365bet

Charaka Samhita and Sushruta Samhita

by Nayana Sharma | 2015 | 139,725 words

This page relates ‘Multiplicity of Textual Strata� of the study on the Charaka Samhita and the Sushruta Samhita, both important and authentic Sanskrit texts belonging to Ayurveda: the ancient Indian science of medicine and nature. The text anaylsis its medical and social aspects, and various topics such as diseases and health-care, the physician, their training and specialisation, interaction with society, educational training, etc.

Go directly to: Footnotes.

Multiplicity of Textual Strata

It is evident, therefore, from the evidence we have considered, the ṃh were written over a long stretch of time and additions were made as medical knowledge progressed. The layers within the texts are not distinguishable at present. The multiplicity of textual strata can be seen as a response to enhancement of knowledge which is a continuous process. We have ṛḍ󲹲’s affirmation that he compiled and restored aforementioned chapters of Caraka’s compendium by culling material from several important treatises. It is noteworthy that although Āٰⲹ is a teacher of -쾱ٲ or internal medicine, the present Caraka ṃh takes cognizance of surgical procedures in the treatment of particular conditions. The procedures that find mention are blood-letting by means of horn (śṛṅ), gourd (), leech (jalauka) or sharp instrument (پṣn śٰ);[1] cauterisation by application of alkalis (ṣār-karma)[2] or heat (agni-karma)[3] and use of surgical instruments.

Blood-letting (rakta-mocana), for instance, is recommended in the following conditions: in certain types of fever (jvara);[4] phantom tumour (gulma);[5] skin disorders (ṣṭ); psychological disorders (ܲԳ岹);[6] (epilepsy);[7] goitre (ṇḍ) and ṇḍ (cervical adenitis);[8] painful eruptions and swellings known as alaji, ԲԳٲ śdzٳ (whitlow) and ;[9] 첹岹 (suppuration with fever),[10] īǻ岹 (enlargement of the spleen) and ⲹṛdܻ岹 (liver enlargement);[11] piles;[12] ulcers (ṇa);[13] gout (ٲ-ٲ)[14] and sciatica (ṛdī).[15] There is also an explanation of why becomes necessary in certain conditions and the precautions to be exercised.[16] Caraka affirms that it is only after the elimination of blood impurities through blood-letting as well as elimination of vitiated ṣa from the gastro-intestinal tract that the ointments for ṣṭ become efficacious.[17] This acknowledgment must have come from the observation of the efficacy of blood-letting practised by the school of Dhanvantari.

The application of leeches is specified in piles if blood does not come out on its own.[18] There is reference to use of sharp instruments (śٰ) and cauterisation by alkali and heat in the management of skin disorders,[19] piles[20] and in various types of swellings (śdzٳ).[21] Thermal cauterisation is prescribed in ulcers with excessive bleeding, post-excision of protruding flesh, muscular over-growth, enlarged glands (caused by kapha), goitre, in stiffness and other ailments brought on by aggravated .[22]

Incision of fistula with ṣār sūtra (thread smeared with alkaline preparation) is also referred to by Caraka.[23] Besides, the management of granthi (hard tumour) follows that prescribed by śܳٲ: fomentation of the tumour, excision followed by cauterization.[24] Surgical removal of abscesses[25] and urinary stones and gravels[26] are also mentioned.

The change in the position of practitioners of -쾱ٲ or internal medicine vis-à-vis surgical intervention is perhaps best illustrated by the following two statements of Caraka occurring in the ūٰ-ٳԲ and 侱쾱ٲ-ٳԲ respectively:

(a) One the factors that indicates negative prognosis of a disease is one in which treatment surgery, application of alkalis and cauterization is involved[27] for they are difficult to cure (ṛcⲹ [ṛcⲹm]).[28]

(b) If the patient is ṛc (physically and mentally strong), then incision of the suppurated abscess is an excellent remedial measure (paramucyate).[29]

The polarity of the two statements reflects the change in attitude towards another line of treatment which is accepted as efficacious in certain clinical conditions. Blood-letting and scarification as we have seen above are incorporated in the treatment of skin disorders.[30] The use of ū (surgical brush with hard fibres) and sharp edged scalpel (śٰ) are specifically mentioned in the chapter dealing with treatment of ṣṭ.[31] It is therefore not surprising that students of the Āٰⲹ school had to be apprised of the six types of surgical procedures of ṭaԲ (incision), 󲹲Բ (puncturing), chedana (excision), lepana or lekhana (scraping), pracchana (scarification) and īԲ (suturing) and their specific conditions of application.[32] All these procedures as well as probing (ṣaṇa), application of alkalis and leeches are included in surgical therapy (śٰpraṇidhāna) as opposed to internal cleansing (ԳٲḥpᲹԲ) and external cleansing (ḥpᲹԲ).[33]

The processes involving surgical processes have generally been only a cursory treatment in Caraka’s treatise. 䲹ṇi岹ٳٲ explains that since Caraka deals with medicine and surgical procedures fall in the domain of surgery, detailed explanation of the procedures is absent.[34] Post-operative measures are not mentioned by in the treatise.

