Cakrapāṇidatta’s Comments on Theory and Practice Based on Cakrapāṇidatta’s Āyurvedadīpikā

176

Cakrapāṇidatta’s Comments on Theory and Practice Based on Cakrapāṇidatta’s Āyurvedadīpikā¹

Dr.Manoj Sankaranarayana MD(Ayur)²

Introduction

The notion of health and healing is an integral feature of all civilizations. The professional medicine in Indian history shows four different lines of development³. However, they have an independent existence and function in the field of healing, each one of them shares much in common in their ontology, epistemology, and materia medica.

Āyurveda shows two distinct developments, one represented by the surgical school or śalyacikitsā and the other by the school of kāyacikitsā or internal medicine. The former is the Dhanvantari saṃprādhāya and later is one affiliated to the name of Ātreya. The rasaśāstra, though incorporated to the main fold of Āyurveda in the later period has its own unique philosophy. This school derives its strength from the Sanskrit and non-Sanskrit traditions of India. The fourth one the Siddha system, is the healing art developed from the Tamil culture.

Caraka saṃhitā is the magnum opus of kāyacikitsā, which gives particular importance to the fundamental principles. Fundamental principles of Ayurveda in fact are oriented on the basis of darsanic concepts which are the outcome of institutional thoughts regarding the ‘ur ground’ of this world, worlds of our experience, man and their relationship. This theoretical outlook of Caraka saṃhitā is highly rationale, more comprehensive and holistic in its outlook to this universe when compared with modern reductionist schools. Dr.Ernst Prets had beautifully penned down the relevance of Carakasaṃhitā beyond the limits of healing:

‘……represents one of the richest sources for the history of Indian philosophy, epistemology, dialectics, logic, early Indian education, cultural and social history, as well as cultural anthropology’⁴.

Caraka as an author was first recognized by Ḍṛḍabala⁵, who acknowledges his role as pratisaṃskarta or redactor of Agniveśatantra⁶. Both works ascribed to Vāgbhaṭa also accepts Caraka as an infallible authority of Āyurveda⁷. Jayanta Bhaṭṭa, the author of Nyāyamañjari, places him to the status of āpta⁸. The Islamic and the Tibetan world also acknowledged the authoritativeness of this saṃhitā⁹. The text was translated by an Indian physician namely Maṅkha or Māṇikya, who came to Baghdad under the instruction of caliph Hārūn al-Raṣḥīd. Arabic works like Alī-ibn-Sahl al-Ṭabari’s Firdaws al-ḥikma; Firhrist al-‘ulūm of Ibn al-Nadīm refers to Caraka, and it is believed that the work Ma ‘din al ḥifā was inspired by Caraka¹⁰. In the Tibetan tradition Caraka is preserved by the name G-yo-ba-can¹¹.

The global interest towards Carakasaṃhitā dates back to time of R.Roth, legendary compiler of St.Peterberg’s dictionary and H.H.Wilson who had studied the historical aspects of Caraka. Later P.Cordier and Ann Glazier worked on the stemmatological aspects of the text. Shankara Shastri Pade from Mumbai edited and published the Carakasaṃhitā for the first time in 1867. This was followed by the Gangadhara Kaviraj¹²; AnantaKunte;¹³ Jivananda Vidyasagara Bhattacaryya¹⁴; Dhormodas sengupta¹⁵; Avinasha candra Kaviratna Kaviraja¹⁶; Harinatha Visharada¹⁷; Yashodnandan Sarkar¹⁸; Shankar Daji Shastri¹⁹; Devendranath SenGupta and Upendranath Sengupta²⁰; Mihiracandra²¹; Krishnalal²²; Dattarama Narayana Caube²³; Kalicharan Sharma and Kshamapati Sharma²⁴; Satischandra Sharma²⁵; Vrajavallabha Shastri²⁶; Rajavaidya K.S.Shastri²⁷; Jethalal Devashankar Dave²⁸; Yogindranathsen²⁹; Vaman Kesheo Datar³⁰; Yadavji Tricumji Acarya³¹; Sadanada Shastri³²; Krishnamurti Shastri³³; Narendranath Sengupta and Kaviraj Shree Balaichandra Sengupta³⁴; Narendranath Shastri³⁵, Ramaprasada Sharma and Shivasharma³⁶; S.K.Sarasvathi³⁷; and Haridatta Shastri³⁸ in publishing this historic work. These editions are far from a critical edition. Carakasaṃhitā and Cakrapāṇidatta’s commentary edited by Ācārya Yādavji Trikamji is deemed as standard edition in the Indian academic circles from its second edition in 1941. This had become a convention for standard editions to print the commentary alone with the principal text of Carakasaṃhitā. Though some sections of the commentaries of Jejjaṭa and Śivadāsasena printed in the early days of twentieth century, Āyurvedadīpikāā, complete commentary written by Cakrapāṇīdatta (11^th century), is still relied for understanding the classical treatise. P. Cordier based on variants found in the Cakrapāṇidatta’s commentary, suggested that text of Carakasaṃhitā has considerable variations. Ann Glazier, demonstrated the allegiance toward Kāśmīra recension based on the above observation of P. Cordier³⁹. ‘Scribes & Scholars’ written by L. D. Reynolds and N. G. Wilson had very beautifully described the impact of printed works especially the pioneering one in the respective fields on the successive generations.

