Viruddha

The substances that will act as antagonistic to the dhātus are considered as viruddhāhāra.The antagonistic nature is manifested by the vitiation of the dhātus. The specific characteristics of substances determine their unwholesome nature. So inspite of apparent contradiction in madhura and amla rasas or uṣṇavīrya and śītavīrya, the combination of all drugs and diet possessing these qualities need not always be regarded as unwholesome. As distinct from unwholesome drugs and diets, the emetics and purgatives expel the vitiated doṣas out of the body after doṣas have been dislodged from their seats. Cakrapāṇidatta explains that even the unwholesome drug can be rendered harmless by combining with multiple drugs.²⁵³ Cakrapāṇidatta explains the method to shift to whole some diet, he also quotes the difference of opinion among the practitiners about the execution of this plan²⁵⁴.

Dravyaguṇa

Āyurvedadīpikā explains that the four types of yoni or source of birth namely jarāyuga, aṇḍaja, saṃsvedaja, and udbhija²⁵⁵. Cakrapāṇidatta classifies the dravyas broadly in two auṣadha dravyas, which are having a prepounderance of potency or vīrya and āhāradravyas, which are having a prepounderance of rasa.²⁵⁶ The drugs are further classified in to tīkṣṇavīryaṃ, madhyavīryaṃ, and mṛduvīryaṃ.²⁵⁷

Cakrapāṇidatta visualizes life in plants and establishes it with various illustrations and by quoting dharmaśāstric authorities²⁵⁸.

Of five mahābhūtas, jala and pṛthivi act as the substantial cause (ādhārakāraṇa) of rasa manifestation and the rest of mahābhūtas act as instrumental cause (nimittakāraṇa). The difference in proportion the nimittakāraṇa bhūtas determines the distinctiveness between classes of rasa. Cakrapāṇidatta refers to the school of thought who holds that the temporal factor also hold an important role in manifestation of rasa.²⁵⁹ Rasa is the one which is manifested first or at the end of the contact with the gustatory organof the substance to be tasted, either in the wet state or dry state. Any inferences other than these four states are reckoned as anurasa or taste of subsidiary nature.²⁶⁰ Other scholars interpret this concept in a quite different manner. Those drugs which are used in dry form and wet form, the rasa is the one that is present in the dry state and that is present in the wet state andwhich will not be carried to the dried state is called anurasa. For example in green and ripe form pippalī is madhura in rasa, while in dry state it is kaṭu in rasa.While in the case of drākṣa the rasa is madhura in its dry and wet states. There should not be any contradiction in this case and the rasa designated will be madhura. In the case of substances which are in liquid form always, the taste percieved first is regarded as rasa and subsequent perceptible taste is the anurasa. But Cakrapāṇidatta is not favouring this classification since there is no madhurarasa for pippali in wet state, even if it is argued that madhurarasa is present as an anurasa, then it is not possible for pippali to cause heaviness, aggravation of kapha etc.So it may be concluded that the perceptible taste of green and ripe pippali is madhura and that is its rasa, in dry state madhura is present as anurasa²⁶¹.

The narration regarding the role of mahabhūtas and the productions of individual rasas differ in treatises of Caraka and Suśruta. Āyurvedadīpikā says that these contradictions in the constitution of rasas are not reflected as contradictions in their properties so it can be ignored²⁶². Cakrapāṇidatta explicitly states his inability to establish the relationship between the properties of rasas and their constituent mahābhūtas. The combination of mahābhūtas are stimulated and guided by adṛṣṭa and one must infer the combination by observing the action of the dravya. Here one must follow the scriptural instructions rather than the following ones on logic²⁶³. The five mahābhūtas constitute the nimittakāraṇa or efficient cause for the manifestations of the specific types of rasa. It is therefore immaterial whether all the mahabhūtas in themselves possess rasa or not. Agni etc for example does not possess any rasa but they still acts as the nimmittakāraṇa for the manifestation of a rasa like amla²⁶⁴. The effect of ṛtus on bhūtas manifests in the form of seasonal dominance of rasas and so every day and night will be having a predominance of mahābhūtas in a sequential way. As a matter of fact the predominance of mahābhūtas is responsible for the seasonal variations of rasas and vice-versa.This interdependence may be compared to the inter dependence of the seed and the embryo²⁶⁵. Further one must never argue the relative laghutva and gurutva of rasas on the basis of mahabhūta combinations²⁶⁶.