It is also interesting to point out that the recognition of blood-letting as a therapeutic measure necessitated acquaintance with the functions and properties of blood. The Āٰⲹ school recognises the three ṣa (often translated as humours) of , pitta and kapha as the pathogenic factors in the body.[35] Nevertheless, in the twenty-fourth chapter of the ūٰ-ٳԲ there is notice of blood as an independent vitiating factor with as many as forty clinical disorders are attributed to it.[36] Two diseases mentioned among them are conjunctivitis (ṣi岵) and skin disorders. In the 侱쾱ٲ-ٳԲ, however, aetiologically both are attributed to the perturbation of the three ṣa or all the three together. Blood is not seen as a vitiating factor in eye diseases;[37] while vitiation of blood is recognised in the pathogenesis of ṣṭ, it is said to be caused by the perturbation of the three ṣa and not independently.[38] One may, therefore, construe that this portion relating to blood in the ūٰ-ٳԲ[39] is an interpolation in the compendium.

A few interpolations in the śܳٲ ṃh too may be indicated. Both the texts have described the seasonal regimen (ṛtܳ) in the sixth chapter of their respective Sutra-ٳԲ.[40] In fact one could argue that this chapter appears to be in the nature of an interpolation in the śܳٲ’s compendium between the fifth chapter on “Preoperative Arrangements� (DZ貹󲹰ṇīy-) and the seventh chapter on “The Varieties of Blunt Instruments� (yantravidhirⲹ). The chapter on “Ear Puncture and Plastic Surgery�[41] describing fifteen patterns of repair of the ear lobule (첹ṇaԻ) and rhinoplasty also appears to be a later insertion as the management of other ear and nose diseases are discussed in the Uttara-tantra.[42] We would also argue that the 24th chapter of the ūٰ-ٳԲ enumerating the classification of diseases is probably an interpolation.

The nature of management of children’s diseases is seems to be at variance with the treatment of other afflictions for they are all ascribed to malevolent beings (grahas) and not to the imbalance of ṣa.[43] The text recommends various offerings of food substances including cooked and uncooked meat for the appeasement of the grahas-a feature not noticed in other sections of the work. Finally the discussion of internal diseases like fever, diarrhoea, consumption, etc. in last section of the compendium is also a later addition for they are not present in the eight major diseases enumerated in the Nidāna-ٳԲ. We may conjecture that this was necessitated by the complications arising from surgical procedures and their understanding became fundamental for the surgeon.

The presence of several textual layers makes the task of determination of time of composition of the treatises rather complex. The term ṃh itself indicates that the treatises are compilations. It is necessary to take up a critical study of the extant manuscripts as has been accomplished by V.S. Sukhthankar for the Ѳٲ which unfortunately we have not been able to take up.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[2]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 25.101-106.

[3]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 25.107.

[4]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 3.289-290; Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 9.77.

[5]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 5.32.

[6]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 9.77.

[7]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 9.77.

[8]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 12.79-80.

[9]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 12.89-90.

[10]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 12.99-100.

[11]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 13.77,87-88.

[12]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 14.61.

[13]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 25.49.

[14]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 29.35-36.

[15]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 28.101.

[16]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 29.35-39.

[17]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 7.53.

[18]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 14.61.

[19]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 7.54.

[20]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 14.33.

[21]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 12.101.

[22]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 25.101-102.

[23]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 12.96-97.

[24]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 12.81-85. Compare with śܳٲ ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 8.17-18.

[25]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 25.49.

[26]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 26.68.

[27]:

Caraka ṃh ūٰٳԲ 10.15.

[28]:

Caraka ṃh ūٰٳԲ 10.16.

[29]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 25.54.

[30]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 7.40, 50-52.

[31]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 7.57.

[32]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 25.55-61.

[33]:

Caraka ṃh ūٰٳԲ 11.55.

[34]:

Cakarapāṇidatta on Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 12.96-97.

[35]:

Caraka ṃh ūٰٳԲ 1.57.

[36]:

Caraka ṃh ūٰٳԲ 24.11-16.

[37]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 26.129-130.

[38]:

Caraka ṃh CikitsāٳԲ 7.9.

[39]:

Caraka ṃh ūٰٳԲ 24.1-24.

[40]:

P.V. Sharma (Ed. and trans.), śܳٲ-ṃh, Vol. I, p. iv.

[41]:

śܳٲ ṃh ūٰٳԲ 16.

[42]:

śܳٲ ṃh Uttaratantra 20-23.

[43]:

śܳٲ ṃh Uttaratantra 27-36.

Let's grow together!

I humbly request your help to keep doing what I do best: provide the world with unbiased sources, definitions and images. Your donation direclty influences the quality and quantity of knowledge, wisdom and spiritual insight the world is exposed to.

Let's make the world a better place together!

Like what you read? Help to become even better: