Narasihabhya of Rasavaieika Stra: an epitome of Kerala yurveda 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 yurvedic domain of Kerala that only the
treatises of Vgbhaa, particularly the As
, 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 Narasihabhya of
Rasavaieika stra stands out as an epitome of the tradition and talent of the yurvedic physicians of that
time. It is the chief among few texts in Ayurveda that are in stra format. The stra 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 Ngrjuna remains as ever
absorbing and ever evasive to our logic and imagination The Narasiha bhya is an explanatory
commentary on Rasavaieika stra, which at most instances gives an indepth insight to the stras. His
interpretations on doa has been a remarkable contribution for the understanding of Ayurveda. Bhya also
reveals the pre-eminence of kyacikits School among the eight branches of yurveda. The concept of
bhiakpariplita svastha has thrown clarity on the eligibility and noneligibility of odhana therapy. The
bhya consolidates strong understandings on many of the conceptual ideas of the science. Narasiha
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 doas is deemed as health in yurvedic
scriptures and it should be understood as a technical term which refers to the carrying out of various
functions attributed to the three doas within their normal limits. yurveda 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 Narasiha conceives it as a bhva 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. Narasiha bhya rekindles clinical practice and academic discussions oriented around
fundamental spirit of yurveda. 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 rayaka.
Here they are referred as Cherapada, 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 Ktyyana (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 Mimsaka, Prbhkara; non dualistic Vedatin, ri
ankaracrya; famous astronomer, Bhaskara- I, are the names of few who hailed from this
land . They reached the acme of their respective fields. 4
The Keralas indigenous art of healing passed through three distinct epoch namely. preSanskrit era, Sanskrit era, and modern era5.. A figment has propped in to yurvedic domain
of Kerala6 that only the treatises of Vgbhaa, particularly the As
, 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. Tantrayuktivicr of Nilamegha Bhiak
testimonies the precision of the Kerala scholars in analysingthe tenets of yurveda. The
encyclopaedic compilation represented in the Yogaratnasamuccaya; erudite commentaries
7
both in Malayalam and Sanskrit on
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 Navakhanda,

Vaidyamajari, Sarvasdhra

dayapriya, and various treatises on Viacikits. 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 Vgbhaas treatise is a later entrant in to its pedagogue. 9 The
Aavaidya tradition, many a times, accepts the therapeutical formulae from Carakas
version instead of Vgbhaas. This also refutes the above conceived Vgbhaa 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 Rasavaieika stra with its Narasihabhya, from Kerala,
reflects the intense interest of the theoretical learning and theorising showed by the
physicians. In this context Narasihabhya stands out as an epitome of the tradition and
talent of the yurvedic physicians of that time.
Stra- A review
In Yskas Nirukt, the term stra is used in the sense of thread.11 During the earlier period
the term stra 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 stras as the third stage of Vedic literature subsequent to Sahit and
Brahmaa.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 str 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
Mahabhyakra 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, stra.19 The brevity
with out compromising the clarity is the life of stra literature .The unambiguous nature
along with the functional and interpretational sharing (local and universal) made the stra
style a more suitable mean of knowledge in all pedagogues.20 Keeping in mind these
historic facts, T.Goldstucker classifies stras in to two: the one born out of material
necessity; those written as an imitation, in the absence of compelling historic
circumstances.21
Bharadvjddyotakara, defines stra as series of words.22 Vcaspatimira and
Mdhvcrya, defines stra 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 Stra is a short pithy assertion laying down
some thing in a scientific treatise 24. Ramanath Sharma defines stra as, an algebraically
condensed formulaic statement or rule. 25 Suruta, in the context of explaining etymology
of the first section of the treatise, i.e.,strasthna, 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 stra is used to
connote a condensed statement. Vagbha adopts a definition almost similar to that of
Suruta for strasthna, and for the term stra.27 Carakasahit, considers an ideal
yurvedic compendium as the one having properly arranged stra, bhya, and sagraha28
stra 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 stra by many lexicographers and commentators.30 Unlike other religious and
secular systems of learning, yurvedic system didnot produce any literature in the
condensed formulaic way (stra) during its early period. Probably this is the reason why the
compendium of Caraka construes the term stra as a synonym of yurveda.31
A survey of Ayurveda literature in Stra style

Stra texts produced in yurvedic literary tradition are: Rasavaieka stra32; yurveda
stra published from Mysore University; yurveda stra written by Pt.Rmprasadarma of
Patiala, and Dravyagastra by Dr.P.V.Sharma. yurveda stra published from Mysore
University33 tries to integrate yurveda with yoga system. It has 1252 stras in 16 pranas
(sections). Dr.R.ShamaSastri considers yurvedastra as a compilation, made not before
sixteenth century CE, from sources as early as first century BC. to the sources as late as
fifteenth century CE. The stra text is published with commentary by Yognandantha. 34
Panit Rmaprasda armas yurveda stra is a short treatise in stra style having forty
seven stras in three chapters with an auto commentary in Sanskrit and Hindi 35.
Dravyaguastra of Dr.P.V.Sharma is the most recent work published in this style and
which deals with the basic tenets of dravyagua (pharmacology). yurvedastra, attributed
to Thukumji is preserved at Saraswathi Mahal Library Thanjore 36.
Rasavaieikastra and Narasihabhya - Author and their period
The stra text along with Narasihabhya , edited by Dr.K.Sankara Menon, was
published in ri Vanchi Setu Lakshmi Series under the authority of erstwhile Government
of Travancore in 192837. The edition was based on the single manuscript retrieved from
Brahmari Nryaan Paramevaran Moss of Chraama
.
According Dr.Menon the manuscript appeared to be more than five hundred years old. It
measured 12.22 long and 1.72 wide and contained 102 palm leaves which were not
numbered. The manuscript was written in Malayalam script of that time, and was not in
good condition at the time of edition.38 The stra text is divided into four chapters. It should
be noted that the author does not give the chapters any specific titles.
The first chapter contains hundred and seventy one stras39; the second chapter, hundred
and twenty three stras40; the third chapter, hundred and twenty three stras41; and the
fourth chapter contains seventy three stras.42
The name of the author is not found in the stra text, while Narasihabhyas colophon
refers to the author as Bhadanta Ngrjuna 43. Bhadanta means venerable or honorific. It is
an address of respect used for bhikkhus or mendicants of Theravada Buddhism. 44 The
epithet bhadanta, and the mentioning of terms nirva and vihra in the bhhya made the
scholars to construe a Buddhist affiliation to the text and its authors 45. S.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.47 Nancy MacCagney citings Lamottes references about
Ngrjuna, quotes the description on the stpa at Jaggayyapeta (sixth century A.D.) which
refers to BhandantaNgrjuncrya.48 J.Filliozat considers Bhadanta Nagrjuna as the same
as the author of Mlamdhyamakakrika (based on the narration of svabhava in
Rasavaieika stra 3-58-60, comparing it with the svabhvaunyata of Mdhymika
philosophy)49. K.SanakaraMenon tries to construe an etymological meaning for the term
bhadanta50, according to which the term signifies persons with shining teeth. Since
Buddhist mendicants were forbidden from chewing betel leaves, he argues that it shows the
aptness of the appellation. However, Dr.Menon was aware of rhetoric inconsistencies
related to the etymological derivation of the word, the connotation of the term bhadanta
with Buddhist monks is understood by yogari(derivative conventional-mode in which
etymological and customary significances are partly retained) 51. Dr. Menon views title
bhadanta as a conscious attempt to distinguish the author from others who bore a similar
name.52Since the works of Vgbhaa-s are missing in the commentary, Dr.Menon places the
sutra text and commentary anterior to them. 53 The commentary to stra refers to
Ngavrycrya, which prompts Dr.Menon to consider him as the teacher of Narasiha..
He even extends Ngvrycryas identity to Bhadanta Ngrjuna. 54 He considers both
Ngrjuna and Narasiha as Buddhist monks, hailing from Kerala, affiliated to the
monastery of Thiruvizha in Cherthala taluk of Alappuzha district. 55 He opines that
Narasiha is the first commentator of this work, as the commentary lacks any direct
references to other commentators. 56Dr.G.J.Meulenbeld and J.Filliozat are not impressed
with this allusion57. Moreover, the commenting style usually adopted in India take a format
which hardly makes any direct references to contemporary writers and antecedent works.
Even if mentioned, it is only in a veiled fashion. 58The direct reference in the commentary
indicating variant opinions about a particular topic of discussion also makes Dr.Menons

argument
less
acceptable.59Strakra
in
hakrikndriyti
manyante
vragay,aulky punarbhautikni ( 2-111), mentions about vragay60, which
clearly refers to the fact that the author is referring to the Skhya system which was prior
to the classical Skhya formula
a. There arises a chance to place the
author to a terminus ante quem prior to classical Skhya attaining its hold on the
academics, and after Varagaa. Larson and Bhattaracharya, in their reconstruction of the
chronological sequence of Skhya lineage, places Vragaya in between 100-300 A.D.
or anterior to this time limit,61
a to 350- 450 A.D. This provides an
opportunity to place the stra text very close to the famous Buddhist philosopher
Ngrjuncrya who wrote Mlamadhyamakrika.62
P.V.Sharma is of the opinion that the author of RVS and Ngrjuna the readactor of
Surutasaita, are one and the same63. J.Filliozat construes the theory of single authorship
for Yogaataka, Mlamdhyamikakrika and Rasavaieikastra without taking into
account of the period of Vragaya. This allusion of Filliozat props up a fundamental issue
that the epistemological position of RVS and Mdhyamikakrika are mutually antagonistic
This issue is left unresolved by him. Rasavaieika stra accepts six instruments of
knowledge: pratyaka, anumna, upamna, gama, arthpatti, and sabhava64. This
significant aspect of makes RVS different from Caraka and Suruta, more so the contents of
the prams are more nearer to the archrivals of Buddhists (i.e.Mmsakas and
Vedantins) rather than the Mdhyamikas. The difference between other two philosophical
schools viz., Bhammsa and Vednta, who accepts six valid sources of knowledge is
that instead of anupaladhi or abhva, here the strakra adopts sabhava or inclusion
from the paurikas.65The sabhava according to Bha-s is included under the inferential
knowledge.66 IanMabbett, though is silent on issue of Rasavaieikastras author, he
rejects the views expressed by J.Filliozat about the authorship of Yogaataka, and expresses
his reservations about authenticity of the medical works credited to Ngrjuna 67. He favours
an alternate hypothesis which suggest that the intellectual supremacy and popularity of
Mdhyamika Ngrjuna compelled the the authors of succeeding generation, o to associate
their works to the name of legendary Ngrjuna. 68 alhaa (12 A.D.), commenting on
Surutasahita 3.4.80, refers to Rasavaieikautra 1-2169; Candraa (900-1050 A.D.)
quotes Rasavaieikastra four times in his commentary on sixteenth verse of
Cikitskalika.70Reference in these scholarly commentaries refers to the pan Indian
acceptance of this stra text.
Dr.Sankara Menon considers Rasavaieikastra and its commentary as the contribution of
Keralite scholars71. The argument of Dr.Menon should be analysed keeping in mind the fact
that none of the other scholarly commentaries from Kerala on A
are quoted by
the scholars outside Kerala. They are neither taken up for studies or references, which
prompts us to give second thought about this popular notion.72 Moreover, during the period
of Buddhist and early period of Bhakti movement, there was hardly any well structured
caste system prevalent in the social scenario of Kerala. 73 There are very clear indications of
practice of cturvarya both in stra and bhya, which strengthens the possibility of a non
Keralite authorship for the stra text74.
If one attempts to explain the inclusion of non Buddhist epistemological elements in RVS,
in line with the postulations of some modern scholars, as a consorted effort to transform this
text from the heterodox school to orthodoxy, 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. The discussions from upaniads and also
from Bhagavadgt reflects the existence of a protestant movement against the ritualistic
tradition represented in the Brahamaas77. Kumrilabhaa places the Buddhist schools in
the same authoritative status of other orthodox schools of learning78. Vtsyyana79 even
considers the mlecchas(outcasts) for the stature of pta, and Varaharamihira grants
yavanas (Greeks) the status of i80. All these facts are suggestive of a healthy tradition of
acceptance and tolerance that existed with in India at least during the early period. Even if
we accept for a debate that the interpolations were done for Brahamanising the text, it can
be seen that those interpolations doesnot yield any substantial benefits for the system of
yurveda from the orthodox Brahamanical clergy. Even after these alleged interpolations
the fact remains that yurveda was never given a fair chance for the formal entry into

