Archiv für indische PhilosoPhie

Philipp A. Maas

The concepts of the human Body and disease in Classical Yoga and Āyurveda*

0. Introductory remarks1. The role of the therapeutic paradigm in classical Yoga2. MedicalknowledgereflectedinthePātañjalayogaśāstra3. Acriticaleditionof Patañjali’slistof bodilyconstituents4. A brief glance at lists of bodily constituents in classical Āyur­

veda5. A glimpse at lists of bodily constituents in Epic, Purāṇic and

Buddhist literature6. Thedefinitionof diseaseinPātañjalayogaśāstra I.307. The theory of tastes as a source for a textual corruption8. Conclusions

WienerZeitschriftfürdieKundeSüdasiens/ViennaJournalof SouthAsianStudies,Bd.LI/2007­2008,125­162©2008byÖsterreichischeAkademiederWissenschaften,Wien

* WorkonthispaperhasbeengenerouslysupportedbytheAustrianScienceFund(FWF)inthecontextof FWFprojectsP17300­G03(“PhilosophyandMedicineinEarlyClassicalIndiaI)andP19866­G15(“PhilosophyandMedicineinEarlyClassicalIndiaII”).Thepresentpaperwasoriginallyreadattheworkshopcumsymposium“ClassicalIndianMedicine:TextandMeaning”,attheWellcomeInstitute,London,onNovember6,2004.I would like to thank the participants for their valuable comments. I am grateful toDr.CristinaPecchia,Vienna,whoreadadraftof thispaperpainstakinglyandmadesomevaluablesuggestions;moreover,SusanneKammüllerwassokindtochecktheEnglishof thedraft.IamalsoverythankfultoDr.DominikWujastykforhisvaluablecommentsonanearlierversionof thepresentpaper.LastnotleastIwouldliketoexpressmygratitudetoProfessorDr.KarinPreisendanzforhavingdrawnmyattentiontoanumberof relevantpassages fromĀyurvedic andphilosophical literature, and for adetailed, thoroughandconstantlypleasantdiscussion.Iamdeeplyindebtedtothefollowinginstitutionsforhav­ing liberallyprovidedmewith copies of theirmanuscripts of thePātañjalayogaśāstra:AdyarLibrary(Chennai),ÉcoleFrançaised’Extrême­Orient,CentredePondichéry(Pon­dicherry),CentralLibrary(Baroda),GovernmentOrientalManuscriptsLibrary(Chennai),Jaykar Library University of Poona (Pune), Nepal­German Manuscript PreservationProject (KathmanduandBerlin),OrientalResearchInstituteandManuscriptsLibrary(Thiruvananthapuram),OrientalResearchInstitute(Mysore),TanjoreMahārājaSerfoji’sSarasvatīMahālLibrary(Thanjavur),andUniversityof Pennsylvania(Philadelphia).Dr.KengoHarimoto,Hamburg,waskindenoughtoprovidemewithcopiesof relevantfoliosof manuscriptscontainingthePāntañjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa,one(formerly?)keptatthePunjabUniversityLibrary(Lahore)andtheotheronefromtheOrientalResearchInsti­tuteandManuscriptsLibrary(Thiruvananthapuram).

Philipp A. Maas126

0.Thispaperoriginatesfromatext­criticalnoteinmyeditionof thefirstchapterof thePātañjalayogaśāstra (PYŚ),1i.e.theYogasūtra(YS)togetherwiththeso­calledYogabhāṣya.2 The purpose of this note was merelytojustifymydecisioninfavourof thereadingdhāturasakara­ṇa­vaiṣamyam against dhātuvaiṣamyam,whichoccursasthedefinitionof disease (vyādhi)inPYŚI.30.dhāturasakaraṇavaiṣamyam is the version transmittedbynearlyalltextualwitnessesIhadaccesstoformyedi­tion (i.e. twenty­four manuscripts, twenty­one printed editions, andthree commentaries on the PYŚ); this version is also attested by thesecondary evidence of the commentaries. The reading dhātuvaiṣamyam is transmitted by only one quite ancient palm­leaf manuscript fromNepalwritten inOldBengali script (siglumKb).Ashappensnowandthenwhenonedealswithquestionsof textualcriticism,thingsbecamelessclearthelongerIthoughtaboutthem.WhenIsubmittedmyedi­ tionasaPh.D.thesisattheUniversityof Bonnin2004,Ikepttothereadingtransmittedbythevastmajorityof textualwitnesses,whichinmyopinionwasmostprobablythelectio­difficilior.Nevertheless,Iwasunabletoexcludethepossibilitythatthiswasthemoreunlikelyorevena nonsensical reading.Inpreparingtheeditionforpublication,Ichangedmymindbutretainedafeelingof uncertainty,astherearegoodreasonsforadecisioninfavourof the single reading dhātuvaiṣamyam­against the reading transmitted evenbyallthreecommentaries.Thesewell­knowncommentariesare(1)thePātañjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa (YVi)3 written by a certain Śaṅkarawhomayormaynotbeidenticalwiththeauthorof theBrahmasūtrabhāṣ­ ya (cf.Halbfass1991:207), (2) theTattvavaiśāradī (TVai),alsocalledYogasūtrabhāṣyavyākhyā, by Vācaspatimiśra I, who most probably“flourishedbetweenA.D.950and1000”(Diwakar2006:xxviii),and(3)theYogavārttika(YVā)byVijñānabhikṣu,whopresumablylivedinthelatterhalf of thesixteenthcentury(Larson–Bhattacharya1987: 376).If mynewverdictshouldberight,thecorruptionof theoriginalPYŚappearedpossibly as early as the eighth century; in any case itmusthave crept into the transmissionby theyear1000.Theoccurrenceof mistakesatacomparativelyearlystagelikethiswould,of course,not

1 Maas2006:105,n.30.6. 2 I have argued that probably one single author, Patañjali, collected the PYŚ’s sūtra­passages from different sources and added his own commentary, which becameknownastheYogabhāṣya;cf.Maas2006:xii­xviii,followingBronkhorst1985. 3 Referencestothefirstchapter(Samādhipāda)aretothecriticaleditionbyHari­moto(1999).Referencestochapters2­4aretotheMadraseditionof 1952if notstatedotherwise.

127The Concepts of the Human Body and Disease

be surprisingatall in faceof the considerable time spanbetween theproductionof thecommentariesandthePYŚitself,whichmostprob­ablywascomposedatsometimebetweenA.D.325and425(Maas2006:xix).

1.Inordertoestablishthehistoricalrelationshipbetweendifferentver­sionsof textdealingwithadefinitionof “disease”itis,of course,ne­cessary to take the author’s background knowledge of medicine intoconsideration. Already Wezler,inhiswell­knownarticle“OntheQuad­ruple Division of the Yogaśāstra, the Caturvyūhatva of the Cikitsā­ śāstraandthe‘FourNobleTruths’of theBuddha”(Wezler1984),4fur­ nished proof which demonstrated that Patañjali not only knew – at least froma systematicperspective–amedical systemwhichhecalls cikitsāśāstra,butthatheexpectedhisreaders(orlisteners)tosharethisknowledge(PYŚII.15,p.78,1­3):

yathā­cikitsāśāstraṃ­caturvyūham–rogo­rogahetur­ārogyaṃ­bhaiṣajyam­iti, evam­idam­api­śāstraṃ­caturvyūham­eva. tad­yathā–saṃsāraḥ­saṃsārahetur­mokṣo­mokṣopāya­iti.Inthesamewaythatmedicalsciencehasfourdivisions–i.e.disease,thecauseof disease,health,andmedicine–soalsothisscience[of Yoga]hasfourdivisions,namely, thecircleof rebirths, thecauseof thecircleof rebirths,deliverance,andthemethod[leading]todeliverance.

Inastatementimmediatelyfollowingthispassage,Patañjaliestablishesarelationshipbetweenthisfourfolddivisionandfoursūtra­passages.Acomparison of the bhāṣya­passagewiththesūtra clearly shows that the latter containsa fourfold systematicdivision, although the sūtra does notexplicitlymentionit(cf.Wezler1984:295f.).Moreover,thesūtra­textdoes not compare the science of Yoga with the science of medicine.

1.1AlthoughWezler(1984:304f.)clearlyacknowledgesthatthecom­parisonissuitable,hefeelsa“palpable”differencebetweenthemedicalconceptof healthandthephilosophicalconceptof liberation.Tohealphysicallyandmentallymeanstorestorehealth,astatewhichexistedpriortodisease.Thevarioussoteriologicalconceptsdonotreferto“ananalogous previous state of freedom fromSuffering; on the contrary,Suffering is recognized as the fundamental constituent element of exist­ence”(Wezler1984:304).

4 SeealsoHalbfass1991:245ff.

Philipp A. Maas128

1.2 AccordingtoHalbfass,however,theanalogyreveals“perhapsthemostsignificantdenominatorbetweenthemedicalconceptof healthandthegoalof philosophicalsoteriology”.Evenif soteriologydoesnottrytorestoreastatethatwaslost,itaimsat“arediscovery(…)of an(…)underlyingperfectionwhichhasalwaysbeenthere”.Theregainingof anaturalstateof “health,balanceandharmony(…)offered itself asabridge between the therapeutic paradigm and the other two import­ antparadigms(…)of awakeningandfinalliberation”(Halbfass1991:250).

1.3 Although the notion of health as the pristine or original state of thehumanbodyiswithoutdoubtgenerallyacceptedinclassicalIndia,it is, nevertheless, amatter of question of exactlywhich analogybe­tweenmedicineandsoteriologyPatañjalihadinmind.Wefind,infact,partly contradictory conceptions of health and disease in the oldest classicaltreatiseonĀyurveda,theCarakasaṃhitā(CS).5 These concep­tions are closely related to the theory of the three “humours” (doṣa)wind (vāta),bile(pitta)andphlegm(śleṣman),whicharesaidtoexistinequalproportioninahealthybody(cf.Jolly1901:39­41).Bothconcep­tionsagreeinthebasicnotionthatthebodysuffersfromdiseasewhenthenormalratioof thethree“humours”isdisturbed,whichthenturnfrombeingmereelementsof thebodyintopathogeneticsubstances,andthatit isthephysician’stasktoestablishtheirnormalstate.Thecon­ceptionsdiffer,however,intheirperceptionof theoriginalstateof thebody.Accordingtooneview,itissimplyhealth;accordingtotheoppos­iteview,oneof thethreesubstanceswind(vāta),bile(pitta)orphlegm(śleṣman)dominatestheconstitutionof eachhumanbody.6Thesimilar­

5 According to Meulenbeld (HIML IA/114), the Carakasaṃhitā must have beencomposedbetweenabout100B.C.andA.D.200. 6 tatra kecid­āhuḥ–na­samavātapittaśleṣmāṇo­jantavaḥ­santi,viṣamāhāropayogitvān­manuṣyāṇām; tasmāc­ ca­ vātaprakṛtayaḥ­ kecit, kecit­ pittaprakṛtayaḥ, kecit­ punaḥ­ śleṣ­maprakṛtayo­bhavantīti. tac­cānupapannam. kasmāt­kāraṇāt?samavātapittaśleṣmāṇaṃ­hy­arogam­icchanti­bhiṣajaḥ,yataḥ­prakṛtiś­cārogyam…(CSVi6.13).“Inthisregardsomesaythatnolivingbeingswith[the]suitable[ratioof]wind,bileandphlegmexist,because[all]menconsumeunsuitablefood(i.e.foodleadingtoanunsuitableratioof thebodilyelements),andthereforesome[people]havewindastheirbasicconstitution,somehavebileastheirbasicconstitution,andsomehavephlegmastheirbasicconstitution.This,however, is not correct. For which reason? Because physicians hold (icchanti) that ahealthy [man]has [a] suitable [ratioof]wind,bileandphlegm,andbecausethebasicconstitution[of man]ishealth….”Areconciliationof bothviewsisfoundinCSVi8.95,wherehumanbeingsare said toeitherhaveoneor severaldoṣasas theirnature,or tonaturallypossessequalsharesof allof them.ForasimilarviewseeCSSū7.39­41(cf.Scharfe1999:618b).

129The Concepts of the Human Body and Disease

ity of this latter conception of disease and health to the conception of sufferingandreleaseinphilosophyisevencloserthantheoneseenbyWezlerandHalbfass.Bothmedicineandsoteriologyremovedisordersand aim at the realization of perfections: medicine leads to flawlessness of body and mind, whereas yogic soteriology culminates in spiritualperfection.7Amajordifferencebetweentherespectiveaimsis,however,that health is a temporal state that is always threatened by disease,while release is final and unconditioned.8

1.4Inmyinterpretation,theobjectiveof thecomparisonof yogaandmedicineinthePYŚisthereforetwofold.Ontheonehand,itstressesthenegativeworld­viewof Sāṅkhya–Yogabyequatingthecircleof rebirthswithdiseaseanddeliverancewithhealing.Ontheotherhand,thecom­parison shows the high importance and meaningfulness of the yogaśāstra,which implicitlysurpassesthe importanceof medicine.Medicine,tobesure, does not do more than temporarily remove a temporal form of suffering, i.e. disease. Yoga, on the other hand, claims to bring aboutcompleteandultimatewell­being.If thereforeeverymanis inneedof medicalcare,hemuchmoreurgentlyneedsthepracticeof yoga.This suggestive exemplification (dṛṣṭānta)worksbest,of course, if thereader or listener is familiar with the notion of a medicinal science that hasfourdivisions.Therefore,thealmostcompleteabsenceof anyrefer­encetoadivisionlikethisinthetextsof Āyurvedaisquiteremarkable.Wezler(1984:309)citesonlyonepassagefromtheCS,whichclearly–althoughusingadifferentterminology–referstoafourfolddivisionof medicalknowledge(CSSū9.19,p.64,4f.):

hetau­liṅge­praśamane­rogāṇām­apunarbhave­/jñānaṃ­caturvidhaṃ­yasya­sa­rājārho­bhiṣaktamaḥ //

7 Thisanalogyisalsoreflectedinastanzafoundatthebeginningof manuscriptBof Patañjali’sMBhāṣya(I,p.505),inŚivarāma’scommentary(eighteenthcentury)onSubandhu’sVāsavadatta,attheendof theYVi,andattheendof thePYŚmanuscriptMyt1,whichascribes the authorshipof works onYoga, grammarandmedicine toPa­tañjali:yogena­cittasya­padena­vācāṃ­malaṃ­śarīrasya­ca­vaidyakena / yo­ ’pākarot­ taṃ­pravaraṃ­munīnāṃ­patañjaliṃ­prāñjalir­ānato­ ’smi­ // (cf.Woods1914:xivf.andEndo1993:22).Onthe(lackof)historicityof thisascriptioncf.HIML1A/141­144. 8 Patañjalidoesnotsayexplicitlythatheholdshealthtobemerelyaconditionalandtemporalstate.Thisattitude is,however,voiced inSāṅkhyakārikā(SK)1bc:dṛṣṭe­sāpārthā­cen­naikāntātyantato­’bhāvāt“If [onearguesthat]this[desiretoknowthemeanstowardoff suffering]ismeaningless,sinceaperceptible[meansisavailable],[weanswer]“No!”,becausea [perceptiblemeans thatwardsoff suffering] invariablyandperman­entlydoesnotexist.”Āyurvedais,accordingtothecommentaries,oneof the“percep­tible”meansforwardingoff suffering(cf.Steiner2007:508andn.5).

