The Problem of Candraṭa
Candraṭa
Almost exactly a year ago, in a blog post of 12 September 2024, we wrote about several manuscripts of the Suśrutasaṃhitā that end with the verse,
सौश्रुते चंद्रटेनेह भिषक्टीसटसूनुना पाठशुद्धिः कृता तन्त्रे टीकाम् आलोक्य जैज्जटीं
The correction of readings (pāṭhaśuddhi) in the treatise of Suśruta was done by Candraṭa the son of the doctor Tīsaṭa, after studying the commentary of Jejjaṭa.
Eggeling, for example, characterised a manuscript with this statement as follows (Eggeling et al., 1896, p. 928a):
“Portions of the Sauśrutīya Āyurvedaśāstra in Candraṭa’s revision of the text made after Jaijjaṭa’s (Jaiyyaṭa’s) commentary. Whether the explanatory notes added above and below the text belong to Jaijjaṭa’s commentary does not appear”
Some scholars have suggested that this verse describes an actual commentary or independent work of text-criticism by Candraṭa called the Suśrutapāṭhaśuddhi (Meulenbeld, 1999, pp. 2A: 123).
The twelfth-century scholar Niścalakara, is renowned for his critical awareness of the work of many medical authors. The breadth and accuracy of his citations tells us that he had an excellent personal library.
लाक्षा कुष्ठं सर्षपाः श्रीनिकेतं रात्रिव्योषं चक्रमर्दस्य बीजम् । कृत्वैकस्थं तक्रपिष्टं प्रलेपो दद्रूषूक्तो मूलकं बीजयुक्तः ||
This corresponds almost exactly with the published vulgate text of the *Suśrutasaṃhitā* on 4.9.12 (Ācārya & Ācārya, 1938, p. 443).
The Nepalese version, however, is somewhat different in phrasing, though more or less identical in meaning:
श्रीवेष्टकुष्ठं कुटजं सर्षपा लाक्षा व्योषं प्रपुनाटस्य बीजं। तक्रेण पिष्टः सहरिद्रलेपो दद्द्रूषूक्तो मूलकाबीजयुक्तः ।
Niścalakara was exercised to point out that this recipe (in both Suśruta versions) does not contain विडङ्ग (embelia) as does the Cakradatta version of this recipe. But he also pointed out that in some places in the “version of Suśruta” the plant गुग्गुलु (Indian bdellium-tree) is read (as it is in the Cakradatta). We do not see Suśruta manuscripts with this reading. He also pointed out that all sources agree about the inclusion of buttermilk in the recipe and for this reason it should should be included, even though the Cakradatta does not mention it. The way that Niścalakara refers to “all sources” (सर्वत्र) appears to refer to the two versions of the Suśrutasaṃhitā that he is distinguishing, that of Candraṭa and the “version of Suśruta.” Thus, in twelfth century Bengal, it seems that Niścalakara was aware of two versions of the Suśrutasaṃhitā and distinguished between them in his interpretation of recipes.
We are beginning the work of examining the MSS that apparently transmit Candraṭa’s this work, but the suspicion is growing that in fact Candraṭa did not write a separate work with this title. Rather, he produced a version of the Suśrutasaṃhitā that specifically adhered to the opinions of the commentator Jejjaṭa. The manuscripts we are seeing with the verse cited above are the Suśrutasaṃhitā, not some commentary on it.
This would cast Candraṭa as a scholar who produced a new version of the whole Suśrutasaṃhitā, one that specifically accepted the readings of the earlier commentator Jejjaṭa.
The commentator Ḍalhaṇa does not mention Candraṭa’s name anywhere in his extensive commentary. He is elsewhere not shy about citing predecessors, so we deduce that he was not aware of Candraṭa’s work.
At present, this is a hypothesis, and our project members are discussing the issue and thinking of ways to test the hypothesis.
References
- Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Library of the India Office. Part V. A.: Scientific and Technical Literature1896
- A History of Indian Medical Literature1999
-
- श्रीडल्हणाचार्यविरचितया निबन्धसंग्रहाख्यव्याख्यया निदानस्थानस्य श्रीगयदासाचार्यविरचितया न्यायचन्द्रिकाख्यपञ्जिकाव्याख्यया च समुल्लसिता महर्षिणा सुश्रुतेन विरचिता सुश्रुतसंहिता1938
Enjoy Reading This Article?
Here are some more articles you might like to read next: