Dhanwantari Nighantu

DHANWANTARINIGHANTU

DhanwantariNighantu is one of the important works on Dravyaguna. It was very popular among the scholars because it was quoted as authority by several commentators of repute like Hemadri- the commentator on AstangaHrdaya, Arunadatta, Ksirasvami the commentator on Amarakosa. Niscalakara has referred to Dhanwantari Nighantu by the name of Dravyāvali, it stood as an ideal pattern of Nighantu, which was followed by later authors in this field like Shodhala in his SodhalaNighantu, Narahari in his RajaNighantu, etc.

Initially, the Nighantus were containing only the synonyms which communicated the prevalent names, morphological characters, properties, actions of the drugs, habitat and other relevant informations. Later on properties, actions and uses were added after the synonyms. AstangaNighantu, Paryayaratnamala, Nighantusesa, Abhidhanaratnamala, Madhavadravyaguna etc., come in the first group whereasDhanwantariNighantu, SodhalaGunasangraha, MadanapalaNighantu, RajaNighantu come in the latter group.

Ongoing through the introductory verses, it becomes clear that the original work was known as Dravyāvali (द्रव्यावलि) or Dravyāvali (द्रव्यावली) and not DhanwantariNighantu because it is not mentioned in this context. Thus the Dravyāvali contained only synonyms as stated by the author at the end of the introduction. He says that the synonyms of the drugs Guducietc listed under contents (Gana- Dravyāvali) will follow in order¹ but instead description of rasa, virya, vipakaetc of the drugs after salutation to the feet of Lord Dhanwantari.²This anomaly shows that:

a)     The original text was Dravyāvalicontaining only the synonyms.

b)    Description of properties was added to it later converting into a new text known as Dhanwantari Nighantu on the basis of salutation to Dhanwantari in the beginning. Thus the existing text of the Dhanwantari Nighantu is the Dravyāvaliadded with description of properties, actions and uses of substances. The Dravyāvalitoo continued to exist in its original form. AcharyaPriyaVrata Sharma states that several manuscripts of Dravyāvaliare present in Oriental Libraries, but he could locate two such manuscripts, one in Mithila Research Institute, Dharbhanga and the other in Banaras Hindu University Library, Varanasi.

It is mentioned that the Dravyāvaliis composed by taking a portion of the ocean-like literature of Nighantu.³ This shows that Dravyāvaliis not the first Nighantu but followed a vast literature of Nighantu. However, the Dhanwantari Nighantu seems to be the first Nighantu giving synonyms as well as descriptions of properties, actions as well as uses of drugs.

The authorship of Dhanwantari Nighantu:

Though the text starts with Salutations to Dhanwantari, there is no mention of his authorship in the introductory verses. Only at the SuvarnadiVarga in Ganadravyavali there is one line which says ‘thus Dravyāvaliis read as emanated from Dhanwantari’s mouth’⁴ but this line is quite doubtful because of the below reasons.

a)     The verse is not complete; there is only a half of the anustubha meter.

b)    The line is quite detached from the context and looks unwarranted.

c)     If at all it was to be inserted, it should have come at the end of the MisrakadiVarga rather than after SuvarnadiVarga(6^th Chapter) .This shows that Dhanwantari is not connected with the authorship of this work. The word ‘Dhanwantari’ in the later period became as an epithet of great Ayurvedic scholar and it is not improbable that the word has been used here in this sence. In several manuscripts, MahendraBhogika, son of KrsnaBhogika and resident of Sthanviswara(Thaneswara), has been said as the author of this work. At this juncture, it is worth nothing that Dhanwantari is referred to as one of the nine gems of the court of Vikramarka. It is said during the reign of Vikramarka(5^th Century A.D.) there existed nine great men belonging to different fields in his court. Dhanwantari was a physician, Ksanapaka was a Jain astrologer, Amarasimha was a Buddhist lexicographer, Sanku was an architect, Vetalabhatta was a master of charms (Mantra), Ghatakarpaka was geologist, Kalidasa was a poet, Varahamihira was an astronomer and Vararuchi was a prakrita linguist.⁵ It is perhaps possible that this Dhanwantari would have written a medical work on whose basis Amarasimha prepared VanaushadhiVarga of his kosa.

Date of DhanwantariNighantu:

Dhanwantari Nighantu must have been prior to 11^th Century A.D as Manaka of Anekarthakosa(अनेकाथकोश) makes a reference to Dhanwantari. The word Nighantu is found in Ayurveda dipika of Chakrapani a well-known commentator of CharakaSamhitha. Therefore, a doubt arises whether Chakrapani’s reference is meant for the Dhanwantari Nighantu or refers to popular works of that period by Dhanwantari as Nighantukara. However, this helps to place Dhanwantari Nighantu prior to 11^th Century A.D. Indu of 13^th Century A.D., the author of Indu Nighantu which deals with medico botanical works, quotes Dhanwantari in his commentary on AstangaSangraha and AstangaHrdaya. Ksiraswami a reputed commentator of Amarakosa has quoted Dhanwantari Nighantu in his commentary on Nāmaliṅgānusāsana. The date of Ksiraswamy, fixed as 11^th Century A.D. Hence the Dhanwantari Nighantu must be earlier than Ksiraswamy, probably 10^th Century A.D. or later part or early 11^th Century A.D.