Philipp A. Maas130

Hewho possesses the fourfold knowledge of the cause, the symptom,curing and not coming into existence again of diseases is an excellent physician,worthyforaking.

This almost complete absence of a fourfold division of medicine inĀyurvedaliteratureisoneof severalpointsinsupportof Wezler’scon­clusionthattheultimateoriginof thefourfolddivisionof medicine,aswellasthatof thesamedivisioninYogaandinNyāyaliterature,istheBuddha’sanalysisof humanexistenceinhis“FourNobleTruths”.Inordertosolvetheabovetext­criticalproblemitis,however,sufficienttokeepamuchmoremodestconclusioninmind:Patañjaliknewascienceof medicine,andheassumedthathisreaderswouldsharethisknowl­edge.

2.Butwhatkindof medicinedidPatañjaliknow?Diditsbasictheo­reticalassumptionsagreewithclassicalĀyurveda,orwasitadifferentsystem,maybeonethatislosttoday?Iwouldliketodiscusstheseques­tionsinthecontextof PYŚIII.29.Thispassagedealswitharesulttheyogigainsfromcompleteconcentration(or–asWoodswouldhaveit–“constraint”)(saṃyama)onthecakraof thenavel(PYŚIII.29,p.153,7­10,astranslatedinWoods1914:260):

nābhicakre­kāyavyūhajñānam(YSIII.29).nābhicakre­saṃyamaṃ­kṛtvā­kā­yavyūhaṃ­vijānīyāt. vātapittaśleṣmāṇas­ trayo­doṣāḥ.­dhātavaḥ­sapta­ tvag­­lohita­māṃsa­snāyv­asthi­majjā­śukrāṇi. pūrvaṃ­pūrvam­eṣāṃ­bāhyam­ity­eṣa­vinyāsaḥ.[Asaresultof constraint]uponthewheelof thenavel[therearisestheintuitive] knowledge of the arrangement of the body (YS III.29).Byperforming constraint upon the wheel of the navel he would discern the arrangementof thebody.Thehumoursarethree,wind,bileandphlegm.The[corporeal]elementsareseven,skinandbloodandfleshandsinewandboneandmarrowand semen.Here (eṣa) themention is such thatthe preceding element is in each case exterior to that next preceding.

This passage, in connectionwith the one discussed above, shows thatPatañjaliwasacquaintedwithamedicalsciencethatshareditstheor­eticalframeworkwithclassicalĀyurveda,asheexplicitlymentionsthethreewell­knownhumours(doṣa)andsevenbodilyconstituents(dhātu).9 Inconsequence,itisquitetemptingtotrytoidentifythespecifictextthat served as a source or as a model for the exposition of the “ar­rangementof thebody”(kāyavyūha)inthePYŚ.This,of course,would

9 AccordingtoZysk(1986:689),listsof bodilyconstituentsareapartof ancientIndiananatomicalknowledgethatwasgainedfromtheobservationof rituallybutcheredhorsebodiesinVedicsacrifice.

131The Concepts of the Human Body and Disease

involveacomparisonof Patañjali’senumerationof bodilyconstituentswiththe relevantparallelpassages inearlyclassicalĀyurvedicworks,whichshouldbebasedasfaraspossibleoncriticallyeditedtexts.Thingsbeingastheyare,wefacetheunsatisfactorysituationthatcriticaledi­tionsof relevantworksonĀyurvedasimplydonotexist.10 With regard tothePYŚthesituationismuchbetter,asIaminapositiontopresentaneditionof therelevantpassageonthebasisof twentymanuscriptsfrom different parts of the Indian subcontinent and on the basis of informationprovidedbythecommentaries.

3. The value of the commentaries as secondary evidence for the trans­missionof thepassageunderdiscussionvariesconsiderably.VācaspatiomitsthewholepassagefromhisTVai,andVijñānabhikṣuonlyatteststhatinhisversionof thePYŚtheenumerationof thesevenbodilycon­stituents ends with majjāśukr[āṇi](YVā347,23f.).OnlytheYViallowsforareconstructionof thereadingitsauthorveryprobablykneworhadat hand:

tathā [Tm 98v] dhātavaḥ sapta bāhyābhyantarabhāvenāvasthitāḥ. raso bāhyaḥ­ sarveṣām.­ tato­ ’bhyantaraṃ lohitaṃ tato māṃsaṃ tato ’sthi tato medas tatomajjātataḥśuklaṃ sarvābhyantaram­ity­evaṃpūrvaṃpūrvameṣāṃbāhyamityeṣavinyāsaḥ….11

So also the­body­elements­are­seven,standingintherelationof beingex­ternalandinternal[toeachother].Food­essence­is the most external of all [dhātus]. Blood ismore internal than [food essence],more internalthan[blood]ismuscle flesh,moreinternalthan[muscleflesh]isbone,moreinternalthan[bone]isfat,moreinternalthan[fat]ismarrow,morein­ternalthan[marrow]issemen,themostinternalof all.Thusthe­order­of ­

10 Thetworesearchprojectsunderthedirectionof KarinPreisendanz,Universityof Vienna,mentionedinnote*,aredevotedtofillingthisgapfortheVimānasthānaof theCarakasaṃhitā. 11 Thefollowingsymbolsareused:Σallwitnesses,excepttheone(s)mentioned—abctextdoubtful—– –(two)akṣarasmarkedasillegiblebythescribe—++(two)il­legibleakṣaras due to physical damage of the leaf —† text not transmittedby thementioned witness(es). — Beginning of text: L 109v5f.,ME 288,16, Tm 98r9. v.l.: 1 bāhyābhyantara­…śuklaṃ]L ME;after bāhyā­,­ Tm­ has­ a­ lacuna­ due­ to­ damage­ of ­ the­folio.­raso]L;(rasaḥ)tvakME;†Tm.2bāhyaḥ]L;bāhyāME;†Tm.3sarvābhyantaram]L ME;+++pratiṣṭhāTm.4bāhyam]ME;bāhyaL Tm.ity]L ME;ityāmityTm.—Theeditors of the Madras edition (siglum ME)useroundbracketsinordertoshowthattheyregardareadingaswrong:“Thewrongreadingsaregiveninroundbracketsandcorrectreadingshavebeensuggestedinsquarebrackets.Whendifferentreadingsarefound,theyhavebeengiveninthefootnotesexceptinthecaseof afewbooksinwhichthecorrectreadingshavebeengiveninthefootnoteorincorporatedinthetextitself”(p.vi).TheMadraseditionisvirtuallybasedonasinglemanuscript,i.e.atranscriptof L. L and Tm arecopiesof thesamemanuscript(seeHarimoto1999:28).

Philipp A. Maas132

succession­here­ is­ such­ that­ of ­ these­ each­preceding­ is­ external­ to­ the­ [fol­lowing]­one.

Areconstructionof thecompletelistintheversionof thePYŚwhichserved as the basic text of the YVi thus runs rasa­lohita­māṃsâsthi­medo­majjā­śuklāṇi. This version differs from the printed edition of the PYŚinhavingrasa instead of tvagasthefirstmemberof thecompound.Moreover, instead of snāyvasthi “sinew and bone” we find asthimedo “boneandmarrow”,andfinally,theYVi’sbasictexthasśuklāṇi instead of śukrāṇi at the end of the compound.

3.1Acloserlookatthemanuscriptsof thePYŚrevealsthattheseandadditional variants are characteristic for large parts of the transmis­sion.The relevant passage12inPYŚIII.29initscriticallyeditedversionreadsdhātavaḥ­ sapta­ rasa­lohita­māṃsa­snāyu­asthi­majjā­śukrāṇi.13 In dis­cussing this reconstruction of the archetypal version, i.e. the earliestreconstructabletextwhichmostprobablywasthecommonancestorof allotherextantversions,weshouldkeepinmindthetransmissionhis­toryof thePYŚ,as faras it isknownfrompreviousworkon its firstchapter.14 Already at an early date the transmission split into two branches,anorthernandasouthernbranch.Accordingly,mostof themanuscripts clearly transmit either of two versions, the northern or thesouthernversion.Thenorthernversionmaybecalledthe“vulgate”,sinceitseemstohavegainedthestatusof anormativerecension,whichexertedaheavycontaminatinginfluenceoncertainsub­branchesof thesouthern transmission. The latter is almost exclusively15representedby

12 Beginning of text: Bn125a3,Bn230a10,Bś19b15,Kn116b8,Kn249b10,Kn336b4,M2g32a6,MyN89a6,Myt142b7,Myt240a4,Myt318b9,Pn51a1,Pcg32b6,Pvn148a6,Pvn2 43b6,Pvn413b20,Tn61a2,Tjg148a6,Tjg228a3f.,Tvy85b1. 13 v.l. (exclusiveof minorscribalerrors; foreditorialsymbolscf.note11): dhātavaḥsapta]Σ(­Kn3 Myt3);saptaKn3;teṣudhātuṣuMyt3;rasa­]Bn1 Kn3 M2g Myt1 Myt2 Myt3 Pcg Tjg1 Tjg2 Tvy YVi;tvagKn1 MyN Pn Pvn2 Pvn4 Tn;tvagvasā Bn2 Kn2;vasātvag Bś; – – Pvn1.­snāyuasthi­] Bn2 Kn1 Kn2 MyN Pvn1;snāyu|stha Kn2;snāyuBś;snāyvasthiMyt3 Pn Pcg Pvn2 Pvn4 Tn Tvy;medo’sthiBn1 Kn3­M2g Myt1 Myt2 Tjg1 Tjg2;asthimedoYVi.­śukrāṇi]Bn1 Bn2 Bś Kn1 Kn2 Kn3 MyN Myt2 Pn Pvn1 Pvn2 Pvn4 Tn;śuklāṇiM2g Myt1 Myt3 Pcg Tjg1 Tjg2 Tvy YVi. 14 Cf. Maas 2006: lxviii­lxxiv and 165­170, Maas 2008: 100­105, as well as Maasforthcoming. 15 Two ancient palm­leaf manuscripts from Western India in Devanāgarī script(manuscriptno.395/2inthecollectionreferedtoasJinabhadrasūri­tāḍapatrīya­graṃth­bhaṃḍār­jaisalmer­ durg­ in Jambuvijaya 2000 and manuscript no. 344 in the LālbhaīDalpatbhaī SaṃskṛtīVidyāMandir,Ahmedabad),which recentlybecame available tomethroughthegoodofficesof Dr.YasutakaMuroya,Vienna,alsoseemtobelongtothisbranchof thetransmission.

133The Concepts of the Human Body and Disease

manuscriptsfromSouthIndia.Thesewitnesses–althoughallof thempresumablyarecontaminatedbythenorthernversion–havepreservedthe remainderof whatoncemayhavebeenthe“southernversion”,aversionwhichdistinguisheditself fromthevulgatebyanumberof pe­culiarerrorsaswellasbyaconsiderablenumberof originalreadings.Moreover,thesouthernversionhasapparentlynotbeenusedasasourceof contaminationinNorthIndia.

3.2. The passage under consideration consists of the nominal phrase dhātavaḥ­sapta“thebodilyelementsareseven”andadvandva­compoundlisting a group of terms. All witnesses read the nominal phrase without majordeviations,16whereastherearequiteanumberof variantswithregard to the dvandva. We find rasa–thereadingattestedbytheYVi– instead of tvag,­ tvagvasā or even vasātvag at the beginning of thecompound. Instead of snāyu,somewitnesseshavesnāyv and eliminate the hiatus of final u and the following initial a­vowelof asthi,whereasother witnesses transmit medo’sthi,or–avariantpeculiartotheYVi’sbasictext –asthimedo;17finally,allsouthernwitnessesread­śukla instead of śukra­–whichdoesnotaffectthemeaningof thewordinquestionatall.18

3.2.1Withtheexceptionof thelast­mentionedvariantitispossibletoreconstructthearchetypalversionof thecompoundwithareasonableamount of certainty. Stemmatical considerations lead to the conclusion that the archetype most likely contained rasaasthefirstmemberof thecompound, as we find exactly this word in all southern and in somenorthernwitnesses.Moreover,threemanuscriptsfromoutsidethesouth­ern group (Bn2 Kn2 and Bś) havea combinationof tvag and vasā. It is highlyprobablethatvasā“fat”isacorruptionof rasa“foodessence”.Thischangecouldeasilyhappeninascript likeOldBengali, inwhich

16 In Myt3(orinoneof itsexemplars)thepartitivelocativeteṣu­dhātuṣuwasprob­ablyintroducedtoestablishaconnectionbetweenthissentenceandthefollowingone,maybebecausetheoriginaldhātavaḥ­saptawasillegible. 17 Thereadingof theYViseemstobeof secondaryoriginasitviolatesthestructureof thecompound.Initsfirstsixmembersthelist ismadeupof threepairsof terms,namelytwofluids(chyleandblood),twokindsof moresolidbodytissue(musclefleshand fat)plusboneandmarrow.The sequencebone– fat alsodisturbs thepatternof external–internal. 18 According to MW(1080b,s.v.)śuklaisa“laterformof śukra,forwhichitissome­times[the]w[rong]r[eading]”.Theevidenceof thePYŚ,theBhelaS(seenote54)andtheMBh(seeMBh12.290.33inAppendix)suggest,however,thatśukla is not a historical butratheraregional,i.e.southernvariantof śukra.

Philipp A. Maas134

the akṣaras ra and vaaresemi­homographs(cf.Dimitrov2002:59)–allthemoreif ascribewasnotfamiliarwiththetechnicalmeaningof theword rasa–andsubsequentlyaffectthetransmission.

3.2.1.1 Thepossibilitythatcontaminationmade tvag part of the text in Bn2 and Kn2becomesasgoodascertainif weconsiderthatbothwit­nesses transmit the compound with eightmembers instead of seven,which,of course,contradictsthewordsof theauthorhimself.Asimilarprocessmaysafelybeassumedtohaveshapedtheversionof Bś,whichreads vasātvagatthebeginningof thecompoundandomitsasthi. If the omissionwasnotaccidental,ascribemayhavetriedtorestorethere­quirednumberof itemsbyomittingasthi voluntarily.

3.2.1.2 Considerations of higher textual criticism support the findings of stemmatics,as it iseasytoview tvac“skin”asthemost“exterior”(bāhya)of allbodilyconstituents,anditisexactlythisassumptionthatthrowsthesuspicionof beingsecondaryontvag. Is it not more likely in ourpresentcontextthatascribechangedrasa to tvag,simplybecausehe could not imagine how rasa,whichmayalsomean“chyle”,couldbeviewed as external in comparison to the constituent blood?However,Patañjali’s statement that the dhātus are listed in a descending order with each preceding item being “external” to the following does notnecessarily refer to thephysical, spatial arrangementof constituents,buttothedegreeof theirtransformationfromfood,whichisforeigntothebody,tosemen,whichis intimatelyrelatedtothebody, i.e. itses­sence.Why,if tvagwastheprimaryreading,shouldascribeintentional­ly change it to rasa?Perhapsbecausehewastoofamiliarwithagroupof terms starting with rasa?Theproblemiscomplicatedbythefactthatin Āyurvedic as well as in non­medical literature different lists andenumerationsof (andreferencesto)dhātus are current.19 As Das points out,somecommentatorsof medicalworkseventaketvac and rasa­tobesynonyms(2003:276f.),presumablyinordertosolvetheproblemthatbothitemsmayheadenummerationsof dhātus.