Among the rasas, the first enumeration of madhurarasa in the list of rasas as it is generally liked by people. It is also to highlight its importance in keeping health and longevity.²⁶⁷ Cakrapāṇidatta explain that there are two types of combination among the rasas namely prakṛtyanuguṇa and prakṛtyananuguṇa. The former is resulted from pṛkṛtisamasamavāya and later is a product of vikṛtiviṣamasamavāya.²⁶⁸

The resultant property after the subjection of food to digestive process or agnivyāpāra is known as vipāka.²⁶⁹Some are of the view that each individual rasa subjected to paka resulting in corresponding vipāka. Some scholars are of the view that the relative strength of rasas is the determining factor of vipāka if there are more than one rasa, the strongest rasa predominates. Since here it is not possible to predict the vipāka, Suśruta has postulated a twofold classification of vipāka. In the case of drugs and diets which are dominant by jala and pṛthivi mahābhūtas, the resultant vipāka will be guru.In the other case the vipāka will be laghu, as the predominant mahābhūtas are agni, vāyu and ākāśā. The first two schools are rejected by Suśruta owing to their inherent lacunae. The two fallacies attached to them are one that there is no pāka occurring as such if we accept these views and as already mentioned they cannot predict the paka of diet and drugs. Cakrapāṇidatta justifies the stand taken by Suśruta.The fallacy attached to Suśruta’s classification is that his view fails to accommodate the amlapāka. If this amla vipāka is not accepted the cases of vṛīhi and kulattha which are madhura and kaṣāya respectively in rasa but whose vipāka is sour will remain unexplained and the statement regarding their action namely the pittaprakopaṇa or morbid excitation of pitta would not hold good. Even it is argued that the vrihi is conceded as uṣṇavīrya, this potency would be superceded by the madhurtva in its rasa as well as vipāka. More over the pitta excited by vrihi etc abounds in amla rasa. If one explain this experience only to the uṣṇavīrya of vrihi, it would have rather abounded in pungent taste which is not corroborated by actual experience.For the eructation after the intake of vrihi etc, is always of amlarasa.Besides this, in the view of Suśruta, madhura vipāka is caused by jala and pṛthivi and kaṭu vipāka by the rest of the mahabhūtas. In the case of combinations between these mahābhūtas, one cannot predict the resultant vipāka, since it cannot be either madhura or kaṭu. Then that is the case for the third vipāka which can be only be the amlavipāka. Other wise one must not pay much attention on the literal differences between the preceptors and see the underlying unity in the practice and principle. The amlavipāka of Caraka is explained as uṣṇavīrya by Suśruta.There is in fact no contradiction whatsoever about the properties of the various drugs and diet in either of the theories.Suśruta would have, however, done well not to point out any flaw in the amlavipāka theory enunciated by Caraka. Lavaṇa results in madhuravipāka and tikta and kaṣaya turns as kaṭu in vipāka.Then the query arises how lavaṇa can result in the morbid excitation of pitta and rakta.This morbid excitation is attributed to the hotness of the lavaṇarasa, which renders the madhuravipāka ineffective and causes the vitiation of rakta and pitta.But a similar explaination cannot be given in the case of tikta and kaṣaya. Some commentators explain the verse 26.58 in slightly different manner. Accordingly they connect the usage lavaṇastatha with amlaṃ and interpret it in such a manner that vipāka of lavaṇa is also amla. Hence the vipāka of lavaṇa instead of madhura will be amla. This can be used to explain the role of in vitiating the pitta and rakta.But the statements from other authorities like that of Jatūkarṇa clearly attributes madhura vipāka for lavaṇa rasa. Since the three fold divisions of vipākas are based on the nature of pañcamahābhūta and their combinations there of, so it cannot be questioned. One must differentiate the rasa and vipāka in those places where vipāka and rasa. The cases where the vipāka and rasa are identical the properties of drugs and diets are more effective.They are not so in the cases where there is variation between the original taste and vipāka. The vipāka is distinct from the avasthāpāka explained in grahaṇicikitsā.All drugs and diets having various tastes undergo the three avasthāpākas but vipāka varies from case to case.²⁷⁰

