of life, speech
and mind.
Such an absorbing interest in the body and in its life, speech
and consciousness (mind) appears to presuppose training in
medical tradition—specially in physiology and anatomy. Where-
from does Uddalaka get this training ? Within the stronghold
of Upanisadic culture, there is an almost total blackout of
medical knowledge, allowing it to survive only among persons
considered despicable heretics. However, outside this strong­
hold things are apparently different : areas comparatively
backward from the viewpoint of Brahmanical orthodoxy are
also comparatively free from the oppressive effect of Brahmani­
cal ideology. Uddalaka goes to some obscure region of the

Indological Truths
country, where the scientific pursuit is yet to be stifled by the
oflScialiy patronised idealist philosophy of Upanisadic India.
We shall mention here some evidences of this as preserved in
the Vedic literature.
The most famous strongold of Upanisadic culture is Kuru-
Pancala. Outside this region, scholars have a veritable awe for
the learning of the Kuru-Pancala Brahmins.^^s it is therefore
of interest to note that Uddalaka Aruni, in spite of being a
Kuru-Paficala Brahmin, chooses to have his own training some­
where outside, i.e. in a comparatively backward area in the
Vedic view. Referring to one of the places of his own educa­
tion, he says in the B rhadaranyaka Upanisad^^ : “ we were
dwelling among the Madras in the house of Pataricala Kapya.”
The exact geographical location of the Madras is discussed by
others.^^5 Macdonell and Keith^^* reject as “quite improbable”
Weber’s suggestion that the name Pataiicaia Kapya is reminis­
cent of Kapila and Patanjali of the Samkhya-Yoga philosophy.
Still, there is something curious about what the B rhadaranyaka
says of this teacher of Uddalaka. The Upanisad mentions
him only twice—once saying that his daughter was possessed by
a descendant of Angiras,^^^ and saying on another occasion that
his wife was possessed by a descendant of A tharvans.^^s In th e
Vedic tradition, these two names are inseparably connected
with the Atharvaveda and therefore also with the earliest medi­
cal tradition embodied in it. Can it b e that the statements of
being haunted by the descendants of Atharvans and Aiigiras are
but the Upanisadic way of putting that the tradition of ancient
Indian medicine continues in Kapya’s home ? This is highly con­
jectural no doubt. Still, we cannot ignore the fact that Kapya’s
name occurs in the list of the ancient authorities of medicine,
who, according to the Caraka-samhitd,^^^ gather somewhere on
the slopes of the Himalaya in a grand medical conference from
which ultimately emerges the medical compilation.
In the same list of medical authorities of the Caraka-sam hita,

233. Sat. B r.xiA .1,2. 234. B r.U p .u i.7 A . 235. Sircar 30, 42. 9 6 f ;
Vedic Index i.l2 3 . 236. Vedic Index, i.473-4. 237. Br. Up. iii 4.1.
238. /6, iii.7.1. 239. Caraka-sarrihita i.l.H .

Indological Truths
we read of Saunaka.^'*® What particularly interests us here is
that the Satapatha Brahmana mentions the same name, describes
him as specialising in the problems of physiology and anatomy
and tells us that Uddalaka Aruni—impressed by his knowledge
of these—chooses to be a pupil of his. This Saunaka, we are
further told, lives in some comparatively unimportant place,
outside the stronghold of Upanisadic culture. As is only to be
expected of a Brahmana-text, while telling us the story of how
Uddalaka Aruni becomes the student of Saunaka, the Satapatha
Brahmana crams into it a good deal of mystification of ritual
trivialities. Still, it may be possible for us to salvage the main
features of the story from such mystifications. When we do
it we can see the philosopher submitting himself to the physio­
logist for acquiring the kind of knowledge evidently no longer
cared for in Kuru-Paiicala.
We give below the main theme of this legend:^‘*i

Now Uddalaka Aruni was driving about, as a chosen

(? champion) among the people of the northern country. By
him a gold coin was offered; for in the time of our forefathers
a prize used to be offered by the chosen when driving about,
for the sake of calling out the timid to a disputation. Fear theii
seized the Brahmins of the northern people.
‘This fellow is a Kuru-Paiicala Brahmin and son of a
Brahmin—let us take care lest he should deprive us of our
domain : come, let us challenge him to a disputation on spiritual
matters.’ (Said the northern people among themselves.)
—‘With whom for our champion ?’
—‘With Svaidayana.’ Svaidayana, to wit, was Saunaka.
They said. ‘Svaidayana, with thee as our champion we will
fight this fellow.’
He said, ‘Well, then, stay ye here quietly : I will just find
out what kind of man he is’.
He went up to him, and when he had come up, he (Udda­
laka) greeted him saying, ‘Svaidayana !’
‘Halloo, son of Gautama, ’ replied the other, and straightway
began to question him...

Indological Truths
 .. ‘He alone, O son of Gautama, may drive about amongst
people as chosen, who knows...whereby it is that creatures
here are born toothless, whereby they (the teeth) grow with
them ; whereby they decay with them, whereby they come to
remain permanently with them ; whereby in the last stage of
life, they all decay again with them ; whereby the lower ones
grow first, then the upper ones ; whereby the lower ones are
smaller, and the upper ones broader ; whereby the incisors are
larger and whereby the molars are of equal size.
‘He alone, O son of Gautama, may drive about amongst
people as chosen who knows...whereby creatures here are born
with hair ; whereby for the second time, as it were, the hair of
the beard and the arm-pits and other parts of the body grow on
them ; whereby it is on the head that one first becomes grey, and
then, again, in the last stage of life, one becomes grey all
over.
‘He alone, O son of Gautama, may drive about amongst
people as chosen who knows . whereby the seed of the boy is
not productive, whereby in the middle age it is productive, and
whereby again in his last stage of life it is not productive’ .
Then he (Uddalaka) gave up to him the gold coin, saying,
‘Thou art learned, Svaidayana ; and verily gold is given unto
him who knows gold.’
And he (Svaidayana) having concealed it went away.
They asked him, ‘How did that son of Gautama behave ?’
He said, ‘Even as a Brahmin, and the son of a Brahmin :
the head would fly off whosoever should (dare to) challenge
him in a disputation.’
They then went away in all directions.
He (Uddalaka) then came back to him, with fire-wood in
his head, and said, ‘I want to become thy pupil.’
—‘What wouldst thou study ?’
—‘Even those questions which thou didst ask me—explain
them to me.’
He said, ‘I will tell them to thee even without thy becoming
my pupil.’2‘*2

Indological Truths
 Not that we expect Saunaka of the Satapatha Brahmana to
know the real answers to these questions. Nor do we expect
the priestly compilers of such legends to record objectively what­
ever knowledge Saunaka has about these things.
In spite of all this, it is impossible to miss one point. The
problems raised by Saunaka are problems of anatomy and phy­
siology. One interested in these is presumably connected with
the medical tradition, though the Satapatha Brahmana does not
tell us anything more about Saunaka’s connection with medi­
cine. But it does tell us two things significant for our main
discussion. First, from the standpoint of Upanisadic culture,
Saunaka belongs to a relatively unimportant area—an area
where people are somewhat nervous to face the Kuru-Pafiicala
elites. Secondly, Uddalaka Aruni, in spite of being a Kuru-
Paiicala Brahmin, submits himself to Saunaka and wants to
become his pupil, attracted by the specialisation of the latter in
anatomy and physiology of those days. Clearly enough, Udd-
alaka’s mind is working in a direction different from the one
so much in vogue in Upanisadic India—i.e. different from the
direction of evolving a world-denying mataphysics of pure ego
(atm an), which, judged by the legends of Yajiiavalkya and
others, is a grand paying proposition in Upanisadic India.
Thus the legend of the Satapatha Brahmana seems to give us
a clue to the otherwise unexplained mystery of Uddalaka Aruni
representing a basically science-oriented outlook in a general
intellectual climate positively hostile to science.
However, as is only to be expected, Uddalaka Aruni
remains on the whole a neglected and tragic figure in the
subsequent development of strictly Vedic philosophy. From the
Chandogya XJpanisad we have the impression of his moving to­
wards the doors of science—towards the understanding of man
and nature on the strength of reasoning, observation and even
experimental verification. In the course of the subsequent develop­
ment of Upanisadic philosophy, however, these doors, are never
opened. There is none to inherit his thoughts and work for its
further development. Any development of his line of thought
that we possibly see in later times takes place outside the
followers of the Upanisads, specially among the physicians, Des-

Indological Truths
pised as degenerates by profession. They alone try to develop an
uninhibited view of man and nature depending on reasoning
and direct observation, and thus continue the line of inves­
tigation of Uddalaka and hence perhaps also of his teacher
Saunaka. From the viewpoint of the history of Indian science,
what happens to Uddalaka’s teachings among the followers of
Upanisads or Vedanta is distressing. There is only the tenaci­
ous tendency to twist some of his words and verbal expressions,
so that these can somehow be forced into the general mould of
world-denying and body-despising {sa rira k a ) metaphysics,
insisting on the recognition of the exclusive reality of the bare
ego or attnan. Uddalaka’s teachings, in short, are made to
pass into their opposite. The promise of science is sought to be
converted into a component of the counter-ideology. Such a
fate of his teachings, howsoever regrettable, is also under­
standable. The inheritance of science means the defiance of the
counter-ideology and therefore also the basic social norm on
which this counter-ideology thrives and which it wants to safe­
guard. In other words, it requires the courage of questioning
the validity of the hierarchical society itself. Among the follow­
ers of the Upanisads there is none to do it.

17. VEDIC A N D MEDICAL TRADITION : ATHARVAVEDA

The legend of the Satapatha Brahmana just discussed mentions

Uddalaka’s teacher as Saunaka. Other evidences of Vedic
literature indicate that this is the name of an ancient clan or
gotra?'^^ What makes this clan most famous in the Vedic
tradition is its connection with the Atharvaveda. Of the many
recensions in which the Atharvaveda was once current,2“*“* the one
best preserved for us is that of the Saunakas. We cannot but
remember this while noting the special interest shown in the
problems of anatomy and physiology by Uddalaka’s teacher,
because the Atharvaveda contains for us “ the oldest system of

Indological Truths
 Indian medical science.”^'*^ The Saunaka recension of the
Atharvaveda thus indicates the cultivation of Atharvavedic
system of medicine among members of the ancient Saunaka
clan. Can it then be that Uddalaka’s teacher who bears this
clan name is one connected with medicine ?
At the present stage of research we know too little about the
ancient Saunakas to answer this question fully. Much about
the Atharvaveda, however, is too well-known today to be
ignored while discussing the history of ancient Indian medicine.
We propose to review three points about the Atharvaveda.
First, in what sense is the Atharvaveda the oldst literary
record of Indian medicine ?
Secondly, what happens to the prestige of the Atharvaveda
in the comparatively later Vedic tradition when the counter­
ideology militates against medicine ?
Thirdly, how do the doctors of the medical compilations
look back at the Atharvaveda ?
The first two of these questions are extensively discussed by
the modern scholars and it remains for us mainly to sum up
their observations.
The Atharvaveda enables us to see that among the ancient
Vedic peoples medicine begins basically in the same way in
which it does among other peoples in their primitive stage, i.e.
mainly as magical charms and incantations intended to appease,
subdue or drive away all sorts of devils, demons and hobgoblins
imagined to cause diseases. One of the two themes of the
Atharvaveda is bhesoja, though not yet in the sense of later
medical literature. As Dasgupta says,^'*® “The word bhesoja
in the Atharvaveda meant a charm or an amulet which could
remove diseases and their symptoms.” To this he adds the
following note : “ Bloomfield says that the existence of such
charms and practices is guaranteed moreover at least as early as
the Indo-Iranian (Aryan) period by the stems baesaza and
baesazya —and by the pre-eminent position of water and plants in
all prayers for health and long life. Adalbert Kuhn has pointed
out some interesting and striking resemblances between leuto-

Indological Truths
nic and Vedic medical charms, especially in connection with
cures for worms and fractures. These may perhaps be mere
anthropological coincidences, due to the similar mental endow­
ment of the two peoples. But it is no less likely that some of
these folk-notions had crystallized in prehistoric times, and that
these parallels reflect the continuation of a crude Indo-European
folk-lore that had survived among the Teutons and Hindus-’’^**^
A later work called the K ausika-suira gives “ the most
minute directions for the performance of those magic rites for
which the songs and spells of the Atharvaveda were used.”^'’*
S.N. Dasgupta’s view concerning the possible development of
ancient Indian medicine from the Atharvaveda to the Kausika-
su tra may be noted here :
“ In the Atharvaveda itself only a few medicines are mentioned,
such as jah gida ( xix.34 and 35, ) gulgulu ( xix.38 ), kustha
( xix.39 ) and sata-vara ( xix.36 ), and these are all to be used
as amulets for protection not only from certain diseases, but
also from the witchcraft (k r ty a ) of enemies. The effect of these
herbs was of the same miraculous nature as that of mere charms
and incantations. They did not operate in the manner in which
the medicines prescribed in the ordinary medical literature acted,
but in a supernatural way. In most of the hymns which appear
as pure charms the K a u sik a -su tra directs the application of
various medicines either internally or as amulets...The period of
the K au sika-sutra was probably one when the value of the
medicinal herbs was being more and more realized and they
were being administered along with the usual Atharvanic
charms. This was probably a stage of reconciliation between
the drug system and the charm system.”^'*^
But there is no ground to think that even as supplemented
by the K ausika-sutra, the system of Atharvavedic medicine
shows much sophistication. Here is some idea of it given by
Dasgupta : “ Atharvaveda i.2 is a charm against fever {jv a ra ) ,
diarrhoea (atisara), diabetes {atim u tra), glandular sores [nadi-
vranay, a string of munja grass is to be tied, the mud from a
field or ant-hill is to be drunk, clarified butter is to be apphed

Indological Truths
and the holes of the anus and penis and the mouth of the sore
are to be aerated with a leather bladder and the charm is to be
chanted. The disease asrava, mentioned in this hymn, is
explained by Sayana as meaning diabetes (jnutratisara). Atharva
veda i.3 is a charm against stoppage of urine and stool
{mutra-purisa-nirodhd). Along with a chanting of the hymn, the
patient is to be made to drink either earth from a rat’s hole
{m u sik a -m rttik a ), a.pu tika plant, curd or saw-dust from old
wood, or he is to ride an elephant or a horse, or to throw an
arrow; a fine iron needle was to be passed through the urinal
canal...Atharvaveda i.7 and i.8 are charms for driving away evil
spirits, yatudhana-s and kim idin-s, when a man is possessed by
them. Atharvaveda i.lO is a charm for dropsy (ja lo d a ra ) : a
jugful of water containing grass etc. is to be sprinkled over the
body of the patient.” 25“
More details of Atharvavedic medicine are not necessary for
our present purpose. Even as supplemented by the Kausika-
su tra, it gives us the impression of mainly magico-religious
therapeutics. But the decisive fact about the Atharvaveda is that
it does indicate the beginnings of medicine, without which the
subsequent career of Indian medicine is not easily conceivable.
What view, then, is taken of this earliest literary document
of Indian medicine in the comparatively later Vedic tradition,
when the counter-ideology declares its contempt for medicine ?
Bloomfield^^i has extensively surveyed the scriptural and legal
literature— dharm asastra and sm rti—io i determining the
status of the Atharvaveda in later Vedic view. It may be
sufficient for us to mention here some of the data compiled by
him to see how the custodians of hierarchical ideology propose
to disown and even denounce the Atharvaveda for its medical
content.
The Yajurveda is clearly reluctant to allow the Atharvaveda
the status of Veda proper. The usual way of doing this is to
speak only of the three Vedas {tra yi or trayl-vidya), ignoring
the fourth Veda, which the Atharvaveda is normally expected to
be. “The Taittiriya-sam hita mentions rk {R gveda), saman

Indological Truths
(Sam aveda) and yajuh {Yajurveda) alone...This also, in the
main, is the nature of the references to the Atharvaveda in the
Satapatha B rahm am . Either the term trayi-vidya is used, or
saman and yajuh are mentioned explicitly...In all these
cases, there is no mention of the Atharvan; but neither is there
any mention of any other literary type that has a distinctive
standing outside the trayi-vidyd."'^^^ “ The Vojasaneyi-sam hita
mentinos the trayi-vidyd frequently; the Atharvan is now^here
mentioned in connection with the other three. Once a woman
that miscarries is devoted to the Atharvans; the reference...
seems to be to Atharvan hymn or Atharvanic practices. Other­
wise the word atharvan occurs in connection that admits of no
special, or at any rate obvious, reference to the fourth Veda.
Neither is there, as far as is known, any mention of the
Atharvan in the M aitrayam -sam h ita, the A itareya and K a u sitaki
BrShmanas, or Katyayana’s and Latyayana’s Srauta-sutras”^^^
Thus the first well-formed priestly literature is clearly reluc­
tant to allow Atharvaveda full Vedic status. What is it about
the Atharvaveda that specially annoys the priests ? The Athar-
vavedic charms are classified mainly under two groups, called
bhesaja and y d tu (adhicara). The former are aids to magico-
religious therapeutics; these are usually described as santa,
‘holy’, and pau sU ka, ‘conferring prosperity’. The latter is
usually translated as aggressive witchcraft or hostile sorcery and
are described as terrible or ghora.^^‘^ The Rgveda^^^ considers
ya tu as devilish; but the “ Satapatha B rahm am x.5.2.20 is not
prevented from placing the yatuvidah, ‘those who are skilled in
sorcery’, in solemn array with the representatives of the holiest
forms of literature...as the characteristic exponent of Atharvanic
activity. And on the other hand even bhesajam, ‘cure, medi­
cine’, the altruistic province of the Atharvan, though well
regarded in general, does not come off without a sneer.”^^®
Thus the resistance to Atharvaveda is a resistance to bhesaja or
medicine and not so much to ya tu or hostile magic which proves
useful for kings. The later legal literature or dharm asastra

Indological Truths
seems to throw some light on this, because it tells us that “ the
Atharvan performs, especially for the king, inestimable services
in the injury and overthrow of enemies. The King’s Chaplain
(purohita) was in all probability as a rule an Atharvan priest.” ^^’
Still, “ the J/zarma-literature pronounces with no uncertain
voice the judgment that the Atharvan, while useful and indis­
pensable under certain circumstances, is on the whole inferior
in character and position, that its practices are impure, and
either stand in need of regulation, or must be prohibited by
proper punishment.’’^^^ Accordingly, “ the conspicuous omi­
ssion of this Veda which characterises the irawfa-literature...
is continued in the dharma t e x t s . I n the law-codes of
Baudhayana and Manu, “the recitation of the trayi-vidya is
recommended as the most efficient means of purification and
release from sin.”^®® In the cosmogonic account of Manu, “ only
Kk, yajuh and saman are derived from the primeval crea­
tion” In Baudhayana and Manu, “ the trayi-vidya and its
adherents only appear at the funeral offerings {sraddha)."'^^^ In
M anu the “ adherents of the three Vedas are recommended as
an assembly to decide points of law.” ^^^ “ Xhe inferiority of the
Atharvan is stated outright” in the law-codes of Apastamba,
“ where it is said that the knowledge of women and sudra-s is a
supplement of the Atharvaveda.”^^*
Bloomfield compiles more evidences the real implication of
which seems to connect the contempt for Atharvaveda with the
contempt for medicine. “ An especially pointed reflection against
the Atharvaveda is implied in the prohibition of the m ulakriya
or m ulakarm a, ‘practices with roots’.” In the Law-codes of
Visnu, “ wives are specially forbidden to engage in such practice
and at Manu xi.64 practices with roots are generally forbidden.
Such practices abound in Atharvaveda and its r i t u a l . F r o m
the evidences compiled by Bloomfield it further appears that the
legal contempt for the Atharvaveda may partly be due also to
the democratic commitment of the latter. According to the
law-codes of Gautama, Visnu and Manu, “ he who practises for

257. Ib. p. xlvi. 258. Ib. 259. lb. p. xlix. 260. lb.
261. lb. 262. lb : 263. lb. 264. Ib. 265. //>. p. 1.

Indological Truths
the multitude {gram ayajaka) is pronounced impure; we may
presume that this kind of activity was largely, if not entirely in
the hands of Atharvan priests.” ^®®
More evidences like these are perhaps unnecessary. If the
counter-ideology feels obliged to denounce the ancient Vedic
gods because of their medical past, it has logically to disown
the Atharvaveda because of its medical content. Interestingly,
the continue disrespect for Atharvaveda in the Vedic tradition
creates a situation in which a medieval compendium of Indian
philosophy called Sarva-m ata-sam graha goes to the extent of
declaring that an adherence to it is such a mark of philosophical
disrespectability that it befits only the heretics or materialists.
While discussing the Carvakas, it asserts that according to them
only Atharvaveda and Gondharvaveda —the latter concerned with
dance, music and acting—are the Vedas. As the text puts it,
“In the Carvaka view, only material prosperity and erotic enjoy­
ment are valid human ideals. As committed to these, only the
Atharvaveda and Gandharvaveda are to be considered as Vedas” :
artha-kam au eva purusarthau. tannisthau atharva-gandharva-
vedau eva ca vedau.^^'^ This, it is needless to say, is not to be
taken literally; because there is no ground to think that the
Carvakas care much for Veda as such. Still the evidence is
interesting because it is indicative of the attitude to Atharvaveda
of the medieval Vedic philosophers, for whom whatever is
approved of by the Carvakas must be something contemptuous.
In the context of our present discussion, there remains only
one more question. How do the physicians want to look back
a t \h s Atharvaveda 1 T\is.Caraka-sarnhita\eavQ s nothing vague
about the answer. Of the four Vedas—namely Rgveda, Sama-
veda, Yajurveda and Atharvaveda —they see practically nothing
in the first three to claim special allegiance of the physician. If
therefore the physician is asked to declare his allegiance to some
Veda, he can only say that it is an exclusive allegiance to the
Atharvaveda. As the text says, “The physician may be asked
to answer the question, ‘Of the four vedas—the Rgveda, Sam a-
veda, Yajurveda and Atharvaveda —to which Veda the followers

Indological Truths
of Ayurveda declare affiliation ?’...Thus pressed for an answer,
the physician should declare his allegiance to the Atharvaveda
from among the four Vedas, namely Rgveda, Sam aveda, Yajur-
\ed a and Atharvaveda’’’ : tatra cet p ra std ra h syuh : caturnam
rk-sama-yajuh-atharvavedanam kam vedam upadisanti dyurveda-
vidah ? ...ta tra bhisajd p r s te n a evam caturnam rk-sdma-yajuh-
atharvaveddndm dtmanah atharvavede bhaktih ddesyd.^^^
There is evidently something daring about this because it
is a declaration of affiliation to the Atharvaveda to the exclusion
o f the other three Vedas, i.e. to the exclusion of what enjoys
highest scriptural authority according to the priests and law­
givers. But the Caraka-sarnhitd wants to be clear about one
thing. From the physician’s viewpoint, the question of the
affiliation to Veda has nothing to do with scriptural authority.
Of the four Vjg^s, only the Atharvaveda deserves his respect
because it done has medical content. As the Caraka-sarnhitd
says, the physicians have respect for the Atharvaveda because
it prescribes therapeutic and other measures beneficial for life
(cikitsd ca dyusah hitdya upadisyate).^^^ Thus, whatever may
be the status of the Atharvaveda in the priestly and legal view,
objectivity demands that the physician has respect for this
earliest work on medicine.
At the same time, it is remarkable of the Caraka-sarnhitd
to tell us in its own way that the physician’s respect for the
Atharvaveda is not to be misunderstood. The therapeutic tech- ^
nique recommended by the Atharvaveda is ancient after all.
Medical science after the Atharvaveda makes much progress
and the nature of therapeutic technique embodied in the Caraka-
sarnhitd is qualitatively diiferent. Therefore, acknowledging
what appears to be the real historical importance of the Athar­
vaveda— without proposing to reject its recommendations
altogether- the Caraka-sarnhitd suggests that physicians belong­
ing to its own tradition are to be trained in a different therapeu­
tic technique altogether. This leads us to see how the text
differentiates between the magico-religious therapeutics of

Indological Truths
ancient Atharvaveda and rational therapeutics rfepresented by
itself.

18. MAGIGO-RELIGIOUS TO RATIONAL THERAPEUTICS

Immediately after declaring the physician’s allegiance to the

Atharvaveda, the Caraka-sdm hita passes on to explain the nature
of therapeutic technique embodied in it- There is a very good
reason for doing this. The historical importance of the Atharva^
veda notwithstanding, the physicians of our medical compila­
tions have to recommend a different therapeutic technique. It
is interesting to see how they explain this rather delicate point.
The therapy recommended by the Atharvaveda, says the
Caraka-safnhita, is based on offering gifts (to priests), propi­
tiatory rites, oblations, auspicious observances, sacrifices, vows,
penances, fastings, magical incantations, etc. : dam -svastyayana-
bali-m ahgala^hom a-niyam a-prayascitta-upavasa-m antra-adi-pari-
grahat cikitsam praha.^'"^
According to our way of putting it, this is magico-religious
therapeutics of ancient India, based on the assumption that
diseases are being caused by supernatural agencies. In the termi­
nology of the Caraka-sarnhita, it is daiva-vyapahaya ausadha
(or bhesaja), literally ‘therapy depending on the supsmatural’.
The medical compilation wants to be clear about its exact nature
mainly in two places and, what is very significant, in both
places for the purpose of contrasting it with the system of
medicine the Caraka-sam hita itself stands for. This other
system of medicine, in the terminology of our text, hyukti-^
vyapasraya bhesaja (or ausadha), literally ‘therapy depending
on rational application’. Thus, in other words, though fully
acknowledging the importance of the Atharvaveda for Indian
medical science and without rudely rejecting its therapeutic
technique outright, the Caraka-samhita seems to remind us in
a polite and tactful way that, in spite of the humble beginnings

Indological Truths
-of medicine as magico-religious therapeutics, it has already
taken a momentous step forward, i.e. to the system of rational
therapeutics which is embodied in this medical compilation.
This transition from magico-religious to rational therapeutics
is crucial for the history of Indian medicine. The way in which
the Caraka-sam hita draws our attention to it has also its own
interest. It can be seen from the contexts in which the text feels
the need of explaining the difference between the two. The
difference is first introduced in the course of clarifying the gene--
ral principles of Ayurveda, i. e. in the Sutra-sthaoft of the
Caraka-sam hita. It is taken up again in the chapter we have
already referred to as designed specially to clarify the logicor
epistemological categories considered essential as theoretical
equipments of the physicians. Both the contexts indicate the
importance attached to the understanding of the basic differ^
ence between magico-religious and rational therapeutics for the
conceptual clarification of the practising doctors.
While discussing the fundamental principles of Ayurveda
(Sutra-sthana), the distinction between the two systems of
medicine occurs immediately after a description of the model
physician. Proficiency in medicine (vaidyatvam), the text says,
resides in those who have acquired mastery over theory and
practice of medicine and, on the strength of this, are capable
of ensuring actual cure and hence also of happiness and long life.
prayoga-jnana-vijM na-siddhi-siddhah sukha-pradahj
jlvitabhisarah te syuh vaidyatvam tesu avasthitamjj^'^''^
This naturally raises the question : What exactly is meant by
the mastery of the theory and practice of medicine ? The
Caraka-sam hita feels the need of answering the question in some
detail. It says :
“ Medicine is of three kinds, viz. ‘based on the supernatural’,
‘based on rational application’ ‘and based on mental control’.
“ Among these, medicine ‘based on the supernatural’ consists of
incantations, herbs, gems, auspicious rites, oblations and
offerings, sacrifices, vows, ceremonial penances, fasting, pro­
pitiatory rites, worship, pilgrimage, etc.

Indological Truths
‘“ Medicine based on rational application’ consists of prescrib­
ing substances as diets and drugs.
‘“ Medicine based on mental control’ consists of withdrawing
the mind from unwholesome things.”
trividham ausadham i t i : daiva-vyapasrayam , yukti-vyapasrayam ,
sattvavajayah ca. tatra daiva-vyapasrayam : mantra-osadhi-mani
m ahgala-bali-upahara-hom a-niyam a-prayascitta-upavasa-svastya-
yana-pranipata-gamana-adi. yukti-vyapasrayam punah ahara-
ausadha-dravyanam yojana. sattvavajayah punah ahitebhyah
arthebhyah mano-nigrahahP^
We read no more in the C araka-sam hita of the conscious
cultivation of indifference to the unwholesome—i.e. of what is
called sattvavajaya above—as a separate or independent form
of therapeutic technique. One reason for this seems to be that
while judging all sorts of substances from the medical viewpoint,
the text elaborately discusses what is wholesome and what is
unwholesme, implying thereby that one has to avoid the
unwholesome substances for the sake of health. In other words,
‘withdrawing the mind from the unwholesome’ appears to be
already included in the discussion of various substances from
the medical viewpoint, i.e. in what is called the system of rational
therapy. It is perhaps for the purpose of putting special em­
phasis on the need of avoiding the unwholesome as an aid to
health that in this particular context the Caraka-sarnhita
speaks of it separately.
In any case, it is difficult to conceive that the conscious cul­
tivation of the indifference to the unwholesome is considered by
the physicians as a separate system of therapeutics altogether—
not at least in the sense in which the other two are viewed.
This is evidenced by the Caraka-sarnhita itself. While dis­
cussing the logico-epistemological equipments necessary for the
physician, the text returns to the clarification of the difference
between the different therapeutic systems. In this context, it
mentions only the first two forms of therapy, namely the
magico-religious and the rational.
Let us first see how the Caraka-sarnhita introduces this

Indological Truths
discussion. Among the logico-epistemological categories rele­
vant for medicine, ten are considered to be specially important.
As the text says, “ Only after adequately examining these ten,
one should undertake the responsibility of doing something-
Hence the physician, before taking up his work, must thorough­
ly examine these ten categories that require to be exami­
ned” . T h e s e ten categories are : karana, karana, karya-yoni,
karya, karya-phalanubandha, desa, kala, p r a v r tti, etc.^^"* Of
these ten, we shall have here a brief idea of the first five. By
karana or the cause is meant the agent or one who performs an
action.2'^5 Iq medical context, it means the physician.^’® By
karana or instrument is meant that which is being prescribed by
the agent for performing his action.^^^ In the medical context,
it means therapeutics or bhesaja?’’^ By karya-yon i or source of
action is meant that which, when altered, attains the state of the
effect.2^® In the medical context, it means the imbalance of the
body-elements {dhatu-vaisamya).^'^ By karya or effect is meant
that which the agent strives to bring into being.^^i In the medi­
cal context, it means the balance of the body-elements (dhatu-
samya)?^'^ By karya-phala or ‘(ultimate) result of the effect’ is
meant the ultimate goal after which the agent s t r i v e s . I n the
medical context, it means the attainment of happiness or well­
being of the patient.^®*
Among these what specially interests us here is karana or
instrument which, in the medical context, means that which is
prescribed by the physician. It is, in short, the therapeutic
technique. Explaining its nature, the Caraka-samhita says,
“ It {karana, i.e. therapeutic technique) is to be classed under two
heads, depending on that upon which it is based. These are:
‘based on the supernatural’ and ‘based on rational application’.
Of these two, the one 'based on the supernatural’ consists of
incantations, herbs, gems, auspicious rites, oblations and offer­
ings, sacrifices, vows, ceremonial penances, fasting, propitiatory
rites, worship, pilgrimage, etc.
273. Ib. iii.8 .7 9 . 274. Ib. iii.8.68. 275. Ib. iii.8 69
276. lb. iii.8.84. 277. Ib. iii.8.70. 278. Ib. iii.8.84.
279. lb. iii.8.71. 280. Ib. iii.8.84. 281. Ib. iii.8 72.
282. Ib. iii.8 .8 4 . 283. lb. iii.8.73. 284. lb. iii.8.84.

