Page #1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
A note on the Caraka Samhita and Buddhism
Johannes Bronkhorst
115
In an article recently published in Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkya ("An atman by any other name: two non-Buddhist parallels to antarabhava", IBK 47(1), 1998, (5)-(11)), Robert Kritzer draws attention to some parallel passages in the Caraka Samhita and in several Buddhist texts, primarily the Abhidharmakosa Bhasya, concerning the intermediate being (antarabhava in the Buddhist texts) which supposedly links two succeeding bodies of one person in the course of transmigration. At the end of his article, while reflecting on the possibility of influence between these texts and on the direction such influence may have taken, Kritzer mentions my name in connection with "a number of points that may have been borrowed from Buddhism by the Caraka Samhita" This note is meant to present these points to public scrutiny. It must here be emphasised that these points struck me during a superficial reading of parts of the Caraka Samhita. In other words, this note does not in any way claim to be exhaustive.
1. The Satrasthana of the Caraka Samhita contains the following passage (CS, Sūtra 16.27-38):
jayante hetuvaiṣamyad visama dehadhātavaḥ/ hetüsāmyāt samās teṣām svabhavoparamaḥ sada //27// pravṛttihetur bhavanam na nirodhe 'sti karanam/ kecit tatrapi manyante hetum hetor avartanam //28// evam uktärtham ācāryam agniveŝo 'bhyabhāṣata/ svabhavoparame karma cikitsaprabhṛtasya kim //29// bhesajair visaman dhātün kan samikurute bhisak/ ka va cikitsa bhagavan kimartham va prayujyate //30// tac chişyavacanam śrutva vyajahara punarvasuḥ/ šrūyatām atra ya saumya yuktir drsta maharṣibhiḥ //31// na nasakaranabhavad bhavanam nasakaranam/ jñāyate nityagasyeva kalasyatyayakāraṇam //32// Sighragatväd yatha bhatas tatha bhavo vipadyate/ nirodhe karanam tasya nästi naivanyathakriya //33//
Page #2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
116
Bronkhorst: A note on the Caraka Samhita and Buddhism
117
ness is particularly prominent in the works of Vasubandhu, both as representative of Sautrantika and of Yogacara.
This passage presents a discussion between Punarvasu and Agniveša, or more precisely: Atreya Punarvasu teaches Agniveśa. Verses 27-28 give the initial instruction by Atreya Punarvasu, verses 29-30 present the questions this inspires Agniveśa to ask, and verses 31-33 give further specifications from the mouth of Atreya Punarvasu. The subject matter of the discussion is momentariness, its proof, and the difficulties it provokes? If this general subject matter might suggest some affinity with the Buddhist doctrine of momentariness, the details of this passage allow us to be more precise.
The above passage can be translated as follows:
2. Surendranath Dasgupta, in the second volume of his A History of Indian Philosophy (1922: 302, 307), draws attention to a passage from the Särirasthāna of the Caraka Samhita:*
The embryo, indeed, is a modification of ether, wind, fire, water, and earth; it is the seat of consciousness. In this way the embryo is an aggregate of modifications of the five elements and the seat of consciousness. For this (consciousness) has been called its sixth dhatu
The elements (dhatu) of the body get into disequilibrium due to imbalance of the cause and they enjoy equilibrium when the cause is in balance. They always have a natural termination. (27) There is a cause of the production of things, but there is no cause of their disappearance. Some think that there is a cause of that, too, viz., the non-functioning of a cause. (28) After the preceptor finished saying this, Agniveśa addressed him in the following manner]: If [disequilibrium) terminates naturally, then what is the task of a skilled physician? (29) What imbalanced elements does the healer bring to equilibrium by means of medicaments? What is the nature of therapeutics, Sir, and why is it used? (30) Having heard those words of his disciple, Punarvasu said: O gentle one! hear the reasoning observed by the great sages (ri). (31) Since there is no cause of destruction, the cause of destruction of things is not known, just as the cause of the lapse of the eternally moving time is not known). (32) Because it passes so rapidly, a thing perishes the moment is has come into being. There is no cause of its disappearance, nor does it undergo modification. (33)
Ether (antariksa), wind (vayu), fire (agni), water (toya), earth (bhami) and consciousness (cetana) are therefore the six dhatus that somehow constitute the embryo. But the Buddhist texts know from an early time onward a list of six dhatus that is remarkably similar to this one. The Samyutta Nikaya (II 248; III 231) enumerates pathavidhatu, apodhatu, tejodhatu, va yodharu, akasadharu and vinaanadhatu; this is an enumeration of the six dhatus earth, water, fire, wind, ether, and consciousness, the same ones as in the Caraka Samhita, but in a different order, and using different terms. Dasgupta refers to a passage from the Salistambasatra, cited by Candrakirti in his Prasannapada, which describes the formation of the embryo through the combination of these same six dhatus (sannam dharanam samavayat). To this we can add that the Siksasamuccaya - which is acquainted with, and cites, this passage from the Salistambasatral-describes some pages later the person as consisting of the six dhatus (saddhatur ayam... purusah), and then enumerates the same six dhatus.