orthodox learning scheme.81So the transformation theory need not be stretched in to the
context of examining the stra text.82 Moreover, the reference to Buddhist school in the
bhya also seems to suggest its non- Buddhist origin83.The term like nirva in the
bhya must be viewed in the light of their usage in Carakasahit, and not from the
conventional Buddhist view84. While explaining the tools for assessing the span of life RVS
seems to be referring to sahita jyotiha. The text urges to refer the concerned system of
learning for getting more details,this narration echoes the idea expressed by Suruta85. The
stras 2/44 and 2/101 clearly refers to the ideas expressed by Vaiikastras 4/2/2-386.
Very little can be drawn conclusively about the identity of the author of
Rasavaieikasutra87, Bhadanta Ngrjuna. As pointed by Ian Mabbet, here also Ngrjuna
remains as ever absorbing and ever evasive to our logic and imagination 88.
Bhya:
The explanatory commentary on stra is designated as bhya. The commentary where the
meaning of the stra is clearly explained by the words which are close to the words in the
stra is bhya89.The bhya provides the opportunity for the commentator to express his
views which are non antagonistic to the idea expressed in the stra.90According to the
definition of Nyyanibandhaprakakra, bhya will not carry the different interpretations
of the same stra text91. According to him a commentary carrying diverse interpretations of
the stra text is termed as a
.92Keava explains bhya as the elucidation of difficult
portions contained in the stra text.93 ankaramira says that no one will get the real
purport of system by relying only on the stra, and the intended meaning is only revealed
through the commentary.94Narasiha does not furnish any definition to bhya. He states
that his bhya is intended to serve two purposes: to please or satisfy the learned scholars;
and clarify the doubts of ordinary physicians. 95The bhya is said to be carrying the cream
system of eight fold yurveda represented by various treatises. 96Interestingly Narasiha
also deems his bhya as a vrttika.97 In general this bhya will serve as a vrttika for the
eight fold yurveda and specifically to the branch of internal medicine or kyacikits.98 The
commentator reveals the special status enjoyed by kyacikist branch owing to inclusion of
the pacakarma (the elimination therapies) in this branch, and also the due utility of its
principles to other branches99. In yurvedic domain there is no independent vrttika
literature100. They are usually found in the philosophical and grammatical domains, and
have got specific purpose to serve. The purpose served by bhsya is not that of vrttika101.
This statement regarding the appellation of his work ,i.e. both as bhya and vrttika, may
at prime fasciae seem as a contradictory one. But it seems to be a conscious effort to
highlight the attempt made by the author in the current work to fulfil both ends. 102
Narasiha states that he was a disciple of Ngavrycrya 103. The brevity was the motto of
Narasiha, he reveals his mind while commenting the term vykhyna.104 It seems that the
bhyakra was forced to choose the brevity as his style, as the commentators had already
vitiated the academic literary circle by their peerless style of confusing the readers with
their directionless and lengthy interpretation. 105
Nature of the text
Out of 486 stras, bhyakara comments all stras except fifteen stras, which
are self-explanatory. To forty five stras an interpretation is given in two sentences. There
are twelve stras which are commented with the help of few words. Seventy-four stras are
having a comment with one sentence. Narasiha not only follows the method of dialectics
but also defines it, revealing its essentiality in theoretical formation. 106 He advocates a
system of discussion where the debate is purely based on the theoretical foundation and not
otherwise. He warns the physicians against the tendency of getting illogical hair splitting
jugglery107 during the academic discussions, and urges them to delimit the analysis
yurveda with in its framework . The scriptural knowledge and the rational mind should
be the delimiters.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. 110 The
most striking point that Narasiha highlights from the point of treatment is that its
theoretical foundation is based neither on Skhya nor on Vaieika theory of cause and
effect, but it has got its own cause and effect theory. If accepted, it will undermine the

whole concepts on which yurveda cikits is built up. But he fails to give a clear picture of
the cause and effect theory he accepted. What he says is that the cause must be different
from the effect as in milk and buttermilk. If we accept the analysis that milk is different
from the buttermilk, it is equivalent of acceptance of Vaieikas theory, 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 Smkhya.111 Narasiha make use of all available
methods for explaining the doubts. He advocate to take help from the Buddhist schools to
resolve the doubts about the change of madhura (sweet) rasa of kra (milk) to aml (sour)
in dadhi112 (curd).
Unique propositions of bhya
Narasiha bhaya is having many unique propositions. The first one is that he deviates
from the conventional renderings in explaining the articulation atha, he tries to ratify its
usage with in the realms of rational thought 113. He classifies verbal testimony (ptavaca)
under three heading viz., raddheyrtha, anumeyrtha and pratyakrtha.114 Similarly
he presents a three fold classification of hetu (minor term) - lakaahetu, anumnahetu and
uttarahetu115. However, it is hard to derive any logical basis and significance for these
classifications. It is interesting to note that Narasimha is not referring to any of the works
ascribed to Vagbhata116. He refers to Subandhus Vsavadatta117, who is supposed to belong
to 7th century. After considering the period of Subandhu, and the fact that bhya lacks
references about Vgbhaa, K. Sankara Menon fix his period between 7th century and 10th
century of common era118. Narasiha also considers the diminuation of morbific factors
(doas) as disease state, which is contrary to the view held by later commentators like
Cakrapidatta119. Bhya also does not provide any reflections on the existence of two
fold view regarding the concept of saprpti, i.e. dosetikartavyatrupa saprpti and
vydhijanma hetu saprapati120. The influence of Narasiha is very evident in
ridsa121, flourished during the earlier period of thirteen century C.E 122.
Works quoted by Narasiha:
The quoting of works from the fields of yurveda, darana and vykara reveals
the eruditeness of Narasiha. Adhyy is consulted for clarifying grammatical
subjects.123 Vaieika stra-s, without naming the source, is found three times in the
commentary,124 and the opinion from Vaieika system is mentioned eight times. 125 He
explains Vaieika mode of classification of substances as adravya (paramu) and
anekadravya.126 The cause or kraa is divided into hetu and pratyaya.The effect will have
a resemblance with the hetu and to the pratyaya.127Nyyadarana is quoted once as an
opinion of Akapda.128Skhy system is quoted three times129, twice to refute the
parimavda130.Triguas role in the cosmogony is also mentioned. 131The commentator
even takes the Buddhist tenets for resolving the conceptual deadlock. 132 Narasiha133 seems
to be having many yurveda treatises for referral. Bharadvja is acknowledged as the direct
receiver of yurveda teaching,134 and rogya lakaa or salient features of healthy
individual is quoted from his treatise 135. Caraka136 and Suruta137
138
. Tenets related to the fundamentals of dravyagua are
clarified by referring the views of Nimi139 and Urabhra140.
Social life reflected in Bhya.
As the normal functioning of morbific factors (doas) is explained with an allusion
of normal duties of fours castes substantiates that the four tier vara or caste system was
well established and it was well functioning at that point in time.141 The society seems to
follows a feudal hierarchy with great emperors with in its realms. 142Term anrya is used to
refer the inferior status.143 Loka is the term refering to people outside the yurveda
system.144 The influences of magico-religious notions, probably from the medieval tantric
cults, are evident in both stra and bhya145. Instead of Buddhist notions we get reflections
of brahmanical146 practises from the bhya text. The practice of fire worship was
prevalent, and riskta or Vedic hymn for getting prosperity is hailed as the potency of
many fold wealth147. Commentator accepts the presence of people in the community who
are not following the tenets of yurveda 148. The reference to grahasthiti and aavarga
clearly demonstrates the advent of Siddantajyotia in to popular beliefs.149

Status of yurveda in bhya

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

akriykla174. Even though Narasiha explains the rationality of many tenets, he is not
explaining the concept of equilibrium of doas and he regards it as an paribhitasaj
(technical term with specific meaning). The concept of equilibrium is accepted here as it is
elaborated in the classical treatises.175 The three fold causes of diseases are presented in a
new dimension. Prajaparda is considered as the root cause of exogenous disease or
gantukarogas and pshychical diseases or mnasikarogas. The unwholesome use of sense
organs will cause bodily ailments. The temporal factor results in natural diseases like
greying of hairs, hunger, and thirst176.
Bhya clarifies the concept of rogasvabhva or characteristic of specific ailment. It
has been clarified as the general characteristics produced by the independent doa (morbific
after excited by its own grounds) involved in the disease genesis. The morbid interaction
with other body elements and the expression of symptoms are determined by the
rogasvabhva177. Definitions of
, vaya, bala, arra, agni, samgni, grahai,
upadravavydhi, kla, auadhakla, stmy, sthna, vypada are also given in the
bhya.178The two important aspects of the bhya 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.
The concept of health and its portrayal The unique articulation rogyastra in RVS
demands a diachronistic analysis of concept of health in the system.179The Vedic seers
prayered for a perfect individual who is in tune with his environment 180. Caraka adopts this
compassionate attitude and portrays the human as an epitome of this universe and
viceversa181. By the time of Vgbhaas compendia the system of Ayurveda seems to be
reduced to a mere treatment system 182. Coming down in the history the later treatises even
avoided the descriptions of principles behind the formulations, and procedures and
eventually took yurveda to a stagnation183. The attempt by strakra to designate
yurveda as rogyastra seems to be a conscious effort to redeem its clinical orientation
rooted in its fundamental principles184. While discussing the derivation of term
rogyaastra, Narasiha discusses the subtler aspects of the concept health and illhealth.
All illhealth are viewed as the one which restricts our worldly pursuits 185. In a subtler level,
i.e. for a physician, it is nothing but a particular state of (vitiated) doa186. This very
definition of Narasiha187 is a practical orientation of Carakas dictum188 for evaluating
disease states and drawing treatment protocol . Thus one should visualise the various
ailments brought about by innumerable permutation and combination of ground, morbific
factors and corruptible elements.189Narasiha demonstrates the fallacies of interpreting
health as mere absence of disease. In the case where term rgoya is derived by interpreting
the meaning of the prefix na, as absence, one fails to explain the characteristics of health,
methods of its accomplishment and its purpose i.e. total failure to explain the positive
health190. This is due to the fact that absence being a non exsistent entity, all narrations
related to health will become absurd.191 Moreover, by accepting this stand point it is not
possible to ratify sections narrating the concept of health in classical treatises. 192 Among
the various connotations attached to the prefix na, in this context vipakrtha ( antagonist)
should be taken, as other meaning will not make any sense to this particular articulation 193.
So the ill heath and health should be viewed as antagonist to each other 194. Health acts as
the instrument which removes all mental and physical ailments.195The equipoise of doas is
deemed as health in yurvedic scriptures and it should be understood as a technical term
which refers to the carrying out of various functions attributed to the three doas within
their normal limits.yurveda 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.196Most important aspect regarding the concept of health
is that Narasiha conceives it as a bhva or state of the individual197. 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.198 Narasiha explains the salient features of a
healthy self with help of Bharadvjas compendium 199. But from perception of medical
man, Narasiha classifies the svatha into two viz., bhikpariplita svastha and
200. The former is the one who follows the instructions of physician,
and is under his strict observation from the time of birth .The temporal effects will not
affect the balance of doa-s in these people. . In them the doas will not under go the
regular augmentation and the excitation there after due to temporal changes because of their

201
strict adherence to
. As there is no accumulation and excitation of doas, all
sorts of elimination procedures are contraindicated in this group202. The later group are
healthy despite the fact that they are not sticking to principles of yurveda, and are not
under the instructions of physicians.203 In these people the temporal changes will cause the
accumulation and morbid excitation of doas. In order to keep the equipoise of doas the
therapeutic procedures including that of elimination procedures are recommended for this
group.204 In short, the first group is advised to have regimes and food opposite to that of
saptiotemporal qualities; the second group is recommended to have purificatory procedures.
The application, anointments and massage are recommended for both groups 205. The slow
but sure shift from majority of bhiakpariplitasvasthas to
is evident by
comparing the chapter grahaicikits of gasagrah with that of
.
Former emphasises the importance of proper maintenance of digestive capacity(agni),206
where as the later text reveals that people are no longer bhiakpariplitasvasthas and only a
good digestive capacity (agnibala) can keep them healthy207.

