Charaka-Samhita — trans. Kaviraj Avinash Chandra Kaviratna

There are two groups of diseases, judged by difference of their seats, viz., those that arise from the 5.ma9aya, and those that arise from the Pakkagaya.®*

Thus, although disease in consequence of difference of origin or nature, of strength, of substratum, of cause, and of seat, is of two kinds still, if distributed according to other causes of differ¬ ence or unified, it becomes either manifold or only one.

As regards unification, all the groups of diseases may be included under one head in consequence of all having the com¬ mon charcteristic of being diseases.

As regards disease being manifold, there are ten groups of diseases, according to difference of origin and the rest.

This multiplicity of diseases is either countable or countless. They are countable, as laid down in the Lesson called Ashtodariya ( XIX of Sutrasthanam, ante p. 21 1.)

They are countless, as laid down in the Lesson called Maharoga ( XX of Sutrasthanam, p. 220.) in consequence of the count¬ lessness of the degrees ( or kinds ) of pain, complexion, cause, &c.8f t The correct reading is ‘ Prabhava . bhedat dwaidham sat &e.’

* Compare these classifications with what occurs at the outset of Lesson XX of Sutrasthanam, called Moharoga. ‘ Dhatuvaishamya ’ is inequality of dhatus or constituent elements of the body, i. e„ their disorders, such as excess of blood over the others. The stomach is divided into two parts, the Ama^aya, and the Pakkacjaya. The first consists of those organs where the food taken remains in an undigested state. The second consists of those organs where food is developed into the constituent elements of the body, such as blood flesh, adeps, marrow, &c. — T.

In aphorism 2, certain considerations are refered to in consequence of which diseases may be distributed under two heads. What is stated in aphorism 3 is that if other causes of difference be considered, diseases may be divided into more classes than two. They may even be unified and shown under one class. Their oneness may be supported by the consideration of their common

CHA RA KA-SA M H / TA.

5r3

In distributing diseases under a few principal heads, and distributing them, again, according to other differences, no contra¬ diction is involved.

Hence, neither of the several couples of alternate propositions ( stated above ) is faulty.

Then also, although there is no absence of contradiction, yet either of every couple of propositions is faultless.

The person who distributes ( or differentiates ) a number of individual objects, can distribute those objects in a way different from that in which he may distribute them first.

By basing his distribution upon causes of difference that are different from the one adopted at first, the distributor succeeds in multiplying the manner of distribution.

He does not thereby contradict the distributions made before.4* character as disease, that is, their capacity of producing pain. ( The ety¬ mology of word Roga — disease — is something that produces pain, from ruj to pain). If treated as many, their multiplicity, again, may be countable or countless, for the reasons shown. — T.

* The language of the original has here been rendered as nearly as possible. Dealing as this aphorism does in abstract propositions, it may be slightly unin¬ telligible to some classes of readers. What the Rishi says here is this : it has been observed in aphorism 3 that diseases are either one or many ; if many, they may be countable or countless.

These propositions involve apparent contradictions, for if one, how can they be many ? Then, again, if countable, how can they be countless ?

In aphorism 4 the Rishi explains that these contradictions are such that either of the propositions is correct. In classifying a number of individual objects, various principles of classification may be adopted, without the classification being landed on any real contradiction. Thus, if diseases are regarded as all presenting the common aspect of causing pain, they may all be spoken of under one head, viz., disease or a pain -producing entity or condition. If, disregarding this common aspect connected with the production of pain, diseases be con¬ sidered from other standpoints of view, they may be classed differently without the first classification being at all regarded as erroneous. Take the case of human beings ; classified according to complexion, there are two classes viz., white and not white ; classified according to habitat, they are Asiatics, Europeans, Ame¬ ricans, &c. Regarded from the point of view presented by religion, they are Hindus, Mussulmans, Christians, Bauddhas, &c. None of these classifications would be at all incorrect. — T.

CHAR A KA-SA MU IT A.

5*4

There are things that differ in meaning though named by the same words.

There are also things that do not differ in meaning though named by different words.

The same word Roga ( disease ) is applied to faults ( wind, bile, and phlegm ) as also to disorders affecting the body.

Again, the faults receive these different appellations, viz., Roga, Atanka, Yakshma, Doshaprakriti, and Vikara. Diseases are also called by those very designations, viz., Roga, Atanka, Yakshma , Doshaprakriti, and Vikara .