3.2.2Forthetimebeing,Iwouldliketopostponethefinaljudgementof thisvariant inPYŚIII.29and firstdiscuss the reading snāyuasthi versus snāyvasthi,medo’sthi,andasthimedo. As the variants are dispersed acrossthetwomaingroupsof textualwitnesses,itisimpossibletodraw

19 Das(2003:273withn.930)referstoalistof bodilyconstituentsinKāśyapasaṃhitāSū28thatactually startswith tvac. Cf. also his discussion of several similar lists and conceptsinĀyurvedicandnon­Āyurvedicliteraturein§§10.7ff.(p.273­284).

135The Concepts of the Human Body and Disease

uponstemmaticargumentsinordertodeterminethearchetypalread­ing;itisnotevenpossibletodetectwhichvariantwasreadbythetwohyparchetypes.It is,nevertheless,highlyprobablethatthearchetypal reading issnā­yuasthi,eventhough(orrathersince)thisreadingviolatestheruleforintervocalic sandhiinclassicalSanskrit(cf.Allen1962:35).Inthenon­classicallanguageswefind“veryoften…unchanged,withhiatus,twoadjoiningvowelsintheseamof compounds”(BHSG35a,§4.51).Devia­tions from the rules of classical sandhi are not only common in Buddhist andEpicSanskrit(cf.Oberlies2003:15),theyarealsometwithinthefirstchapterof thePYŚ.20Scribesevidentlyhavethetendencytochangeunusual readings according to their own phonetic and grammatical standards(Srinivasan1967:35,§1.4.5.7),andthereisnoreasonwhyascribeshouldchangeacompletelyunobjectionablesnāyvasthi­tosnāyu­asthi;thiscouldnotevenhappenbychance,sincetheinherentvowela can only deliberately be transformed into its initial form. Thereforethereislittledoubtthatsnāyuasthi was changed in course of the trans­mission to snāyvasthi.

4.Butwhatisthegeneticrelationshipbetweenthevariantssnāyuasthi and medo’sthi?Beforetryingtoanswerthisquestion,itseemsadvisabletotakealookattheconceptof bodilyconstituentsthroughoutanumberof classicalĀyurvedaworks.

4.1IntheCS(Sū28.4)wefindtheviewthatbodilyconstituents(dhātu)areof twokinds,viz.pure[bodytissues](prasāda)andimpure[wasteproducts](mala)(cf.HIPhII/325f.).Bothareproductsof fooddigestion.Thosepartsof thefoodwhichcanbeassimilatedtothebodygeneratethepureelements,andtheremainingpartsof food,whichdefyassimila­tion,turnintoimpurebodilyconstituents.

tatrāhāraḥ­prasādākhyo­rasaḥ­kiṭṭaṃ­ca­malākhyam­abhinirvartate.­kiṭṭāt­sveda­mūtra­purīṣa­vāta­pitta­śleṣmāṇaḥ­ karṇâkṣi­nāsikâsya­lomakūpa­prajananamalāḥ­keśa­śmaśru­loma­nakhâdayaś­cāvayavāḥ­puṣyanti,­puṣ­yan­ti­tv­āhārarasād­rasa­rudhira­māṃsa­medo­’sthi­majja­śukrâujāṃsi­….te­sarva­eva­dhātavo­malākhyāḥ­prasādākhyāś­ca­rasamalābhyāṃ­puṣyan­taḥ­ svaṃ­mānam­ anuvartante­ yathāvayaḥśarīram.­ evaṃ­ rasamalau­ sva­pramāṇāvasthitāv­āśrayasya­samadhātor­dhātusāmyam­anuvartayataḥ.21

20 Cf.PYŚI.8,line6andI.47,line6alongwiththerespectivetext­criticalnotesinMaas2006:96and109. 21 IfollowthevariantreadinggiveninTrikamji’snote5forāhāra­,butrejectthereading prasādākhyaṃ­rasaṃ­for prasādākhyaḥ­rasaḥ adduced in the same note.

Philipp A. Maas136

Inthisregardfoodbecomesanessence,called“purematter”,aswellaswaste,called“impurematter”.Sweat,urine,feces,wind,bileandphlegm,impurematterarisingfromtheears,eyes,nose,mouthandtheporesof theskinandpartssuchasthehairof one’shead,thebeard,thehairof one’sbody,thenails,etc.,thrivesfromwaste,whereas(tu)chyle,blood,muscleflesh,fat,bone,marrow,semenandstrength(ojas)developfromthefoodessence….Whentheyarethrivingfromthe[food]essenceandfrom impurematter, all of these bodily constituents – called “impurematter” and “pure matter” – conform to their individual measure inaccordancewith age and body.Thus,when [food] essence and impurematterkeep their individualmeasure, theymaintain the suitable ratio(sāmya)of constituentsbelongingtoabody[whichcanthusberegardedas]havingconstituentsinasuitableratio(i.e.tobehealthy).

Fromamedicalpointof view,thethreeelementswind,phlegmandbileare most important among the listed bodily constituents, since theirratio is stressed as the decisive factor for health and disease. In the con­textof theirpotentialtocausedisease,theseelementsarefrequently22 termed“corruption”(doṣa),i.e.pathogeneticsubstances.

4.1.1Caraka’s23notionof theconstitutionof thehumanbodydiffersconsiderablyfromtheonefoundinPYŚIII.29.ThePYŚseparatestheconcept of three doṣas from the concept of dhātus,whiletheCSpassagereflectsthe integrationof bothconcepts intoonesingletheory,whichtakeswind,bileandphlegmtobeimpurebodilyconstituents.Moreover,theCSknowsmorethantwenty­threebodilyconstituents, incontrasttothePYŚ,whichmentionstheirnumbertobeexactlyseven.24

Passage Items No.Sū28.424 sveda,­mūtra,­purīṣa,­vāta,­pitta,­śleṣman,­karṇa­,

akṣi­,­nāsikā­,­āsya­,­lomakūpaprajananamala, keśa,­śmaśru,­loma,­nakhādi,­rasa,­rudhira,­māṃsa, medas,­asthan,­majjan,­śukra,­ojas

23+

22 “[T]heolderpartsof theCaraka­Saṃhitāconsiderwind,bile,andphlegmintheirnatural state as elements (dhātu) and only in their riled condition as faults (doṣa)”(Scharfe1999:624bf.).Althoughthisstatementmaybetrueforthebulkof theCS,wefind at least one exception in Vi 1.5: doṣāḥ­punas­trayo­vātapittaśleṣmāṇaḥ. te­prakṛtibhū­ tāḥ­ śarīropakārakā­ bhavanti, vikṛtim­ āpannās­ tu­ khalu­ nānāvidhair­ vikāraiḥ­ śarīram­upatāpayanti“Therearethreepathogeneticsubstances:wind,bile,andphlegm.Whentheyareintheiroriginalstate,theyarefavourabletothebody.If,however,theygetintoamodified state, they torment the bodywith various diseases.”Here wind, bile andphlegmaresaidtobedoṣas,evenintheiroriginalcondition. 23 Iusethename“Caraka”asaconvenientdesignationfortheseveralauthorsandredactors who were involved in the composition of the CS in its present form. 24 Cf.above,4.1.

137The Concepts of the Human Body and Disease

Passage Items No.Ci 15.15 and 17­1925

rasa­(anna),­rakta­(asṛj),­māṃsa,­medas,­asthan, majjan,­tvac

7

Śā6.1026 māṃsa,lohita,medas,vasā,asthan,majjan,śukra,garbha(?)

7/8

Vi 5.827 rasa,­śoṇita,­māṃsa,­medas,­asthan,­majjan,­śukra 7Ni5.328 vāta,­pitta,­śleṣman,­tvac,­māṃsa,­śoṇita,­lasīkā (3+4)=7Ci 21.1529 rakta,lasīkā,tvac,māṃsa,doṣās­trayaḥ 7Sū27.337ab30 śoṇita­etc. 1+Ci15.21931 śoṇita­etc. 1+Ci19.932 śoṇita etc. 1+Sū11.4733 rakta­etc. 1+Sū21.434 medas­etc. 1+

Table1:Bodilyconstituentsexpressivelylabelledasdhātu in the CS25262728293031323334

25 saptabhir­dehadhātāro­dhātavo­dvividhaṃ­punaḥ­/­yathāsvam­agnibhiḥ­pākaṃ­yānti­kiṭṭaprasādavat­ // (15) rasāt­ stanyaṃ­ tato­ raktam­ asṛjaḥ­ kaṇḍarāḥ­ sirāḥ­ /­māṃsād­ vasā­tvacaḥ­ṣaṭ­ca­medasaḥ­snāyusandhayaḥ­[v.l.] // (17)kiṭṭam­annasya­viṇmūtraṃ­rasasya­tu­kapho­ ’sṛjaḥ­ /­pittam,māṃsasya­khamalāḥ,­malaḥ­svedas­ tu­medasaḥ­ // (18)syāt­kiṭṭaṃ­keśalomāsthno*­ majjñaḥ­ sneho­ ’kṣiviṭ­ tvacām­ /­ prasādakiṭṭe­ dhātūnāṃ­ pākād­ evaṃ­ dvi­dharcchataḥ­ [v.l.­ according to Cakrapāṇi’s commentary] // (19); for stanza no. 16, cf.Table2below.*Thecontextrequiresasthnaḥtobeasingularablative.Apossiblemetric­al reconstruction of the first pādaof 19,withara­vipulā,iskiṭṭaṃ­keśalomam­asthno. 26 evam­eva­sarvadhātuguṇānāṃ­sāmānyayogād­vṛddhiḥ,­viparyayād­dhrāsaḥ.­tasmān­māṃ­sam­ āpyāyyate­ māṃsena­ bhūyastaram­ anyebhyaḥ­ śarīradhātubhyaḥ,­ tathā­ lohitaṃ­­lohitena,­medo­medasā,­vasā­vasayā,­asthi­taruṇāsthnā,­majjā­majjñā,­śukraṃ­śukreṇa,­gar­bhas­tv­āmagarbheṇa.Thispassagedoesnotrecord“thesevenelementslistedintheclas­sicalmedicaltexts…chyle,blood,flesh,fat,bone,marrow,andsemen”(Scharfe1999:610b,repeatedin618b). 27 rasavahānāṃ­srotasāṃ­hṛdayaṃ­mūlaṃ­daśa­ca­dhamanyaḥ.­śoṇitavahānāṃ­srotasāṃ­yakṛn­mūlaṃ­plīhā­ca.­māṃsavahānāṃ­ca­srotasāṃ­snāyur­mūlaṃ­tvak­ca.­medovahānāṃ­srotasāṃ­vṛkkau­mūlaṃ­vapāvahanaṃ­ca.­asthivahānāṃ­srotasāṃ­medo­mūlaṃ­jaghanaṃ­ca.­majjavahānāṃ­srotasām­asthīni­mūlaṃ­sandhayaś­ca.­śukravahānāṃ­srotasāṃ­vṛṣaṇau­mūlaṃ­ śephaś­ ca.­…­ yāny­ eva­ hi­ dhātūnāṃ­ pradoṣavijñānāni­ tāny­ eva­ yathāsvaṃ­ pra­duṣṭānāṃ­dhātusrotasām. 28 trayo­ doṣā­ vātapittaśleṣmāṇaḥ­ prakopaṇavikṛtāḥ,­ dūṣyāś­ ca­ śarīradhātavas­ tvaṅ­māṃ­saśoṇitalasīkāś­ caturdhā­ doṣopaghātavikṛtā­ iti.­ etat­ saptānāṃ­ saptadhātukam­ evaṃ­gatam­ājananaṃ­kuṣṭhānām,­ataḥprabhavāṇy­abhinirvartamānāni­kevalaṃ­śarīram­upa­tapanti. 29 raktaṃ­lasīkā­tvaṅ­māṃsaṃ­dūṣyam,­doṣās­trayo­malāḥ / visarpāṇāṃ­samutpattau­vijñeyāḥ­sapta­dhātavaḥ // 30 dhātūnāṃ­śoṇitādīnāṃ­guruṃ­vidyād­yathottaram / 31 paribhūya­pacaty­annaṃ­taikṣṇyād­āśu­muhur­muhuḥ /­paktvānnaṃ­sa­tato­dhātūñ­choṇitādīn­pacaty­api // 32 api­ca­śoṇitādīn­dhātūn­atiprakṛṣṭaṃ­dūṣayanto­dhātudoṣasvabhāvakṛtān­atīsāra­var­ṇān­upadarśayanti. 33 tatra­śākhā­raktādayo­dhātavas­tvak­ca,sa­bāhyo­rogamārgaḥ…. 34 tasya­hy­atimātramedasvino­meda­evopacīyate­na­tathetare­dhātavaḥ….

Philipp A. Maas138

Passage Items No.Sū26.43.135 rasa,­rudhira,­māṃsa,­medas,­asthan,­majjan,­ojas,

śukra­8

Sū26.43.536 rasa,­rudhira,­māṃsa,­medas,­asthan,­majjan,­śukra­ 7Ci 15.1637 rasa,rakta,māṃsa,medas,asthan,majjan,śukra,

garbha(?)7/8

Vi 8.10238 tvac,rakta,māṃsa,medas,asthan,majjan,śukra,sattva39

8

Vi 5.740 prāṇa,­udaka,­anna,­rasa,­rudhira,­māṃsa,­medas, asthi,­majjan,­śukra,­mūtra,­purīṣa,­sveda­

13

Ci 6.841 kapha,­pitta,­pavana,­medas,­asra,­śukra,­ambu, vasā,­lasīkā,­majjā,­rasa,­ojas,­piśita­

13

Śā3.642 tvac,lohita,māṃsa,medas,nābhi,hṛdaya,kloma,yakṛt,plīhan,vṛkka,basti,purīṣādhāna,cāmāśaya,pakvāśaya,uttaraguda,adharaguda,kṣudrāntra,sthūlāntra,vapā,vapāvahana

20

Table2:SimilarpassagesintheCS

4.1.2 In spite of these clear differences, the list of pure bodily con­stituents, i.e. rasa­rudhira­māṃsa­medo­’sthi­majja­śukrâujāṃsi,­ offers itself foracomparisonwithPYŚIII.29.Leavingoutof considerationanumberof minordeviations,43thefirstsevenitemsmatchthePYŚ’slist of dhātusintheversionof threeGranthamanuscriptsM2g,­Tjg1 and Tjg2andinthebasictextof theYVi.

