Narasiṃhabhāṣya of Rasavaiśeṣika Sūtra: an epitome of Kerala Āyurveda Literary

Tradition
Abstract
Kerala has been the land of resourceful contribution to various fields in Indian sciences. Ayurveda has also
been awarded most in this aspect. Infact even to this time Ayurveda, as tradition and science, has flourished
to the optimum in Kerala. Buta figment has propped in to Āyurvedic domain of Kerala that only the
treatises of Vāgbhaṭa, particularly the Asṭāṅ
, are accepted as the most authentic texts. But the
numerous literary contributions, to various strata-s of the sciences, disprove this popularly believed notion.
Physicians in Kerala were fully aware of the fact that practice without theoretical foundation is absurd.
Naturally, they gave prime importance to the analytical learning of basic tenets. The Narasiṃhabhāṣya of
Rasavaiśeṣika sūtra stands out as an epitome of the tradition and talent of the Āyurvedic physicians of that
time. It is the chief among few texts in Ayurveda that are in sūtra format. The sūtra text is divided into
four chapters, with out any specific titles. The name of the author poses huge controversy, with varied
interpretations by various analysers. As pointed by Ian Mabbet, here also Nāgārjuna remains as ever
absorbing and ever evasive to our logic and imagination The Narasiṃha bhāṣya is an explanatory
commentary on Rasavaiṣeṣika sūtra, which at most instances gives an indepth insight to the sūtras. His
interpretations on doṣa has been a remarkable contribution for the understanding of Ayurveda. Bhāṣya also
reveals the pre-eminence of kāyacikitsā School among the eight branches of Āyurveda. The concept of
bhiṣakparipālita svastha has thrown clarity on the eligibility and noneligibility of śodhana therapy. The
bhāṣya consolidates strong understandings on many of the conceptual ideas of the science. Narasiṃha
demonstrates the fallacies of interpreting health as mere absence of disease. Health acts as the instrument
which removes all mental and physical ailments. The equipoise of doṣas is deemed as health in Āyurvedic
scriptures and it should be understood as a technical term which refers to the carrying out of various
functions attributed to the three doṣas within their normal limits. Āyurveda acts as a instrument for
achieving health by advocating the use of food and regimen that promotes the health, and restricting the
individual from those factors which causes the ill health. Most important aspect regarding the concept of
health is that Narasiṃha conceives it as a bhāva or state of the individual. So in its ideal sense, healthy
person or svastha means that one who resides in oneself, and this is the supreme state of affair that one can
think of his life. Narasiṃha bhāṣya rekindles clinical practice and academic discussions oriented around
fundamental spirit of Āyurveda. It stands as an epitome of textual tradition of this part of the country.

Introduction
Kerala, the people and land are recorded from the period as early as Aitareya Āraṇyaka.
Here they are referred as Cherapadaḥ, one of the three people who violated ancient
injunctions.1 Sanskritisation of Southern India is believed to be started around B.C.1000,
and reached a vital stage during the period of Kātyāyana (4thCE).2 The land blessed with
biodiversity and well protected by the natural boundaries, was less affected by the perpetual
strife for power by ---compared to the mainland3.This unique situation provided an
atmosphere favourable for intellectual and cultural activities. Thus various streams of
Sanskrit intellectual traditions were benefited by the inestimable contributions of the
scholars of Kerala. The great Mimāṃsaka, Prābhākara; non dualistic Vedatin, Śri
Śankaracārya; famous astronomer, Bhaskara- I, are the names of few who hailed from this
land . They reached the acme of their respective fields. 4
The Kerala’s indigenous art of healing passed through three distinct epoch namely. preSanskrit era, Sanskrit era, and modern era5.. A figment has propped in to Āyurvedic domain
of Kerala6 that only the treatises of Vāgbhaṭa, particularly the Asṭāṅ
, are accepted
as the most authentic texts.Infact itis a hand book popular among the practising clinicians.
We cannot ignore the fact that the physicians of Kerala had given utmost importance in
understanding the theoretical knowledge also. Tantrayuktivicārā of Nilamegha Bhiṣak
testimonies the precision of the Kerala scholars in analysingthe tenets of Āyurveda. The
encyclopaedic compilation represented in the Yogaratnasamuccaya; erudite commentaries
7
both in Malayalam and Sanskrit on Āṣṭāṅ
are some illustrations exhibitingthe
holistic approach of
(scholarly traditional physicians) of Kerala. The
inquisitiveness of the physician scholars was not merely restricted to academic discussions,
but it got translated clinically in the form of newer treatises , like Navakhandaṃ,

Vaidyamañjari, Sarvasādhāraṇ

dayapriya, and various treatises on Viṣacikitsā. The comprehensive and practical
approach are dexterously documented even in the handbooks of medical practice
, Vaidyamanorama.8 All these facts substantiate that the current notion, in Kerala
regarding the supremecy of Vāgbhaṭa’s treatise is a later entrant in to its pedagogue. 9 The
Aṣṭavaidya tradition, many a times, accepts the therapeutical formulae from Caraka’s
version instead of Vāgbhaṭa’s. This also refutes the above conceived Vāgbhaṭa centric
theory..10 Physicians in Kerala were fully aware of the fact that practice without theoretical
foundation is absurd. Naturally, they gave prime importance to the analytical learning of
basic tenets. The retrieval of Rasavaiśeṣika sūtra with its Narasiṃhabhāṣya, from Kerala,
reflects the intense interest of the theoretical learning and theorising showed by the
physicians. In this context Narasiṃhabhāṣya stands out as an epitome of the tradition and
talent of the Āyurvedic physicians of that time.
Sūtra- A review
In Yāska’s Niruktā, the term sūtra is used in the sense of thread.11 During the earlier period
the term sūtra referred to a collection of mutually related rules, i.e. in the sense of string of
rules. This later on metamorphosed to connote the names of particular texts. 12 Albrecht
Weber considers sūtras as the third stage of Vedic literature subsequent to Saṃhitā and
Brahmaṇa.13 F.Maxmuller deems sutra as a literature written in laconic language, and is
devoid of spirit and life14. He further opines that brevity,being the soul and life of secular
and religious sūtrā literature, was an invention for the sake of easy memory 15.Theodor
Goldstucker refutes the above opinion, on the light of the proverbial saying of
Mahabhāṣyakāra about the use of brevity in theorizing 16. Need begets need17; the
inculcation of brevity in the subject was owing to the historical circumstances due to the
dearth of writing materials, natural leaves, in many parts of India. At times, strive for
brevity deceived the authors resulting in literature of obscure nature.18 Radha Kumud
Mookerji attributes the socio-historic conditions created by the upsurge of Buddhism and
the vastness of Vedic lore for the invention of new form of literature, sūtra.19 The brevity
with out compromising the clarity is the life of sūtra literature .The unambiguous nature
along with the functional and interpretational sharing (local and universal) made the sūtra
style a more suitable mean of knowledge in all pedagogues.20 Keeping in mind these
historic facts, T.Goldstucker classifies sūtras in to two: the one born out of material
necessity; those written as an imitation, in the absence of compelling historic
circumstances.21
Bharadvājōddyotakara, defines sūtra as series of words.22 Vācaspatimiśra and
Mādhvācārya, defines sūtra as group of words: used in its utmost brevity; free from
doubts; able to bring out the fundamental meaning beyond any doubt; and, that which does
not contain anything gratuitous or erroneous.23 Sūtra is a short pithy assertion laying down
some thing in a scientific treatise 24. Ramanath Sharma defines sūtra as, “an algebraically
condensed formulaic statement or rule”. 25 Suṣruta, in the context of explaining etymology
of the first section of the treatise, i.e.,sūtrasthāna, defines it as : that which gives allusions
to the subject matter that are explained in the whole treatise. It is the gist of the subject
proper discussed in the form convenient for memorizing. 26Here the term sūtra is used to
connote a condensed statement. Vagbhāṭa adopts a definition almost similar to that of
Suśruta for sūtrasthāna, and for the term sūtra.27 Carakasaṃhitā, considers an ideal
Āyurvedic compendium as the one having properly arranged sūtra, bhāṣya, and saṃgraha28
sūtra is not limited to its literal notion of the definition,
,29 but in the sense of coding ideas in a comprehensive way, which is accepted as the
definition of sūtra by many lexicographers and commentators.30 Unlike other religious and
secular systems of learning, Āyurvedic system didnot produce any literature in the
condensed formulaic way (sūtra) during its early period. Probably this is the reason why the
compendium of Caraka construes the term sūtra as a synonym of Āyurveda.31
A survey of Ayurveda literature in Sūtra style

the second chapter.ShamaSastri considers Āyurvedasūtra as a compilation.P. According Dr. 53 The commentary to sūtra refers to Nāgavīryācārya. 56Dr.38 The sūtra text is divided into four chapters. 44 The epithet bhadanta. and was not in good condition at the time of edition.Menon the manuscript appeared to be more than five hundred years old.Menon’s .D. He even extends Nāgāvīryācārya’s identity to Bhadanta Nāgārjuna.Sharma. The edition was based on the single manuscript retrieved from Brahmaśri Nārāyaṇan Parameśvaran Moss of Chīraṭṭamaṇ .Meulenbeld and J. the third chapter. hundred and twenty three sūtras41. K.K. Dravyaguṇasūtra of Dr. to the sources as late as fifteenth century CE. Āyurvedasūtra. S. which prompts Dr.Sūtra texts produced in Āyurvedic literary tradition are: Rasavaiśeṣka sūtra32. It measured 12. Rasavaiśeṣikasūtra and Narasiṃhabhāṣya . edited by Dr. Bhadanta means venerable or honorific. Even if mentioned.SanakaraMenon tries to construe an etymological meaning for the term bhadanta50. The first chapter contains hundred and seventy one sūtras39.P. Āyurveda sūtra published from Mysore University33 tries to integrate Āyurveda with yoga system.G. comparing it with the svabhāvaśunyata of Mādhymika philosophy)49.Menon was aware of rhetoric inconsistencies related to the etymological derivation of the word. The manuscript was written in Malayalam script of that time.Filliozat are not impressed with this allusion57. affiliated to the monastery of Thiruvizha in Cherthala taluk of Alappuzha district. attributed to Thukumji is preserved at Saraswathi Mahal Library Thanjore 36. However.Author and their period The sūtra text along with Narasiṃhabhāṣya .72’’ wide and contained 102 palm leaves which were not numbered.R. hailing from Kerala. Āyurveda sūtra published from Mysore University.47 Nancy MacCagney citings Lamotte’s references about Nāgārjuna. Dr. from sources as early as first century BC.Sharma is the most recent work published in this style and which deals with the basic tenets of dravyaguṇa (pharmacology). Dr.Menon places the sutra text and commentary anterior to them. It should be noted that the author does not give the chapters any specific titles. the commenting style usually adopted in India take a format which hardly makes any direct references to contemporary writers and antecedent works. was published in ri Vanchi Setu Lakshmi Series under the authority of erstwhile Government of Travancore in 192837. quotes the description on the stūpa at Jaggayyapeta (sixth century A. 54 He considers both Nāgārjuna and Narasiṃha as Buddhist monks. 55 He opines that Narasiṃha is the first commentator of this work. Menon views title bhadanta as a conscious attempt to distinguish the author from others who bore a similar name. The sūtra text is published with commentary by Yogānandanātha.Sankara Menon.. Dr. It has 1252 sūtras in 16 praśnas (sections).) which refers to BhandantaNāgārjunācārya.V. and the mentioning of terms nirvāṇa and vihāra in the bhāṣhya made the scholars to construe a Buddhist affiliation to the text and its authors 45. It is an address of respect used for bhikkhus or mendicants of Theravada Buddhism. made not before sixteenth century CE. 34 Panḍit Rāmaprasāda Śarma’s Āyurveda sūtra is a short treatise in sūtra style having forty seven sūtras in three chapters with an auto commentary in Sanskrit and Hindi 35. hundred and twenty three sūtras40. as the commentary lacks any direct references to other commentators.Kuppuswami Sastri 46 notes that the term bhandanta is also prevalent in the literature of Jain tradition as a term of respect applied to monks. it is only in a veiled fashion. the connotation of the term bhadanta with Buddhist monks is understood by yogarūḍi(derivative conventional-mode in which etymological and customary significances are partly retained) 51. while Narasiṃhabhāṣya’s colophon refers to the author as Bhadanta Nāgārjuna 43.22’’ long and 1.48 J.V.J. according to which the term signifies persons with shining teeth. 58The direct reference in the commentary indicating variant opinions about a particular topic of discussion also makes Dr. Āyurveda sūtra written by Pt. Since Buddhist mendicants were forbidden from chewing betel leaves.52Since the works of Vāgbhaṭa-s are missing in the commentary. and Dravyagūṇasūtra by Dr. Dr.42 The name of the author is not found in the sūtra text.Menon to consider him as the teacher of Narasiṃha.Rāmāprasadśarma of Patiala.Filliozat considers Bhadanta Nagārjuna as the same as the author of Mūlamādhyamakakārika (based on the narration of svabhava in Rasavaiśeṣika sūtra 3-58-60. and the fourth chapter contains seventy three sūtras. Moreover. he argues that it shows the aptness of the appellation.

The discussions from upaniṣads and also from Bhagavadgītā reflects the existence of a protestant movement against the ritualistic tradition represented in the Brahamaṇas77. The difference between other two philosophical schools viz. there was hardly any well structured caste system prevalent in the social scenario of Kerala. arthāpatti. There arises a chance to place the author to a terminus ante quem prior to classical Sāṃkhya attaining its hold on the academics.D. who accepts six valid sources of knowledge is that instead of anupaladhi or abhāva. This allusion of Filliozat props up a fundamental issue that the epistemological position of RVS and Mādhyamikakārika are mutually antagonistic This issue is left unresolved by him.4. Dr.62 P. which strengthens the possibility of a non Keralite authorship for the sūtra text74.59Sūtrakāra in ‘āhaṅkārikāṇīndriyāṇīti manyante vārṣagaṇyāḥ. They are neither taken up for studies or references. Bhāṭṭamīmāṃsa and Vedānta.70Reference in these scholarly commentaries refers to the pan Indian acceptance of this sūtra text. mentions about vārṣagaṇyāḥ60. which prompts us to give second thought about this popular notion. If one attempts to explain the inclusion of non Buddhist epistemological elements in RVS. commenting on Suśrutasaṃhita 3. though is silent on issue of Rasavaiśeśikasūtra’s author.aulūkyāḥ punarbhautikāni’ ( 2-111). as a consorted effort to transform this text from the heterodox school to orthodoxy.Filliozat about the authorship of Yogaśataka.argument less acceptable. This provides an opportunity to place the sūtra text very close to the famous Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjunācārya who wrote Mūlamadhyamakārika. refers to Rasavaiśeṣikaśutra 1-2169.e. here the sūtrakāra adopts saṃbhava or inclusion from the paurāṇikas. 75 the close examination of Indian tradition in a diachronic scale reveals the existence of strong protestant groups outside the conventional Vedic tradition even in the early Vedic period76. Rasavaiśeṣika sūtra accepts six instruments of knowledge: pratyakṣa. and expresses his reservations about authenticity of the medical works credited to Nāgārjuna 67. J.80.72 Moreover.450 A. Even if we accept for a debate that the interpolations were done for Brahamanising the text.D.65The saṃbhava according to Bhāṭṭa-s is included under the inferential knowledge. and after Varṣagaṇa. upamāna.Menon should be analysed keeping in mind the fact that none of the other scholarly commentaries from Kerala on Aṣṭāṅ are quoted by the scholars outside Kerala. in line with the postulations of some modern scholars. anumāna.Filliozat construes the theory of single authorship for Yogaśataka. are one and the same63.). it can be seen that those interpolations doesnot yield any substantial benefits for the system of Āyurveda from the orthodox Brahamanical clergy. This significant aspect of makes RVS different from Caraka and Suśruta. Candraṭa (900-1050 A. which clearly refers to the fact that the author is referring to the Sāṃkhya system which was prior to the classical Sāṃkhya formula ṇa. The argument of Dr. and Varaharamihira grants yavanas (Greeks) the status of ṣi80.Sankara Menon considers Rasavaiśeṣikasūtra and its commentary as the contribution of Keralite scholars71. Even after these alleged interpolations the fact remains that Āyurveda was never given a fair chance for the formal entry into .Sharma is of the opinion that the author of RVS and Nāgārjuna the readactor of Suśrutasaṃḥita. Mūlamādhyamikakārika and Rasavaiśeṣikasūtra without taking into account of the period of Vārṣagaṇya. Vātsyāyana79 even considers the mlecchas(outcasts) for the stature of āpta. āgama. o to associate their works to the name of legendary Nāgārjuna.) quotes Rasavaiśeṣikasūtra four times in his commentary on sixteenth verse of Cikitsākalika. 68 Ḍalhaṇa (12 A..61 ṣṇa to 350. Larson and Bhattaracharya. or anterior to this time limit. places Vārṣagaṇya in between 100-300 A.66 IanMabbett.D. He favours an alternate hypothesis which suggest that the intellectual supremacy and popularity of Mādhyamika Nāgārjuna compelled the the authors of succeeding generation. and saṃbhava64. he rejects the views expressed by J.V. in their reconstruction of the chronological sequence of Sāṃkhya lineage.D. 73 There are very clear indications of practice of cāturvarṇya both in sūtra and bhāṣya. Kumārilabhaṭṭa places the Buddhist schools in the same authoritative status of other orthodox schools of learning78. more so the contents of the pramāṇās are more nearer to the archrivals of Buddhists (i.Mīmāṃsakas and Vedantins) rather than the Mādhyamikas. during the period of Buddhist and early period of Bhakti movement. All these facts are suggestive of a healthy tradition of acceptance and tolerance that existed with in India at least during the early period.

