Bull.lnd.lnst.Hist.Med. Vol.XXXI-2001 pp 155 to 160

INDU AND BHAITANARAHARl- THE COMl\1ENTATORS OFAYURVEDIC CLASSICAL TREATISES

P. K. J. P. Subhaktha*

ABSTRACT

lndu who wrote a valuminous and comprehensive commentary entitled'Sa~'iLekha' on AnQIIRa Samgraha. It is the only commentary available atpresent. Later writers vastly mentioned this commentary. He wrote acommentary with the same title on A~1angCl Hrduya also.

Bhauanaralutri was another famous scholar who wrote a commentary

on As!anga Hrdaya entitled "Viigbha!ll Khan dona Maw/ana".

InduIndu, was the commentator, who wrote a commentary on Astdnga Samgraha

of vrddha vdgbhasa, which is named as 'Scl.~ilekha'. It is the only commentary availableat present. (ed.T, Rudraparashava, Trichur, kerala, 1926)3. Astdnga Samgraha is acompilation of information. explanations and prescriptions mentioned in Caraka Samhitaand Susruta Samhita. There is little that can be described as original. But the value of thework is undoubtedly great because it has neatly collected the essential details from theabove two classics.

* Assistant Research Officer (Ay), Indian Institute of History of Medicine, Osmania Medical CollegeBuilding, Putlibowli. Hyderabad, India.500 095

156 Bull.lnd.lnst. Hist. Med. Vol.XXXI-200 1

Sasileklza commentary on Astanga Samgraha is quite elaborate and erudite.

The Asidnga Samgraha of Vrddha Viigbhafa is hard to understand. So, to make it crystal

clear Indu wrote this commentary, which is like the moonlight shining The title 'Sa,silekha'

(moon's digit) is named aptly and it is interesting to note that the author's own name is

also lndu (moon). His explanation of text is in easy diction and is of great help to understand

the text clearly. It furnishes different names of plants (synonyms) and popular names at

different places'.

Indu did not furnished any biographical information about himself in his

commentary. But he offers obeisance to vagiswari at the beginning and to Girijesa.

vindyaka and Skanda at many places. This makes us to presume that he belonged to aHindu Brahmin family and staunch devotee of Siva. In his commentary lndu has used

synonyms for plants which are known only in Kashmir. So, it is generally agreed that he

may belong to Kashmir. Tradition makes him a pupil of vdgbhata but definite evidences

do not support it. His refferings to the author of the A:s'!iinga Samgralia simply as 'Master'

(Acdrva] seems a point in the same direction. More over T.Rudraparashava, in his preface

to the Trichur edition of the Astahga Samgraha (P.iv) gives the following "meditation

stanza" (Dhyana sloka), which he says is "Universally known" (Lokaprasiddha).

"Lambasmasrkatapam ambujanibhaccayadyutim vaidyakan/antevasina Indu-Jajjatamukham adhyapayantam sada /

agulphamalakancukancitadaral ak syopa vitojjvalam /kanthusthagarusaram anjitadrsam dhyaye drdham Yagbliatam/",

Which means "I steadily meditate on vdgbhata; the tassel of his beard-hair

dangling and the brightness of his complexion resembling a lotus; always instructing his

medical pupils lndu, Jejjeta et al; the splendour of his sacred thread being (but) slightly

visible; distinguished (as he is) by a spotless coat reaching down to his ankles; aloe-sap

being in his throat (and) his eyes bedaubed. Accordingly Indu andjejje[n are mentionedas his direct disciples).

Indu & Bhettanereheri - Subhaktha 157

We have one more commentator by the same name who is the author of aNighantu (lexicon of drugs ete). Nalinidas Gupta considers that Indu rather Indukara asthe father of Mddhavakara the renowned author of the Madhava nidana both weresame. But some scholars opine that they were different. Lexicographer Indu was quotedby Kseeraswami (II th century A.D.) in his commentary on Amarakosa. Accordingly.the date of this lexicographer should be placed in 10th cenetury A.D. lndukara father ofMiidhavakara should belong to 71hor 81hcentury, since Miidhavakara flourished in 8thcentury A.D.

Madhanikosa a work of 12th century is quoted by commentator lndu himself.He was quoted by Niscala kara (l3th century A.D.) and Hemadri (l3th cenetury). So,Indu can be placed in 13th century or even later. With regard to Indu's date P'V.Sharmaalso placed him in 13th century A.D. in his book entitled "vdgbhata vivecana". (PN.345-348). But in the Sasilekha Vyiikhya of Astanga Samgraha edited by T.Rudraparashavaand also by A.D.Athavale a quotation of Rajanighantu is found in Uttarasthana (43/56).Considering this. the date of Indu has to be pushed even forward.

Indu commentary on A>I(lnga Hrdaya also possess the same name 'Sdilekha'and is in a single manuscript (Mss.No.39.B.19 Dev.657. Catalogue of Sanskrit manuscriptsPart II Adyar Library. Madras.) Nothing much can be said about it till it is published".

Bhattanarahari

Bhattanarahari was another famous scholar who wrote a commentary onA:Wlnga Hrdaya of vdgbhata. He believed to be a native of Karnataka. He is alsoknown as Nrsimha Kavi', Bhaitanarahari was the son of Bhatia Sudeva and disciple ofRamakaviswara'. He is the author of 'vdgbhata Kandana Mandana' which is aimed todisprove the allegations raised by a scholar named vidyadhara against A,~!anga Hrdaya.Bhattanarahari has supported all his arguments with quotations from Caraka Samhita,Susruta Samhita etc. This work has a special distinction being the only one of its kindamong ;"yurvedic literature.

158 Bull. Ind. Inst. Hist.Med. Vol.XXXI-200 1

REFERENCES1. Claus, Vogel 1965 "Ydgbhata's A~{iinga Hrdaya Sari-mila" Pub.

by Franz Steiner GmbH, WIESBA DEN.pp. No.13 & 14.

2. Kunte, A.M. 1982 'Astiinga Hrdaya' of vdgbhata edi. by& Pt.Paradhkar Akola, Pub. by Chowkamba,

Narve, K.R.S Sanskrit series office, Varanasi. pp. No.7.

3. Ramachandra, Rao 1985 'Encyclopaedia of Indian Medicine' Vol.!Pub.by Ramdas Bhaktal, Bombay.pp. No.62, 63 & 89.

4. Srikantamurthy, K.R. 1968 "Luminaries of Indian Medicine" 1st Edn.Pub. by Author Mysore-4pp. No. 59, 60, 72.

5. -do- 1995 Asuinga Samgraha of vdgbhasa Vol-ITranslated by K.R.S.Murthy.Chowkhamba Orientalia. Varnasi.pp.No.XX, XXI.

Indu & Bhettenereneri - Subhaktha 159

ftHi~i

3"f19)CTd}:t ~ it i)thithi ~ ~ ~E~U?{1- tft.ifi.~.tft.~

31&T~q{~;r "~I~I(?H91"~~~~fulit~1 ~it31&T ~ q{ W ~ m;r itcfir 3Q<9ci>C; ~ I "~I~I<?l@" itcfirCfiT Cfi{ ~m;r m~ fcnm ~ I ~;r "~I~I<?l@I";wr ~ tr 31&T ~ IR m ~ itcfir~ ~ I

~g;Ht\t) ~ ~ 3:.ltt fj)SlmOG: fcfm;r m~ ~ IR "cnnR:~~'

~itcfir~~1