Conclusion :
Narasiha bhya rekindles clinical practice and academic discussions oriented around
fundamental spirit of yurveda.The bhya tries to solve the enigmas of the system by
reorienting clinicians to the practice based on fundamental principles. Its terminus ante
quenum must be determined by further indepth analysis of stra text and the bhya. As
demonstrated above, the bhya text left a great impact on Keralas yurveda fraternity. So
it truly stand as an epitome of textual tradition of this part of the country.
nakhyti
lbhapjrthagranthoyamudryate.
sauhava guruhita.

asauhava

manoniha

Dr.Manoj Sankaranarayana.
Dr.Pavana.J
Medical Officer,Dept of Indian Systems of Medicine
,Govt.of Kerala.
Puleyelathu Vadakkemadom, Thulamparambu South,Haripad,
Alappuzha,Kerala, S.India Pincode.690514

email.manojpavana@gmail.com

Page 26, A. Sreedhara Menon

page:88,A.Sreedhara Menon.
3
Page.51.A.L.Basham.
4
Ibid page: 344,345
5
Page 479, Aryavaidyan. N.V.K.Varier,.
2

Tale about Vgbha in the Ithiyamla of Koarathil agui, as the author of

A
,Agasamgraha and Amarakoa, and his yurvedic training under Islamic scholars, for
rescue of Brahmins, demonstrates fact that Vgbhaa legend had moved too far way from the historical facts
in the tradition of Kerala. page 129-132, Ithiyamla.
7
Commentaries on A
hya, P
,
Pacika, Kairali, Lalita, and Vkyapradpika.page.2. ridsa.Vol.II.
8
The author quotes even from treatises like Kaypasahita. Yath rasavidhea bhavettadvaramrttava.
Tadasthisrvamkhytamiti
kyapadarana.
Yogmrta
25/9
.
9
a)Important is the absence of quotations from Vgbhaas works, the more so when it is conceded that
Rasavaieika stra and its commentary were composed in Kerala, where Vgbhaa is the leading authority in
yurveda theory and practice. Page 135,HIML, Vol.2B.
b) Mais lobservation nest pas dcisive car rien nassure que Vgbhaa ait fait autorit au Kerala ds la
rdaction des ses uvres. Page xi, J.Filliozat.
10

Triphalvyoapatrailatvakkrcitraka vac. viaga pippalmla loma aka tvaca

lgalak cavya samabhgni peayet. A.H.Ci.22.16-17 In Carakas version lgal is replaced by

tmalak C.S.Ci.29.123
Vachartaklkkaurohiicandanai.Tailaprasdhitaptasamlmapacjayet.A.H.U.30.22.Vachart
aklkkaurohiicandanai. nirguisvarase siddha samlmapac jayet. Vaidyamanorama 30/64.
Vaidyamanorama (Cikitskrama). In Kerala tradition the oil is prepared by adding the expressed use of
Nirgu leaves( Vitexnigundo).
11
) In Vedanta the term stra is used to denote hirayagarbha tebhya samabhavastra
bhta sarvatmaka mahat. packaraavrttika loka.6.
12
Page 23, Theodor Doldstucker; Stra - klbe- stryateneneti stra granthane HK
13
Page 15, AlbrechtWeber. [The word stra in the above sense occurs first in the Madhukhda, one of the
latest supplements to the Brhma
, and finally in
Pnini.]
14
(stra means string and all the works written in style, on the subjects the most various, are nothing but one
uninterrupted string of short sentences, twisted together in the most concise form. Shortness is the great
object of this style of compositionthere is no life and spirit in stras except what either a teacher or
a running commentary,by which these works are usually accompained,may impart to them ----- page
39F.Maxmuller.
15
Page 37, 39 F.Maxmuller.
16
Mtra lbha putralba an author rejoiceth in the economizing of a half vowel as much as in the birth of
a son.
17
Page 22. D.P.Chattopadhyaya.
18
Page 28 Theodor Goldstucker
19
Dr.S.Radhakrishnan also accepts the vastness of Vedic literary corpus as the reason for systematizing
regilous and secular institutions in the form of stras. Page22, S.Radhakrishnan.
20
Page 163,164, Radha Kumud Mookerji; The statement kumra yaa pine fame of Pini had even
reached the young It stands out as a testimony of the general acceptance of stra form in the pedagogue and
Pinis Adhyyi in particular.
21
Page 25,Theodor Doldstucker. Stra literature produced in yurveda seems to belong to the second group.
22
Padasamha stra.(N.V.1.1)
23
Alpkara asadigdha sravad vivatomukha. Astobha anavadya ca stra stravido vidu.
(Mdhvcrya on Brahastra 1.1.1)
Laghni scitrthni svalpkarapadni ca. sarvad srabhtni stryhurmania
stra ca bhvrthascaka
(Bhmati 1.1.1)
24
Page 432, Abhyankar and J.M.Shukla
25
Page 749 RamaNathSharma.
26
Scant
straccaiva
smaraccrthasantate.
S.S.Su.3.12
Strasthnaniruktimhascanditydi.scanmekadeenoktennuktagrgahaa.. straa sakepea sarvrthbhidhna,
smaraa prattrthagatilabhyamna. (bhnumat k)
27
Atrrth strit skm pratanyante hi sarvata. A.H.Su.30.23 ; strit scit .sarvngasundar k.
28
Vividhni hi stri bhiaj pracaranti loke; sumahadyaavi suprata strabhya
sagrahakrama. C.S.Vi.8.3.(Suprata suhu racita strasya bhyasagrahasya ca kramo yatra tat
tath. Stra sakepea tattadarthn granthana yena tat. Bhya tena strea yat abhidheya
muktakahena vistarea punastadvacana bhya. Tadapi sakepetivistarea ca karttu sambhavati.
Tatra sagrahea yat tadbhya bhyasagraha tayo krama prva stra tata sakepea bhya
na tvativistarea sprata yatra tathbhta tantra strrthasynyth vykhynasmarthya vykhytu
khypita yena phalpalpa syt. Jalpakalpataru k. Dangadhara interprets bhyasagrahakrama as
shorter scholium ). Vistareopadi arthn strabhyayo.nibandho ya samsena sagraha ta
vidhur bhuda. Nyastra 6-9. Sa

of Keava. stre nnsthneu

vitat ekatra sakalayya kathyante iti sagraha (kiravali.2) Means compilation of subject matter
elaborated in stra and bhya or compilation of scattered matters regarding a particular subject.
29

The seventh stra of first chapter of Rasavaieikastra contains 45 words itself this demonstrates the
inherent problems of furnishing the medical tenets in the condensed literature.
30
Api prabandha sadarbha
. Atha stramiti kasmt?
Ucyate scant stra. Scayati tstnarthavieniti stra. Teutevatndriyeu api
pradhndivartheu buddhi scayatti sutra (page-2, Yuktidpik.) Str vastusa

.Up.2-4-10)
31

Tatryurveda kh vidhy stra jna stra lakaa tantramityanarthntara C.S.Su.30.17

Vidhystra parparvidydvayasya stra scana - JKT.
Bhela also uses the word in the same
sense: tatra ja stravnya sytstrrthena vicakaa.B.S.Su.16.4; bhiak caturtha pdastu
sastrrthavirada.B.S.Su.9.31.
32
RVS: Ed. Dr.K.Sankara Menon
33
yurvedastragrantha; Oriental Manuscript Library Mysore - Accession No.: A 449, A646, B956, P5863/2
, P3912/1, 3912 Yognanada commentary. yurveda stra , Govt. Oriental Manuscript Library Madras
:Accession No.: 13086, 13087, 13088, 13332, 13333, 13334
34
Page iv,xii,xiii,xiv y.s.
35
S
36
Serfoji's brother Tukkoji I (Ekoji's 2nd son) ruled for eight years( 1729-1735CE), and he patronised
Hindustani classical music. Tukkoji wrote the Sagtasr
. Tukkoji was also a scholar in Sanskrit,
Marathi, Tamil and Persian. He was the author of Dhanvantri Vilsa and the prominent literary figures in his
court were Sa
.
37
Dr.Menons edition is republished in 1977 with an indroduction by Dr.N.E.Muthuswami in Kerala
Government Ayurvedic Publication Series -2 by Publication division,Govt.Ayurveda College
Trivandrum.1976.This sutra text is having two Malayalam translation by K.Raghavan Thirumulpad
(1977),V.Bhargavanvaidyar (1982) and an English translation by K.Raghavan Thirumulpad.
38
Page 22,23.RVS.M.
39
The first six stras expound the characteristic features of health and illness, relation between the six
padarthas dravya, rasa, gua, vrya, vipka and karma with health and ill health. The seventh stra
narrates the factors
, vayah, agni etc. that help in the analysis of health and illness. Stras 8-31 refer
to various views regarding the concept of
. Stras 32 38 place arguments to negate Sannipata vikara.
Stra 39-52 refutes the above arguments and establishes the concept of sannipata vikara. Sutras 53-58 are
related to the negation of the concept of specific seats for doas and agni. Stras 59-76 establish the rationale
for granting specific loci for doas and agni. Stras 77-80 refute the very concept of rogya / health and
equipoise of the doas. Stra 81- 84 resolves the above argument about rogya. Stra 85- 93 examines the
fixation of priority of factors explained in stra 7. Stra 94 gives the general principle to be followed for the
formulation of treatment protocol. Stras 95- 98 explain the examination of ones lifespan. Stras 99 - 109
introduce the criteria for precedence of dravya. Stras 110 120 explain the criteria for prioritising rasa.
Stras 121 129 discuss the priority of gua. Stras 130 140 place the arguments in favour of prioritising
vrya. Stras 141- 149 discuss the priority of vipka. Stras 150- 162 expound the importance of karma.
Stras 163- 165 establish the need for a principle that is flexible enough to suit the requirements of the
clinician, rather than prioritising the tenets in a premeditative way. Stras 166 - 171 define dravya, rasa,
gua, vrya, vipaka and karma.
40
The first 15 stras places the arguments for refuting the acceptance of an independent category dravya.
Stras 16-22; establishes the independent existence of dravya. Stras 23- 29 discuss the category, the rasa.
Stras 30- 36 discuss vrya; 37 and 38 vipka and karma. Stras 39 76 discuss various aspects of
pancabhutas. Stras 77- 98 discuss various aspects of jangama dravya. Stras 99- 112 discuss various
aspects of constitution of sharira. Stras 113-117 state the relationship between pancabhutas and
apadarthas. Stra 118 advocates the student to refer to the text related to rra for the knowledge of
rra. Stras 119-122 define the makeup of indriyas. 123rd Stra gives a detailed list of officinal parts of
sthvara dravya and jagama dravya.
41

the first 17 stras presents the discussion regarding the various views about the number of rasas, the
characteristics of each rasa is narrated-18, their relative strength 19-28, factors responsible for their change
29-33, their functions in the body 34-37, the pacabhtas and rasas38-47, importance of scriptural
knowledge about drugs in cikits 61, relation between doas and rasas 62- 71, combinometrics of rasas 72106, rasavikalpa based on doa araya sthna 107, analysis of rasas 108-110,enumeration of guas 111-119.
42

The stras 1-30 discuss various aspects of vrya. The analysis of vipaka is done from stras 31-55. Sutra
59-65- explains concepts of viruddha, aviruddha, anupana, and pranidhidravyas. Stras 67-69 yurveda is
unfolded with its- twofold divisionsand
. Means for valid knowledge is described
in stra 70.The narration of four limbs of yurveda- physician, drug , assistant and patient is seen in stra
71.The conclusion of the treatise is made with the enumeration of its final goal in stra 72-73.

43

Iti bhadantangrjunasya pravrajitasya vaidyendrasya rasavaieika strasya narasi

bhya
sampta. Nbh.RVS.4.1 (colophons of first three chapters lacks the qualifying statement pravrajitasya
vaidyendrasya.)
44

aya bhadanta bhagavansuvaraprabhsottama strendrarja etarhi cngate'dhvani yatra grme v

nagare nigame v janapade vrayapradee v girikandare v rjakule vopasakramiyati (edited by
Bagchi,Suvaraprabhsastra,The Mithila Institute Darbhanga 1967) Other forms are bhaddanta, bhante
and bhadante. According to Pli literature, Dautam Buddha used to be addressed as bhadanta or bhante.
Buddhists in Theravada Buddhist countries use the term bhante, while Theravada Buddhists living in Dhaka
and Chittagong use bhadanta.(Bangalapedia).
45

Dr. Menon. Page 14.