Dhanwantari Nighantu consists of a number of additional drugs not mentioned under the list of contents (GanaDravyavali) which were seemingly added later on by the author. This process of additions continued for long which gave the text a new shape quite different from the initial one – Dravyavali. Of the later added drugs Ahiphena(Opium), Jayapala(Croton) and Agnijara(Ambergrees) are important ones which emerged in Indian MateriaMedica. It may be presumed that though the text of Dhanwantari Nighantu took its shape in 10^th Century A.D., the process of addition continued till 13^th Century A.D. Hence the date of existing text may be fixed as 10^th to 13^th Century A.D.

Text of DhanwantariNighantu:

Main argument in favour of DhanwantariNighantu put forth by Ksiraswami is that, though he tried to follow the Dhanwantari Nighantu sincerely was confused in certain readings and that is why he proposed changed versions. The examples given as follows:

1.     The DhanwantariNighantu reads ‘Bālapatra’ for Yavasa and Khadira but Amarasimha mistaking it as ‘Balaputra’ made the synonym Balatanaya for Khadira. The synonym ‘Balapatra’ for Khadira has been used in other earlier Nighantu – AstangaNighantu of Vahata. The word ‘tanaya’ of the synonym Balatanaya for Khadira means off shoots from the main body of the plant such as leaves, flowers as well as fruits. In this circumstance it has been used for leaves. BhanujiDiksita says that the original reading ‘Balaputra’ might have been changed to ‘Balaputra’ due to transcriptional error. This, however, does not preclude the antecedence of the Dhanwantari Nighantu because the synonym of Balaputra is also seen in the AstangaNighantu which has been common source for all the works.

2.     The word ‘Upacitra’ is for Danti and Prsniparni but in the AmarakosaDravanti is confused with Danti and as such the synonym for the same. In AstangaNighantu the synonym, Citra and Upacitra have been used for Danti and Nagadanti respectively. In Paryayaratnamala, both the words have been used for Danti. Hence it should not be surprisimg if Amarasimha also used both these words as synonyms for Dravanti. On this ground to allege mistake on the part of the author of the Amarakosa in following Dhanwantari Nighantu is a far-fetched imagination.

3.     DhanwantariNighantu reads ‘Padmavarna’ a synonym for Puskaramula but Amarasimha confusing it as Padmaparna has given it as a synonym for the same. The word ‘Padmavarna’ is not found in synonyms of Puskaramula in the edition of DhanwantariNighantusahita Raja Nighantu of Anandashrama, Poona, 2^nd edition 1925. It may be possible that the manuscript before Ksiraswami might be having this version due to transcriptional error. ‘Padmavarna’ is not at all a fitting synonym. Padmapatra is the correct synonym denoting the size and shape of the leaves of the plant. Moreover, the synonymhas been accepted by almost all the Nighnatus.

4.     Dhanwantari Nighantu has given ‘Sitalavataka’ as a synonym for ‘Sanaparni’ but Amarasimha taken it as a compound, has split it into two words Sitala and Vataka. Again this Sitalavataka is not found in the 1925, Poona edition of the Dhanwantari Nighantu. In the Amarakosa, BhanujiDiksita has supported both the versions – Sitala, Vataka and Sitalavataka where there is no difference between these two.

5.     Dhanwantari Nighantu uses the word ‘Sevya’ for Lamajjaka and Usira, but Amarasimha confusing them as one, has mentioned both ‘Sevya’ and Amrnala as synonyms for Usira itself. There has been confusion regarding identity of Lamajjaka and Usira since long. Therefore it was but natural for Amarasimha to mention the synonyms like that.

These examples of Ksiraswami has tried to show that the text of Dhanwantari Nighantu was always before Amarasimha when he was composing Vanausadhivarga though under confusion he has changed some of the readings.

The internal evidences also do not support the view of Ksiraswami about antecedence of the DahnwantariNighantu. The contents of the DhnawantariNighantu are much more in developed state which shows its posteriority. The following examples would suffice this statement.

1.     The dravya like Jayapala, Ahiphena, Yasada etc. found enterance during medieval period are described in the Dhanwantari Nighantu but are absent in the Amarakosa. The Kankustha described in Dravyavali is absent in the Amarakosa. Had the Dravyavali and DhanwantariNighnatu been before Amarsimha he must have utilized this important material.

2.     The types of Karanja are two in ancient texts, five in Amarakosa and six in the Dhanwantari Nighantu. It shows the developed state of classification in Dhanwantari Nighantu and consequently its posteriority.

3.     Gajapippali has been said as the fruit of Cavya in DhanwantariNighantu but this fact is conspicuously absent inAmarakosa. This finding is certainly a later one which places the Dhanwantari Nighantu posterior to Amarakosa.

Thus, the Amarakosa is definitely anterior to the Dhanwantari Nighantu. It is also evident that some works of Nighantu was there before Amarasimha, on the basis of which he has been able to compile Vanaushadhivarga.

The Style and Scope:

Dhanwantari Nighantu comes under the latter group of Nighantu describing drugs and other items not only by way of synonyms but also of properties, actions and uses. The Dravyavali enumerates 373 items described in the text but as discussed earlier Dhanwantari Nighantu describes certain additional items also. The contents have been arranged systematically into seven groups as follows:

1.     Guducyadivarga – containing bitter and evacuative drugs

2.     Satapuspadivarga – containing spices.

3.     Cadanadivarga – containing mostly fragrant substances.

4.     Karaviradivarga – containing small plants and herbs.

5.     Amradivarga – containing big fruity trees.

6.     Suvarnadivarga – containing minerals and dietary substances.

7.     Misrakadivarga – it contains group of drugs and poisons.

This work was edited by Prof. P. V. Sharma and Published by ChaukhambhaOrientalia, Post Box No. 32, K. 37/109, GopalMandir Lane, Varanasi 221001, 1982.