Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
1INTRODUCTION. THOSE who have enquired into the subject know that the medical literature of ancient and mediaeval India is exceedingly | voluminous. All the works, if capable of being collected together, i would fill a fairly large library. Besides a respectable number [ of works that profess to be comprehensive treatises on the causes I of disease and its cure and the normal conditions of health, the [ number of abridgments is almost unlimited. The reason of this is k not far to seek. In the absence of Colleges and Universities Established and conducted under royal patronage and thronged with K^udents from every part of the country, individual practi- ^■mers, whose professional success became marked or whose learn¬ ing was generally admitted, attracted a fairly large number of ^■ipils around them. Like the professors of other branches of Roiowledge, medical practitioners also, in conformity with the ■excellent custom of the country, had to teach their pupils gratis , ■supplying them at the same time with free board and quarters B|y incorporating them temporarily with their own families. These Msachers very frequently compiled abridgments of their own, ■drawing largely upon the larger standard works, and incorporat¬ ing with the abstracted matter the results of their own experience, p Almost all these abridgments were compiled for use in the lecture I room and received from their authors beautiful and poetical names. Sometimes teachers of greater ambition, who desired to address whole profession instead of their immediate pupils, made ■■ore pretentious compilations or wrote excellent commentaries Hr works or abridgments of acknowledged authority. In this way medical literature of ancient and mediaeval India increased and lllfivelled into almost gigantic proportions.
2Of all these works, however, the most ancient one that is still extant and universally studied by the profession is “.Charaka Samhita.” Professor Wilson supposed “ that from Charaka and Susruta being mentioned in the Puranas, the ninth or tenth century is the most modern limit of our conjecture ; while the style of the authors, as well as their having become the heroes of fable, indicate a long anterior date. ” Dr. Royle, in his “ Essay on the Antiquity of Indian Medical Science,” has cited passages from the Latin translations of Avicenna, Rhazes, and Serapion in which Charaka is mentioned. Professor Wilson is of opinion that the Arabians of the eighth century cultivated the Hindu Works on Medicine before those of the Greeks ; and that Charaka and Susruta, and the treatise called Nidana, and others, were translated and studied by the Arabians in the days of Harun and Mansur (A. D. 775), either from the originals, or from translations made at a still earlier period into the language of Persia. The age, however, of Charaka, is not its only recommendation, for by a strange coincidence it happens at the same time to be the most comprehensive treatise we possess on disease and the general conditions of health. An older work called “ Ayur¬ veda,” and supposed to have formed a part of the Atharvan, is frequently mentioned. But no trace can be had of it in any form however mutilated. It is believed to have been of divine or at best of inspired origin. If it really existed and was no myth of later times, there can be no question that it had perished even at the time the work of Agnive9a (upon which “ Charaka Samhita ” is based) was compiled. Another ancient work, almost as comprehensive and of as acknowledged authority, is “Susruta-Ayurveda.” The universal belief is that the great work of Charaka preceded the latter in point of time. Internal evidence also supports this view.
3In the introduction of Charaka’s great work it is stated that Bharadwaja, a learned sage, obtained the sacred Ayurveda (Science of Life) from Indra the chief of the celestials, who had acquired it, through the Agwins, from Prajapati, a son of the Self-create Brah¬ man. Then Punarvasu of Atri’s race, another sage, who got it from Bharadwaja, communicated it to six pupils, viz., Agnivefa, Bhela, Jatukarna, Paragara, Harita and Kharapani. Although there was no difference in teaching, yet in consequence of diversity of intelli¬ gence, Agnive9a surpassed the rest and produced a work on the [ iii ]
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
1INTRODUCTION. THOSE who have enquired into the subject know that the medical literature of ancient and mediaeval India is exceedingly | voluminous. All the works, if capable of being collected together, i would fill a fairly large library. Besides a respectable number [ of works that profess to be comprehensive treatises on the causes I of disease and its cure and the normal conditions of health, the [ number of abridgments is almost unlimited. The reason of this is k not far to seek. In the absence of Colleges and Universities Established and conducted under royal patronage and thronged with K^udents from every part of the country, individual practi- ^■mers, whose professional success became marked or whose learn¬ ing was generally admitted, attracted a fairly large number of ^■ipils around them. Like the professors of other branches of Roiowledge, medical practitioners also, in conformity with the ■excellent custom of the country, had to teach their pupils gratis , ■supplying them at the same time with free board and quarters B|y incorporating them temporarily with their own families. These Msachers very frequently compiled abridgments of their own, ■drawing largely upon the larger standard works, and incorporat¬ ing with the abstracted matter the results of their own experience, p Almost all these abridgments were compiled for use in the lecture I room and received from their authors beautiful and poetical names. Sometimes teachers of greater ambition, who desired to address whole profession instead of their immediate pupils, made ■■ore pretentious compilations or wrote excellent commentaries Hr works or abridgments of acknowledged authority. In this way medical literature of ancient and mediaeval India increased and lllfivelled into almost gigantic proportions.
2Of all these works, however, the most ancient one that is still extant and universally studied by the profession is “.Charaka Samhita.” Professor Wilson supposed “ that from Charaka and Susruta being mentioned in the Puranas, the ninth or tenth century is the most modern limit of our conjecture ; while the style of the authors, as well as their having become the heroes of fable, indicate a long anterior date. ” Dr. Royle, in his “ Essay on the Antiquity of Indian Medical Science,” has cited passages from the Latin translations of Avicenna, Rhazes, and Serapion in which Charaka is mentioned. Professor Wilson is of opinion that the Arabians of the eighth century cultivated the Hindu Works on Medicine before those of the Greeks ; and that Charaka and Susruta, and the treatise called Nidana, and others, were translated and studied by the Arabians in the days of Harun and Mansur (A. D. 775), either from the originals, or from translations made at a still earlier period into the language of Persia. The age, however, of Charaka, is not its only recommendation, for by a strange coincidence it happens at the same time to be the most comprehensive treatise we possess on disease and the general conditions of health. An older work called “ Ayur¬ veda,” and supposed to have formed a part of the Atharvan, is frequently mentioned. But no trace can be had of it in any form however mutilated. It is believed to have been of divine or at best of inspired origin. If it really existed and was no myth of later times, there can be no question that it had perished even at the time the work of Agnive9a (upon which “ Charaka Samhita ” is based) was compiled. Another ancient work, almost as comprehensive and of as acknowledged authority, is “Susruta-Ayurveda.” The universal belief is that the great work of Charaka preceded the latter in point of time. Internal evidence also supports this view.
3In the introduction of Charaka’s great work it is stated that Bharadwaja, a learned sage, obtained the sacred Ayurveda (Science of Life) from Indra the chief of the celestials, who had acquired it, through the Agwins, from Prajapati, a son of the Self-create Brah¬ man. Then Punarvasu of Atri’s race, another sage, who got it from Bharadwaja, communicated it to six pupils, viz., Agnivefa, Bhela, Jatukarna, Paragara, Harita and Kharapani. Although there was no difference in teaching, yet in consequence of diversity of intelli¬ gence, Agnive9a surpassed the rest and produced a work on the [ iii ]
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.