Indological Truths
‘(Therapeutic technique)’ based on rational application’ consists
of such measures the results of which are directly perceived, i.e.
measures like correction (of the imbalance of body-elements) or
removal (of the cause of disease)” .
ta t dvividham vyapasraya-bhednt. daiva-viapasrayam yukti-
vyapasrayam ca iti. ta tra daiva-vyapasrayam : m antra-osadhi-
m ani-m ahgala^bali-upahara-hom a-niyam a-praya^citta-upavasa-
svastyayana-pranipata-gam ana-adi. yu kti-vyapasrayam : sam so-
dhana-upasam ana-cestah ca dr^sta-phalah?^^
Here we can clearly see the classification of therapeutic tech­
niques under two heads, called daiva-vyapasraya and yu kti-
vyapasraya. The description of the first given here is identical
with the one given in the passage previously quoted. Besides,
it is basically the satne as what the Caraka-sam hitd describes as
the magico-religious therapeutics of the Atharvaveda. Since
there is no ground to think that rational therapeutics or yu kti-
vyapasraya bhesaja means some therapeutic system different
from the one mentioned in the passage previously quoted, we
have to seek for the possible reasons for the changed expressions
used for its description in the present one. It is not difiicult
to guess these reasons. Measures with directly perceptible
results like correction of the imbalance of body-elements or the
removal of the causes of disease, from the. viewpoint of the
Caraka-sam hitd, depend only on the use of various natural
substances as diets or drugs. Hence, these are but two ways of
putting the same point, though in the passage just quoted the
expression d rsta -p h a la h or “ directly perceived results” seems
to have the added significance of the rejection of a d r.sta or
“ unseen hangovers of past karm a", which is an important com­
ponent of the magico-religious world-view.
With this clarification about the two therapeutic systems, we
are left to answer only one qn,estion. Which of these two is
actually recommended or accepted by the genuine physician of
the Caraka-sarnhitd ? Does he suggest that the'physician proper
is to be trained in both these therapeutic systems ? Does he
suggest that both these being equally valid, the physician is

Indological Truths
supposed to seledt any of the two for his own specialisation ?
Does it suggest that though these two forms of therapy are
current in the world, the real physician is to be trained only in
one of these ?
A survey of the Caraka-sam hita leaves us with no doubt as
to what it reGoiMmeibdSw Though with soine kind 6f perfunctory
references to the Atharvavedic therapy of magical charms and
incantations and even to the special services of the Athar­
vavedic priests^s* —which may or may not be later grafts on the
work—thei text as a whole comes out with a masssive verdict
exclusively in favour of yu kti-vyapasraya bhesaja, defined as
therapeutics based on the use of substances as diets and drugs :
ahara-ausadha-dravyanam yojana. This alone is supposed t(S
have directly perceptible results like correction of the imbalance
of body-elements and hence also of the removal <jf the actual
cause of disease—sam sodhana-upasamana-cestah ca dr.sta-
phalah. After what we have already discussed about the
Caraka-sam hita in the first chapter, is not in need of
further discussion. But we should like to re-emphasise only
a few points here. One of the basic theses of the Caraka-
sam hita is that medical treatment depends on four factors.
These are : the doctor, nurse, patient and the substances.®*’
The therapeutic system of our medical compilation is based on
substances prescribed as diets or drags^ahara-ausadha dravya-
nam yojana —and hot on the use of magical spells, incanta­
tions, etc. In full conformity with this, the Cikitsa-sthana
or section of therapeutics proper—considered by the Caraka-
sam hita itself as its very foundation^®®—embodies a stagger­
ing amount of data about all sorts of natural substances^
discussed from the viewpoint of their medical efficacy. The
Susruta-sam h ita also devotes an entire chaptet®®® to prove
that from the medical viewpoint the substances alone are
all-important.
There is thus no doubt that the therapeutics embodied in the
two compilations is substance-based and not based on incan-

286. lb. iv.8.31 ; 33 ; 34 ; 47 ; 62 ; vi.lA .59. 287. see supra p. 190f.

288. see supra p. 22. 289. Susruia-satjihita 1.40.

Indological Truths
tations etc. But that is what yukti-vyapasraya bhesaja by
definition is.

19. THE CHRONOLOGICAL QUESTION

It is evident from what is just discussed that the doctors

of the C araka-sam hita are quite conscious of the step taken
by Indian medicine from magico-religious therapeutics of the
Atharvaveda to rational therapeutics of their own. One of
the questions that specially interests the historian in this
connection is that of chronology. Is it possible for us to
specify the post-Atharvavedic period when this transition
takes place ? We are going to see that as far as literary
records enable us to judge, it takes place sometime before
the Buddha.
Before passing on to these literary records, let us try to
clarify another point. It is concerning the possible date of
our medical compilations, specially of the Caraka-sam hita.
We have already seen®*® why any tendency at absolute
dating of the work is bound to be fallacious. Before attain­
ing the form in which it reaches us, the compilation passes
through the hands of various authorities who variously add
to it or aher it. According to its final “reconstructor” ,
Drdhabala, the whole of this work is based on the oral
discourse of an individual authority, codified by another indi­
vidual authority, revised by an intermediate editor called
Caraka, and finally reconstructed by Drdhabala.
The weakest point of this story seems to be obvious. If
Caraka is just the name of an intermediate editor of the work
how can the work as a whole acquire the firm reputation in Indian
tradition as Caraka-sam hita or Caraka-compilation ? It is
therefore strange that the modern scholars often show the ten­
dency of depending on this weakest point of Drdhabala’s story
for the purpose of dating the medical compilation. In other

Indological Truths
 words, they search for the evidence of an individual medical
authority bearing the name Caraka, and depending on this,
propose the dating of the original Caraka-samhita. Following
this procedure, the majority of modern scholars are inclined to
place the medical compilation in the fixst century A.D. The
most important evidence on which they depend is summed up
by Filliozat as follows: “ Certain Buddhist texts in Chinese talk
of a certain Tche lo k ia or Tche le, i.e. Caraka or Cara, who
was the doctor of King Kaniska. This fact has been simul­
taneously recognised by Sylvain Levi and by Takakusu.” ®®‘
Kaniska’s date being known by the historians, this evidence of
Caraka having been his court physician is supposed to remove
the uncertainties about the date of the Caraka-samhita.
But what exactly is the importance of the evidence so much
relied upon ? Filliozat has already answered the question. The
Chinese sources mentioning Kaniska’s physician are two. One
of these is the translation of an anthology of tales. In Chinese
translation, its title reads Tsa p ao tsang king, suggesting the
original Sanskrit title Sam yukta-ratna-pitaka-sutra. The date
of its Chinese translation is about A.D. 472. “ It refers only to
the friendship of Kaniska for his doctor who by his advice keeps
him protected from all •diseases”. ® ^ The title of the other
work, in Chinese, is Fou f a tsang yin yuan tchouan. Though it
also claims to be a translation into Chinese, “H, Mespero has
shown that the work in its piesent form is a forgery, composed
in China on the lines of other works, towards the middle or end
of the Vlth century.” ^®® This work describes “ the relations of
Caraka and Kaniska, the former himself offering his services as
a doctor to the king, and by means of clever obstetrical moves,
twice saving the queen on her death-bed while in the throes of
delivery, leaving the king who did not pay much attention to
his advice and retiring from the world.”
There is thus no question of attributing a great deal of his­
torical importance to what is said in this second source. As
for the first, Filliozat observes, “ It is true that the Tsa pao
tsang king, translated in Chinese only about three hundred

Indological Truths
years after the reign of Kaiiiska, existed in Sanskrit before and
had, therefore, been composed at a date quite near to that of
Kaniska. The memory of the real contemporaries of this prince
could have been faithfully preserved till then and, in any case
if it were the question of a more recent author, the Caraka
in question could not have lived a long time after the 2nd
century.” ®9®
However, admitting that this other source is comparatively
more reliable, what exactly can it prove about our Caraka-
sam hita ? Filliozat rightly comments, “ even if the doctor of
Kaniska was effectively called Caraka, we are not certain that
he was the same Caraka who has revised the Agnivesa-tantra”^^^
or our medical compilation. The more important question
which Filliozat seems to ignore in the present context is con­
cerning the credibility of Drdhabala’s statement about Caraka.
This credibility is very low, because it is extraordinarily strange
for Indian tradition to remember a work by the name of one
whose contribution to it is secondary after all. On the other
hand, as we have already noted, the Word caraka seems to be
a general descriptive epithet of a number of wandering sects of
ancient India, of which one could as well be the sect of
ancient doctors ; the plausibility of this is suggested by the
name Caranavaidya or “ roving physician” of a lost recension
of the Atharvaveda and moreover by the fact that “ roving
about” is considered a necessary accomplishment of the phy­
sicians by their own tradition. Thus, the Caraka-samhita
could as well mean the medical compilation of some sect of the
ancient roving physicians, whatever may be the subsequent
history of processing this compilation. From this point of
view, there is nothing improbable about a doctor belonging to
such a sect being attached to Kaniska’s court, as is perhaps
indicated by the Chinese source. However, even admitting the
connection of a certain caraka with Kaniska, Kaniska’s date
cannot have much relevance for the dating of our medical
compilation.
In any case, at the present stage of research any attempt to

295. Ib. 18. 296. Ib.

Indological Truths
 date the medical compilation depending on the word caraka
would at best be highly conjectural. Also conjectural would
be the effort to fix the date of Atreya or Agnive^a, because it is
not easy to salvage anything of sound historical significance
from the legends about them. Besides, the doctrinal content of
the Susruta-sam hita is basically the same as that of the Caraka-
sam hitd, though in the former the medical views are not attri­
buted to Atreya at all.
These difficulties notwithstanding, there is something of
sound significancs for the historian of Indian science for
the purpose of settling the chronological question under con­
sideration. It is the general nature of the doctrinal content
of the medical compilations, which, in the termiLology of
Caraka-sam hita, is yukti-vyapasraya bhesaja, defined as thera­
peutic system based on the use of natural substances as
diets and drugs, and this as contrasted with daiva-vyapasm ya
bhesaja or therapeutic system based on incantations, charms,
etc. Instead of trying to settle the date of the vast medical
compilations with their highly complex history of formation,
the more important question for the historian seems to be
a difierent one. Do we have any evidence of Indian medicine
having already assumed the form of rational therapeutics—
an evidence about the date of which we are on compara­
tively safer ground ? Such an evidence, if any, would
enable us to have some idea about the actual formation
of the medical views contained in the Caraka-sam hita and
Susruta-sam hita, though not about the compilations themselves.

20. EVIDENCE OF THE VINAYA-PITAKA

The evidence is to be found in the Pali canonical work of

the Buddhists called Vinoya-pitaka. It is the collection of
rules for Buddhist order, which the Buddhists themselves
“ place at the head of the canon.” ®®'

Indological Truths
 It is not the place for us to discuss the question con­
cerning the date of actual redaction of the V inaya-pitaka.
It is generally agreed that the process of settling the actual
teachings of the Buddha specially about the codes of conduct
of the monks begins shortly after the death of the prophet and
that, about a hundred years later, this is done in a big way
in what is usually called the Second Council. Roughly in
the third century B.C. these teachings are committed to writing
in the form of the present Pali canons. However, all these
prove nothing definite against the possibility of the extant
Tripitaka embodying much of the ancient tradition. An out­
right denial of this possibility perhaps leaves us with the
scepticism that Buddhist canonical texts tell us nothing authen­
tic about the Buddha and his views. Rejecting this scepti­
cism we propose to depend here on the assumption that the
Vinaya-pitaka contains much about the Buddhist tradition
traceable to the times of the Buddha.
Of the various texts comprising the Vinaya-pitaka, one
is called Mahavagga or ‘the great section’. It is an invaluable
source for the history of Indian science, because it contains
a long ‘section’ on medicaments. This section enables us to
see that the therapeutic system which the Vinaya-pitaka is
aware of is already fully rational or yu kti-vyapasraya. Before
quoting it extensively, it may be helpful to have some pre­
liminary clarification.
Why—and how far—the Buddha discards the hierarchical
norm of society is a question on which the modern scholars
have sharply differed. However, this much is generally agreed
on that he has no patience for the counter-ideology of the
Vedic priests nor for the world-denying metaphysics of the
pure soul, which dominates the Upanisads. This enables him
to take a keen interest in medicine, specially as connected
with the well-being of the monks. We shall first quote a
few accounts from the Mahavagga showing this interest and
then pass on to see in some detail the nature of the thera­
peutic technique he approves of.
Here is the summary of a moving account from the
Mahavagga.

Indological Truths
 A certain monk had a disturbance in his bowels and
was lying on his own evacuations. The Buddha, accom­
panied by Ananda, while going round the sleeping places
of the monks, came to this bhikkhu's abode and saw so.
He asked Ananda to fetch some water. The Blessed One
then poured this water on the monk and venerable Ananda
wiped him clean. And the Blessed One taking hold of him
at the head, and the venerable Ananda at the feet, they
lifted him up and laid him down upon his bed. Then the
Buddha convened a meeting of the community of monks,
where he delivered the following sermon : “Ye, oh bhikkhu-s,
have no mothers and no fathers who might wait upon you.
If ye, oh bhikkhu-s, wait not one upon the other, who is
thei^e indeed who will wait upon you ? Whoever, oh bhikkhu-s,
wait upon me, he shall wait upon the sick.” ^®®
'V^'ith this intensely human approach, the Buddha is also
realistic enough to remind the monks that successful medical
care depends also on certain qualities of the patient himself. As
the text puts in the mouth of the Buddha : “There are five
qualities, oh bhikkhu-s, which, when a sick man has, he is easy
to wait upon. ( These are : ) 1) when he dojs what is good
for him; 2) when he knows the limit of the quantity of food
that is good for him; 3) when he takes his medicine; 4) when
he allows a nurse who desires his good to know what manner
of disease he has, or when it is getting worse that that is s o, or
when it is getting better that that is so, or when it is stationary
that that is so ; and 5) when he is able to bear bodily pains
that are severe, sharp, grievous, disagreeable, unpleasant, and
destructive to life.” ^®®
Is this not reminiscent of the system of rational therapeutics
of the Caraka-sam hita, according to which, of the four factors
on which the success of medical treatment depends, one is the
patient himself. The medical compilation also enumerates the
desirable qualities of the patient contributing to his cure, and
notwithstanding some difference in detail of this list with the one

298. Mahavagga viii.26.1-3. SBE xvii. 240-41.

299. /6. viii.26.6. SBE. xvii. 242.

Indological Truths
 attributed to the Buddha, it is significant that both the lists are
absolutely silent about karm a, in which alone the counter-
ideology is interested in seeing the causes of disease as well as
of cure.
According to the rational therapeutics of the Caraka-sam hita,
certain qualities of the nursing attendant too are conducive to
successful treatment of the patient. Fully in agreement with
the spirit of this principle, the Buddha declares : “ There are
five qualities, oh bhikkhu-s, which, when one waits upon the
sick has, he is competent to the task. (These are) 1 ) when he is
capable of prescribing medicines; 2) when he knows what is
good and what is not good for his patient, serving what is
good and not serving what is not good for him; 3) when he
waits upon the sick out of love and not out of greed; 4) when
he does not revolt from removing evacuations, saliva or v o m it;
5 ) when he is capable from time to time of teaching, inciting,
arousing and gladdening the patient with religious discourse” *®®
The absence of the last point in the Caraka-sam hita, like its
presence in the Buddha’s sermon, is. easily understood. The
more important point for our understanding of the history of
Indian medicine is the one on which the two are agreed.
This agreement becomes all the more striking when we
consider the question of the nature of drugs and diets approved
by the Buddha for the members of his monastic community
or sarngha. Before taking it up, let us note another legend
of the Mahavagga, which seems to have also a delightful
humour about it. It tells us that the arrangements for medical
care of the bhikkhu-s within the sarngha creates such a problem
for the Buddha that he is eventually obliged to declare that a
sick person is not to be allowed ordination and entry into the
order.
The Buddhist tradition tells us of a very renowned physician
of Buddhist India called Jivaka Komarabhacca. We shall pre­
sently see what we know of him and his medical practice from
the V inaya-pitaka. Jivaka was the physician of king Bimbisara
of Magadha, a personal friend of the Buddha and also the per-

Indological Truths
sonal physician of the Buddha himself. In spite of his busy
practice, being a devout Buddhist himself, he was also looking
after the medical needs of the monks in the samgha. Says the
legend :

At that time these five diseases prevailed among the people of

Magadha—leprosy, boils, dry leprosy, consumption and fits.
The people who were affected with these five diseases went to
Jivaka Komarabhacca, and said : ‘Pray, doctor, cure us.’
‘I have too many duties, sirs, and am too occupied. I have to
treat the Magadha king Seniya Bimbisara, and the royal
seraglio, and the fraternity of bhikkhu-s with the Buddha at
their head. I cannot cure you.’
‘All that we possess shall be yours, doctor, and we will be
your slaves; pray, doctor, cure us.’
‘I have too many duties etc...; I cannot cure you.'
Now those people thought : '^.W hat if we were to embrace the
religious life among the Sakyaputtiya Samanas; then the
bhikkhu-s will nurse us, and jIvaka Komarabhacca will cure us.’
Thus these persons went to the bhikkhu-s and asked them for
the pabb a jja ordination; and the bhikkhu-s conferred on them
the pabbajja and upasam pada ordinations; and the bhikkhu-s
nursed them and Jivaka Komarabhacca cured them...
Now one day a man who was affected with the five diseases went
to Jivaka Komarabhacca and said, ‘Pray, doctor, cure me.’
‘I have too many duties, sir,...etc. etc.; I cannot cure you.’
‘All that I possess shall be yours, doctor, and I will be your
slave; pray, doctor, cure me,’
*I have too many duties...etc., etc.; I cannot cure you.’
Now that man thought : ‘...W hat if I were to embrace the
religious life of the Sakyaputtiya Samanas; then the bhikkhu-s
will nurse me, and Jivaka Komarabhacca will cure me. When I
have become free from sickness, then I will return to the world.’
Thus the man went to the bhikkhu-s and asked them for the
pabbajja ordination; the bhikkhu-s conferred on him the
pabbajja and upasampada ordinations; and the bhikkhu-s nur­
sed him, and jIvaka Komarabhacca cured him. When he had
become free from sickness, he returned to the world. Now

Indological Truths
Jivaka Komarabhacca saw this person that had returned to the
world; and when he saw him he asked that person : ‘Had you
not embraced the religious life, sir, among the bhikkhu-s T
‘Yes, doctor.’
‘And why have you adopted such a course, sir T
Then that man told Jivaka Komarabhacca the whole matter.
Then Jivaka Komarabhacca was annoyed, murmured, and
became very angry. He reported the whole thing to the Buddha.
In consequence of that and on this occasion the Blessed One,
after having delivered a religious discourse, thus addressed the
bhikkhu-s : ‘Let no one, oh bhikkhu-s who is affected with the
five diseases, receive the pabbajja ordination. He who confers
the pabbajja ordination ( on such a person ) is guilty of a
dukkata oflFence.’^oi

A legend like this cannot grow out of nothing, nor for

nothing can it find place in such an important canonical work.
The Buddha’s concern for the medical care of the monks within
the order creates such conditions in which the easiest and most
inexpensive way of getting the best medical attention in
Buddhist India is to enter the samgha. There are naturally
also people cunning enough to take advantage of this, against
whom the Buddha has to take nieasures.

21. M EDICINE IN BUDDHIST IND IA

An entire section of the Mahavagga of Vim ya-pitaka is

concerned with medicaments. It bears the title bhesajjaka.^^^
It shows the stage already reached by medical science in
Buddhist India. This stage is unmistakably what is called
yukti-vyapasraya bhesaja in the medical compilation, defined
by it as ‘therapeutic system based on substances as diets and
drugs.’ Here is a summary of the section based on its
translation by Rhys Davids and Oldenberg.*®*

301. ft.i.3 9 . SB Exiii.l91-4. 302. Ib .v i. 303. SHE xvii. 41-145.

Only the word dosa is translated as ‘m orbid m atter’ instead of ‘hum our’.

Indological Truths
 The bhikkhu-s were once attacked by the sickness of the
hot season, threw out the rice-milk they had drunk, and
the food they had eaten. And thereby they became lean,
rough, ill-favoured, yellow and ever yellower, and the veins
stood out on their limbs. So the Buddha asked himself,
‘What medicaments shall I now prescribe for the bhikkhu-s,
as may be authorised as common medicine, and may be
diffused through the body, though it be not regarded as
ordinary food ?’ And the Blessed One thought, ‘These five
medicaments—that is to say, ghee, butter, oil, honey, molasses
—are such medicaments. Let me then prescribe them as
medicines which the bhikkhu-s may accept at the right time,
and use at the right time.’ Now at that time the bhikkhu-s
accepted those five things at the right time, and used them
at the right time. And foods which though rough, were
ordinary foods, they could not digest, much less greasy foods.
Then they—attacked both by the hot-season disease, and by
this want of appetite—became still more lean, rough, ill-
favoured, yellow and ever yellower, and with the veins standing
out on their limbs. So the Buddha prescribed, ‘I permit
you, oh bhikkhu-s, not only to receive those five medicaments,
but to use them both at the right time, and at other times.’
Once the bhikkhu-s who were sick had need of fatty subs­
tances as medicine. They told this thing to the Blessed One.
And the Buddha said, ‘I allow you, oh bhikkhu-s, the use
of the fat of bears, of fish, of alligators, of swine and of
asses, if received at the right time, mixed at the right time,
to be partaken of with oil.’
The nature of the text mr.y not require of it the speci­
fication of diseases for which these forms of animal fats
are recommended. Bnt it is of interest to note that the
Caraka-samhitd recommends the use of a wide variety of
animal fats as remedies for various diseases—of goat®°^,
crow^°^, cobra^°*, tortoise ^°^, crocodile^®*, pecker group of

Indological Truths
birds (pratuda-sy°^, bear^‘°, lio n ^ ", cameP^^, feline ani-
and tiger^*"*. All these indicate that in Indian medicine
—i.e. in its rationalist or maturer stage—there is an extensive
enquiry into the medicinal properties of animal fats and,
therefore, the Buddha’s approval of the use of a number
of animal fats for the cure of certain diseases is evidently
taken from actual medical recommendations.
Once the bhikkhu-s who were sick had need of roots for
medicine. When the Buddha was told about it, he said,
‘I allow you, oh bhikkhu-s, the use of roots as medicine
—turmeric, ginger, orris root, white orris root, ativisa, black
hellebore, usira root, bhaddamuttaka, and whatever other roots
are used for medicine, and impart an appetising flavour to
foods, either hard or soft^'^, which the sick bhikkhu-s could
not otherwise eat. They may be received and stored up
your lifelong ; and, if there be necessity, they may be eaten.
If eaten without necessity ( the bhikkhu who uses them ) is
guilty of a dukkata offence.’
It will be tedious to prepare here a list of the large
number of roots recommended in the Caraka-samhitd as
specific remedies of various diseases. Nor is such a list
necessary for our present purpose. The Buddha is evidently
aware that the physicians use a very large variety of roots as
medicines. It is enough for his purpose to mention only a few
of these adding ‘and whatever other roots are used for medicine.’
From the viewpoint of austerity expected of the monks, it
is necessary for him only to add that such roots are to be
used by them specifically for medical purposes.
At the same time, there is also a problem from the
medical viewpoint about the use of these roots, and the
Vinaya-pitaka wants us to believe that the Buddha is rea­
listic enough to understand it. The roots are not supposed
to be swallowed as such : some implements are necessary for the

309. /6. vi.29.74. 310. /6. vi. 30.112. 311. /6. vi.3.306.
312. /6. v i.l4 .48. 313. lb. 314. 76. vi.3.305.
315. See SBE xiii.39 n 5 on ‘hard’ a n d ‘so ft’ food : the former means
cakes, meats, fruits, etc ; the latter boiled rice, curry, etc.

Indological Truths
 purpose of powdering these. The Buddha allows these im­
plements to the monks. "Now at that time the bhikkhu-s
who were sick had need for medicine of different sorts of
flour made from roots. They told this thing to the Blessed
One. The Buddha said, ‘I allow you, oh bhikkhu-s, the use
of a grindstone, and another stone to grind upon.’ ”
Following this stereotyped style, the text goes on tell­
ing us that a wide range of other substances also were allowed
by the Buddha to be used as medicine for the bhikkhu-s.
The sick monks were once in need of astringent decoc­
tions as medicine. The Buddha said, ‘I allow you, oh bhi-
kkhu-s, the use of astringent decoctions as medicine—the
nimba, kutaja, the pakhava, the nattamala, and whatsoever
astringent roots are used for medicine, which impart an
appetising flavour to foods, either hard or soft, which the sick
bhikkhu-s could not otherwise eat. They may be received and
stored up your lifelong; and if there be necessity they may be
eaten. If eaten without necessity (the bhikkhu) is guilty of a
dukkata offence.’
The sick monks were once in need of leaves as medicine.
The Buddha said, ‘I allow you, oh bhikkhu-s, the use of leaves
as medicine—the leaves of the nimba, of the kutaja, of the
p a to la , of the tulasi, of the kappasika, and whatever other
leaves are used for medicine, and impart an appetising flavour
to food.
The sick monks were once in need of fruits as medicine.
The Buddha said, ‘I allow you, oh bhikkhu-s, the use of
fruits as medicine—the vidahga, the pippala and marica
peppers ; the haritaka, and vibhitaka, and amalaka myrobalans ;
the gotha fruit, and whatsoever other fruits are used for
medicine
The sick bhikkhu-s were once in need of gums as medicine.
The Buddha said, ‘I allow you, oh bhikkhu-s, the use of gums
as medicine—hihgu, hihgu lac, sipatika, taka, taka patti, taka-
panni, sajjulasa, and whatever other gums are used for medicine.’
The sick bhikkhu-s were once in need of various kinds
of salt as medicine. The Buddha said, ‘I allow you, oh
bhikkhu-s, the use of salts as medicine—sea salt, black salt,

Indological Truths
rock salt, kitchen salt, red salt, and whatsoever other salts
are used in medicine.’
The venerable Belatthasisa had a disease of thick scabs ;
and by reason of the discharge thereof his robes stuck to
his body. The Buddha said, ‘I allow, oh bhikkhu-s, the
use of chunam as a medicine by whomsoever has the itch,
or boils, or a discharge, or scabs, or whose body is ill-smell­
ing, and to those in health, the use of dry dung, and of
clay and of colouring matter. I allow the use, oh bhikkhu-s,
of a pestle and mortar.’ When sifted chunam was needed
as medicine, the Buddha allowed the monks the use of a
chunam sieve ; when very fine chunam was needed as medicine,
the Buddha allowed the monks the use of a cloth sieve.
W hat is next told in the text is extremely interesting.
The Buddha is evidently aware that by the medical science
of his days is prescribed even raw flesh and blood for the
cure of some diseases. But can he go to the extent of allow­
ing these to the bhikkhu-s ? The Vinaya-pitaka wants us to
believe that he does, though instead of specifying the nature
of the disease that requires such medicines, it only tells us
that the disease “ is not human” .
“ Now at that time a certain bhikkhu had a disease not
human. Though his teacher and his superior nursed him,
they were not able to make him well. He went to a place
where swine were slaughtered, and ate the raw flesh and
drank the blood. Thereby his sickness abated. They told
this thing to the Blessed One. He said, ‘I allow, oh bhikkhu-s,
in the case of a disease not human, the use of raw flesh and
the blood.’*
For disease of the eyes, the Buddha allows the monks
the use of eye ointments, to wit, black collyrium, rasa oint­
ment, sota ointment, geruka and kapalla. As the need was
felt for perfumes to grind up into ointments, the Buddha
allows the monks the use of sandal wood, tagara, black anusari
kaliya, and bhaddamuttaka.
The venerable Pilindavaccha had a head-ache. The Buddha
allowed the monks the use of a little oil on the head. The
disease became no better. The Buddha allowed the practice

Indological Truths
of taking up medicine through the nose. The nose ran. The
Buddha allowed the use of a nose-spoon. The nose took
up the medicine in unequal proportions. The Buddha allowed
the use of a double nose-spoon. The disease became no
better. The Buddha allowed to sniff up the aroma. They
used to spread the drugs on a wick before they sniffed up
the aroma ; and their throats got burnt. The Buddha allowed
the use of a pipe to conduct the aroma, and lest the aroma-
pipes rubbed against one another, also the use of a double
bag to carry these and a shoulder strap by which to carry
the double bag.
The venerable Pilindavaccha was troubled with wind in
the stomach. The physician said he must drink oil. The
Buddha allowed the bhikkhu-s the use of a decoction of oil.
It was necessary to put strong drink into the decoction,
which was allowed. The Chabbaggiya Bhikkhus took this
opportunity, put too much strong drinks into their decoctions
of medicinal oils and got drunk. The Buddha prohibited
the practice of putting too much of strong drinks into such
decoctions and, as to the decoctions already prepared with
too much of strong drinks, he recommended its use as an
ointment.
The venerable Pilindavaccha once had rheumatism. The
Buddha allowed the monks ‘to bring on sweating’. The disease
became no better. The Buddha allowed the monks to bring
on sweating by the use of herbs which have that effect. The
disease became no better. The Buddha allowed the monks the
use of a great steam bath. The disease became no better. The
Buddha allowed the monks the use of hemp-water. The disease
became no better. The Buddha allowed the monks the use of
hot baths in water in which medicinal herbs have been steeped.
The venerable Pilindavaccha once had intermittent ague.
The Buddha allowed the ‘letting of blood.’ The disease became
no better. The Buddha allowed the use of a horn to let blood.
Once the feet of the venerable Pilindavaccha were blistered.
The Buddha allowed ointment for the feet. The disease became
no better. The Buddha allowed to keep water ready for wash­
ing the feet (perhaps, as Rhys Davids and Oldenberg suggest.

Indological Truths
 as “ some curative application of water to the feet, such as cold
water bandages, for example”).
A certain bhikkhu had once boils. The Buddha allowed the
use of lancet. Decoctions of astringent herbs were required and
the Buddha allowed these. Sesamum salve was required, and it
was allowed by the Buddha. Compresses were required and
were allowed by the Buddha. It was necessary to tie up the sore
with cloth and the Buddha allowed the use of bandages for
tying up wounds. The sore itched and the Buddha allowed
the sprinkling of a sore with mustard-powder. The sore became
moist. The Buddha allowed to fumigate the sore. Proud flesh
formed oii the wound. The Buddha allowed to cut off proud
flesh with a lancet. The wound would not close up. The
Buddha allowed the use of oil for wounds. The oil ran over.
The Buddha allowed the use of fine rags and of all kinds of
ways of treating wounds.
A certain bhikkhu was once bitten by a snake. The Buddha
allowed the four kinds of filth to be given—dung, urine, ashes
and clay.
A certain bhikkhu had once drunk poison. The Buddha
allowed as an emetic a decoction of dung.
A certain bhikkhu once suffered from the ghara-dinnaka (?)
disease. The Buddha allowed him to drink a decoction of soil
turned up by the plough.
Incidentally, the nature of the disease referred to is not
clear. It is suggested that it is a disease imagined to be caused
by hostile sorcery.^*® Admitting the suggestion, the Vinaya-
p ita k a seems to remain true to the spirit of natural cure even
for diseases of allegedly supernatural origin. It is an evidence
of hew staunchly the text remains committed to rational
therapeutics.
A certain monk had constipation. The Buddha allowed to
give him a decoction of the ashes of burnt rice.
A certain monk was suffering from jaundice. The Buddha
allowed to give him a drink of decoction made with urine.