Cakrapāṇidatta says that in Āyurveda vīrya is that which bring in the therapeutic action other the rasa and vipāka.The eight fold classification of this vīrya is propounded by some scholars. This includes the guṇas mentioned for certains rasas. Their action is in contradiction which the rasas but infact they work in tandem with them.The qualities which have the potency overcome effect of rasa are only mentioned as vīrya. If one set aside this technical coinage, then vīrya means all factors that can perform actions.²⁷¹Again Cakrapāṇidatta classifies the vīrya (paribhaṣika) as natural and artificial.²⁷²The natural heaviness or lightness of māṣa and mudga respectively comes under the first group whereas the lightness of lāja falls under the second category. The rasa is infered from the time when it is contacted with the rasana or gustatory organ, vipāka is inferred from its action, and vīrya is inferred in some cases and in other instances directly perceived. Prabhāva is used for explaining the action which is not supported by rasa, guṇa, vīrya, and vipāka.The specific action or prabhāva is nothing but the inherent active principle of the drugs. The principle again is not different from the concerned drugs. They act only in the absence of external or internal antagonistic forces. The explanation of Nyāyikas about the antitoxic properties of toxins, their mutually contradicting properties in the form of upward and downward movements of toxins also supports the above theory. This is to say according to them the downward movement toxins neutralises the effect of upwardmoving toxin. Based on the mahābhuta composition of the concerned drug, one can explain the simultaneous action of vamana and virecana attributed to prabhāva.²⁷³ The excellent nature of therapeutic materials are designated as prabhāva or sakti (potency), it is explained as cintya and acintya in the treatise.²⁷⁴ Cakrapāṇidatta clarifies the term also in the sense of śakti or potency in the text²⁷⁵. For example the term prabhāva is used in the general sense like dravyaprabhāva, vīryaprabhāva, and vipākaprabhāva.²⁷⁶ Cakrapāṇi datta confesses that it is not possible to acquire the knowledge about the entire material medica elaborated in the treatise. He also takes note of the fact that other commentators of Caraka also agree on this point. He is only going to expound the names which are familiar in gaudadeśa and some times the names in other regions.²⁷⁷This distachment is also seen in the case of poisonous plants. Cakrapāṇidatta suggests that it is the tribals who study about these plants through their tradition and one must study from them. This also points inherent weakness in the main stream Āyurveda, especially in the field of taxonomy.²⁷⁸

Āyurvedadīpikā clarifies that the various dietetic groups (gaṇas) are not a complete compliation of respective groups but in fact they are the compilation of indispensable commonly used dietary substances.²⁷⁹

While discerning the properties of medicinal and dietery substances if a quality that can be inferred from the general properties is mentioned separately, then that is the special quality of particular drug.²⁸⁰

Bhaiṣyajakalpana

The kalpana means suitable processing of the crude drug for the administration and the term kaṣaya is used to denote a specific process i.e., decocting the drug but is used as general term for denote all types of therapeutic processing.Āyurvedadīpikā also explains each individual kalpanas²⁸¹. Cūrṇa is reckoned as type of kalka, infact there are two types of kalka viz., sadrava and nidrava²⁸². The kalpana is selected only after assessing the strength of the individual as well as the disease condition and more that the palatability of kalpanas also considered while the doing the selection of kalpana.²⁸³ The treatise accepts all five rasas with an exception to lavaṇa as the source of medical formulations or kaṣāyayoni²⁸⁴. Lavaṇa has been excluded from the list of kaṣayayoni as there no kaṣāyakalpana where only lavaṇa is involved. More than that, there is no apparent difference in the therapeutic efficiency to lavaṇa even if it is subjected to any of these therapeutic measures²⁸⁵. The listing of some in more than one group only highlights its capacity to perform more than one curative function.Treatise maker might have thought that it will be convient for him and also for the prctitioners to explain smaller number of drugs useful in different disease conditions than to narrate many drugs each useful in curing individual disease conditions²⁸⁶. These fifty groups of māhākaṣāyas are set forth as an illustration, thus there can be similar groups of drugs outside this kaṣāya groups²⁸⁷. Āyurvedadīpikā refers to an anonymous text to explain the term savātikaiḥ and considers it as uttaravātikagaṇa²⁸⁸.