both as bhāṣya and vārttika. 105 Nature of the text Out of 486 sūtras.92Keśava explains bhāṣya as the elucidation of difficult portions contained in the sūtra text.90According to the definition of Nyāyanibandhaprakāśakāra. Very little can be drawn conclusively about the identity of the author of Rasavaiśeṣikasutra87. 102 Narasiṃha states that he was a disciple of Nāgavīryācārya 103. There are twelve sūtras which are commented with the help of few words. This statement regarding the appellation of his work . here also Nāgārjuna remains as ever absorbing and ever evasive to our logic and imagination 88. may at prime fasciae seem as a contradictory one. as the commentators had already vitiated the academic literary circle by their peerless style of confusing the readers with their directionless and lengthy interpretation. They are usually found in the philosophical and grammatical domains.93 Śankaramiśra says that no one will get the real purport of system by relying only on the sūtra. which are self-explanatory. To forty five sūtras an interpretation is given in two sentences. 96Interestingly Narasiṃha also deems his bhāṣya as a vārttika. Seventy-four sūtras are having a comment with one sentence. Bhadanta Nāgārjuna. 106 He advocates a system of discussion where the debate is purely based on the theoretical foundation and not otherwise. According to him a commentary carrying diverse interpretations of the sūtra text is termed as a . While explaining the tools for assessing the span of life RVS seems to be referring to saṃhita jyotiṣha. He warns the physicians against the tendency of getting illogical hair splitting jugglery107 during the academic discussions. The sūtras 2/44 and 2/101 clearly refers to the ideas expressed by Vaiśēṣikasūtras 4/2/2-386.104 It seems that the bhāṣyakāra was forced to choose the brevity as his style. and also the due utility of its principles to other branches99. But it seems to be a conscious effort to highlight the attempt made by the author in the current work to fulfil both ends. The scriptural knowledge and the rational mind should be the delimiters. The purpose served by bhāsya is not that of vārttika101. revealing its essentiality in theoretical formation. As pointed by Ian Mabbet.i. The commentary where the meaning of the sūtra is clearly explained by the words which are close to the words in the sūtra is bhāṣya89. and have got specific purpose to serve. In Āyurvedic domain there is no independent vārttika literature100. it will undermine the .98 The commentator reveals the special status enjoyed by kāyacikistā branch owing to inclusion of the pañcakarma (the elimination therapies) in this branch.e.82 Moreover. he reveals his mind while commenting the term vyākhyāna. Bhāṣya: The explanatory commentary on sūtra is designated as bhāṣya.108 The non prejudicial approach in the analysis of tenets is reflected at its best when he disagrees even with the interpretation offered by his preceptor 109. The commentator makes use of his knowledge in linguistics for explaining the tenets. bhāṣya will not carry the different interpretations of the same sūtra text91.81So the transformation theory need not be stretched in to the context of examining the sūtra text.orthodox learning scheme. and urges them to delimit the analysis Āyurveda with in its framework . the reference to Buddhist school in the bhāṣya also seems to suggest its non. The text urges to refer the concerned system of learning for getting more details.The term like nirvāṇa in the bhāṣya must be viewed in the light of their usage in Carakasaṃhitā.The bhāṣya provides the opportunity for the commentator to express his views which are non antagonistic to the idea expressed in the sūtra. and clarify the doubts of ordinary physicians.97 In general this bhāṣya will serve as a vārttika for the eight fold Āyurveda and specifically to the branch of internal medicine or kāyacikitsā.this narration echoes the idea expressed by Suśruta85. and not from the conventional Buddhist view84.94Narasiṃha does not furnish any definition to bhāṣya. 110 The most striking point that Narasiṃha highlights from the point of treatment is that its theoretical foundation is based neither on Sāṃkhya nor on Vaiśeṣika theory of cause and effect. The brevity was the motto of Narasiṃha. bhāṣyakara comments all sūtras except fifteen sūtras. Narasiṃha not only follows the method of dialectics but also defines it. He states that his bhāṣya is intended to serve two purposes: to please or satisfy the learned scholars.Buddhist origin83. and the intended meaning is only revealed through the commentary. 95The bhāṣya is said to be carrying the cream system of eight fold Āyurveda represented by various treatises. If accepted. but it has got its own cause and effect theory.

it is hard to derive any logical basis and significance for these classifications.128Sāṃkhyā system is quoted three times129. As the normal functioning of morbific factors (doṣas) is explained with an allusion of normal duties of fours castes substantiates that the four tier varṇa or caste system was well established and it was well functioning at that point in time.E 122.whole concepts on which Āyurveda cikitsā is built up. darśana and vyākaraṇā reveals the eruditeness of Narasiṃha. The influence of Narasiṃha is very evident in Śridāsa121. Commentator accepts the presence of people in the community who are not following the tenets of Āyurveda 148. Tenets related to the fundamentals of dravyaguṇa are clarified by referring the views of Nimi139 and Urabhra140.The effect will have a resemblance with the hetu and to the pratyaya. The practice of fire worship was prevalent.134 and ārogya lakṣaṇa or salient features of healthy individual is quoted from his treatise 135. After considering the period of Subandhu. because it is they who argue that substantial cause is different from the effect and Ayurveda cannot consider both milk and buttermilk as done by the Sāmkhya.126 The cause or kāraṇa is divided into hetu and pratyaya.111 Narasiṃha make use of all available methods for explaining the doubts. it is equivalent of acceptance of Vaiśeṣika’s theory.114 Similarly he presents a three fold classification of hetu (minor term) . 131The commentator even takes the Buddhist tenets for resolving the conceptual deadlock. 125 He explains Vaiśeṣika mode of classification of substances as adravya (paramāṇu) and anekadravya. The reference to grahasthiti and aṣṭavarga clearly demonstrates the advent of Siddantajyotiṣa in to popular beliefs.141 The society seems to follows a feudal hierarchy with great emperors with in its realms. He classifies verbal testimony (āptavaca) under three heading viz.127Nyāyadarśana is quoted once as an opinion of Akṣapāda. without naming the source.Triguṇa’s role in the cosmogony is also mentioned. who is supposed to belong to 7th century.143 Loka is the term refering to people outside the Āyurveda system. If we accept the analysis that milk is different from the buttermilk. śraddheyārthaṃ. But he fails to give a clear picture of the cause and effect theory he accepted. Sankara Menon fix his period between 7th century and 10th century of common era118.e. twice to refute the pariṇāmavāda130. Caraka136 and Suśruta137 138 .149 . anumeyārthaṃ and pratyakṣārthaṃ. He advocate to take help from the Buddhist schools to resolve the doubts about the change of madhura (sweet) rasa of kṣīra (milk) to amlā (sour) in dadhi112 (curd). dosetikartavyatārupa saṃprāptiḥ and vyādhijanma hetu saṃprapatiḥ120. The first one is that he deviates from the conventional renderings in explaining the articulation atha. What he says is that the cause must be different from the effect as in milk and buttermilk. anumānahetu and uttarahetu115. Narasiṃha also considers the diminuation of morbific factors (doṣas) as disease state. i. Bhāṣya also does not provide any reflections on the existence of two fold view regarding the concept of saṃprāptiḥ.123 Vaiśeṣika sūtra-s. Works quoted by Narasiṃha: The quoting of works from the fields of Āyurveda. Aṣṭādhyāyī is consulted for clarifying grammatical subjects.. However.124 and the opinion from Vaiśeṣika system is mentioned eight times. which is contrary to the view held by later commentators like Cakrapāṇidatta119. K. It is interesting to note that Narasimha is not referring to any of the works ascribed to Vagbhata116. 132 Narasiṃha133 seems to be having many Āyurveda treatises for referral. Unique propositions of bhāṣya Narasiṃha bhaṣya is having many unique propositions. and the fact that bhāṣya lacks references about Vāgbhaṭa. 142Term anārya is used to refer the inferior status. flourished during the earlier period of thirteen century C. are evident in both sūtra and bhāṣya145. is found three times in the commentary. he tries to ratify its usage with in the realms of rational thought 113.144 The influences of magico-religious notions.lakṣaṇahetu. Bharadvāja is acknowledged as the direct receiver of Āyurveda teaching. and Śrisūkta or Vedic hymn for getting prosperity is hailed as the potency of many fold wealth147. Instead of Buddhist notions we get reflections of brahmanical146 practises from the bhāṣya text. He refers to Subandhu’s Vāsavadatta117. Social life reflected in Bhāṣya. probably from the medieval tantric cults.

and he demands the physicians to discard personal overtunes in the study of Āyurveda.e. is suggestive of a definite drift from the conventional standpoint to much easier ways. The ratification of certain basic tenets was not achieved to the satisfactory level. Narasiṃha states that the analysis of the concepts must be delimited to the sphere of Āyurveda. prasara and sthānasamsraya. 160 Narasiṃha’s emphasis on the acintyavīrya i. they never mitigate each other even though they are having antagonistic qualities. If one succeeds in this effort no doubt he will be able to know the absolute truth even from the lips of a child166. caya.157 Dialectical method was part of Āyurvedic theorising during the period of bhāṣyakāra. The commentator refers to certain elements who indulge in hair splitting jugglery of the tenets with out any textual basis and logical congruity156.161 The Āyurveda fraternity seems to be clueless162 about the uniqueness and diachronic development of its fundamental principles. He was circumspect of the fact that Āyurveda is a system that blossomed out of compassion and so he says that the physicians must always get redeemed themselves from all kinds of sectarian thoughts. The lights on conceptual understandings The functional conceptualisation of body holds key for Āyurvedic understanding of physiological and pathological states. The bhāṣya clearly visualises this through the doṣas (made up to five elements) and deem them as divisions or parts of the body(śarirāvayavas). 153 The tenets of Āyurveda are not discussed for the purpose of those who disregard its dictum and live erroneously154.152 Importance of intellectual capacity in clinical practice is acknowledged and its direct relation with results are emphasised.e. 155 The divergent views expressed by sūtras and its commentary reflect the theoretical status of the system. Śodhana cikitsā (elimination therapies) were given high esteem and all branches of Āyurveda were utilising its services 150. and thus in their equipoise there is no state of disease. The concluding verses of Narasiṃhācārya reveals his instense desire in this matter.167 Narasiṃha seems to be trying to fill this void by expanding the concept of vīrya.. This idea will help in visualising conditions especially the chronic diseases which are not explained in our classical treatises. and the bhiṣakparipālita svastha (person who enjoys positive health due to his strict adherence to the Āyurveda principles) is barred from undergoing any śodhana or elimination therapy. and the delimiters should be the scriptures and the rational mind. even Narasiṃha was not able to cross that hurdle164.The bhāṣya is expressive of this intention of creating in the readers a non-prejudicial approach for dispassionate service grounded on the rational mind165.170 Even though doṣas support each other in the process of disease genesis and in carrying out normal physiological activities. of derangement patterns as compared Suṣruta’s six tier description .151 The bhāṣya reveals the presence of physicians or Āyurveda practitioners who are not so proficient in the theory and practice of the system. 158 The advent of various philosophical systems giving conflicting interpretations to same object of reference had created confusion in the minds of physicians. prakopa. . At the same time utmost care was taken to prevent the misuse of śodhana cikitsā. potencies as beyond our comprehension.169Body is acclamitised to the normalcy of doṣas and not to their states of decrease or increase. and avoid the unfavourable one.Status of Āyurveda in bhāṣya Bhāṣya reveals the pre-eminence of kāyacikitsā School (internal medicine) among the eight branches of Āyurveda at that point in time.i. 159 Instances are seen in Narasiṃhabhāṣya where quoting from dārśanic systems does not seem to have any practical value.173 The bhaṣya only narrates four stages viz.168 Though they are all pervasive in their normalcy they carry out their respective functions in their specific loci. the morbific factors even in the excited state will be carrying out its normal functions and simultaneously expressing the functional derangement in accordance to the factors of excitation (nidāna).172 Specific loci of doṣas in relation with dhatus have been mentioned in the bhāṣya.171 Narasīṃha throws new light in to the understanding of doṣas during the states of excitation. As the sūtra text omits the concept of prabhava. He not only adopts it but also elucidates its method. it is very difficult to explain the rationale behind such articulations. The whole system is designed in such a way that one can practice the diet and regimes favourable for positive health.163 The logic behind the combinations of drugs in various formulations was always a jigshaw for a common practioner.

Āyurveda acts as a instrument for achieving health by advocating the use of food and regimen that promotes the health. This is due to the fact that absence being a non exsistent entity. and procedures and eventually took Āyurveda to a stagnation183.195The equipoise of doṣas is deemed as health in Āyurvedic scriptures and it should be understood as a technical term which refers to the carrying out of various functions attributed to the three doṣas within their normal limits. The concept of equilibrium is accepted here as it is elaborated in the classical treatises. upadravavyādhi. auṣadhakāla. The unwholesome use of sense organs will cause bodily ailments.198 Narasiṃha explains the salient features of a healthy self with help of Bharadvāja’s compendium 199. Bhāṣya clarifies the concept of rogasvabhāva or characteristic of specific ailment.196Most important aspect regarding the concept of health is that Narasiṃha conceives it as a bhāva or state of the individual197. as other meaning will not make any sense to this particular articulation 193. It has been clarified as the general characteristics produced by the independent doṣa (morbific after excited by its own grounds) involved in the disease genesis. Thus one should visualise the various ailments brought about by innumerable permutation and combination of ground. 192 Among the various connotations attached to the prefix nañ.175 The three fold causes of diseases are presented in a new dimension. śarīra. All illhealth are viewed as the one which restricts our worldly pursuits 185. and restricting the individual from those factors which causes the ill health. This very definition of Narasiṃha187 is a practical orientation of Caraka’s dictum188 for evaluating disease states and drawing treatment protocol . kāla.e. Prajñaparāda is considered as the root cause of exogenous disease or āgantukarogas and pshychical diseases or mānasikarogas. healthy person or svastha means that one who resides in oneself. all narrations related to health will become absurd. The temporal factor results in natural diseases like greying of hairs. in this context vipakṣārtha ( antagonist) should be taken. Caraka adopts this compassionate attitude and portrays the human as an epitome of this universe and viceversa181.189Narasiṃha demonstrates the fallacies of interpreting health as mere absence of disease. In them the doṣas will not under go the regular augmentation and the excitation there after due to temporal changes because of their . Definitions of . and is under his strict observation from the time of birth . By the time of Vāgbhaṭa’s compendia the system of Ayurveda seems to be reduced to a mere treatment system 182. The former is the one who follows the instructions of physician. sātmyā. In the case where term ārgoya is derived by interpreting the meaning of the prefix nañ. hunger. agni. for a physician. vyāpadaḥ are also given in the bhāṣya. While discussing the derivation of term ārogyaśastra.The temporal effects will not affect the balance of doṣa-s in these people. it is nothing but a particular state of (vitiated) doṣa186. and thirst176. i.178The two important aspects of the bhāṣya is the definition of concept of health and explanation of combinatorics of rasas (633 combinations) the present paper will concentrate on the concept of health.e. by accepting this stand point it is not possible to ratify sections narrating the concept of health in classical treatises. total failure to explain the positive health190. Narasiṃha discusses the subtler aspects of the concept health and illhealth. But from perception of medical man. grahaṇi. The morbid interaction with other body elements and the expression of symptoms are determined by the rogasvabhāva177. and this is the supreme state of affair that one can think of his life.191 Moreover. . Health acts as the instrument which removes all mental and physical ailments. Narasiṃha classifies the svatha into two viz..179The Vedic seers prayered for a perfect individual who is in tune with his environment 180.ṣaḍkriyākāla174. Even though Narasiṃha explains the rationality of many tenets. So in its ideal sense. he is not explaining the concept of equilibrium of doṣas and he regards it as an paribhāṣitasaṃjñā (technical term with specific meaning). samāgni. In a subtler level. one fails to explain the characteristics of health. methods of its accomplishment and its purpose i. bala. Coming down in the history the later treatises even avoided the descriptions of principles behind the formulations. as absence. bhiṣkparipālitaḥ svasthaḥ and ḥ200. The concept of health and its portrayal The unique articulation ārogyaśāstra in RVS demands a diachronistic analysis of concept of health in the system. morbific factors and corruptible elements. So the ill heath and health should be viewed as antagonist to each other 194. The attempt by sūtrakāra to designate Āyurveda as ārogyaśāstra seems to be a conscious effort to redeem its clinical orientation rooted in its fundamental principles184. vaya. sthāna.