D.J.Meulenbeld mentions that the title Bhadanta was given to Avaghoa,Dignga and Toso-kha-pa. Iching refers biography of ten Bhadhantas. Page 155,IHML.
46

47

Bhanderlopaca. bhadantha kapaa. Udistra khaha 3-131; Bhadanth skyakapaakdaya.

Vaijayanthi koa;
akoa page52;
syurbhant saugatdaya.ibid page426; page.137.Vol.2A. IHML.
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. Page 3, Nancy MacCagney.
49

Page 137 Dr. G.J.Meulenbeld, HIML Vol.2B

Ces raisonnements en stra se prsentent autrement ques les krik du Madhyamaka. Mais il y a plus. Tandis
quavec les Prajpramita,Ngrjuna,dans les uveres du Madhyamaka,denounce constamment la vacuite
dtre proper, la svabhvanyat,des chose du monde empirique,le RVS tout en admettant lexistence
conceptuelle de la substance lui refuse justement ltre proper. Selon lui: ce sont les actions des substances
qui sont pour la neutralization oulaccroissement des propts des rasa, la raison dactivit en ce cas est la
cohrence des choses combines. Et, de plus, du fait que les substances on tune infinite de rasa, de
properties,de vertus et de maturations,ltre proper de la substance est inconceivable.
Ceci signifie non que cet tre proper, ce svabhva, est inexistant mais bien que lesprit ny trouve rien de
stable saisir, quil est transcendent, ce qui correspond au caractre de la vacuite, de la unyat, qui est tre
absoluparace que nant de forme concrte.
Cette assertion nette semble don bien corresponds lespirit proper du Madhyamaka, car les textes
dyurveda,y compris Suruta rvis par Ngrjuna,emploient banalement le terme de svabhav pour
designer la nature tres et des choses et sans en constester lexistence en soi. Sur
Suruta,Str.xxxv,32Dalhaa explique, dans le cas de lhomme, ques cest ltre propre du sang et du sperme
de la mre et du pre, donc lindividualit
gntique. Caraka sen sert propos de ceux qui souitennent que cette nature est la cause de la naissance
(Str.XI,6).Il les refute mais il ne lui dnie pas de substrat ontologique.Vgbhaa utilise maintes fois le most
sans faire de remarques sur la validit du concept quil reprsente. Page xii,xiii J.Filliozat Yogaataka
50

Bhnva prakamn dant yasya bhadanta page l4 RSV.M

51

The Buddha Sanyasins are forbidden to chew betel. Thus the appellation is appropriate to them. Hindu
Sanyasins and others who do not chew betel are not known by that name as it is yogarha which like
pakaja (lotus) does not mean anything more than the accepted sense. Bhadanta is thus a Buddha Sanyasin.(
page14.RVS.M) Kumrilabhaa in Tantravrttika, says that the well established usage is more authoritative
than the newly assumed one- klpaniky
. He also criticises method of
deriving foreign words from Sanskrit roots. (page 66- K.K.Raja) Thus the tradition also is not in favour of
Dr.Menons attempt to find an etymological derivation to the term Bhadanta.
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. Dr.Menon, page14,RVS.M.
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. My conclusion is that he was anterior to Vaghbata and it was hence
that he did not make mention of him in his commentary.Dr.Menon, page16,ibid.
54

From this statement it is clear that the commentator Narasimha was the disciple of Ngavrycrya and
that he himself was a commentator of some work about which no mention is made anywhere in the

commentary. Whether this Ngavrycrya is himself the author of Rasa Vaiseshika or not also cannot be
established with certainty. The probability is that the Ngavrycrya referred by the commentator as his
preceptor and Bhadanta Nagarjuna the author of Rasa Vaiseshika, are one and the same individual; 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. Dr.Menon, page17,ibid.
55

Dr.Menon,Page 14.18.ibid.
If Narasimha was not the first commentator of the Sutras he would have referred to the previous
commentators of the work. 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.. Dr.Menon, page18ibid.
57
a) Dr.G.J.Meulenbeld Page 138. HIML Vol.3.
56

b) Mais cette dernire opinion est loin de simposer absolument: la transmission par unte de matres, par une
parampar, a pu suffice linstruction de Narasiha. page x,xi J.Filliozat.
58

Anyetu sapak
a.Muktval. 2.72; atra kecit yath ghabhvavypyavattjnepi. Ibid.
anye tu vykhynayati yat trividha ; kecit smnya dvividhamicchant; anye tu payanti yattrividha
smnya Cakrapi.C.S.Su.1.42. tadidn srmadgurpadeaarae
ing
Narasihas definition with some alteration altering.
59

Asyrthamanyath varayanti kecit .Nbh.1/112

Page 140-143,G.J.Larson
61
Page 348, LallanjiGopal,
62
Opinions regarding the chronological of Ngrujna the initiator of Mdhyamika philosophy opinions spans
across a diachronic scale stretch between 1B.C. to 3A.D.
60

63

Page.83, PV.Sharma.
Pratyaknumnopamngamrthpattisambhav pramni.RVS. 4-70
(*This narrows down any possibility of associating the Ngrjuna who is supposed be the redactor of Suruta
sahita with the authorship of Rasavaieikastra.)
65
Pratyakamanumna ca bda copamitistath.arthpattirabhvaca a pram
.
(Mnameyodaya 1/14) vaya tepi vedntavij aka paurikstvaakamabhidadhire
ssabhavaitihyayogt.(ibid.1/12)
66
Tatsabhava iti prhurantarbhvo hi sabhava.taccnumnika jnamicchanti svacchacetasa. ibid
8/23
hyamityanumnatvasabhavt sabhavo hata. Ibid 8/26
67
Among the miscellaneous works of chemistry and medicine traditionally ascribed to Nagarjuna, it should
be noted that the Yogasataka, a medical text, has been accepted by Filliozat, (26) but the attribution is
arguably implausible. 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. Ian Mabbett
64

68

The story is quite different when we seek facts about any subsequent Ngrjuna. There is an important
methodological point to be made here. If we assume that some particular later Ngrjuna existed, about
whom some fact is treated as given (for example, that he was an alchemist), we can treat certain writings as
giving information about him; however, if we do not make such an assumption, the writings are not
independently capable of constituting good evidence for his existence. That is, the object of our quest may
itself be an artefact of the quest (maya or gandharvanagara, so to speak). We must give proper weight to the
default hypothesis that the association of the name Ngrjuna 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, the
author of Madhyamaka (ibid)
69

guai satvarajastamobhirekao dvia

saptaguata(RVS. 1.31.)iti ngrjuncryoktatvt.

tayobhavanti,

saptadoata

70

a). Rasavaieike cokta - yu punardau parkya tasmin kriyy sphalya. Taccyu jvita
prdisayogaprvakamiti vadantymyyavida. Candraa. CK 1.16
b)
Rasavaieike bala trividha - utta madhya adhamaceti.tatra uttame bale uttama purua,
madhyame madhyama purua alpe ca alpa purua. tatra yathbala dru
kry. Yadi punardurbalasya druo vydhirbhavati tkena karmaa sdhy
puna prayoktavya
aharat.ibid.
c)

Ath rasavaieike- pravarvaramadhyabala satva trividha .ibid.

d)

Rasavaieike tathnyadapi srvaklika sarvapuruh stmyamukta .ibid.

71

The 'Nannadi' form of notation is purely a Kerala convention and it is current only among the people of
Kerala. That system of notation is becoming obsolete as manuscript granthas of the old type are seldom used
by the modern generation. The key to the notation is contained in the stra given below. Na nna nya ka jha
h gra pra dra ma. Tha li pta ba tra cha a a. The various numbers that these alphabets represent are give as:
na=1,nna=2,nya=3,kra=4,jha=5,ha=6,gra=7,pra=8,dre=9,ma=10,tha=20,li=30,pta=40,ba=50,tra=60,tru=70,
cha=80, a=90, a=100 . The Ms. of Nbh 3-93, 95, 96, 98,100 uses this notation is one of the reason for
Dr.K.SankaraMenons leads for establishing the Keralite origin of Narasiha(page. 19. RVS.M). The chance
of scribe choosing to use his familiar convention for notation stands as a strong counter question for
Dr.Menons argument.
72

Besides the commentaries which are fortunately extent in Kerala on Ashtanga Hridaya by Indu and Jaijjata,
there are as many as nine Sanskrit commentaties, which I have seen, on that famous work written by the
Kerala Vaidyans of name and fame. In point of style, elegance, 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. The Kerala text of Sarvanga Sudnari as seen in old manuscripts is quite different from the
printed editions of that work. Dr.Menon,page 16, RSV.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. Page90,
A.SreedharaMenon; The jti or caste system was not prevalent up to the end of Buddhist era in Kerala.(page
251P.K.Dopalakrishanan) The aiva and Viava bhakti cults during the seventh and eight centuries also
were not practicing a rigid caste system.(page.282.ibid)
74

Stra 1/7 abhijana.. Narasiha explains the term abhijana as jtibrahmadi, the normal functioning of
doa-s by an analogy with the dharmas of four varas (evametni do svbhyudayakartvt
karmtyucynte,varn svakarmavat1-81). In the bhya (1-102) contains the term anrya .
avyavasthitatvdpradhnonrya iti yatkicid vaktu akyata iti.
75

K.G. Zysk.

76

The reference regarding existence of thinkers outside the convention of Vedas are noted from the gvedic
itself , they are designated as Vrtys
3-26-6,10-34-12 refers to vrtas, Vrtyaskta Atharvaveda
ka 12, JaiminiyaBrahma(24-15) refers to daiv vai vrty. S.K.Ramachandra Rao views the Vrtyas as
a comprehension of diversified local traditions and regional cults which were not influenced or otherwise
least influenced by the Vedic system. He regards them as the root of Tantric tradition, which in course of
time got associated with the Vedic tradition. Page 1-4 S.K.RamachandraRao
77
S.N.Dube.page472; ymim pupit vca pravadantyavipacita.vedavdrat prtha nnyadastti
vdina.kmtmna
svargapar
jnmakarmaphalaprad.kriyvieabahul
bhogaivaryagati
prati.bhogaivaryaprasaktn
.vyvasytmikbuddhi samdhau na vidhyate.
Traiguyaviay ved nistraiguyabhavrjun. Bhagavadgta.Ch.2.42-45.
78
Vijnamtrakaabhaganairtmdivdnmapi upaniadprabhvatva viayevtyantika rga
nivartayitu ityupapanna sarve prmya . Tantravrttika
79

pt
khalu
sk
syrthasya
cikhypayiya
prayukta
upade,sktkaraamarthasyptistay pravartate itypta yryamlecchn samna lakaa tath
ca sarve vyavahra pravartante iti. NB. 1-1-7
80

Mlecch hi yavansteu samyak stramida sthita ivattepi pjyante ki punardaiva viddvija. B.S.
2/14 prakay cakruranukramea maharddhi santo yavane
i -authority, whose
words are accepted as valid knowledge).
81

Vaidyovinkumrea jtaca viprayoiti.vaidyavryea dry babhvarbahavo jan. Te ca

grmaguajca mantrauadhiparya.tebhyaca jt udry te anai anai pur kriylopdatha t
vaidyajtaya. Kalau dratvampann yath ktr yath via.Vi.abdakalpadr In Kerala the traditional
Brahmin vaidyas aavaidya-s, after upanayana (intiation in to Vedic study) the Vedic study was restricted
just to the hearing to the recital of Vedic hymns.
82