The mātra or dosage of yavāgu and other medicinal preparations are not prefixed in the Āyurveda clinical practice. But their dosage and quantity required for its preparation are generalised according the convention followed by the traditional physicians or as per the paribhāṣa or by the generalised standards²⁸⁹. The food basically acts through its rasa and medicine acts with its vīrya or potency. The auṣadhadravyas are again grouped in to mṛdu, madhya, and tīkṣṇa. The general rule for the processing of medicinal preparations changes according to the vīrya of drug selected²⁹⁰. Even the generalised used ṣadaṅgaparibhāṣa should understood as general rule for preparing a madhyamavīrya combination suitable for a patient whose agni is diminished or mandanila²⁹¹. Āyurvedadīpikā explains that the general rule for preparing yavāgu involving kalka must be understood from sūdaśāstra and in the general preparation of yavāgu the convention followed in Suśruta saṃhitā is accepted.²⁹² In the preparation of yavāgu, liquid portion is some times replaced by buttermilk, madira (alcoholic preparation) or milk and ghṛta or yamaka are used for seasoning or paribharjana.²⁹³The paribḥāṣa for yavāgukalpana is explained on the basis of Āgniveśa²⁹⁴ and another on the basis of vṛddhavaidyavyavahāra or as per the convention.²⁹⁵ He wants the physicians to adopt these conventions in the preparation of yavāgu in places where no paribhāṣa is given²⁹⁶. Āyurvedadīpikā explains the method for the preparation of rasa on the basis of sūdaśāstraṃ.²⁹⁷If rasa is prepared with other medicinal drugs one must make use of the rules for the preparation of yavāgu.²⁹⁸

In the preparation of śītakaṣāya, specific mātra of drugs are not mentioned, as per the convention set by Āyurvedadīpikā, one must take kvāthya dravya as per the paribhāṣa of kaṣāyakalpana and quantity of liquid must be the same as the quantity of śītakaṣāya.²⁹⁹ Alternatively he also provides a paribhāṣa, where one has to impress one pala of drugs in four or six palas of water.³⁰⁰Śītakaṣāya are cold and mild in potency; must be administered in people who are weak and doṣas are in mild state of excitation.³⁰¹ In general, the liquid must be reduced to one fourth in the preparation of kaṣāyas.³⁰² When cūrṇa is added as an adjuvant to kaṣaya, one karṣa must be taken and same is the case of madhu, and this fixation is based on the paribhāṣa given by Agniveśa.³⁰³ Some scholars consider that it is applicable only in the case of independent use of cūrṇa and in the case of raktapitta; one must restrict total quantity of all the adjuvants taken to one karṣa.³⁰⁴ The term cūrṇa is also meant by the term phāṇṭa³⁰⁵. In case of kalka where puṣpha is used in large quantity for one prastha of ghṛta four palas of puṣpakalka is taken.³⁰⁶ Avapīda means keeping the drugs immersed in liquid for a night and the liquid extract is administered. This is given in raktapitta only specific conditions- nisṛte raktadoṣe.³⁰⁷

Āyurvedadīpikā follows the convention set by vṛddhavaidyas in process of medicine preparation.³⁰⁸If the specifics are not mentioned, kaṣāya is prepared by following the general rule.³⁰⁹ Āyurvedadīpikā refers to the difference of opinion that exists between various authorities about the measurement of individual ingridents in the formulation of paṭolamūlādikaṣāya.³¹⁰ Based on Bhoja, Āyurvedadīpikā clarifies the meaning of prastha in the context of śodhanacikitsa, and fixes prastha as twelve and half palas.³¹¹ Cakrapāṇidatta advocates the following of paribhāṣa that fixes four times of kvātha for the preparation of taila in preparation of candanādi taila.³¹² In preparation of pippalyādighṛta, Āyurvedadīpikā refers to two views; to take both kaṣaya and kalka for its preparation and to take only kalka.³¹³ Cakrapāṇidatta explains that if only kalka of a ghṛta is mentioned in the formulation, one must take jala for drava. If both kaṣaya and kalka are not mentioned in the formula, then formulation must be proceded by adding both kalka and kvatha.³¹⁴If the quantity of sneha is mentioned explicitly in a formula, then that is suggestive of the quantity one must administer to get a complete cure.³¹⁵The conditions where one must have to take much larger quantities of sneha, preparations intended for such usages lack the explicit reference about the quantity of sneha. Thus narration and non narration of quantity by the system maker was indeed intentional and not an accidental one.³¹⁶ Āyurvedadīpikā refers to an anonymous authority who fixes the mātra for gulma and viṣadaṣṭa as eight palas.³¹⁷ If the liquid constituents are more than five, one must take liquid equal to the quantity of sneha.³¹⁸ In the treatment of raktapitta, the ghṛtas indicated in pittajvara are advocated; some explain it as the ghṛtas indicated in the jīrṇajvara.³¹⁹Cakrapāṇidatta raises an interesting query about the preparation of sneha, whether or not kalka is added for ascertaining the sneha.He refutes the view that kalka is added for ascertaining the snehapāka, since there are many ghṛta preparations described by Ācārya lacks kalka.³²⁰