Indological Truths
 A certain monk once suffered from skin disease. The
Buddha allowed the anointing with perfumes.
A certain monk once had a superfluity of morbid matter
{dosa) in the body. The Buddha allowed to give a purgative.
Clarified gruel was required, the use of which was allowed by
the Buddha. Natural juice was required and its use was allowed
by the Buddha. Artificial and natural juice was required, the
use of which was allowed by the Buddha. Meat broth was
required, and the Buddha said, ‘I allow, oh bhikkhu-s, the use
of meat broth.’
We shall presently see how the Buddha and his followers try
to reconcile their ethics of non-injury to the use of meat and
meat-broth etc. for medical purposes. For the present, let us
have a few words on an important point about what is just
quoted. The Vinaya-pitaka is already aware of the theory of
morbid matter or dosa and of their excess in the body causing
diseases. This theory is absolutely crucial for the rational sys­
tem of medicine, as we know it from the Caraka-samhita and
Susruta-samhitd. Admitting the authenticity of the Vinaya-
p ita k a , therefore, this is another proof that the rational system
of medicine takes shape already before the Buddha. Besides,
the passage just quoted does not contain the only reference to
the theory of morbid matter or dosa in the Vinaya-pitaka. The
same text refers to the same theory and in a context more impor­
tant from the Buddhist viewpoint. Here is a summary of it :
“At that time a disturbance had befallen the morbid matters
or dosa-s of the Blessed One’s body. And the Blessed One said
to the venerable Ananda : ‘A disturbance, Ananda, has befallen
the dosa-s of the Tathagata’s body; the Tathagata wants to take
a purgative.’ So Ananda went to Jivaka Komarabhacca and told
him about it. The physician said, ‘Well, venerable Ananda,
you ought to rub the Blessed One’s body with fat for a few
days.’ After doing this, Ananda reported again to Jivaka. Jivaka
thought : it was not becoming to give very strong purgative
to the Buddha. So he imbued three handfuls of blue lotuses
with various drugs and gave it to the Buddha in three doses—
each supposed to purge the body ten times. After the purgings,
Jivaka said to the Buddha, ‘Lord, until the Blessed One’s body

Indological Truths
is completely restored, you had better abstain from liquid food.’
And ere long, the Blessed One’s body was completely res-
tored.”«7
The theory of dosa or morbid matter in body causing disease
is referred again—though this time briefly—by the Mahavagga,
where the Buddha says that of the ten-fold ‘merits attached
to rice-milk’ one is that it ‘sets right the morbid matters
of the body.’Sis
But let us return to the other medical data contained
in the Mahavagga section on medicament.
Once the Buddha was troubled with wind in the stomach.
And the venerable Ananda thinking, ‘Now formerly the Blessed
One when suffering from wind in the stomach had ease
from tekatuka gruel,’ made ready of his own accord tila
seeds, and rice and beans ; and kept them indoors ; and
cooked them indoors of his own accord, and offered them
to the Blessed One. The Buddha disapproved of it, not be­
cause he questioned the medical efficacy of the gruel but
because he thought that the practice- of cooking indoors etc.
could adversely affect the goodwill of his samgha : people
would suspect the austerity of the monks. As he put it,
‘This will not redound, Ananda, to the conversion of the
unconverted.’®'®
The venerable Sariputta once suffered from fever and re­
quired lotus stalks of various kinds as medicine. When he
told this to venerable Moggallana, the latter rushed to the
Mandakini lake, where a certain Naga collected for the monk
the lotus stalks required. Then the venerable Maha Mogga­
llana presented those edible stalks of the lotuses to the
venerable Sariputta. And the fever abated on the venerable
Sariputta when he had eaten the edible stalks of the lotuses.
A certain bhikkhu was suffering from fistula and a phy­
sician named Akasagotta lanced it. The Buddha disapproved
of it and said, “ How can this foolish fellow, oh bhikkhu-s,
allow a surgical operation to be performed in that part of
his body ? The skin there, oh bhikkhu-s, is tender, the wound

Indological Truths
 is difficult to treat, the knife is difficult to guide. This will
not redound, oh bhikkhu-s, to the conversion of the uncon­
verted.”
In Benares a devout laywoman called Suppiya went from
monastery to monastery and from cell to cell enquiring : ‘Who
is sick, venerable sirs ? For whom and what shall I procure ?’
At that time a certain monk had taken a purgative. He said, ‘I
have taken a purgative sister, and I want some broth.’ The kill­
ing of cattle being interdicted that day, Suppiya could not obtain
meat for preparing broth. So she cut a piece of flesh from her
thigh, got the broth of it prepared by the maidservant and sent
it to the monk. The Buddha cured her miraculously no doubt,
but he got extremely annoyed with the monk ; ‘How ca^
you, oh foolish one. eat meat without having enquired what
it is ? It is human flesh, oh foolish one, which you have
eaten.’ And he addressed the bhikkhu-s saying, ‘There are,
oh bhikkhu-s, believing pious people who give up even their
own flesh. Let no one, oh bhikkhu-s, eat man's flesh. He
who does, commits a grave offence. And let not one, oh
bhikkhu-s, eat meat without having enquired what it is’...
In the same account the Buddha prohibits—though prompted
mainly by considerations affecting the prestige of the samgha
—the eating of flesh of elephant, horse, dog, serpent, lion,
tiger, panther, bear and hyena.
These are about the only prohibitions of the Buddha
positively enjoined by him. The medical compilations—
though nowhere prescribing human flesh—do prescribe the
flesh of all other known species of animals for various medi­
cal purposes. The Buddha himself is led to prohibit certain
varieties of meat by obvious extra-medical considerations.
There is the risk of public criticism and gossip about the
monks if they take all these. This makes the problem of
the use of flesh a rather tricky one for the Buddha. The
way in which he solves it shows what we call adjust-
ment-politics these days. Thus he says, “ Let no , one,
oh bhikkhu-s, knowingly eat meat of an animal killed f<.r
that purpose...I prescribed, oh bhikkhu-s, that fish is pure
to you in three cases : if you do not see, if you have not

Indological Truths
heard, if you do not suspect that it has been caught spe­
cially to be given to you .” ^20 gg there is nothing against
the use of meM and fish as such. Only the monks have
to remain ignorant about the way in which these are pro­
cured by others who offer these to them.
But let us leave the question of Buddhist ethics and return
to some other data contained in the Vinaya-pitaka throwing
light on our understanding of the history of Indian medi­
cine. In the section on medicament of the Mahavagga just
reviewed, we see a very wide range of substances prescribed
as medicines for various diseases. But who prescribes these
medicines ? Though the text sometimes gives the apparent
impression that the Buddha himself prescribes the medicines,
there is no reason to take the suggestion on its face value.
The Buddha is not a physician. Even assuming he has some
kind of working knowledge of medicine, it can only be
derivative. Besides, the text does not necessarily specify the
nature of the disease for which the drugs are required,
frequently using the vague expression like ; ‘Now at that time
the bhikkhu-s who were sick had the need of fruits as medi­
cine.’ Nor does it always try to be exhaustive about the
list of things coming under the general category of the subs­
tance approved as medicine ; it uses expressions like ‘and
whatsoever other fruits etc. are used for medicine’. Evidently,
there is some practising physician on whose prescriptions
the Buddha relies.

22. LEGEND OF JIVAKA

Who then is this physician ? The Mahavagga of the Vim ya-

p ita k a wants us to be clear about him.We are told of
Jivaka—supposed to be the most renowned doctor and sur­
geon of Buddhist India—looking after the medical require­
ments of the samgha with the Buddha at its head. We are

Indological Truths
told also the life-history of this physician, certain features
of which appear to be interesting. Here is a summary of
jt.321
There was a famous prostitute called Ambapalika at Vaisali
(Vesali) who charged fifty coins for one night and thus contri­
buted to the prosperity of Vaisali. A merchant of Rajagrha
(Rajagaha), impressed by the affluence of Vaisali and convinced
of Ambapali being a source of it, advised king Bimbisara to
instal a similar prostitute at Rajagrha. A beautiful girl called
Salavat! was installed as the prostitute at Rajagrha and she
charged one hundred coins for one night. In the course of
time, she conceived and gave birth to a boy. She got her
maid-servant to throw away the boy on a dust-heap. It so
happened that a royal prince Abhaya—probably a son of king
Bimbisara—while passing that area saw crows gathering round
something. Finding that it was a boy and was still alive,
Abhaya took the boy to the palace and asked the nurses to look
after him. ‘Because (Abhaya’s attendants told about this boy)
“ He is alive (jlv a tiY ’, they gave him the name of Jivaka;
because he had been caused to be nourished by the royal prince
{kumarena posapito), they gave him the name Komarabhacca.
On growing up, Jivaka learnt that his mother was unknown,
and though Abhaya was kind enough to be paternal to him, he
was not his actual father.
Jivaka thought, ‘In these royal families it is not easy to find
one’s livelihood without knowing an art. What if I were to
learn an a r t ’ At that time there lived at Takkasila (Taxila) a
world-renowned physician. Jivaka, without telling Abhaya, set
out for Takkasila. Reaching there, he went to the physician
and said, 'I wish to learn your art, doctor-’ The doctor accep­
ted him as a pupil. After studying for seven years under him,
he told the physician, ‘I learn much, doctor, and I learn easily;
I understand well and do not forget what I have learnt. I have
now studied seven years, and I do not see the end of this art.
When shall I see the end of this art ?’ The teacher said, ‘Very
well, my dear Jivaka, take this spade and seek round about

Indological Truths
Takkasila a yojana (roughly nine miles) on every side, and
whatever you see which is not medicinal, bring it to me.’
Jivaka accepted this order, took a spade, and went around
about Takkiasila a yojana on every side; but he did not see
anything that was not medicinal. Then he went to the physician
and said, ‘I have been seeking, doctor, all around Takkasila a
yojana on every side, but I have not seen anything that is not
medicinal.’ The physician said, ‘You have done your learning,
my good Jivaka, this will do for acquiring your livelihood.’
The text goes on to describe how, after thus qualifying him­
self for the profession, Jivaka performed wonderful medical and
surgical feats and worked his way up to become the royal phy­
sician of Magadha.
The above seems to be the original nucleus of the life-his-
tory of Jivaka, to which the later Buddhists add much .^22 jjie
Bower M S claims to retain an original formula of Jivaka^^a
and even some late medical texts associate Jivaka’s name with
some formulas, though perhaps for the purpose of getting these
formulas passed as authentic.^^'* But certain features of the
original nucleus of Jivaka’s life as found in the Mahavagga are
of much interest for us. First, Jivaka is not at all a high-born
person—neither a Brahmin nor a Ksatriya—but simply the son
of a prostitute abandoned as undesirable. In spite of the libera­
ting influence of the Buddha for medical science, even the early
Buddhist sources do not tell us of a real highborn person going
in for medical practice. Is it because of the persistence of the
Brahmanical contempt for medicine ? The Buddha sees no
doubt the obvious use of medicine for the monks belonging to
his order. During his life-time, however, the influence of his
teachings remain restricted to an extremely narrow circle. It
is too early for these teachings to effect any fundamental change
in the general ideological cUmate even in those parts of the
country where he preaches, which seem to remain still largely
under the influence of Brahmanical ideology unfavourable for
the cultivation of medical knowledge. In any case, according

322. M ukhopadhyaya HIM iii.685 if. 323. Ib. iii.682.

324. Ib. iii.683f.

Indological Truths
to the Mahavagga, Jivaka is attracted by the fame of a physician
at distant Taxila, to whom he goes for medical training, appar­
ently because he is aware of none near about worth going to for
the purpose. And Taxila—the capital of Gandhara—is not
favourably looked at by Brahmanical orthodoxy. “ The more
orthodox brahmans treated this region as impure since it had
come under Persian domination.
But the most interesting point about the life of Jivaka as
told by the Mahavagga is something else. It is the way in which
the text describes the completion of his medical studies. His
teacher wants him to comb an area centering" Taxila with one
yojana as radius to find out those things that have no medical
use. Jivaka returns to report that he fails to find anything like
that. In other words, he finds everything with some medical
use or nothing with no medical use whatsoever. When Jivaka
says this, his teacher is convinced of the profoundity of his
medical knowledge and allows him to go in for medical practice.
This is striking. It cannot but be reminiscent of a funda­
mental principle of rational therapeutics, which the Caraka-
samhitd formulates a s : na-anausadham kim cit —“ there is
nothing in nature which is without any medical relevance” .
We have already seen how this formulation is arrived at in
ancient Indian medicine.^^® For the present our point is that
since it is characteristic of the system of rational medicine, and
since the Mahavagga relies on it to describe the fullness of
medical knowledge attained by Jivaka, we are to admit that the
rational system of medicine is pre-supposed by the early Budd­
hist tradition. In other words, we have in this a confirmation
of what we have been trying to argue : Indian medicine takes
the step from magico-religious therapeutics to rational therapeu­
tics sometime before the Buddha.

23. M EDICINE AND KARMA : MILINDAPANHA

The Buddha sums up his teachings in the form of four pro-

325. Thapar 59. 326. see supra p. 62-4.

Indological Truths
positions concerning universal suffering and the way out of
it. These are the four noble truths. Kern observes, “It is
not difficult to see that these four satya-s (truths) are nothing
else but the four cardinal articles of Indian medical science,
applied to the spritual healing of mankind.” ®®’ The Buddha’s
formulation of the principle of universal causation is called
pratltya-samutpada. Kern comments that it “ stands to the
four satya-s in the same relation as pathology to the whole
system of medical science.” He refers to a passage of the
Lalitavistara to show that the Buddhists themselves are not
unaware of the’ Buddha’s tendency to formulate his own
teachings on the medical model.
Much about the Lalitavistara, however, is of doubtful
authority. Though originally an old life-story of the Buddha,
it is completely rewritten by the later Buddhists who call
themselves the followers of Mahay ana, interested in oblite­
rating the memory of the historical Buddha. But we need
not depend on this work alone to see how the Buddha
presumably follows the model of medical science to formulate
his views. The suggestion comes down from an earlier period.
This is evidenced by the work Milindapanha of circa first
century A.D. The early Buddhists attach great importance
to it. Buddhaghosa, the commentator of -the Pali canons,
claims that it “ contains unimpeachable authority, on a level
with the canonical texts.” ^^® In this text, the Buddhist sage
Nagasena, while explaining the Buddha’s teachings to the
Greek king Milinda (Menandros), persistently draws on the
analogy of the physician and surgeon curing the sick. His
teachings are like the healing agents and surgical skill. Such
an analogy cannot be used by one without pronounced en­
thusiasm for medicine.
Bnt the Milindapanha has for us a greater importance
than this. The enthusiasm for medicine leads the monk to
face a crucial question, which is not squarely faced even by
the medical compilations. How are the fundamental assump-

327. Kern 46-7.

328. W internitz ii.l76. cf. Rhys Davids in SBE xxxv. intro, p. xiv.

Indological Truths
tions of the physicians related to the law of karma ? We
have suggested that the medical compilations are really in-
diflferent to it. Some of the things said in these amount
to the rejection of Arama-law, though by implication. The
special interest of the Milindapanha is that it raises the
question in so many words and makes Nagasena argue that
the causes of diseases are exempted from the law of karma.
Medicine and karma, in short, do not go together.
We shall first quote passages from the text showing the
enthusiasm for medicine. These have the additional interest
of indicating the stage of development reached by Indian
medicine sometime before the first century A.D. We shall
next see how it raises and answers the question concerning
medicine and karma.

“ —And what, venerable Nagasena, is the antidote bazaar

of the Blessed One, the Buddha ?
—Certain drugs, O king, have been made known by the
Blessed One ; drugs by which the Blessed One delivers the
whole world of gods and men from the poison of evil dis­
positions. And what are these drugs ? The four Noble
Truths made known by the Blessed One, that is to say, the
truth as to sorrow, and the truth as to the origin of sorrow,
and the truth as to the cessation of sorrow, and the truth
as to that path which leads to the cessation of sorrow. And
whosoever, longing for the highest insight, hears this doc­
trine of the four truths, they are set quite free from rebirth,
they are set quite free from old age, they are set quite
free from death, they are set quite free from grief, lamen­
tation, pain, sorrow and despair. And this, O king, is what
is called The Blessed One’s bazaar of antidotes.”^^’

The text quotes an ancient Buddhist verse to show that all

this is based on authentic tradition :
“ Of all the drugs, in all the world.
The antidotes of poison dire,

Indological Truths
 N ot one equals that Doctrine sweet.
Drink that, O brethren. Drink and live.” ^^°
The analogy is further elaborated in the text :

“ —And what, venerable Nagasena, is the medicine bazaar of

the Blessed One, the Buddha ?
—Certain medicines, O king, have been made known by the
Blessed One, medicines by which he cures the whole world of
gods and men. And they are these : ‘The four Means of kee­
ping oneself ready and mindful, and the fourfold Great Struggle
...and the Noble Eightfold Path’. By these medicines the
Blessed One purges men of wrong views, purges them of low
aspirations, purges them of evil speaking, purges them of evil
deeds, purges them of evil modes of livelihood, purges them of
wrong endeavours, purges them of evil thoughts, purges them
of erroneous meditation; and he gives emetics to the vomitting
up of lusts, and of malice, and of dullness, and of doubt, and
of self-righteousness, and of sloth of body and inertness
of mind, and of shamelessness and'hardress of heart, and of all
3vil. And this, O king, is what is called ‘The Blessed One’s
bazaar of medicine” .^^'

Ancient Buddhist verses are quoted again to show the

authentic tradition on which is based this comparison of the
Buddha’s teaching to medicine :
“ Of all the medicines found in all the world.
Many in number, various in their powers.
N ot one equals this medicine of the Truth,
Drink that, O brethren. Drink, and drinking live !
For having drunk that medicine of the Truth,
. Ye shall have passed beyond old age and death.
And—evil, lusts, and karma rooted out—
Thoughtful and seeing, ye shall be at rest” .^^^
Those interested in the doctrinal aspect of what is referred
to here as the medicine of truth—“ the four means of keeping

Indological Truths
oneself ready and mindful” etc.—are referred to the note of
Rhys Davids on the Mahd-parinibbana-suttaP^ In the passage
above, what is interesting also from the medical point of view
is the use—figurative though—of purgation and emetics, which
are of well-known importance in Indian medicine.
Apparently, the Milindapanha uses the analogy of medicine
not without some knowledge of it. The Indian doctors think
that since purgation weakens the body, its use needs to be
followed up by certain tonics or roborants, or, as the Caraka-
samhitd puts it, “ by a diet including ghee, meat-juice, milk,
palatable soups” etc.^^'* While using the medical analogy for
the Buddha’s teaching, the Milindapanha also takes note of
this. Explaining the need of “ self-control as regards the sto­
mach” for gaining “ a clear insight into the Four Truths” the
venerable Nagasena says :
“ Just, O King, as it is desirable that a sick man to whom
an emetic, or a purge, or a clyster has been administered,
should be treated with a tonic ; just so, O King, should the
man who is full of evil, and who has not perceived the
Four Truths, adopt the practice of restraint in the matter
of eating. ” 335
Explaining the technique of Tathagata, viz. “first by dis­
course on almsgiving to make the hearts of the hearers
inclined towards it, and then afterwards to urge them to
righteousness” , Nagasena says :
“ It is as when a physician first causes his patients to drink
oil for four or five days in order to strengthen them, and
to soften their bodies ; and then afterwards administers a
purge. The supporters of the faith, O king, the lordly givers,
have their hearts thus softened, made tender, afifected. There­
by do they cross over to the further shore of the ocean
of transmigration by the aid of the boat of their gifts, by
the support of the causeway of their gifts.” ” ®
To make intelligible the considerations because of which
the Buddha allows Devadatta to enter the order with full

Indological Truths
knowledge that being thus admitted Devadatta is going to
cause schism within the order and thus suffer its consequences,
Nagasena depends on the analogy of the wisdom of the
doctors and surgeons :
“ As a clever physician and surgeon, O king, would make a
grievous sickness light by the aid of a powerful medicinal
drug, just so did the Blessed One, in his knowledge of the
right means to an end, admit Devadatta to the Order and
thus make his grievous pain light by the aid of the medicine
of the Dhamma, strong by the power of mercy.” ^^^
Again—and this time going into some details of the sur­
geon’s technique—

“ —Suppose in treating a wound full of matter and blood,

in whose grievous hollow the weapon which caused it re­
mained, which stank of putrid flesh, and was made worse
by the pain that varied with constantly changing symptoms,
by variations in temperature, and by the union of the three
morbid matters,—windy, bilious and phlegmatic—an able phy­
sician and surgeon were to anoint it with a rough, sharp,
bitter, stinging ointment, to the end that the inflammation
should be allayed. And when the inflammation had gone
down, and the wound had become sweet, suppose he were
then to cut into it with a lancet, and burn it with caustic.
And when he had cauterised it, suppose he were to pres­
cribe an alkaline wash, and anoint it with some drug to
the end that the wound might heal up, and the sick man
recover his health—now tell me, O king, would it be out
of cruelty that the surgeon thus smeared with ointment, and
cut with the lancet, and cauterised with the stick of caustic,
and administered a salty wash ?
—Certainly not, Sir ; it would be with kindness in his
heart, and intent on the man’s weal, that he would do all
those things.
—And the feelings of pain produced by his efforts to

Indological Truths
heal—would not the surgeon be guilty of any wrong in
respect of them ?
—How so ? Acting with kind intent and for the man’s
weal, how could he therein incur a wrong ? It is of heavenly
bliss rather that that kindly surgeon would be worthy.
—Just so, great king, was it in his mercy that the Blessed
One admitted Devadatta, to the end to release him from pain.
—Hear another and further reason, O king, why the Blessed
One did so. Suppose a man had been pierced by a thorn.
And another man with kindly intent and for his good were
to cut round the place with another sharp thorn or with
a lancet, and the blood flowing the while, were to extract
that thorn. Now would it be out of cruelty that he acted so ?
—Certainly not. Sir. For he acted with kindly intent, and for
the man’s good. And if he had not done so the man might
have died, or might have suffered such pain that he would have
been nigh to death.
—Just even so, great king, was it of his mercy that the Tatha-
gata admitted Devadatta, to the end to release him of his
pain.” ®38
A number of expressions in the quotation above have
obvious medical interest. The doctors and surgeons of whom
Nagasena speaks—and whose techniques serve to illustrate
the procedure of the Buddha—are obviously advanced repre­
sentatives of Indian medicine.
Explaining the efficacy of reasoning up to the time of the
attainment of nirvana, the venerable Nagasena says :

—It is like a physician who goes to the sick man with

the five kinds of drugs made from medicinal roots, and
grinding them up, gives him to drink, and thereby his sickness
passes away. Would the physician in that case think of making
any further use of medicine ?
—Certainly not, the medicine has done its work. What would
be the use of any more ?

Indological Truths
—Just so, O king, when sinfulness is destroyed by the five moral
powers, then reasoning ceases, but knowledge remains.”^^®
Even when the Buddha feels obliged to use apparently stern
words, he acts like the physician using strong and painful
drugs ;
“—Now would a physician, O king, administer pleasant
things as a medicine in a case where all the morbid matters of
body were affected and the whole frame was disorganised and
full of disease ?
^ N o . Wishing to put an end to the disease he would give sharp
and scarifying drugs.
—In the same way, O king, the Tathagata bestows admonition
for the sake of suppressing all the diseases of sin. And the
words of the Tathagata, even when stern, soften men and make
them tender. Just as hot water, O king, softens and makes
tender anything capable of being softened, so are the words of
the Tathagata, even when stern, yet as full of benefit, and as
full of pity as the words of a father would be to his children.
Just, O king, as the drinking of evil-smelling decoctions, the
swallowing of nasty drugs, destroys the weaknesses of men’s
bodies, so are the words of the Tathagata, even when stern,
bringers of advantage and laden with pity. And just, O king,
as a ball of cotton falling on a man raises no bruise, so do the
words of the Tathagata, even when stern, do no harm.’’^'*®
Nirvana itself is compared to medicine :
“ —Venerable Nagasena, those three qualities of medicine, which
you said were inherent in nirvana—which are they ?
—As medicine, O king, is the refuge of beings tormented
by poison, so is nirvaria the refuge of beings tormented with
the poison of evil dispositions. This is the first quality of medi­
cine inherent in nirvana. And again, O king, as medicine puts
an end to diseases, so does nirvana put an end to griefs. This
is the second quality of medicine inherent in nirvaria. And
again, G king, as medicine is ambrosia, so also is nirvana
ambrosia. This is the third quality of medicine inherent in
njrvo«a.” ^‘"
339. Ib. ii.2.3. SBE xxxv.69. 340. lb. iv.3.18. SBE xxxv. 240-41.
341. lb. iv.8,68. SBE xxxvi.190.

Indological Truths
 If, therefore, people “ admitted into a religion: so pure, they
give it up and return again to the lower stage” , the T^tbagata
is not to be blamed for it—no more than the wise physician
from whom some foolish patients run away :
“ —Or suppose, O king, that a man afflicted with dire disease
should visit a physician skilled in diagnosis, knowing an
efficacious and lasting method of cure, and that that man sho­
uld then not let himself be treated, but go back again as ill as
before. Now therein whom would the people blame, the sick
man or the doctor ?
—It is the sick man. Sir, they would blame, saying How
could the physician, of himself, cure this man who would not
let himself be treated ? What fault is there in the doctor ?
—Just so, O king, has the Tathagata deposited in the cas­
ket of his religion the ambrosial medicine (of nirvana) which is
able to suppress all the sickness of sin, thinking : ‘May all
those of conscious sentient beings who are afflicted with the
sickness of sin drink of this ambrosia, and so allay all their
disease.’ And if any one, without drinking the ambrosia,
should turn back again with the evil still within him, and return
once more to the lower state, it is he whom the people will
blame.” 8^2
Naturally, the Buddha considers renunciation specially
necessary for those who are spiritually backward rather than
for those who have already made sufficient spiritual progress,
just as the physician’s skill is specially required for the sick and
not for those that are already enjoying good health :
“ —Or suppose, O king, that a physician, a true follower of the
sages of old, one who carries (in his memory) the ancient
traditions and verses, a practical man, skilled in diagnosis, and
master of an efficacious and lasting system of treatment, who
had collected (from medicinal herbs) a medicine able to cure
every disease, were to have it announced : ‘Let none, Sirs, who
are ill come to visit me 1 Let the healthy and the strong visit
me !’ Now, would then, O king, those men free from illness

Indological Truths
 and disease, healthy and jubilant, get what they wanted from
the physician ?
—Certainly not, Sir ! What men want from a physician, that
would they have already obtained otherwise. What use would
the physician be to them ?
—Just so, O king, had the Tathagata ordained that only
those laymen who had already entered the first stage of the
Excellent Way should be received into the Order, then would
the advantages they seek in it have been already gained
elsewhere. Of what use would the renunciation be to them
th en ? ” 8*3
The preparation for Arhatship specially by keeping the vows
is like the training required to be a surgeon :
“ And there is no realisation of Arhatship, O king, in one single
life, without a previous keeping of the vows. Only on the
utmost zeal and the most devoted practice of righteousness, and
with the aid of a suitable teacher, is the realisation of Arhatship
attained. Just, O king, as a doctor or surgeon first procures for
himself a teacher, either by the pa.yment of a fee or by the
performance of service, and then thoroughly trains himself in
holding the lancet, in cutting, marking, or piercing with it, in
extracting darts, in cleansing wounds, in causing them to dry
up, in the application of ointments, in the administration of
emetics and purges and oily enemas, and only when he has thus
gone through training, served his apprenticeship, made himself
skilful, does he visit the sick to heal them.” ^'*‘‘
More passages like these may be quoted from the Milin-
dapanha. But that is not necessary. The great esteem with
which the physicians and surgeons are viewed in early Budd­
hism is already obvious.
This must have meant a great liberating influence for
medical science specially after the Brahmanical hostility to it.
However, all this cannot but raise a serious question. D o
the early Buddhists endorse the system of rational medicine
without being aware of its theoretical requiiements ? These
requirements include a naturalistic understanding of disease

Indological Truths
as well as cure—an understanding hardly compatible with the
law of karma. The question is important, because though
the Buddha is free from many features of Brahmanical ortho­
doxy strongly opposed to medical science, he retains the
theory of transmigration and karma and somehow reconciles
it with his denial of the soul {anatma-vada). How then can
he be so earnest about rational medicine, as the Vinaya-
p itaka and Milindapanha want us to believe ?
It seems that the Vinaya-pitaka evades this question. But
the venerable Nagasena apparently , realises that philosophi­
cally speaking the question is too serious to be simply evaded.
Therefore, he raises the question and wants to answer it.
W hat is remarkable about his answer is that as far as sick­
ness is concerned, suffering is not necessarily due to karma.
One of the best examples of this is a passage of the Milin­
dapanha which we quote here at some length.

“ —Venerable Nagasena, had the Blessed One, when he be­

came a Buddha, burnt out all evil in himself, or was there
still some evil remaining in him ?
—He had burnt out all evil. There was none left.
—But how, Sir ? Did not the Tathagata get hurt his body ?
—Yes, O king. At Rajagaha a splinter of rock pierced
his foot, and once he suffered from dysentery, and once
when the morbid matters of his body were disturbed a purge
was administered to him, and once when he was troubled
with wind the Elder who waited on him (that is Ananda)
gave him hot water. ,
—Then, Sir, if the Tathagata, on his becoming a Buddha,
has destroyed all evil in himself—this other statement that
his foot was pierced by a splinter, that he had dysentery,
and so on, must be false. But if they are true, then he
cannot have been free from evil, for there is no pain with­
out karma. All pain has its root in karma, it is on account
of karma that suffering arises...
—No, O king. It is not all suffering that has its root
in karma. There are eight causes by which sufferings arise,
by which many beings suffer pain. And what are the eight ?

Indological Truths
 Superabundance of wind, and of bile, and of phlegm, the
union of these morbid matters, variations in temperature,
the avoiding of dissimilarities, external agency and karma.
From each of these there are some sufferings that arise, and
these are the eight causes by which many beirigs suffer pain.
And therein whosoever maintains that it is karma that injures
beings, and besides it there is no other reason for pain, his
proposition is false.
—But, Sir, all the other seven kinds of pain have each of them
also karma as its origin, for they are all produced by karma.
—If, O king, all diseases were really derived from karma
then there would be no characteristic marks by which they could
be distinguished one from the other. When the wind is distur­
bed, it is so in one or other of ten ways—by cold, or by heat,
o r by hunger, or by thirst, or by over-eating, or by standing
too long, or by over-exertion, or by walking too fast, or by
medical treatment, or as the result of karma. Of these ten,
nine do not act in a past life or in a future life, but in one’s
present existence. Therefore it is not right to say that all pain
is due to karma. When the bile. O king, is deranged, it is so
in one or other of three ways—by cold, or by heat or by impro­
per food. When the phlegm is disturbed it is so by cold, or by
heat or by food and drink. When either of these three morbid
matters are disturbed or mixed, it brings about its own special
distinctive pain. Then there are the special pains arising from
variations in temperature, avoidance of dissimilarities, and
external agency. And there is the act that has karma as its
fruit, and the pain so brought about arising from the act done.
So what arises as the fruit of karma is much less than that
which arises from other causes...But although the Blessed One
never suffered pain which was the result of his own karm a...yet
he suffered pain from each of the other six causes...There come
to this body of ours, O king, compounded of the four elements
(viz. water, fire, air and earth), sensations desirable and the
reverse, pleasant and unpleasant. Suppose, O king, a clod of
earth were to be thrown into the air, and to fall again on to
the ground. Would it be in consequence of any act it had
previously done that it would so fall ?