35 tatra madhuro­rasaḥ…rasa­rudhira­māṃsa­medo­’sthi­majjâujaḥ­śukrâbhivar­dha­naḥ… 36 sa­ (i.e. tikto­ rasaḥ)­ evaṃguṇaḥ­ …­ rasa­rudhira­māṃsa­medo­’sthi­majja­śukrāṇy­u­ccho­ṣa­yati­…. 37 rasād­raktaṃ­tato­māṃsaṃ­māṃsān­medas­tato­’sthi­ca­/­asthno­majjā­tataḥ­śukraṃ­śukrād­garbhaḥ­prasādajaḥ­//. Thisstanza,whichpresumablyoccurredinanembryolo­gicalcontextof thePunarvasutradition(cf.CSSū1.30­31),isprobablyaninterpolation;cf.BhelaSSū11.3andSSSū14.10citedbelowinnotes52and58. 38 tvag­rakta­māṃsa­medo­’sthi­majja­śukra­sattvānīti. 39 Theseitemsarelabelledas“supremeparts”of thebody(sāra). 40 prāṇôdakânna­rasa­rudhira­māṃsa­medo­’sthi­majja­śukra­mūtra­purīṣa­sveda­vahānīti. 41 kaphaḥ­sapittaḥ­pavanaś­ca­doṣā­medo­’sra­śukrâmbu­vasā­lasīkāḥ / majjā­rasâujaḥ­piśitaṃ­ca­dūṣyāḥ­pramehiṇām,­viṃśatir­eva­mehāḥ // 42 yāni­cāsya (i.e. garbhasya)mātṛtaḥ­saṃbhavataḥ­saṃbhavanti,­tāny­anuvyā­khyāsyā­maḥ;­tad­yathā­–­tvak­ca­lohitaṃ­ca­māṃsaṃ­ca­medaś­ca­nābhiś­ca­hṛdayaṃ­ca­kloma­ca­yakṛc­ca­plīhā­ca­vṛkkau­ca­bastiś­ca­purīṣādhānaṃ­cāmāśayaś­ca­pakvāśayaś­cottaragudaṃ­cādharagudaṃ­ca­kṣudrāntraṃ­ca­sthūlāntraṃ­ca­vapā­ca­vapāvahanaṃ­ceti. 43 The CS reads rudhira instead of the synonym lohita,majja (stem form majjan)instead of majjā,andśukra instead of śukla. The YVi lists the items medas and asthan in inverse order.

139The Concepts of the Human Body and Disease

4.1.3Thetreatmentof thebodilyconstituentsinthebulkof theCSisquiteelusive. Incontrast towhatmightbeexpected,Ididnot findapassagewhichstatesthenumberof dhātustobeexactlyseven.Infourpassages Caraka refers to a list starting with blood (śoṇita, rakta)44 whereas inŚā6.10maṃsa is the first of the dhātus referred to. In Vi 5.8 Caraka mentions seven dhātus starting with rasa. The relevant items arevirtuallyidenticalwiththoseholdingpositions16­22of thelistSū28.4 (cf. above 4.1).A close approximation to the position that sevendhātusformacompletesetisfoundinCi15.16,wheretheseriesbegin­ning with rasa,althoughconcludedwiththeadditionalitemgarbha, ispresented:

rasād­raktaṃ­tato­māṃsaṃ­māṃsān­medas­tato­’sthi­ca­/asthno­majjā­tataḥ­śukraṃ­śukrād­garbhaḥ­prasādajaḥ­//

Ci 15.15 states that the dhātusaretransformedbytheirrespectivefires,whichare said tobe seven.Thisprocess is twofold, leading to impureand pure matter.45 In Ci 15.17­19ab Caraka enumerates the pure andimpure items originating from several body tissues, presumably thedhātus mentioned in 15.15.46 The resulting inventory of seven dhātus (rasa, rakta,māṃsa,medas, asthan,majjan and tvac) differs from theseries in Ci 15.15 in two respects: it has tvac instead of śukra, andgarbha is not mentioned. Besides these references to sets of dhātus,whicharequitesimilartothestandardlistof sevendhātusinclassicalĀyur­vedic literature,adifferent setof seven itemsoccurs inNi5.3andCi21.15.AsDasstates,there

wefind,inalistof sevendhātu­sof whichthreearethemorbificentities[i.e.the“humours”],aseriesconsistingof skin,flesh,bloodandserousfluid (lasīkā­);thisseriesisalsofoundinAh,Ni14,2andAs,Ni14,p.70a,where the word dhātu­isabsent.47

Moreover,theCShasthreesimilarbutslightlydifferinglistsindvandva­compounds(Sū26.43.1,Sū26.43.5andVi5.7;cf.Table2),48 and a list of bodytissuesthatarespoiltinthebodiesof diabetics(Ci6.8).49 The

44 śoṇita is used in Sū 27.337ab, Ci 15.219 andCi 19.9, and rakta in Sū 11.47 (cf.Table1). 45 A number of items designated as impurematter inCi 15.17­19ab are identicalwithsomeof theimpurebodilyconstituentsmentionedinSū28.4. 46 Cf.theconclusioninCi15.19cd. 47 Das 2003: 274f. 48 The first two lists appear in the context of the influence of the six tastes (rasa)onthehumanbody,thethirdisconnectedwiththediscussionof channelsof nutrimentinthebody(srotas). 49 Water (ambu),lymph(lasīkā)andfat(vasā)arenotfoundinanyotherĀyurvediclist.

Philipp A. Maas140

first list enumerates the same eight items as those appearing at the end of thelistinSū28.4,butthetwofinalitemsśukra and ojas are inverted. The second list does not contain ojasatall;accordinglyitlistsonlysevenbodilyconstituents.Thethirdlistconcurswiththeprecedingoneinnotincluding ojasaswellasinlistingsevenitemsinidenticalsuccession;bythe inclusion of prāṇodakaatthebeginningof thelistandmūtrapurīṣa­sveda at the end, however, the total number of items is increased totwelve.Finally,thereisanunlabelledgroupof bodilyconstituentsinŚā3.6,madeupof twentybodyparts,whichanembryoissaidtoreceivefrom the mother. The first four items tvac,lohita,māṃsa,andmedas cor­respond exactly to the first four items of the enumeration of dhātus in PYŚIII.29accordingtomanuscriptsKn1,MyN,Pn,Pvn2,Pvn4 and Tn.

4.1.4Anotherlistof eightterms,occurringinVi8.102,doesnotatalldealwithbodytissuesbutwithpotential“supremeparts”of thebody(sāra): tvag­rakta­māṃsa­medo­’sthi­majja­śukra­sattvānīti.50 Notably,thisgroup–likethelistof dhātusintheprintededitionof thePYŚ–starts with tvac.

4.1.5Howisthisvarietyof notionsconcerningthebodilyconstituentstobeexplained?InasynchronicperspectiveonĀyurveda,thediversityof medical contexts accounts for such abroad range. In adiachronicperspective, however, onemay safely assume that quite a number of differentbodyconceptswerecurrentatthetimeof theCS’scomposi­ tion. Some of these concepts are presumably reflected in collocations of terms similar to–and someeven identicalwith– the setof sevendhātuswell­knownfromtheclassicalsources,i.e.rasa,rakta,māṃsa,me­das,asthan,majjan and śukra.InSū28.4Carakamayhaveintegratedagreatnumberof bodilyconstituentsintoasinglecomprehensivedhātu­concept.Outof theresultinginventoryof dhātusthepurebodilycon­stituents (i.e. the seven “classical” dhātus plus ojas) as well as the three“humours”arethemostimportantbodilyconstituentsinmedicaltheory and practice. Therefore these two sets occur in the bulk of theCSquiteindependentlyof thecomprehensivelistof bodilyconstitu­entsinSū28.4.

50 Thewordingof thispassageiswellestablished.Thecollationof forty­sixmanu­scriptsthatIpreparedincourseof theresearchprojectsmentionedabove(cf.note*),doesnotshowasinglesubstantialvariant.Foraparallelpassage,cf.ASŚā8.32.Eachof theeightpartsof thebodymaybethemostexcellent.However,therearebodiesinwhich none or all excel. The close conceptual connection between sāras and dhātus is highlightedinDas2003:273withadditionalreferencetoAHŚā3.117.

141The Concepts of the Human Body and Disease

4.2 The Bhelasaṃhitā (BhelaS),todayanextremelyraremedicaltextthathascomedowntousinonesingle,incompletemanuscriptandoneadditionalfolio(cf.Yamashita1997:19f.),seemstobecloselyrelatedtothe CS.51InapassageverysimilartoCSCi15.16,Bhelareferstoalistof seven dhātus(Sū11.3­4ab):52

rasād­raktaṃ­tato­māṃsaṃ­māṃsān­medas­tato­’sthi­ca­/asthno­majjā­tataḥ­śuklaṃ­śuklād­garbhasya­saṃbhavaḥ­//evaṃ­pūrvāt­paraṃ­yāti­dhātuṃ­dhātur­yathākramam /

ThelistcorrespondsneatlytothealreadymentionedGranthaversionof thePYŚ(anditissimilartothebasictextof theYVi)aswellastothealreadydiscussedinventoryinCSSū26.43.5.Moreover,in Śā5.1theBhelaSreadsalistof twelveitems,labelledaslocations (sthāna)of bodily strength (ojas)andenergy (tejas): tvak­śo­­ ṇita­māṃsa­medo­’sthi­majjā­śukla­sveda­pitta­śleṣma­mūtra­purīṣā­ṇīti.53 This list in its first seven items corresponds almost completely to thelistof “supremeparts”of thebody(sāra)foundinCSVi8.102;theonly difference is that Bhela reads śoṇita instead of rakta,majjā in con­trast to majjan,andśukla for śukra.54Thatthese itemsarecloselyre­lated to a theoryof bodily constituents is not only obvious from therecorded items, but also from the author’s own words, according towhich“these(i.e.thelistedbodilyconstituents),whenunimpaired(thatis,theirbeingunimpaired),arecalled‘well­being’”.55 The complete list reflects a dhātu­theorycloselyrelatedtotheonedescribedinCSSū28.4,a theory which takes dhātuasacollectivetermforbodytissues,wasteproducts and doṣas.

4.3TheSuśrutasaṃhitā(SS),amedicalworkwhichhasbecomefamousforitstreatmentof surgery,56doesnotseemtoknowonecommoncat­egoryforpathogeneticsubstances(doṣa),bodytissues(dhātu),andwasteproducts (mala).57AccordingtoSuśruta,thetermdhātu exclusively de­

51 Cf.Preisendanz2007:630,andHIMLIIA/14­16. 52 Thesameitems–butwithoutacommontitle–appearinBhelaSCi4.20­21. 53 iha­khalv­ojas­ tejaḥ­śarīre­nitye­ca­bhavataḥ. tayoḥ­sthānāni­dvādaśa­bhavanti. tad­yathā–tvak­śoṇita­māṃsa­medo­’sthi­majjā­śukla­sveda­pitta­śleṣma­mūtra­purīṣāṇīti. tā­ny­avyāpannāni­sukham­ity­ucya<n>te (BhelaS Śā5.1). 54 The last mentioned variant indicates the southern provenance of the BhelaS manuscript(cf.note18). 55 Cf.CSSū9.4:vikāro­dhātuvaiṣamyaṃ­sāmyaṃ­prakṛtir­ucyate / sukhasaṃjñakam­ārogyaṃ­vikāro­duḥkham­eva­ca //. 56 Cf. HIML IA/344. 57 Suśrutausesthecompounddoṣa­dhātu­mala–whichfiguresneitherinCaraka’snorinBhela’scompendium–quitefrequently;cf.Sū3.6a,4.5,14.3,15.1,15,3,15.15,etc.

Philipp A. Maas142

signatesthesetof sevenbodilyconstituentsthatintheprocessof di­gestiondevelopinsuccessionfromfoodanddrink(SSSū14.10­11):58

rasād­raktaṃ­tato­māṃsaṃ­māṃsān­medaḥ­prajāyate­/medaso­’sthi­tato­majjā­majjñaḥ­śukraṃ­tu­jāyate­//­(10)tatraiteṣāṃ­dhātūnām­annapānarasaḥ­prīṇayitā.(11)[prosepassage]

InSSŚā5.6Suśrutaexplicitlystatesthatthebodilyconstituentsaresev­en (dhātavaḥ­sapta);thustheaboveinventory(rasa,rakta,māṃsa,medas,asthi,majjan,andśukra)canbetakentobecomplete.Thesamenumberaswellasthesameitemsarealsorecordedatthebeginningof boththeAHandtheAS(AHSū1.13=ASSū1.18,translatedinVogel1965:57):

rasâsṛṅ­māṃsa­medo­’sthi­majja­śukrāṇi­dhātavaḥ­/­sapta­dūṣyāḥ­(…)//Chyle,blood,flesh,fat,bones,marrow,andsperm(are)thesevenelem­ents;(theyareliable)tobespoilt(bythehumours).

ItseemsthatafterVāgbhaṭahadcomposedhisinfluentialwork(s),thisgroup of termsbecame thenormativeversion of thedhātu­list59 that found its way into modern secondary literature60 and it would therefore notbesurprisingatallif knowledgeof thisversionmadethescribeof the common ancestor of the three Granthamanuscripts of the PYŚchange his exemplar from snāyuasthi to medo’sthi.

4.3.1TheSS,however,doesnottransmitthisstandardversionthrough­out. Indescribing the effectsof sweet taste (madhura­ rasa) it records alistof bodilyconstituentswhichcomprisethesameeightitemsasthepreviouslydiscussedlistintheparallelpassageCSSū26.43.1(cf.n.48above)– i.e.thesevenbodytissuesplusojas inpenultimateposition–with stanya“breastmilk”addedasthefinalelement.61

4.3.2 The term snāyu,whichfiguresinthePYŚ’slistof dhātus, isat­testedneitherbyCarakanorbyBhela.Itoccurs,however,inthecontextof Suśruta’smarman­theory.62 In SS Sū 22.3 there is a list of eight

58 Notethesimilarityof thewordingof stanza10toCSCi15.15andBhelaSSū11.3citedabove.Forfurtherreferences,seeDas2003:128,n.408. 59 Cf.,however,Indu’scommentoncainASSū1.19:caśabdān malānāṃ dhātusaṃjñāpi­dehadhārakatvāt,whichreflectsaconceptof dhātussimilartotheoneinCSSū28.4. 60 SeeforexampleJolly1901:41f.andWujastyk2003:xviiif. 61 SSSū42.10.1:rasaguṇān­ata­ūrdhvaṃ­vakṣyāmaḥ­—­tatra­madhuro­raso­rasa­rakta­māṃsa­medo­’sthi­majjâujaḥ­śukra­stanya­vardhanaḥ…. 62 Fedorova(1990:250ff.)takesSuśruta’smarman­theorytobeasynthesisof dif­ferentandpartlyoverlappingsystematicanatomicalconcepts,amongwhichthetheoryof bodilyconstituentsasthemostcomprehensiveoneservedasthemodelforthespeci­

143The Concepts of the Human Body and Disease

vulnerablespots:tvaṅ­māṃsa­sirā­snāyv­asthi­sandhi­koṣṭha­marmāṇīty­aṣṭau­ vraṇavastūni. This list resembles the archetypal version of thePYŚ’sdhātu­listinrecordingsnāyvasthi directly after the item māṃsa. Moreover, the passage is quite remarkable in containing the elementsmāṃsa,sirā,snāyu,asthi and sandhi­“muscleflesh,tubes,sinews,bonesand joints” as well as the itemmarman. The marmans, according toSuśruta, are exclusively located at the same five bodily constituentswhich hold positions two to five in the list of vulnerable spots, fromwhichtheycannotbeseparated.63 The item marman therefore includes at least parts of the first­listed itemsmuscle flesh, tubes, etc., and isthereforenotonparwiththebeginningof thelist.