The application.The bhāṣya tries to solve the enigmas of the system by reorienting clinicians to the practice based on fundamental principles.J Medical Officer.201 strict adherence to . asauṣṭhavaṃ manoniṣṭhaṃ Dr. Alappuzha. Thulamparambu South.690514 email. S.A.V. As demonstrated above.Manoj Sankaranarayana.Sreedhara Menon.Basham. Puleyelathu Vadakkemadom. and are not under the instructions of physicians. the second group is recommended to have purificatory procedures.manojpavana@gmail. sauṣṭhavaṃ guruṇ’’hitaṃ. all sorts of elimination procedures are contraindicated in this group202.India Pincode.203 In these people the temporal changes will cause the accumulation and morbid excitation of doṣas.of Kerala.A. In order to keep the equipoise of doṣas the therapeutic procedures including that of elimination procedures are recommended for this group. Aryavaidyan. Sreedhara Menon page:88. nakhyāti lābhapūjārthaṃgrantho’yamudīryate.L. 4 Ibid page: 344.345 5 Page 479. Its terminus ante quenum must be determined by further indepth analysis of sūtra text and the bhāṣya. the first group is advised to have regimes and food opposite to that of saptiotemporal qualities. the bhāṣya text left a great impact on Kerala’s Āyurveda fraternity.K. The slow but sure shift from majority of bhiṣakparipālitasvasthas to is evident by comparing the chapter grahaṇicikitsā of Āṣṭāṅgasaṃgrahā with that of Āṣṭāṅ . anointments and massage are recommended for both groups 205. 3 Page. 2 .Varier.Kerala. The later group are healthy despite the fact that they are not sticking to principles of Āyurveda. So it truly stand as an epitome of textual tradition of this part of the country.204 In short. Conclusion : Narasiṃha bhāṣya rekindles clinical practice and academic discussions oriented around fundamental spirit of Āyurveda.com 1 Page 26.Dept of Indian Systems of Medicine ..Pavana.Haripad. A. N.Govt. As there is no accumulation and excitation of doṣas.206 where as the later text reveals that people are no longer bhiṣakparipālitasvasthas and only a good digestive capacity (agnibala) can keep them healthy207.51. Dr. Former emphasises the importance of proper maintenance of digestive capacity(agni).

Su. the more so when it is conceded that Rasavaiśeṣika sūtra and its commentary were composed in Kerala.1. are nothing but one uninterrupted string of short sentences. AlbrechtWeber.Maxmuller..Shukla 25 Page 749 RamaNathSharma. sumahadyaśavi …………supraṇīta sūtrabhāṣya saṃgrahakramaṃ.’ 17 Page 22.may impart to them’ ----. 15 Page 37.Vi.6.1) 23 Alpākṣaraṃ asaṃdigdhaṃ sāravad viśvatomukhaṃ. Yathā rasavidāheṇa bhavettadvarṇṇamārttavaṃ. Śridāsa. 12 Page 23.page.Vol.Filliozat. page 129-132.H.S. 20 Page 163.23 . (bhānumatī ṭīkā) 27 Atrārthāḥ sūtritāḥ sūkṣmāḥ pratanyante hi sarvataḥ. S.2.3. Vaidyamanorama (Cikitsākrama).123 Vacāharītakīlākṣākaṭurohiṇicandanaiḥ. for rescue of Brahmins.1) Laghūni sūcitārthāni svalpākṣarapadāni ca.Maxmuller.Theodor Doldstucker.Su. [The word sūtra in the above sense occurs first in the Madhukhāṇda. A. Vaidyamanorama 30/64.II. A. viḍaṅgaṃ pippalīmūlaṃ lomaśāṃ ṣakaṃ tvacaṃ ṃ lāṅgalakīṃ cavyaṃ samabhāgāni peṣayet.HIML. 8 The author quotes even from treatises like Kaśypasaṃhita.A. Yogāmrtaṃ 25/9 .V. 10 Triphalāvyoṣapatrailatvakkṣīrīcitrakaṃ vacāṃ.by which these works are usually accompained. sūtritāḥ sūcitāḥ . 22 Padasamūhaḥ sūtraṃ. Pañcika. Lalita. Pāṭ . 16 Mātra lābhaḥ putralābaḥ ‘an author rejoiceth in the economizing of a half vowel as much as in the birth of a son.Radhakrishnan.sūcanmekadeśenoktenānuktagrgahaṇaṃ…. In Kerala tradition the oil is prepared by adding the expressed use of Nirguṇḍī leaves( Vitexnigundo).3.2B. Vistareṇopadiṣṭāṇāṃ arthānāṃ sūtrabhāṣyayoḥ.page 39F. where Vāgbhaṭa is the leading authority in Āyurveda theory and practice.klībe. one of the latest supplements to the Brāhmaṇ .6 Tale about Vāgbhāṭa in the ‘Ithiyamāla’ of Koṭṭarathil Śaṅguṇṇi. pañcīkaraṇavārttika śloka. demonstrates fact that Vāgbhaṭa legend had moved too far way from the historical facts in the tradition of Kerala. Nāṭyaśāstra 6-9.29.P. Astobhaṃ anavadyaṃ ca sūtraṃ sūtravido viduḥ. Ithiyamāla.S.30. Tatra saṃgraheṇa yat tadbhāṣyaṃ bhāṣyasaṃgrahaḥ tayoḥ kramaḥ pūrvaṃ sūtra tataḥ saṅkṣepeṇa bhāṣyaṃ na tvativistareṇa sūpraṇītaṃ yatra tathābhūtaṃ tantraṃ sūtrārthasyānythā vyākhyānasāmarthyaṃ vyākhyātuḥ khyāpitaṃ yena phalāpalāpaḥ syāt. D. Tadapi saṃkṣepeṇātivistareṇa ca karttuṃ sambhavati. nirguṇḍisvarase siddhaṃ samūlāmapacīṃ jayet.sarvāngasundarā ṭīkā.16-17 In Caraka’s version lāṅgalī is replaced by tāmalakī C.Radhakrishnan also accepts the vastness of Vedic literary corpus as the reason for systematizing regilous and secular institutions in the form of sūtras. Vol. Sūtra literature produced in Āyurveda seems to belong to the second group. Jalpakalpataru ṭīkā. on the subjects the most various. and finally in Pānini. Bhāṣyaṃ tena sūtreṇa yat abhidheyaṃ muktakaṇṭhena vistareṇa punastadvacanaṃ bhāṣyaṃ.H.H. 28 Vividhāni hi śāstrāṇi bhiṣajāṃ pracaranti loke.(Supraṇītaṃ suṣṭhu racitaṃ sūtrasya bhāṣyasaṃgrahasya ca kramo yatra tat tathā. Page22. twisted together in the most concise form.1. Sūtraṃ . Theodor Doldstucker.1) 24 Page 432. Page xi. sarvadā sārabhūtāni sūtrāṇyāhurmanīṣiṇaḥ sūtraṃ ca bhāvārthasūcakaṃ (Bhāmati 1. Śāstre nānāsthāneṣu .12 Sūtrasthānaniruktimāhasūcanādityādi.1.8. as the author of Aṣṭāṅ .Chattopadhyaya. 9 a)Important is the absence of quotations from Vāgbhaṭa’s works. Saṃ ḥ ḥ of Keśava.nibandho yaḥ samāsena saṃgrahaṃ taṃ vidhur bhudaḥ. Page 135.Ci.Vacāharīt akīlākṣākaṭurohiṇicandanaiḥ.U. Kairali. J.(N. b) Mais l’observation n’est pas décisive car rien n’assure que Vāgbhaṭa ait fait autorité au Kerala dès la rédaction des ses œuvres. Dangadhara interprets ‘bhāṣyasaṃgrahakramaṃ’ as shorter scholium ).22. sūtraṇaṃ saṃkṣepeṇa sarvārthābhidhānaṃ. Shortness is the great object of this style of composition”…………’there is no life and spirit in sūtras except what either a teacher or a running commentary.164. S.sūtryate’neneti sūtra granthane – HK 13 Page 15. Tadasthisrāvamākhyātamiti kāśyapadarśanaṃ. 11 ) In Vedanta the term sūtra is used to denote hiraṇyagarbha – tebhyaḥ samabhavasūtraṃ bhūtaṃ sarvatmakaṃ mahat. (Mādhvācārya on Brahṃasūtra 1.Aṣṭāṅgasamgraha and Amarakośa. smaraṇaṃ pratītārthagatilabhyamānaṃ. Abhyankar and J. and Vākyapradīpika. 21 Page 25. 18 Page 28 Theodor Goldstucker 19 Dr.Tailaṃprasādhitaṃpītaṃsamūlāmapacīṃjayet.M. The statement ‘ākumāraṃ yaśaḥ pāṇineḥ’ fame of Pāṇini had even reached the young It stands out as a testimony of the general acceptance of sūtra form in the pedagogue and Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyi in particular. and his Āyurvedic training under Islamic scholars.S. Sūtraṃ saṅkṣepeṇa tattadarthānāṃ granthanaṃ yena tat.] 14 (“sūtra means string and all the works written in style.Ci. 26 Sūcanāt sūtraṇāccaiva smaraṇāccārthasantateḥ.22.S. Radha Kumud Mookerji. 39 F.30. 7 Commentaries on Aṣṭ ṭhya. C.

. the characteristics of each rasa is narrated-18. 42 The sūtras 1-30 discuss various aspects of vīrya.Raghavan Thirumulpad (1977). 3912 – Yogānanada commentary.109 introduce the criteria for precedence of dravya.Sankara Menon 33 Āyurvedasūtragrantha. 123rd Sūtra gives a detailed list of officinal parts of sthāvara dravya and jaṅgama dravya. Means for valid knowledge is described in sūtra 70. and pranidhidravyas.Bhargavanvaidyar (1982) and an English translation by K.4. 38 Page 22.2) Means compilation of subject matter elaborated in sūtra and bhāṣya or compilation of scattered matters regarding a particular subject.B. Sūtras 119-122 define the makeup of indriyas.xiii. Sūtras 130 – 140 place the arguments in favour of prioritising vīrya. 35 ĀS 36 Serfoji's brother Tukkoji I (Ekoji's 2nd son) ruled for eight years( 1729-1735CE).Govt. bhiṣak caturthaḥ pādastu sasūtrārthaviśāradaḥ.S. Āyurveda sūtraṃ . Tukkoji wrote the Saṃgītasārā . Govt.Su. rasavikalpa based on doṣa aśraya sthāna 107.S.Su.The narration of four limbs of Āyurveda. guṇa.165 establish the need for a principle that is flexible enough to suit the requirements of the clinician. 37 and 38 vipāka and karma.xiv Āy. He was the author of Dhanvantri Vilāsa and the prominent literary figures in his court were Saṃ . Sutras 53-58 are related to the negation of the concept of specific seats for doṣas and agni. Sūtras 95.E. Yuktidīpikā.Accession No. Sūtra 94 gives the general principle to be followed for the formulation of treatment protocol. The seventh sūtra narrates the factors . 41 the first 17 sūtras presents the discussion regarding the various views about the number of rasas. 13334 34 Page iv.RVS.V.Ayurveda College Trivandrum. assistant and patient is seen in sūtra 71. Sūtras 39 –76 discuss various aspects of pancabhutas.1976. importance of scriptural knowledge about drugs in cikitsā 61. Sūtras 77.xii.29 discuss the category.Su.N.23. agni etc. Dr. the rasa. 37 Dr. Sūtras 8-31 refer to various views regarding the concept of . The analysis of vipaka is done from sūtras 31-55. 32 RVS: Ed. rather than prioritising the tenets in a premeditative way. Atha sūtramiti kasmāt? Ucyate – sūcanāt sūtraṃ.Up. Sūtras 99. Marathi.sū.M. Teṣuteṣvatīndriyeṣu api pradhānādiṣvartheṣu buddhiṃ sūcayatīti sutraṃ (page-2. P5863/2 .: 13086. Sūtras 77-80 refute the very concept of ārogya / health and equipoise of the doṣas.98 discuss various aspects of jangama dravya.explains concepts of viruddha.17 Vidhyāsūtraṃ parāparāvidyādvayasya sūtraṃ sūcanaṃ . 13332. Sūtras 166 .149 discuss the priority of vipāka. Sūtra 39-52 refutes the above arguments and establishes the concept of sannipata vikara. 39 The first six sūtras expound the characteristic features of health and illness. Sūtras 67-69 Āyurveda is unfolded with its. Sūtra 81. rasa.2-4-10) 31 Tatrāyurvedaḥ śākhā vidhyā sūtraṃ jñānaṃ śāstraṃ lakṣaṇaṃ tantramityanarthāntaraṃ C. factors responsible for their change 29-33. vīrya.JKT. establishes the independent existence of dravya.K.84 resolves the above argument about ārogya. vīrya. B956. 40 The first 15 sūtras places the arguments for refuting the acceptance of an independent category – dravya.B. vayah. that help in the analysis of health and illness. and he patronised Hindustani classical music.98 explain the examination of one’s lifespan. Sūtras 150. analysis of rasas 108-110. Sūtra 85.112 discuss various aspects of constitution of sharira. Sūtras 32 –38 place arguments to negate Sannipata vikara. Sūtras 163. combinometrics of rasas 72106.171 define dravya.The conclusion of the treatise is made with the enumeration of its final goal in sūtra 72-73.S. Sūtras 30. vipāka and karma with health and ill health.enumeration of guṇas 111-119.36 discuss vīrya.30. guṇa. anupana.Menon’s edition is republished in 1977 with an indroduction by Dr. aviruddha.71.Raghavan Thirumulpad. Sūcayati tāṃstānarthaviśeṣāniti sūtraṃ.twofold divisionsand . P3912/1. A646. their relative strength 19-28. Tamil and Persian.Muthuswami in Kerala Government Ayurvedic Publication Series -2 by Publication division. 29 The seventh sūtra of first chapter of Rasavaiśeṣikasūtra contains 45 words itself this demonstrates the inherent problems of furnishing the medical tenets in the condensed literature. Oriental Manuscript Library Mysore . Sūtras 59-76 establish the rationale for granting specific loci for doṣas and agni. 13087.physician. relation between the six padarthas – dravya.9.162 expound the importance of karma. 13088. drug . Sūtras 113-117 state the relationship between pancabhutas and ṣaḍpadarthas. Sūtras 23. Sūtras 121 – 129 discuss the priority of guṇa. Tukkoji was also a scholar in Sanskrit. Sūtras 99 .) Sūtrāṇī vastusaṅ – . Sūtra 118 advocates the student to refer to the text related to śārīra for the knowledge of śārīra. Bhela also uses the word in the same sense: tatra jñaḥ sūtravānyaḥ syātsūtrārthena vicakṣaṇaḥ. Sutra 59-65.31.93 examines the fixation of priority of factors explained in sūtra 7.16. rasa. relation between doṣas and rasas 62. vipaka and karma.vitatāḥ ekatra saṅkalayya kathyante iti saṃgrahaḥ (kiraṇāvali. Sūtras 141. Sūtras 110 – 120 explain the criteria for prioritising rasa. 13333. the pañcabhūtas and rasas38-47.This sutra text is having two Malayalam translation by K. Oriental Manuscript Library Madras :Accession No. 30 Api prabandhaḥ saṃdarbhaḥ ḥ. their functions in the body 34-37. Sūtras 16-22.: A 449.

