Gayadasa

Ancient Science of Life,
Vol. No. IV. No. 1 July 1984, Pages 28-31
GAYADASA
G. J. MEULENBELD
De. Zwaan 11, Bedum 97815, Holland.
Received: March 26, 1984
Accepted: April 15, 1984
ABSTRACT: Some of the problems connected with Gayadasa and his activity as a commentator
are discussed, as well as the date to which he can be assigned
Gayadasa was the author of a commentary
(panjika)1, called Nyayacandrika2 , on the
Susrutasamhita. The humerous quotations
from it, an all the sections of the
Susrutasamhita, especially to be found in
Dalhanas commentary, prove that it
covered the whole of that text3. In spite of
its great fame it has only been partially
preserved. The Nyayacandrika on the
Nidanasthana is known in one manuscriopt4
and has been edited5. The commentary on
the Sarirasthana, still unedited can also
preserved in one unique manuscript6 , is now
being studied by Jean-Louis Ruyters, a
student of the Institute of Indian Studies of
the University of Groningen in the
Netherlands. Some authors assume that
Gayadasa also wrote a commentary on the
Carakasamhita7, but conclusive proofs have
not been adduced and not a single fragment
of it has survived. Gayadasa was one of
Dalhanas chief authorities and is profusely
quoted by him. Other sources of quotations
are
the
Vyakhyamadhukosa,
Vyakhyakusumavali,
Niscalakaras
Ratnaprabha Gopaladasas Cikitsamrta,
and Sivadasasenas commentaries. Dalhana
often quotes Gayadasa by name, but also
refers to him as Gaya8. The Nyayacandrika
is mentioned once only by name9. Apart
from these unambiguous references Dalhana
mentions a number of panjikas and two

panjikakaras. It is difficult to determine
which of these indicate gayadasa and his
commentary. In the introduction too his
commentary on the Susrutasamhita, the
Nibandhasamgraha, where Dalhana informs
us about his sources, he remarks that he
consulted the panjikakaras quoted by him
are evidently these two authors, but this is of
little avail in identifying the quotations since
. Dalhana never quotes Bhaskara by name
and only refers to the opinion of the
panjikakara10 or the two panjikarakas 11.
Moreover, the title of Bhaskaras
commentary is left unmentioned by him.
The situation is complicated by the fact that
Dalhana quotes three panjikas, the Brhat12Maha13 and Laghupanjika14. This number
can be reduced to two by assuming that the
Brihat and panjika are identical. Since
Gayadasa was Dalhanas greatest authority
it is tempting to suppose that the Brhat or
Mahapanjika is Gayadasas Nyayacandrika
and
the
Laghupanjika
Bhaskaras
commentary15, which explains why some
authors subscribed to this view16, but proofs
have not been adduced. As we have seen,
the two panjikakaras quoted by dalhana are
gayadasa and Bhaskaras, but who is the
panjikakara in the singular?. It is not
admissible to suppose, without any
evidence, that gayadasa is alluded to in this

way. On the contraty, a closer study of the
relevant passages shows that this
panjikakara is not regarded as an authority
by dalhana, who disagrees with him in half
of the cases. Since this is at variance with
Dalhanas respectful attitude
towards
gayadasa, I am in facour of the hypothesis
that the panjikakara is Bhaskara. Another
problem is raised a Candrika and
candrikakara,
quoted
by
several
commentators17. The view that this
candrikakara is Gayadasa18 and this
Candrika his Nyayacandrika or his lost
commentaty on the Carakasamhita is still
open to doubt and requires further study19.
Gayadasa does not give us any information
about himself, but P.Cordier20 already noted
that he is called an antaranga21, i.e. a courtphysician, in the colophon of the manuscript
of his commentary on the Nidanasthana of
the susrutasamhita. D. Ch. Bhattacharyya22
discovered later that Niscalakara calls him
gaudesvarantaranga srigayadasasena, which
means that he was court-physician to a king
of Bengal.
For a long time it was difficult to reach
some precision with regard to Gayadasas
date. J. Jolly23 only remarked that he some
precision with regard to gayadasas be
earlier than Dalhana (about 1200) because
the latter quotes him. A.F.R. Hoernle24
stated that he is not later than the eleventh
century and supposed Gayadasa and
Cakrapanidatta (second half of the eleventh