K.Zysks attribution of Buddhist orientation to teaching of Caraka and Surutas dictum the principal aim
of medical system is to eradicate physical and mental pain does not hold strong ground as Nyystra speaks
about it as the first prameya .bdhanlakaa dukha.1-21,tadatyantavimokopavarga.1-22. Skhya
system as speaks of trifold (dukhatraya) sufferings and annihilation of the sufferings. Regarding the narration
of various traditions of transmission of yurveda, Caraka himself attaches little importance these
narrations.(nahiyyurvedasybhutoppattu) . The compendium of Caraka adopts a path that accommodates the

divergent systems of Indian both in the philosophical and medical tradition. It should be noted that the
treatise maker only refutes the fluxist theory of Buddhist directly and antmavda of Crvka-s. 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 Tantravrttika, so to attribute a Buddhist orientation will break the epistemological frame work of the
compendium. Buddhist writes on Ayurveda like A
dranic level, for example he consciously places the concept of smnyaviea theory Caraka by the
articulation
samnai sarve vipartairviparyaya.A.H.Su.1.14 to avoid the complications that
may arrive from the acceptance of concept of smnyavie.
83
kladravyapadrthavdibhirvaidyairanyaicnyathtvagamanasdhako
bhavati.tribhiratarairityabhyupagamapake na ghaate iti yadi bauddhn sutar siddhyati. Te
bhtavyatirekea klbhvcctobhyantaratvditi. Nbh.3.22.
84
rogya paro labho nirva para sukha.NBh.4.73 ; vippa viraja nta paramakaramavyaya
brahma nirvam paryyai ntirucyate.C.S.Sa.2.23. Lalitasahasranma(nityaklinn nirupam
nirvasukhadyin.l.136) of Bramapura also uses the term nirva so also Krmapuramman
nirvamamala pada. ambhuntha commenting on this term explains it as
nirva apariccinna yatsukha tad dadtti s.Interestingly Bhskararya reads the term as nirba.
85
Anyastropapannn
crthnmihopantnmarthavatte
tadvidyebhya
eva
vykhynamanurotavya
kasmt?
Na
hyekasmi
stre
akya
sarvastrmavarodha
kartu.S.S.Su.4.6.
eka astramadhyno na vidycchstranicaya. Tasmdbahuruta stra
vijnyccikitsaka. Ibid.4.6.
86
Tadasamyak,ckuckumackuatvt sayogasya. R.V.S.2- 44
pratyakpratyak sayogasypratyakatvt pactmaka na vidyate. V.S. 4.2.2.
Tasya prthivasyaiva sata sayoga itarairiteke. R.V.S.2- 101 ausayogastvapratiiddha.V.S.4.2.4.
This shows that the stra text is a later codified one.
87
Dr.P.V.Sharmas option of considering the readctor of Suruta as author of stra text stands as strong
contendor.
88
It is clear that what has proved "baffling to the most brainy" is the quest for knowledge about Nagarjuna's
life. Ian Mabbett.
89

Strrtho varyate yena padai sutrnusribhi Svapadni ca varnyante bhya bhyavido vidu.
Strastha padamdya vkhyai strnusribhi. Svapadni ca varyante bhya bhyavido vidu. page
2069 abdrthakaustubha.
90

Vardhamana the aut

bhya : means commentary in which only the real sense of the stras are retained sans the rendering the
actual stras. Page 173 AnantalalThakur
91

Yvad stravykhynntara anupajvya tad vykhyna bhya. Nyyanibandhapraka

92

Vykhynntara upajvya stravykhyna

. Ibid.
Bhya straprayuktrthakainaprakaka
.
94
Stramtrvalambena
nirlambenapi
jacchata
.
khe
khelavanmampyatra
shasa
siddhimeyati.Upaskra.
95
Prtyartha vidumanugrahakara mandtman sarvadtasyeda suparkitrthaviaya bhya
may kathyate.RVS.1.1
96
Idamih
ya vrttika tantrasra munivaramatibheddaaakhasya tasya. Nbh.4-73
97
Evam vrttikaprayojanamapi dyotita bhavati vierthaprakanamiti.Nbh 1-1.
98
Atrha kasyeda vrttikamiti.agasyyurvedasya sakalasya, rogyastra vykhysyma
ityavieeoktatvt sarvatantrapadrthasagrahcca.athav vieata kyacikitsy. Nbh.1-1.
99
Pradhntva punarasy egevapikyacikitsviayaparypannerevasnehasvedandibhirrogyasdhant.
snehanasvedanavamanavirecansthpannuvasananasyakarmapradhna hi kyacikitseti vieita hi . Nbh.11.
100
* mentions that Vijyarakita commenting of M.N.2.11 uses the
term vrttika to refer the position of Carakasahita supplemented by
. Ydavji text and
Dr.Meulenbeld English translation reads the term as krtika. (krttikastvarocake kavalamua virasa
ca pti pittena vidyllavaa ca vaktra.C.S.Ci.26.)
93

*Patajalicarite hya
aatbdyena rmabadradkitena likhita. Stri yogastre vaidyastre ca
vrttikni tata
pracraymsa jagadida trtu. Rmacandradkita 2/22. vrttikni
tata ityatra sahitmatulmiti pha prmdika eva.
yadukta mahbh
, tatra nmaikyameva bjamanugacchmo nnyat kicanaiveti. Mahbhye
tatra tatra nnvidhavaidyakaabdhaprayognmahare patajalae. Vaidyastrapragmitva pratyate. Na

kevalametvadeva, vaidyakastre vtaskandha-paittaskandhopetasiddhntasraval- nmakagranthopi tena

bhagavat prata. Idnmapi sa grantho vilasatyeva.(see Trien.Cat.of Mss.1916-19,Vol.III,Part.I,Sanskrit
B.R.No.2371,p.3271) ata eva carakasahity tasya vrttikapra
e nsti kacid doalea iti
manymahe. Mdhavanidnyamadhukoanmny vykhyy stri
he mahrajakesavasenasya
dauhitre
atbdyenavijayarakitena
carakasahitycikitssthnya
kavamlamua virasa ca ptipittena vidyllavaa ca vaktra(26/182) itye
. ry
aatbdya havarmm tadya parihravrttika samkhyy
carakaky
vrttikamadduaditi. Majuymptalakaa nirpatay
ngeabhaenpi kathita- pto nmnubhavena vastutatvasya ktsneyena nicayavn rgdivadapi
nnyathvdi ya sa iti carake patajaliriti. Ato hi mahbh
sutar
.
Jejjaa on C.S.Ci.4.63-65 refers to Krasvmidattas commentary as vrttik, with great reverence. Ukta
ca vrttike kirasvmidattena and vrttikakrapd prhu. All these references regarding vrttika shows
that yurveda community of medieval period felt great need for a supplementary work in yurveda in line
with Ktyyana and Uddhyodakara and subsequent authors tried to fill this void.
101

His appellation that his work is both bhashya and vartika is a contradiction, because both are indented for
carrying two specific tasks. The task attributed to varttika is to supplement the stra when it fails;where
bhya is an elucidation of given stra text in line with it.
102

Bhsarvjs Nyyabhaa, auto commentary on Nyyasra (believed to be a scholar from Kmr in

anterior period of tenth century of common era ) refers the bhya by the title saghravrtika. Narasihas
effort to exalt his work to vartika might be a conscious effort to elevate its status; whether he was influenced
by Bhsarvja is a difficult one but there is a striking resemblance between the efforts of the two authors
claim for vrttika status for their bhya
ya vrttika tantrasra
munivaramatibheddaakhasya tasya.Nbh.4.73.
103

Iha tvadasmad guru ngavrycryea svabhye parikalpitamasti rogye (mukta?)

muktarogvasthymiti. Nbh.1.2.
104
Yvat khytavya tvaditi Nbh 1-1; means that commentary should be limited to the extent to which the
context demands.
105

Durbodha yadatva taddhi (vi)jahati sparthamityukthibhi sparthe

vidadhati vyarthai
samsdikai . Asthnenupayogibhica bahubhirjalpairbhrama tanvate rot

sarvepi

6. Yogastra by Maharipatajali with six commentaries Kashi

Sanskrit Series 83 , edited by Pait hunhirjstr , Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthan, Varanasi, second
edition 1982.
106

Iha tvad dvividh svapakasthapan.prvoktadooddharaa

asdhana
v,svapakasdhana
oddhraa.Nbh.1-39 .
107
Yadyayamgamo
na
syt,yadvtadv
catuaya
parikalpayitu.
Iha
tvadsmadgurungavrycryeasvabhyeparikalpitamasti rogye(mukta?) muktarogvasthymiti.
Tasdgamavirodhd yuktisadbhvccsmadya evdya parikalpa rey. Nbh. 1-2
108
Atra tvadaya paka
i vikra
cca. N.bh 1-14, aya
.
Na
hyyurvede
pratyak
aphalatvditi.Nbh.3-45
109

See citation 101; ki sarva eva svasth muktarogvasthy rdhvameva do

mantavya iti.tasmdgamavirodhd yuktisadbhvccsmadya
evdya parikalpa reyn.Nbh.1.2.
110
Ukta
hi

upasrganiptnm
kevaln
svabhvata
dyotakstvanyasannidhau.suptintbhidheyasya vkyasytiprasagata.vyavacchedya yujyante cdiprdy
kandivat Smnyaabdn vieavcakatvamiyate pradhnpekay. Yath smnyavcina abd
bhavanti reagminavaidyapakajasmnye bhikpadmaparigraht.Nbh.1.1. trividh hi abd- nityameva
gau nitya mukhy gauamukhyceti.Nbh.4.22.
111
yadi s

parima iti vacant. vaieikmapi klntaravasthyyanityatbhyupagamnna yukta. Yasya kasya v

bhavatu,
kimanay
skmikay.
cryea
tvat
padyairavayamabhyupaga(ntavya?ta)
dravyntaramityavagantavya. Anyath dadhikrd bhedo na syditi cikitsaiva na syt.Nbh.2.69;
athpyaya pravda sarva sarvtmakamiti skhya synnyurvedaniyama.Nbh.1.15.
112

tribhiritarairityabhyupagamapake na ghaata iti yadi bauddhn sutar siddhayati. Te

bhtavyatirekea klbhvcchtobhyantaratvditi.Nbh.3.22.

113

Atrthaandodhikre
draavya.
Kimadhikurute.rogyastravykhynamadhikurute.rogyastra
vykhysyma ityanenyamartha ki na labhyate. Labhyata eva. Tathpi dyotitamartha vcakena
sphukaroti.mahat prakenopalabdhe vastuni puna pradpa ki dyotayati.tathpyastyete dyotakn
tadarthavieadyotakatva

iti.Nbh.1.1.
Compare with Garuapura and Bhaolpala views on atha : athata abdayoreva
vyamjya tattvata. Streu tu mahprjstvevd prayujate.(Garuapuraa) athta ityaya
samudya ,athtosmcchstropanayndanantara .. athavthaabdho maglartha.BT on BS.
114
ptavacanasya traividhyt raddhey(rtha)manumeyrtha pratyakrtha ceti. raddheyrthamuttar
kurava svargepsarasa iti. Anumeyrtha pratyakrtha ca yath cakurindriya rpasya grhakamiti.
Cakui sati na bhavati tasmdasti cakurindriyamityanumyate.pratyakata eva rpamupalabhyata
iti.Nbh.3.44;
Aya
.
Na
hyyurvede
pratyak
aphalatvditi. Nbh.3.42.
115

Iha
khalu
trividho
hetulakaaheturanumnaheturuttaraheturiti.tatra
lakaaheturuatvdgni.ualakaognirityukta bhavati. Apratilakaatvadkamiti. Atrpi tath
anumnahetu sdaka. Uttarahetu prvapakadoavacanrtha.Nbh.1.34.
116

Page 21. RVS.M.