akośaḥ page52. qu’il est transcendent.Menon.Dr. Page 14.ibid. Page xii.K. 48 svasti bhadanta nagarjunacaryyasya sisya[syo] jayaprabhacaryya[h]tacchisyena ca[ndra]prabhenakarapitasatu[tya?]-sugata-gataprasada-visesa-visistasamsaredevamanu[ja]vibhutipurvvakam buddhattva-prapti-nimittam buddha-pratimam pratistha[stha]pitam anumodana [pakse?] kurvvantu.denounce constamment la “vacuite d’être proper”.Nāgārjuna. IHML.XI. dans le cas de l’homme. 53 Either the commentator lived before the age of Vaghbata or he did attach much importance to their works as they were quite modern at that time.Menon’s attempt to find an etymological derivation to the term Bhadanta. Vaijayanthi kośaḥ. while Theravada Buddhists living in Dhaka and Chittagong use bhadanta.Raja) Thus the tradition also is not in favour of Dr.(Bangalapedia).Il les refute mais il ne lui dénie pas de substrat ontologique. Cette assertion nette semble don bien corresponds à l’espirit proper du Madhyamaka. de plus.Meulenbeld.RVS. Bhadanthāḥ sākyakṣapaṇakādayaḥ. de la śunyatā. (page 66. Iching refers biography of ten Bhadhantas. 52 This appellation Bhadanta is perhaps added to the name Nagarjuna with a view to distinguish him from others who bore a similar or same name. ce qui correspond au caractére de la “vacuite”.Filliozat Yogaśataka 50 Bhānīva prakāśamānā dantā yasya bhadantaḥ page l4 RSV.Vol.des chose du monde empirique.emploient banalement le terme de svabhavā pour designer la nature êtres et des choses et sans en constester l’existence en soi.kālpanikyāḥ .de vertus et de maturations. G. Nancy MacCagney. 45 Dr. Nbh. Menon. “la raison d’activité en ce cas est la cohérence des choses combines”.y compris Suśruta révisé par Nāgārjuna.2A.M) Kumārilabhaṭṭa in Tantravārttika. page16. Thus the appellation is appropriate to them. My conclusion is that he was anterior to Vaghbata and it was hence that he did not make mention of him in his commentary. Dautam Buddha used to be addressed as bhadanta or bhante.” Ceci signifie non que cet “être proper”.xiii J. Mais il y a plus.Suvarṇaprabhāsasūtraṃ. est inexistant mais bien que l’esprit n’y trouve rien de stable à saisir.J. Selon lui: “ce sont les actions des substances qui sont pour la neutralization oul’accroissement des propétés des rasa”. du fait que les substances on tune infinite de rasa.137.Menon. Bhadanta is thus a Buddha Sanyasin. Tandis qu’avec les Prajñāpāramita. de properties.le RVS tout en admettant l’existence conceptuelle de la substance lui refuse justement l’être proper.32Dalhaṇa explique. 49 Page 137 Dr.M 51 The Buddha Sanyasins are forbidden to chew betel. says that the well established usage is more authoritative than the newly assumed one. Dr. bhante and bhadante. Sur Suśruta. Uṇādisūtra khaṇḍhaḥ 3-131. qui est être absoluparace que néant de forme concréte. donc l’individualité génétique. Caraka s’en sert à propos de ceux qui souitennent que cette nature est la cause de la naissance (Sūtr. ques c’est l’être propre du sang et du sperme de la mère et du père.( page14.4.RVS. syurbhantāḥ saugatādayaḥ.Dignāga and Tosoṅ-kha-pa.The Mithila Institute Darbhanga 1967) Other forms are bhaddanta. 54 From this statement it is clear that the commentator Narasimha was the disciple of Nāgavīryācārya and that he himself was a commentator of some work about which no mention is made anywhere in the .6). Hindu Sanyasins and others who do not chew betel are not known by that name as it is yogarūḍhaø which like paṅkaja (lotus) does not mean anything more than the accepted sense. page. Buddhists in Theravada Buddhist countries use the term bhante.) 44 ayaṁ bhadanta bhagavansuvarṇaprabhāsottamaḥ sūtrendrarāja etarhi cānāgate'dhvani yatra grāme vā nagare nigame vā janapade vāraṇyapradeśe vā girikandare vā rājakule vopasaṁkramiṣyati (edited by Bagchi. He also criticises method of deriving foreign words from Sanskrit roots.J.l’être proper de la substance est inconceivable. According to Pāli literature.ibid page426. page14. la svabhāvaśūnyatā. car les textes d’Āyurveda. bhadanthaḥ kṣapaṇaḥ.1 (colophons of first three chapters lacks the qualifying statement ‘pravrajitasya vaidyendrasya’. ce svabhāva.Sūtr.2B Ces raisonnements en sūtra se présentent autrement ques les kārikā du Madhyamaka.xxxv.IHML.M. Et.43 Iti bhadantanāgārjunasya pravrajitasya vaidyendrasya rasavaiśeṣika sūtrasya narasiṃ ṃ bhāṣyaṃ samāptaṃ. Page 3.Meulenbeld mentions that the title Bhadanta was given to Aśvaghoṣa. HIML Vol. 46 47 Bhanderlopaśca.RVS. D. Page 155.Vāgbhaṭa utilise maintes fois le most sans faire de remarques sur la validité du concept qu’il représente.dans les œuveres du Madhyamaka.K.

c) Athā rasavaiśeṣike.ibid. Taccāyuḥ jīvitaṃ prāṇādisaṃyogapūrvakamiti vadantyāmyāyavidaḥ.83. 1.S.1. par une paramparā. HIML Vol. 58 Anyetu sapakṣ ṇaḥ. 56 b) Mais cette derniére opinion est loin de s’imposer absolument: la transmission par unte de maîtres.Menon. There is an important methodological point to be made here.16 b) Rasavaiśeṣike – balaṃ trividhaṃ . anye tu vyākhyānayati yat trividhaṃ . Whether this Nāgavīryācārya is himself the author of Rasa Vaiseshika or not also cannot be established with certainty. page17. to 3A.ibid.1/12) 66 Tatsaṃbhava iti prāhurantarbhāvo hi saṃbhavaḥ.Menon. Ibid. PV. The probability is that the Nāgavīryācārya referred by the commentator as his preceptor and Bhadanta Nagarjuna the author of Rasa Vaiseshika.ibid. Dr. 2. 57 a) Dr. Yadi punardurbalasya dāruṇo vyādhirbhavati tīkṣṇena karmaṇa sādhyāḥ ḥ punaḥ prayoktavyaṃ ṣaharaṇāt. Dr.42.(ibid. a pu suffice à l’instruction de Narasiṃha. that he was an alchemist). a medical text. (Mānameyodayaḥ 1/14) vayaṃ te’pi vedāntavijñāḥ ṣaṭkaṃ… paurāṇikāstvaṣṭakamabhidadhire ssaṃbhavaitihyayogāt. page x.C.Filliozat.Meulenbeld Page 138. if we do not make such an assumption.Muktāvalī.. 55 Dr.C. (26) but the attribution is arguably implausible.J.3. ibid 8/23 Ūhyamityanumānatvasaṃbhavāt saṃbhavo hataḥ.Nbh. it should be noted that the Yogasataka. 62 Opinions regarding the chronological of Nāgārujna the initiator of Mādhyamika philosophy opinions spans across a diachronic scale stretch between 1B.G.Page 14.commentary.Sharma. Rasavaiśeṣike coktaṃ . the object of our quest may itself be an artefact of the quest (maya or gandharvanagara. moreover the disciple will have greater convenience and consolation to write a commentary on the work of his preceptor who had personally explained the true import and significance of the sutras of his own composition. 59 Asyārthamanyathā varṇayanti kecit . so to speak). 4-70 (*This narrows down any possibility of associating the Nāgārjuna who is supposed be the redactor of Suśruta saṃhita with the authorship of Rasavaiśeṣikasūtra. has been accepted by Filliozat. however. Ian Mabbett 64 68 The story is quite different when we seek facts about any subsequent Nāgārjuna. anye tu paśyanti yattrividhaṃ sāmānyaṃ Cakrapāṇi. tayobhavanti. Pratyakṣānumānopamānāgamārthāpattisambhavāḥ pramāṇāni.Menon. atra kecit yathā ghaṭābhāvavyāpyavattājñāne’pi.uttaṃ madhyaṃ adhamañceti.tatra uttame bale uttamaḥ puruṣaḥ.arthāpattirabhāvaśca ṣaṭ pramāṇ . about whom some fact is treated as given (for example. If we assume that some particular later Nāgārjuna existed.)iti nāgārjunācāryoktatvāt. That is.31.72.18.) 65 Pratyakṣamanumānaṃ ca śābdaṃ copamitistathā.G. Candraṭa. 60 63 Page. If Narasimha was not the first commentator of the Sutras he would have referred to the previous commentators of the work. we can treat certain writings as giving information about him. page18ibid. The only conclusion that can be advanced here is that relatively few works can be treated with any confidence as authentic creations of the master. LallanjiGopal.J. Ibid 8/26 67 Among the miscellaneous works of chemistry and medicine traditionally ascribed to Nagarjuna. tadidānīṃ srīmadgurūpadeśaśaraṇeṇ ing Narasiṃha’s definition with some alteration altering. We must give proper weight to the default hypothesis that the association of the name Nāgārjuna with a profusion of tantric and quasi-scientific texts is a demonstration of the absorptive power of the legend originating in a single historical Nagarjuna.‘āyuḥ punarādau parīkṣya tasmin kriyāyāḥ sāphalyaṃ.D. ‘saptadoṣataḥ 70 a).taccānumānikaṃ jñānamicchanti svacchacetasaḥ. are one and the same individual. kecit sāmānyaṃ dvividhamicchantī. tatra yathābalaṃ dāruṇ kāryā. CK 1.Su. madhyame madhyamaḥ puruṣaḥ alpe ca alpaḥ puruṣaḥ.ibid. .xi J.Larson 61 Page 348. the writings are not independently capable of constituting good evidence for his existence.pravarāvaramadhyabalaṃ satvaṃ trividhaṃ .RVS. the author of Madhyamaka (ibid) 69 guṇaiḥ satvarajastamobhirekaśo dviśaḥ saptaguṇataḥ’(RVS.1/112 Page 140-143. Since no mention is made of any commentator or any commentary in the work it is to be concluded that Narasimha was the first commentator.

nna=2. Bhagavadgīta. RVS. cha=80. of Nbh 3-93.tru=70.vedavādratāḥ pārtha nānyadastīti vādinaḥ. Page90. 72 Besides the commentaries which are fortunately extent in Kerala on Ashtanga Hridaya by Indu and Jaijjata. The chance of scribe choosing to use his familiar convention for notation stands as a strong counter question for Dr. The jāti or caste system was not prevalent up to the end of Buddhist era in Kerala. In point of style.Śabdakalpadr In Kerala the traditional Brahmin vaidyas – aṣṭavaidya-s.Dopalakrishanan) The Śaiva and Vāiṣṇava bhakti cults during the seventh and eight centuries also were not practicing a rigid caste system. The various numbers that these alphabets represent are give as: na=1.K.SankaraMenon’s leads for establishing the Keralite origin of Narasiṃha(page. 19.1-21.page 16.(page 251P.vaidyavīryeṇa śūdrāyāṃ babhūvarbahavo janāḥ. A. 78 Vijñānamātrakṣaṇabhaṃganairātmādivādānāmapi upaniṣadprabhāvatvaṃ viṣayeṣvātyantikaṃ rāgaṃ nivartayituṃ ityupapannaṃ sarveṣāṃ prāmāṇyaṃ . 81 Vaidyo’śvinīkumāreṇa jātaśca viprayoṣiti. RSV.K.K. S.jha=5. In the bhāṣya (1-102) contains the term anārya .RamachandraRao 77 S.(nahiyāyurvedasyābhutoppattu) .kāmātmānaḥ svargaparā jnmakarmaphalapradāṃ.Ramachandra Rao views the Vrātyas as a comprehension of diversified local traditions and regional cults which were not influenced or otherwise least influenced by the Vedic system.Dube. after upanayana (intiation in to Vedic study) the Vedic study was restricted just to the hearing to the recital of Vedic hymns. elegance. on that famous work written by the Kerala Vaidyans of name and fame. avyavasthitatvādpradhāno’nārya iti yatkiñcid vaktuṃ śakyata iti.pta=40. Zysk. Narasiṃha explains the term abhijana as jātibrahmaṇādi.. 2/14 prakāśayāṃ cakruranukrameṇa maharddhi santo yavaneṣ ṣi -authority. The Kerala text of Sarvanga Sudnari as seen in old manuscripts is quite different from the printed editions of that work.Ch.sākṣātkaraṇamarthasyā’’ptistayā pravartate ityāptaḥ ṣyāryamlecchānāṃ samānaṃ lakṣaṇaṃ tathā ca sarveṣāṃ vyavahāraḥ pravartante iti. which I have seen.Viṣṇūḥ.K.ba=50. Dr.ha=6. the normal functioning of doṣa-s by an analogy with the dharmas of four varṇas (evametāni doṣāṇāṃ svābhyudayakartvāt karmāṇītyucynte.42-45. Traiguṇyaviṣayā vedā nistraiguṇyabhavārjunā. NB. Kalau śūdratvamāpannā yathā kṣtrā yathā viśaḥ. whose words are accepted as valid knowāledge). Regarding the narration of various traditions of transmission of Āyurveda. 71 The 'Nannadi' form of notation is purely a Kerala convention and it is current only among the people of Kerala.Menon’s argument. 82 K.N.ibid.tebhyaśca jātāḥ śudrāyāṃ te Śanaiḥ śanaiḥ purā kriyālopādatha tā vaidyajātayaḥ. Sāṃkhya system as speaks of trifold (dukhatraya) sufferings and annihilation of the sufferings.page472.M). 76 The reference regarding existence of thinkers outside the convention of Vedas are noted from the Ṛgvedic itself . JaiminiyaBrahmāṇa(24-15) refers to daivā vai vrātyāḥ. Tantravārttika 79 Āptāḥ khalu sākṣ ṣṭsyārthasya cikhyāpayiṣya prayukta upadeṣṭā.ṣkra=4.2. The key to the notation is contained in the sūtra given below. 1-1-7 80 Mlecchā hi yavanāsteṣu samyak śāstramidaṃ sthitaṃ ṣivatte’pi pūjyante kiṃ punardaiva viddvijaḥ.varṇānāṃ svakarmavat1-81).kriyāviśeṣabahulāṃ bhogaiśvaryagatiṃ prati. That system of notation is becoming obsolete as manuscript granthas of the old type are seldom used by the modern generation.tra=60. they are designated as Vrātyās 3-26-6. B.nya=3.bādhanālakṣaṇaṃ dukhaṃ.pra=8.Menon. ña=100 . there are as many as nine Sanskrit commentaties.(page.tha=20.Zysk’s attribution of Buddhist orientation to teaching of Caraka and Suśruta’s dictum ‘the principal aim of medical system is to eradicate physical and mental pain does not hold strong ground as Nyāyāsūtra speaks about it as the first prameya . 95. The compendium of Caraka adopts a path that accommodates the . yāmimāṃ puṣpitāṃ vācaṃ pravadantyavipaścitaḥ.100 uses this notation is one of the reason for Dr. Na nna nya ṣka jha hā gra pra dra ma.SreedharaMenon.bhogaiśvaryaprasaktānāṃ ṃ.d) Rasavaiśeṣike tathānyadapi sārvakālikaṃ sarvapuruṣhāṇāṃ sātmyamuktaṃ . ṇa=90. power of exposition and lucidity every one of them must be pronounced to be superior to Sarvanga Sundari of Arunadatta whom they have freely quoted in their works.M 73 The caste was foisted on a casteless society by the Aryan immigrants who worked with extraordinary missionary zeal in spreading the Aryan ideology based on the primacy of Chaturvarnya.10-34-12 refers to vrātas.ibid) 74 Sūtra 1/7… abhijana.1-22. 96.vyāvasāyātmikābuddhiḥ samādhau na vidhīyate. Te ca grāmaguṇajñāśca mantrauṣadhiparāyaṇāḥ.dre=9.G.ma=10. The Ms. Caraka himself attaches little importance these narrations.gra=7. Vrātyasūkta –Atharvaveda kāṇḍa 12.282.S. He regards them as the root of Tantric tradition. Page 1-4 S. 75 K.tadatyantavimokṣo’pavargaḥ.li=30. 98. Tha li pta ba tra cha ṇa ña. which in course of time got associated with the Vedic tradition.