century) to be contemporaries. G. Haldar
assigned Gayadasa to the tenth25 or the
tenth-eleventh century26 or the opinion that
he is earlier than Cakrapanidatta27. P.V
Sharma regards him as a contemporary of
Cakrapanidatta28.
Important in narrowing the limits in which
gayadasa must have lived is the fact that
Jejjata (about 600) is quoted by him29. The
lower limit cannot be established with more
precision. The quotations from Gayadasa by
Vijayaraksita30 (about 1100) and Dalhana
(about 1200) provide us with a provisional
upper limit. D. Ch. Bhattacharyys
contention31 that Gayadasa is quoted in
Cakrapanidattas commentary on the
Carakasamhita does not carry much weight
because it is based on a reference by
Cakrapanidatta to a candrikakrt on susruta32,
and, as pointed out earlier, it remains to be
proved that this is Gayadasa33.
More light on the problem of Gayadasas
terminus and quem was shed by my study of
Brahmadeva34, in which I reached the
conclusion that Brahmadeva is posterior to
Gayadasa and anterior Cakrapanidatta. This
enables me to assign Gayadasa to the period
between Jejjata and Brahmadeva, which
means that he is earlier than Cakrapanidatta
and not a contemporary of the latter. This
conclusion
implies
that
D.
Ch.
Bhatacharyyas date of Gayadasa (about
1100)36, who reigned from 988 to 103837.
REFERENCES
1. See on the definition of a panjika;
Hemacandras Abhidhanacintamani
2.170; Yadavasarman (i.e. Vaidya
Jadavji
Trikamji
Acharya)s
upodghata (p.21) to his ed. Of the
Susrutasamhita (Bombay 1938); G
Haldar Vrddhatrayi 197)
2. An alternative title is Nayacandrika

(Yadavasarmans upodghata, p. 21,
NCC V, 312).
3. See e.g. a quotation from Gayadasa

in Dalhanas comments ad Su. U. 50.
10 cd-12ab.
4. The manuscript forms part of the
Bikaner collection. A copy of it was
acquired by P. Cordier and is now in
the collection P. Cordier of the
Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris (see
J. Filliozat. Liste des manuscripts de
la collection Palmyr Cordier
conserves
a
la
Bibliotheque
Nationale. JA 1934, Nr. 65). The
manuscript dates from the end of the
fifteenth or the beginning of the
sixteenth century (P. Cordier.
Recentes decouvertes de MSS.
Medicaux dans 1Inde, 1898-1902,
Le Museon, N.S.4, 1903, 332-333)
and is mentioned for the first time in
P.Cordiers review of J. Jollys Zur
Quellenkunde
der
indischen
Medizin: 1. Vagbhata (JA 1901, 182
and 186).
5. Susrutasamhita, ed. Jadavji Trikamji
Acharya, revised 3d ed., Bombay
1938; repr. Varanasi 1980, with Intr
by P.V. Sharma, Jaikrishnadas
Ayurveda Series.
6. The earliest publication on this an
article by J.Jolly, Zur Quellenkunde
der indischen Medizin; 3, Ein alter
Kommentar zu Susruta, ZDMG 58,
1904, 114-116. See on it also A.F.R.
hoernle, Studies in ancient Indian
medicine, I. The commentaries on
Susruta, JRAS 1906, 294-302: The
first and the two last leaves are
missing, as well as leaves 4 to 14
(both inclusive); the manuscript now
consists of 66 leaves and must have
somprised 80 leaves.
7. D. Ch. Bhattacharyya, New light on

Valdyaka liternature, IHQ 23, 1947,
141; J. Filliozat in L.Renon and J.
Filliozat, LInde Classique II, Paris
1953, 159; G. Haldar, Vrddhatrayi
47; P.V. Sharma, Ayurveda ka
Vaijnanika itihasa, Varanasi 1975,
210.
8. G. Haldar (Vrddatrayi 182 and 200)
regards Gayi, Gayisena as a
commentator on the Susrutasamhita
who differs from Gayadasa and who
lived in the eleventh-twelfth century.
Compare P.V.Sharmas Ayurveda ka
vaijnanika itihasa 212.
9. Ad Su. Su. 27, 26.
10. Ad Su. Su. 46, 162 and 468 cd-471
ab; Ni. 13. 37; Ci. 33. 33; U.3. 3-4
and 19; 5. 9ab; 6.24; 7. 6-7 ab; 10.
10; 15. 30-33 ab; 21. 34cd-36 ab; 39.
116 cd-119 ab and 127-129.
11. Ad Su. Su. 46. 130-133 (twice). 141142 and 202-203 ab.
12. Ad Su. U. I. 4 cd-8 ab (accepted as
authoritative);
Su.
45.
157
(brhallaghupanjikah; their reading is
accepted against that of Jejjata).
13. Ad. Su. Su. 45. 96 and 112.
14. See note 12.
15. A copy of Bhaskaras panjika is
recorded
in
Kavindracarys
Granthasuci, dating from 1656 (G.
Haldar, Vrddhatrayi 197; Atrideva,
Ayurveda ka brhat itihasa 200;
P.V.Sharma, Ayurveda ka vaijnanika
itihasa 210).
16. The Brhatpanjika is regarded as