Indological Truths
 —No, Sir. There is no reason in the broad earth by which
it could experience the result of an act either good or evil ...
—Well, O king, the Tathagata should be regarded as the
broad earth. And as the clod would fall on it irrespective of
any act doiie by it, so also was it irrespective of any act done
by him that that splinter of rock fell upon his foot. Again, O
king, men tear up and plough the earth. But is that a result
of any act previously done ?
—Certainly not. Sir.
—Just so with the falling of that splinter. And the dysentery
which attacked him was in the same way the result of no
previous act, it arose from the union of the three morbid
matters. And whatsoever bodily disease fell upon him, that
had its origin, not in karma, but in one or the other six
causes referred to...So, O king, it is not all pain that is the
result of karma.” ^*^

How far such an amendment of the law of karma can

smoothly agree with the fundamental teachings of the Buddha
is a different question. In the formula o f causal sequence
explaining the origin of suffering—a formula without which
early Buddhism is inconceivable—“samskara-s or mental dis­
positions as a.result of the non-realisation of the truth (avidya)
are shown as the immediately preceding cause of the present
existence. The samskara-s represent the accumulated karmic
effects left in a being before his rebirth. The results of acts
done in the previous life are transmitted to that consciousness
which brings about re-existence and this transmission takes
place ceaselessly and uninterruptedly like water flowing in a
stream.” ®*® In the Abhidharma literature that grows some­
times after the Buddha, the law of karma assumes the most
fantastic importance. As Vallee Poussin puts i t : “It is in
Buddhism, however, that the doctrine of karma reaches its
climax and assumes a unique character. Elsewhere it meets
with correctives ; there are counter actions to human acts ;
but in Buddhism it may be said that karma explains every-

Indological Truths
thing, or ought to. Other Indian philosophies admit the
existence of a self-existent soul or an ego. In Buddhist philo­
sophy the ego is merely a collection of various elements
constantly renewed, which are combined into a pseudo-per­
sonality only as the result of action. It has therefore been
asserted that Buddhism does not admit transmigration ; when
a being dies, a new being is born and inherits his karma ;
what transmigrates is not a person, but his karm a... To
Buddhists destiny is merely ‘past acts.’ The earlier Indian
belief was that the world was re-created by Brahma at the
end of each period of chaos. Buddhists hold that the whole
universe with all its variety is the work of acts. But by
‘acts’ we must here understand the combined mass of the acts
of all beings ; e.g. at the beginning of the re-creation of
the world there rise in the vast void of the universe ‘winds
born of acts’ which heap up the clouds from which the
creative rain will pour, and so on.” ®*^
The Buddha’s teacings, in short, are inconceivable without
the admission of the omnipotence' of the law of karma.
Are we then to think that venerable Nagasena goes against
these teachings in so far as he proposes to amend the law
of karma in defence of rational therapeutics ? Such an
assumption is not without its own diflSculties, because the
defence of rational therapeutics is also something which Naga­
sena inherits from the Buddha himself. In other words, if
there is any crisis caused by this enthusiasm for rational
therapeutics in Nagasena’s otherwise strong commitment to
the law of karma, its roots are to be traced to the posi­
tion of the Buddha himself, i.e. as far as we can understand
it on the basis of the Vinaya-pitaka. The amendment of the
law of karma required by rational therapeutics does not agree
with his fumdamental teachings concerning karma.
We have perhaps in this the clue to the rather limited
impact on the history of Indian medicine of the liberating
influence of the Buddha’s support of it. The main theore­
tical sanction for the hierarchical society is received from the

347. Vallee Poussin in ERE vii.674.

Indological Truths
 law of karma. With all his distaste and disapproval of
hierarchical iniquities that we read in the canonical works
of the Buddhists, the prophet’s approval of—and even great
zeals for—the law of karma enables the hierarchical iniquities
to enjoy the strongest ideological sanction. This seems to
be one of the main reasons for the failure of the followers
of the Buddha to evolve a system of legal codes replacing
those that are embodied in the dharmasastra-s. Even areas
ruled by kings with Buddhist creed are not known to have
any alternative system of codified laws. Ths Buddha’s support
of the physicians and surgeons does not seem to have more
than a short-lived effect. In spite of this support, the counter­
ideology embodied in the dharmasaatra-s continues to have
its destructive influence for science in general and for medicine
in particular.
In such an atmosphere what can the scientists do ? What
they are actually found to do is to try to save their science
by offering ransoms to the counter-ideology. We see this
quite clearly if for the time being we leave medicine^ and
see the strange fate of Brahmagupta, the greatest Indian
astronomer-mathematician. The way in which he tries to
protect science in the hostile intellectual climate dominated
by the counter-ideology throws a flood of light on the inner
contradictions of the medical compilations in the form in
which these reach us.

24. SCIENCE AND POLITICAL SAFETY : BRAHMAGUPTA

A brief account of how the Indian scientists seek political safety

for their science by conceding to the counter-ideology is given
by the visiting scientist al-Biruni.
al-Biruni, as it is well-known, acquires profound know­
ledge of Indian science, specially astronomy. On the basis
of this he analyses an apparently curious fact about the
writings of the great Indian astronomers like Varahamihira
(c. 6th century A.D.) and Brahmagupta (c. 7th-8th centuries
A.D.). These astronomers—specially Brahmagupta, whom al-

Indological Truths
Biruni considers to be the greatest astronomer-mathematician
— are fully aware of the real natural causes of the eclipses.
They are also aware that these causes as determined by their
observations and calculations, flatly go against the Brahma-
nical myths, according to which the demon in the form of
mere “ Head” (Rahu) gobbles up the sun and the moon thereby
causing their eclipses. What is very strange about these
scientists, however, is that in spite of all these they show
the tendency of surrender to these myths and try to justify
the priestly rituals depending on the myths.
Observes al-Biruni, “ It is perfectly known to the Hindu
astronomers that the moon is eclipsed by the shadow of the
earth, and the sun is eclipsed by the moon. Hereon they have
based their computations in the astronomical handbooks and
other works.” 348
In substantiation of this, al-Biruni quotes extensively from
the Brhat-samhita of Varahamihira. In the passage quoted,
Varahamihira first refers to the myth sanctioned by Brahmanical
orthodoxy, according to which the eclipse is due to the Head
(Rahu) devouring the sun. Varahamihira next shows why such
a myth is prima facie absurd and what is the natural cause
explaining the eclipse. It is therefore extremely strange that he
adds to all this a rationale of the Brahmanical rituals sanctioned
precisely by the myth Varahamihira so vigorously rejects. In
the Brhat-samhita he says, “ Some scholars maintain that the
Head belonged to the Daityas, and that his mother was Sim-
hika. After the angels had fetched the ami;,ta (nectar) out of
the ocean, they asked Visnu to distribute it among them. When
he did so, the Head also came, resembling the angels in shape,
and associated himself with them. When Visnu handed him a
portion of the am rta, he took and drank it. But then Visnu
perceived who it was, hit him with his round cakra, and cut off
his head. However, the head remained alive on account of the
amnta in its mouth, whilst the body died, since it had not yet
partaken of the am rta -T hen the Head, humbling itself, spoke :
‘For what sin has this been done ?’ Thereupon he was recom-

Indological Truths
pensed by being raised to heaven and by being made one of its
inhabitants.” ^'*®
After having finished relating these absurdities, Varahamihira
comes out with his own understanding of the eclipse and says :
“ An eclipse of the moon is her entering the shadow of the earth,
and an eclipse of the sun consists in this that the moon covers
and hides the sun from us. Therefore, the lunar eclipse will
never revolve from the west nor the solar eclipse from the east.
A long shadow stretches away from the earth, in like manner as
the shadow of a tree. When the moon has only little latitude,
standing in the seventh sign of its distance from the sun, and if
it does not stand too far north or south, in that case the moon
enters the shadow of the earth and is eclipsed thereby. The
first contact takes place on the side of the east. When the sun
is reached by the moon from the west the moon covers the sun
as if a portion of a cloud covered him. The amount of the
covering differs in different regions. Because that which covers
the moon is large, her light wanes when one-half of it is eclip­
sed; and because that which covers the sun is not large, the rays
are powerful notwithstanding the eclipse.”^®**
“ After having described” , says al-Biruni, “ the nature of the
two eclipses as he understands them, he complains of those who
do not know this” . The main point of the common people
objecting to this naturalistic understanding of eclipse, according
to Varahamihira is : “ If the Head did not appear and did not
bring about the eclipse, the Brahmins would not at that mo­
ment undergo an obligatory washing.” ^®' To this, Varahamihira
comes out with a very strange answer. He says,
“ The reason of this is that the Head humiliated itself after it had
been cut ofiF, and received from (god) Brahman a portion of the
offering which the Brahmins offer to the fire at the moment of
an eclipse. Therefore, he is near the spot of the eclipse, sear­
ching for his portion. Therefore, at that time people mention
him frequently, and consider him as the cause of the eclipse,
although he has nothing whatsoever to do with it ; for the ecli­
pse depends entirely upon the uniformity and the declination of
the orbit of the moon.” ^®^
349. lb. 350. /6. ii.108-9. 351. 76. ii.'09. 3 5 2 ./6

Indological Truths
 Remarkable indeed is this statement of Varahamihira, because
it is clear that he does not believe in the Head at all. Evidently,
he is aware that though the Head does not exist, the pressure
of Brahmanical orthodoxy on the scientists does. It is being
much too daring to question the Brahmanical ritual connected
with the myth of the Head. The scientist is thus obliged to
invent some justification for the ritual, and hence by implication
also for the Head. Comments al-Biruni, “ The latter words of
Varahamihira, who in passages quoted previously, has already
revealed himself to us as a man who accurately knows the shape
of the world, are odd and surprising. However, he seems
sometimes to side with the Brahmins, to whom he belonged,
and from whom he could not separate himself. Still he does
not deserve to be blamed, as on the whole, his foot stands
iirmly on the basis of the truth, and he clearly speaks out the
truth.”353
But the situation seems to change by the time of Brahma­
gupta. The custodians of the counter-ideology apparently feel
that only a perfunctory justification of -the Brahmanical rituals
connected with the Head is not enough for the interest they
represent. A natural explanation of the eclipse destroys the
very foundation of the professional practices of the priests,
namely the myth about the Head, in spite o f the formal admi­
ssion of the efiicacy of the rituals. In other words, science is
required to offer far greater ransom to regimented religion for
the purpose of evading the censorship of the law-givers. The
scientist is too dangerous for the society so long as he does not
pledge full loyalty to the views required by the vested interests.
It is presumably because of such a situation that the greatest
astronomer-mathematician, Brahmagupta, opens his treatise
Brahma-siddhanta with the following declaration, which, as a
scientist, he fully knows to be false.
“ Some people think,” says Brahmagupta, “ that the eclipse
is not caused by the Head. This, however, is a foolish idea,
for it is he in fact who eclipses, and the generality of the inhabi­
tants of the world say that it is the Head who eclipses. The

Indological Truths
Veda, which is the word of god from the mouth of Brahman,
says that the Head eclipses, likewise the book iwp?/com posed
by Manu, and the samhita composed by Garga, the son of
Brahman. On thq contrary, Varahamihira, Srishena, Aryabhata
and Visnucandra inaintain that the eclipse is not caused by the
Head, but by the moon and the shadow of the earth, in direct
opposition to all and from enmity against the just mentioned
dogma. For if the Head does not cause the eclipse, all the
usiges of the Brahmins which they practise at the moment of
an eclipse, viz. their rubbing themselves with warm oil, and
other works of prescribed worship, would be illusory and not
be rewarded by heavenly bliss. If a man declares these things
to be illusory, he stands outside of the generally acknowledged
dogma, and that is not allowed. M anu says in the sm rji :
When the Head keeps the sun or moon in eclipse, all waters on
earth become pure(?), and in purity like the water of the Ganges.
The Veda says : The Head is the son of a woman of the daugh­
ters of the Daityas...Therefore, people practise the well-known
works of piety, and therefore those authors must cease to
oppose the generality, for everything which is in the Veda, sm rti
and samhita
Pledging loyalty to the counter-ideology cannot possibly be
more abject or more loud. But is this all that Brahmagupta
has really to say ? If so, his name would have sunk into the
limbo of oblivion, like those of the Inquisitors of Galileo. The
fact on the contrary is that he is remembered in history as one
of the greatest scientists of India. There is thus something
extremely peculiar about the way in which he opens his treatise.
The loyalty to the counter-ideology is pledged under duress.
The visiting scientist al-Biruni notes this in his own way. His
illuminating observations need to be quoted here at some
length.
Says al-Biruni, “ But look, for instance at Brahmagupta,
who is certainly the most distinguished of their astronomers.
For as he was one of the Brahmins who read in their
Puranas that the sun is lower than the moon, and who

Indological Truths
therefore requires a Head biting the sun in order that he
should be eclipsed, he shirks the truth and lends his support
to imposture, if he did not—and this we think by no means
impossible - from intense disgust at them, speak as he spoke
simply in order to mock them, or under the compulsion
of some mental derangement, like a man whom death is
about to rob of his consciousness.” ®*® This is illustrated
by al-Biruni with the passage we have just quoted. But al-Biruni
does not stop with this quotation. He wants also to understand
the peculiar tragedy of Brahmagupta. Here are his observations :
“ ...W e shall not argue with him, but only whisper into his
ears : If people must under circumstances give up opposing
the religious codes (as seems to be your case ), why then do
you order people to be pious if you forget to be so your­
self ? Why do you, after having spoken such words, then
begin to calculate the diameter of the moon in order to
explain her eclipsing the sun, and the diameter of the shadow
of the earth in order to explain its eclipsing the moon ?
Why do you compute both eclipses in agreement with the
theory of those heretics, and not according to the views of
those with whom you think it proper to agree? ...I, for my
part, am inclined to the belief that that which made Brahma­
gupta speak the above-mentioned. words (which involve a
sin against conscience) was something of a calamitous fate,
like that of Socrates, which had befallen him, notwithstand­
ing the abundance of his knowledge and the sharpness of
his intellect, and notwithstanding his extreme youth at the
time. For he wrote the Brahma-siddhanta when he was only
thirty years of age. If this indeed is his excuse, we accept
it and herewith drop the m a t t e r . ” S 6 6
If the calamitous fate befalls the astronomers, the phy­
sicians and surgeons are not expected to escape it. They
also can hope to save their science only by paying very
heavy ransom to the counter-ideology. This leads us to see
how the medical compilations assume the form of being a
strange amalgam of science and its opposite.

Indological Truths
THE SOURCE-BOOKS RE-EXAMINED

Indological Truths
Indological Truths
 CARAKA-SAMHITA : A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

1. PRELIM INARY REMARKS

The form in which the source-books of Indian medicine reaches

us is apparently very strange. It is the form of a confused
assemblage of science and its opposite. But we need not
feel bewildered by it after what we have just discussed about
the Brahma-siddhanta. When the demand for counter-ideology
on the part of the vested interests becomes oppressive, the
scientists are left mainly with two alternatives. They have either
to flout openly the ideological requirements of the vested
interests, or they have to make a show of apparent piety
as a protective crust for science. Galileo faces inquisition.
But his friend Descartes makes a pilgrimage of gratitude to
the shrine of the Virgin of Loreto for his scientific disco­
very. It is true that the inquisition does not destroy Galileo
and bis science. But this is largely because a new class is
already consolidating itself in society, and it sees in science
not only the prospect of its own profit but also a weapon
suited for its struggle against the nobility and the Church.
The rising middle class “ for the development of its industrial
production, required a science which ascertained the physical
properties of natural objects and the modes of action of the
forces of nature. Now up to then science had but been
the humble handmaid of the Church, had not been allowed
to overstep the limits of faith, and for that reason had been
no science at all. Science rebelled against the Church ; the
bourgeoisie could not do without science, and, therefore, had
to join in the rebellion.” *
Brahmagupta sees no rising social power to take up the

Indological Truths
 cause of his science. How else can he hope to save his
science but making a grand show of piety ? Indian astronomy,
it is true, has its beginnings in the priestly circles as part
of their scriptural lore. What Brahmagupta wants to defend,
however, is not this ancient quasi-theological astronomy. His
observations and calculations lead him to an astronomy which
is much too naturalistic to tolerate the scriptures, and hence
to be tolerated by the custodians of the scriptural tradition
—the’ law-givers. So Brahmagupta has to seek political safety
by conceding to the counter-ideology, howsoever flatly it may
go against science thus saved.
If such be the fate awaiting astronomy with its scriptural
lineage, the position of the doctors and surgeons must have
been all the more desperate. Medicine aspires to be too
secular, too earthly, too naturalistic and much too committed
to the democratic norm to be tolerated by the custodians
of the counter-ideology. Even the great Vedic gods are not
spared censure because of their medical career and even the
Atharvaveda—in spite of being a Veda—is eventually despised.
How then can the doctors save their science ?
The medical compilations as we have these enable us to
answer this question. The physicians try to save their science
by concealing it under a heap of intellectual debris. These
are of the nature of random concessions to the counter-ideology
—to its metaphysics, its morals, its mythology, in short, to any
sundry superstition satisfying it.
Apparently there were among the physicians also conscien­
tious scientists protesting against the intrusion of all these
into their science. Their efforts to resist the counter-ideology
do not succeed. The general historical conditions ensuring
this success do not exist in ancient and medieval India. Still,
what they in fact achieve is not without importance for the
historian of Indian science. When the medical works get
invaded by the counter-ideology, they can a t least remind
the doctors of the criterion by which to differentiate between
what is intrinsic and what is extrinsic to medical science among
the assorted ideas and attitudes somehow or other embodied
in the medical compilations. This criterion remains formulated

Indological Truths
within the Caraka-samhita itself. The historian of Indian
science is thus not obliged to go outside the text to sort
out science from superstition in it. Since the doctrinal
content of the Susruta-samhita is substantially the same as
that of the Caraka-samhita and since moreover the former
also reaches us in the apparently quaint form of a jumble
of science and superstition, an analysis of the Cardka-sarnhita
in this line seems to do away with the need of a separate
assessment of the Susruta-sarnhitd. It is adequate for our
present purpose to concentrate only on the Caraka-samhita.

2. CRITERION FOR IDEN TIFY IN G WHAT IS EXTRINSIC

TO M EDICINE

To begin with, let us recall the account of a medical collo­

quium we have already noted. ^ In this, Varyovida expounds
an anthropomorphic view of Wind as the ultimate principle
governing everything. But another medical authority, Marici,
leaps to the attack : “ Even if all these were true, what is
the point in saying or knowing these in the medical disci­
pline ? Whatever is said here must be said strictly in accordance
with the requirements of medicine.” Thus, in short, what
interests the physician is medicine and medicine alone. Any­
thing without strict relevance for medicine is to be rejected
as extrinsic to medical science, irrespective of the question
of its truth or otherwise from the non-medical standpoint.
We have in this bold protest of Marici against Varyovida’s
metaphysics a formulation of the criterion by which to judge
what is intrinsic and what is extrinsic to medical science in our
extant medical compilations. Lest this should be ignored as
being based on a mere isolated statement of an individual
doctor, we shall note here how his point is being variously
reiterated in the Caraka-samhita.
One peculiarity of the Caraka-samhita is that it is already

Indological Truths
aware of considerable differences of opinion among different
medical authorities.^ It gives us accounts of debates among
physicians, in which they sometimes express themselves strongly
against each other. Such debates are considered highly desirable
for the enrichment of medical knowledge. The Caraka-samhitd
also mentions theoretical conclusions characteristic of the other
systems of medicine, i.e. differing from the one supposed to be
codified in the text.^ Apparently, in the ancient period, medi­
cal science is yet to be tongue-tied by authority, clash of views
having much to contribute to its growth.
We are further told : “ among the people are current various
treatises on medicine” .® Hence, after makirig up the mind for
going in for medical studies, one has first of all to select the
right treatise for oneself.* Thus is the need felt for describing
the model medical treatise. That the extant Caraka-samhita
grossly deviates from this model, is only a sad commentary on
the work of its later redactors and editors, who may be devia­
ting from the model under duress. But there is no reason to
take a light view of the model itself, for .apart from its intrinsic
worth, the presumption is that it comes down from the com­
paratively ancient authorities themselves, the other alternative
being to imagine that the later redactors or editors of the text
themselves build up a model only to flout it rather grossly.
For our present purpose, the most relevant point about this
model is that a medical treatise must confine itself exclusively
to topics having strict relevance for medical science, that it must
not contain anything extrinsic to or irrelevant for its subject-
matter, or, as the text puts it, it must not mix up {asamkula)
its actual theme with anything else."^
This chapter of the Caraka-samhitd which formulates the
model of naedical treatise, finds it necessary to go also into
much detail of the methodology of medical discussion. In the
course of this, it explains certain fallacies resulting from the
violation of the norm of right discussion. Two of these are

3. Caraka-samhita iii.5.4 ; iii.5.13 ; vi. 3.65-6 ; vi.3.1I7 ; vi 3.192 ; vi.14.6;

vi.14.33 ; etc.
4. lb. iii.8.37. 5. Ib. iii.8.3. 6. lb. 7. lb.

Indological Truths
specially relevant for our present purpose. One is called adhika
or redundance, a form of which is irrelevance. The other is a
particular form of the fallacy of contradiction or viruddha. Both
these fallacies are included in the final list of what is technically
called nigrahasthana or “ point of defeat” .® One committing
any such fallacy forfeits one’s right to medical discussion.
What, then, are the two fallacies ?
The fallacy of irrelevance {adhika in one form) is illustrated
as follows : ya t vd ayurvede bhasyamane barhaspatyam ausana-
sam any at vd ya t kincit apratisambandhdrtham ucyate —“ Thus,
for example, while discussing medical science, to quote the
authority of Brhaspati, USanas, or to cite anything which
is not strictly relevant to the subject-matter of medicine.”®
USanas—and also Brhaspati in this particular context—are
supposed to be renowned authorities of political science and juris­
prudence in ancient India. But though considered authorita­
tive in their own fields, it is only by committing the fallacy of
irrelevance that one can quote them in a medical discussion,
for the simple reason that such a discussion is supposed to be
confined to medicine and medicine alone. A statement, even
though authenticated by some otherwise exalted persons, is not
to be allowed in mediciiie unless it has positive medical signi­
ficance. Let USanas and Brhaspati enjoy their authority in
their own fields. Since, however, what they say is medically
irrelevant, a doctor is not allowed to cite their authority in the
medical discussion. Such a dictum can be formulated only by
those who have strict fidelity to their own science. In this we
can see the true spirit of the real representatives of ancient
Indian medicine.
The fallacy of contradiction or viruddha, as the Caraka-
samhita wants us to understand it, has three forms, resulting
from a statement contradicting any of the following : 1) the
instance {cirsldnta) cited in favour of it, 2) the conclusion
{siddhdnta) which it intends to establish and 3) the specific
context {samaya) in which it is made : viruddharn ndma d r s td -
nta-siddhdnta-samayaih viruddham.^° Of these three, we are

Indological Truths
specially interested here in the last, viz. the fallacy of contradic­
tion resulting from a statement going against its own context or
samaya. The Caraka-samhita wants to be quite specific about
it ;
samayah punah tridha bhavati. yatha : ayurvaidika-samayah,
yajnika-samayah, moksa-sastrika-smayah ca iti.
tatra ayurvaidika-samayah : catuspadam bhesajam iti.
yajnika-samayah ; alabhya yajamanaih pasavaiti.
moksa-sastrika-samayah : sarvabhutesu ahimsd iti.
tatra sva-samaya-viparitam ucyamanam viruddham bhavati.
“ Context, again, is threefold. These are : (1) the context of
medical science, (2) the context of ritual sacrifice and (3) the
context of the doctrine of liberation.
“ Among these, the context of medical science. (A statement
relevant for it, is : ) ‘Medical science depends on four factors
(viz. the physician, substances used as drugs etc., nursing
attendant and the patient).
“ The context of ritual sacrifice. (A statement relevant for
it is :) ‘The sacrificial animal is to be slaughtered by the yaja-
mana (or one who gets the sacrifice performed).
“ The context of the doctrine of liberation. (A statement relevant
for it is :) ‘(One must practise) non-violence to all living beings.’
“ A statement becomes contradictory when it .is made in viola­
tion of its own specific context.”
The examples are carefully chosen. It is essential for the
sacrificial context to state that the sacrificer must slaughter
thfe sacrificial animal. It is equally essential for the context
of the doctrine of liberation to state that one must practise
total non-violence. Thus the essential proposition of one
context, if allowed to be mentioned in that of another, results
in flat contradiction. However, the physician is interested in
neither of these two contexts. He is interested only in safe­
guarding the integrity of his science. For this purpose, he
is formulating the general rule that in medical science no
proposition is to be allowed which does not belong to the
strictly medical context.

Indological Truths
 Still the way in which the fallacy of contradiction resulting
from the confusion of contexts, as illustrated in the text, has
its own interest. It is the way in which the physician is
trying to defend the integrity of his science against the possi­
ble intrusion of it by the counter-ideology. No proposition
belonging to the context of ritual or that of moksa is to
be allowed in medicine. But these two contexts of ritual
and liberation represent the two branches of Vedic orthodoxy,
generally called its karma-kanda and jndna-kanda. Sacrifi­
cial ritual is the be all and end all of the former, libera­
tion that of the latter. To resist the invasion of medical
science by Vedic orthodoxy, the physicians require the general
rule of excluding the possible confusion of contexts. In
substantiation of the rule, they remind the doctors of the
two main branches of Vedic orthodoxy and of the fatal
consequence of confusing these with medicine. Thus the
way in which the physicians illustrate this amounts to the
assertion that, for the sake of self-consistency, medical science
has to avoid Vedic orthodoxy as a whole. Significantly,
apart from the context of strict medical science, the text
speaks only of two other contexts—the ritual-context and
liberation-context, i.e. karma-kanda and jnana-kanda. Propo­
sitions belonging to either of these two is not to be allowed
in medicine.
The physicians seem to reiterate the dictum, in the course
of which they find it necessary also to come out with a defence
of the essentially rationalist attitude. As it is put in the
Caraka-samhita ■
“ In a colloquium {vada, usually meaning ‘debate’) of the
physicians, they must move strictly within the hmits of medical
science and must not digress to anything else (vadastu khalu
bhisajarn pravartamdno pravarteta dyurveda eva, na anyatra).
The propositions and counter-propositions on all the topics
covered by it are to be clearly and cogently worked out. Every
statement made must be based on a clear and careful understan­
ding of these. Medical discussion is to allow no proposition
which is irrelevant, unauthoritative, uninvestigated, without any
practical significance (asddhaka) confused and without a general

Indological Truths
applicability (avyapaka). Every proposition must be substan­
tiated by reason (rarva/w Only those propo­
sitions that are substantiated by reason and are untainted by
any other consideration, prove useful for therapeutic purposes,
because such propositions alone help the intellect to be broa­
dened ( prasasta-buddhi-vardhakatvdt) and only uninhibited
intellect {anupahata-buddhi) leads to the successful culmination
of an undertaking,” 12

3. THE SPECIFIC MEDICAL CONTEXT

Before we proceed to analyse the extant Caraka-samhita,

we have to be clear about one point. What exactly is the nature
of their own specific context—that of the medical science—the
integrity of which the physicians want to preserve and therefore
the possible confusion of which with anything else they want to
avoid ?
This is briefly answered in the passage just quoted : catuspd-
dam bhesajam iti, literally “ medicine is four-legged”. In other
words, there are four and only four factors on which medicine
depends. This view of medicine as depending on four factors
retains considerable importance in the Caraka-samhitd. Two
chapters of the book discussing the general principles (Sutra-
sthdna) are designed for the specific purpose of explaining it.*^
We have already reviewed these two chapters'"* in our dis­
cussion of the “ defence of medicine.” We shall recapitulate
their main points here, because of their bearing on the critical
examination of the extant Caraka-samhitd.
The four factors on which medicine depends—and which
therefore are alone relevant for the discussion of medical science
—are 1) the physician, 2) substances, 3) nurse and 4) patient.
The first chapter on these, called the “brief account of the four-
factor view of medicine” enumerates the essential qualities of
these four factors, the, combined operation of which ensures

Indological Truths
therapeutic success. The next chapter, called the “ major account
of the four factor” view of medicine, is designed to defend the
intrinsic eflacacy of medical science. It is argued that a curable
disease cannot but be cured in the presence of all these four
factors with the four marks of excellence of each.
There is thus nothing vague about what is meant by the
specific medical context. It is the context that allows the
discussion of four and only four factors : the doctor, substances
(drugs or diets), nurse and the patient. Therefore, according
to the criterion embodied in the Caraka-samhita itself, any
discussion about anything else is redundant from the medical
viewpoint. Such redundance has by all means to be avoided,
because, if allowed in the medical context proper, it results only
in flat contradiction.
Only one clarification needs to be added to all this. When
the physicians discuss the patient, they have no scope to take
notice of any indwelling spirit or soul. Even though something
like that is real, the physician with his substances and nursing
attendant has hardly any scope to do anything about it. In
fact, the view of the soul belongs to another context altogether,
which is the context of the doctrine of liberation. In other
words, that alone in which the physicians can possibly take an
interest is the body or sarira of the patient. The Caraka-
samhita wants to make this abundantly clear. We have already
quoted same evidences of this.^^ The point being crucial for our
subsequent discussion, we propose to add to these two more
formulations of the Caraka-sarnhita :
“Therefore, the intelligent man should specially devote
himself to those endeavours which assure the well-being of the
body. Verily, the body is the support of the man’s well-being,
since the man is established in the body. Leaving everything
else, one should take care of the body, for in the absence of
the body there is total extinction of all that characterises embo­
died beings.” ’®
“The physician who understands the body in every respect

Indological Truths
and in its entirety and at all times, knows in its fullness
Ayurveda, the source of happiness for the entire world.” ‘^

4 SALVATION SUPERIMPOSED ON HEALING

With the points just discussed, let us quote a part of a long

discourse attributed to Atreya in the extant Caraka-samhitd ;

“ Listen, oh AgniveSa ! To one who contemplates the whole

world as being in himself and himself in the whole world, with
equanimity, there is born the true understanding. Inasmuch
as he regards the world as being in himself, he realises that the
self, and none else, is the agent of pleasure and pain; and
inasmuch as he realises the whole world, being of the nature of
activity and yoked to motivating factors etc., is as his own self,
he awakens the primary knowledge leading to final emancipa­
tion.......
“ The source of the world and of all affliction is action, while
quietus comes from inaction. True understanding is that which
arises from the judgment that action is pain and inaction is
happiness...
“ Action springs from behaviour impelled by delusion, desire
and hate. Born of it are egoism, attachment, doubt, vain­
glory, wrong identification, wrong judgment, absence of dis­
crimination and the wrong means...
“ Whatever action—mental, vocal or bodily—is not conducive
to final emancipation, is called attachment; questioning such
facts as the results of action, liberation and human survival after
death, is called doubt. The notion, I am a unitary personality
through all vissicitudes, I am the creator, I am perfect by nature,
I am the unique conglomeration of the body, the senses the
intelligence and recollection—this is vain-glory. The mother,
father, brother, wife child, kinsman, friend, servant, etc. are
mine and I am theirs—this is wrong identification. Erroneous