The proof of momentariness based on the non-existence of causes of destruction is known from certain Buddhist texts. Rospatt (1995: 178) observes: "With the exception of the Sravakabhami), a proof based on the non-existence of causes of destruction is adduced in all the early Yogacara sources known to me that establish the momentariness of all conditioned entities." The Vibhasa, moreover, attributes this position to the Darstāntikas (ibid., p. 187). This proof of momentari
3. The first Adhyāya of the Satrasthana mentions rajas and tamas, the two disturbing factors of the mind, and enumerates a number of ways in which they can be appeased. They are: insight (Rana), discursive knowledge (vijnana)," mental firmness (dhairya), smrti, and yogic concentration (samadhi). The problematic term is smrti, which the commentator explains as anubhatarthasmarana "recalling things one has experienced". But this hardly fits the context. Much more satisfactory is the Buddhist usage of smrti, often translated as "mindfulness". Indeed, smrti and samadhi occur next to each other in the so-called noble eightfold path, of which they occupy steps seven and eight
Page #3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
118
Bronkhorst: A note on the Caraka Samhita and Buddhism
119
respectively. Buddhist usage of smrti is also found in Yoga Sätra 1.20 (Sraddha viryasmrtisamadhiprajnaparvaka itaresām), which presents this term in an enumeration which coincides with the five Buddhist faculties or powers (indriya/ bala); cp. La Vallée Poussin 1937: 228. The Yoga Bhasya, while commenting on this sutra, uses the Buddhist expression smrtyupasthāna "application of mindfulness"
4. The first Adhyāya of the Särirasthana presents concepts of the person (purusa)." We find here the idea of the person as a collection, a whole (rasi) of various elements. In verse 16 it is the whole of the six dhatus, i.e., ether, wind, fire, water, earth, and consciousness (cetana) (see above). In verse 35 the constituent elements are twentyfour in number, no doubt the twenty-four principles of Samkhya: avyakta, buddhi, ahamkara, manas, the five senses, the five elements, the five qualities. Verse 85 speaks of the samyogapurusa, the person due to contact (?)", apparently in the same sens. The same Adhyāya also knows the notion of a highest self. Indeed, verse 53 contrasts the two, pointing out that the highest self (paramātman) is without beginning, whereas the person conceived of as a whole (rasisamjila purusa) is born from acts produced by confusion, desire and hatred," Many Buddhists looked upon the person (often pudgala) as a composite entity."
whose opinion the following elements point to an acquaintance of the author of the Carakasamhita with early Buddhist doctrines. The ksanabhangavada (the doctrine concerning the momentariness of any conglomeration of elements) was known, as well as the concept of svabha voparama (the cessation of the dhatus due to their swabhava). ... The saddhatuka nature of the embryo and the individual human being is laid stress on." Other elements (and authors) are also enumerated. Meulenbeld comments (p. 111): "Although not all the features, highlighted by P.V. Sharma and others, are convincing, it seems nevertheless reasonable to concede that traces of Buddhist thought are clearly discernible in the Carakasamhita and belong to the layer antedating Drdhabala's revision." It appears from these remarks that the above points 1 and 2. are not altogether new, they may be taken to continue the discussion of P.V. Sharma and Surendranath Dasgupta in particular. Points 3. and 4, for whatever they are worth, may be new.
P.V. Sharma's conclusion to the extent that the Carakasamhita "was composed in a period when Buddhism was prevalent side by side with Brahmanic culture, or in an age when, though Buddhism was still a living force, Brahmanism was gaining the upper hand, i.e. during the third or early second century B.C., at the juncture of the Maurya and Sunga periods" (Meulenbeld, 1999: I A: 111) is hard to reconcile with point I, above. The doctrine of momentariness was not yet part of Buddhism at that early date, and the proof of momentariness based on the non-existence of causes of destruction may be a relatively late development of this doctrine.
Buddhism and medicin have often been companions. Zysk (1991; cp. 1999) finds the earliest traces of Ayurvedic medicin in the Buddhist canon, and Jean Filliozat (1934) drew attention to the fact that the two travelled out of India together. The famous medical author called Vägbhata may have been a Buddhist (Meulenbeld, 1999: I A: 602-612).
References:
After most of the above had been written, the first two volumes of G. Jan Meulenbeld's A History of Indian Medical Literature (1999, 2000) - which summarize and comment much earlier research, not all of which is unfortunately accessible to me - came to my attention. One reads here (vol. I A, p. 110-111, with notes in vol. I B, p. 191 f.): "The question whether or not Buddhist influences are detectable in the Carakasamhita is touched upon frequently in the secondary literature, but few scholars have searched seriously for these traces. ... One of the few Indian scholars to study the subject seriously is P.V. Sharma, in
Bronkhorst, Johannes (2000): "Die buddhistische Lehre." Der Buddhismus
I Der indische Buddhismus und seine Verzweigungen. Von Heinz Bechert et al. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. (Die Religionen der Mensch
heit, vol. 24,1.) Pp. 23-212. Dasgupta, Surendranath (1922): A History of Indian Philosophy. Vol. II,
Reprint: Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi etc., 1975. Filliozat, Jean (1934): "La médecine indienne et l'expansion bouddhique en
extrême-Orient." JA 224, 301-307. Kritzer, Robert (1998): "An atman by any other name: two non-Buddhist
parallels to antarabhava." IBK 47(1), (5)-(11) = 506-500).