4.4Thecomparisonof differentlistsof bodilyconstituentsthroughoutthe early literatureof ĀyurvedaconfirmsZimmermann’s claim (1983:10)thatnosingle,commonanduniformbodyconceptexists.64 According toCarakathehumanbodyconsistsof twoclassesof constituents,viz.pure and impure ones. The class of impure constituents contains inter­aliathethreepathogeneticsubstanceswind,bileandphlegm,butCara­kadoesnotindicatetheexactnumberof impureconstituents.Thenum­berof purebodilyconstituentsintheCSisgenerallyeight,butlistswithseven items are alsomet with. Similar but still slightly different listsoccurinthediscussionof the“supremeparts”of thebody(sāra)andinCaraka’sembryology.ThefindingsinBhela’scompendiumarealsoam­biguous.OntheonehandBhelalistssevenitemscalleddhātu,andontheother hand he relies on a concept of health and disease which draws upon asetof twelvebodilyconstituents,includingsomewasteproductsaswellasbile(pitta)andphlegm(śleṣman).AsfarasIcansee,Suśrutaconcep­tually separates the three doṣas from the dhātus. This separation was adoptedbyVāgbhaṭa,whoseoeuvreisthefirsttoreflectastandardiza­tionof theĀyurvedicbodyconcept,asseen inthestatementthatthenumberof dhātusisexactlysevenatthebeginningof AHandAS.65 The

ficarrangementof bodilyconstituentsinthemarman­theory(“SuśrutaversuchtinderMarmantheorie,diegenanntenEinzelansätzenachArtderdhātu­Theoriezusammenzu­fassen”[ibid.,p.252]). 63 Cf.SSŚā6.3:saptottaraṃ­marmaśatam. tāni­marmāṇi­pañcātmakāni­bhavanti,tad­ya­thā—māṃsamarmāṇi­sirāmarmāṇi­snāyumarmāṇy­asthimarmāṇi­sandhimarmāṇi­ceti. na­khalu­māṃsa­sirā­snāyv­asthi­sandhi­vyatirekeṇānyāni­marmāṇi­bhavanti,­yasmān­no­palabhyante. 64 Cf. also the rich material presented in the discussion of the term dhātu in Das 2003:553­558. 65 ApassageinŚā6reflectsadhātuconceptquitesimilartoCSSū28andCi15.17ff.;cf. Das 2003: 554.

Philipp A. Maas144

bodyconceptof thePYŚissimilartothisstandardconcept,sincebothconcepts take the existence of three doṣas and seven dhātus for granted. The body concept in the oldest reconstructable version of the PYŚdiffers, however, from thewhole range of concepts in classical Indianmedicine,as it includessnāyu“sinew” insteadof medas“fat”.Oneof the very rare instances66wherecomparablenotionscanbefoundisSu­śruta’srecordof marmansandhislistof vulnerablespots.

4.5 Anexactparallel tothe listof bodilyconstituents inPYŚIII.29occursintheYuktidīpikā(YD)onSāṅkhyakārikā38:tathā­bāhyāntara­pariṇāmo­rasa­lohita­māṃsa­snāyv­asthi­majjā­śukrāṇām­(227,3f.).67 The SāṅkhyaandtheYogalistagree inhavingthesamewordfor“blood”(lohita),andinusingthefemininemajjā (instead of majjan)for“mar­row”. In contrast to the various Āyurvedic body concepts discussedabove, they include snāyu “sinew” instead of medas “fat”. Since theauthor of theYDwaswell acquaintedwith the PYŚ,68 he may have borrowedhisdhātu­listfromPatañjali’swork.

5. Outsidethemedicalliterature–intheMahābhārata(MBh)aswellasinanumberof PurāṇasandlessfrequentlyinBuddhistliterature69 –snāyuispartof quiteanumberof comparableinventories.70

66 An additional reference – but one being too short for the purpose of a propercomparison–isthegroupof termsinthecompoundtvaṅmāṃsasnāyu in CS Ci 21.70 and AH Ci 18.8. 67 Cited inPreisendanz 1994: II/433f.with additional reference toVedic and lateVediclistsdiscussedinMüller1934and1935. 68 The“Indexof prosepassagesreferredtointheYuktidīpikā…”(inWezlerandMotegi1998:346)listsnolessthanelevencitationsfromthePYŚ. 69 Cf. BHSD283a,s.v.dhātu(2).Theonlyreferencestosimilarlistsof bodilycon­stituentsIcouldfindarethreepassages,twofromtheLalitavistara(LV),andonefromtheMahāvastu(MV):LV13,30f.:yat­tasya­pitta­śleṣma­snāyv­asthi­māṃsa­rudhiraṃ cā­sīt­…,LV14,5:yat­ teṣāṃ­pitta­śleṣma­māṃsâsthi­snāyu­rudhiraṃ­cābhūt…,andMVI, p.19,12­20,2:…so­dhūmo kaṭuko­bhayānako­chaviṃ­bhittvā­carma­bhittvā­mānsaṃ­bhittvā­snāyuṃ­bhittvā­asthiṃ­bhittvā­asthimarjaṃ­mānsādy­atiniryāti.TheSatipaṭṭhānasuttaof theMajjhimanikāyaI,p.57f.teachesthehumanbodytoconsistof thefourgrosselem­ents (dhātu)earth,water,fireandwind.TheTheravādaTipiṭakaalsohasaquitecom­prehensivelistof bodypartsconsistingof thirty­oneitemsinDīghanikāyaII,p.293f.,Majjhimanikāya I,p.57andIII,p.90f.,AṅguttaranikāyaIII,p.323f.,KhuddakanikāyaI,p.2andSuttanipātaI,p.195­201(cf.Scharfe1999:614b).Items6­10areskin(taco),flesh (maṃsaṃ),sinew(n[a]hāru),bones(aṭṭhi),andbonemarrow(aṭṭhimiñjaṃ). 70 The following references were located with the help of a digital version of the MBhandof thePurāṇasinthe“GöttingenRegisterof ElectronicTextsinIndianLan­guages”whichwassearchedforlistsof bodilyconstituentsthatincludethewordsnāyu. (Search http://www.sub.uni­goettingen.de/ebene_1/fiindolo/gretil.htm; link checked onNovember13,2008).

145The Concepts of the Human Body and Disease

Wor

ksIt

ems71

No.

sinew

mar

row

blood

mus

cle

bones

skin

fat

sem

entubes

“hum

ours”

MBh12.177.19­20ab≈

NārP1.42.74­75ab

5 snāyu

4 majjan

2 māṃsa

3 asthan

1 tvac

5

MBh12.180.13=

NārP1.43.32

4 snāyu

2 śoṇita

1 māṃsa

5 asthan

3 medas

5

MBh12.290.33

4 snāyu

3 majjā

2 śoṇita

1 śukra

5 sirā

5MBh12.293.16cd­17ab≈

Brahm

aP243.5cd­6ab

2 snāyu

3 majjan

6 śoṇita

5 māṃsa

1 asthan

4 tvac

6

NārP1.55.101ab

1 snāyu

7 majjā

3 rakta

2 asthan

4 tvac

6 vasā

5 śukra

7AgniP292.39cd­40ab

4 snāyu

6 majjā

2 asṛj

3 māṃsaka

1 tvac

5 medas

7 śukra

7BhāgP11.26.21ab

4 snāyu

6 majjā

3 rudhira

2 māṃsa

7 asthan

1 tvac

5 medas

7MBh12.293.31

≈B

rahm

aP 2

43.2

18 snāyu

6 majjan

3 rudhira

2 māṃsa

7 asthan

1 tvac

4 medas

5 pitta

8

GaruḍaP2.3.98

8 snāyu

3 majjan

4 māṃsa

6 asthan

5 medas

7 śukra

1 pitta,

2 śleṣman

8

MBh12.293.35

≈B

rahm

aP 2

43.2

58 snāyu

6 majjan

3 rudhira

2 māṃsa

7 asthan

1 tvac

4 medas

9 śukra

5 pitta

9

MB

h 12

.207

.16

7 snāyu

9 majjā

4 rakta

6 māṃsa

8 asthan

5 tvac

10sirā

1 vāta,

2 pitta,

3 kapha

10

Per

cent

age

100%

91%

82%

82%

82%

73%

64%

44%

18%

bile36%

phle

gm 1

8%

wind9%

Table3:EpicandPurāṇicbodyconceptscomprisingsnāyu.

71

71Superscriptnum

bersrefertothesequenceofterms.Forfullcitationsofthetextpassagesreferredtoaswellasforvariantreadings,

cf. A

ppen

dix.

Philipp A. Maas146

5.1Theprecedingtableshowsthatthereareasmanybodyconceptsastherearetextpassagesunderinvestigation.Noneof theelevenpassagesreflectsanunderlyingbodyconceptwhichisstrictlyidenticalwithoneof the other passages. The concepts differ from each other in three re­spects:thenumberof bodilyconstituents–rangingfromfivetoten–,thelisteditems,andthesequenceof listing,whichis–atleastinpart– determined by metrical constraints. Although the total number of passages istoosmall forareliablestatistic,somegeneralobservationsmaynotbeoutof place:Almostall lists connectsnāyuwithmarrow,and,alittlelessfrequently,withbones,bloodandmuscleflesh.Skinisfoundinnearlythreefourths,fatintwothirds,andsemeninlessthanhalf of thelists.Foodessence(orchyle),which–aswehaveseenabove–figuressoprominentlyinĀyurveda,doesnotoccuratall.Thisisalsotrueforthelistsof,andreferencesto,bodilyconstituentsinVedicandlate Vedic literature discussed by Jamison (1986: 172­177), some of which do include snvan,theVedicequivalentof snāyu.

5.2Theseresultsincreasetheprobabilitythatthereconstructionof thearchetypalversionof thePYŚiscorrectinreadingrasa instead of tvag atthebeginningof thedhātu­listinIII.29,asitisveryunlikelythatascribewhowouldchangetvag to rasaduetohisbackgroundknowledgeof Āyurvedawouldleavesnāyuunchanged,whichfromthisperspectiveissimplynotabodilyconstituent inthetechnicalsense.Theoppositeseemstobetrue:ascribewithbackgroundknowledgeof aVedic,lateVedic,EpicorPurāṇiclistchangedtheunusualrasa to tvag.

6.1 Although the present state of research does not allow the identifica­tionof astrictparalleltothePYŚ’slistof bodilyconstituentsrasa­lo­hita­māṃsa­snāyu­asthi­majjā­śukrāṇiinĀyurvedicworks,wehaveseenthatPatañjaliheldabodyconceptthatisstrikinglysimilartotheĀyur­vedic concept that does not take the doṣastobebodilyconstituentsinatechnical sense (cf.above4.4).Moreover, theoccurrenceof rasa at the beginningof thePYŚ’slistindicatesthattheauthorwasfamiliarwithatheoryof foodtransformation.Takingthesesimilaritiesintoconsider­ation,itcomesasasurprisewhentheauthorof thePYŚindealingwithdisease (vyādhi)inI.30givesexplanationsthatdeviateconsiderablyfromwhat I could find in the works of classical Indian medicine.

6.2 YS I.30 contains a list of nine kinds of mental distractions which are“hindrances”toconcentration(samādhi):

vyādhi­styāna­saṃśaya­pramādâlasyâvirati­bhrāntidarśanâlabdhabhūmi­katvânavasthitatvāni­cittavikṣepā­antarāyāḥ.

147The Concepts of the Human Body and Disease

Thedistractionsof themental capacity, thehindrances [toconcentra­tion]are:disease,languor,doubt,indolence,weakness,incontinence,er­roneousviews,not reachinga stage [of concentration], and instability[whenhavingreachedit].

AfterashortintroductoryremarkPatañjalicommentsupontheindivid­ualitemsof thisnine­foldseriesof expressions.Hestarts,of course,withvyādhi,“disease”.Nearlyallwitnessesgivedhāturasakaraṇavaiṣamyam as an explanation or definition of vyādhi. Tvy,aquiteoldpalm­leaf manu­scriptinMalayālamscript,hasdhāturasakāraṇavaiṣamyam instead,andKb,thepalm­leaf manuscriptinOldBengaliscriptmentionedatthebe­ginning of this paper, reads vyādhir dhātuvaiṣamyam. This reading fits perfectlywith thewell­known definition of disease in earlyĀyurveda: vikāro­dhātuvaiṣamyaṃ“Modification(i.e.disease)istheunsuitableratioof bodilyconstituents” (CSSū9.4a).72This isobviouslyadefinitionof diseasebywayof itscause,73andnotacharacterisationof itsnaturebymeansof anenumerationof synonyms,asinCS9.4d74andCSNi1.5:

tatra­vyādhir­āmayo­gada­ātaṅko­yakṣmā­jvaro­vikāro­roga­ity­anarthān­taram.7576

Work dhātuvaiṣamyam rasavaiṣamyam karaṇavaiṣamyamYVi282,3­876 vātapittaśleṣmā­nāṃ­

viṣamabhā­vaḥupayuktā­hā­ra­pa­ri­ṇāma­viśeṣasya­vṛd­­­­dhikṣa­yau

andhabadhiratvādi

72 The similar definition rogas­tu­doṣavaiṣamyam(AHSū1.20a)apparentlyreflectsthe terminological separation of doṣa and dhātu which characterizes Āyurveda fromSuśrutaonwards;cf.Scharfe1999:625ff. 73 Cf. SS Sū 1.38: vyādhigrahaṇād­ vātapittakaphaśoṇitasannipātavaiṣamyanimittāḥ­sarva­eva­vyādhayo­vyākhyātāḥ. 74 ThewholestanzaCSSū9.4reads:vikāro­dhātuvaiṣamyaṃ­sāmyaṃ­prakṛtir­ucya­ te / sukhasaṃjñakam­ārogyaṃ vikāro­duḥkham­eva­ca­//. 75 A comprehensive discussion of the different and partly conflicting concepts of diseaseintheclassicalworksof Āyurvedaisbeyondthescopeof thepresentpaper. 76 vyādhir­dhāturasakaraṇavaiṣamyam.­dhātavo­vātapittaśleṣmāṇaḥ,­teṣāṃ­viṣamabhāvo­vaiṣamyam.­tac­ca­vātapittaśleṣmabhūyiṣṭhadravyopayogādibhyo­jāyate….rasa­upayuktasyā­hā­rasya­pariṇāmaviśeṣaḥ.­sa­ca­saptadhā.­rasakāryatvād­rasa­ity­ucyate.­rasa­lohita­medo­māṃsâsthi­majjā­śuklākhyaḥ.­tasya­vaiṣamyaṃ­vṛddhikṣayau.­karaṇavaiṣamyam­andhaba­dhiratvādi.“Diseaseistheunsuitablestateof bodilyconstituents,‘essences’andinstru­ments.Wind, bile and phlegm are the bodily constituents. Their being unsuitable is[their]unsuitableratio;andthis[unsuitableratio]arisesfrom,forexample,employingsubstanceshavingwind,bileand/orphlegmas thechief component…. ‘Essence’ isaspecial transformationof the consumed food,and it is sevenfold. It is called ‘essence’(rasa)becauseitisaneffectof [food]essence(rasa).[Thesevenfold‘essence’comprises]chyle,blood,fat,muscleflesh,bone,marrow,andsemen.Itsunsuitablestateisincreaseordecrease.Theunsuitablestateof theinstrumentsisblindness,deafnessandsoon.”

Philipp A. Maas148

Work dhātuvaiṣamyam rasavaiṣamyam karaṇavaiṣamyamTVai 34,25ff.77

vātapittaśleṣmā­nāṃ­nyūnādhika­bhāvaḥ

aśitapītāhāra­pa­ri­ṇāmavi­śeṣasya­nyū­nā­dhi­ka­bhā­vaḥ

indriyānāṃ nyūna­bhāvaḥ­(?)