Indological Truths
conception of what is enjoined and prohibited, the beneficial
and the harmful, and the good and the evil, is wrong, judg­
ment. The confounding of the knower and the non-knower the
original and the modification, action and inaction, is absence
of discrimination. ..
“ Thus man, dispossessed of right understanding, resolution and
recollection, and taken possession of by the ego and attached to
action and given to doubt, his understanding clouded with
conceit, and merging himself in his environment, with distorted
vision, lacking discrimination and going astray, becomes the
dwelling tree of all afflictions which have for their root-cause
defects of the body and mind. In this manner, being borne
about hither and thither by the evil forces of egoism etc., man
is unable to transcend the vicious chain of causation, which
indeed is the mainspring of all evil.
“ Inaction, which breaks the chain of causation, is the ultimate
dissolution. That is the highest, the final peace; that is the
indestructible, that is Brahman and that is liberation, {tat
param prasantam, tat aksaram, tat brahma, sa moksah).
“ We shall now describe the upward leading path of those who
seek liberation. The seeker after final emancipation, who has
seen the vanity of the world, should first make his approach to
a teacher, whose teaching he should then put into practice.
Thus he should tend the ceremonial fire, study the sacred law­
books, understand their meaning and taking them for his guide
should mould his conduct thereby {dharmasastra-anugamanam
tadarthavabodhah tena avastr.mbhaht atra yathoktah kriyah).
He should seek the good and avoid the evil; he should eschew
the company of the wicked, he should speak only that which is
true, conducive to the good of all creatures, gentle, seasonable
and well-considered —He should be unmoved by grief, depres­
sion, self-conceit, affliction, arrogance, greed, attachment, envy,
fear, anger, etc. ...He should dread procrastination and should
never feel disinclined to practise yoga...H e should bend all his
powers of understanding, resolution and recollection towards
final emancipation...He should regard all activity as tainted with
evil, and hold the conviction that in the renunciation of all
things is true happiness. This is the path leading to final

Indological Truths
 emancipation ; straying from this, one is bound. Thus have
we described the upward steps.
“ By these purifying means, the impure mind is cleansed, just
as a looking glass is cleansed by being rubbed with such things
as oil, cloth and brush...
“ That pure, true understanding, which accrues to the man of
purified intellect, is variously understood as learning, achieve­
ment, judgment, genius, comprehension and knowledge. By
this, he breaks open the exceedingly strong citadel of the dark­
ness of the great illusion. By this, realising the true nature
of all things, he becomes desireless...by this he finally attains
Brahman, the eternal, the undecayingf the unagitated and the
imperishable. That is regarded as the true science, attainment,
psychic state, intelligence, knowledge and wisdom...
“ Witnessing all existences in all their conditions and at all
times, he who has become Brahman, the pure one, cannot come
into contact with anything.
“ In the absence of the cognising instruments, no characteristics
can be observed in the self. Hence by., the disjunction of all
instruments, he is said to be liberated.
“ The peace of the liberated is spoken of by such synonyms as
sinlessness, passionlessness, tranquility, the supreme, the
imperishable, the changeless, immortahty, Brahman and the
final rest (vipapam virajah santam paramdksaram avyayamf
amrjam brahma nirvanam paryayaih Santih ucyate).
“ O, gentle one ! this is that unique knowledge, having known
which the sages, freed from doubt, entered the great peace,
cast off delusion, passion and desire.” *®

We are not concerned here with the intrinsic worth of the

view expressed in the passage. It is well-known that there are
other works primarily interested in the views, as there are
metaphysicians and others debating over these. What concerns
us here is only a simple question. It is about the frame of
reference or context (samaya) to which the views belong. What,
in the terminology of the doctors, is this context ? There is

Indological Truths
only one answer to it. The context is that of liberation or
moksa. According to the principles formulated by the physi­
cians, therefore, this discussion—like many other similar discus­
sions—cannot have a legitimate place in the medical work,
notwithstanding the fact that these are actually found in one
Caraka-samhita.
Anything found in the medical compilation, therefore, cannot
be taken on its face value, i,e. as indicative of the actual medical
views. There are many ideas and attitudes which, though
embodied in it, are really extrinsic to medicine. We have to
ignore or reject these for the proper understanding of the real
medical core of Ayurveda. At the same time, we can perhaps
explain the fact of the presence of such alien elements in the
source-books of Ayurveda. Though redundant to medicine,
their presence in the medical corpus is not purposeless, for
they are presumably of the nature of ransom offered to the
counter-ideology without which it is not easy for the doctors
to save their science. This seems to be obvious from the
exaggerated piety which our text wants to demonstrate—an
exaggeration which reminds us of what is called “ defence
reaction” in contemporary psychology. Questioning the reality
of the soul, karma, after-life, and liberation—Atreya is made
to declare—is just heresy or nastikya. And heresy is a sin
—in fact the gravest sin conceivable : patakebhyah param ca
etat patakam nastika-grahah.^^ This is precisely what the
law-givers also declare. How, then, can the law-givers con­
tinue to have contempt for the doctor when the doctor agrees
to demonstrate such abject servility to them.
This may be a way of saving science no doubt. But this is
also a way of allowing science to be crippled by its opposite.

5. METAPHYSICAL CORRELATES

According to the more conscientious scientists among the

19. Ib. i.11.15.

Indological Truths
 ancient doctors, propositions belonging to the contexts of
ritual and liberation are not only irrelevant for medicine
but are moreover contradictory to it. An important reason
for this seems to be that they realise that a proposition
belonging to one context is not to be viewed in its isolation.
It is inextricably related to various other propositions of the
same context. A concession to an alien proposition amounts
also to the concession to its various correlates, and therefore
ultimately to a system of ideas and attitudes going against
the fundamentals of medical science. We shall briefly discuss
here only one example of this from the Caraka-samhita.
One of the admirable achievements of ancient Indian medi­
cine is the methodology of science. We have already noted
what makes it so remarkable specially in the ancient Indian
context. While direct evidence or perception is strongly cen­
sured by the spokesmen of the counter-ideology,- the physi­
cians feel that empirical data constitute the first and abso­
lutely minimum precondition for science. The system of rational
medicine is impossible without admitting the primary impor­
tance of direct experience or perception. However, this is
clearly incompatible with the admission of the soul, its
transmigration as determined by the law of ka^ma and its
liberation. In other words, any concession to the metaphysics
of the soul requires the rejection—or at least vary serious
amendment—of the methodology of science, specially its demand
for the primacy of perception or direct knowledge. The
reason for this is obvious. Soul, re-birth, etc. are not proved
by perception. The best proofs for these are the scriptural
declarations.
Significantly, a discussion of our Caraka-samhita designed
primarily to prove the soul and its rebirth, opens with the
statement that there is some doubt about it. “ Why is this
doubt? This is answered as follows. There are some who
attach greatest importance to direct knowledge or percep­
tion. Since, however, after-life is not directly known or
perceived, they commit themselves to its denial. There are
others, again, who, because of their loyalty to the scriptures,
admit after-life” : kutch punah samsaya iti ? ucyate ; santi hi

Indological Truths
eke pratyaksa-parah paroksatvat punarbhavasya nastikyam asri-
tah. santi ca agamapratyayat eva punarbhavam icchantiJ'^
The point is beautifully put. There is doubt about after­
life because there are two views about it wanting to negate
each other. One of these views, seeking sanction from per­
ception, denies after-life. The other view, seeking its sanc­
tion from the scriptures, accepts after-life.
What, then, is to be done in defence of the latter ? It
is to censure direct evidence and eulogise the scriptural
declarations. This is exactly the procedure followed by our
Caraka-samhita for the discussion in substantiation of after­
life. Reckless to the requirements of science, it passes stricture
on direct knowledge and glorifies scriptures. It urges one
to give up the heretical view {nastikya-buddhi) denying after­
life, because, as it says, “ the range of perception is after
all limited, while that which is beyond perception is quite
vast” : pratyaksam hi alp am \ analpam apratyaksam asti.^^
Compared to the knowledge based on direct evidence, know­
ledge based on the scriptures is infinitely superior, because
the scriptures are infallible. As it is put in the Caraka-samhita,
“ Now, the dignity of authoritative testimony belongs in the
first place to the Vedas. It has been enlarged to include
all such other writings as are not against the trend of the
Vedas and have been compiled by men with the critical
faculty and are for the good of the world and have been
accepted by men of good will everywhere. These two cons­
titute authoritative testimony. Form such authoritative testi­
mony we learn that charity, austerities, sacrifices, truthful­
ness, non-violence, celibacy (brahmacarya) are the means of
attaining exaltation and final emancipation. Further, exemp­
tion from recurrent birth is not promised by the promulgators
of the scriptural texts to any but those that have won
release from spiritual failings, etc. Therefore the believers
in scriptural texts should consider rebirth as established truth
in conformity to the teachings of the great sages of yore
as well as of those that preceded them, all of whom were

Indological Truths
free from fear, desire, hate, greed, delusion and pride, de­
voted to spiritual knowledge, trustworthy, skilled in religious
observances, unclouded of spirit and understanding, and poss­
essed of divine insight.” ®®
To this proof for rebirth or after-life, the discussion under
consideration adds further evidences alleged to be based on
perception and inference. But the importance of these other
considerations are evidently secondary, or, as the Vedantists
put it, these other evidences are legitimate only to the extent
to which they follow the scriptural one.®® Thus, for example,
perception allowed to have an independent efficacy of its
own, leads to the denial of after-life. As following the foot­
steps of the scriptures, it may provide one with some addi­
tional considerations for the existence of after-life.
But all this may be Vedanta and not medicine. A proposi­
tion belonging to the context of the doctrine of liberation, if
allowed in the medical context, has the tendency of dragging in
also a number of collateral considerations, eventually ruining
the very foundation of medical science'. It is thus not merely
the possibility of redundance against which the conscientious
scientist in the Caraka-samhitd protests; he protests also
against the danger of contradiction resulting from the confusion
of the medical context with the context of the metaphysics of
liberation or with the context of ritual discussion. We shall
quote here another passage of the Caraka-samhita to see how
grotesquely obvious this contradiction actually becomes.
In the discussion just referred to in defence of a proposition
belonging to the context of the metaphysics of soul and its
salvation, the spokesman of medicine is made to censure direct
evidence or perception. Elsewhere, basically the same require­
ment leads him to declare :
“ Passion which is of the nature both of desire and hate, pro­
ceeds from pleasure and pain; again, passion is said to be the
originator of pleasure and pain.
“ Desire it is, that acquires the apparatus of sensation; if there

Indological Truths
is no apparatus, there is no contact; and if unaffected by con­
tact, one does not experience sensations.
“ The apparatus of sensation is the mind and the body together
with the sense-organs...
“ Both in yoga and final liberation (moksa) there is no existence
of sensation; in final liberation there is absolute cessation, while
yoga leads to that liberation.
“ From the contact of the self, the senses, the mind and the
sense-objects, arise pleasure and pain; these two cease to be,
as a result of inaction of the mind which is firmly fixed in the
self. Then, while embodied it acquires the psychic powers; and
such a state, the Rsi-s who are conversant with yoga, know to
be as yoga.
“ The entering into other bodies, telepathy, the doing of things
according to one’s own will, clairvoyance, clairaudience, omni­
science, effulgence, vanishing from sight at will—these eight are
said to be the sovereign powers of the yogis. All this accrues
from the concentration of the pure mind.
“ The final liberation without a return is said to be the dis­
solution of all ties resulting from the cessation of passion and
delusion, and the wearing away of the influence of powerful
past actions.
“ From the accession of the pure understanding all these proceed;
the right seeking of the company of the good; the total
avoidance of the wicked, continence and abstinence and various
austerities, the study of the sacred scriptures, meditation, love of
solitude; aversion to sense-pleasures, perseverance in the path of
liberation, supreme determination, the non-beginning of actions
and the complete annihilation of those already done, the desire
to quit the world, humility, dreading attachment, the fixing of
the mind and understanding in the self and the investigation of
the true nature of things—all this procures from the recollection
of the true nature of the self.
“ The true recollection comes from the acts beginning with the
right seeking of the company of the good and ending with
supeme determination. Having recollected in mind the true
nature of all things, man gets relieved from suffering.
“ The methods of inducing recollection are said to be rightly

Indological Truths
recollecting the circumstances and the appearance by comparison
and contrast, by concentration of the mind, by practice, by the
acquisition of knowledge and by re-hearing.
“ Recollection is so-called because by dwelling upon what was
seen, heard or otherwise experienced, it collects again the
fullness of past experience in the mind.
“ This is the only road, consisting of the power of true recollec­
tion which has been indicated for final liberation by those who
have attained liberation. Those who set out on this road do
not return. This road has been described by the yogis as the
path of yoga, and by the liberated seers who have had all the
knowledge of philosophy, as the path of liberation.
“ All that results from causes is ^pain-giving, is other than the
self, is transitory. Such is not an oifspring of the self; yet the
self-sense obtains there so long as the true understanding is not
born; but the sage knowing ‘I am not this and this is not mine’,
transcends everything.
“ In that final renunciation all sensations together with their
root, cause, as also cogitation, contemplation and resolution,
come to an absolute termination.
“ Thereafter the individual self having become one with the
universal self is no longer seen as particularised, being rid of
all qualities. He has no longer any distinguishing mark. The
knowers of Brahman alone have knowledge of this; the ignorant
cannot understand it.” ^'*
Whatever may be the intrinsic worth of the views expressed
in this, one point about it seems to be crystal clear. It means
the total wreck of all the theoretical achievements of ancient
Indian medicine and the replacement of these by religion and
metaphysics. The apprehension of contradiction resulting from
the mixing up of the contexts for discussion is fully corroborated
by the actual contents of the extant Caraka-samhita.

6. FOOD : THE EXTRA-MEDICAL VS MEDICAL VIEW

Ideas and attitudes belonging to non-medical contexts, if

24. Caraka-samhitH iv. 1. 134-155. Tr, G.

Indological Truths
allowed in medical discussions, lead to contradiction. The
Caraka-samhita, in the form in which it reaches us, is full
of such contradictions. These range from metaphysical views
to practical precepts. We shall mention here a prominent
example of the latter.
In full conformity with what is called the orthodox view
of life, the text expresses great religious reverence for the
cow. But it also shows a frankly medical interest in the
animal, prescribing its flesh as diet or drug. In short, it
wants people to worship the cow as well as to eat it to
satisfy the purely physical requirements.
Nothing is more pleasing than the former for the ortho­
dox religious sentiment. However, though most revolting for
the same, the latter also remains embodied in the same text
obviously as a feature of the medical conscience.
Let us first see how many times the Caraka-samhita recom­
mends the worship of the cow.
Describing the codes of right conduct in generat, Atreya
is made to declare : “ Thus, for example, one should worship
the gods, cows, Brahmins, preceptors, elders, adepts and
teachers”.®® The same discourse naturally prohibits hosti­
lity in any form against such holy objects as the Brahmins
and cows : na brahmanan parivadet, na gavam danda udyacchet
—“Nothing adverse is to be said against the Brahmin, the
staff must not be raised against the cow.” ®® Elsewhere is
said, “ Following are the premonitory symptoms of that form
of exogenous insanity which is caused by the anger of gods
etc. ; the proclivity to hurt the gods, cows, Brahmins and
ascetics.” ®' Before attending the lectures on medicine, the
student must perform certain auspicious acts like offering
worship to the gods, sages, cows. Brahmins, preceptors, elders,
adepts and teachers.®® The medical student really serious of
success, prosperity and fame as a physician—and moreover of
heaven after death—must have in mind the welfare of all crea­
tures, beginning of course with the holiest of them, namely

Indological Truths
the COWS and Brahmins.®® If the physician meets on his way
to the patient’s place certain holy things, he may feel con­
fident that it is indicative of good prognosis : the list of such
holy things include the bull and a person of the high caste.®®
Also indicative of good prognosis is the patient’s dream of
holy things like the moon, sun, fire, high-caste person, cow,
king etc.®* Before entering the chamber for rejuvenation
treatment, the patient must spiritually fortify himself by first
worshipping the gods and the persons of higher castes (dvijaii)
and then by the holy circumambulation of the gods, cows
and Brahmins.®* Among other things, what is supposed to
cure the exogenous type of insanity is the worship of the
gods, cows. Brahmins and guru-s.^^ As one of the purifying
procedures to be observed before collecting the medical herbs
is mentioned, sampujya devatd asvinau go-brahmanau ca
—“having worshipped the gods, the ASvins, as well as the
cows and Brahmins.
These are only some examples of a purely religious in­
terest in the cow which one frequently- comes across in the
Caraka-samhitd. Judged by these, the text is acceptable to the
Brahmins who—reckless to the possibility of any adverse
judgment on their own dignity—propagate the view that the
cow is as holy as themselves. Strangely, however, the same
text also shows a clearly medical interest in the same animal
—i.e. an interest in its flesh etc. from the therapeutic point
of view.
Let us first see a passage in which the two basically different
interests are somehow mixed up. We shall next see some other
examples in which the religious interest is summarily discarded
in favour of a purely medical interest in the cow.
In the Caraka-samhitd we read a quaint account of the
origin of diarrhoea. The account is frankly mythological and
seems to have a bias in favour of the taboo on beef-eating. At
the same time it shows a lurking interest in beef from the diges­
tive point of view. Briefly) the account is as follows.^^

29. 76. iii.8.13. 30. /6. v.12.71. 31. 76. v.12.86. 32. 76. vi.lA.23.
33. 76. vi.9.94. 34. 76. vii.1.10. 35. 76. vi.19.4.

Indological Truths
 In the good old age {adikala, literally ‘first age’), the animals
were used in sacrificial rituals without being actually slaughtered.
However, since the time of the sacrificial ritual performed by
Daksa, the soos of Manu introduced the practice of the ritual
slaughter of animals. Still later, when Prsadhra performed the
prolonged ritual {dirgha-satra), the stock of other available ani­
mals got exhausted. Hence was introduced the practice of slaugh­
tering even the cows. The sight of this made everybody sad.
When the flesh of the cow thus killed was eaten, people got
afflicted with diarrhoea. This was not merely because of the
curse entailed ' asasta-upayogat) but also because this flesh is
heavy (guru), hot (usm ), disagreeable (asatmya) and having an
adverse effect on the digestive fire {upahata-agninam). Thus,
diarrhoea first appeared from the time of the sacrificial ritual
performed by Prsadhra.
The mythology seems to be a concoction, because it has no
basis in any well-known ancient source. But the more interes­
ting thing about it is that it leaves a relevant question unanswer­
ed. Would there have been diarrhoea due to beef-eating had
it not been heavy, hot and disagreeable to digestion ? The
question is medical and from what is said in the account just
quoted the answer to it is apparently in the negative. This
leads us to see another—and altogether different—aspect of the
text, viz. the underscanding of the cow and its flesh from the
viewpoint of the genuine physicians, expressed by the same
Atreya who enthusiastically recommends the worship of the
cow !
In Chapter 27 of the Siitra-sthana, the cow is found no
longer in the venerable company of the gods and Brahmins, but
where it actually belongs according to the general zoological
understanding of the text. It is the class of animals called
prasaha, i.e. those that grab and tear off their food. To this
class belongs twentynine varieties of animals—cow, ass, mule,
camel, horse, panther, lion, bear, monkey, wolf, tiger, hyena,
cat, dog, crow, eagle, vulture etc.^® The main theme of this
chapter is dietetics, from the point of view of which it mentions

Indological Truths
 the flesh of all these animals and also of a large variety of other
animals belonging to other classes. These other classes are :
bhum isaya or ‘burrowing animals’ (four varieties of pythons,
hedgehog, musk shrew, frog, mongoose, porcupine, etc.—13 in
all),” ariiipa or ‘animals of marshy and wet lands’ (wild boar,
yak, buffalo, rhinoceros, elephant, hog, etc.—9 in all),^® varisaya
or ‘the aquatic animals’ (tortoise, fish crab, crocodile, whale,
etc.—10 in all);^® am bucari or ‘acquatic birds’ (swan, demoiselle
crane, etc.—29 in all);,'"’ jahgala or ‘the herbivorous animals
living in grass-lands or forests ( different varieties of deer,
etc.—17 in all ),''i viskira or ‘the birds that scatter their food’
(different varieties of quail, etc.—19 in all);'*^ pratuda or ‘the
birds that peck and gobble their food’ (30 varieties in all.)'*®
We have thus a list of 156 animals classified under eight
main heads called prasaha etc. The food value of the cow’s
flesh is discussed in this chapter in two forms. First, as
the general food value of the general class of animals to
which the cow belongs. Secondly, as the specific food value
of the specific variety of animal, though belonging to a
general class.
The flesh of animals belonging to the five general classes
called prasaha, bhum isaya, anupa varisaya and ambucari
“ are heavy, hot, unctuous, sweet and promotive of strength
and plumpness. They are aphrodisiac and highly curative
of vayu and great provokers of kapha and p itta . They are
wholesome to the persons who take daily exercise and whose
digestive fire is strong.” ^* Thus the flesh of the cow, as
an animal belonging to the prasaha class, is understood to
have certain general food values also possessed by other
animals belonging to the same class—say. the ass, mule,
camel, horse, monkey, vulture, owl, and so on.
But all this is not to be misunderstood. To the five broad
classes of animals just mentioned belong ninety varieties of
animals. The text is not so naive as to suggest that the

37. lb. i.27.37-8. 38. Ib. i.27.39, 39. Ib. i.27.40-41. 40. lb. i.27.41-4.
41. lb. 121.45-6. 42. /6. i.27.47-9. 43. /6. i.27.50-3.
44. lb. i.27.56-8

Indological Truths
 flesh of all these animals have the same or identical food
value. What is just quoted simply means that the flesh of
all these animals have some very broad qualities in common.
But the text immediately adds that it is not enough for the
physician’s purpose to know only these general qualities.
‘T he general properties of fleshes having been stated, now
we shall describe the specific qualities of flesh of some of
these animals as they have special qualities.” *®
What, then, are the specific qualities of the cow’s flesh ?
Atreya answers : “ The flesh of the cow is beneficial for those
suffering from loss of flesh due to disorders caused by an
excess of vayu, rhinitis, irregular fever, dry cough, fatigue,
and also in cases of excessive appetite resulting from hard
manual work.” *®
For patients suffering from emaciation due to pectoral
lesions is recommended barley-meal with either the milk or
meat-juice of the cow, buffalo, horse, elephant and goat
(go-mahisi-asva-naga-ajaih kslraih m amsarasaih tatha).*’’ Some
diseases are viewed as due to the excess of vayu in the (body
and since the cow’s flesh is considered greatly beneficial
in disorders due to excess of vfljw*®. The meat-juice of the
cow—like that of various other animals—is recommended as
a cure for these. “ The meat-juices of iguana, fox, cat, por­
cupine, camel, cow, tortoise and pangoline should be prepared
like vegetables and cooked sSli-nce may be given with meat-
juices for the relief o f vayu.” * ^
Since persons suffering from consumption are badly in
need of adding flesh to their bodies and since the physicians
think that the cow’s flesh—like that of the other animals
belonging to the prasoha class—is promotive of flesh and
plumpness'®, they freely recommend it for the consumptive
patients, along with a number of alternatives to it. “The
flesh of peacock, partridge, cock, swan, hog, camel, ass,
cow and buffalo are greatly promotive of f l e s h barhi-

45. i.27.63-4. 46. 76. i 27.79-80. 47. /6.vi.ll83.

48. lb.i.21.19. 49. /6. vi.14.126-7. Tr. G. 50. 76. i.27.56-7.

Indological Truths
tittiri-daksanam hamsanam sukara-ustrayohlkhara-go-m ahisa-
nam ca mamsdm m am sakaram param.^^
To say all this in ancient India is risky. There is a
a strong religious sentiment for the cow, and hence also a
strong religious taboo against beef-eating. The origin of these
may form the subject of serious socio-historical investigation.
But the risk faced by the physicians is obvious. For the
purpose of ruling the people effectively, the law-givers and
statesmen found a cluster of superstitions extremely useful,
which therefore they wanted systematically to enforce. The
religious reverence for the cows and Brahmins belongs to
this cluster. Here is how Kane compiles some of the evi­
dences for this : “ Manu xi.79 says that if one sacrifices one’s
life in defence of brahmanas and cows, one becomes free
from the sin of even brahmana murder. Visnu xvi. 18
declares that even an untouchable (bahya) went to heaven
by giving his life in defence of brahmanas, cows, women,
children... In Gautama ix.13-14, the. .cow is referred to as
devata (god). As early as 2nd century A.D., we ha\e the
collocation of the words go-brahmana-hita (the welfare of
cows and brahmanas) in an inscription of Rudradaman
(Epigraphia Indica, vol. viii, p. 44). Vide Gupta Inscriptions
p.89 (for go-brahmana-purogabhyah sarva-prajabhyah). These
words also occur frequently in the Ramayana (Balakanda
26.5 ; Aranya 23.28) and in the M atsyapurona il04.16” .®^
Thus notwithstanding the systematic effort of the law­
givers and politicians to boost veneration for the cow—to
declare that slaughtering the cow is a sin causing the loss
of caste''® and therefore demanding a prolonged penance®*
—the genuine physicians in our medical compilation appear
to remain unconcerned. What interests them is a different point
altogether. It is only the food-value of the cow’s flesh, like
that of the flesh of various other animals, for they think
that the most important factor determining health is food.
This being a fundamental proposition for the physician,

51. /Z». vi.8.158. 52. Kane ii.775.

53. ManuKi.60. 54. /6. xi.109-117.

Indological Truths
he has no scope to introduce any religious or other con­
sideration into his view of food. As he puts it.
“ Food is all of one kind, eatability being the common feature.
But it is of two kinds as regards its source, one kind being
inanimate and the other animate. It is also two-fold in
respect of its action, consequent on its being either whole­
some or unwholesome in effect. It is four-fold in respect
of the modes of taking, namely to drink, suck, eat and lick.
It is sixfold in respect of taste, because there are six cate­
gories of taste” .®“
In such a view of food, there is obviously no scope for the
intrusion of any religious or extra-medical consideration. The
only consideration that it allows is that of wholesomeness or
otherwise of the food. Thus :
“ Neither out of greed nor out of ignorance should one resort to
dietary. Only after careful investigation should one eat what is
wholesome, for the body is verily the product of the food one
eats.’'56
The physician’s view of food is summed up again in a
recapitulatory verse ;
“The body is the product of food, the disease born of food, the
distincition of happiness and sorrow resulting fiom the distinc­
tion of wholesome and unwholesome diet...” ^^

7. MEDICAL ETHICS A N D TRADITIONAL MORALITY

But there is a problem for the physician in recommending

for the patients all sorts of flesh, their medical efiBcacy notwith­
standing. He is fully aware of the possible strong disgust in
the patient for at least some of these, provoked by the patient’s
religious, aesthetic or other sentiments. The revulsion for such
flesh may be strong enough in the patient to lead him either to

Indological Truths
stubbornly refuse these or even to vomit these out if forcibly
administered. What, then, is to be done by the physician ?
The answer given in the Cikitsa-sthana immediately before
what is already quoted—i.e. the recommendation of the flesh of
swan, hog, camel, ass, cow, buffalo, etc.—is remarkable. The
physician as physician is interested only in one thing, and that
is the cure of the patient. i If, therefore, it is essential for the
patient to eat some flesh, the physician has to work out certain
tactical method by which to lead the patient to overcome his
religious or aesthetic revulsion against these. When necessary,
such a tactical method may include deliberate deception or sheer
bluff. It is thus not any absolute fidelity to traditional morality
that makes one a model physician. What makes one so is also
the occasional capacity to lie—though obviously in the patient’s
interest.
The entire discussion of this in the Cikitsa-sthana needs to
be quoted here, for it has considerable theoretical interest for
understanding the position of the real physician in the Caraka-
samhita. W hat concerns him is medicine and medicine alone.
If therefore there is any direct clash between medicine and
morality in its abstract sense, the physician as physician cannot
help choosing the former. For him there is no clash between
scruple and medicine, for the real scruple that he is aware of is
that of curing the patient. As the Ca>-aka-samhita puts it
“ For the emaciated consumptives continuing to lose flesh, the
physician skilled in dietetics should prepare well-cooked dishes
of meats of carnivorous animals. To the consumptives must be
given the peacock’s flesh and—in the name of the peacock’s
flesh—the flesh of vultures, owls and blue jays properly cooked
in prescribed manner. In the name of partridge, give the flesh
of crows; in the name of the snake-fish, give the flesh of snakes;
in the name of intestines of fish, give fried earth-worms. In the
name of rabbit-flesh, the physician may give dressed meats of
fox, large mongoose, cat and jackal-cubs. For increasing the
flesh in the consumptive patient, the flesh of lion, bear, hyena,
tiger and similar carnivorous animals may be given in the name

Indological Truths
of the flesh of deer. For promoting the flesh of the patient, the
meats of elephant, rhinoceros and horse—well-seasoned with
spices—should be given. The flesh of birds and animals that
have grown plump on flesh diet is an excellent flesh-increasing
food. Being acute (tfk sm ), hot (usna) and light (laghu) it is
specially beneficial. Those fleshes that are considered unpleasant
by the patient because he is not used to them should be given
to him with deceptive names. Then he readily takes these. But
if their real nature be known, these will either be not eaten at
all out of revulsion, or, even if eaten, will be vomitted out.
Hence these must be disguised and given under false name.”
Can a physician—with a medical scruple as strong as to
declare all this—be prevented by religious or other scruples to
recommend the flesh of the cow in cases where he is convinced
of its medical efiicacy ? The fact is that the real physician in the
Caraka-sam hita shows no such inhibition. Immediately after
the discourse on the need of occasionally deceivimg the patient
with false names of the meats served to him, we read the
recommendation of the cow’s flesh to the consumptive patient,
along with the suggestion of various alternatives to it, like the
flesh of the hog, camel, ass, buffalo etc.
All this does not mean that the Caraka-sam hita shows any
special fad for beef-eating, as some of the social reformers of
19th century Bengal wanted deliberately to cultivate as part
of their struggle against superstition. Though without any
inhibition against it, the text is also without any unscientific
enthusiasm for it. As far as the ancient doctors understand,
beef is not easily digested and, in this sense, undesirable among
meats, just as wild barley is among grains furnished with awns,
black gram among pulses, river water of the rainy season among
waters, etc., etc.^® But this is a medical view of undesirability
and has nothing to do with the religious taboo against beef.
When medically necessary, therefore, the doctors consider it a
must for certain patients.

