According to Charaka the science of life (medical science) has always been in existence. In ancient India we find professional physicians called Vaidyas or bhishaks originally belonging to a class of people known as Ambashtas. Then there were wandering pedlars, mostly of tribal origin who collected herbs and drugs from forests and mountains and sold them in villages. Also priests belonging to the Vaikhanasa sect functioned as physicians. With regards to professional physicians having literary traditions, the practitioners of the Rasayana school, Siddha and Ayurveda are prominent and the origins of these medical systems go back to a very remote past.
In the system of therapeutic alchemy known as Rasavaidya or the Rasayana school, the use of metals and mercury was extensive. This tradition, normally included in the Ayurveda tradition developed almost independently of the Vedic corpus, and profited by contact with such cultures as the Arabian, the Persian and the Chinese.
The Siddha system of medicine, which obviously is outside the Vedic tradition is at present is prevalent only in south India, especially Tamilnadu.
The medical system represented by physician Charaka and by the surgeon Sushruta are collectively designated as Ayurveda or the science of life.
Charaka refers to Ayurveda as a distinct Veda which is superior to the other Vedas, while Sushruta calls Ayurveda a upanga of the Atharvaveda and Vagbhatta the elder refers it as a upaveda of the Atharvaveda. As the Vedic literature is chiefly concerned with religion and rituals, how come the science of medicine came to be connected with it and the reason behind it is examined in this article.
There is no Veda called Ayurveda
The term Ayurveda does not occur at all in any of the works of Vedic literature. Perhaps the Ashtadhyayi of Panini is the oldest work, where this word has been cited twice. The Mahabharata puts forth the term Ayurveda along with its eight-fold divisions. Hence it would be wrong to regard Ayurveda as a development of Rigveda or of Yajurveda. In fact the practitioners of medicine were considered unclean and impure by the followers of Vedic tradition and according to the Dharma Shastras, the profession of physicians was meant for the lower class. For instance the Apastamba Dharma Sutra declares that the food given by a physician, a hunter, a surgeon, unfaithful wife or a eunuch must not be eaten. Gautama Dharma Sutra asserts that a Brahmin must not accept food from an artisan, a criminal, a carpenter, a surgeon and such other persons. Vasishta Dharma Sutra says food given by a physician, a hunter, a thief, an outcast must not be eaten. Even alms, though offered without asking, must not be accepted from a physician and a surgeon. Similarly Smrtis like Manu Smrti declares that it is prohibited for members of higher castes to accept food from the physicians as the food given by them is like pus and blood.
Contempt for Ayurveda in orthodox circles
In the Rigveda except for some late songs (hymns) in this vast collection, the question of the castes and caste-privileges does not have any place. Hence in the Rigveda the twin gods, Ashvins are highly eulogised for their medical and surgical skills. An entire hymn (x.97) in the Rigveda is in praise of the healing herb or oushadhi. Among the physician deities of the Rigveda are Soma, Rudra and Varuna.
The main features of the hierarchical society assumes very clear forms in the Yajurveda and Brahmana texts where physicians come under strong condemnation. Hence we find Ashwins are degraded because of their medical past and in spite of being a Veda, the Atharvaveda is looked upon with subdued contempt. The condemnation continues throughout the legal literature from Apastamba and Gautama belonging to a few centuries before the Christian era to the late commentators of Manu like Kulluka Bhatta of the 12th -13th century A.D., wherein the lawgivers insist that the medical practice must remain restricted to those that are supposed to be base-born. Takshashila, a famous centre for the cultivation of medicine was considered an impure region by orthodox Brahmins.
The reason why Ayurveda was frowned upon by the orthodox circles was due to the fact that Ayurveda was based on scientific principles where mysticism, rituals and religion had no place. This viewpoint would have affected the powers and privileges of the priestly class whose influence over the society was through their knowledge of rituals and religion. Another reason why the art of healing was looked down upon was because Ayurveda extolled the virtues of wine and in its pharmacopoeia had both alcohol and meat for making medicines. Charaka lists as many as 170 medicines of animal origin. The Ayurvedic advice like – ‘there is no sin in eating meat, in drinking liquor or in sex indulgence which are natural inclination’ was frowned upon by the orthodox.
Necessity made Ayurveda’s acceptance into the Vedic fold
But as it was necessary and practical to accept medical aid in times of need, Ayurveda had to be accommodated within the Vedic complex and it was done after inventing a mythology to its origin and affiliating it with the Atharvaveda (as Atharavaveda also dealt with curative aspects). Apart from this the Ayurvedic texts were interpolated with religious and magical elements.