H. Vaidyaśāstrapāragāmitvaṃ pratīyate.2. 98 Atrāha kasyedaṃ vārttikamiti.S.cākṣuṣācākṣuṣāṇāmacākṣuṣatvāt saṃyogasya. Nbh. Sūtrasthaṃ padamādāya vākhyaiḥ sūtrānusāribhiḥ.4.S. ārogyaśāstraṃ vyākhyāsyāma ityaviśeṣeṇoktatvāt sarvatantrapadārthasaṃgrahācca.2.V. (kārttikastvarocake kaṭvaṃlamuṣṇaṃ virasaṃ ca pūti pittena vidyāllavaṇaṃ ca vaktraṃ.S. Nbh. 89 Sūtrārtho varṇyate yena padaiḥ sutrānusāribhi Svapadāni ca varnyante bhāṣyaṃ bhāṣyavido viduḥ.11. It should be noted that the treatise maker only refutes the fluxist theory of Buddhist directly and anātmavāda of Cārvāka-s. Ian Mabbett.Interestingly Bhāskararāya reads the term as nirbāṇa.Meulenbeld English translation reads the term as kārtika.6. Buddhist writes on Ayurveda like Aṣṭāṅ dārśanic level. Bhāṣyaṃ sūtraprayuktārthakaṭināṃśaprakāśakaṃ ḥ. Nbh.Upaskāra. Tasmādbahuśrutaḥ śāstraṃ vijānīyāccikitsakaḥ. Nbh. The Buddhist philosophy oriented on compassion as its centrality had certainly influenced all works of that period and even Kumarilla find it hard to ignore this and he elevates many a time Buddha to pious Brahmin in his Tantravārttika.NBh.Sa.4.1-1. Sūtrāṇi yogaśāstre vaidyaśāstre ca vārttikāni tataḥ ḥ pracārayāmāsa jagadidaṃ trātuṃ. Page 173 AnantalalThakur 91 Yāvad sūtravyākhyānāntaraṃ anupajīvya tad vyākhyānaṃ bhāṣyaṃ. 88 It is clear that what has proved "baffling to the most brainy" is the quest for knowledge about Nagarjuna's life.S. 94 Sūtramātrāvalambena nirālambena’pi jacchataḥ .śl.4-73 97 Evam vārttikaprayojanamapi dyotitaṃ bhavati viśeṣārthaprakāśanamiti. Tasya pārthivasyaiva sataḥ saṃyogaḥ itarairiteke.1.2. page 2069 Śabdārthakaustubhaḥ. R.S. 99 Pradhāntvaṃ punarasyāḥ śeṣāṅgeṣvapikāyacikitsāviṣayaparyāpannerevasnehasvedanādibhirārogyasādhanāt.V.A.6. 100 * mentions that Vijyarakṣita commenting of M.V.3.tribhiratarairityabhyupagamapakṣe na ghaṭate iti yadi bauddhānāṃ sutarāṃ siddhyati. Ibid. for example he consciously places the concept of sāmānyaviśeṣa theory Caraka by the articulation ḥ samānaiḥ sarveṣāṃ viparītairviparyayaḥ.4.2. 87 Dr.23. 90 Vardhamana the aut bhāṣyaṃ : means commentary in which only the real sense of the sūtras are retained sans the rendering the actual sūtras.V.73 . Ibid.2. so to attribute a Buddhist orientation will break the epistemological frame work of the compendium.N.1 96 Idamih ṣyaṃ vārttikaṃ tantrasāraṃ munivaramatibhedādaṣṭaśakhasya tasya.4. Svapadāni ca varṇyante bhāṣyaṃ bhāṣyavido viduḥ. vipāpaṃ virajaḥ śāntaṃ paramakṣaramavyayaṃ ṃ brahma nirvāṇam paryāyaiḥ śāntirucyate. Teṣāṃ bhūtavyatirekeṇa kālābhāvāccītoṣṇābhyantaratvāditi.S.S.22.divergent systems of Indian both in the philosophical and medical tradition.RVS.44 pratyakṣāpratyakṣāṇāṃ saṃyogasyāpratyakṣatvāt pañcātmakaṃ na vidyate.14 to avoid the complications that may arrive from the acceptance of concept of sāmānyaviśeṣā.2. 85 Anyaśāstropapannānāṃ cārthānāmihopanītānāmarthavaśātteṣāṃ tadvidyebhya eva vyākhyānamanuśrotavyaṃ kasmāt? Na hyekasmiñ śāstre śakyaḥ sarvaśāstrāṇāmavarodhaḥ kartuṃ. tatra nāmaikyameva bījamanugacchāmo nānyat kiṃcanaiveti.Nbh 1-1.101 aṇusaṃyogastvapratiṣiddhaḥ.) 93 *Patañjalicarite hyaṣṭ ṣṭaśatābdīyena rāmabadradīkṣitena likhitaṃ. 86 Tadasamyak. 83 kāladravyapadārthavādibhirvaidyairanyaiścānyathātvagamanasādhako bhavati.C.2. Yādavji text and Dr.11 uses the term vārttika to refer the position of Carakasaṃhita supplemented by Ḍ . R.athavā viśeṣataḥ kāyacikitsāyāḥ. 84 Ārogyaṃ paro labho nirvāṇaḥ paraṃ sukhaṃ. Nyāyanibandhaprakāśa 92 Vyākhyānāntaraṃ upajīvya sūtravyākhyānaṃ . Rāmacandradīkṣitaḥ 2/22. yaduktaṃ mahābhāṣ . 95 Prītyarthaṃ viduṣāmanugrahakaraṃ mandātmanāṃ sarvadātasyedaṃ suparīkṣitārthaviṣayaṃ bhāṣyaṃ mayā kathyate.26. ekaṃ śastramadhīyāno na vidyācchāstraniścayaṃ. This shows that the sūtra text is a later codified one. Mahābhāṣye tatra tatra nānāvidhavaidyakaśabdhaprayogānmaharśeḥ patañjalaeḥ. khe khelavanmamāpyatra sāhasaṃ siddhimeṣyati.Ci. ‘vārttikāni tata’ ityatra ‘saṃhitāmatulāmiti’ pāṭhaḥ prāmādika eva. Na .Sharma’s option of considering the readctor of Suśruta as author of sūtra text stands as strong contendor.Su.Su.C.S.1. V. snehanasvedanavamanavirecanāsthāpanānuvasananasyakarmapradhāna hi kāyacikitseti viśeṣitaṃ hi .136) of Bramāṇḍapurāṇa also uses the term nirvāṇa so also Kūrmapurāṇamāmanā ṃ nirvāṇamamalaṃ padaṃ.P. Lalitasahasranāma(nityaklinnā nirupamā nirvāṇasukhadāyinī. 4.4.aṣṭāṅgasyāyurvedasya sakalasya. Śambhunātha commenting on this term explains it as nirvāṇaṃ apariccinnaṃ yatsukhaṃ tad dadātīti sā.

I.4. All these references regarding vārttika shows that Āyurveda community of medieval period felt great need for a supplementary work in Āyurveda in line with Kātyāyana and Uddhyodakara and subsequent authors tried to fill this void.where bhāṣya is an elucidation of given sūtra text in line with it. Uktaṃ ca vārttike kṣirasvāmidattena and vārttikakārapādā prāhuḥ.69. 102 Bhāsarvjñā’s Nyāyabhūṣaṇaṃ. kimanayā sūkṣmikayā.15. 101 His appellation that his work is both bhashya and vartika is a contradiction. Idānīmapi sa grantho vilasatyeva.suptiṅntābhidheyasya vākyasyātiprasaṅgataḥ.63-65 refers to Kṣīrasvāmidatta’s commentary as vārttikā.‘āpto nāmānubhavena vastutatvasya kātsneyena niścayavān rāgādivaśādapi nānyathāvādi yaḥ sa iti carake patañjaliri’ti.Nbh. .2.1-39 . Narasiṃha’s effort to exalt his work to vartika might be a conscious effort to elevate its status. with great reverence. 105 Durbodhaṃ yadatīva taddhi (vi)jahati spaṣṭārthamityukthibhiḥ spaṣṭārtheṣ ṃ vidadhati vyarthaiḥ samāsādikaiḥ . Mādhavanidānīyamadhukoṣanāmnyā vyākhyāyā striṃ ṣṭhe mahārajakesavasenasya dauhitreṇ ṣṭaśātābdīyenavijayarakṣitena carakasaṃhitāyāścikitsāsthānīyaḥ ‘kaṭvamlamuṣṇaṃ virasaṃ ca pūtipittena vidyāllavaṇaṃ ca vaktraṃ’(26/182) ityeṣ ḥ. Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthan. 103 Iha tāvadasmad guruṇā nāgavīryācāryeṇa svabhāṣye parikalpitamasti ārogye (mukta?) muktarogāvasthāyāmiti. because both are indented for carrying two specific tasks. N.73. Ato hi mahābhāṣ ṃ sutarāṃ .Nbh. vaidyakaśāstre ‘vātaskandha-paittaskandhopetasiddhāntasāravalī’. Yasya kasya vā bhavatu.yadvātadvā catuṣṭayaṃ parikalpayituṃ.2. 104 Yāvat khyātavyaṃ tāvaditi Nbh 1-1.1.nityameva gauṇā nityaṃ mukhyā gauṇamukhyāśceti.kevalametāvadeva.Nbh.S.1. 110 Uktaṃ hi – upasrganipātānām kevalānāṃ svabhāvataḥ dyotakāstvanyasannidhau.4. kiṃ sarva eva svasthā muktarogāvasthāyā ūrdhvameva doṣ ṃ mantavya iti. 111 yadi sāṅ ḥ pariṇāma iti vacanāt.Nbh.Nbh.Nbh.tasmādāgamavirodhād yuktisadbhāvāccāsmadīya evādyaḥ parikalpaḥ śreyān. edited by Paṇḍit Ḍhunḍhirājśāstrī . Iha tāvadsmadguruṇānāgavīryācāryeṇasvabhāṣyeparikalpitamasti ārogye(mukta?) muktarogāvasthāyāmiti….pūrvoktadoṣoddharaṇaṃ ṣasādhanaṃ vā.22. The task attributed to varttika is to supplement the sūtra when it fails. second edition 1982.Ci.2371.1.22. Tasādāgamavirodhād yuktisadbhāvāccāsmadīya evādyaḥ parikalpaḥ śreyāṃ. Na hyāyurvede pratyakṣ ṣṭaphalatvāditi. Ācāryeṇa tāvat padyairavaśyamabhyupaga(ntavyaṃ?taṃ) dravyāntaramityavagantavyaṃ.Cat.of Mss. Yathā – sāmānyavācinaḥ śabdā bhavanti śreṣṭagāminavaidyapaṅkajasāmānye bhiṣkpadmaparigrahāt. Asthāne’nupayogibhiśca bahubhirjalpairbhramaṃ tanvate śrotṇ ḥ sarve’pi ṭ ḥ 6. 1-2 108 Atra tāvadayaṃ pakṣaḥ i vikāraḥ ṣācca.p. Śrūy ṣṭaśatābdīya āṣāḍhavarmmā tadīya ‘parihāravārttika’ samākhyāyāṃ carakaṭīkāyāṃ ṃ vārttikamadūduṣaditi.vyavacchedāya yujyante cādiprādyāḥ kanādivat… Sāmānyaśabdānāṃ viśeṣavācakatvamiṣyate pradhānāpekṣayā. Mañjuṣāyāmāptalakṣaṇaṃ nirūpatayā nāgeśabhaṭṭenāpi kathitaṃ.nāmakagrantho’pi tena bhagavatā praṇītaḥ.3271) ata eva carakasaṃhitāyāṃ tasya vārttikapraṇ ṇe nāsti kaścid doṣaleśa iti manyāmahe.2.1916-19. Jejjaṭa on C.No.1. ayaṃ . Teṣāṃ bhūtavyatirekeṇa kālābhāvācchītoṣṇābhyantaratvāditi. auto commentary on Nyāyasāra (believed to be a scholar from Kāśmīr in anterior period of tenth century of common era ) refers the bhāṣya by the title saṃghravārtika. vaiśeṣikāṇāmapi kālāntaravasthāyyanityatābhyupagamānna yuktaṃ.III.svapakṣasādhanaṃ ṣoddhāraṇaṃ.1. Nbh. Yogasūtraṃ by Maharṣipatañjali with six commentaries Kashi Sanskrit Series 83 . athāpyayaṃ pravādaḥ sarvaṃ sarvātmakamiti sāṅkhīyaḥ syānnāyurvedaniyamaḥ. Anyathā dadhikṣīrādīṇāṃ bhedo na syāditi cikitsaiva na syāt.Nbh.(see Trien. means that commentary should be limited to the extent to which the context demands.Sanskrit B. 106 Iha tāvad dvividhā svapakṣasthapanā. whether he was influenced by Bhāsarvñja is a difficult one but there is a striking resemblance between the efforts of the two authors claim for vārttika status for their bhāṣya ṣyaṃ vārttikaṃ tantrasāraṃ munivaramatibhedādaṣṭaśākhasya tasya.4. Varanasi.3-45 109 See citation 101. trividhā hi śabdāḥ.bh 1-14.R.Part. Nbh. 107 Yadyayamāgamo na syāt.Nbh.3.Vol.Nbh. 112 tribhiritarairityabhyupagamapakṣe na ghaṭata iti yadi bauddhānāṃ sutarāṃ siddhayati.