117

Yathnyatrpi vsavadatty subandhun baddhamudayanena ca ubhamiti vsadattcarite udayacarita

iti (?) Nbh.1.2.
118
Page 21. RVS.M.
119
Ka punarasau roga iti. Avasthviio doa. athpi tea
ayau vydhistasya bhaiajyamucyata
iti.Nbh.1.1
Nicalakara refers to schools of thought who regarded kaya also a disease state.( stra
svmidsevarasendayo vycakate kayaj api vydhaya). Agasagraha urges the physician to
consider kaya also for the diagnostic purposes (ye do
ayayorvikr krtit
. eevapi tu
tneva kalpayentdyathyatha.A.S.Su.20.26.). A
hints towards the increasing trend of
physicians ignoring the state of kaya
kca bhyiha lakayantyabhudh na
tat. A.H.Su.11.43.) Cakrapaidatta an idea which totally negates the role of kaya
adya dayanto jvardn kurvanti na k svayameva
dusthitatvt; kstu nnyadui do kurvantti pratipditameva. Cakrapidatta.) In the commentary of
Narasiha 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.
120
Setikartavyatko rogotpdakaheturnidna.yanmate doetikartavytrp saprptiriyate..yanmate
vydhijanmasamprpati Madhukoak M.N.1.2; yurvedadpikak.C.S.Ni.1.9.
121
ridasa adopts the definition given by Narasiha in his commentary with referring to him.
(arrasvarpatajjanmamarntarlabhvin garbhavakrntisamaye svakrodrekajanit nirvikrarp kpi
doasthiti A.H.Su.1.9-10.) Narasi
ntarlabhvin
garbhavakrntisamaye svakarodrekajanit nirvikrii doasthiti.Nbh.1.7. ridasa also adopts the division
of healthy individual from Nbh.1.1;1.81. svasvau dvau bhiaj plya
.bhiaj
pari
. ridasa.A.H.Su.3.29. Influence of Narasihabhya can also be seen in the
Vkyapradpikavykhya of Paramevaradvija(1422C.E.)
122
Page.3. ridsa Vol.II.
123
asmado dvayoca.(adhyy.1.2.29), jtiraprin. (adhyy. 2.4.5). Nbh.1.1.
124

Vaieikasutra
utkepaamavakepaamkucana
prasraa
gamanamiti
karmti.
(vaieikastra.1.1.7.)Nbh.2.12; Tathauvokta hi sakhypramni sayogavibhgena parvaratve karma
rpisamavycckuti.Vai.Su.4.1.1. Nbh.2.16; Kriyvad guavat samavyikraa dravyamiti dravya
lakaa.VS.1.1.15. Nbh.2.26.
125

Vaieika.siddhavaieik khalu manynte drana sprana dravyamiti.Nbh.1.101, vaiikstu

manynte drana sprana ca dravyamiti pratyakeopalabhyata iti.ibid.2.1, iya vaieik
asamudyadravyavdina
na
pramodayati.ibid.2.12,
ete
hetavo
vaieikamatnusrecryeokt iti yath rutameva vykriyante, na vierthgaty.ibid2.15, etadukta
bhavati- iha vaieika dravy yuktnmeva bhavati. Tantavopytnavitnabhvena sayukt
padravyamrabhante.ibid.2.44, Vaieik hi dvividha dravya. Adravyamanekadravya
ceti.ibid.2.46, Vaieik hi dvividha dravya. Adravyamanekadravya ceti. Adravya paramava
ibid.2.20. vaieikmapi klntaravasthyyanityatbhupagamnna yukta.ibid.2.69.
126

vaieik hi dvividha dravya. adravyamanekadravya ceti. adravya paramava.Nbh.2.44

Dvividha hi kraa pratyayo heturiti.hetustasya karyasya nirvartaka.pratyayastpakramtra karoti.
Tatra
.yath
paasya
tantavo
hi
nirvartakatvddheturityucyante. akualkrajjustraturveunltantuvya prayatndaya pratyay
asya(na) a
.Nbh.3.47.
128
Akapda akapdasya gandhdaya iti.Nbh.2.20
127

129

skhyn abddaya.Nbh.2.50
Athpyaya pravda sarva sarvtmakamiti skhyya
synnyurvedaniyama.Nbh.1.15.yadi
skhyasya, nsau vchati.Nbh.2.69
131
Utpattipralayakraa trigua pradhnamiti.Nbh.1.142.
132
kladravyapadrthavdibhirvaidyairanyaicnyathtvagamanasdhako
bhavati.tribhiratarairityabhyupagamapake na ghaate iti yadi bauddhn sutar siddhyati. Te
bhtavyatirekea klbhvcctobhyantaratvditi. Nbh.3.22.
133
Tatra te te bhedn prayogana tantreu draavya.
134
asya sakalasya pravacanasykibhtasya maharebhgavato bharadvjasya darana yath . Nbh.1.1.
135
Tallakaa pacadaaprakramhrakk svadana vi(ve?p)ka. Pur
at ca
tathendriyrthagrahae ca akti. Manasukhatva balavaralbha svapna sukhena pratibodhana ca.
upyata sdhanamasya vidyt snehdi yat karma may pradia. vidydihrogyaphala nar
dharmrthakmapratimokasiddhi. Nbh.1.1
136
dharmrthakmamokmrogya mlamuttama. Rogstasypahartra reyaso jvitasya ca.
C.S.Su.30.29. Nbh.1.1,4.73; Viruddhairapi na tvetairguairghantiparspara. Do sahajastmyatvdvia
ghoramahniva.C.S.Ci.26.293. Nbh.1.42.
130

137

domayo hi kya: doadhtumalamla ariramiti .S.S.Su.12.1.Nbh.1.24.

Bhyas salient feature is the absence of reference to Vgbhaas works.
139
ha ctra nimi sarva dvandvamaya dravya jnyt pcabhautika
guavaiamyakraa.
Nbh.3.36;
Uktni
nimin
ambhmijamadhobhga
tejovyujamrdhvaga.tataivobhayatobhga mahyagnyanilaja mata . sgrhika
bhava . vyusomamahjta tath sashamana vidu

paricak
guairyukta jvanyamiti sthiti. Vyvanalasvabhvcca praghna madana
mata. Praghna tvrabhvttu doadhtuprakopana . madana caladhtutvd doakopanameva tu .
ap guabahutvttu tkaraamiyate . bhmyabja
ca khavyuja. Agnestu
guabhulyt pcana paricakmahe. Draa mrutgneya ropaa bhjalnila. Evametni proktni
yathvadanuprvaa. Daa paca ca karmi gun pcabhautikt. Dravyeveva vijnyt karmi
daa paca ca. Nbh.4-30
138

140

Doaye pacyamn rasstaddoghtakn. Du

yadyanyn bhvayanti ca. Nbh.3-36

141

Evametni doa svbhyudayakaratvt karmtyucynte, varn svakarmavat. Nbh.1.81.

ryabhta
a iti.ibid.1.103; ya svasmin sthnenyasyvaka niru
a
cakravartti.ibid.1.106.
143
Avyavasthitatvdapradhnonrya iti yatkicid vaktu akyata iti.Nbh.1.102.
144
Loka
astrabhhyo
jana.Nbh.2.27;
loka
eopacaryante
madhurdaya.Nbh.3.21. So term loka refers to people who are not knowning the true essence of yurvedic
concepts.
145
Samantri
punare
knicit.RVS.4.29;
mantratatva
ccintyakra
i
vidydharmkagamayathepsitrthanirvartanajanakni
cintynyaparimeyni ca santti.vakara str purua v tmastkara lokaprasiddha.
Vidveaa parasparaprtivibhedana auadhavieea mantravieea ca.. karaa drasthn
nrmhvna auadhavrye. Antardhnika
adhaka
v naacchyrpacarti.Rjadvrika rjavaya.Nbh.4.27.
146
Abhijana jtibrhmadi.Nbh.1.7;
147
Na hyhavanyognirvastha dhya dahati.Nbh.1.56; pauika lbhakara rskta nma vidy tay
sahasra labhate.ibid.4.27. Dr.Menon construes Buddhist linkage to Narasiha from this single refernce
viraharthe atapasvijanoya vihra.Nbh.1.1 and opines that the Brahmanical references including the one
of rskta found its place in the commentary out of respect for Hindu scriptures and ceremonies seems to be
a far stretching consclusion. (page.20.RVS.M.)
148
Koya
. Bhiakpariplitdanya.Nbh.1.1.
149
daiva jyotijna grahasthitirjanmavargayo.Nbh.1.96.
150
Pradhntvapunarasyegevapikyacikitsviayaparypannerevasnehasvedandibhirrogyasdhant.
snehanasvedanavamana virecansthpannuvasananasyakarmapradhna hi kyacikitseti vieita hi . Nbh.11
151
Svasthe bhi
kriy pratiiddh eva. Ukta hi- samatvd
dhtudo maln cvikrata. Svasthasya prtamanso na kriybhi prayogana.Nbh.1.83. This part of
bhya should be viewed with its contemporary relevance.Pacakarma or its preparatory are performed with
out any discretion and that to under a rather paradoxical name- sukhacikits. (sukh stands for positive health
and cikits is its mean). The
142

sacayamu
the concept of health of paper.

u kriyvidhnamuktamyurvedeu.Nbh. ibid. see

152

While explaining the meaning ath, which may stand for conveying the sense of prerequisite, in that case
the term refers to persons who had already studied the tenets of eight branches of yurveda and wants to
understand the deeper meaning of the system. These statements suggest that an ordinary vaidya
aatmvi
rthajijsavo marty.Nbh.1.1.
153
Buddherboddhyni stri skmaistatvrthanicayai.tatvrthagrahabuddhirnai sarvatr vidyate.
Nbh.4.70; Compare Cakrapnis notion of strabuddhi or vainyak buddhi and sahajabuddhi. (yata
sahaj buddhi vin straj buddhiry vainyaktyabhidhyate. C.S.Su.9.24.)
154
Tallakaamhrcra snehdica na sdhana
ay.Nbh.1.2.
155
Sarva hda tra sdhanameva tyjyagrhyadvrea. yastu pathya na jnti jnan ppi na sevate
tasya do prakupyanti bahirantarmalni ca. Nbh.1.1; parasparaviruddhrogynrogyakra dravydi
samyamitthyprayogpekatvt, manovkkyakarmavat puypuyayo.Nbh.1.5. Narasiha in his
commentary declines to answer those queries which are directed only for intellectual edification and lacked
the pragmatic value and theoretical base eg. ki tad dukhasayogo vydhiriti neyate .tihantu tvad
guapadrthavydhivdinaste.Nbh.1.3
156
Yadyamgamo na syt, akya yadvtadv catuaya parikalpayitu Nbh.1.2 atr tvadaya paka

. Atha svecchpratipatti
spi na yukt.yuktyabhvt ,pratijdocca.Nbh.1.14.
157
Aya
avati.
Na
hyyurvede
pratyak
aphalatvditi. Nbh.3.42.
158
Iha tvad dvividh svapakasthpan. Prvoktadooddharaa
asdhana v
svapakasdhana
oddharaa veti.Nbh.1.39.
159
Ete hetavo vaieikamatnusrecryeokt iti yath rutameva vykriyante na vierthagaty.Nbh.2.15.
160
See citation 139; skhyn abddaya vaieik rpdaya akapdasya gandhdaya iti.
Nbh.2.50. Narasiha comments(athpi kriyystaddhrasya ca tatvnyatva prati trkik matibhedo
vidyate (na te?) nsmkamityartha. Alukikatvt.1.6) that yurveda is not in line which the idea that action
and its relation to substratum as expounded by the Trik-s reveals the state of Ayurvedic system which by
that time itself had parted from the basics expounded in treatises like Carakasahita. (The very observation
will go against the concept of dravya of Caraka). The citation 139 reveals that fact that the author discovered
it extremely difficult to assimilate the divergent views from other stras, their statements are quoted
verbatim, and he seems to be apologetic about his plight: yath rutameva vykriyante na
vierthagaty.Nbh.2.15.
161
Shift might started much before the time of RVS which includes samantra and acintyavrya.Nbh is only
echoing
this
change
of
stand.
Etni
ki
cintynyapi
vryi
chardanydni
vilayanntnyevhosvidanynyapi santti tantreu tasmnnoktniti. Anenaivpyhyatvnnoktnti. Nbh.4.30
162
Mansacendriyatva ca vivdasthnamiti.Nbh.2.4.
163
Tatra
tattatkraaparicchittidhtunntvajna
nma
mahat
sarvajnmeva
bhavati,
nnyemiti.Nbh.2.55; utkaravnapakaravca sanniveaviea nsmbhi parkitamastti.Ibid.2.95.
utkaravnapakaravca sanniveaviea nsmbhi parkitamastti.Nbh.2.97.On comparison with
Cakrapai (C.S.Ci.11.129. haritakydi
avat bhtasanniveavie

tena ntropapattaya kramante.) statements we can infer that Ayurveda system failed to resolve this deadlock.
164

vacintyeu gunmavasthntare
iti.Nbh.3.61
165
ya vrttika tantrasra munivaramatibheddakhasya tasya. Tadadhigamasamha
puyaled bhavatu jagati citta prin ntibja. Mtsaryamnapratipakabhta jna munna
yathrtha
mahat
yathrtha.
Tatprpya
kurydiha
ka
prasanna
mtsaryapakkulamtsamacitta.Nbh.4.71.
166
Tasmd
vihyonnatimtmasasth
sarvatra
vca
padav
parkya.
Saprapyate
yatparamrthasiddhirblbhilpevapi tatvavidbhi. Nbh.4.71.
167
Rasavryavipkdigutiayavnaya. Dravyasvabhvo nirdio ya prabhassa krtita. Vakyapradka
.A.H.Su.9.26.
refer
concept
of
acintyavrya
RVS.4.27,25,29
e
vry
medhydnarasaguabhtasamudyraya iti. Rasca guca bhtasamudyaca rasaguabhtasamudy,
evra iti na jayate. Ida medhydivrya imameva rasa gua v bhtasamudya vrita iti jtu na
akyate. Kuta iti. Tath rasaguavryatvt.tathrasaguabhtasamudynmiti.tattulyarasnmiti.anye
dravymanyathvryatvtyath
rasaguabhtasamudynyacintyavryadravyi
tathrasaguabhtasamudyn
tattulyarasaguabhtasamudynmiti.anye
cintyavry
dravymanyathvryatvt. Tasmsdeva bhtabhautikakramecintynyetni vryti jnma iti.Nbh.4.25.
168
tatra arragrahaena arrvayav do
.Nbh.1.149; arrvayavatvd do.arra hi
bhautikamiti.Nbh.1.15; na doamaya kayo bhautika, doca bhautik iti. Nbh.1.69
169
sarvtman sarvvayavairavasthna bhavati do ki sarvakla, nahi, aprakupitn
iti vieitatvt prva

tena tena vyprea.Nbh.1.60.