Page #4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________ 120 Bronkhorst: A note on the Caraka Samhita and Buddhism 121 BST CS IBK Buddhist Sanskrit Texts, Darbhanga Caraka Samhita Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu, Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, Tokyo Journal Asiatique, Paris Melanges chinois et bouddhiques, Bruxelles Salistambasutra, ed. N. Aiyaswami Sastri, Madras 1950 (ALS JA MCB Sal(S) 76) Notes: 1 . La Vallee Poussin, Louis de (1937): "Le bouddhisme et le yoga de Patan jali." MCB 5 (1936-37), 223-242. Lindtner, Christian (1997): "Buddhism as saddhatuvada." ALB 61, 45-68. Meulenbeld, G. Jan (1999): A History of Indian Medical Literature. Vols. I A (Text) and I B (Annotation). Groningen: Egbert Forsten. (Gronin gen Oriental Studies vols. XV/ I A and I B.) Meulenbeld, G. Jan (2000): A History of Indian Medical Literature. Vols. II A (Text) and II B (Annotation). Groningen: Egbert Forsten. (Groningen Oriental Studies vols. XV/ II A and II B.) Ramakrishna Rao, K.B. (1962): "The Samkhya philosophy in the Caraka samhita." ALB 26(3-4), 193-205. Rospatt, Alexander von (1995): The Buddhist Doctrine of Momentariness. A survey of the origins and early phase of this doctrine up to Vasubandhu. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. (ANISt 47.) Rosu, Arion (1978): Les conceptions psychologiques dans les textes medicaux indiens. Paris: Ed. de Boccard. (Publications de l'Institut de Civilisation Indienne, Fasc. 43.) Sharma, Priyavrat (1981): Caraka-Samhita. Agnivesa's treatise refined and annotated by Caraka and redacted by Drdhabala. Text with English translation. Vol. I. Varanasi - Delhi: Chaukhambha Orientalia. (Jaikri shnadas Ayurveda Series, 36.) Srivastavya, Santanarayana (1983): Carakasamhitaki darsanika prstha bhumi (The Philosophical Background of Charaka-Samhita). Ilaha bada: Piyasa Prakasana. Zysk, Kenneth G. (1991): Asceticism and Healing in Ancient India. Medicine in the Buddhist monastery. Oxford University Press. Zysk, Kenneth G. (1999): "Mythology and the Brahmanization of Indian medicine: transforming heterodoxy into orthodoxy." Categorisation and Interpretation: Indological and comparative studies from an international Indological meeting at the Department of Comparative Philology, Goteborg University. A volume dedicated to the memory of Gosta Liebert. Ed. Folke Josephson. Goteborg: Meijerbergs institut for svensk etymologisk forskning, Goteborgs universitet. (Meijerbergs arkiv for svensk ordforskning, 24.) Pp. 125-145. 1 This should be the reading. The printed version has: "a number of points that he believes were borrowed from Buddhism by the Caraka Samhita". 2 The passage does not seem to have attracted much attention in the secondary literature. An exception is Srivastavya, 1983: 119 f. 3 Cp. Sharma, 1981: 112-113. 4 CS, Sarira 4.6: garbhas tu khaly antariksavayvagnitoyabhumivikaras cetanadhisthanabhutah/ evam anaya yuktya pancamahabhutavikarasamudayatmako garbhas cetanadhisthanabhutah/ sa hy asya sastho dhatur uktah/. 5 Cp. Lindtner, 1997. Rosu, 1978: 160 emphasises the difference between cetana and vijnana. 6 BBu 4 p. 561; BST 10 p. 275 1. 20-21. The passage occurs Sal(s) p. 8 1. 5. Compare this passage with CS, Sutra 11.32: saddhatusamudayad garbhajanma. ? BBu 1 p. 220 f.; BST 11 p. 120 f. 8 BBu 1 p. 244; BST 11 p. 131. 9 CS, Satra 1.57-58: vayuh pittam kaphas coktah sariro dosasamgrahah/ manasah punar uddisto rajas ca tama eva call prasamyaty ausadhaih purvo daivayuktivyapasrayaih/ manaso jnanavijnanadhairyasmotisamadhibhih// 10 I follow Cakrapanidatta's interpretation of these terms: jnana = adhyatmajnana, vijnana = sastrajnana. 11 Ramakrishna Rao, 1962. 12 Cs, Sarira 1.53: prabhavo na hy anaditvad vidyate paramatmanah/ puruso rasisamjnas tu mohecchadvesakarmajah// 13 Cp. e.g. Bronkhorst, 2000: 85 ff. Abbreviations: ALB ALS ANIST BBu The Brahmavidya, Adyar Library Bulletin, Madras - Adyar Library Series, Madras Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien, Hamburg Bibliotheca Buddhica, St. Petersburg (Leningrad)