123 asmado dvayośca.) Cakrapaṇidatta an idea which totally negates the role of kṣaya ṣadūṣyaṃ dūṣayanto jvarādīn kurvanti na kṣīṇāḥ svayameva dusthitatvāt.69. Labhyata eva. 115 Iha khalu trividho hetuḥlakṣaṇaheturanumānaheturuttaraheturiti.. 117 Yathānyatrāpi vāsavadattāyāṃ subandhunā baddhamudayanena ca śubhamiti vāsadattācarite udayacarita iti (?) Nbh.1.29).H.bhiṣajā pari ḥ.) In the commentary of Narasiṃha we are not getting any information about this theoretical shift also establishes the anteriority of this text so too the lack references regarding the divisions of samprapti. adravyaṃ paramāṇavaḥ.1.2.ibid.1..yanmate doṣetikartavyātārūpā saṃprāptiriṣyate….2. 128 Akṣapāda akṣapādasya gandhādaya iti.(Garuḍapuraṇa) athāta ityayaṃ samudāyaḥ . Adravyamanekadravyaṃ ceti. Compare with Garuḍapurāṇa and Bhaṭṭolpala views on ‘atha’ : athataḥ śabdayorevaṃ vāyamājñāya tattvataḥ.S. (Śarīrasvarūpatajjanmamarṇāntarālabhāvinī garbhavakrāntisamaye svakārṇodrekajanitā nirvikārarūpā kāpi doṣasthitiḥ A.Vai.3. 121 Śridasa adopts the definition given by Narasiṃha in his commentary with referring to him.2.Su.2.1.ārogyaśāstraṃ vyākhyāsyāma ityanenāyamarthaḥ kiṃ na labhyate. athāpi teṣaṃ ṣayau vyādhistasya bhaiṣajyamucyata iti. Uttarahetuḥ pūrvapakṣadoṣavacanārthaḥ.Nbh. 116 Page 21.II. Cakrapāṇidatta.20. etaduktaṃ bhavati.3.N. Vaiśeṣikāṇāṃ hi dvividhaṃ dravyaṃ. Nbh.4.1 Niścalakara refers to schools of thought who regarded kṣaya also a disease state.5). Tantavo’pyātānavitānabhāvena saṃyuktāḥ paṭdravyamārabhante. Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha urges the physician to consider kṣaya also for the diagnostic purposes (ye doṣ ṣayayorvikārāḥ kīrtitāḥ .12.H.29.12. iyaṃ vaiśeṣikāṇ ṇasamudāyadravyavādinaṃ na pramodayati.42. Śeṣeṣvapi tu tāneva kalpayentdyathāyathaṃ.1.2.81.101.uṣṇalakṣaṇo’gnirityuktaṃ bhavati.Nbh.pratyayastūpakāramātraṃ karoti. 118 Page 21. Na hyāyurvede pratyakṣ ṣṭaphalatvāditi. Adravyamanekadravyaṃ ceti.2. Adravyaṃ paramāṇavaḥ ibid.20.44 Dvividhaṃ hi kāraṇaṃ pratyayo heturiti.BT on BS. Influence of Narasiṃhabhāṣya can also be seen in the Vākyapradīpikavyākhya of Parameśvaradvija(1422C.ibid. śaṅkuśalākārajjusūtraturīveṇunālītantuvāya prayatnādayaḥ pratyayāḥ ṭasya(na) śaṅ . 124 Vaiśeśikasutra utkṣepaṇamavakṣepaṇamākuñcanaṃ prasāraṇaṃ gamanamiti karmāṇīti. vaiśeṣikāṇāmapi kālāntaravasthāyyanityatābhupagamānna yuktaṃ. Atrāpi tathā anumānahetuḥ sādakaḥ.1.15.ibid.ibid.2.M.4. Śridasa also adopts the division of healthy individual from Nbh.Ni. Tathauvoktaṃ hi saṃkhyāpramāṇāni sayogavibhāgena parāvaratve karma rūpisamavāyāccākṣuṣāṇīti.113 Atrāthaśando’dhikāre draṣṭavyaḥ.1.ibid2. 126 vaiśeṣikāṇāṃ hi dvividhaṃ dravyaṃ. Kimadhikurute. (vaiśeṣikasūtra.1. Śridasa.7.Nbh.ārogyaśāstravyākhyānamadhikurute. Apratilakṣaṇatvadākāśamiti.mahatā prakāśenopalabdhe vastuni punaḥ pradīpaḥ kiṃ dyotayati. Nbh. Nbh. 114 Āptavacanasya traividhyāt śraddheyā(rtha)manumeyārthaṃ pratyakṣārthaṃ ceti.16.tathāpyastyeteṣāṃ dyotakānāṃ ṃ tadarthaviśeṣadyotakatvaṃ ḥ iti.( śāstraṭ svāmidāseśvarasenādayo vyācakṣate kṣayajā api vyādhayaḥ). vaiśēṣikāstu manynte dārśanaṃ spārśanaṃ ca dravyamiti pratyakṣeṇopalabhyata iti.H. Sūtreśu tu mahāprājñāstāvevādō prayuñjate.pratyakṣata eva rūpamupalabhyata iti.Nbh.).26.15.Su. A.yanmate vyādhijanmasamprāpati Madhukośaṭīkā M. Aṣṭāṅ hints towards the increasing trend of physicians ignoring the state of kṣaya ḥ kṣīṇāśca bhūyiṣṭhaṃ lakṣayantyabhudhā na tat. Śraddheyārthamuttarāḥ kuravaḥ svarge’psarasa iti. Nbh.2.2.1. Vaiśeṣikāṇāṃ hi dvividhaṃ dravyaṃ. svasvau dvau bhiṣajā pālyaḥ . Āyurvedadīpikaṭīkā.1. RVS.1.44.ibid. Tathāpi dyotitamarthaṃ vācakena sphuṭīkaroti.athātosmācchāstropanayānādanantaraṃ ……….1. adravyamanekadravyaṃ ceti.1.1.1.C.3.tatra lakṣaṇaheturuṣṇatvādgniḥ.Nbh.Nbh.9-10.46.VS.S.26. 2. RVS. Anumeyārthaṃ pratyakṣārthaṃ ca yathā cakṣurindriyaṃ rūpasya grāhakamiti.siddhavaiśeṣikāḥ khalu manynte – dārśanaṃ spārśanaṃ dravyamiti.) Narasiṃ ṇāntarālabhāvinī garbhavakrāntisamaye svakarṇodrekajanitā nirvikāriṇi doṣasthitiḥ.2.)Nbh.) 122 Page. Kriyāvad guṇavat samavāyikāraṇaṃ dravyamiti dravya lakṣaṇaṃ. (aṣṭādhyāyī. 125 Vaiśeṣika.(aṣṭādhyāyī.2.43.Nbh. Cakṣuṣi sati na bhavati tasmādasti cakṣurindriyamityanumīyate.iha vaiśeṣikāṇaṃ dravyāṇāṃ yuktānāmeva bhavati.1.Nbh. Avasthāviśiṣṭo doṣaḥ.2.hetustasya karyasya nirvartakaḥ.A.47. jātiraprāṇināṃ.34.M.yathā paṭasya tantavo hi nirvartakatvāddheturityucyante.Su.9. Ayaṃ .11. Śridāsa Vol.1. athavāthaśabdho maṇgālarthaḥ.1.A.E. kṣīṇāstu nānyaduṣṭiṃ doṣāḥ kurvantīti pratipāditameva.1.7.2.1.20 127 . 119 Kaḥ punarasau roga iti.1. ete hetavo vaiśeṣikamatānusāreṇācāryeṇoktā iti yathā śrutameva vyākriyante.Nbh.2.3.1. 120 Setikartavyatāko rogotpādakaheturnidānaṃ.3.Su.44.Su. na viśeṣārthgatyā.1. Tatra ṃ.

1.S. madanaṃ caladhātutvād doṣakopanameva tu .Nbh.M.2.20.15.Nbh. C. Nbh. 130 137 doṣāmayo hi kāyaḥ: doṣadhātumalamūlaṃ śariramiti .12.1.Su. ākarṣaṇaṃ dūrasthānāṃ nārīṇāmāhvānaṃ auṣadhavīryeṇā…. Uktaṃ hi. (page. Nbh. Daśa pañca ca karmāṇi guṇānāṃ pāñcabhautikāt. Evametāni proktāni yathāvadanupūrvaśaḥ. ṣāḥ ṣu kriyāvidhānamuktamāyurvedeṣu.27.4.Nbh.ibid. Viruddhairapi na tvetairguṇairghantiparsparaṃ.50 Athāpyayaṃ pravādaḥ sarvaṃ sarvātmakamiti sāṅkhyīyaḥ syānnāyurvedaniyamaḥ. Nbh. Nbh.1..4.1.1.Nbh.36. Svasthasya prītamanso na kriyābhiḥ prayoganaṃ. (sukhā stands for positive health and cikitsā is its mean).yadi sāṅkhyasya. see .1 136 dharmārthakāmamokṣāṇāmārogyaṃ mūlamuttamaṃ.1. Nbh. The 142 sañcayamu the concept of health of paper. snehanasvedanavamana virecanāsthāpanānuvasananasyakarmapradhāna hi kāyacikitseti viśeṣitaṃ hi . Doṣāḥ sahajasātmyatvādviṣaṃ ghoramahīniva. lokaḥ ṣeṇopacaryante madhurādayaḥ. pauṣṭikaṃ lābhakaraṃ śrīsūktaṃ nāma vidyā tayā sahasraṃ labhate. Teṣāṃ bhūtavyatirekeṇa kālābhāvāccītoṣṇābhyantaratvāditi.vaśīkarṇaṃ strīṇāṃ puruṣāṇaṃ vā ātmasātkarṇaṃ lokaprasiddhaṃ….Nbh.Nbh. vidyādihārogyaphalaṃ narāṇāṃ dharmārthakāmapratimokṣasiddhiḥ.22. Vāyvanalasvabhāvācca prāṇaghnaṃ madanaṃ mataṃ.1. 132 kāladravyapadārthavādibhirvaidyairanyaiścānyathātvagamanasādhako bhavati.Su. Uktāni niminā ambhūmijamadhobhāgaṃ tejovāyujamūrdhvagaṃ.21. Dr.1.56. Nbh. 144 Lokaḥ śastrabhāhyo janaḥ.Nbh. yaḥ svasmin sthāne’nyasyāvakāśaṃ niruṇ ṣṭaḥ cakravartīti.Menon construes Buddhist linkage to Narasiṃha from this single refernce ‘viraharāthe atapasvijano’yaṃ vihāraḥ.3-36 141 Evametāni doṣāṇaṃ svābhyudayakaratvāt karmāṇītyucynte.1.27. Bhiṣakparipālitādanyaḥ.1 and opines that the Brahmanical references including the one of Śrīsūkta found its place in the commentary out of respect for Hindu scriptures and ceremonies seems to be a far stretching consclusion. mantratatvaṃ cācintyakāraṇ ṇi vidyādharāṇāmākāśagamayathepsitārthanirvartanajanakāni ācintyānyaparimeyāni ca santīti. Nbh. bhūmyabjaṃ ṃ ca khavāyujaṃ. upāyataḥ sādhanamasya vidyāt snehādi yat karma mayā pradiṣṭaṃ. Rogāstasyāpahartāraḥ śreyaso jīvitasya ca. Nbh.3.96.26. 149 daivaṃ jyotijñānaṃ grahasthitirjanmāṣṭavargayoḥ.Ci.Nbh.129 sāṅkhyānāṃ śabdādayaḥ. 134 asya sakalasya pravacanasyākṣibhūtasya maharṣebhāgavato bharadvājasya darśanaṃ yathā .Nbh. Bhāṣya’s salient feature is the absence of reference to Vāgbhaṭa’s works.C.4.RVS. Dravyeṣvevaṃ vijānīyāt karmāṇi daśa pañca ca.RVS.4. Purīṣ ṣṭatā ca tathendriyārthagrahaṇe ca śaktiḥ.106.Nbh. Manasukhatvaṃ balavarṇalābhaḥ svapnaḥ sukhena pratibodhanaṃ ca. 147 Na hyāhavanīyo’gnirvasthaṃ dāhyaṃ dahati. 133 Tatra teṣāṃ teṣāṃ bhedānāṃ prayoganaṃ tantreṣu draṣṭavyaṃ. nāsau vāñchati. āśryabhūtaḥ ṣṭa iti.1.Nbh.) 148 Koyaṃ .Nbh. Nbh.S.142. 150 Pradhāntvaṃpunarasyāḥśeṣāṅgeṣvapikāyacikitsāviṣayaparyāpannerevasnehasvedanādibhirārogyasādhanāt.1.tribhiratarairityabhyupagamapakṣe na ghaṭate iti yadi bauddhānāṃ sutarāṃ siddhyati.30. varṇānāṃ svakarmavat.24.7.1.102. Vidveṣaṇaṃ parasparaprītivibhedanaṃ auṣadhaviṣeṣeṇa mantraviśeṣeṇa ca….103.3.1.73. 146 Abhijanaḥ jātibrāhmaṇādi. vāyusomamahījātaṃ tathā saṃshamanaṃ viduḥ ṃ paricakṣ ṃ guṇairyuktaṃ jīvanīyamiti sthitiḥ. 139 āha cātra nimiḥ sarvaṃ dvandvamayaṃ dravyaṃ jānīyāt pāñcabhautikaṃ guṇavaiṣamyakāraṇaṃ. 145 Samantrāṇi punareṣāṃ kānicit. Duṇ ṃ yadyanyān bhāvayanti ca. sāṅgrāhikaṃ ṃbhavaṃ . Nbh.2.1.83.1.4-30 138 140 Doṣāśaye pacyamānā rasāstaddoṣāghātakān. Prāṇaghnaṃ tīvrabhāvāttu doṣadhātuprakopanaṃ .1. Agnestu guṇabāhulyāt pācanaṃ paricakṣmahe.2.ibid. Dāraṇaṃ mārutāgneyaṃ ropaṇaṃ bhūjalānilaṃ.29.S.Nbh.Nbh.3.11 151 Svasthe bhiṣ ḥ kriyāḥ pratiṣiddhā eva.Pañcakarma or its preparatory are performed with out any discretion and that to under a rather paradoxical name.29.293.Rājadvārikaṃ rājavaśyaṃ.42. Antardhānikaṃ ṣadhakaṃ vā naṣṭacchāyārūpaścarti….Nbh.1. apāṃ guṇabahutvāttu śītīkaraṇamiṣyate .S. 143 Avyavasthitatvādapradhāno’nārya iti yatkiñcid vaktuṃ śakyata iti.ibid. ibid.1.tataivobhayatobhāgaṃ mahyagnyanilajaṃ mataṃ .samatvād dhātudoṣāṇāṃ malānāṃ cāvikārataḥ.1.1.27. So term loka refers to people who are not knowning the true essence of Āyurvedic concepts. This part of bhāṣya should be viewed with its contemporary relevance.1. 135 Tallakṣaṇaṃ pañcadaśaprakāramāhārakāṅkṣā svadanaṃ vi(ve?pā)kaḥ.sukhacikitsā.81.Nbh.69 131 Utpattipralayakāraṇaṃ triguṇaṃ pradhānamiti.