YVā174,17f.78

vātakaphapittā­nāṃ­visadṛśabhā­vaḥ

āhārapariṇāmānāṃ­visa­dṛśabhāvaḥ

cakṣurādima­naādī­nāṃ­visadṛśabhā­vaḥ

Table4:Thedefinitionsof diseaseinPYŚI.30asexplainedbythecommentators7778

6.3 What would dhāturasakaraṇavaiṣamyammean?Toanswerthisques­tion,thecommentatorsof thePYŚhavethefirstword.

Althoughthecommentatorsarehistoricallyseparatedbyseveralhun­dred years, they all take dhāturasakaraṇavaiṣamyam as a tatpuruṣa­compound with dhāturasakaraṇa as a dvandva­ in initial position. As showninTable4above,theyalsoagreethatdhātu as a collective term designatesthethree“humours”wind,bileandphlegm.79 With regard to the second item– rasa – the three interpretationsdifferonly slightly.Śaṅkaraunderstands“foodessence” inasecondarymeaningtodesig­nate the complete set of sevenbodily constituents.80 It may not pass without notice that the YVi’s enumeration of the seven bodily con­stituentshere isatvariancewithPYŚIII.29.Inthepassagepresent­ ly under discussion the constituents are rasa­lohita­medo­māṃsâsthi­majjā­śukla,whiletheYVionIII.29attestsrasa­lohita­māṃsâsthi­medo­majjā­śukla tobe thewordingof thebasic text.Thedifference in the

77 dhātavo­ vātapittaśleṣmāṇaḥ­ śarīradhāraṇāt. aśitapītāhārapariṇāmaviśeṣo­ rasaḥ. karaṇānīndriyāṇi. teṣāṃ­vaiśamyaṃ­nyūnādhikabhāva­iti.“Thebodilyconstituentswind,bileandphlegm[arecalled‘constituents’]becausetheysustainthebody.The[food]es­senceisaspecialtransformationof foodthathasbeeneatenordrunk.Instrumentsarecapacities.Theirunsuitablestateisthestateof deficiencyorof surplus.” 78 śarīradhārakatvād­dhātūnāṃ­vātakaphapittānām,rasānām­āhārapariṇāmānām,ka­ra­ṇānāṃ­cakṣurādimanaādīnāṃ­ca­vaiṣamyaṃ­visadṛśabhāvo­vyādhiḥ.“Diseaseisunsuit­ability– [i.e.] thebeing inappropriate–of thebodilyconstituentswind,phlegm,andbilewhichare[calledbodilyconstituents]becausetheysustainthebody(dhāraka),of thebodilyconstituents(rasa)whicharetransformationsof food,andof theinstrumentssight,etc.,andmind,etc.” 79 VācaspatiandVijñānabhikṣuderivetheworddhātu from the root dhṛ“tosustain”.ThistraditionaletymologyapparentlycanbetracedbacktoMBh12.330.21f.:trayo­hi­dhātavaḥ­khyātāḥ­karmajā­iti­ca­smṛtāḥ / pittaṃ­ślesmā­ca­vāyuś­ca­eṣa­saṃghāta­ucyate // etaiś­ ca­ dhāryate­ jantur­ etaiḥ­ kṣīṇaiś­ ca­ kṣīyate / āyurvedavidas­ tasmāt tridhātuṃ­māṃ­pra­cakṣate//.Fromalinguisticpointof view,theworddhātuhastobederivedfromthe(first)rootdhā,“toput”. 80 This secondary meaning is not recorded in the dictionaries (BHSD,Apte,pw and MW).

149The Concepts of the Human Body and Disease

position of medas isdifficulttoexplainbutitmaypresumablybeputdown to a slip of memory.IncontrasttoŚaṅkara,whospeaksof asevenfoldrasa,Vijñānabhikṣutakes the word rasa as a plural noun. Although he does not say explicit­lywhichentitieshehasinmind,theexplanationāhārapariṇāma“trans­formationof food”indicatesthat–similartoŚaṅkara–heusesthewordrasametonymically, i.e.thewordreferringtothecauseisusedfortheeffect, to designate the complete set of bodily constituents. Finally,accordingtoVācaspati,thewordrasameans“foodessence”,presumablyas a single item.The three interpretations of the term karaṇa, i.e.“instrument(s)”,arealittlemoreatvariance.Saṅkara,ontheonehand,explainsittoreferto the sense capacities (buddhīndriya). Vācaspati, on the other hand,does not specify whether he considers karaṇa­to refer to the capacities leading to cognitive or to physical acts (buddhīndriya, karmendriya).Vijñānabhikṣu’s gloss (cakṣurādimanaādīnām) clearly shows that heassociates karaṇa with the sense capacities as well as the three mental capacitiesof classicalSāṅkhya, i.e.manas,buddhi and ahaṃkāra. This interpretationhastoberejectedbecauseitpresupposesthewell­knownSāṅkhyistic tripartite division of themental capacity,which classicalYoga does not accept (cf. GiPhI/403­405and418).Sincethetwofurtheroccurrences of the word karaṇainthebulkof thePYŚ81 clearly suggest a reference to the sense capacities as “instruments” of perception, itseemsreasonabletoaccepttheYVi’s interpretation“sensecapacities”in the present case.Onemayask,however,whyPatañjalichosethe–at least inthePYŚ–rarewordkaraṇa,insteadof usingthewordindriya­as elsewhere.82 Did heciteawell­knowndefinition?If so,thiswouldbe,tomyknowledge,withoutaparallelinĀyurvedicliterature.6.4Thereare,however,twoargumentsagainsttheacceptanceof dhātu­rasakaraṇavaiṣamyamasthedefinitionof diseaseintendedbytheaut­hor.First, if wetakethecompoundkaraṇavaiṣamya“unsuitabilityof thesenses”torefertoastateof impairmentof thesensesassuggestedbytheexplanationintheYVi(“blindness,deafness,etc.”),wefacetheundesirableconsequencethatthisdefinitionof diseasedrawsupontwo

81 PYŚI.35,line8­11:yāvad­ekadeśo­’pi­kaścit­svakaraṇasaṃvedyo­na­bhavati,tāvat­sarvaṃ­parokṣam­iva….tasmāt…kaścid­viśeṣaḥ­pratyakṣīkartavyaḥ;PYŚIV.14,p.188,3f.:prakhyākriyāsthitiśīlānāṃ­ guṇānāṃ­ grahaṇātmakānāṃ­ karaṇabhāvenaikaḥ­ pari­ṇā­maḥ­śrotram­indriyam…. 82 Thetextof thePYŚhasaboutfiftyoccurrencesof thewordindriya“sense(s)”.

Philipp A. Maas150

logically different categories, i.e. on the causes of disease (dhātu­ andrasavaiṣamya)andonitssymptom(karaṇavaiṣamya).Furthermore, if wefollowSuśruta’sstatementthatunsettledsensesareadecisivesymp­tomof the“unsuitableratioof ‘humours’etc.”,karaṇavaiṣamya­would notonlybeasymptomof disease,butalsoalogicalindicatorof thetwocausesof disease(SSSū15.9):

doṣādīnāṃ­tv­asamatām­anumānena­lakṣayet­/aprasannendriyaṃ­vīkṣya­puruṣaṃ­kuśalo­bhiṣak­//Askilledphysicianwoulddetecttheunsuitableratioof the“humours”,etc.(i.e.pureandimpureproductsof thefoodessence[?]83)bymeansof inferenceafterhavingobservedthatthepatient’ssensesareunsettled.

In the final analysis this means that the definition of disease would have twoparts,i.e.itwouldcomprisetwocausesof diseaseaswellasasymp­tomof disease,whichissimultaneouslyaninferentialsign(maybeevenduetotherelationof causeandeffect)fortheseverycauses.If one adopts a different interpretation of karaṇavaiṣamya – onenotsharedbythecommentators–thedefinitionwouldcomprisethreeae­tiologies.InCSSū11.37­4384wefindanexpositionof the“threecausesof disease”(trīṇy­āyatanāni),oneof whichistheunwholesomeconnec­tionof senseandobject(asātmendriyārthasaṃyoga),i.e.overuse,under­useandwronguseof senseobjects.CouldnotPatañjali’skaraṇavaiṣamya refertothis“basicdiseaseaetiolog[y]inayurvedicmedicine”(Wujastyk2003:10)?Theexpression“unsuitabilityof thesenses”wouldthenhavetobetakenasanellipsisfor“theunsuitabilityof theconnectionbetweensensesandtheirobject”.Orissuchaninterpretationtoofarfetched?

6.5 The second argument against the acceptance of dhāturasakara­ṇavaiṣamyamastheoriginaldefinitionof diseaseinthePYŚisthatinthiscasetherewouldbeaterminologicaldifferencebetweenPYŚI.30andPYŚIII.29.Thebodilyconstituents–atleastaccordingtoŚaṅka­ra andVijñānabhikṣu – are labelled rasa in I.30, anddhātu in III.29.Thisterminologicaldifference isdifficulttoexplain,becausethewordrasa is tomyknowledgenotused to label the complete set of bodilyconstituentsinĀyurveda.Furthermore,the“humours”arecalleddhātu­inI.30,whileinIII.29theyaredesignatedasdoṣa. These two different termscouldbeatraceof acomprehensivedhātu concept similar to the onefoundinCSSū28.4.Nevertheless,Patañjaliclearlyseparatesdoṣas from dhātusinIII.29.

83 Cf.CSSū28.4,adducedabove,4.1(p.12). 84 TranslatedintoEnglishinWujastyk2003:28­31.

151The Concepts of the Human Body and Disease

6.6Inviewof thedifficultiesdiscussedabove,onemayfeeltemptedtoregard dhāturasakaraṇavaiṣamyam as secondary and to accept dhātu­vaiṣamyam instead.There isbutoneproblem.Wouldnotthisproced­ ure simplyeliminateacomplicationof the text?Inotherwords,whyshouldascribehaveextendedthemeaningfuldhātuvaiṣamyam to dhātu­ra­sakaraṇavaiṣamyam?

7.1 A tentative answer occurred to me when I read the following pas­sageof theCS(CSVi1.4):

rasās­tāvat­ṣaṭ–madhurāmlalavaṇakaṭutiktakaṣāyāḥ.­te­samyag­upayujya­mā­nāḥ­śarīraṃ­yāpayanti,­mithyopayujyamānās­tu­khalu­doṣaprakopāyo­pakalpante. Tostartwith,therearesixtastes:sweet,sour,salty,pungent,bitter,andastringent. If these [tastes] areproperlyused, they support thebody,butif theyareusedinawrongway,theycertainlyleadtoanenragementof the humours.

This excerpt clearly states that tastes (rasa),if employedthewrongway,lead to an agitation of the doṣas. doṣaprakopa­expresses the same idea as doṣavaiṣamyam. Could not the knowledge of a passage like this85 have ledascribeorareaderof PYŚ I.30 to comment upon dhātuvaiṣamyam with the marginal gloss rasakāraṇaṃ “caused by tastes”? Thiswouldhavebeenanellipsisof rasamithyopayogakāraṇam“causedbythewronguseof tastes”.Inanextstep,aninattentivescribewouldhaveinsertedthe marginal note (of which the final anusvārawouldhavebeen lost)rightintothetexttowhichitreferredbecausehetooktheglossforthecorrection of an omission. This way dhāturasakāraṇavaiṣamyam­would have become part of the transmission of the PYŚ. This reading isactually found in Tvy. The scribe of an early exemplar of all othertextual witnesses would have emended the quite senseless kāraṇa to karaṇa.

7.2 What does this hypothetical outline of the transmission mean for thestemmaticalhypothesisonthetransmissionof thePYŚasoutlinedabove on p. 8f.? Is it in need of modification, or is it simplywrong?Whichreadingshouldbeassumedfortheoldestreconstructablewitness,andwhatwasthereadingof thetwohyparchetypes,theoriginalsouth­ernversion,andtheoriginalvulgate?Althoughitmaybeimpossibletoanswer thesequestion conclusively, sincewearedealingwithanopen 85 See,forexample,AHSū11.35cd:doṣā­duṣṭā­rasair­dhātūn­dūṣayanty­ubhaye­malān­“The‘humours’,whenspoiltbythetastes,spoiltheconstituents,bothspoilthewasteproducts.”Foradifferenttranslationcf.Scharfe1999:629.

Philipp A. Maas152

recension,themostprobablescenarioisthatneitherthenorthernman­uscript Kb nor the southern Tvy transmit the reading of a hyparchetype. Kbwouldhavea shorterversion than its exemplar, eitherbecause thescribeemendedthetextorsimplybecausehewasinattentive.Thebestexplanation for the reading kāraṇa in Tvyisinanycaseasimplescribalmistake. Therefore, the above reconstruction of the transmission of Patañjali’s definition of disease is not actually based on manuscriptevidence.Itisjustapossibleandtoacertaindegreeprobablecourseof events.

8.1 To sum up: Patañjali knew a medical system which he calls ci­kitsāśāstra. This system shared its basic theoretical assumptionswithclassicalĀyurveda,althoughatthepresentstateof researchitisimpos­sibletoidentifyaspecificschoolorwork.Incommentingonthewordvyādhi, thePYŚ inallknownversionsof the textbutonepresentsaunique definition of disease that apparently is without a parallel inclassical Āyurveda. The version transmitted by a single textual wit­ ness(albeitasanemendationorascribalmistake),however,agreeswithanĀyurvedicdefinitionof diseaseand itsmedical terminology isnotnecessarily in conflict with Patañjali’s terminology in PYŚ III.29.86 Moreover,thereisahypothesiswhich–withreferencetoanotherĀyur­vedicconcept–canexplainhowtheoriginalreadingwascorruptedintothe version we find in almost all textual witnesses. In view of this,dhātuvaiṣamyamispresumablytheoriginalreading.It is,however,not inconceivable, even though lessprobable, thatwithdhāturasakaraṇavaiṣamyam­PYŚI.30 (a)preservesadefinitionof dis­easethatis,tomyknowledge,withoutaparallelinĀyurvedicliteratureand(b)employsaterminologythatiscompletelydifferentfromtheoneinPYŚIII.29.Strictlyspeaking,thetextcriticalproblemIhavesetouttosolveinthepresentpaperisinsolubleatthepresenttime.

8.2Theabovefindingstakencollectivelyprovideasketchof thetheor­etical foundationsof medicalscienceasknowntoPatañjali,which, inturn,enablesustoattemptaroughandtentativedeterminationof theposition of thismedical systemwithin the history of Āyurveda. ThePYŚconceptuallyseparatesbodilyconstituents(dhātu)fromdoṣas. This differentiationbecomesincreasinglycharacteristicforclassicalĀyurve­ 86 The term dhātuvaiṣamya could reflect Patañjali’s acquaintance with amedicalconceptaccordingtowhichthe“humours”areconsideredtobedhātus. This concept is actuallymetwithintheBuddhistSuvarṇaprabhāsasūtra,where“phlegm,bile,andwindarereferredtoasthe‘triadof elements’(dhātu­tritaya)”(Scharfe1999:617).

153The Concepts of the Human Body and Disease

da only from Suśruta onwards. Patañjali’s presumable definition of disease as dhātuvaiṣamyam,ontheotherhand,doesnotdrawuponthisdistinction;itisidenticalwithoneof Caraka’sdefinitions.87Patañjali’slist of bodily constituents differs from all Āyurvedic dhātu­lists, andother enumerations and references to dhātus,inhavingsnāyu instead of medas.Similar listscanbefoundinthecontextof Suśruta’smarman­theory,inVedicandlateVedicliterature,aswellasintheMBhandinanumberof Purāṇas.Noneof theselistsstarts,however,withrasa. The enumerationof “foodessence”astheinitialitem–aswellasPatañjali’sstatementthatthebodilyconstituentsinYSIII.29arelistedinades­cendingorderof beingforeigntothebody–maybetakentoindicatePatañjali’s familiarity with a theory of food transformation. On thewhole, the system of medical knowledge with which Patañjali wasacquainted is clearly Āyurvedic, and of an early classical style. Pre­sumably it reflectstheauthor’s familiaritywithoneof themanycor­ pora of medical knowledge88thathavenotbeenpreserved,simplybe­causetheywerelongagosupersededbyother,moreauthoritativewrit­ings.

