________________
Journal of the European Ayurvedic Society 1 (1990)
distinction of the four kinds of bodily activity', viz. 'going, marching," standing and sitting (down)', is, of course, likewise worthy of note.
Only the lemma in the 'Index Sanskrit' added to J. Filliozat's edition and translation of the Yogafataka testifies to a capacity of making distinctions, for it reads thus: 'situation, conditions extérieures (de l'organisme), manière de vivre, hygiène générale ....
144
I on my part should like to propose, in view of the evidence discussed in the foregoing, to enlarge the entry on vihara in our Skt. dictionaries by inserting: "bodily movements, especially going and walking, but also other kinds; activity/activities not only of the body, but also of speech and mind > way of living, mode of life (excluding eating and drinking)."
3.2 Of course what I am aiming at is the argument that vihara - in the two verses of the YD which have provoked the rather lengthy discussion making up paragraph 3.1.is used in the meaning determined in the foregoing and just described by way of summary. Hence I should like to propose the following translation:
'All the various types of diseases have a threefold cause, as is known from trustworthy tradition, (viz.] 1) what is taken into the body through the mouth, and 2) the bodily activity/mode of life and 3) the deeds done previously/in a former birth. Among these the diseases arising from what is taken into the body and from bodily activity/mode of life are removed by a drug; but a disease which is caused by [former] deeds, comes to an end [only] because of the death (of the person suffering from it].'
Quite evidently the dichotomy of curable versus incurable diseases underlies this threefold distinction. As regards the particularly interesting distinction of two different causes of - in principle-curable diseases, viz. ahara and vihara, attention may first be drawn to some of the passages mentioned in the preceding paragraph, viz. Suśruta, Sarirasth. 10.32ff. and Siddhasara 5.2 as well as 9.1. In addition two verses quoted in the Bhasya on the Rasavaiseşikasutra should also be considered. The first one reads thus (on 1.83):
viharaharahetünām tukalopajanmanām
doṣaṇām samanāthāya svasthakarma vidhiyare || Sayanasthanagamanasnānapānāšanādibhiḥ,
while the second is the following varśastha (on 1.2):
vipakvabhoji pratikarane (ra)to hitāni cannāni samācaran (mitam) asahasam karma samacaran sadā šatam sama jivati mānavaḥ sukhi.
"It seems that the intensity expressed does not refer to the speed, but to the distance and the manner of walking.
94 P.150 (cf. fo.83 above)
"The dichotomy taught by Darila in his commentary on Kausika-sutra 25.2, quoted by S. Dasgupta, History of Indian Philosophy II, Cambridge 1965, p.275, viz dviprakārā vadhayah aharanimina alubhaniminas ceti/tara aharasamushanan vaisamya ayurvedam cakara (recte: ayurvedah carakadipranicah famanāthaḥ) adharmasamuthānām tuästram idam (viz. the Atharvaveda) ucyate, is basically not different, and cannot simply be put aside as a mere fabrication meant to explain the existence of both, the Atharvaveda and the Ayurveda (forming the upaveda of the former). (My attention was kindly drawn to this passage in Dasgupta's work, and to passages from the Suśrutasamhita and the Astangasamgraha about a threefold division of diseases discussed below, by GJ. Meulenbeld in a letter dated 14 June 1987).
A. Wezler, On Two Medical Verses in the Yuktidipika
The first verse bears further witness to the idea that vihara and ahara have in fact been regarded, though among other factors, as causes of 'disturbances', and the second one, though the two expressions are not used in it, confirms the existence of the idea that by observing a proper diet and by not overstraining oneself one lives as long as what is believed to be the ideal span of life (a hundred years), i.e. that one does not fall ill and die an untimely death.
The central importance which food has for the preservation of health is stressed also at Caraka, Sütrasth. 25.31.: hitaharopayoga eka eva purusaviddhikaro bhavati, ahitaharopayogah punar vyadhinimittam. And in the same text the idea is expressed that a hitabhojana lives a hundred years (Sütrasth. 27.348; cf. 342ff.); the opposite idea, i.e. that among other faults an annadosa leads to death (of Brahmins) is known to Manu (cf. 5.4 and 5ff.).
145
As for bodily activity, in the verse from the commentary on the Rasavaisesikasutra one aspect only is emphasized; the other aspect, however, viz. that such activity, nay even exertion is physiologically necessary, is given its due in a verse occurring in the Kasika on Pan. 6.1.63" viz:
vyayamaksuṇnagatrasya padbliyam udvartitasya ca
vyadhayo nopasarpanti vainateyam ivoragah."
In a similar manner further evidence will now be presented for the third cause, i.e. the idea that karman, too, exercises influence on the physical condition of man, although in this case also I cannot offer more than some material I have come across by chance since I have not had the time necessary for systematic search or comprehensive reading. To all appearances, the expression kşetriya, taught by Panini in a nipătanasútra (5.2.92), and stated by him to be equivalent to the syntagma paraksetre cikitsyalı 'curable [only] in another dwelling/living-place (of the soul] (ie. another body in the next birth)," has to do with the idea that certain diseases are by necessity fatal and that they are caused by karman, for the conception of a disease, in the proper sense of the word, which can only be cured after death in the next life would in itself be very strange
indeed.
In other sources karman is regarded as a cause of diseases, or particular diseases, but no specification is given as to their character, i.e. severeness. Thus at Rasaratnasamuccaya 1.25 the importance of rasa is highlighted by stating:
hanti bhakṣaṇamatrena purvajanmäghasambhavam rogasangham aşeśānām narārām nātra samıśayaḥı;
CL. also Caraka, Šarirasth. 2.46: naro hidharaviharasevi... bhavaty arogah.
97 I am grateful to Mr. Mahes Raj Pant, Kathmandu, for drawing my attention to it.
Note that the construction is anacoluthic.
"CY. Kasika on P. 5.2.92:... kseriyam kustham (cf. fa.61 above) / paraksetram|-|janmantarasanam tara cikitsyah ketiyah / asadhyo 'pratyakhyeyo vyadhir ucyateinamumasya nivartata ity anthah. Note that this is merely one of four different explanations offered, all of which, however, are stated to be 'authorita tively valid' (sarvam caitat pramanam).