158 Iha tāvad dvividhā svapakṣasthāpanā. parasparaviruddhārogyānārogyakārṇaṃ dravyādi samyaṅmitthyāprayogāpekṣatvāt. 155 Sarvaṃ hīdaṃ śāṣtraṃ sādhanamevaṃ tyājyagrāhyadvāreṇa. 164 ṣvacintyeṣu guṇānāmavasthāntareṣ iti.29 eṣāṃ vīryāṇāṃ medhyādīnarasaguṇabhūtasamudāyāśraya iti. aprakupitānāṃ ḥ iti viśeṣitatvāt pūrvaṃ ḥ ḥ tena tena vyāpāreṇa.Nbh.95. 160 See citation 139.39. 167 Rasavīryavipākādiguṇātiśayavānayaṃ.42.Nbh.1.1.Nbh.tiṣṭhantu tāvad guṇapadārthavyādhivādinaste.Nbh. (yataḥ sahajāṃ buddhiṃ vinā śāstrajā buddhiryā vaināyakītyabhidhīyate. Nbh. Tasmsādevaṃ bhūtabhautikakrameṇācintyānyetāni vīryāṇīti jānīma iti. The citation 139 reveals that fact that the author discovered it extremely difficult to assimilate the divergent views from other śāstras. Mātsaryamānapratipakṣabhūtaṃ jñānaṃ munīnaṃ yathārthaṃ mahatāṃ yathārthaṃ.tathārasaguṇabhūtasamudāyānāmiti. na doṣamayaḥ kayo bhautikaḥ.Nbh. sāṅkhyānāṃ śabdādayaḥ vaiśeṣikāṇāṃ rūpādayaḥ akṣapādasya gandhādaya iti.2.4.149.2.On comparison with Cakrapaṇi (C. .Su. Compare Cakrapāni’s notion of śāstrabuddhi or vaināyakī buddhi and sahajabuddhi. their statements are quoted verbatim. nahi. refer concept of acintyavīrya RVS.1. Nbh.1.50.4.pratijñādoṣācca. utkarṣavānapakarṣavāṃśca sanniveśaviśeṣaḥ nāsmābhiḥ parīkṣitamastīti. Nbh. kiṃ tad dukhasaṃyogo vyādhiriti neṣyate . 157 Ayaṃ avati. 163 Tatra tattatkāraṇaparicchittidhātunānātvajñānaṃ nāma mahatāṃ sarvajñānāmeva bhavati.2.25.Nbh.2.27. 153 Buddherboddhyāni śāstrāṇi sūkṣmaistatvārthaniścayaiḥ. Saṃprapyate yatparamārthasiddhirbālābhilāpeṣvapi tatvavidbhiḥ.Su.129.1.S.Ci. Nbh.14.anyeṣāṃ dravyāṇāmanyathāvīryatvāt…yathā rasaguṇabhūtasamudāyānyacintyavīryadravyāṇi tathārasaguṇabhūtasamudāyānāṃ tattulyarasaguṇabhūtasamudāyānāmiti.97.Nbh. Kuta iti. Nbh.60.Ibid.2.61 165 ṣyaṃ vārttikaṃ tantrasāraṃ munivaramatibhedādaṣṭśākhasya tasya.yuktyabhāvāt .5. C.15.1.2 atrā tāvadayaṃ pakṣaḥ ḥ .1.Nbh.Nbh. Nbh. which may stand for conveying the sense of prerequisite. śakyaṃ yadvātadvā catuṣṭayaṃ parikalpayituṃ Nbh. Anenaivāpyūhyatvānnoktānīti.4. evāśra iti na jñayate.Nbh.15.Nbh.Nbh. 159 Ete hetavo vaiśeṣikamatānusāreṇācāryeṇoktā iti yathā śrutameva vyākriyante na viśeṣārthagatyā.Nbh.1. 168 tatra śarīragrahaṇena śarīrāvayavā doṣāḥ ḥ .anyeṣāṃ cintyavīryāṇāṃ dravyāṇāmanyathāvīryatvāt.15. Alukikatvāt.śarīraṃ hi bhautikamiti.2.1. Dravyasvabhāvo nirdiṣṭo yaḥ prabhassa kīrtitaḥ.26.4.Nbh.1.152 While explaining the meaning athā.Nbh. Pūrvoktadoṣoddharaṇaṃ ṣasādhanaṃ vā svapakṣasādhanaṃ ṣoddharaṇaṃ veti.2.4.) 154 Tallakṣaṇamāhārācāraṃ snehādiśca na sādhanaṃ ṣayā.) statements we can infer that Ayurveda system failed to resolve this deadlock.1. These statements suggest that an ordinary vaidya ṣaṇatāmāviṣ ṣārthajijñāsavo martyāḥ. utkarṣavānapakarṣavāṃśca sanniveśaviśeṣaḥ nāsmābhiḥ parīkṣitamastīti.55.9.Nbh.3 156 Yadyamāgamo na syāt. Narasiṃha comments(athāpi kriyāyāstadādhārasya ca tatvānyatvaṃ prati tārkikāṇāṃ matibhedo vidyate (na te?) nāsmākamityarthaḥ.tatvārthagrahaṇābuddhirnaiṣā sarvatrā vidyate. manovākkāyakarmavat puṇyāpuṇyayoḥ. nānyeṣāmiti. Tatprāpya kuryādiha kaḥ prasannaṃ mātsaryapaṅkākulamātsamacittaṃ.24. Rasāśca guṇāśca bhūtasamudāyaśca rasaguṇabhūtasamudāyāḥ.9. 161 Shift might started much before the time of RVS which includes samantra and acintyavīrya. Na hyāyurvede pratyakṣ ṣṭaphalatvāditi.1. Atha svecchāpratipattiḥ sāpi na yuktā.30 162 Mansaścendriyatvaṃ ca vivādasthānamiti.69 169 sarvātmanā sarvāvayavairavasthānaṃ bhavati doṣāṇāṃ kiṃ sarvakālaṃ.A. in that case the term refers to persons who had already studied the tenets of eight branches of Āyurveda and wants to understand the deeper meaning of the system. Idaṃ medhyādivīryaṃ imameva rasaṃ guṇaṃ vā bhūtasamudāyaṃ vāśrita iti jñātuṃ na śakyate. Nbh. yastu pathyaṃ na jānāti jānan pāpi na sevate tasya doṣāḥ prakupyanti bahirantarmalāni ca. Vakyapradīka . doṣāśca bhautikā iti.71.11.70.2.25.H.4.tattulyarasānāmiti.3.1. and he seems to be apologetic about his plight: yathā śrutameva vyākriyante na viśeṣārthagatyā.Nbh is only echoing this change of stand.S.1. haritakyādiṣ ṣṭavaśāt bhūtasanniveśaviśeṣ ḥ tena nātropapattayaḥ kramante. (The very observation will go against the concept of dravya of Caraka).Nbh.6) that Āyurveda is not in line which the idea that action and its relation to substratum as expounded by the Tārikā-s reveals the state of Ayurvedic system which by that time itself had parted from the basics expounded in treatises like Carakasaṃhita.71. Śarīrāvayavatvād doṣāṇāṃ.3. 166 Tasmād vihāyonnatimātmasaṃsthāṃ sarvatra vācaḥ padavīṃ parīkṣya. Narasiṃha in his commentary declines to answer those queries which are directed only for intellectual edification and lacked the pragmatic value and theoretical base eg.4.1. Etāni kiṃ cintyānyapi vīryāṇi chardanīyādīni vilayanāntānyevāhosvidanyānyapi santīti tantreṣu tasmānnoktāniti. Tadadhigamasamīha puṇyaleśād bhavatu jagati cittaṃ prāṇināṃ śāntibījaṃ. Tathā rasaguṇavīryatvāt.

Śiṣyebhyo dattavān ṣaḍbhyaḥ sarvabhūtānukampayā. carakādau samuddiṣṭā vastyo ye sahasraśaḥ.asātmendriyārthopayogaḥ śārīrāṇāṃ.A.Sa.170 ṣāṇāṃ bhāvitaṃ śarīraṃ na kṣ ṃ. Dehaikadeśāśrayaṇaṃ sthānasaṃśrayaṇaṃ viduḥ. Tato vāyurjvaramabhivartayatīti cet. A very similar allusion can be traced from Indu’s ṭīkā: Rogo vātādīnāṃ viṣamatā svarūpāccalanaṃ.30. Rogaviśeṣāṇāṃ jvarādīnāṃ nāmāni. YV.1.3. puruṣo’yaṃ lokasaṃmitaḥ.Induṭīkā.A.Nbh. Yathā vāyuḥ kupitaḥ ‘ekaśca doṣaḥ kupitaḥ sarvāneva prakopayet’ iti.6.1.H.2.26. Nbh. tena vyādhi viśeṣmaniṣpādayadapi doṣavaiṣmyaṃ ṃ bhavati. s ṃ viśeṣeṇa yatra kāyacikitsaṃ. sasūkṣmāmapi ca prājño dehāgnibalacetasāṃ.2.7.Nbh.Sa. Avārguttarakālaṃ yo doṣaḥ pracito bhūtvā prakupyti tena vyādhiriti na pūrvadoṣaprasaṅga iti.tathā śleṣmaṇo gauravamubhayorlāghavaṃ na śamayati.Su. 173 Tvakchoṇitāntare pittaṃ māṃsamedontare kaphaḥ.30.3. ṣaḍdhātusamudāyo hi sāmānyataḥ sarvalokaḥ. Avasthāviśiṣṭo doṣaḥ .śleṣmā ca nidrādhiyāratigauravādīni pūrvarūpāṇīti.Nbh.36.1.Nbh. 187 See citation 117 ṣyāvasthāṃ rogāṇā(doṣāṇā)mupalakṣayet.4. Tayā sāmyāvasthayā vyādhayo na bhavanti. nityopayogi durbodhaṃ sarvāṅgavyāpi bhāvataḥ. Sāmānya lakṣaṇaṃ vyādhīnāṃ doṣaghaṭṭanodbhūtadoṣajanitaṃ. pittaśleṣmāṇau kopayati. Sarvadehānusaraṇaṃ prasaraṃ bhiṣajo viduḥ.42. 174 177 Ko’yaṃ rogasvabhāvaḥ.Nbh.1. Cakradatta Nirūhādhikāraṃ 35.vāyurpi pittasya. Asthimajjāntare vāyurevaṃ tristhūṇamucyate. 185 Rujatīti rogaḥ śarīrayātrāṃ .17 Athamaitrīparaḥ puṇyamāyurvedaṃ punarvasuḥ.pittaṃ sarvajvarāṇāṃ sāmānyalakṣaṇaṃ santāpa mātraṃ karoti. vyavahāro na taiḥ prāyo nibaddhā nātra ten te .ibid. tasyāṃ tasyāmavasthāyāṃ catuḥśreyaḥ(tattacchreyaḥ) prapadyate.1. 172 Parasparabalādhānā(dīni?diti.C.94. vyādhyavasthāviśeṣān hi jñātvā jñātvā vicakṣaṇaḥ. Nbh.ibid. tatra saṃyogāpekṣī lokaśabdaḥ.1. The sūtras 1.Nbh.5.141. 175 Yadyevaṃ pāribhāṣikīyaṃ saṃjñā sāmyamiti bhavatu.Cakradatta even opts the narration of samprapti and restricts themselves to compilation of effective formulations and the treatises thus started to turn to repository of medicinal formulas rather than treatises which used to present a holistic view. 178 Nbh.30. 184 The term signifies the need for thinking beyond the purview of medicinal formulations for specific disease conditions.31.1.2.Nbh.1. 181 186 kaḥ punarasau roga iti.Su.7.43.S.S.66. to refer positive health and the term is not conceived for referring the system vide.Nbh. The need for the understanding of basic tenets of Āyurveda is emphasised through out the sūtra text. *āyurvede punaḥ kālaḥ śītoṣṇavarṣalakṣaṇaḥ ṣoḍhā bhinnaḥ saṃ .C. 176 Tatsādhanaṃ tatsamutthānaṃ saṃkṣepataḥ prajñāparādhaḥ asātmendriyārthopayogaḥ pariṇāmaśceti trividhaṃ.pariṇāmaḥ* svabhavavyādhīnāmiti.sthānādunmārgagamanaṃ prakopaḥ parikīrtitaḥ.Su.S.1. 171 dūṣaṇasvabhāvā hi doṣā na śamanasvabhāvā iti vāyurātmanaḥ śaityena pittasyauṣṇyaṃ na śamayati.8.5. Yathā vāyuryadā kupitastasya pittaṃ tadārogye vakṣamāṇa upakaroti. 188 . 183 ṇdamādhava.1. 182 Aṣṭāvaṅgāni tasyāhuścikitsā yeṣu saṃśritā. ṣāṇaṃ caya ityabhibhīyate.1. Sa punaravasthāviśiṣto doṣa ityuktaḥ prāk.1. Tatrāyurvedaḥ śākhā vidyā sūtraṃ jñānaṃ śāstraṃ lakṣaṇaṃ tantramityanarthāntaraṃ.1.7. Mārgāvaraṇaṃ ca karoti dravatayā. pittasyauṣṇyamapi tacchaityaṃ.9.Su. Rasavaiśeṣikasūtra in this sense codification of the text is a conscious effort to sort out the enigmas in the theoretical aspect of Āyurveda.81. This verse from Cakradatta demonstrates how far the later physicians moved away from the classical compendia like CS. Tasya khalu vyāvahārikyā gaṇanayopalakṣyamāṇā bhedā nimepādayo yugaparyantāḥ tasya vāyvabhravarṣahimātapacchāyānimittāścā viśeṣāḥ kālasajñāṃ labhante.1.S. Nbh.3. Tathā śleṣmaṇaśca pittaṃ dravatayopakaroti śleṣmāpi mārganirodhadravatābhyāṃ vātapittasyeti.163 clearly demonstrates his special intention.1 The term ārogya is used in classical text for instance Carakasaṃhitā Su.532. viśiṣṭasampraptayo hi doṣā eva rogāḥ tat kāryaṃ veti pakṣadvayaṃ.Nbh. Tatra teṣāṃ teṣāṃ bhedānāṃ prayoganaṃ tantreṣu draṣṭavyaṃ. kiṃtu āgameṣu siddhayā bhavitavyamiti.1. athātho āgroyaśāstraṃ vyākhyāsyāmaḥ (we shall expound the system of health) RVS.1.) yadā kupitāstadā parasparasyopakārāyaiva vartante.49:Ci.tatphalaṃ catuṣṭayānavāptiḥ. A. evaṃ prakopaśca sarvakālaṃ ṣaṭpaḍārthasaṃyogāpekṣayopalabhyate sarveṣāṃ doṣāṇāṃ.30 179 180 AVS.1.Nbh.1.42.29:Vi.1. Tatra prajñāparādho mānasānāmāgantūnāṃ ca..13.Su.6.1. sarvalokamātmanyātmānaṃ ca sarvaloke samamanupaśyataḥ….1. tatrānārogyaṃ vyādhiḥ.saṃpraptivaśena mukhyoktirhetutvenaupacārikī. Tau cānena doṣaghaṭṭanena kupitau vāyunā balavatābhibhūyamānau na svakāryavyādhiṃ nirvartayataḥ.

2 Suṣṭhu avatiṣṭate nīrogatveneti svathaḥ.Su. vidyādihārogyaphalaṃ narāṇāṃ dharmārthakāmapratimokṣasiddhiḥ.1.Āyurvedadīpikāṭikā. Bhiṣakparipālitādanyaḥ.Nbh. kutsālpavirahārtheṣu vipakṣe cāpi nañ bhavet Atra tāvad vipakṣe draṣṭavyaḥ. Evaṃ hyārogye parikalpyamāne ārogyaṃ rogābhāvamātraṃ syāt. Tanna tāvad yuktaṃ. Doṣairgraste grasyate rogasaṅghairyukte tu syānnirujo dīrghajīvī.Nbh.here suffix ‘kap’is used(svārthe kap)is used to signify importance the subjective plane in the analysis of health. 193 Tasmādatrāyaṃ naño’rtho’nyathā pratipadyate. 202 Svasthe bhiṣ ḥ kriyāḥ pratiṣiddhā eva.1.1. Vadanti punarābādhaṃ duḥkhaṃ śārīramānasaṃ.1.Su.samatvād dhātudoṣāṇāṃ malānāṃ cāvikārataḥ.Nbh.1 195 Athvā nivartyate’neneti karaṇasādhanaṃ. Samyak tu siddhirviparītamanyadekaikabhedād tu bhavedanekaḥ. puṃsāṃ balamūlaṃ hi jīvitaṃ.1.1. 200 Ko’yaṃ . Manasukhatvaṃ balavarṇalābhaḥ svapnaḥ sukhena pratibodhanaṃ ca.2.1. A.53.1. Tallakṣaṇaṃ .Nbh. Nbh. Samyak tu siddhirviparītamanyadekaikabhedād tu bhavedanekaḥ.1.37 ) 189 Avasthābahutvāt. Dravyaṃ guṇāścaiva rasāḥ savīryā vipākakarmāṇi ca ṣaṭ padārthāḥ. 8. Eṣa doṣāḥ caritaṃ sāraścikitsāyā yadāgneḥ 207 ṃ annaṃ saṃyogasaṃskāravaśēna cedaṃ.S. instead he explains health as sukhasaṃjñakaṃ .A.10. The articulation that health or ārogya will annihilate all afflictions of body and mind should understood as a metaphorical or figurative statement to show the importance of health.1.S.tallakṣaṇasādhanaphalānāmasambhavaḥ syāt. 206 Agnimūlaṃ balaṃ parirakṣaṇaṃ. Purīṣ ṣṭatā ca tathendriyārthagrahaṇe ca śaktiḥ. Etāvadetat tu cikitsitaṃ syāt taccāpi kāryaṃ tu bahūnavekṣya. Avastutvāditi bhāvaḥ. 36 .5.Nbh.31.Si.94.Nbh.ayamāgamastarhi kathamiti-Ārogyamāhurbhiṣajaḥ sarvābādhanivartanaṃ.1 191 Arthābhāvasya lakṣaṇato bhāvāt.1.Suprasannendriyatvaṃ ca sukhasvapnaprabodhanaṃ.yataścāyuṣyāṇyanāyuṣyāṇi ca dravyaguṇakarmāṇi vedayatyato’pyāyurvedaḥ. Rogavipakṣe ārogya svasthatāyāmityarthaḥ.H.23.Nbh. upāyataḥ sādhanamasya vidyāt snehādi yat karma mayā pradiṣṭaṃ. Sātmyaṃ pathyaṃ ṃ.67. Ibid.1. Nbh. Caraka saṃhita also explains the negative impact on health due to unguided living.1.30.Atrāyamupacāraḥ sarvābādhanivartanaṃ bhavatīti.83 201 203 204 Refer citation 197 ṇopalambhād ṣukriyāvidhānamuktamāyurvedeṣ ṣasañcayavyadāsārthamiti.Nbh. Evamanena bhiṣakparipālitaḥ svasthaḥ ḥ ṣagbhiḥ paripālyamānsya kālanimittāśca na bhavatīti.C. 190 Na rogaḥ arogaḥ arogabhāva āogyaṃ. Uktaṃ hi.C.(C.92-93. 197 198 kecidāhurārogye puruṣe iti.S.1 194 Atra tāvad vipakṣe draṣṭavyaḥ.S.2 compare with Caraka definition of āyurveda . Ayaṃ ca pratiṣedhaḥ saptasvartheṣu vartate.Nbh. Tatra ko doṣaḥ syāt. Caraka is not narrating these lakṣaṇa-s in his compendium.1. Sarvaṃ hīdaṃ śāstraṃ sādhanamevaṃ tyājyagrāhyadvāreṇa.1 compare the ārogya liṅgā-s of Kāśyapa: Annābhilāṣo bhuktasya paripākaḥ ṣṭvṇmūtravātatvaṃ śarirasya ca lāghavaṃ.12. anyeṣvarthaviśeṣeṣvasambhavāt. Ārogyameṣāṃ tu sadaiva vidyādabādhana tacca samaistu doṣaiḥ.1. Kathaṃ pratiṣ .Nbh.Nbh. Tallakṣaṇaṃ pañcadaśaprakāramāhārakāṅkṣā svadanaṃ vi(ve?pā)kaḥ.2 196 Sarvaṃ hīdaṃ śāstraṃ sādhanamevaṃ tyājyagrāhyadvāreṇa. Nbh. Ārogyavijñānamupāyasiddhiḥ phalaṃ ca bhoktavyamarogatāyāḥ. Tasmādagniṃ pālayetsarvayatnairstasminnaṣṭe yāti nā nāśameva.Ci.Su.1. 199 ṃ ca tathāturasya.6-8. Etāvadetat tu cikitsitaṃ syāt taccāpi kāryaṃ tu bahūnavekṣya. Svasthasya prītamanso na kriyābhiḥ prayoganaṃ.bhāvavācakatvādārogyaśabdasya. iti.Vidyādārogyaliṅgāni viparīte viparyayaṃ. Rogavipakṣe ārogya svasthatāyāmityarthaḥ.Nbh.1.83.Balavarṇāyuṣāṃ lābhaḥ saumansyaṃ samāgnitā. Dravyaṃ guṇāścaiva rasāḥ savīryā vipākakarmāṇi ca ṣaṭ padārthāḥ. 205 Atrāpyetaddhitamityetad bhiṣakparipālitasya snehasvedavidhiścetyādi padāhananānulepanādi ubhayoraviruddhamiti. Ārogyavijñānamupāyasiddhiḥ phalaṃ ca bhoktavyamarogatāyāḥ. N i . S . Ityādyavijñāya yatheṣṭaceṣṭāscarnti yasā’gnibalasya śaktiḥ. ttaṃ ca tathāturasya. Ārogyameṣāṃ tu sadaiva vidyādabādhana tacca samaistu doṣaiḥ.. Ārogyaṃ doṣasāmyaṃ tena śārīraṃ mānasaṃ sarvaṃ duḥkhaṃ nivartyata iti.1. Nbh.1. K.1 192 rogābhāvamātramevārogyamiti . anyeṣvarthaviśeṣeṣvasambhavāt.1.