A p p e n d i xTexTuAl PAssAges RefeRRed To in TAble 3:

Epic and purāṆic body concePTs comPRising Snāyu

MBh12.177.19­20abandNārP1.42.74­75ab:jaṅgamānāṃ­ca­sarveṣāṃ­śarīre­pañca­dhātavaḥ­/­pratyekaśaḥ­prabhidyante­yaiḥ­śarīraṃ­viceṣṭate­//­tvak­ca­māṃsaṃ­tathāsthīni­majjā­snāyu­ca­pañcamam /

v.l.inNārP1.42.75b:snāyuś­ca­pañcamaḥ for snāyu­ca­pañcamam.

MBh12.180.13andNārP1.43.32:māṃsa­śoṇita­saṃghāte­medaḥ­snāyv­asthi­saṃcaye­/bhidyamāne­śarīre­tu­jīvo­naivopalabhyate //

87 If one took dhāturasakaraṇavaiṣamyamtobetheoriginalreading,theconceptof diseaseknowntoPatañjaliwouldbeevenlesssimilartothisconceptasfoundinclassicalĀyurveda. 88 The statement vividhāni­ hi­ śāstrāṇi­ bhiṣajāṃ­pracaranti­ loke­ (CSVi 8.3) clearlyattests to the fact thatatCaraka’s timequiteanumberof differentmedical corporawere current.

Philipp A. Maas154

MBh12.290.33:śukra­śoṇita­saṃghāte­majjā­snāyu­parigrahe­/sirā­śatasamākīrṇe­navadvāre­pure­’śucau­//

v.l. pāda a: śleṣmaD4.9;śuklaT,G1­3.6,M7forśukra­.

MBh12.293.16cd­17abandBrahmaP243.5cd­6ab:asthi­snāyu­ca­majjā­ca­jānīmaḥ­pitṛto­dvija­//tvaṅ­māṃsaṃ­śoṇitaṃ­caiva­mātṛjāny­api­śuśruma /

v.l. in BrahmaP 243.6a: tvaṅmāṃsaśoṇitaṃ­ceti,inpādab:anuśuśruma for api­śuśruma.

NārP1.55.101ab:snāyv­asthi­rakta­tvak­śukra­vasā­majjās­tu­dhātavaḥ /

AgniP292.39cd­40ab:yādīṃś­(i.e. the­akṣaras­ya,etc.)­ca­hṛdaye­nyasyed­

eṣāṃ­syuḥ­sapta­dhāta­vaḥ­//tvag­asṛṅ­māṃsaka­snāyu­medo­majjā­śukrāṇi­dhātavaḥ /

40abhasasurplusof twosyllables.

BhāgP11.26.21ab:tvaṅ­māṃsa­rudhira­snāyu­medo­majjāsthi­saṃhatau /

MBh12.293.31andBrahmaP243.21:tvaṅ­māṃsaṃ­rudhiraṃ­medaḥ­pittaṃ­majjāsthi­snāyu­ca­/etad­aindriyakaṃ­tāta­yad­bhavān­idam­āha­vai //

v.l. in BrahmaP 243.21d: ittham­āttha­mām­for idam­āha­vai.

GaruḍaP2.3.98:pittaṃ­śleṣmā­tathā­majjā­māṃsaṃ­vai­meda­eva­ca­/asthi­śukraṃ­tathā­snāyur­dehena­saha­dahyati //

MBh12.293.35andBrahmaP243.25:tvaṅ­māṃsaṃ­rudhiraṃ­medaḥ­pittaṃ­majjāsthi­snāyu­ca­/aṣṭau­tāny­atha­śukreṇa­jānīhi­prākṛtāni­vai //

v.l. in BrahmaP 243.25d: prākṛtena for prākṛtāni.

MBh 12.207.16:vāta­pitta­kaphān­raktaṃ­tvaṅmāṃsaṃ­snāyum­asthi­ca­/majjāṃ­caiva­sirājālais­tarpayanti­rasā­nṛṇām //

155The Concepts of the Human Body and Disease

1 . S i g l a

Bn1 Microfilmimagesof thePYŚinDevanāgarīscriptonpaper.CentralLi­brary,Baroda.Acc.No.11088,SerialNo.64(inNambiyar1942).

Bn2 Microfilmimagesof thePYŚinDevanāgarīscriptonpaper.CentralLi­brary,Baroda.Acc.No.341,SerialNo.61(inNambiyar1942).

Bś Microfilmimagesof thePYŚinŚāradāscriptonpaper.CentralLibrary,Baroda.Acc.No.1831,SerialNo.62(inNambiyar1942).

Kb N­GMPPmicrofilmimagesof thePYŚinOldBengaliscriptonpalmleaf.NationalArchives,Kathmandu.MSNo.5–2672,ReelNo.B40/2.

Kn1 N­GMPPmicrofilm images of the PYŚ inDevanāgarī script on paper.NationalArchives,Kathmandu.MSNo.61,ReelNo.A61/11.

Kn2 N­GMPPmicrofilm images of the PYŚ inDevanāgarī script on paper.NationalArchives,Kathmandu.MSNo.1­1337,ReelNo.A62­32.

Kn3 N­GMPPmicrofilm images of the PYŚ inDevanāgarī script on paper.NationalArchives,Kathmandu.MSNo.5­2669,ReelNo.A62/27.

L Digital imagesof folio109rand109vof apalm­leaf manuscriptof theYViinMalayālamscript.PanjabUniversityLibrary,Lahore.SerialNo.428(inSarup–SahaiShastri1941).

ME Madras edition of the YVi.

M2g Digital imagesof thePYŚinGranthascriptonpalmleaf.GovernmentOrientalManuscriptLibrary,Chennai.Shelf No.R1508,SerialNo.11606(inKuppuswamiSastri1938).

MyN Digital imagesof theTVai, includingthePYŚwritten in thecenterof the folios, inNandināgarī script on paper. OrientalResearch Institute,Mysore.Shelf No.C1981/b,SerialNo.35070(inMarulasiddaiah1984).

Myt1 Digitalimagesof thePYŚinTeluguscriptonpaper.OrientalResearchInstitute,Mysore.Shelf No.C204/2,SerialNo.35071(inMarulasiddaiah1984).

Myt2 Digitalimagesof theYogabhāṣya,includingtheYSwritteninthecenterof thefolios,inTeluguscriptonpaper.OrientalResearchInstitute,My­sore.Shelf No.C3214/2,SerialNo.35072(inMarulasiddaiah1984).

Myt3 Digital images of thePYŚ inTelugu script on palm leaf.OrientalRe­searchInstitute,Mysore.Shelf No.P1560/5,SerialNo.35065(inMaru­lasiddaiah1984).

Pn Digitalimagesof thePYŚinDevanāgarīscriptonpaper.JaykarLibrary,Universityof Poona.Shelf No.2742,SerialNo.1480(inMahajan1986).

Pcg Digitalimagesof thePYŚinGranthascriptonpalmleaf.ÉcoleFrançaised’Extrême­Orient,CentredePondichéry,Pondicherry.Shelf No.287.

Pvn1 Digitalimagesof thePYŚinDevanāgarīscriptonpaper.Universityof Pennsylvania,Philadelphia.No.of receipt1926.

Pvn2 Digital imagesof theTVai, includingthePYŚwritten in thecenterof the folios, in Devanāgarī script on paper. University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia.No.of receipt1923.

Philipp A. Maas156

Pvn4 Digitalimagesof thePYŚ,withcitationsfromtheTVaiincludedintherunningtext,inDevanāgarīscriptonpaper.Universityof Pennsylvania,Philadelphia.No.of receipt1930.

Tn N­GMPPmicrofilmimagesof theTVai,includingthePYŚwritteninthecenter of the folios, in Devanāgarī on paper. Trivipustakālaya, Kath­mandu.MSNo.T.81,ReelNo.T6/5.

Tjg1 Microfilm images of the PYŚ in Grantha script on palm leaf. TanjoreMahārājaSerfoji’sSarasvatīMahālLibrary,Thanjavur.SerialNo.9904(inBurnell1880)and6703(inSubrahmanyaSastri1931).

Tjg2 Microfilm images of the PYŚ in Grantha script on palm leaf. TanjoreMahārājaSerfoji’sSarasvatīMahālLibrary,Thanjavur.SerialNo.9903(inBurnell1880)and6702(inSubrahmanyaSastri1931).

Tm­ Digital imageof folio98of theYVi inMalayālamscriptonpalm leaf.OrientalResearch Institute, Thiruvananthapuram (Trivandrum). Shelf No.L662,SerialNo.14385(inBhaskaran1984).

Tvy Digital images of thePYŚ on palm leaf inMalayālam script.OrientalResearch Institute,Thiruvananthapuram (Trivandrum). Shelf No. 622.SerialNo.14371(inBhaskaran1984).

YVi Reconstruction of the basic text of the Pātañjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa(YVi)

2 . A b b r e v i a t i o n s

AgniP Agnipurāṇa:Agni­Purāṇa.­A Collection of Hindu Mythology and Tradi­tions.3vols.Ed.byRājendralālaMitra.[Bibliotheca­Indica65,1­3].Cal­cutta:TheGanes’aPress,1873­1879.Vol.1:Chapters1­114,1873.Vol.2:Chapters115­208,1876.Vol.3:Chapters269­382,1879.

AH Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā:­ Vāgbhaṭa’s­Astāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā.­TheRoman­isedTextAccompaniedbyLineandWordIndexes.Compiledanded.byRahulPeterDasandRonaldE.Emmerick.[Groningen­Oriental­Studies 13].Groningen:Forsten,1998.

Apte VamanShivaramApte,Revised­and­Enlarged­Edition­ of ­V.S.­Apte’s­The­Practical­Sanskrit­English­Dictionary.Ed.byP.K.Gode…andC.G.Karve…[etal.].3vols.Poona:PrasadPrakashan1957­1959.

AS Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha­of ­Vāhaṭa­or­Vṛddha­Vāgbhaṭa. With­the­Śaśilekhā­Sanskrit­Commentary­of ­ Indu.Prologue inSanskritandEnglishbyJyotirMitra.Ed.byShivaprasadSharma.[Banaras­Sanskrit­Series19].Varanasi:Chow­khambaSanskritSeriesOffice,2006.

BhāgP Bhāgavatapurāṇa:Bhāgavata­Purāṇa­ of ­Kṛṣṇa­Dvaipāyana­Vyāsa. With­Sanskrit­ Commentary­ Bhāvārthabodhinī­ of ­ Srīdhara­ Svāmin. Containing IntroductioninSanskritandEnglishandanAlphabeticalIndexof Vers­es.Ed.byJagdishLalShastri.Delhietc.:MotilalBanarsidass,1983.

BhelaS Bhelasaṃhitā­bhelācāryeṇa­praṇītā.Ed.byV.S.VenkatasubramaniaSastriand C.RajaRajeswara Sarma. [Central­ Council­ for­ Research­ in­ Indian­Medicine­and­Homoeopathy­Publication31].NewDelhi:SāhityaAnusan­dhānaEkakaetal.,1977.

157The Concepts of the Human Body and Disease

BHSG/D FranklinEdgerton,Buddhist­Hybrid­Sanskrit­Grammar­and­Dictionary. 2 vols.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress, 1953 [William­Dwight­Whitney­Linguistic­Series].Vol.1:Grammar. Vol. 2: Dictionary.

BrahmaP Brahmapurāṇa:­Sanskrit­Indices­and­Text­of ­the­Brahmapurāṇa. By Peter Schreiner and Renate Söhnen. [Purāṇa­ Research­ Publications 1].Wies­baden:Harrassowitz,1987.

Ci Cikitsāsthāna

CS Carakasaṃhitā:­Caraka­Saṃhitā­by­Agniveśa.­Revised­by­Caraka­and­Dṛḍha­bala.­With­the­Āyurveda­Dīpikā­Commentary­of ­Cakrapāṇidatta.­Ed.byJā­davjiTrikamjīĀcārya.[Krishnadas­Ayurveda­Series­66].Varanasi:Krish­nadasAcademy,2000(repr.of theed.Bombay1941).

GaruḍaP Garuḍapurāṇam­kṛṣṇadvaipāyana­maharṣi­śrīvedavyāsa­praṇītam.…Pañ­cānanatarkaratnenasaṃśodhitam.…Vīrasiṃhaśāstriṇā…Dhīrānanda­kāvyanidhinācapariśodhitam.Kālikātārājadhānyāmśaka1812 (=AD1890).

GiPhI ErichFrauwallner,Geschichte­ der­ indischen­Philosophie. Bd. 1: Die­Phi­losophie­des­Veda­und­des­Epos.­Der­Buddha­und­der­Jina.­Das­Samkhya­und­ das­ klassische­ Yoga­System. [Wort­ und­ Antwort 6]. Salzburg: OttoMüller,1953.

HIML GeritJanMeulenbeld,A­History­of ­Indian­Medical­Literature. 3 vols (in 5 parts).[Groningen­Oriental­Studies15].Groningen:Forsten,1999­2002.

HIPh SurendranathDasgupta,A­History­of ­Indian­Philosophy. 5 vols. Delhi etc.: MotilalBanarsidass,1991(repr.of thefirsted.Cambridge1922­1955).

LV Lalitavistara:Lalita­Vistara.Ed.byParasuramaLaksmanaVaidya.[Bud­dhist­Sanskrit­Texts1].Darbhanga:MithilaVidyapitha,1958.

MBh Mahābhārata:The­Mahābhārata.­FortheFirstTimeCriticallyed.by V.S. Sukthankar, S.K.Belvalkar et al. 20 vols.Poona:BhandarkarOrientalResearchInstitute,1933(1927)­1966.

MBhāṣya Mahābhāṣya: FranzKielhorn (ed.),The­Vyākaraṇa­Mahābhāṣya­of ­Patañ­jali.3rdEditionRevisedandFurnishedwithAdditionalReadings,Refer­ences, andSelectedCriticalNotesbyK.V.Abhyankar.Vol. 1­3.Poona:M.G.DhadphaleattheBhandarkarInstitute,Poona,1962­1972.

MS manuscript

MVI Mahāvastu:Mahāvastu­Avadānaṃ.­Le­Mahāvastu.Texte Sanscrit publiépourlepremièrfoisetaccompagnéd’introductionsetd’uncommentaireparÉmileSenart.Vol.1.Paris:Impr.nationale,1882.

MW MonierMonier­Williams, A­Sanskrit­English­Dictionary.­Etymologicallyand Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo­EuropeanLanguages.NewEd.GreatlyEnlargedandImprovedwiththeCollaborationof E.Leumann…C.Cappeler…[et.al.]Oxford:ClarendonPress,1899.

NārP Nāradīyapurāṇa:Atha­nāradīyamahāpurāṇaṃ­prārabhyate.Mumbāī:Śrī­veṅkateśvaraSṭīm­Yantrāgāra,1923.

Ni Nidānasthāna

om. omits

Philipp A. Maas158

pw OttoBöhtlingk,Sanskrit­Wörterbuch­in­kürzerer­Fassung.7vols.St.Peters­burg:KaiserlicheAkademiederWissenschaften,1879­1889.