Gayadasas commentary by G.
Haldar (Vrddhatrayi 197 and 201),
Atrideva (Ayurveda ka brhat itihasa
200), and P.V. Sharma (Ayurveda ka
vaijnanika itihasa 210).
21. See on this term N.N.Das Gupta, A

note on the term antaranga, Indian
Culture 1, 1934-35, 684-686.
22. IHQ 23, 1947, 154.
23. ZDMG 58, 1904, 116 (see note 6).
17. The Candrika is quoted by

Cakrapanidatta (ad. Ca. Su. 27. 129).
Niscalakara,
Gopaladasa,
Sivadasasena (in his commentaries
on Cakrapanidattas Cikitsasamgraha
and Dravyaguna), Medhadeva (in
his
commentary
on
the
Madhavadravyaguna),
and
Todarananda. The candrikakara, krt,
or
karaka
is
quoted
by
Cakrapanidatta (ad. Ca. Ci. 26, 293),
Vijayaraksita (ad Madhavanidana 2.
61 cd-65and 10. 20), Srikanthadatta
(ad madhavanidana 59, 95 and 9798), Dalhana (ad su. U. 49, 19),
Sivadasasena and Nagaratha (in his
Nidanapradipa).
18. P.V.Sharma (Ayurveda ka vaijnanika
itihasa 210) subscribes to this view.
19. A comparison of the reference to the
candrikakrt by Cakrapanidatta (ad
Ca. Ci. 26. 293) and a quotation from
Gayadasa
byVijayaraksita
(ad
Madhavanidana 2. 18-23) seems to
support the view that the Candrika is
in
this
case
gayadasas
Nyayacandrika.
Compare my
Madhavanidana 403.
20. Le Museon, N.S. 4, 1903, 333. The
term antaranga does not occur in the
colophon of the printed text.
24. JRAS 1906, 291 and 301-302 (see

note 6); see also his Osteology,
Oxford 1907, Intr. 16
25. Vrddhatrayi 47 and 52-53.
26. Vrddhatrayi 54, 197 and 201.
27. Vrddatrayi 197.
28. Ayurveda ka vaijnanika itihasa 210.
29. Ad Su. Ni. 5. 8, etc.
30. Ad Madhavanidana 2. 18-23; 9, 11,
etc.
31. IHQ 23, 1947, 154.
32. Ad Ca, Ci. 26, 293.
33. Compare note 19.
34. Some notes on Brahmadevas
activity as a commentator, Ancient
Science of Life 2, 1 (July 1982), 710.
35. IHQ 23, 1947, 154.
36. Ibidem.
37. R.C. Majumdar, History of ancient
Bengal, repr. 1974, 131/
Abbreviations
Ca
Ci
IHQ JA
JRAS NCC Ni
Su.
Su.
U.
ZDMG -
Carakasamhita
Cikitsasthana
Indian Historical Quarterly
Journal Asiatique
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
New Catalogorus Catalogorum
Nidanasthana
Susrutasamhita
Sutrasthana
Uttaratantra
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Geselischaft

Gayadasa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gayadasa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gayadasa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ancient Science of Life,

Vol. No. IV. No. 1 July 1984, Pages 28-31

Accepted: April 15, 1984

mentions a number of panjikas and two

evidence, that gayadasa is alluded to in this

Cakrapanidatta (second half of the eleventh

2. An alternative title is Nayacandrika

3. See e.g. a quotation from Gayadasa

7. D. Ch. Bhattacharyya, New light on

16. The Brhatpanjika is regarded as

21. See on this term N.N.Das Gupta, A

17. The Candrika is quoted by

24. JRAS 1906, 291 and 301-302 (see

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.