In the context of Kalyāṇakaghṛta, Āyurvedadīpikā discusses the issue of māna of drug groups. Here the number aṣṭaviṃśati or twenty eight is mentioned in order to enable the physician to take one part of each of the indgriedent of triphala. Again the ingredient tālisapatra may be misinterpreted as tālīsa and patra. The narration aṣṭaviṃśati prevents such fallacies. Some scholars explains it as aṣṭaviṃśati as the name of this formulation. In ceratin cases, the individual ingredients are taken according to the prescription that doesnot apply to the group as a whole.Similarly there are instancts where the group is considered as one unit. If the narration of gaṇa or group is subordinate the all the drugs, whether described individually or collectively are taken together .Where as if the drugs are described by individual names or by a collective name in a dominant form , then each individual drug has to be taken in the prescribed quantity.³²¹ Dr.BhagvanDas reports that the formulation quoted by the name mahānīlīghṛta is not seen in the available editions of Carakasaṃhitā.³²² In Āyurvedadīpikā we can see the narration of four divisions of lepana namely avacūrṇana, udvaratana, jalapiṣṭalepana, and rasakriyālepana.³²³In the context of arśas, the formulation pippali nāgara etc., according to practioners must be used without the process of snehapāka.³²⁴ Āyurvedadīpikā clarifies that pippalyāditaila seen in other treatises are different from the one which is given by Caraka.³²⁵Cakrapāṇidatta explains that one fixes the quantity of āyasacūrṇa in the combinations like navāyāsacūrṇa only after assessing the status of patient.³²⁶ In the making of maṇḍūravaṭaka, Āyurvedadīpikā favours the system where eight times of gomūtra is taken.³²⁷In some formulae metioning large quantities of kṣīra or milk there the quantity is fixed appropriately some times even by reducing the quantity prescribed in the treatise.³²⁸Āyurvedadīpikā points out that some physicians were taking drākṣā svarasa and drava in equal quantity.³²⁹Term navanītaghṛta is explained by Āyurvedadīpikā as fresh one - sadyaskanavanītaghṛtaṃ. He also reports the use of navanīta and ghṛta of aja for navanītaghṛta.³³⁰Cakrapāṇidatta highlights the fact that the edition of Ḍṛḍhabala also accepts dravadvaiguṇyaparbhāṣa.³³¹In Agastyaharītaki, the quantity of madhu and ghṛta are taken in equal quantities, Āyurvedadīpikā explains that it will not harm as it is in conjugation with other drugs.³³²Āyurvedadīpikā explains the convention followed by the traditional physicians in the making of Agastyaharītaki.³³³ The dosage at a time is two haritaki and the lehya associated with it.

Cakrapāṇidatta clarifies that some formulations are named by the system maker and there are other popular formulae which are used by the names given by the physicians.³³⁴Some scholars are of the opinion that all phalaśrutis or indications in the treatise are not factual statements but only indicators for the physicians to plan there treatment protocol³³⁵.

Āyurvedadīpikā is of the opinion that the method of preparation of medicines laid down by the preceptors must followed and no alteration should done on these convention for the sake of convience³³⁶. Based on prakṛti and agni of the patient, the adjuvants are selected.³³⁷.

Āyurvedadīpikā refers to gandhaśāstra for adding aroma to taila in the preparation of balatailaṃ³³⁸.

Unlike Suśrutasaṃhitā, here there is no differentiation between srotas, śiras, and dhamani³³⁹. Even though manas, not depentant on the srotas for nutrition but is dependent on all srotases for reaching the indriyas. So all srotas in the body are granted the status of manovahasrotas; especially the ten dhamanis related hṛdaya.³⁴⁰ Cakrapāṇidatta expresses his helplessness in clarifying the apparent difference between the two texts regarding the origin of medovahasrotas.³⁴¹