170

bhvita arra na k
. Tay smyvasthay
vydhayo na bhavanti. Avrguttarakla yo doa pracito bhtv prakupyti tena vydhiriti na
prvadoaprasaga iti.Nbh.1.26.
171

daasvabhv hi do na amanasvabhv iti vyurtmana aityena pittasyauya na amayati,

pittasyauyamapi tacchaitya.tath lemao gauravamubhayorlghava na amayati. Nbh.1.42.
172

Parasparabaldhn(dni?diti.) yad kupitstad parasparasyopakryaiva vartante. Yath vyuryad

kupitastasya pitta tadrogye vakama upakaroti. Mrgvaraa ca karoti dravatay.vyurpi pittasya.
Tath lemaaca pitta dravatayopakaroti lempi mrganirodhadravatbhy vtapittasyeti.Nbh.1.42;
eva prakopaca sarvakla aparthasayogpekayopalabhyate sarve do.Nbh.1.532.
173

Tvakchoitntare pitta msamedontare kapha. Asthimajjntare vyureva tristhamucyate.Nbh.1.7.

a caya ityabhibhyate.sthndunmrgagamana prakopa parikrtita.
Sarvadehnusaraa prasara bhiajo vidu. Dehaikaderayaa sthnasarayaa vidu.Nbh.1.66.
175
Yadyeva pribhikya saj smyamiti bhavatu, kitu gameu siddhay bhavitavyamiti.
Nbh.1.81.
176
Tatsdhana tatsamutthna sakepata prajpardha astmendriyrthopayoga parimaceti
trividha. Tatra prajpardho mnasnmgantn ca.astmendriyrthopayoga rr.parima*
svabhavavydhnmiti.tatphala catuaynavpti.Nbh.1.3; *yurvede puna kla toavaralakaa
oh bhinna sa
. Tasya khalu vyvahriky gaanayopalakyam bhed
nimepdayo yugaparyant tasya vyvabhravarahimtapacchynimittc vie klasaj labhante.
Tatra te te bhedn prayogana tantreu draavya. Nbh.1.7.
174

177

Koya rogasvabhva. Smnya lakaa vydhn doaghaanodbhtadoajanita. Yath vyu

kupita ekaca doa kupita sarvneva prakopayet iti, pittalemau kopayati. Tau cnena
doaghaanena kupitau vyun balavatbhibhyamnau na svakryavydhi nirvartayata. Tato
vyurjvaramabhivartayatti cet.pitta sarvajvar smnyalakaa santpa mtra karoti.lem ca
nidrdhiyratigauravdni prvarpti.Nbh.1.43.
178

Nbh.1.7.
aththo groyastra vykhysyma (we shall expound the system of health) RVS.1.1 The term rogya
is used in classical text for instance Carakasahit Su.9.4;30.29:Vi.6.13;5.49:Ci.3.141, to refer positive
health and the term is not conceived for referring the system vide. Tatryurveda kh vidy stra jna
stra lakaa tantramityanarthntara.C.S.Su.30.30
179

180

AVS. YV.36.17
Athamaitrpara
puyamyurveda
punarvasu.
iyebhyo
dattavn
abhya
sarvabhtnukampay.C.S.Su.1.30; puruoya lokasamita.ibid.Sa.2.3; sarvalokamtmanytmna ca
sarvaloke samamanupayata..
tatra sayogpek lokaabda. adhtusamudyo hi smnyata
sarvaloka.ibid.Sa.5.6.
182
Avagni tasyhucikits yeu sarit.A.H.Su.1.2. nityopayogi durbodha sarvgavypi bhvata.
s
vieea yatra kyacikitsa. A.S.Su.1.8.
183
damdhava,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. This verse from Cakradatta
demonstrates how far the later physicians moved away from the classical compendia like CS. carakdau
samuddi vastyo ye sahasraa. vyavahro na tai pryo nibaddh ntra ten te . Cakradatta
Nirhdhikra 35.
184
The term signifies the need for thinking beyond the purview of medicinal formulations for specific disease
conditions. The need for the understanding of basic tenets of yurveda is emphasised through out the stra
text. The stras 1.94,163 clearly demonstrates his special intention. Rasavaieikastra in this sense
codification of the text is a conscious effort to sort out the enigmas in the theoretical aspect of yurveda.
185
Rujatti roga arraytr
.Nbh.1.1.
181

186

ka punarasau roga iti. Avasthviio doa .Nbh.1.1. tatrnrogya vydhi. Sa punaravasthviito

doa ityukta prk.Nbh.1.2. A very similar allusion can be traced from Indus k: Rogo vtdn viamat
svarpccalana.sapraptivaena mukhyoktirhetutvenaupacrik. viiasampraptayo hi do eva rog tat
krya veti pakadvaya. tena vydhi viemanipdayadapi doavaimya
bhavati.
Rogavie jvardn nmni.Induk.A.S.Su.1.31.
187

See citation 117

yvasth rog(do)mupalakayet. saskmmapi ca prjo dehgnibalacetas.
vydhyavasthvien hi jtv jtv vicakaa. tasy tasymavasthy catureya(tattacchreya)
prapadyate.
188

(C.
S . N i . 8. 36 - 37 )
189
Avasthbahutvt.Nbh.1.94.
190
Na roga aroga arogabhva ogya. Eva hyrogye parikalpyamne rogya rogbhvamtra syt.
Tatra ko doa syt.tallakaasdhanaphalnmasambhava syt. Nbh.1.1
191
Arthbhvasya lakaato bhvt. Avastutvditi bhva.Nbh.1.1
192
rogbhvamtramevrogyamiti .ayamgamastarhi kathamiti-rogyamhurbhiaja sarvbdhanivartana.
Vadanti punarbdha dukha rramnasa. iti.Nbh.1.1. The articulation that health or rogya will
annihilate all afflictions of body and mind should understood as a metaphorical or figurative statement to
show the importance of health.- Atryamupacra sarvbdhanivartana bhavatti. Nbh.1.1.
193

Tasmdatrya naorthonyath pratipadyate. Aya ca pratiedha saptasvartheu vartate. Katha prati

. kutslpavirahrtheu vipake cpi na bhavet Atra tvad vipake
draavya. Rogavipake rogya svasthatymityartha, anyevarthavieevasambhavt.Nbh.1.1
194

Atra
tvad
vipake
draavya.
Rogavipake
rogya
svasthatymityartha,
anyevarthavieevasambhavt.Nbh.1.1
195
Athv nivartyateneneti karaasdhana. rogya doasmya tena rra mnasa sarva dukha
nivartyata iti. Nbh.1.1; Sarva hda stra sdhanameva tyjyagrhyadvrea.Nbh.1.2
196

Sarva hda stra sdhanameva tyjyagrhyadvrea.Nbh.1.2 compare with Caraka definition of

yurveda - yatacyuyyanyuyi ca dravyaguakarmi vedayatyatopyyurveda.C.S.Su.30.23.
197
198

kecidhurrogye purue iti. Tanna tvad yukta.bhvavcakatvdrogyaabdasya.Nbh.1.2

Suhu avatiate nrogatveneti svatha.yurvedadpikik.C.S.Su.1.67.

199

ca tathturasya. Dravya gucaiva ras savry

vipkakarmi ca a padrth. Etvadetat tu cikitsita syt taccpi krya tu bahnavekya. Samyak tu
siddhirvipartamanyadekaikabhedd tu bhavedaneka. rogyavijnamupyasiddhi phala ca
bhoktavyamarogaty. rogyame tu sadaiva vidydabdhana tacca samaistu doai. Tallakaa
pacadaaprakramhrakk svadana vi(ve?p)ka. Pur
at ca tathendriyrthagrahae ca
akti. Manasukhatva balavaralbha svapna sukhena pratibodhana ca. upyata sdhanamasya vidyt
snehdi yat karma may pradia. vidydihrogyaphala nar dharmrthakmapratimokasiddhi.
Nbh.1.1 compare the rogya lig-s of Kyapa: Annbhilo bhuktasya paripka
vmtravtatva
arirasya
ca
lghava.Suprasannendriyatva
ca
sukhasvapnaprabodhana.Balavaryu lbha saumansya samgnit.Vidydrogyaligni viparte
viparyaya. K.S.Si.5.6-8. Caraka is not narrating these lakaa-s in his compendium, instead he explains
health as sukhasajaka ,here suffix kapis used(svrthe kap)is used to signify importance the subjective
plane in the analysis of health.
200

Koya
. Bhiakpariplitdanya.Nbh.1.2.
Stmya pathya
. Evamanena bhiakpariplita svastha

agbhi pariplyamnsya klanimittca na bhavatti.Nbh.1.53.

202
Svasthe bhi
kriy pratiiddh eva. Ukta hi- samatvd
dhtudo maln cvikrata. Svasthasya prtamanso na kriybhi prayogana.Nbh.1.83
201

203
204

Refer citation 197

opalambhd
ukriyvidhnamuktamyurvede
asacayavyadsrthamiti. Ibid.

205

Atrpyetaddhitamityetad bhiakpariplitasya snehasvedavidhicetydi

padhanannulepandi ubhayoraviruddhamiti.Nbh.1.83.
206

Agnimla bala
parirakaa.A.S.Ci.12.31.

pus

balamla

hi

jvita.

Ea

do

carita
sracikitsy

yadgne

207

anna sayogasaskravana ceda. Itydyavijya yatheacescarnti

yasgnibalasya akti. Tasmdagni playetsarvayatnairstasminnae yti n nameva. Doairgraste
grasyate rogasaghairyukte tu synnirujo drghajv. A.H.Su.10.92-93. Caraka sahita also explains the
negative impact on health due to unguided living.
tta ca tathturasya. Dravya gucaiva ras savry
vipkakarmi ca a padrth. Etvadetat tu cikitsita syt taccpi krya tu bahnavekya. Samyak tu
siddhirvipartamanyadekaikabhedd tu bhavedaneka. rogyavijnamupyasiddhi phala ca
bhoktavyamarogaty. rogyame tu sadaiva vidydabdhana tacca samaistu doai. Tallakaa

pacadaaprakramhrakk svadana vi(ve?p)ka. Pur

at ca tathendriyrthagrahae ca
akti. Manasukhatva balavaralbha svapna sukhena pratibodhana ca. upyata sdhanamasya vidyt
snehdi yat karma may pradia. vidydihrogyaphala nar dharmrthakmapratimokasiddhi.
Nbh.1.1

Primary Sources.
AS.

Agasagraha
commentary ;

published with Indus ailekha

edited by Rudraparaara ;
Trichur.
S.
A.H.

Mangalodayam Press

yurvedastra Pt.Ramaprasadarma; Khemraja

ShriKrishnaDas,
ri.Venketsewara steam press Bombay 1966
A
gasundr
and
yurvedarasyana vykhy;
edited by Bhishagacarya Harishastri Paradkar Vaidya;
collated by
Anna Moreswar kunte;
Krishnadas

2002 reprint;

published by

Academy, Varanasi.
y.s.