Indological Truths
 8. THE ABSOLUTE A N D THE RELATIVE : YUK TI
OR DIALECTIC

What we have just discussed introduces us to another important

feature of the theoretical attitude of the genuine doctors in the
C araka-sam hita. From the strictly medical standpoint, they
refuse to accept any absolute view of the desirability or other­
wise of a substance. The medical importance of something is
necessarily relative. It depends on the dose, season, mode of
administration, nature of the disease and many other medically
relevant factors. That is why, y u k ti or “ rational application”
on which the entire therapeutic system of the Caraka-sam hita
depends, is itself supposed to depend on considerations of dose,
seasonal variation, etc. As the text says,
“ Therapeutic success depends on rational application and rati­
onal application depends on dose and time” : m atra-kala-
asraya yuktih, siddhih yuktau pratisthita.^ °
Here are two examples from the Caraka-sam hita which indi­
cate that the rejection of the absolute .view in favour of the
relative one belongs clearly to the strict medical context.
Poison kills and medicine cures. From the medical stand­
point, however, it is wrong to take an absolute view of either.
The doctors are aware that the ways in which these act on our
bodies are determined largely by their relations to other factors.
As related to these factors, the function of poison—like that of
medicine—passes into its opposite. Hence they formulate :
“ Depending on its right relation with other things, even an
acute poison works as an excellent medicine. Because of its
wrong relation with other things, even an excellent medicine
works as an acute poison.”
y o g a t api visam tiksnam uttam am bhesajam bhavetj
bhesajam api duryuktam tlksnatn sam padyate visaml/^'^
Thus, in other words, nothing is to be judged in its
isolation. Everything is to be viewed in its relation to other
things. Hence the physician renounces his quest for the
metaphysical absolutes. He takes a relativistic view of things

60. /6. i.2.16. 61. I b .U .126.

Indological Truths
instead. Such is the dialectic of medicine, as understood
by the ancient doctors. The word they themselves use for
this dialectics is y u k ti, which roughly meams rational appli­
cation no doubt, but which also implies that rational application
depends not on an isolated view of the cause-effect relation
but on the understanding of this relation as it actually
belongs to the vast complex of the interconnections in nature.
As we have already seen, they try to define yu k ti as the
understanding of an effect as being determined by various
interrelated factors rather than the understanding of a simple
cause producing a simple effect. Elsewhere in the Caraka-
sam hita, while reiterating the relativistic view, the doctors
are found to mention their key concept, viz. y u k t i :
“ Life is nothing but food transformed into life. Still, if used
without consideration for rational application, it (food) becomes
destructive of life. Poison is destructive of life. Still, when
used with due consideration for rational application, it becomes
a rejuvinating agent.”
pranah pranabhutam annam, ta t ayuktya nihanti asunj
visam prcnaharam , ta t ca yukti-yuktam rasayanamU^^
This dialectic of the ancient doctors—their rejection of the
absolute in favour of the relative resulting from their tendency to
view things not in their isolation but in their interrelation with
other things of nature—helps us again to identify the statements
in the Caraka-samhita that belong to the strictly medical con­
text as contrasted with statements belonging to the extra-medical
one. In other words, we have in this, again, a suggestion of the
way of differentiating between what is intrinsic and what is
extrinsic to medicine in its extant source-books.

9. ALCOHOL A N D ALCOHOLISM

In our Caraka-sam hita we find embodied a set of ethico-

religious values supposed to have direct scriptural sanction,

Indological Truths
and hence absolute importance.®^ We shall discuss here
only one, viz. celibacy or brahmacarya. To assume the
appearance of extreme piety, the text even goes to the extent
of asserting that those with medical knowledge proper declare
celibacy as the best road leading to liberation : u tk rsta ta m a m ...
brahmacaryam ayan am m i t i ; evam ayurveda-vidah manyante.^^
Still the question is : Can one with real medical know­
ledge actually declare this ? Or, is it one among hundreds
of concessions to the counter-ideology in the extant Caraka-
sam hita —concessions with which the ancient doctors try some­
how to save their science from the continuous condemnation
of it the the law-givers ? Before answering it, let us first have a
few words on the ideal of celibacy or brahmacarya in its
actual context of ethico-religious values.
Two absolute preconditions for the observance of celibacy
are, as explained by the law-codes, total abstention from sex*®'
and alcohol. Of these two, let us discuss here the latter.
On the authority of Apastamba,*'' Manu,®* and Yajnaval-
kya®® Kane^o observes that one of the essential preconditions
for the observance of celibacy is “ to abstain from every kind of
intoxicant.” As a matter of fact the question of celibacy apart,
the Indian law-givers express very strong disapproval for
alcoholic drink as such. Gautama,^' Apastamba/^ VaSistha,’^
Manu,’‘‘ Visnu'^5 and others declare that drinking alcohol—surd
or m adya—15 one of the gravest sins or mahcipataka-sP^
To the genuine physicians of the Caraka-sarnhitd any absolute
view of the desirability or otherwise of alcohol is impermi­
ssible, because real medical knowledge allows no absolute view
of any substance. Hence they declare :
“ Wine is prepared from various substances and possesses
various qualities. It has various actions on the body. It
is intoxicating in nature. Hence it should be viewed from
the point of view of both its good as well as evil effects.

64. Ifo. i.11.27 . 65. A . i.30.15. 66. Kane ii.374

67. Apastamba i. 1.2.23. 68. Manu ii.l7 7 . 69. Yajnavalkya 1,33.
70. Kane ii.796. 71. Gautama ii.25. 72. Apastamba i.7 .2 1.8.
73. Vasistha i.zO. 74. Manu x i.54. 75. V isn u xxxv.l.
76. Cf. Kane ii.795.

Indological Truths
 “ If a person takes it in right manner, in right dose, in right
time and along with wholesome food, in keeping with his
vitality and with a cheerful mind, to him wine is like ambrosia.
While to a person who drinks whatever kind comes in hand
to him and whenever he gets an opportunity and whose
body is dry on account of constant exertion, this very wine
acts as a poison.” ^’
Following their dialectical approach, therefore, they proceed
to explain some detail of their understanding of alcohol.
This discussion of the Caraka-sam hita seems to retain interest
even for our times. We quote it at some length :
“ Three stages of intoxication are observed in a person who
drinks wine : the first, the middle or the second and the last
or the third. We shall describe the characteristics of each
of them. It promotes exhilaration, delight, a finer discrimi­
nation of the qualities of food and drink, desire for music,
songs, jokes and stories. It does not impair the intellect or
memory, and causes no incapacity for sense-pleasures. It
promotes sound sleep as well as happy awakening. This
is the first or happy stage of alcoholic effects.
“ Fitful recollection, fitful forgetfulness, frequent indistinct,
thick and larynged speech, indiscriminate talk, unsteady gait,
impropriety in sitting, drinking, eating and conversation—
these are to be known as the symptoms of the second stage
of alcoholic effects.
“After transcending the second stage and before reaching the
last stage, there is no impropriety which persons of rajasic and
tamasic nature will not commit.
“ Which wise man would ever wish to be intoxicated to an extent
which is as frightful as insanity, even as no traveller will select
a road which leads to an unhappy end and which is beset with
many troubles ?
“ Having reached the third stage of intoxication, he becomes
paralysed like a felled tree with his mind submerged in intoxica­
tion and stupor, and though alive resembles a dead man.
“ He does not discriminate or recognise either the qualities of

Indological Truths
things or his friends. He does not possess even a sense of his
own happiness, for the very sake of which alcohol is drunk.
“ Which wise man would like to attain that state in which he
cannot discriminate between what ought to be done and what
ought not to be done, between pleasure and pain, and between
what is good and what is evil in the world ?
“ On account of his addiction, he is condemned and censured by
all people and is regarded an unworthy man by them, and he
later on develops painful diseases as a result of his addiction.” ’ ®
And so on. The Caraka-sam hita is indeed very keenly
aware of the undesirable consequences of excessive drinking.
It prescribes certain remedies for alcoholism, inclusive of the
controlled use of alcohol itself’ ® and—reckless again to the
orthodox ethico-religious norm—‘‘the aid of affectionate em­
braces of women’s bodies full of the warmth of youth, the
warm clasp of their waists, thighs and fullgrown breasts.” ^®
What is remarkable about the physicians, however, is that
they refuse to judge alcohol by the alcoholic behaviour or
the intrinsic nature of the drinks by the consequences of
morbid drinking. On this point, the Caraka-sam hita sums
up its attitude as follows :
“ But wine, by nature, is regarded similar to food in its effects.
It is productive of disease if taken in improper manner, and is
like ambrosia if taken in proper manner—
“ Wine, taken in proper manner soon gives exhilaration, courage,
delight, strength, health, great manliness and joyous intoxica­
tion.
“It is an appetiser, digestive stimulant, cordial promoter of
voice and complexion and is nourishing, roborant and streng­
thening. It relieves fear, grief and fatigue. It acts as a
soporific to those suffering from insomnia and as a stimu­
lant of speech in reticent people. It keeps awake people
given to excess of sleep and relieves obstruction in the body-
passages, renders the mind unconscious of the pain of trauma,
ligature and other kinds of pain and suffering. It acts as
a cure for the disorders resulting from alcoholism.

Indological Truths
“ It increases the enjoyment of sense-pleasures and the desire for
the continuance of such pleasures. Even to the very aged,
alcohol gives elation and delight.
‘ There is nothing comparable on earth to the delight derived
during the first stage of alcoholic effects, from the perceptions
of the five senses in the case of either the young or the aged.
“ Alcohol, taken in proper way, is a relaxation for all people
afiiicted with multitude of sufferings and sorrow.” ®*
Such then is the understanding of alcohol in its strict
medical context. Taken out of this context, when it is placed
in the context of the ‘doctrine of liberation’, there is the
fallacy of contradiction.

10. LOYALTY TO LAW-GIVERS

At least some of the ancient doctors warn their colleagues

against the risk of inconsistencies and contradictions resulting
from the violation of the strict norm of medical discussion.
In spite of this, sometime before the C araka-sam hita assumes
its present form, this norm is grossly violated presumably to
placate the law-givers. At any rate, in the extant Caraka-sam­
hita we often come across a peculiar anxiety to pledge loyalty
to the law-givers, howsoever incongruous that may be for
medical science.
Thus, for example, the Caraka-samhita advises : “ One
must study the sacred law-books, understand their meaning,
and, accepting these as one’s guide, must mould one’s con­
duct according to what is said in these” : dharmasastra-
anugamanam tadarthavabodhah tena avastrm bhah tatra yatho-
ktah kriyah.^'^ From the medical point of view, however,
this is just impossible. Various other considerations apart,
the law-givers prohibit the eating of a large variety of subs­
tances, which the physicians feel obliged to recommend as
diets or drugs for various diseases. The law-givers’ precepts

Indological Truths
and the requirements of the healing technique do not agree.
Still, the threat of the law-givers is there and one way of
trying to evade it is directly placating them. The extant
Caraka-sam hitd frequently makes this effort quite obvious.
It is full of random recomendations for the law-givers" norm
of piety and their demand for abject submission to scrip­
tural authority.
Thus, we are told that for livelihood one must follow
only those professions that are not in conflict with tradi­
tional morality and religion as embodied in the law-codes
— dharma-avirodhinah vrtti-upayan.^^ From the standpoint of
the law-givers, it means among other things that members of the
upper castes must not go in for medical practice, which
should remain restricted to the base-born persons like the
Ambasthas.®* This is apparently overlooked by the later
editors and reconstructors of the work, who seem to imagine
that the law-givers are likely to feel all the more flattered
by their declaration that the noble profession of medicine
must remain restricted only among the members of the higher
castes. “ This science” , says the C araka-sam hitd, “ is to be
studied only by the Brahmins, Ksatriyas and VaiSyas” ; sah
ca adhyetavyah brahmana-rajanya-vaisyaih.^^ This is neither
dharm a-sdstra nor dyurveda, but some kind of an a d hoc
glorification of caste-privilege. The real view of the physi­
cian seems to be expressed elsewhere in the text where it
says that one becomes a doctor only by being properly
initiated in medicine and hence the physician’s career has
nothing to do with previous birth ; na vaidyah purva-janmand.^^
But the text does not always remain true to this spirit.
Conceding to the counter-ideology it recommends the following
as precepts for good co nduct: Have reverence for gods, cows
and Brahmins; perform the sacrificial rituals {homa and yajn a)\
be religious at heart and be essentially religious {dharmdtmd and
dhdrmika); entertain only the orthodox {dstika) views; avoid
the company of those that are irreligious or disloyal to the king

Indological Truths
{adharm ikaih saha na aslta narendra-dvistaih); take not the
shelter of a non-Aryan (na anaryam a sra yet); tend not the
sacrificial fire inattentively or in a state of pollution; step not
out of doors without touching precious stones, sacrificial ghee
and auspicious objects like flowers of worship; partake not of a
meal without saying your prayers or without performing the
homa or without due offerings to the tutelary deities and m anes;
and so o n P Such a mish-mash of ritual, religion and tra­
ditional morality may be unquestionably satisfactory for the
custodians of the counter-ideology. But has any of these
precepts any relevance for the medical context ?
But the extant Caraka-samhita is full of such irrelevant
recommendations. We have the scope here to mention only a
few. Belief in soul and after-life, the text argues, makes one
diligent in the performance of scriptural observances, which, in
its turn, ensures fame in this world and heaven after death.®*
After a person has taken the oleation and sudation procedures,
should worship the gods, fire, Brahmin, etc., and then adminis­
tered a decoction of emetic nut together with honey, liquorice,
rock-salt, etc., sanctified by the benedictory spells chanted by
Brahmins under auspicious constellation.®^ Though otherwise
earnest to determine the actual causes of insanity, the text
declares : “ The following is the manner in which the madness-
inducing agencies, when wishing to affiict any one with madness,
operate. Thus the gods send down madness by a look; the
teachers, elders, adepts and the great sages by a curse; the
manes by revealing themselves, the gandharva-s by a touch, the
ya ksa-s by taking possession; Xhs. raksasa-s by letting their body-
odours be sniffed; and lastly, the goblins by mounting their
victims and riding them.”®“ Some elements of folk-lore in this
need not be denied; what is not to be overlooked, however, is
that there is also the tendency to scare people of the wrath of
gods etc., i.e. the fear with which the law-givers want to keep
the masses under control.
This tendency to scare people of the consequences of impious

87. ft.i.8 .1 8 -2 8 . 88. / 6 . i.11.33, 89. 76. i.15.9,

90. 76. ii.7.12. Tr. G.

Indological Truths
acts becomes specially obnoxious in our Caraka-sam hita when
it is expressed in genuine medical contexts. Thus, after elabora­
tely discussing the causes and cures of leprosy as the physicians
understand these, the Caraka-sam hita abruptly declares :
“ Untruthfulness of speech, ingratitude, blasphemy against the
gods, derision of the elders, sinful actions, the accumulated
evil acts of past lives and antagonistic diet are the causative
factors of leprosy.”®^ Excepting for “ antagonistic diet” —which
is perhaps mentioned to soothe an uneasy medical conscience—
practically everything said here is as relevant for the law-codes
as irrelevant for medical science. Similarly, after discussing at
length the cure for the bite of various venomous creatures, the
text suddenly remembers as it were the need to placate the law­
givers by way of scaring people of heresy and disbelief. So it
declares that cases of persons bitten “ in the house of people
who have no faith in the Vedas” {pasanda-ayatanesu) prove
incurable.®^ Again, the text virtually claims that the really pious
persons do not suffer from d i s e a s e s .’ ^ Medical problems thus
connected with virtue and vice easily create conditions for the
surrender of therapeutics proper in favour of prayers and
propitiations. Even this is done in the Caraka-sam hita. “ By
worshipping with due piety, the god ISvara together with his
consort Uma, waited on by the god’s entourage and the com­
pany of the Mothers or minor goddesses, one soon gets rid of
irregular fever. By worshipping Visnu, the myriad-headed, the
lord of all that is animate and inanimate, and the all-pervading,
with the recital of his thousand names, one throws off fever of
any kind. By woishipping, by means of sacrifices, the gods
Brahma, the two ASvins, Indra, Agni, Himalaya, the Ganga
and the company of the Maruts, one conquers fever.
This easily allows the invasion of medicine by mythology.
After discussing elaborately the causes of fever as the physicians
understand these, the text comes out with the abrupt
declaration : “ But fever is due to the anger of god Siva or
Mahe^vara.”®® Elsewhere, the spokesman of medicine is made to

91. /6. vi.7.177. 92. 76, vi.23.160. 93. i6. vi.2.46-7.

94. A. vi.3.310-3. 95. iZ). ii. 1.35.

Indological Truths
go into greater detail of this. Thus we are told that being
ignored by Daksa’s sacrifice, ^iva, “ the sovereign one, created
out of the fire of his anger a youth that should destroy the
sacrifice of Daksa. When the sacrifice was destroyed, the gods
became panicky; and all living beings stricken with burning
and panic, ran helter-skelter to the four quarters. Then the
gods along with the seven sages sang songs of praise for the
sovereign god and he assumed the benevolent aspect and became
the Benevolent One...To that embodiment of his anger, the
sovereign god (Siva) ordered : ‘Thou shalt go down into the
world of mortals as fever and afflict life at birth and death and
in the wake of tresspasses’.”’* Strangely enough, immediately
after all this we read in the Caraka-sam hitd : “The causes of
fever, numbering eight, have been described earlier in the
Section on Pathology (wWa/jaj, under separate heads.”®"^ It is
quite clear that the mythological view of the cause of fever is
not the one that the doctors really approve of. It is not only
redundant to medicine; it also contradicts the view of fever as
the physicians actually understand it.
But the point is that howsoever contradictory it may be to
the real medical view, this mythological understanding of fever
is also there in our Caraka-sam hitd. Elsewhere the text pro­
poses to explain a variety of other diseases also in terms of the
same mythology. Thus we read : “ It was during the destruction
of the sacrifice of Daksa that gulma (enlarged spleen) first arose
in the past as the result of the agitated bodily movements gone
through by the assembled persons who in their panic ran helter-
skelter in all directions, running, swimming, racing, flying,
jumping etc. Also at that time, the urinary and dermic disor­
ders took their rise as the result of the libations that were eaten;
the insanities as the result of fear, alarm and gri'if; the epilepsies
as the result of the pollution by various kinds of unclean beings.
As regards the fever, we have already described how it arose
from the forehead of great god Siva. From the heat induced
by fever arose the disease hemothermia. As for consumption

Indological Truths
it took its rise from the excessive sex indulgence of the lord of
the constellations, i.e. the moon-god.”®®

11. COUNTER-IDEOLOGY WITH HOOK, LINE A N D SINKER

It seems that the concessions to sundry superstitions, though

pleasing for the law-givers, are not fully reassuring to them.
Hence the Caraka-sam hita shows the tendency to assert and
re-assert the entire gamut of the theory of soul, karm a
and liberation, openly flouting the theoretical requirements of
medicine.
This is specially true of the Sarira-sthana, which, of all
the books of the Caraka-sam hita, shows the most pronounced
interest in soul, rebirth, karm a, piety and scriptural authority.
Had the Sarira-sthana been the discussion only of these,
the modern scholar could have perhaps rejected the whole
of it as later interpolation. But th e' fact is that the same
book also contains ideas indicative of the actual position of
the physicians. One has to depend on these for recons­
tructing the theoretical basis of ancient Indian medicine. What
we have to reject for the purpose, however, are the views
of the soul etc. enthusiastically discussed. Here are some
specimens of these.
Chapter I of the Sarira-sthana is frankly metaphysics,
or, more specifically a discourse on the soul and its salvation,
without any medical interest.
The discussion is in the form of Atreya’s answer to certain
questions raised by AgniveSa. Those possessing the metaphysi­
cal wisdom about the soul {atm ajnah), says Agnive§a, declare
the soul {atm a) to be free from any connection with activity,
eternally aloof (svatantra), endowed with lordship, all-pervad­
ing, infinite, etc. If so, how is activity attributed to it and
how is it that it is born also of undesirable wombs ? Again,
if endowed with “ lordship” , why is the soul forced to suffer ?

Indological Truths
 And, if all-pervading and infinite, why does it not know
everything at once Hence there is doubt {atah samsayahy>'>
about what is said of the soul.
Atreya wants to remove this doubt. His main point seems
to be a distinction drawn between the embodied soul, often
called purusa, and the eternal spirit, usually called atman.
The latter, though by nature transcending everything, some­
how or other gets embodied because of karm a and therefore
also undergoes rebirth. For this purpose he freely uses the
terminologies of Vedanta and later Samkhya.
“ The transcendental self (param atm a), being beginningless, has
no birth ; while the embodied being {purusa) is the product of
the fruit of actions performed through delusion, desire and
aversion— That self which has no beginning in time is
eternal ; the contrary is the caSe with the self who is caused.
An entity that has no beginning is regarded as eternal, while
a thing that has a beginning is regarded otherwise That
higher self does not come under the category of anything.
Being eternal, it cannot be grasped. It is unmanifest and
unthinkable. The manifest is otherwise... Yoked to the mind
which cleaves to it by virtue of the acts performed through
the instrumentality of the body, the self though present in
all bodies is for all practical purposes to be regarded as
localised in one particular body. The self has no beginning
and likewise the succession of bodies is without a beginning.
Both bemg thus beginningless, neither can be the antecedent
to the other.” *0 1
The second chapter of the Sarira-sthana, while discussing
subjects of genuine medical interest like the cause of concep­
tion and the nature of foetal development, abruptly raises
the question : “ How does the soul migrate from body to
body It is answered as follows :
“ The soul, which moves along with the mind, flits from one
body to another, enveloped by the subtle forms of matter
in four forms. As it is of the subtle nature of the tendencies

99. 76. iv.1.5-7. 100. IbAvAAl. 101 76. iv.l.53-82. Tr. G.

J02. /Z). iv.2.28.

Indological Truths
of actions, its form cannot be visible except to the mystic
vision of the Yogis.— The self is never dissociated from
the very subtle and supersensual elements or from its tenden­
cies of past actions or from the mind and the intellect, or
from the principles of ego and the disorders of passion and
ignorance.
“ The mind is indeed bound by passion and ignorance and,
in the absence of knowledge, all disorders are brought about
by them. This mind along with its disorders and the force
of past actions are the causes of transmigration of the self
from life to life as well as for righteous and unrighteous con­
duct.”
It is for the metaphysicians to decide how much of their
interest is left in all this. But our main point is that all
these are found in the extant Caraka-samhita, howsoever
repulsive these may be to the norm of strict medical dis­
cussion surviving in the same text.

12. FALLACY OF CONTRADICTION

So the extant Caraka-sam hita does contain a cluster of ideas,

which, in the terminology of the ancient physicians, can only
be described as belonging to the m oksa-dharm ika-sam aya or
the context of the doctrine of liberation. We have now to
see why such ideas, if allowed to have any place in the
context of medical discussion, leads to the fallacy of contra­
diction (yiruddha).
Interestingly, we need not go outside our Caraka-samhita
to see examples of the fallacy. Bearing in mind what is
already discussed about disease, health and therapeutic tech­
nique—without which ancient Indian medicine becomes on
the whole meaningless—let us first read some of the passages
of our Caraka-sam hita on the law of karma.
“ That which is called daiva (destiny)—and by which is meant

Indological Truths
karm a of the previous birth (purvadehika, literally ‘of the
previous body’)—is also found to become the cause of dis­
eases in the course of time. There is no significant action
that does not produce its results. Diseases caused by past
actions are destructive of therapeutic applications and are
cured only when the power resulting from past actions is
exhausted.” *0*
Admitting this, what is the physician supposed to do ?
Wait for the results of the past actions of the patient to
take their due course ? But, then, we are not told how the
physician can possibly calculate the duration of this. To
imagine that such a calculation forms part of medical science
would be ridiculous. Only the charlatans, posing as astro­
logers, can pretentd to be serious about it. In any case,
there is no doubt that if the law of karm a is assumed to
be true, the suffering of the patient in the present life has
got to be viewed as determined by the nature of actions
performed by him in the past life. Since none can interfere
with the course of karm a of somebody else, the physician
—deprived of the intrinsic efficacy of his theory and practice
—becomes some kind of a helpless spectator of the suffering
patient.
The text returns elsewhere to discuss the question of daiva
and purusakara—i.e. of destiny of a person as determined
by his own past actions {daiva) and the role of his present
active effort {purusakara) —in the course of which again medi­
cal science is virtually declared inoperative :
“ Destiny {daiva) is to be known as one’s own actions done
in the former life, while by ‘effort’ (purusakara) is meant
one’s activity in this life. Concerning these two kinds of
activity, there are various degrees of strength and weakness ;
for we see that action is of three kinds—mild, moderate
and strong. When both types of action (destiny and effort)
are of the best character, then they make for long, happy
and certain life ; the reverse is the case when both types

Indological Truths
of action are of the reverse character ; when they are mode­
rate, then the life too is m o d e r a t e . ” i ° 5
In the view expressed here, there is some attempt no doubt
to reconcile the efficacy of present action with the law of
karma. Life is not absolutely predetermined by past actions,
inasmuch as a person is also capable of shaping it to a
certain extent by his own effort, specially when the power
of daiva is not very strong. Notwithstanding daiva, there­
fore, present actions also are meaningful. But whatever may
be the theoretical worth of such a compromise view, the
fact is that even in it life remains predetermined in so far
as the law of karm a is admitted. And in so far as life
of the patient is assumed to be predetermined, an outside
agent like the physician can hardly alter its course. The
physician is supposed to be absolutely helpless when the
daiva of the patient is imagined to be most strong.
Thus, in short, to the extent to which the law of karma
is accepted by our Caraka-sarnhita, it contradicts the self-
assurance of the physician expressed in his defence of me­
dical science in the course of the “ four-factor” {catuspada)
view of medicine we have already examined. But why
is this contradiction ? The law of karma belongs to the
“context” of the theory of Hberation, while the “ four-factor”
view of medicine belongs to the context of medical science.

13. CONVERTING A HERETIC: BHARADVAJA

The Caraka-sarnhita retains for us the name of an ancient

physician whose theoretical position—because of being true
to science—is judged heretical in the standard of officially
approved worldview. It also tells us the story of how effort
is made to convert him to orthodoxy.
The story of this conversion is based on an obvious
anachronism, because the authority described as being con­

Indological Truths
verted is the earliest theoretician of Indian medicine remem­
bered by our medical compilation. It is thus a forgery or a
fiction. Still it is of considerable importance for us, because
it shows how some of the comparatively later representatives of
Indian medicine feel nervous about the original theoretical
plank of Ayurveda, specially its commitment to the theory of
svabhava or of nature being governed by purely natural laws—a
view that openly flouts the law of karm a. By concocting this
story of conversion of the ancient authority, the later doctors
want to assure the law-givers as it were of their own loyalty to
the counter-ideology—specially to the theory of karma and
liberation. We shall therefore have to analyse this story in
some detail, tedious though that may be.
As entertaining the heretical views, we are told of a physician
called Bharadvaja. Apparently, it is felt that there is some
special reason to be annoyed with his heresy, because we find
an entire chapter of our text designed to refute it.
The title of chapter 3 of Sarira-sthana is roughly translated
as “ minor chapter on foetus formation” . It has the form of a
debate between Punarvasu Atreya and Bharadvaja, in the course
of which the former is supposed to refute the latter. As the
mnemonical verse at the end of the chapter sums up its main
theme : “Thus are given the views of Punarvasu Atreya as well
as of Bharadvaja—along with the refutation of the thesis
{ p ra tijn a pratisedha ) of the latter—on questions concerning
the origin, development and birth of the child”.*®* The author
of this chapter is pleased to make Atreya represent the Vedantic
view, though in open violation to what is stated elsewhere in
the Caraka-sarnhita where the same Atreya says that in medical
science everything is viewed as made of matter in five forms.
Bharadvaja laughs at Atreya’s Vedanta as a mumbo-jumbo
made of mere words. From the Vedantic viewpoint, therefore,
Punarvasu Atreya is made to look at Bharadvaja’s position as
highly heretical, which he is urged to abandon. The words finally
put in Atreya’s lips are ; ‘Therefore, the soul is the knower
and the primeval source (p ra k rti); it is also the witness (drasta)

Indological Truths
as well as the sole cause (karanam eva c a ). All this. Oh
Bharadvaja, is definitely proved; so subdue your doubt {sarm m
e ta t nirnitam bharadvaja ja h i sam sa ya m ).” ^°^
But what is the view of Bharadvaja thus considered undesi^
rable from the Vedantic standpoint ? In the chapter of Sarira-
sthana just mentioned, we have a garbled version of it, evidently
because of the greater anxiety to reject it than to represent its
main points. But the view remains better stated elsewhere—
namely in chapter 25 of Sutra-sthana—which therefore forms a
more convenient starting point for our present discussion.
This chapter has the title “ on the origin of purusa” , the
word purusa being taken in it in the more commonplace mean­
ing of “human being” . The mnemonical verse at the end of
the chapter sums up its contents as follows ; “ In this chapter
on the origin of man, the sage has described the source of body
and disease and the different schools of thought thereon, the
rules concerning diet and lastly the most excellent among the
wines.” i°^ The structure of the chapter containing so many
discussions is naturally somewhat complex. It opens with an
account of a debate among ancient medical authorities on the
problem of the origin of man and diseases. This forms the
theme of the first half of the chapter. Its second half discusses
the general principles of dietetics ending with the enumeration
of “ 84 varieties of best wines” . What connects these two parts
of the chapter is the view finally arrived at in the debate of its
first half. According to it, both human beings and their diseases
originate ultimately from foods and drinks. The second half of
the chapter naturally passes on to discuss the questions con­
cerning foods and drinks.
We begin with an account of the debate as found in the
first half of the chapter.
A number of eminent authorities, we are told, gather round
Punarvasu Atreya.
Among them, Hiranyaksa"® argues that the ultimate causes
of both human beings and diseases are the six dhatu-s, roughly
meaning the elements. These are : earth, water, air, fire, sky

Indological Truths
(akasa ) and consciousness (cetana )—the last as a dhatu, is
somehow given the same status, as the first five, which are
viewed as matter (bhuta) in its five main forms.
Saunaka*“ objects to this view. How can the human being
originate from the six dhatu-s without the agency of the father
and mother ? It is observed that a human being is born only of
human beings, just as a cow is born of cows and a horse of
horses. Moreover, certain diseases like the urinary one (meha,
diabetes ?) are obviously transmitted from the parents to the
offspring, i.e. are hereditary. So the parents are to be viewed
as the real causes both of human beings and d i s e a s e s . ” ^
But Bhadrakapya rejects this view. Had parents been the
real causes of diseases, from the blind should have been born
only the blind, which however is not a fact. Besides, how to
account for the origin of the first parents ? Rejceting Saunaka’s
view therefore, Bhadrakapya proposes another, according
to which human beings as well as their diseases are the
products of karm a (karm aja). The results of one’s past actions
determine the nature of one’s birth as well as the diseases one
suffers from.“ ^
At this stage of the debate, the physician we are particularly
interested in—namely Bharadvaja—intervenes. It is absurd, he
argues, to claim that both human beings and diseases are caused
by one’s past actions {karma), for karm a or action presupposes
k a rta or the agent ( i.e. purusa ) that performs the action
(karta purvarn hi karmanah), nor is ever observed any action
the result of the non-performance of which is the purusa
( d r s ta m n a ca akrtarn karm a y a sy a sy a t purusah phalam )
The main point of the argument seems to be that there are only
two conceivable ways of trying to connect the origin of purusa
with k a r m a : to claim either that actions performed cause
purusa or that actions unperformed ,'cause purusa. But both
the possibilities are absurd. It cannot be claimed that actions
performed cause the human being, for the very performance of
action presupposes the existence of the human being. On the

