________________
Ixii
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[CHAPTER VI
to the mythical Asrin pair, as well as its gradual obsolescence. It is igrored already in Suáruta's Compendium, the pippali-vardhamana of which (sect. IV, chap. 5, clause 14, p. 406; see ibid., v. 194 on p. 770) is practically identical with the shorter version of Atrêya-CHaraka. In fact the longer version does not appear to have survived in any medical work, except the Navanitaka. The single icdication of its former existence that I can recall, occurs in a formula in Vâgbhata Il's Ashtanga Hșidaya (sect. IV, chap. 12, vv. 39-41), which, in the case of abdominal complaints (udara), recommends, in addition to other remedies, either the pippali-vardhamana, or else the pippali-sahasra. It is evident that the author of that formula knew both, the longer as well as the shorter, versions of the treatment with pepper, but who he was, and when he lived, we do not know. It was not Vâgbhata II: he is a mere compiler, probably in the cighth or ninth century. Nor was it Vágbhata I, the author of the Ash tanga Sangraha, in the early seventh century. That work, though it is the usual source of the Ashtanga Hridaya, mentions (if one may trust the Bombay Edition, Vol. II, p. 47, 1. 8) only the pippali-vardhamana, by which name the shorter version had, long since, come to be understood.109
As regards the Haritaki Kalpa (No. 17), we have the interesting information of Dr. P Cordier (see note 439 on p. 166; also his Recentes Découvertes, p. 29), that he possesses fragmentary manuscripts of two distinct works, both calling themselves Asvini Sanhita, ard' both containing versions of a Haritaki Kalpa. These versions are printed on pp. 180c-180f.
Though they present many points of contact with the version in the Navanitaka, they differ widely from it both in length and matter. And as they differ equally widely from each other, it is evident that neither of them can have been the source of the Návunitaka version. On the contrary, they must have gradually grown up, on different lines, from the original, simple and archaic, version which has been preserved in the Návanitaka, In fact, the two existing works, professing to be an Asvini Sarhitá, seem to have every mark of being medieval apocryphal productions similar to the Atrêya or Hârita-Sakhita.
The existence of what thus appears to be the original form of the Haritaki Kalpa (also called Abhaya Kalpa, in verse 7), is one of the striking marks of the archaic character of the Nâvanitaka, it has already been pointed out (p. liv.) that the kalpas belong to the earliest period of the medical literature of India. It is interesting, therefore, to note that there are three other such kalpa, or monographs, incorporated in the Návanitaka. For its seventh twelfth, and thirteenth chapters are constituted respectively by the Yavágú Kalpa, on the preparation of gruels (vv. 785-813), the Silâgatu Kalpa, on bitumen (vv. 950-67), and the Chitraka Kalpa on plumbago-root (vv. 968-76). The first, as suggessted by the colophon to versc 804 (see Chap. IV, p. xli) may be the work of Bhêdo. It may bave stood in the Bheda
102 In this connection it is interesting to observe that Arunadattu, the commentator of the Ashtanga Hridu ya (about 1220 A. D.), appears to have no longer understood what the two versions were. For, commenting on the optional treatment recommended in his text, he explains that the pippall-vardhamana should be taken as directed in the chapter on raslyana, but the pippalt sahasra he does not explain. On referring to the chapter on rasayana, we find the only pippall formula there given (A.H., Sect. VI, ch. 39, vr. 986-100a ) is the shorter version: and commenting on this Aruradotta says that it is the pippalisahasra. So that he practically identifies the two versions, despite their clear differentiation in the formut of the Ashtanga Hridaya (IV., 12 vv. 39-41) : evidently te was at a loss what to make of that differentiation.