BS
BT

Bhela
Cakradatta

CK
Candraa

C.S.

C.S.

The yurvedastra with the commentary of

Yoganandanatha edited
by Dr.R.Shamasastry B.A,Phd,M.R.A.S University of
Mysore
Oriental Library Publication Sanskrit series 61, 1922.
hita
bhaotpalak
hit with bhaotpalak
Vol.I&II edited by Dr.Krishnacandradvivedi, Research
Institute
SampurnanadaSanskrit
University
Varanasi.1996.
Bhelasahit text with English translation by
Dr.K.H.Krishnamurthy,
Ed.Dr.P.V.Sharma,
Chaukhambhavisvabharati,Varanasi 2003 reprint.
Cakradatta or cikitssagraha of Cakrapdatta with
Ratnaprabh k by
Mahmahopdhyya ri Nicalakara
edited by
Dr.P.V.Sharma, Swami Jayaramadas Ramprakash Trust
Jaipur, first edition 1993.
Cikitskalik of Tsacrya containing Sanskrit
Commentary of his son
Candraa edited by Dr.P.V.Sharma ,Chaukhamba
Surbharati Prakashan,Varanasi.First edition 1989.
Carakasahit with yurvedadpik tk; edited by
Vaidya Jdavji Trikamji crya; 1994 reprint;
published by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers
NewDelhi.
Carakasahit
with
yurvedadpik
tk
&
Nirantarapadavykhya; edited by Pait ri Haridatta
stri ; Motilal Banarasidas, Lahore, 1941

HK

Halduyakoa:Halduyakoa or Abhidhnaratnamla
ed.Jayasakarajo.
Uttarapradesh Hindi Sansthan .Lacknow 1993
Carakasahit with Jalpakalpataruk of Kaviraja
Gangadhara and
yurvedadpikak of Cakrapidatta edited by
Kaviraja
NarendranathSengupta
and
Kaviraja
Balaichandrasengupta 2002 reprint Newdelhi.
Kyapasa
);
by Pandit
Hemaraja Sarma; Published Choukhambha Sanskrit
Sansthan.Varanasi.1994 fourth edition.

JKT

K.S.

mnameyodaya

Lalitsasranma

MN.

Muktval

NB

Ni
.

of Keava Vol.I&II edited with

critical introduction by
Rmvatraarma.M.A.Shitycryya.Oriental Institute
Baroda.1928.
Mnameyodaya of Nryaa (An Elementary Treatise on
the Mms) edited with an English translation by
C.KunhanRaja and S.S.SuryanarayanaSastri, The
Adayar Library and Research Centre,Madras,Second
edition 1975.
rilalitsasranmastotra with two commentaries
Saubhgyabhskara of Bhskararya and Bltp of
ambhuntha edited by Late Prof.Batukanathashastri
Khiste, Sampurnanand Sanskrit University Varanasi
2003.
Mdhavanidna by Mdhavakara with commentary
Madhukoa and extracts from Atagadarpaa edited by
crya Ydavji Trikamji 2001 6th reprint Chaukhamba
Orientalia,Varanasi.
rivivanthnyyapacnanabhacryas Krikval
with
Nyyamuktli,Dinakar
and
Rmarudr
commentaries edited with foot notes by tmr
Nryaa
Jere.
reprint2002.
R
, NewDelhi.
Mahmuni Vtsyyanas Nyyabhya on GautamaNyya- Stras with
Prasannapad
commentary
of
Pt.Sudarancryastri.BhauddhaBharati
Varaasi.1998.
Nirukt
. Yskas Nirukta
-

Commentaries Meherchanlachamandaas Publishers

Newdelhi 2006 reprint.
NV
Uddyotakaras
Nyyavrttika
Ed.Ananatalal
Thakur,Indian Council of Philosophical
Research NewDelhi.1996.
Nyyabhaa Nyyasra of cryabhsarvaj with autocommentary
Nyyabhaa edited with critical comments by
Sv
yogndrnanda
,
adaranaprakana
pratina,
Varanasi,1968.
Nbh.
Narasihabhya of Rasavaieika stra: Ed.
Dr.Kolatheri Sankara Menon, SriVanchi Sethu Lakshmi
Series, Govt of Travancore. 1928
RVS.M
Bhadanta Nagaarjunas Rasavaiseshikasutra edited by
Dr.N.E.Muthuswamy Kerala Government Ayurvedic
Publication Series -2 Publication Division, Govt.
Ayurveda College Trivandrum. 1976.

Packaraavrttika
Packaraa
of
riankarcrya,
AdavitaAshrama,Calcutta 1997
.Up.
yakopaniadkarabhya,
Gitapress
Gorakhapur Uttarpradesh.ed.1995
S.S.
Surutasamhit with Nibandhasagraha vykhy;
edited by Vaidya Jdavji
Trikamji crya and Nrya Rm chrya
kvyatrtha;
5th edition 2005;published by
Choukhambha orientalia, Varanasi.
Udistra
The U
vetavanavsin
edited
by
T.R.Chintamai.M.A.Navarang Publishers Newdelhi.
1992 reprint
Upaskra

Vaieikastropaskra of ankaramira with Prakik

Hindi commentary by cryahuhirjastr edited
by
Sri.Nryaamira
Chaukhambha
Sanskrit
Sansthan,Varanasi.Second Edition 2002.
Vaidyamanorama Vaidyamanorama (Cikitskrama) part 2 revised second
edition; edited by
Vayaskara.N.S.Moss, Vaidyasrathi Series M-1,
Kottayam 1978
VS.
Vaieikasutra of Kaada with the commentary of
Candrnanda.Critically
edited
by
Muni
Sri
Jambuvijayaji.Oriental Institute Baroda.1982.

Sampr
.Ed.
P.CttukkuiNambiyr
Vaidyar. Srisadan yurveda Oushadasala,Kannur.1960.
Yuktidpika
Yuktidpika
on
Skhyakrika
Danganathjha
granthamla
No-12
Edited
by
crya
ri.Kedranthatriphi
1993,first
edition
Sampurnanand Sanskrit University,Varanasi.
Paramevaradvijs

Tantrayuktivichara

Vkyapradpik k on A
volumes, by Aavaidyan N.Sankaran
Kottayam,1950.

Mooss

Vaidyanatha Nlameghas edited by Dr.Kolatteri

Sanakara Menon M.A., L.T., Ph.D,The Sri Vanci Sethu
Lakshmi Series No. 10, Published under the authority
of the Govt. of Travancore 1928.

C.S: Carakasahit ;S.S: Surutasahit;K.S:Kyapasahit;A.S:

tngasagraha;A.H: A
; RVS:
Rasavaieikastra
Secondary sources
A Sreedhara Menon,
A survey of Kerala History
2007 edition,
D.C.Books,Kottayam ISBN.81-264-1578-9.
A.L.Basham,A Cultural History of India ,OxfordUniversityPress NewDelhi.
2004 Eighth impression.
Aryavaidyan.N.V.K.Varier
Ayurvedacharitram Malayalam, 3rd edition
2002,
Publicationdivision, Aryavaidyasala, Kottakkal,
HIML,Dr.G.J.Meulenbeld;
A History of Indian Medical Literature;
Volume: IIA, IIB; 1999-2002,
Groningen Oriental Studies No: 15; Egbert
Forsten 2000

J.Filliozat
LInstitut Franais 1979
Dindologie Pondichry.

Yogaataka; J.Filliozat. Publications De

No.62.Dindologie
Institut
Franais

Ithiyamla
Koarathilagui 1990
Theodor Goldstucker
2005 Second edition
Sanskrit Series

Ithiyamla
by
Koarathil
agui,
smraka committe,Kottayam.
Pini :His Place in Sanskrit Literature,
Ed Prof.SurendraNathSastri. Chowkhamba

Albrecht Weber
Weber
1981 reprint
F.Maxmuller,

OfficeVaranasi ISBN 81-7080-170-2

The History of Indian Literature by Albrecht
Takshila Hardbounds Jullundur.
A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature,
published
by
B.D.Basu
IMS(Rtd)

Bhuvaneswari Ashrama
D.P.Chattopadhya
S.C.Dubeys
1996
R.Subramanian,
Research.NewDelhi.110002
S.Radhakrishnan,
University Press
1999 reprint.
RadhaKumud Mookerji
Buddhist:
1989 reprint
208-0423-6
Kashinath Vasudev
Institute Baroda
Abhyankar and J.M.Shukla
1986(reprint)
RamaNathSharma.
of Sanskrit
2004reprint of the
Philosophy and
first edition

Bahadurganj Allahabad
page 26 Science,History and Philosophy in
Indian

Philosophy

Indian

Council

Indian

Philosophy,

and

History.

of

Gen.Ed.

Philosophical

Volume

2,Oxford

NewDelhi
Ancient Indian Education Brahmanical and
NewDelhi, Motilal Banarasi Dass ISBN-81A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar Oriental

Pini,Ktyyana and Patajali: An overview

Grammatical Tradition - History of Science ,
Culture in Indian Civilisation General Editor,
D.P.Chattopadhyaya - Volume 1.Part1,The

Dawn of Indian
Civilization up to 600Bc edited by G.C.Pande
Centre for Studies in Civilizations , New Delhi62.
Kuppuswami Sastri.S
Oriental Research
quoted from page.137.
1981,I,119-121
HIMLVol.2A, 2000
Nancy MacCagney
0847686272.
K.K.Raja;
Library
1977 reprint
7273-5
Gerald.J.Larson.
History and

Linguistic notes : Bhadata ,The Journal of

(Madras)3,1-5; reprint in S.S.Janaki (Ed.)

Ngrjuna and the Philosophy of Openess,

Published Rowman& Littlefield
ISBN
Indian Theories of Meanings,

The Adayar

and Research Centre Madras ISBN-0-8356Classical Skhya- An interpretation of its

1979
Meaning;
Ross/Erikson,Inc.,Publishers,SantaBarabara
LallanjiGopal,
Retrieving Sakhya History An Ascending
from Dawn to 2000,
Meridian, LallanjiGopal, , D.K.Print world
New Delhi
ISBN 81-246-0143-7
PV.Sharma,
Ayurveda
ka
vaijnika
itihs,by
Chaukambaorientalia
2004 reprint
Varanasi.
Ian Mabbett
The Problem of Historical Nagarjuna revisited,
The Journal of
the American Oriental Society Vol.118.No.3
P.K.Gopalakrishnan
Keralathinte Samskarika Charitram (A Cultural
History of sixth edition January 2000
KeralaMalayalam)
P.K.Gopalakrishnan ; A.D.State Institute
of Languages Kerala ISBN 81-7638-133-0
K.G.Zysk.
Mythology and the brahmanization of Indian
medicine:
transforming
heterodoxy
into
orthodoxy.Kenneth.G.Zysk.
S.K.RamachandraRao,
Daranodaya Early Indian Thought by
S.K.RamachandraRao First edition1999.
Kalpataru
Research
Academy
Bangalore
S.N.Dube
Hetrodox Movements in India in the 6th and 5th
Centuries BC 2001
,in Life,Thought and Culture in India (from
c.600 to
c.AD300) edited by G.C.Pande; PHISPC
series(general
editor:D.P.Chattopadhyaya)Centre for Studies
in
Civilisations,NewDelhi.
riChakravarthi
abdrthakaustubha
(Sanskrit
Kannada
Dictionary)
rinivsagoplcrya.
Shityavidvn.Bappco Publication Bangalore.
2003
AnantalalThakur
Anantalal Thakur
Origin and Development of the Vaieika
Sytem, PHISPC 2003
series(general
editor:D.P.Chattopadhyaya)Centre for Studies
in Civilisations,NewDelhi.
abdakalpadruma
abdakalpadruma, by Rjardhkntadeva
Bhdur Rriya
Sa
2002 reprint.
Gurupada Sarma Haldar
(History of Ancient Indian
Medical Science) 1991 reprint.
,SriSaradaPrakashan,NewDelhi
The Mdhavanidna and its Chief Commentary Chapter 1-10 by G.J.Meulenbeld
Promotor J.Gonda, Leiden.E.J.Brill,1974
Internet sites : Bangalapedia.org.
Abbreviations:
Su:Strasthna;
Sa:rrasthna;Vi:Vimnasthna;Ni:Nidnasthna;U:Uttarasthna or Tantra.