Mangalodayam Press Āyurvedasūtraṃ – Pt. Śri.R.Krishnacandradvivedi.P. upāyataḥ sādhanamasya vidyāt snehādi yat karma mayā pradiṣṭaṃ.A. The Āyurvedasūtraṃ with the commentary of Yoganandanatha edited by Dr.Varanasi.I&II edited by Dr.Phd.V. edited by Paṇḍit ri Haridatta śāstri . Cikitsākalikā of Tīsaṭācārya containing Sanskrit Commentary of his son Candraṭa edited by Dr.S University of Mysore Oriental Library Publication Sanskrit series – 61. Nbh. Purīṣ ṣṭatā ca tathendriyārthagrahaṇe ca śaktiḥ. edited by Vaidya Jādavji Trikamji Ācārya. edited by Bhishagacarya Harishastri Paradkar Vaidya. Bhelasaṃhitā text with English translation by Dr.P.A.1996.1 Primary Sources.First edition 1989. Carakasaṃhitā with Āyurvedadīpikā tīkā.sū.V. AS.K. Khemraja ShriKrishnaDas.Sharma . vidyādihārogyaphalaṃ narāṇāṃ dharmārthakāmapratimokṣasiddhiḥ.Chaukhamba Surbharati Prakashan. 1994 reprint. A.H.Venketsewara steam press Bombay 1966 Aṣṭāṅ ṅgasundrā and Āyurvedarasāyana vyākhyā.P. published by Academy. ṃhita bhaṭṭotpalaṭīkā ṃhitā with bhaṭṭotpalaṭīkā Vol.Shamasastry B.Dr.1. Āy.Varanasi 2003 reprint.M.RamaprasadŚarma. published with Indu’s Śaśilekha edited by Rudraparaśara . Chaukhambhavisvabharati. ĀS. collated by Anna Moreswar kunte. Carakasaṃhitā with Āyurvedadīpikā tīkā & Nirantarapadavyākhya. 1941 . Lahore.Sharma. Cakradatta or cikitsāsaṅgraha of Cakrapāṇīdatta with Ratnaprabhā ṭīkā by Mahāmahopādhyāya Śri Niścalakara edited by Dr.V. Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha commentary .S.Krishnamurthy. Manasukhatvaṃ balavarṇalābhaḥ svapnaḥ sukhena pratibodhanaṃ ca.pañcadaśaprakāramāhārakāṅkṣā svadanaṃ vi(ve?pā)kaḥ.R. first edition 1993.H.S. Ed. Research Institute SampurnanadaSanskrit University Varanasi. Motilal Banarasidas. Trichur. Varanasi. C. Swami Jayaramadas Ramprakash Trust Jaipur. Krishnadas 2002 reprint. published by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers NewDelhi. BS BT Bhela Cakradatta CK Candraṭa C. 1922.Sharma.

by Pandit Hemaraja Sarma.1998. JKT K.1968. Narasiṃhabhāṣya of Rasavaiśeṣika sūtra: Ed. ḥ ḥ of Keśava Vol.Sāhityācāryya.Lacknow 1993 Carakasaṃhitā with Jalpakalpataruṭīkā of Kaviraja Gangadhara and Āyurvedadīpikaṭīkā of Cakrapāṇidatta edited by Kaviraja NarendranathSengupta and Kaviraja Balaichandrasengupta 2002 reprint Newdelhi. Mānameyodaya of Nārāyaṇa (An Elementary Treatise on the Mīmāṃsā) edited with an English translation by C. Rāṣṭ ḥ.KunhanRaja and S. Muktāvalī NB Ni . Sampurnanand Sanskrit University Varanasi 2003.Dinakarī and Rāmarudrī commentaries edited with foot notes by Ātmārāṃ Nārāyaṇa Jere.M Bhadanta Nagaarjuna’s Rasavaiseshikasutra edited by Dr. reprint2002.Varanasi. The Adayar Library and Research Centre.S.HK Halāduyakośaḥ:Halāduyakośaḥ or Abhidhānaratnamāla ed. 1928 RVS. SriVanchi Sethu Lakshmi Series.1996. mānameyodayaḥ Lalitāsasranāma MN. śrilalitāsasranāmastotraṃ with two commentaries Saubhāgyabhāskara of Bhāskararāya and Bālātāpā of śambhunātha edited by Late Prof.E. Ayurveda College Trivandrum. Nbh.Muthuswamy Kerala Government Ayurvedic Publication Series -2 Publication Division. Ṣaḍdarśanaprakāśana pratiṣṭānaṃ.M.Varanasi. Kāśyapasaṃ ). Mahāmuni Vātsyāyana’s Nyāyabhāṣya on GautamaNyāya. Dr. Govt.Oriental Institute Baroda.I&II edited with critical introduction by Rāmāvatāraśarma.Ananatalal Thakur.Indian Council of Philosophical Research NewDelhi.SuryanarayanaSastri. Śriviśvanāthānyāyapañcānanabhaṭṭācārya’s Kārikāvalī with Nyāyamuktāli. Govt of Travancore. .Kolatheri Sankara Menon.Madras. Nyāyabhūṣaṇaṃ Nyāyasāra of Ācāryabhāsarvajñā with autocommentary Nyāyabhūṣaṇaṃ edited with critical comments by Svāṃī yogīndrānandaḥ .Batukanathashastri Khiste.N.Second edition 1975.S.1994 fourth edition. Uttarapradesh Hindi Sansthan . Published Choukhambha Sanskrit Sansthan.A.1928. 1976.BhauddhaBharati Varaṇasi. Varanasi. NV Uddyotakara’s Nyāyavārttika Ed.Jayasaṅkarajośī. Niruktā .Sūtras with Prasannapadā commentary of Pt. Yāska’s Niruktaṃ - Commentaries Meherchanlachamandaas Publishers Newdelhi 2006 reprint. Mādhavanidāna by Mādhavakara with commentary Madhukośa and extracts from Ataṅgadarpaṇa edited by Ācārya Yādavji Trikamji 2001 6th reprint Chaukhamba Orientalia.Sudarśanācāryaśāstri. NewDelhi.

Kannur.Dr. C.1982. ṇyakopaniṣadśāṅkarabhāṣyaṃ. Suśrutasamhitā with Nibandhasaṃgraha vyākhyā.N.Nārāyaṇamiśra Chaukhambha Sanskrit Sansthan.first edition Sampurnanand Sanskrit University. Yuktidīpika Yuktidīpika on Sāṃkhyakārika Danganathjha granthamāla No-12 Edited by Ācārya Śri. Publicationdivision.Books.D.Oriental Institute Baroda.Navarang Publishers Newdelhi. Mooss Vaidyanatha Nīlamegha’s edited by Dr.S:Kāśyapasaṃhitā. L. 1999-2002.Ed.ed.1995 S. Vaiśeṣikasutra of Kaṇada with the commentary of Candrānanda.S: Āṣtāngasaṃgraha. Published under the authority of the Govt.L. 5th edition 2005. Gitapress Gorakhapur Uttarpradesh. Egbert Forsten 2000 . Ph. A.1950.Up. by Aṣṭavaidyan N.Moss.Varanasi. Aryavaidyasala.Pañcīkaraṇavārttika Pañcīkaraṇaṃ of śriśankarācārya.. Srisadan Āyurveda Oushadasala. HIML.Critically edited by Muni Sri Jambuvijayaji.A.Meulenbeld.Chintamaṇi. Vaidyamanorama Vaidyamanorama (Cikitsākrama) part 2 revised second edition.. P.CāttukkuṭṭiNambiyār Vaidyar. AdavitaAshrama. 2004 Eighth impression. RVS: Rasavaiśeṣikasūtra Secondary sources A Sreedhara Menon.Kedāranāthatripāṭhi 1993.S: Carakasaṃhitā .1960.S.Calcutta 1997 .Varier Ayurvedacharitram – Malayalam. Vaidyasārathi Series M-1. ṃ Sampūrṇ ṃ.A.K.J. 1992 reprint Upaskāra Vaiśeṣikasūtropaskāra of Śankaramiśra with Prakāśikā Hindi commentary by ĀcāryaḌhuṇḍhirājaśāstrī edited by Sri.S.T.Sankaran Kottayam.A Cultural History of India .published by Choukhambha orientalia.81-264-1578-9. A History of Indian Medical Literature.OxfordUniversityPress NewDelhi.A.C. Parameśvaradvijā’s Tantrayuktivichara Vākyapradīpikā ṭīkā on Aṣṭāṅ volumes.S: Suśrutasaṃhitā.Varanasi. D. of Travancore 1928.V. Uṇādisūtra The Uṇ Śvetavanavāsin edited by T.G. Volume: IIA. Groningen Oriental Studies No: 15. Kottakkal. 10.S. Varanasi.Kottayam ISBN.The Sri Vanci Sethu Lakshmi Series No.A.M.N. Aryavaidyan. edited by Vayaskara. 3rd edition 2002.K.H: Aṣṭāṅ .Second Edition 2002. edited by Vaidya Jādavji Trikamji Ācārya and Nārāyaṇ Rām Āchārya “ kāvyatīrtha”.Basham.Kolatteri Sanakara Menon M.R. Kottayam 1978 VS. A survey of Kerala History 2007 edition. IIB.

D’indologie Institut Français Ithiyamāla Koṭṭarathilśaṅguṇṇi 1990 Theodor Goldstucker 2005 Second edition Sanskrit Series Ithiyamāla by Koṭṭarathil Śaṅguṇṇi.S Oriental Research quoted from page.Ed. New Delhi62.62. History and Linguistic notes : Bhadata . of Gen.S.1-5.History and Philosophy in Indian Philosophy Indian Council Indian Philosophy. Pāṇini :His Place in Sanskrit Literature.Radhakrishnan.Oxford NewDelhi Ancient Indian Education –Brahmanical and NewDelhi. published by B.The Journal of (Madras)3.Basu IMS(Rtd) Bhuvaneswari Ashrama D.History of Science .C.J.2A.110002 S. Chowkhamba Albrecht Weber Weber 1981 reprint F. A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature. 2000 Nancy MacCagney 0847686272. University Press 1999 reprint.Kottayam.137.I.Raja.119-121 HIMLVol. Yogaśataka.Pande Centre for Studies in Civilizations . Philosophical Volume 2.P.Filliozat.Part1. J.M.Kātyāyana and Patañjali: An overview Grammatical Tradition . Research.Chattopadhyaya . of Sanskrit 2004reprint of the Philosophy and first edition Bahadurganj Allahabad page 26 Science.) Nāgārjuna and the Philosophy of Openess. K.NewDelhi.Maxmuller.An interpretation of its . Motilal Banarasi Dass ISBN-81A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar Oriental Pāṇini. The Adayar and Research Centre Madras ISBN-0-8356Classical Sāṃkhya.D. Published Rowman& Littlefield ISBN – Indian Theories of Meanings.Shukla 1986(reprint) RamaNathSharma. Culture in Indian Civilisation General Editor. reprint in S. Kuppuswami Sastri.Volume 1. Publications De No.Janaki (Ed. OfficeVaranasi ISBN 81-7080-170-2 The History of Indian Literature by Albrecht Takshila Hardbounds Jullundur.Dubey’s 1996 R.K. RadhaKumud Mookerji Buddhist: 1989 reprint 208-0423-6 Kashinath Vasudev Institute Baroda Abhyankar and J.Subramanian. and History.P.J. D.C.Chattopadhya S. Ed Prof.Larson. smāraka committe. 1981.SurendraNathSastri. Library 1977 reprint 7273-5 Gerald.Filliozat L’Institut Français 1979 D’indologie Pondichéry.The Dawn of Indian Civilization up to 600Bc edited by G.

K.Zysk.118.Pande. Retrieving Saṃkhya History An Ascending from Dawn to 2000.1979 Meaning. Ayurveda ka vaijñānika itihās.K.Dube Hetrodox Movements in India in the 6th and 5th Centuries BC 2001 .Ni:Nidānasthāna.NewDelhi The Mādhavanidāna and its Chief Commentary Chapter 1-10 by G.RamachandraRao First edition1999.P.. A.N.J.600 to c.NewDelhi. Śabdakalpadruma Śabdakalpadrumaḥ. PHISPC series(general editor:D.D.U:Uttarasthāna or Tantra.AD300) edited by G.Sharma.No.Kenneth. LallanjiGopal.Vi:Vimānasthāna. 2003 AnantalalThakur Anantalal Thakur Origin and Development of the Vaiśeṣika Sytem.Gopalakrishnan Keralathinte Samskarika Charitram (A Cultural History of sixth edition January 2000 KeralaMalayalam) P.SriSaradaPrakashan.Bappco Publication Bangalore.C.org. Gurupada Sarma Haldar (History of Ancient Indian Medical Science) 1991 reprint. Abbreviations: Su:Sūtrasthāna.NewDelhi.3 P. Sāhityavidvān. . Ross/Erikson. Ian Mabbett The Problem of Historical Nagarjuna revisited.K.Meulenbeld Promotor J. Meridian. . ŚriChakravarthi Śabdārthakaustubhaḥ (Sanskrit Kannada Dictionary) Śrinivāsagopālācārya. D.RamachandraRao.by Chaukambaorientalia 2004 reprint Varanasi. Darśanodaya Early Indian Thought by S.Inc.Print world New Delhi ISBN 81-246-0143-7 PV. Leiden.State Institute of Languages Kerala ISBN 81-7638-133-0 K.Gopalakrishnan .Publishers. Sa:Śārīrasthāna. by Rājarādhākāntadeva Bāhādur Rāṣṭriya Saṃ 2002 reprint. Kalpataru Research Academy Bangalore S.Chattopadhyaya)Centre for Studies in Civilisations.P. The Journal of the American Oriental Society Vol.Thought and Culture in India (from c. PHISPC 2003 series(general editor:D.J.K. S.G.Gonda.1974 Internet sites : Bangalapedia.Brill.K. .G.E.SantaBarabara LallanjiGopal. Mythology and the brahmanization of Indian medicine: transforming heterodoxy into orthodoxy.Zysk.in Life.Chattopadhyaya)Centre for Studies in Civilisations.