111. The text in G-ed apparently misprints the name as Kausika.

112. /6. i.25.16-7. 113. /6 . i.25.18-9. 114. /6. i.25.20

Indological Truths
Other hand, an unperformed action—being something like the
son of a barren woman—can nowhere be observed : an action
is essentially something which is performed. Hence it is absurd
to imagine that any unperformed action causes the human being.
Thus, in short, there is no conceivable way of viewing
karm a as the cause of purusa.
Rejecting the karm a theory, Bharadvaja formulates his own,
according to which both human beings and their diseases are
caused by svabhava or “law of nature” . As Bharadvaja puts his
view, “ The cause of human being as well as of diseases is
svabhava, just as roughness, fluidity, mobility and heat are in
the cases of (matter in its four forms) ending with fire (i.e.
earth, water, air and fire respectively) (bhavahetuh svabhavastu
vyadhinatn purusasya calkhara-drava-cala-usnatvarn tejo'ntanam
yatha eva Az)-“ ^
We have already discussed**® the implications of the view of
svabhava and have seen how it is inseparable from the materia­
list outlook. This means that the medical compendium wants
us to look at Bharadvaja as subscribing to materialism. In his
view, both human beings and diseases originate from matter
and this exclusively because of the laws of nature.
In the debate of the physicians we are discussing, Bhara-
dvaja’s view is immediately challenged by Kankayana, the
physician from Central Asia. Such a view, he argues, is no
good, because it makes existence or non-existence of everything
completely determined by the laws of nature. Rejecting it,
therefore, one should view the omnipotent Prajapati (lit. lord
of all creatures), son of Brahma, as the supreme cause—i.e. of
everything animate and inanimate and of all pleasure and pain.
This, in short, is the theistic view according to which god causes
everything.'*’
But bhiksu Atreya points to the fallacy involved in such a
view. How can Prajapati, who is supposed to be all-merciful,
cause suffering in the form of diseases for his own children—i.e.
the human beings who are his creations—like a malevolent
person? Instead of god, therefore, bhiksu Atreya proposes to

Indological Truths
view time {kala) as the real cause of human beings as well as
their diseases, because the entire world is under the influence
c f time and everywhere time is the cause of everything ( ja g a t
kalavasam sarvam kalah sarvatra karanam).^^^
Such are the views expressed by the different authorities in
the debate on which Punarvasu Atreya delivers the following
concluding observations : Those very things the wholesome
combination of which causes man also cause the various
diseases when combined in an unwholesome form (yesam
era hi bhavanam sam pat sa m ja m y e t naram ltesam eva vipat
vyadhin vividhan samudirayet).'^ Thus man as well as various
diseases originate from the same things, depending on their
right and wrong combinations respectively.
This inevitably raises another question. What is meant by
the “ things” (bhavanam, literally ‘of existents’), the right and
wrong combinations of which have such effects ? This is
precisely the question which Vamaka, king of Kasi, is made
to ask Atreya in our t e x t . T o this Atreya has a simple
answer. Itisfood.^®* We have already discussed this view.
With these points in mind, let us ask ourselves another
question. When a thinker insists that food and food alone
is the cause both of the origin and growth of man as well
as his diseases, can he logically evade the view of svabhava
or laws of nature ? The presumption is in the negative.
What possibly accounts for food being transformed into man
and his diseases ? There are only two conceivable answers
to this. Either that it is due to some supernatural agency
or that it is due only to the laws of nature. Since Atreya
does not accept the former, he has to admit the latter. In
other words, the only coherent way in which we can put
his view is that food causes man and diseases exactly in
the way in which fire burns, i.e. because of the laws of
nature or svabhava. This means that of all the views de­
fended in the debate, the one expressed by Bharadvaja agrees
best with what Atreya says. Bharadvaja talks only of svabhava
while Atreya talks only of food. The two views taken to­

lls, ft. 1.25.24-5. 119. f t . i.25.29. 120. ft. i.25.30. 121. ft. i.25.31.
52
Indological Truths
gether seem to give us a fuller idea of the theoretical basis
of ancient Indian medicine. It is because of natural law that
from food originate both man and diseases. In other words,
instead of counterposing the two views against each other,
we have a better understanding of the medical standpoint
when the two are synthesised.
Thus, as far as this particular chapter of Caraka-sam hitd
is concerned, there is no ground to think that the views of the
two authorities are in irreconcilable contradiction. Further, as
we have already seen, the view attributed here to Atreyais an inte­
gral part of the theoretical position of ancient Indian medicine.
Chapter 3 of the Sarira-sthana, however, has a different
story altogether. The same Atreya appears in it in the role
of an ardent Vedantist. But Bharadvaja apparently sticks to
the view just discussed. Hence he is considered a heretic,
whom Atreya refutes and tries to convert.
It seems that there is some peculiar distortion of the
position attributed to Bharadvaja in this chapter—a distor­
tion that perhaps helps its refutation carry a rather easy
conviction. Let us first try to be clear about it.
The problem discussed here is that of the origin, deve­
lopment and birth of the child. Atreya mentions a number
of factors all of which contribute to these. These are :
1) mating at right time of physically fit man and woman
resulting in fertilisation, which is understood as the union
of semen with female blood, 2) descent of the transmi­
grating soul into the fertilised entity, 3) entrance into the
womb of a “ mind” (ra/fva)—coming from somewhere—to
effect the connection between the transmigrating soul and the
new body it is going to acquire and 4) r a s a s —i.e. food
transformed into vital fluids—and their concordance (satm ya),
which contribute to the nourishment and growth of the
foetus. As Atreya sums up, “ Hence the child is born of
the mother, born of the father, born of the soul, born of ra s a s
and their concordance, and born of the mind that effects
the connection between the soul and the body.” ^^® At a

Indological Truths
 later stage of discusstion, he adds another factor to his list,
namely the result of the past karm a, i.e. not only of the
parents but also of the soul (jivatm a) going to be reborn
as the baby.'®*
It is obvious that the factors enumerated represent a
blend of the natural and the supernatural. In so far as
Atreya talks of the physically fit man and woman, their
right way of mating resulting in fertilisation, the growth of
the foetus from r a s a s and their concordance—there is nothing
in his view to which a naturalist is supposed to object. In
so far, however, as he talks of the transmigrating soul coming
to be joined to the foetus, of the mysterious entry of a
“ mind” into the womb to effect this conjunction and lastly
when he assumes past karm a shaping the destiny of the
new-born—Atreya assumes the supernatural and hence is only
expected to be rejected by a naturalist.
We have just seen that in the medical debate Bharadvaja
figures as a naturalist or svabhava-vadin, believing only in
nature and its laws. Admitting this to be his real position,
there can be no reason for him to reject the natural factors
mentioned by Atreya in explaining the formation of the foetus
and its development. What he is consistently expected to
object to are only the supernatural assumptions viz, the soul
etc. There is no doubt that in our text Bharadvaja is most
vehement in rejecting all these. Where the text is misleading
is that it makes him reject also the natural factors of
Atreya’s enumeration. Bharadvaja is made to argue that
the mating of the male and the female, the r a s a s and their
concordance—all these are as irrelevant for explaining
the origin and development of the foetus as are the soul,
mind and past karm a. Besides, though he is described as
rejecting all these, the text does not provide him with any
positive solution of the problem he is made to discuss. Are
we supposed to believe that Bharadvaja knows no answer
to the .questions he faces so boldly ?
In the context of ancient Indian thought there remains

Indological Truths
another possibility, for we are aware of another view current
in the ancient times, which is called yadrccha-vada or acci­
dentalism, According to it, all phenomena of nature are due
to pure accident. There is nowhere any cause to account for
any event. Are we then sijpposed to think that Bharadvaja
represents this accidentalism ? But we cannot believe it, for
we have already seen that an essential precondition of svabhava-
vada is the rejection of accidentalism.
If Bharadvaja defends the view of svabhava —as he unques­
tionably does in the medical debate—his picture as something
like a pure accidentalist cannot but be suspect. Evidently, the
position of the svabhava-vadin is somewhat distorted and who­
ever may be responsible for this distortion, his motive is not
difficult to guess. If Bharadvaja argues that not even the father
and mother has anything to do with the birth of the child, his
position becomes such a prim a fa c ie absurdity that it is easy to
refute it.
Thus the garbled version of his view as found in this chapter
of the text need not be taken on its face value. Consistently
with svabhdva-vada, he is expected to reject both supernaturalism
and accidentalism. Since in this chapter Atreya is imagined to
refute him from the Vedantic standpoint, the emphasis is more
on Bharadvaja’s rejection of the supernatural—particularly the
view of the transmigrating soul mysteriously entering the womb
after fertilisation and the quaint assumption that a mind comes
from one knows not where to go into the womb in order to
effect some connection between the transmigrating soul and its
new body. That these are the main points contested is further
evidenced by the fact that in the version of the controversy,
Atreya is made to defend particularly these points as strongly a:s
Bharadvaja is described to reject these.
We shall discuss the controversy mainly on these points.
As against the claim that the soul is a cause of the origin
of the foetus, Bharadvaja argues that this is virtually viewing
the soul as begetting itself. Logically, that is absurd. There
are only two conceivable ways of viewing the soul as begetting
itself. Either the soul is already born before begetting itself or
it remains unborn before begetting itself. But there is sense in

Indological Truths
neither of the alternatives. Can it be imagined that the soul, in
spite of being already existent causes it to come into being ?
Again, something non-existing cannot cause anything. If,
therefore, the soul is viewed as non-existing before begetting
itself, there can be no sense in claiming that it causes itself to
come into being. Thus, both the alternatives are logically
absurd. This logical absurdity apart, the claim that the soul
is a cause for the origin of the foetus leaves unexplained why it
does not necessarily choose for itself a desirable type of birth—-
possessed of unlimited power, strength, splendour and what
not.124
As against this, Atreya is made to deliver a long lecture on
the Vedantic view of the soul and its transmigration, i.e. as far
as the author of this chapter o f the Sarira-sthana understands
Vedanta. It would be tiring to quote here the entire sermon
of Atreya. We give below only some of its main points,
specially to see how utterly irrelevant all these are from the
standpoint of the theory and practice of healing.
Conception (garbha), Atreya argues, is due also to the
spirit or soul. The soul that enters the womb is known as the
indwelling soul {antaratm a), alternatively also called jiva or
the individual soul. By its inherent nature, the soul is
eternal, diseaseless, ageless, deathless, undecaying, indi­
visible, immovable, omniform, omnifunctional, unmanifest,
beginningless, endless, and immutable. Such a soul, after
entering the womb, gets attached to the semen-blood com­
plex and it thus causes the formation of the embryo. In the
strict sense, however, the soul cannot have any birth, because
it is beginningless. Therefore, the soul, in spite of being
unborn (a ja ta ) causes the embryo, which is born (y« to ). In
the course of time, that which is originally the embryo attains
the stage of childhood, youth and old age. Therefore, the soul
is said to be born according to the stage reached by it ; and it
is called ‘on the process of being born’ from the viewpoint of
the stages it is going to acquire. And so on.^^s j q these, Atreya
does not forget to add another factor as determining the nature

Indological Truths
of the new birth the Soul is supposed to acquire. It is the result
of the past karm a not only of the soul going to be reborn but
also of the parents giving birth to the n e w - b o r n .
But this is not all that Atreya wants Bharadvaja to believe.
Assuming that the spirit or soul enters the womb to be united
with the embryo, there remains the problem of some connecting
agent that effects this union. Atreya claims that this connecting
agent is the “mind” , which also enters the womb along with the
soul. To Bharadvaja, this is palpably absurd. As he puts it,
“ Nor in fact does a mind, coming from another world, enter
into the embryo. For if the mind thus enters the embryo, there
should be nothing unknown, unheard or unseen pertaining to
its previous incarnation. As a matter of fact, one does not
recollect anything of that kind” .^^?
But Atreya goes on arguing :
“ There is also the connecting agent which is the mind. That
which yokes the spirit with the sentient organism, that on the
imminence of whose departure virtue .leaves the body, the
inclinations change, all the sense-organs are distraught, strength
wanes, diseases get aggravated, and finally on whose departure
the organism is bereft of life and which holds the senses
together—this is called the mind. It is said to be of three types—
pure, passionate and inert. Now, of whatever dominant type
a man’s mind is in this life, he gets linked to that very type in
the next birth. Thus, for instance, when he is linked to that
very pure type of mind that he possessed in the previous
existence, then he can recall the past incarnation as well.
Hence, memory follows the spirit because it remains hnked to
the same mind. It is in consequence of this that a particular
person is said to be a ja tism a ra (one who remembers his past
birth).” 12*
It is no use raising the question as to how far this is consis­
tent even with the Vedanta philosophy of eternal soul, which
Atreya is ostensibly made to represent. What primarily con­
cerns us instead is Bharadvaja’s reactions to it. The text sums
up these reactions with the words .• vagvastu-matram etad-

Indological Truths
vacam m anartham s y a t iti —“ all this has only words as their
substance and the statements are without any sense.” '^®
In short, for Bharadvaja such metaphysics has no more
value than mere verbose nonsense. Still Atreya is described as
trying his best to convert the heretic :
“Now listen to the sovereign power of the knowledge of the
self—the spiritual knowledge. The knower of the self, having
stilled the senses and the fickle mind, and having come into his
own and being established in his own awareness, his vision
extending everywhere, contemplates all existences. Oh Bharad­
vaja, accept also this fresh conclusion. Having withdrawn from
the activities of the sense-organs and speech, the sleeping man
who has passed into the dream-state, cognises the objects and
pleasure and pain; therefore the self is said never to exist
without awareness. There is no cognition of any kind without
self-awareness; no consequent can exist independently of a
cause. Therefore the self is the knower, the archetype, the seer
and the final cause. Oh Bharadvaja, all this has been definitely
established; hence abandon your doubt.” i30
The description of the controversy ends here, without even
a word on the impact on Bharadvaja of the Vedantic sermon
attributed to Atreya. This is apparently strange, because a
chapter designed specially to refute a heretic is normally ex­
pected to end with some gratifying words on the merit of the
conversion. Why, then, is this peculiarity ? The Caraka-
sam hita does not provide us with a direct answer to the
question. But we may find an answer to it, if we can settle
the identity of the heretic.
According to the norm of medical discussion already re­
viewed, the enthusiasm for Vedanta in the Sarira-sthana can­
not but be suspected as a later graft on the text. Whoever is
responsible for this, must have reason for being specially
annoyed with Bharadvaja’s views. One reason for this is obvi­
ously that the views are strongly opposed to Vedanta. But that
is not the only reason. The more important one seems to be
the great prestige Bharadvaja already enjoys among the ancient

Indological Truths
 authorities on medicine. From (he Vedantic or quasi-Vedantic
standpoint of the Sarira-sthana, he is too important an adver­
sary to remain unrefuted. Only this explains the insertion of a
special chapter into the text with the main purpose of rejecting
his views.
Who, then, is this Bharadvaja ?
In the Caraka-sam hiia, we come across an ancient doctor
called Kumara§ira Bharadvaja. He is mentioned thrice in the
text as expressing views on certain technical questions con­
sidered important in ancient medicine. But there is nothing
strongly heretical about these views and the presumption is that
he is not the same Bharadvaja we are discussing.
But we read of another Bharadvaja in the text, who has
moreover great reputation in the history of Indian medicine. He
is mentioned in the story with which our text opens. Over fifty
sages gather somewhere in a corner of the Himalayas to
discuss the problems of health and disease. Among them
Bharadvaja goes to god Indra to learn, all about these, be­
cause the sages know that Indra received medical knowledge
from the ASvins, who in their turn received it from Prajapati
and Prajapati received it from B r a h m a . ' B h a r a d v a j a learns
medical science from Indra, returns to the assembly of sages
and reports on what he learnt.*^^ But the account of Bha-’
radvaja ends here quite abruptly. We are next told that
Punarvasu Atreya—one of the sages present in the assembly
—expounds medicine to six of his disciples, called AgniveSa,
Bhela, Jatukarna, ParaSara, Harita and Ksarapani, all of
whom codify the oral instructions of Atreya, though among
these the version prepared by AgniveSa proves best. This is
supposed to be the basis of our extant Caraka-samhita.
It is interesting to note how little credibility is allowed
to many features of this story by the Caraka-samhita itself.
If the medical knowledge received by the sages in the assembly
is based on the revelation of Brahma, the sages are at least
supposed to agree on its basic principles. But the text
records many medical debates in which at least some of the

Indological Truths
 sages mentioned as congregating in the original assembly
—Punarvasu Atreya, bhiksu Atreya, KuSika, Badisa, Saraloma
Kapya, Kankayana, Marici, Saunaka—are described as sharply
differing with each other. Besides, the methodology of acquir­
ing medical knowledge discussed at length in the Caraka-
sam hita becomes meaningless once it is assumed that the
knowledge is based on divine revelation.
The story of the divine origin of medical knowledge and
of its transmission from Brahma to Indra cannot thus be
reconciled even to the extant Caraka-sam hita. But that does
not mean that we are to scrap the entire account of the
medical conference and view all the participants in it as
purely fictitious characters. Thus, for example, the mention
of Kankayana, the physician from Central Asia, as parti­
cipating in the conference cannot be accounted for without
assuming some compelling reason for it, and that reason
is likely to be historical. But if Kankayana is not a purely
legendary name, how can we be sure that Bharadvaja must
have been so ? Filliozat does not oppose the possible
historicity of Kankayana,^®® but he feels that Bharadvaja
is “ surely mythical” .!®'* One obvious reason for this is that
Filliozat leaves the medical context and seeks for the iden­
tification of Bharadvaja in Vedic mythology, somewhat dis-
tortedly reiterated in the later Puranas and epics.iSB
are not obliged to connect all this with the person remembered
in our medical compilation as the first theoretician of medical
science. On the contrary, the fact that with his name the
Caraka-sarnhitd leaves mythology and starts talking of human
authorities on medicine may not be without significance. Could
this significance be that to the first compilers of the medical
tradition the name of this ancient authority—though remem­
bered only by his g o tra —was too important to be ignored
and even the later editors of our text, in spite of their
eagerness to sanctify njedicine as divine revelation, could
not dismiss it ?
In any case, how much of strict historicity can be attached

Indological Truths
to Bharadvaja is not our main point. What concerns us
is the simple fact that the Caraka-samhita remembers him
as the first human—and therefore credible—authority on me­
dical science. Not that our text tells us much about the
kind of knowledge communicated by him to the assembly
of sages. However, even the little that we are told about
it is of serious theoretical interest. As we have already
seen,‘^* he enumerates the six categories of substance, quality,
etc., which are essential for the theoretical basis of Ayurveda.
The general theoretical structure suggested by these cate­
gories is totally this-worldly or “ natural” . It is not in the
least indicative of the theory of the soul and its sahation,
of rebirth and karm a —in fact nothing of the metaphysics which,
in the Sarira-sthana chapter, Bharadvaja is urged to accept.
In the account of the transmission of medical knowledge,
we hear nothing about Bharadvaja after he imparts, to the
assembled sages, the view of these mundane categories. But
this leaves one question unanswered.
From what he is recorded to say, it is obvious that
health depends on the right use of substances, i.e. according
to their qualities and actions. This proposition is absolutely
essential for ancient Indian medicine. But the question is :
How do the substances with right qualities and actions de­
termine health ? From the genuine medical viewpoint there
is only one answer to it. They are by nature so. It is their
svabhava. Thus, in the account of the transmission of medical
knowledge, because Bharadvaja really speaks only of the
substances etc., he is by implication also committed to the
view of svabhava.
Not that our text tells us this in so many words. It
simply drops Bharadvaja from the account of the transmission
of medical knowledge and takes up Punarvasu Atreya instead,
whose oral instructions are supposed to be codified by AgniveSa.
This abrupt dropping out of Bharadvaja, if not viewed as
accidental, has to be accounted for. Could the reason be
that the later editors and reconstructors of the Caraka-samhita,

Indological Truths
who take a great deal of liberty with the text, find it some­
what embarassing to allow it to retain the theoretical impli­
cations of Bharadvaja’s position in greater details, i.e. to the
extent of allowing it to include the view of svabhava as well ?
All this, it will be objected, is conjectural. But it is
necessary to emphasise one point which is not at all con­
jectural. Apart from KumaraSira Bharadvaja, who in all
presumption is a different physician, the Caraka-samhita men­
tions the name of Bharadvaja only in three places.
First, in the account of the early spread of medical know­
ledge, which we read in the opening chapter of the Sutra-
sthana.
Secondly, in the account of the medical debate given in
chapter 25 of the SStra-sthana, where Bharadvaja vigorously
rejects karm a and defends the view of svabhava.
Thirdly, in chapter 3 of Sarira-sthana, which is specially
designed to refute the view of Bharadvaja from the Vedantic or
quasi-Vedantic standpoint.
These are all that we know about Bharadvaja from the
Caraka-sam hita. Since our text does not tell us that the
person mentioned in the first context is different from the
one mentioned in the second and third contexts, the modern
scholar can be justified in imagining such a diffepnce only
if there is any compelling reason to do so. In default of
such a reason, the simple assumption remains that the iden­
tity of the name implies the identity of the person referred to.
But is there any reason compelling us to think that the
name Bharadvaja in these different places refers to different
persons ? The answer to this is to be sought mainly in the
internal evidences of the Caraka-sam hita. But there is nothing
in these evidences to suggest that in these different places
the same name stands for three different persons.
This is the main reason that makes us think that the
representative of the view of svabhava whom we meet else­
where in the text is the same person mentioned by it as
the early authority on medical science. His view is much
to the distaste of those that cram Vedantic orthodoxy into
our Caraka-samhita. But his fame in the medical tradition

Indological Truths
is too tenacious to be ignored. Hence is the need felt for
a special chapter in refutation of his view.
The possibility of all this hinges on a simple point. In
the same text the same name stands for the same person
in different contexts. However, this simple possibility makes
a devastating comment on the theoretical integrity of those
who prepared the present version of the Caraka-samhita.
They not only add a bias of alien metaphysics to the medical
compendium but moreover work deliberately to suppress
the original theoretical basis of Indian medicine by fabrica­
ting the fiction that it is refuted by Punarvasu Atreya, the
alleged spokesman of medical science.
The tendency to disown the heritage of Bharadvaja seems
to be corroborated by the later writers on Indian medicine.
As Mehta observes, “ Curiously enough, Vagbhata, who draws
from all the sam hita-s extant at his time, portrays Punar­
vasu Atreya as approaching Indra as leader of other sages
among whom Bharadvaja is also one, and as learning the
science of life from him. He is not indebted to Bharadvaja
for his acquision of the science...Perhaps it is these and such
other conflicting narratives that have made scholars believe
Atreya to be identical with Bharadvaja. But the learned
Cakrapani is emphatic on the different individualities of these
two... A much later writer on medicine, Bhavamiira, of the
sixteenth century, has three differing versions of the story of
ayurveda. Evidently he contents himself by stating the actual
versions then current in books and among the scholars of the
science. He firstly narrates the story as told by Vagbhata
wherein Atreya, as the leader of a group of sages, receives his
instruction from Indra... In the second story, he depicts
Atreya as approaching Indra, by himself, out of compassion
for suffering humanity ; and having learnt the science from
Indra, Atreya writes a treatise on ayurveda and instructs his
disciples AgniveSa, Bhela and others in it... According to
the third story, once it happened that many sages met to­
gether on the slopes of the Himalayas. The first to arrive was
the best among sages, Bharadvaja. Then all the sages that

Indological Truths
congregated unanimously chose and besought Bharadvaja to
repair to Indra and bring down the Ayurveda.” !^'^
Why do writers like Vagbhata and Bhavamiira sayj such
things in spite of what is clearly stated in the Caraka-sam hita ?
Is it because in the intellectual climate of their own times, the
admission of the venerable authority of Bharadvaja becomes
embarrassing, which therefore, they want to avoid either by
eliminating him altogether from the account of the early trans­
mission of medical knowledge or by making his personality
melt into that of Atreya ? If this is so, can the reason be that
these later writers are aware that the venerable Bharadvaja
preaches a view which, in the standard of the officially boosted
philosophy of their own times, becomes a mark of stark
heresy ?
In any case, the question of Bharadvaja in the Caraka-
samhita seems to be too important to remain unsettled;
Mehta wants to settle it. He opens with a great tribute to
Bharadvaja, the ancient authority on medicine. From the way
in which our text describes his interest in the categories like
sam anya, visesa, sam avaya, etc.—categories that are extremely
prominent in the Nyaya-VaiSesika philosophy—Mehta argues ;
“ It is therefore logical to surmise that Bharadvaja should have
been famous as a teacher of logic. We find one Uddyotakara,
the author of N yaya-vartika, referring to Bharadvaja as the
author of Nyaya.” '^® This may be misunderstanding the refer­
ence to the name Bharadvaja in the Nyaya-vartika.^^^ But that
must not undermine the importance of the fact that Bharadvaja
is at least one of the earliest names we are aware of which is
associated with the view of these categories. But is this the same
Bharadvaja that defends the view of svabhava ? Mehta feels
sure that this cannot be so, because there are many persons
bearing the name Bharadvaja in the Caraka-samhita. “ Now
we shall deal” , says he, “ with the accounts of the various other
persons bearing the name of Bharadvaja that we meet in the
Caraka-sarnhitd, so that there may be no mistake and confusion

Indological Truths
regarding the one Great Bharadvaja, the first propagator of the
Science of Life on earth.’’^'^®
Who, then, are the other Bharadvajas ?
One of theih is supposed to be KumaraSira Bharadvaja,
whom we have already discussed. But Mehta sees three more
Bharadvajas in the te x t! One of them is the defender of the
view of svafc/zava mentioned in the account of medical debate
in chapter 25 of the Sutra-sthana. Referring to him Mehta
observes : “ There is another person by the name Bharadvaja
who is a great scholar taking part in the learned discussions
of the sages and propounding the theory of Nature or -the
innate quality of things as the cause of man as well as of his
diseases.” *'^' But why should he be considered as a difFereht
person from the venerable authority mentioned in the opening
chapter of the text ? Mehta gives no reason for this Whatsoever
and leaves us with the impression that such a view is a matter
of his personal preference. This is surely not the way of ex­
pressing opinions on important textual ..questions. However,
Mehta has greater surprise for us, because hfe discovers two
more Bharadvajas in the Sarira-sthana chapter On his conver­
sion. As he puts it, “ In the latter part of Sarira-sthana,
chapter 3, a Bharadvaja asks the teacher Atreya a number of
questions. This Bharadvaja seems to be merely a student who
goes on asking questions, and evidently a different person from
the learned Bharadvaja of the earlier part of the chapter, who
has authoritative views of his own.” *'^^
Here is at least the semblance of some ground for dis­
tinguishing between two Bharadvajas in the same chapter. In
the earlier part of the chapter Bharadvaja expresses authori­
tative views of his own and hence is to be considered a learned
person. In the latter part of the chapter Bharadvaja only asks
questions and hence is to be considered a mere student of
Atreya.
But the diflBculty about all this is that these have absolutely
nothing to do with what we really read in the text. The entire
chapter maintains a perfect continuity of the position attributed

Indological Truths
to Bharadvaja and the mnemonical verse at its end leaves no
scope whatsoever to imagine any distinction between a learned
Bharadvaja and a student Bharadvaja. It simply tells us that
the chapter embodies the view of Atreya, the view of Bharadvaja
and the refutation of the latter. Besides, the assumption that
in the latter half of the chapter Bharadvaja only asks questions
to Atreya in the manner of a mere student is based at best
on a simple misunderstanding. The fact on the contrary is
that the strongest expressions used by Bharadvaja in rejection
of the view attributed to Atreya are to be found in his conclu­
ding words, where he says that all this is mere verbose nonsense.
This is surely not raising any question in the manner of a
mere student. Even the questions and further questions that
Bharadvaja is made to raise in the course of the debate are not
to be misunderstood. These represent nothing but a recognised
mode of polemizing intended to show the absurdity of the
opponent’s thesis. The C araka-sam hita itself is fully aware of
it. In the course of the discussion on the technique of debate,
this mode of polemizing is referred to as anuyoga and p ra ty -
a m yo g a , meaning “ question” and ‘questioning the question.’’''^
All this is so palpable that the ground on which Mehta
distinguishes between two Bharadvajas in chapter 3 of Sarira-
sthana hardly deserves any serious discussion. However, if this
be so where at least some semblance of evidence is mentioned
for the distinction, what is the value of making a distinction
where no ground at all is mentioned for it ? This is so when
Mehta says that the name Bharadvaja in chapter 1 and chapter
25 of the Sutra-sthana must be taken as referring to two
different persons.
Yet it is not difficult to guess what annoys the modern scho­
lar about the possible identity of the two^ In the later ideologi­
cal climate of the country—shared consciously or unconsciously
by most of the modern scholars—the view of svabhava is
considered starkly heretical. How can an ancient authority
as venerable as Bharadvaja represent it ? But the answer to
this question seems to be quite simple. Bharadvaja is a

Indological Truths
physician while the understanding of svabhava as a heresy is
characteristic of the metaphysician interested in the soul and its
salvation. The original theoretical basis of Indian medicine
is as much heretical from the standpoint of this metaphysics
as are its practical prescriptions on foods and drinks from the
standpoint of piety preached by our law-givers. When, in open
violation of the norm of the ancient physicians, a pronounced
bias for this metaphysics is added to the text, the need is felt
to make a show of the metaphysician refuting the theoretical
position of the ancient physician. In view of Bharadvaja’s
stature as an authority on medicine, a special chapter had to
be grafted into the text describing Atreya as trying his best to
convert Bharadvaja.

14, SUMMING UP

The Caraka-sam hita is nothing if not a work on medicine.

Medicine as understood by it, depends on four factors : doctor,
substance, nurse and patient. Propositions discussing these
and these alone belong to the medical context. According to
the rules formulated by some ancient doctors, ideas and atti­
tudes belonging to other contexts—specially to the contexts of
ritual (karma-kanda) and liberation (jnona-A:onrfa )—if allowed
in medical discussion, results in the fallacy of contradiction.
But the only form in which the medical compilation reaches
us is'*‘ full of alien propositions like these. These are, therefore,
to be viewed as extrinsic to medicine, loosely inserted into the
medical work.
When we scrap these and concentrate on the hard core of
medicine contained in it, we cannot but he amazed by the
science-consciousness of the ancient doctors judged in its his­
torical context, for there are grounds to think that the funda­
mentals of their rational therapeutics are worked out some­
time before the Buddha, or, at any rate, sometime before the
codification of the Vinaya-pitaka.
But this science-consciousness goes strongly against the ideo­

Indological Truths
logical requirements of the hierarchical society. The custodians
of the counter-ideology, interested in drawing a mystical veil on
man and nature, sense danger practically in every aspect of
science-consciousness—its secularism, its enthusiasm for ra­
tional processing of empirical data, its materialism and its
democratic commitment. Hence they come out viciously against
medicine and its practitioners. There is continuous condemna­
tion of doctors and surgeons from Yajurveda to the later com­
mentaries on Manu-smr.ti.
When the demand for the ideological requirements of the
law-givers becomes specially oppressive, at least a section of the
scientists try to evade censorship by conceding to it, though at
the cost of self-consistency. The astronomer Brahmagupta does
this and the presumption is that the same is done by those
through whose hands the medical compilation passes before reach­
ing us. This seems to account for the quaint form eventually
assumed by the Caraka-samhita. To add apparent conviction
to its loyalty to the norm of orthodox piety, special chapters are
added to the text for loudly proclaiming the theory of soul and
its salvation. There is moreover some show of a posthumous
conversion of Bharadvaja—the earliest theoretician of medicine
our text is aware of—into a follower of the counter-ideology.
He is urged to renounce the heretical views he originally repre­
sents.
Fortunately, all this does not go to the fanatical extent of
destroying what is once achieved by the ancient doctors. These
survive under the heap of intellectual debris eventually dumped
on them.
What proves fatal for the creative development of Indian
medicine is the gradual erosion among the later doctors of the
sense of total incompatibility between science and counter-ideo­
logy in the source-books of Indian medicine. They attach a sheer
pragmatic value to the ancient drugs and decoctions and, practi­
cally oblivious of the marvellous science potentials or the
theoretical achievements of the ancient doctors, go on dogmati­
cally reiterating certain formulas about vayu, p itta and kapha,
as universal solvents of all pathogenic problems. The methodo­
logy of science once worked out is practically forgotten, and

Indological Truths
so also the zeal to develop a deeper insight into man and nature,
inspired by the conviction that this alone can relieve human
beings from avoidable sufferings or curable diseases. What is
perhaps worst is the make-believe among the later doctors
that the ransoms offered tq the counter-ideology for protecting
science belong as it were to science itself, so that there is no
difficulty in accepting Ayurveda along with the entire gamut of
the theory of soul, karm a, rebirth, salvation, not to speak of
the sundry suprestitions required by the law-givers. This is
about the most serious internal cause accounting for the deca­
dence and eventual collapse of Indian medicine.
But the basic theoretical positions developed by the ancient
doctors are not entirely lost to Indian culture. These survive
in the general fund of Indian philosophy as the original nucleus
of the Nyaya-Vailesika philosophy. But that is a different
story and we propose to discuss it separately.