Interpolation in Ayurvedic texts
Several scholars argue that Ayurveda was scientific and that the many religious and magical elements found in the texts were either stale Vedic remnants or later Brahmanic impositions that sought to repress Ayurvedic’s revolutionary empiricism. According to Zimmermann – ‘In a tradition dominated by the Pundits, Ayurveda represents the seed of secular thought. True this secularism is almost immediately repressed, normalized and impregnated with a religious vocabulary. Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya argues that in ancient India, the only discipline that promises to be fully secular and contains clear potentials of the modern understanding of natural science is medicine and the magico-religious aspects of the texts are alien elements and later grafts. G.Jan Meulenbeld suggests that Brahminic domination is the reason that Ayurveda was unable to pursue its empirical course of modifying theories in the light of observed anomalies. According to these views, the classical Ayurveda texts consist of distinct layers: authentic Ayurveda – empirical, rational and scientific and one or more inauthentic and ill fitting religious strata. According to Steven Engler, Ayurveda did not clearly distinguish between what we would now call ‘science’ and ‘religion’. Magical and religious elements are too prominent, too intermingled with empirical passages, and too explicitly acknowledged as part of Ayurveda to allow them to be simply explained away. However, there does seem to be good reason to credit the claim that some of the religious elements of the classical Ayurvedic texts were added by parties sympathetic with Brahmanic orthodoxy.
Texts intermixed with religious and magical elements
Religious ideas are found throughout the Ayurvedic texts of Charaka and Sushruta. For instance Sushruta (ci.24.43) says -‘Devotion to the gods, Brahmanas add to one’s good name, piety, wealth, progeny and duration of life’. Charaka (Ni.7.11) says – ‘desire for inflicting injury upon the gods, cows, Brahmins and ascetics is a sign of insanity caused by gods.’ Charaka Samhita (Sa.8.34; cf.In.12.80) says Brahmins versed in Atharvaveda are to be present at childbirth and Sushruta Samhita (Su.46.141) says that mantras from Atharvaveda are to be recited before all meals in order to detoxify food. Views about the cow are very ambiguous in Ayurvedic texts. On the one hand it says cattle products (beef, milk, urine and dung) are to be taken internally for medicinal purposes. For instance Charaka Samhita (Sa.8.41) mentions that after giving birth, women should consume a paste made, in part from ‘a portion of the right ear of the untamed and alive bull cut and smashed in a stone mortar.’ On the other hand the text insists that cows should not be harmed. How can we interpret a text that holds that cows are to be both eaten and not harmed asks Steven Engler and opines that the apparent contradiction can be resolved if we accept that the religious elements are earlier survivals or later imposition.
Ayurveda rooted in Tantric tradition
According to S.K.Ramachandra Rao the Indian medical systems including the Ayurveda were rooted in the Tantric culture which at that point of time was pre-Vedic and were to a great extent influenced by the Samkhya-Yoga philosophy. We have to note that both the Charaka Samhita and Sushruta Samhita are only reconstructions and redactions of earlier tantras which have been lost. The very expression Samhita in the works ascribed to Charaka and Sushruta betrays an anxiety to fall in line with the orthodox texts belonging to the Vedic literature. Of the 1500 medical tracts listed in Aufrecht’s Catalogue, a good many are styled Tantras. Even the eight branches of classical Ayurveda were called Tantras- Shalyatantra, Agadatantra, Rasayanatantra, etc. It is not accidental that all these were called Tantras. The belongingness of Ayurveda to the tantric tradition has been consistent and Rudra, a divinity belonging to the Tantric culture was the first physician.
It is also possible that the medical wisdom and skill of the professional physician in ancient India were ultimately founded on folk tradition. The essential framework was provided by folk expertise and the details were worked out in subsequent years by observation, reasoning, experience and also experimentation.
Reference
S.K.Ramachandra Rao -Edited, Encyclopaedia of Indian Medicine, vol – I, Popular Prakashan, Bombay, 1985, pp: 2,3.
Jyotir Mitra – Development of Medical Sciences in Vedic India, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, vol-30, 1968
Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya – Science and Society in Ancient India, Research India Publications, Calcutta, 1977
Steven Engler – ‘Science vs Religion’ in Classical Ayurveda, Numen, vol – 5, No. 4, 2003
Ithihas 