PYŚI Pātañjalayogaśāstra,firstchapter,aseditedinMaas2006.

PYŚII­IV Pātañjalayogaśāstra,secondtofourthchapter,aseditedinPātañja­layo­gasūtrāṇi vācaspatimiśraviracitaṭīkāsameta­śrī­vyāsabhāṣyasametāni.āśra­masyapaṇḍitaiḥ saṃśodhitam…. [Ānanda­Āśrama­Sanskrit­Series 47].Puṇyapattana41978.

SK Sāṅkhyakārikāof Īśvarakṛṣṇa,seeWezler–Motegi1998

Śā Śārīrasthāna

SS Suśrutasaṃhitā.…with­the­Nibandhasaṅgraha­Commentary­of ­Dalhanāchār­ ya­ and­ the­Nyāyacandrikā­Pañjikā­ of ­ Gayadāsāchārya­ on­Nidānasthāna. Ed.byJādavjiTrikamjiĀchāryafromtheBeginningtothe9thAdhyāyaof Cikitsāsthāna and theRest byNārāyaṇRāmĀchārya. [Chaukham­ ba­Ayurvijnan­Granthamala42].Varanasi:ChaukhambaSurbharatiPra­kashan,2003(Repr.of theed.Bombay1933).

Sū Sūtrasthāna

TVai Tattvavaiśāradīof Vācaspatimiśra,seePYŚII­IV

Vi Vimānasthāna

v.l. variant reading (varia­lectio)

YD Yuktidīpikā,seeWezler–Motegi1998

YS Yogasūtra,seePYŚI­IV

YVā Yogavārttikaof Vijñānabhikṣu inPātañjalayogadarśanam vācaspa­ti­miś­ra­viracita­tattvavaiśāradī­vijñānabhikṣukṛta­yogavārtikavibhūṣita­vyāsa­bhāṣyasametam.­…śrīnārāyaṇamiśreṇaṭippaṇīpariśiṣṭādibhiḥsahasam­pāditam.Vārāṇasī:BhāratīyaVidyāPrakāśan,1971.

YVi Pātañjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa: Pātañjala­Yogasūtra­Bhāṣya­Vivaraṇa­ of ­Śaṅkara­Bhagavatpāda.­Critically ed.with Introductionby­… Polakam SriRamaSastri…andS.R.KrishnamurthiSastri…. [Madras­Govern­ment­ Oriental­ Series 94]. Madras: Government Oriental Manuscript Li­brary,1952.SeealsoHarimoto1999.

3 . L i t e r a t u r e

Allen1962 WilliamSidneyAllen,Sandhi.­TheTheoretical,Phonetic,andHistorical Bases of Word­Junction in Sanskrit. [Janua­ Lin­guarum17].’S­Gravenhage:Mouton,1962.

Bhaskaran1984 T.Bhaskaran,Alphabetical­ Index­ of ­ Sanskrit­Manuscripts­ in­the­Oriental­Research­Institute­and­Manuscript­Library,­Trivan­drum. Vol. 3:­ya­to­ṣa.[Trivandrum­Sanskrit­Series254].Trivan­drum: Oriental Research Institute and Manuscript Library,Universityof Kerala,1984.

Bronkhorst1985 JohannesBronkhorst,PatañjaliandtheYogaSūtras.Studien­zur­Indologie­und­Iranistik10(1985)191­212.

Burnell1880 ArthurCokeBurnell,A­Classified­Index­to­the­Sanskrit­Manu­

159The Concepts of the Human Body and Disease

scripts­in­the­Palace­at­Tanjore.PreparedfortheMadrasGov­ernment.London:Trübner,1880.

Das2003 Rahul PeterDas,The­Origin­ of ­ the­ Life­ of ­ a­Human­Being. ConceptionandtheFemaleAccordingtoAncientIndianMed­icalandSexologicalLiterature. [Indian­Medical­Tradition6].Delhietc.:MotilalBanarsidass,2003.

Dimitrov2002 DragomirDimitrov,Tablesof theOldBengaliScript(ontheBasisof aNepaleseManuscriptof Daṇḍin’sKāvyādarśa).In:Dragomir Dimitrov­–­UlrikeRoessler­–­RolandSteiner (ed.), Śikhisamuccayaḥ.­ Indian and Tibetan Studies (Collectanea MarpurgensiaIndologicaetTibetica).[Wiener­Studien­zur­Ti­betologie­und­Buddhismuskunde53].Wien2002,p.27­78.

Diwakar2006 DiwakarAcharya,Vācaspatimiśra’s­Tattvasamīkṣā. TheEarli­estCommentaryonMaṇḍanamiśra’sBrahmasiddhi.CriticallyEdited with an Introduction and Critical Notes. [Nepal­ Re­search­Centre­Publications25].Stuttgart:FranzSteiner,2006.

Endo1993 KoEndo,NotesontheTrivandrumManuscriptof thePātañ­jalayogaśāstravivaraṇa.Journal­of ­Indian­and­Buddhist­Stud­ies­/ Indogaku­Bukkyōgaku­Kenkyū41,2(1993)19­24[=1139­1144].

Fedorova1990 Mariana Fedorova,Die­ Marmantheorie­ in­ der­ klassischen­ in­dischen­Medizin. Ph.D. thesis, Ludwig­Maximilians­Universi­tät,München,1990.

Halbfass1991 Wilhelm Halbfass,Tradition­ and­ Reflection. Explorations inIndian Thought. New York: State University of New YorkPress,1991.

Harimoto1999 KengoHarimoto,A­Critical­Edition­of ­the­Pātañjala­yoga­śāstra­vivaraṇa.­FirstPart:Samādhipāda­with­an­Introduction. Ph.D. thesis in Asian and Middle Eastern Studies. University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia,1999.

Jambuvijaya2000 MuniJambuvijaya,Dharmacandravijayaetal.,A­Catalogue­of ­Manuscripts­ in­ the­ Jaisalmer­ Jain­ Bhandaras. / Jaisalmer­ ke­prācīn­jain­graṃthbhaṃḍāroṃ­kī­sūcī.Delhi–Jaisalmer:Moti­lalBanarsidass–ParshvanathJainShwetambarTrust,2000.

Jamison1986 StephanieW.Jamison,BrāhmaṇaSyllableCounting,VedicTvác “Skin”,andtheSanskritExpressionfortheCanonicalCreature.Indo­Iranian­Journal29(1986)161­181.

Jolly1901 Julius Jolly, Medicin. [Grundriss­ der­ indoarischen­ Philologie­und­AltertumskundeIII/10].Strassburg:Trübner,1901.

KuppuswamiSastri S.KuppuswamiSastri–P.P.SubrahmanyaSastri,­An­Alpha­ 1938 betical­Index­of ­Sanskrit­Manuscripts­in­the­Government­Oriental­

Manuscripts­ Library,­Madras. Part 1 (a­ma).Madras: Super­intendentGovernmentPress,1938.

Larson–Bhattacharya GeraldJamesLarson–RamShankarBhattacharya,Sāṃkhya. 1987 A Dualist Tradition in Indian Philosophy. [Encyclopedia­ of ­

Indian­Philosophies4].Delhietc.:MotilalBanarsidass,1987.

Philipp A. Maas160

Maas2006 PhilippAndréMaas,Samādhipāda.­DasersteKapiteldesPā­tañjalayogaśāstrazumerstenMalkritischediert /TheFirstChapterof thePātañjalayogaśāstrafortheFirstTimeCritic­ally Edited. [Studia­ Indologica­ Universitatis­ Halensis –Geis­teskultur­Indiens:­Texte­und­Studien9].Aachen:Shaker,2006.

Maas2008 PhilippAndréMaas,“DescentwithModification”:TheOpen­ingof thePātañjalayogaśāstra.In:WalterSlaje (ed.),Śāstrā­rambha.­ Inquiries into thePreamble in Sanskrit.Preface byEdwinGerow. [Abhandlungen­für­die­Kunde­des­Morgenlandes 62].Wiesbaden2008,p.97­119.

Maasforthcoming Philipp André Maas, On the Written Transmission of thePātañjalayogaśāstra.In:JohannesBronkhorst–KarinPrei­sendanz (ed.),Philosophy. [Papers­ of ­ the­ 12th­World­ Sanskrit­Conference­Helsinki,­Finnland,­200310,1)].Delhietc.:MotilalBanarsidass(inthepress).

Mahajan1986 Shantaram G. Mahajan (chief ed.),Descriptive­ Catalogue­ of ­Manuscripts­ Available­ in­ the­ Jayakar­ Library,­ University­ of ­Poona.Pune:JayakarLibrary,Universityof Poona,1986.

Majjhimanikāya The­Majjhima­Nikāya.Ed.byVilhelmTrencknerandRobertChalmers. London: The Pali Text Society et al., 1888­1889.Vol.1,ed.byV.Trenckner1888.Vol.2­3,ed.byR.Chalmers1889.

Marulasiddaiah1984 GurusiddappaMarulasiddaiah,­ Descriptive­ Catalogue­ of ­ San­skrit­ Manuscripts [in­ the­ Oriental­ Research­ Institute,­ Mysore].Vol. 10: Vyākaraṇa,­Śilpa,­Ratnaśāstra,­Kāmaśāstra,­Arthaśāstra, Sāṅkhya,­Yoga,­Pūrvamīmāmsā,­Nyāya.[Oriental­Research­In­stitute­Series 144].Mysore:OrientalResearch Institute,Uni­versityof Mysore,1984.

Müller1934 ReinholdF.G.Müller,ZuranatomischenSystematikimYajus.Archiv­für­Geschichte­der­indischen­Medizin27(1934)20­31.

Müller1935 Id.,Natur­undMedizingeschichtlichesausdemMahābhārata.Isis23,1(1935),25­53.

Nambiyar1942 RaghavanNambiyar,An­Alphabetical­List­ of ­Manuscripts­ in­the­Oriental­Institute,­Baroda.Vol.1.[Gaekwad’s­Oriental­Series 97].Baroda:OrientalInstitute,1942.

Oberlies2003 ThomasOberlies,A­Grammar­of ­Epic­Sanskrit. [Indian­Phil­ology­and­South­Asian­Studies­5].Berlin–NewYork:DeGruy­ter,2003.

Preisendanz1994 KarinPreisendanz,Studien­zu­Nyāyasūtra­III.1­mit­dem­Nyāya­tattvāloka­Vācaspatimiśras­II.Teil1­2. [Alt­­und­Neu­Indische­Studien­46].Stuttgart:FranzSteiner,1994.

Preisendanz2007 KarinPreisendanz,TheInitiationof theMedicalStudent inEarlyClassicalĀyurveda.Caraka’sTreatmentinContext.In:Birgit Kellner et al. (ed.),Pramāṇakīrtiḥ. Papers Dedicated toErnst Steinkellner on theOccasion of his 70thBirthday.Part2. [Wiener­Studien­zur­Tibetologie­und­Buddhismuskunde

161The Concepts of the Human Body and Disease

70,2].Wien:ArbeitskreisfürtibetischeundbuddhistischeStu­dien,UniversitätWien,2007,p.629­668.

Sarup–Sahai Lakshman Sarup – Bala Sahai Shastri, Catalogue­ of ­ Manu­ Shastri1941 scripts­in­the­Panjab­University­Library.Vol.2.Lahore:Univer­

sityof thePanjab,1941.Satipaṭṭhānasutta seeMajjhimanikāyaScharfe1999 HartmutScharfe,TheDoctrineof theThreeHumoursinTra­

ditionalIndianMedicineandtheAllegedAntiquityof TamilSiddha Medicine. Journal­of ­the­American­Oriental­Society119,4(1999)609­629.

Srinivasan1967 Srinivasa Ayya Srinivasan, Vācaspatimiśras­ Tattvakaumudī.­EinBeitrag zurTextkritikbeikontaminierterÜberlieferung…. [Alt­­ und­ Neu­Indische­ Studien 12]. Hamburg: Cram, deGruyter&Co.,1967.

Steiner2007 RolandSteiner,Das“dreifacheLeiden”inSāṃkhyakārikā1.In:KonradKlaus–Jens­UweHartmann (ed.), Indica­ et­Ti­betica.FestschriftfürMichaelHahn.[Wiener­Studien­zur­Tibe­tologie­und­Buddhismuskunde66].Wien:ArbeitskreisfürTibe­tischeundBuddhistischeStudien,UniversitätWien,2007,p.507­519.

SubrahmanyaSastri Palamadai Pichumani S[ubrahmanya] Sastri, A­ Descriptive 1931­ Catalogue­of ­the­Sanskrit­Manuscripts­in­the­Tanjore­Mahārāja­

Serfoji’s­ Sarasvatī­Mahāl­ Library­Tanjore. Vol. 11: Vaiśeṣika,Nyāya,Sāṅkhya&Yoga.Srirangam:SriVilasPress,1931.

Vogel1965 ClausVogel,Vāgbhaṭa’s­Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā.TheFirstSev­en Chapters of its Tibetan Version. Ed. andRendered intoEnglish …. [Abhandlungen­ für­ die­ Kunde­ des­ Morgenlandes 38,2].Mainz:DeutscheMorgenländischeGesellschaft–Wies­baden:FranzSteiner,1965.

Wezler 1984 AlbrechtWezler,OntheQuadrupleDivisionof theYogaśāstra,theCaturvyūhatvaof theCikitsāśāstraandthe“FourNobleTruths”of theBuddha(StudiesinthePātañjalayogaśāstravi­varaṇa2).Indologica­Taurinensia12(1984)289­337.

Wezler–Motegi1998 AlbrechtWezler–ShujunMotegi,Yuktidīpikā. The Most Sig­nificantCommentaryontheSāṃkhyakārikāCriticallyEdited.Vol. 1. [Alt­­ und­ Neu­Indische­ Studien 44]. Stuttgart: FranzSteiner,1998.

Woods1914 JamesHaughtonWoods,The­Yoga­System­of ­Patañjali.­OrtheAncientHinduDoctrineof Concentrationof Mind,EmbracingtheMnemonicRules,CalledYoga­Sūtras,of PatañjaliandtheComment, Called Yoga­Bhāshya, Attributed to Veda­Vyāsa,andtheExplanation,CalledTattva­Vaiçāradī,of Vāchaspati­Miçra. [Harvard­Oriental­Series17].Cambridge:HarvardUni­versityPress,1914(repr.Delhi:MotilalBanarsidass,1992).

Wujastyk2003 DominikWujastyk,The­ Roots­ of ­ Ayurveda. Selections from Sanskrit Medical Writings. Translated with an Introduction andNotes.RevisedEdition.London:PenguinBooks,2003.

Philipp A. Maas162

Yamashita1997 TsutomuYamashita,TowardsaCriticalEditionof theBhela­saṃhitā.Journal­ of ­ the­European­Āyurvedic­ Society 5 (1997)19­27.

Zimmermann1983 Francis Zimmermann, Remarks on the Conception of theBodyinAyurvedicMedicine.In:BeatrixPfleiderer–GüntherD. Sontheimer (ed.),Sources­ of ­ Illness­ and­Healing­ in­ South­Asian­ Regional­ Literatures. [South­ Asian­ Digest­ of ­ Regional­Writing8].Heidelberg1983,10­26.

Zysk1986 KennethG.Zysk,TheEvolutionof AnatomicalKnowledgeinAncientIndia,WithSpecialReferencetoCross­CulturalInflu­ences. Journal­of ­the­American­Oriental­Society106(1986)687­705.