"[T]he early printers, by the act of putting a text into print, tended to give that form of the text an authority and a permanence which in fact it rarely deserved. The editio princeps of a classical author was usually little more than a transcript of whatever humanist manuscript the printer chose to use as his copy.... The repetition of this text... soon led to the establishment of a vulgate text... and conservatism made it difficult to discard in favour of a radically new text⁴⁰."

An introspection of our current academic attitude towards the printed versions of our classics and their commentaries will prove this observation to be very relevant for Āyurveda. Though more than one editions of Carakasaṃhitā are available but in a normal course it is highly difficult for an ordinary student of Āyurveda to think beyond the edition of Tricumji Yadavji. Cakradīpikodyota, the literary survey of Āyurvedadīpikā commentary, which recommends corrections in the text of commentary by comparing it with the editions of Yadavji.⁴¹ This clearly demonstrates that the fact the current scholars are not soon keen enough to resolve the intricate nature of this treatise. A part from Āyurvedadīpikā, the problem of textual variations addressed very profusely Nibandhasaṃgraha, Madhukośa, and Ratnaprabha. These points to the fact that getting a critically edited text (śuddhapāṭha) was not an easy task for many generations of scholars. While commenting the treatise Ḍalhaṇa identifies many layers of the texts. Today it is very difficult for many think beyond the printed versions of our classical treatises.

Dr. Ernst Prets places the Caraka text of Yadavji’s edition in the eastern recension, which follows the tradition of Kaviraja Gangadhara. Yadavji’s edition itself reports several variants for the text and Āyurvedadīpikā commentary. This demands a much closer analysis of these works at their primary textual level. This is a Himālayan task and is further worsened by considering the observation of Dr. Ernst Prets’s study on manuscripts on Caraka saṃhitā and Āyurvedadīpikā, which reports that the manuscripts currently available for Āyurvedadīpikā is not satisfactory to resolve the shortcomings of the present editions⁴².

The whole of the literature in Indian tradition falls into five groups. They are dṛṣṭa, kṛta, prokta, upajñāta, and vyākhyāna. The ḍṛṣṭa group refers to Veda. kṛṭa: are those works in which the authors had not used any prior references. In prokta, the author only edits and presents the already existing textual tradition i.e. he functions as a redactor or pratisamskartā. In the case of the upajñāta group, the author presents the subject that has been already explained in the proktagranthas in a novel way taking in to account of the contemporary requirements; and vyākhyāna, is the exegesis written on the above groups⁴³. Nāgārjuna clearly suggests that higher knowledge should not be limited to vigraha but also vyākhyāna or explanation⁴⁴. Thus, exegetical literature played a significant role in building the intellectual tradition of this country.

Prof. Karin Preisendanz, who is currently working on the critical edition of Carakasaṃhitā, suggests that the critically edited text by Yadavji and the commentary of Cakrapāṇidatta appended differ in their readings of principal text. Since the textual tradition of Āyurveda available to us is non continuous in nature, it will be highly advantageous if one gets a thorough look into Āyurvedadīpikā.

The goal of a critical analysis (as with any other analysis) is to broaden and deepen our understanding of a work of literature. A literary critical analysis explains a work by means of interpretations i.e. it is developed by an in-depth examination of a text. The analysis of the commentary is to trace the methodology (historical, canonical, symbolic, and rational etc) involved in its composition.

The study will reveal the specific patterns of Āyurvedadīpikā, the philosophic orientation of Cakrapāṇidatta along with his mastery in Sanskrit literature. The theoretical and clinical competency of Cakrapāṇidatta with reference to Āyurvedadīpikā is attempted here. The positive plus negative aspects of Āyurvedadīpikā will be looking for further studies focusing on the fundamental principles of Āyurveda so as to unravel the history of textual traditions in Indian medicine, with special reference to history of commentarial literature.