■j'!: ;i /:■: T , D-j.' ,o ; v ''' c■I'C I

*ii,! ,!:■ Ssi

Indological Truths
 Bibliography^
&
Abbreviations

Ait. Br.—Aitareya Brahriiana.

Ait. Up.—Aitateya Upanisad.
Apastamba—Apastamba Dharma Sutra;
Astaiiga-samgraha KSS-ed, Varanasi 1945.
Av—Atharvaveda.
B.—Bhisagratna, KaviraJ Kunjalal.
Baiidopadhyaya, P.— Racanavali (Bengali). 2 vols.
Baudhayana—BaUdhayana Dharma Sutra.
Bernal, J.D.— Science in H istory. 4 vols. Penguin 1969.
Bhisagratna, K.— An English Translation o f the Susruta-sarnhitd
3 vols. Reprint Varanasi 1963.
Balwant Singh, T. & Chunekar, K. C.— G lossary o f Vegetable
Drugs in B rh attrayi, Varanasi 1972.
Bodding, ^.O .—Studies in Santhal M edicine & Connected
Folklore. Calcutta 1925.
Br. Su.—Brahma-sutra.
Br. Up.—Brhadaranyaka Upanisad.
Briffauit, R.— The M others. 3 vols. London 1952 ed,
Garaka-samhitL (ed P.M. Mehta). 6 vols. Jamnagar 1949.
Chattopadhyaya, D.—L okayata : A Study in Ancient Indian
M aterialisrn. New Delhi 1959.
— What is Living & What is D ead in Indian Philosophy.
New Delhi 1976.
—(ed) Taranatha's H istory o f Buddhism in India.
Simla 1970.
& Gangopadhyaya M.—N ya ya Philosophy. Vols. 1-2.
Calcutta 1967-8.
Childe, G.— What H appened in H istory. Penguin 1957.
CHSI—A Concise H istory o f Science in India, (ed. D.M. Bose
et al). New Delhi 1971
Ch. Up.—Chandogya Upanisad.

Indological Truths
Dasgupta, S. B.— Obscure Religious Cults as Background o f
Bengali Literature. Calcutta 1946.
Dasgupta, S. N .—H istory o f Indian Philosophy. Vols. 1-4.
Cambridge 1922-55.
Deussen, P — The S ystem o f Vedanta. Edinburgh 1906.
D utt, N .—E arly M onastic Buddhism. Calcutta 1960.
ERE—Encyclopaedia of Religion & Ethics, (ed. Hastings).
Engels, F.— Anti-Duhring. Moscow 1957 ed.
— D ialectics o f N ature. Moscow 1964 ed.
— Socialism : Utopian and Scientific. Moscow
1968 ed.
Farrington, B .— G reek Science. Penguin 1963 ed
— H ead and H and in Ancient Greece. London
1947.
— Science and P olitics in the Ancient World.
London 1946.
Filliozat, J .— The C lassical D octrine o f Indian M edicine.
Delhi 1964.
Gunaratna—Tarka-rahasya-dipika.
Gautama—Gautama Dharma Sutra.
HB—History of Bengal, (ed. R. C. Majumdar). Vol i, Dacca
1943.
Hiriyanna, y i —Outlines o f Indian Philosophy. Bombay 1973 ed.
IH R—Indian Historical Review. New Delhi 1974.
IMILL—Impact of Marxism on Indian Life & Literature.
(ed. H. M. Nayak). Mysore 1972.
Jayanta Bhatta—Nyaya-manjari. KSS-ed, Varanasi 1936.
Jones, W.H.S.—H ippocrates. 4 vols. (Loeb) London 1972 ed.
JRAS—Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.
Kane, P.V .— H istory o f D harm asdstra. Vols. 1-2. Poona
1930-41.
Katha Up.—Katha Upanisad
Kaus. Br.—Kausitaki Brahmana.
Kaus. Up.—Kausitaki Upanisad.
Keith, A.B .— A H istory o f Sanskrit Literature. Oxford 1928.
— The Veda o f the Black Yajus School. HOS
— Religion and Philosophy o f the Veda &
Upanisada. HOS.

Indological Truths
Kern, J .H .C —M anual o f Indian Buddhism. Strassburg 1896.
Keswani, N.H. {td )— The Science o f M edicine & Physiological
Conceptions in Ancient & M edieval India. New Delhi 1974.
Kosambi, D.D.— The Culture and Civilization o f Ancient India.
London 1964.
KSS—Kasi Sanskrit Series.
Lenin, V.I.— M aterialism and Em pirio-criticism . Moscow
1970 ed.
M—Mehta, P.M.
Macdonell, A.A.— Vedic M ythology. Strassburg 1897.
& Keith, A.B.— Vedic Index. 2 vols. London 1912.
Madhava—Sarva-darSana-samgraha. Anandasrama ed. 1928.
Mait. Sara.—M aitrayani Sarnhita.
Mait. Up.—Maitrayani Upanisad.
M and. Up.—Mandukya Upanisad.
Manu—Manu-smrti.
Mbh.—Mahabharata. Gita Press ed.
Mehta, P.M. (ed)—Caraka-sainhita. 6 vols. With English Tr.
Jamnagar 1949.
Milinda—Milindapanha.
Monier-Williams, M.—Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Oxford 1899.
Muir, L — O riginal Sanskrit Texts. L ondon IS73.
Mukhopadhyaya, G.— H istory of Indian M edicine. 3 vols.
Calcutta 1922-29.
Mund. U p.—M undaka Upanisad.
Phanibhusana Tarkavagisa—N yaya-darsana. 5 vols. (Bengali).
Calcutta 1324-36 (Bengali yr.)
Needham, J.—Science and Civilization in China. Vol. ii.
Cambridge 1965.
Nehru, J.—D iscovery o f India. Calcutta 1956 ed.
NNMRP—Nava Nalanda Mahavihara Research Publications.
Nalanda 1957—
Pra§. Up.—PraSna Upanisad.
Ray, P. & Gupta, H. N.— Caraka-sam hita : A Scientific
Synopsis. New Delhi 1965.
Rv—Rgveda.
Sachau, E.C.—Al-BerunVs India. New Delhi 1964 ed.
Sarva-mata-samgraha.—Edited Ganapati Sastri.

Indological Truths
Sat. Br.—Satapatha Brahmana. Tr. J. EggeUiig. SBE vols. xiJ;
xxvi, xli, xliii, xliv.
SBE— Sacred Books of the East. (ed. Max Muller).
SBS—Saraswati Bhawan Series, (ed G. Kaviraj).
Schweglar, A .—A H andbook o f the H istory o f Philosophy.
London 1847.
Sengupta, Devendranatha & Upendranatha —Bengali Translation
o f the Susruta-sarnhita. Calcutta 1331 (Bengali yr.).
Sharma Priyabrata—Ayurved-ka-vaijnanik-itihSs (Hindi).
Varanasi 1975,
Sharma, R. S.— A spects o f P o litica l Ideas & Institutions in
Ancient India. New Delhi 1939.
Sircar, D.C .— Cosmography & Geography in E arly Ihdian L ite­
rature. Calcutta 1967.
Sigerist, H.E .— A H istory o f M edicine. 2 Vols. Yale 1951-61.
SSSA—Science, Society & Scientific Attitude. Bangalore 1976.
Stcherbatsky Th .— Conception o f Buddhist Nirvana. Reprint
Varanasi.
Susruta-sarnhita KSS, Varanasi 1973 ed.
Svet. Up.—SvetaSvatara Upanisad.
Taitt. Sam.—Taittiriya Samhita.
Taitt. U p.—Taittiriya Upanisad.
Takakusu, J .— A R ecord o f Buddhist Religion as P ractised in
India E tc. London 1966.
Thapar, R .—A H istory o f India Vol. i. Penguin 1966.
Thomsoii, G .— Studies in Ancient G reek Society. Vol. i.
London 1949.
VaSistha—Va§istha Dharma Sutra.
Venkata Ramanan, K.— N agarjuna’s Philosophy. Harvard 1966.
Vidyabhusana, S.C .— H istory o f Indian Logic. Calcutta 1921.
Visnu—Visnu Dharma Sutra.
Winternitz—^ H istory o f Indian Literature. Vols. 1-2, Calcutta
1927-33. Vol.3, Pt.l, Delhi 1967.
Yajnavalkya—Yajiiavalkya-smrti.

Indological Truths
 INDEX

Abastanoi, 217 anatomy, 8, 23, 119, 262,

Abhaya, 339 274-6, 303, 306
Abhidharma literature, 353 Andhrakas, 31
“ accidentalism” , 177-8, Angirasa, 247, 302
187,412 an ityata, 127
Adhvaryu, 37-8 anumdna, 89, 205, 207
Adityas, 254 AnusaSana parva, 215-6,
a d r j t a , \ 5 5 . 111, 179, 249
186-8, 191, 195, 318 Ap, 239
Advaita Vedanta, 12 Apastamba, 5, 97-8, 213-5,
Advaita Vedantists, 202 218, 224, 235,311,392
Agni, 233, 239, 254, 256, Spta-upadesa, 89
275, 398 Archimedes, 285
Agnive^a, 26-31, 33, 323, Aristotle, 285
372, 400, 416, 418 The A rt, 188-9, 192, 195-6,
AgniveSa-tantra, 322 200, 267-8
A itareya Brahtnana, Aryabhata, 359
228-9,259, 270-2,277 Aryans, 216-7, 222, 225
Ajivakas, 261 Asclepiades, 103
Akasagotta, 336 Asikni, 237
al-Biriini, 43-4, 355-6, Astahga-sam graha, 19, 44
358-60 astronomy, 4, 355, 364
alavu, 96 A§vapati Kaikeya, 291-2,
alchemy, 39 301
alcohol, 16-7, 392-5 ASving, 6, 25, 39, 233,
alkalies, 23 238-42, 245-50, 252-5,
am alaka, 86, 168 257-60, 398, 416
Ambapali, 339 Atharvans, 235, 302, 310
Ambapalika, 339 Atharvaveda, 6, 29, 41,
Ambastha, 83, 217-8, 396 226, 287, 290, 302,
am rja-phala, 86 306, 307-9, 312-4, 318,
Ananda, 325, 335-6, 351 320, 322, 364

Indological Truths
atm an, 51 57, bhum i-pariksa, 92
Atreya, 25-7, 29-31, 33, bhuta, 8, 41, 64, 128, 150
43, 66, 68, 156, 162, Bimbisara, 326-7, 339
323, 375, 381, 383, Bloomfield, M., 241,
385, 400-1,405-6,409- 246, 307, 309, 311
18, 420, 422-4 botany, 8, 62, 64
Atri, 256 Bower M anuscript, 19,
Auckland, L ord, 99 43, 340
Auls, 290 Brahma 25, 36, 39, 42,
A ya sa , 87 276, 354, 398, 408,
A yom ala, 88 416-7
Badi§a Dhamargava, 263, Brahma-siddhanta, 358,
417 360, 363
Bahispavamana, 243 Brahma-sutra, 298
Bahispavamana-sotra, brahmacarya, 16-7, 377,
244-5 392
Baudhayana, 217, 224, Brahmagupta, 355, 358-60
311 363-4, 425
Bauls, 290 Brahman, 38, 51, 82-3,
Belatthaslsa, 332 282, 359, 373-4, 380
Bendall, C., 261 Brahmana T exts, 5, 57,
Bengal, 290 185,'216, 222-3 225,
Bernal, J.D., 103 227-34, 238, 242, 246,
Bhadrakapya, 407 269-74,276-8, 287, 303
Bharadvaja, 25-6, 153-4, Brahmins, 15, 187, 213,
156, 188, 405-12, 414- 215, 217, 223, 229,
25 241, 243, 245-6, 251,
Bhargava, 247 261, 282, 289, 303-4,
Bhatta Utpala, 184 340, 357-8, 381-3,
Bhavamigra, 420-1, 396-7
Bhela, 43, 416, 420 B rhadaranyaka Vpanisad,
Bhela-samhita, 19 51, 277, 283, 302
bhesaja, 172, 307, 310 Brhaspati, 367
bhesajjaka, 328 BrhatsamhitB, 184, 356
bhiksu Atreya, 408, 417 B uddha,'6, 7, 75, 261,
Bhisina, 215-6 287,320, 324-7, 329-38
Bhrgus, 247, 254 340-2, 344, 347-9, 351,
Bhujyu, 240 353-4, 424

Indological Truths
Buddhaghosa, 342 Cnidian Sentences, 112
bu(Jdhi, 42, 71 Cnidos, 132
Buddhism, 40, 350, 353 Coan school, 268
Buddhist philosophy, 354 Cordier, 39
Buddhist religion, 41 Corpus H ippocraticum,
Buddhists, 14, 209, 286, 107, 113
323, 340, 350 Cyavana, 247, 249-50
Biihler, G., 214
Daihak, 43
Caitraratha, 66 Daityas, 356
Calcutta Medical College, Daksa, 383, 399
99 Dalhana, 39, 42, 44, 179
Candalas, 98, 187 Dasgupta, S.B., 58
Caraka, 30-1, 33, 141-2, Dasgupta, S.N., 141, 157,
209, 252-4, 257-8, 260- 167, 170, 173,
1, 320-2 179, 205, 209, 308
Carana-vaidya, 2 9 , 153, 322 Descrates, 363
Carvaka, 52, 71, 136, Deussen, P. 282
184-5, 312 Devadatta, 134, 345-7
Cauterization, 23, 52, 97 Dhamma, 346
Central Asia, 43, 408, 417 Dhanvantari, 38-9
Chabbaggiya Bhikkhus, dharm a-sastra, 5, 214,
333 310, 353
Chakrapani, 420 dharma-sutra, 213-4,
chandas, 4 222-4, 234, 270, 274
Chandogya Upanisad, dhatri, 86
187, 276, 280-2, 290- dhatu, 138, 207, 406-7
2, 305 dietics, 21
Charlatans, 204 Divodasa, 39
cheirourgia, 117 Dravidas, 31
chemistry, 8, 62, 64 dravya, 9, 72, 149, 150
Chenab, 217 152, 154, 168
Childe, Gordon, 111, 121 Drdhabala, 24, 26-7,
China, 289, 321 29-35, 38,203, 320, 322
Chunekar, K.C., 85 drugs, 15, 37, 43, 52, 115,
Cikitsd-sthana, 21-3, 319, 140, 155, 174, 176, 193,
388 205-6, 274, 316, 348,
climatology, 8, 62, 64 368, 371, 395

Indological Truths
D ya va p rth m , 239 gotra, 25, 306, 417
Greek medicine, 35, 54-5,
Egypt. 229 100-1, 106, 124
Emblica officinalis, 86 Greek philosophy, 284
Empedocles, 112 guda, 116
enema, 21 guna, 149-50, 152, 154,
Epidem ics, 104-5, 124 168
epistemology, 203, 205, Gunaratna, 176, 178
207, 209 Gupta, H.N., 86-7
ervaruka, 96 Gupta, Madhusudan, 99
ethics, 21
etymology, 4 Haradatta, 98, 217-8
Euclid, 285 Hare, David, 99
Haribhadra, 176, 185
f a d e s hippocratice, 102 H arita, 416 '
Farrington, B., 110, 117-9 H arita sam hita, 19
285-6 hemothermia, 90, 399
Filliozat, J., 10, 20, 24, 26, H eraclitus, 129
35, 39, 43, 56, 251-2, herbal lore, 9
254-5, 257-9, 261-2, herbal pharm acy, 86
265-7, 269, 321-2, 417 herbs, 83, 113-6, 235, 333,
Fort William, 100 349
Freudian psychology, 16 Herodotus, 110
H im ^aya, 24, 302, 398,
Galileo, 359, 363 416, 420
Gandhara, 341 Hindus, 308
Ganga, 398 Hippocrates, 54, 132
Ganges, 359 Hippocratic collection,
garbha 413 55, 120, 132, 188
Garga, 359 Hippocratic corpus, 20,
Gautama, 5, 97-8, 213, 102, 106-8, 112, 117,
217, 224, 235, 246, 123-4, 128, 131, 263-
290, 292 303-4, 311, 4, 267, 284
386, 392 Hippocratic doctors, 100,
Ghosa, 240 105
g h rja , 116 Hippocratic medicine,
Goodeve, D r., 100 105, 114
Gopinath Kaviraj, 185 Hippocratic regimen, 106

Indological Truths
Hippocratic school, 132 jurisprudence, 223
H ippocratic tra cts, 125,
129-30, 192, 195, 200 kalpa, 4
Hippocratic treatment, Kalpa-sthana, 21, 23, 31
103, 106 Kalpa-sutra, 223-5
H iranyakesin, 224 Kane, P.V., 213-4, 217-
Hiranyaksa, 406 8, 222-3, 386, 392
Hiriyanna, M., 82, 136, Kaniska, 321-2
185 Kankayana, 263, 408, 417
Hoernle, 39, 43 Kanva, 256
homa, 42 Kapalikas, 290
Hotr, 38 kapha, 78-9, 144, 157-8,
Houdart, M.S., 104 164-6, 175, 198, 384-5,
Huta^aveSa, 28 425
Kapila, 302
I-Tsing, 7 Kapilabala, 31, 157
Indra, 24, 39, 231, 233, K apisthala-katha-sam hita
239, 249-50, 254-6, 245, 252-3
272, 398, 417 kapittha, 168
Indriya-sthana, 21 Kapya, 417
inference, 89, 91, 205 karm a, 11, 12, 149-52,
instruction, 89, 91 154, 159, 177, 179,
Ionic dialect, 132 186-9, 191-2, 194, 199,
Isocrates, 229 318, 326, 343, 351-5,
375-6, 400-5, 407-8,
Jaina, 209 411, 414, 418-9, 426
Janaka, 277 karnasandhi, 96
ja tism a ra , 414 Kashmir, 31
Jatukarna, 416 Ka^i, 39, 409
Jayanta Bhatta, 133-4, Kasyapa-sarnhita, 19
Jejjata, 179 K atha Upanisad, 201
Jhelum, 31 Kathaka-sarnhita, 245,
Jivaka Komarabhacca, 259
326-8, 335, 339-41 Katyayana, 310
jiva tm a , 411 K ausik-sutra, 308-9
Jones, W.H.S., 54, 104-6, Keith, A.B., 32, 242, 274-
129-32, 189, 267, 184 5, 302
jo y tis a , 4 Kern, H., 342

Indological Truths
Keswani, N.H., 26, 35-6 Madras, 260
K itab-al-Fihrist, 44 Magada, 217, 326-7, 340
Kosambi, D.D., 10 magical charmas, 6
Koutcha, 43 M ahabharata, 184, 214-5,
K rsn a A tre y a , 27 217, 249-50
K rsna-Yajurveda, 224, 227 M aha-parinibbana-sutta,
Ksarapani, 416 345
Ksatriya, 187, 217, 228- Mahavagga, 324, 336, 338,
30, 270, 279, 340, 340-1
396 Mahayana, 40, 342
Kuhn, Adalbert, 307 M aitrayani-sam hita, 245-
KullSka Bhatta, 5, 218, 6, 252-3, 259, 310
220-1 Maitreya, 192-4
KumaraSira Bharadvaja, M a itn Upanisad, 276, 287,
263, 416, 419, 422 290
Kuru-Panchala, 302, 305 Majumdar, R.C., 11-2, 14
Kuruksetra, 248 mala, 157-8
kusa, 95 m am sa-kara, 15
Ku§a Sankrtyayana, 263 M an and M edicin e,100
KuSika, 417 manah, 42
Kutsa, 57 M anava, 247-8
M anava-dharm asastra,
L alitavistara, 342 214
Latyayana, 310 Mandakini lake, 336
Levi, Sylvain, 321 M andura, 88
Littre, 54 Manu, 5, 123, 214-8, 221,
Lokayata, 3, 52, 71, 184-5 235, 246, 256, 311,
Lokay ata- mantradharakas, 359, 383, 386, 392
260 M anu-samhita, 214
Lokayatikas, 260 Manu sm rti, 221, 425
m ar ana, 127
Macdonell, A. A., 239, Marici, 265, 365, 417
274, 302 Maruts, 237, 239, 254
Mada, 250 materialism, 75, 174, 184-
Madhavacarya, 176-7, 185 6, 408
madhu, 116, 254 materialists, 136, 177
Madhyamaka philosophy, M atsyapurana, 386
40 maya, 12, 281

Indological Truths
Medhatithi, 220-1 nirodha, 127
medical lore, 149 nirukta, 4
medical quacks, 203 nirvana, 347-9
Mehta, P. M ., 32, 273, nityaga, 128
420-3 Nutriment, 128-31
Mespero, H., 321 nutrition, 130-1, 133
metaphysicians, 74, 202, Nyaya philosophy, 13, 421
402 N yaya-sutra, 208-9
metaphysics, 21, 27,111, N yaya-V aisesika, 11-2,
269, 281-2, 286, 306, 133, 135-6, 421, 426
324, 364, 378, 400, N yaya-vartika, 421
415, 418, 420
M iliandapanha, 14, 342-3, Oldenberg, H-, 328, 33
345, 305 On Breaths, 267-9
minerology, 8, 62, 64 On Crises, 106
M itra, 42, 236, 239, 256 On C ritical D ays, 106
Mitra, Peary Chand, 99 On D iet in Acute D iseases,
Moggallana, 336 105
Mukhopadhyaya, G., 27 On Drugs, 113
M undaka Vpanisad, 83 On P eriods o f Seven D ays,
mysticism, 5, 172 107
mythology, 240, 254, 262, On the Eight-M onth
264, 269, 364, 398-9 Em bryo, 107
On the Seven-Month
Em bryo, 107
nadl, 121 osadhi, 235
Naga, 336
Nagarjuna, 39-44 p a k a , 168
Nagasena, 14, 342-8, 351, palaeography, 44
354 panca-bhuta, 8, 12, 50,
Narada, 282 53, 66, 117, 156, 173
Nasatyas, 233 Paiicalas, 292
natural science, 4 Paiicanada, 31
Nature o f M an, 54-5 Pandava, 217
Needham, J., 212 Parasara, 416
nidana, 399 Parivrajakas, 260
Nidana-sthana, 20, 23, 41 PataiijLili, 302
Nirgranthas, 260 pathology, 262, 268, 342

Indological Truths
pathya, 172 Pythagoreans, 107
perception, 89, 91, 205
Phaedrus, 54 Rajagra, 339, 351
Phanibhusaiia Tarka- Ramanuja, 294, 298-300
vagiga, 134, 179 Ramayana, 386
pharmacologists, 9 rasa, 53-4, 72,161-3, 166-7,
pharmacology, 9 169-71, 173, 266, 410-1
pharmacopoeia, 21 rasayana, 20, 43
pharm acopolai, 114 Ray, P., 86-7
physical exercise, 145, 148 Rebha, 240
physics, 8, 62, 64 Regimen in Acute D iseases
physiology, 8, 62, 130-2, 105-6, 112-3, 124
262, 268, 303 Rgyeda, 5, 57, 226-7,
Pilindavaccha, 332-3 230, 232-41, 244, 251,
Pippali, 116, 168 253-5, 257, 259, 278,
p itta , 78-9, 144, 157-8, 293, 309-10, 312-3
163-5, 175,198, 384, 425 rhizotom oi, 114
Plato, 54-5, 229, 283, 284-5 Rhys Davids, T.W., 261,
Polybius, 229-30 328, 333, 345
Poussin, Vallee, 353 Risley, H.H., 218
Prajapati, 25, 39, 42, 272, ritualism, 5
408, 416 Rome, 230
pram eha, 93 Rudra, 236; 239, 254
prana, 80, 128
pratisam skarta, 24 Sabastanoi, 217
p ra tya k sa , 89, 205 The S acred D isease, 124
Pravahana Jaibah', 292 Sad-darsana-samuccaya,
Predictions, 101 176
pregnancy, 206 Saddharma-pundarika, 260
Prognostic, 102 Sahajias, 58, 290
Prsadhra, 383 Sakyaputtiya Samanas, 327
purcna, 25, 359, 417 salaka, 121
purgation, 21 Salavati, 339
purusa, 51, 53-4, 57, 60, salm ali, 96
401, 406-8 sa lya k rjita , 218
Purusa-sukta, 226 salya-tantra, 23
Purusottama, 185 samanya, 25, 140-2, 150,
puspaphala, 96 152,154, 421

Indological Truths
sam avaya, 150-2,154, 421 Sirnhika, 356
Sam aveda, 226, 310, 312-3 Sindhu, 31, 237
Samkara, 31, 33, 202, 294, Singh, Thakur Balwant, 85
298-300 Siva. 31,33, 398-9
Scm khya, 11-2, 14, 74, slavery, 122-3
294, 298, 401 sm rti, 5, 214
Samkhya-yoga, 302 Socrates, 109, 360
Sam yukta-ratna-pitaka Soma, 231, 233, 236-7,
-sutra, 321 239, 242-3, 245, 249-
Sanaikumara, 280, 282 50, 254-5
sandam sa, 121 Somanath, 43
Sanskrit College, 99 Sophists, 268
Santi-parva, 214-5 Sraiita-sGtras, 310
Saraloma, 417 Sriharsa, 202
Sariputta, 336 Srishena, 359
Sarira-sthana, 20, 23, 156, Sudadohas, 275
400-1, 405-6, 410, m r a , 213, 215-6, 229,
413, 415-6,418, 422 271, 288-9
Sarva-darsana samgraha, Sukanya, 247
176 Sukla-yajurveda, 111
Sarva-mata-samgraha, 312 Sulva-sutras, 224
Saryata, 247-8 Sunahgepa, 259
^astra, 121 Sunyavada, 40
Satapatha Brahm am , supernaturlism, 172,185-8
229-30,247, 251, 258- Suppiya, 337
60,272,275,291, 303, surgeons, 5, 36, 94-5, 100,
305-6, 310 118, 120-3, 213, 221,
Saunaka, 303, 305-7, 407, 227, 235,276, 347, 355,
417 360
Sayana, 232-3, 236, 240, surgery, 23, 96-7, 117,
309 119-20
sexual behaviour, 17 Surya, 254
Sarma, Priyavrata, 32 SuSruta, 39, 43
Sharraa, R.S., 213-4 Sutas, 216
Siddhi-sthana, 21, 31 Su tra-krjahga, 260
Sigerist, H.E., 100-2, 105, Sutra-sthana, 20, 27, 315,
113, 132 383, 406, 419, 422-3
S ik sa , 4 svabhava, 8, 17, 26, 64,

Indological Truths
svabhava, 127, 155-6, 175-9 283-4, 287-90, 292-3,
184-8, 405, 408-9, 412, 300, 302, 306, 324
418-9, 421-4 urinary disease?, 21
svastika, 121 Uganas, 218, 367
Svetaketu, 292-3, 296-7 Usas, 254, 256
syringes, 96 Uttara-tantra, 23, 39

Taittiriya-sam hita, 242-5, Vagbhata, 20, 31-2, 44,

247, 251-3, 257, 259, 157, 420-1
261, 309 Vabnive^a, 28
TakakusuJ., 321 Vaidehaka, 217
Takkasila, 339-41 Vaidyas of Bengal, 218
ta la , 121 Vaisali, 339
tantra, 23 VaiSesika, 25, 141-2, 150
Tantras, 58-9 V aisesika-sutras, 141
Tantrika, 59, 60, 290 VaiSya, 187, 217, 229-30,
Tanirism, 58, 60, 99 271, 396
Taoists, 289 Vajasaneya school, 258
Tathagata, 345, 347-9, Vajasaneyi-samhitd, 301
351, 353 vSjlkarana, 16, 20
Temple of Health, 132 Vamaka, 409
Teutons, 308 Vandana, 240
theology, 264 Varahamihira, 32, 355-9
therapeutic power, 8 varna, 222
therapetics, 21-2 varna-samkara, 217
Tibet, 7 varnasrama, 7, 117,
toxicology, 23 123-4
Tripitaka, 324 Varuna, 57, 231, 236, 239
Tsa pao tsang king, 321 254, 256
Tugra, 240 Varuni wine, 144
Varyovida, 263-6, 269,
Udayana, 133-4 ; 365, 392
Uddalaka Aruni, 290-307 Vagistha, 213, 215, 224
Uddyotakara, 421 Vasus, 254
Udgatr, 38 vata, 144
Upanisads, 13, 51, 57, vayu, 78-9, 157-8, 163-5,
59, 82 , 94, 185, 202, 175, 198, 255, 262-3,
260, 263, 270, 276-7, 266, 384, 425

Indological Truths
vedahga, 4 Visnucandra, 359
Vedanga-kalpa, 223 Vi^vadevas, 239
Vedanta, 11-2, 14, 74, Vrtra, 233
276,306, 378, 401, 405, vya vama-agni, 148
413-5
Vedas, 4, 6, 36, 220, 225, Weber, A., 257
235,269,273,289,297, Winternits, M., 224
309, 313, 359, 365, 377
Vesalius, 118 Xenophon, 109
Vidanga, 116
Videha, 277 Yajfiavalkya, 273, 277,
vi/va, 96 279, 281, 283, 305,
Vimana-sthana 20 392
vimbi, 96 Yajurveda, 5, 6, 18, 57,
V inaya-pitaka, 261, 286, 224-8, 232-4, 241-2,
323-4,’ 328, 330, 332, 244, 250, 252-3, 255,
334-5, 338, 351, 354. 257, 260, 269-70, 111,
424 283, 287, 309-10, 312-
vipaka, 72, 167-71, 173 3, 425
vlrya, 72, 167-8, 170-1, 173 Yajusmati, 275
visesa, 25, 140-2, 150, yo g a , 373, 379-80
152-4, 421 yukti, 9, 10, 17,207, 390-1
Visnu. 42, 214-6, 246, .254,
311, 356i 386, 392, 398 zoological classiflcalion, 15
Visnu dharm a-sutra, 214 zoology, 8, 62, 64

Indological Truths