Vaidya P. Ram Manohar
The study of Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia in evolutionary perspective is still in its infancy. With the available data, only a thumbnail sketch can be drawn. The purpose of this write-up is to impress upon the readers the importance of such an undertaking even as some directions will be set recommending further research on the topic.
To study evolutionary trends in Ayurveda, with reference to its Pharmacopoeia, we have to trace out some important landmarks in Indian history itself. The history of India is shrouded in mystery and it is the contention of leading scholars that nothing is certain before the period of Buddha i.e. 5th Century BC. Western scholars are very critical about the attitude of Indian scholars making “extravagant claims” that Ayurveda and for that matter, Indian civilization itself, is many thousand years old. The focus of the current discussion is on indicators of dynamic growth of its Pharmacopoeia during its evolutionary history that spans an impressive period of 2000 years from even the most pessimistic viewpoint. As a principle, we will refer to the views of western historians to earmark a few major chrono-geographical landmarks, in the backdrop of which one can place the Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia.
Chrono-geographical landmarks in Indian cultural history
THE PRE-VEDIC PERIOD dating from about 2700 BC to 1500 BC. Geographically, it stretched from the Arabian Sea along the Indus river (in modern Pakistan) to as far north as the Punjab and further south up to present-day Gujarat.
THE VEDIC PERIOD from about 1500 BC to 400 BC. Geographically, it stretched from the Himalayas to various areas of North India.
THE POST VEDIC PERIOD dating from about 400 BC. It can be further subdivided into 2 phases, the shorter SAMHITA PERIOD (400 BC to 500 AD) and the longer NIGHANTU PERIOD (500 AD to 20th Century AD). The SAMHITA PERIOD has parts of Northern India as its epicentre, especially the Himalayas and Uttar Pradesh while the establishment of official Ayurvedic knowledge throughout the subcontinent characterizes the NIGHANTU PERIOD. Western historians express strong views that the SAMHITA PERIOD emerged along with the rise of Buddhism and that Buddhism played a very important role in the transformation of Vedic Medicine to Ayurveda. (The terms characterizing these periods are not standard and are used in this write up for convenience)
The above chrono-geographical landmarks serve as the background screen upon which one can project the picture of Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia as it grew and evolved over a few thousands of years. But before we attempt to do this projection, we have to clearly define what essential elements will constitute the sum and substance of an Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia. In other words, we have to define the concept of an Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia.
The concept of an Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia
The dictionary defines a Pharmacopoeia as a book with a list of drugs or the stock of drugs. Certain Nighantus only list drugs and their names e.g. Sodhala Nighantu. A Materia Medica would list the drugs and also their properties. The popular Nighantu literature in Ayurveda serves as a good illustration E.g. Dhanvantari Nighantu, Raja Nighantu. A Formulary would mean a list of formulations of these drugs with indications of their usage. The Siddhayogasangraha,a collection of tested recipes, is a good example. The Pharmacopoeia that we have visualized is a combination of a Pharmacopoeia, Materia Medica and a Formulary. Such an Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia will contain the list of drug sources and raw drugs, their properties, their formulations in various combinations, their pharmaceutical processing and also the specific indications of these formulations in various diseases.
The Drug Sources constitute Plants, Animals and Mineral substances.
The Raw Drugs constitute the whole or fractions of these Drug Sources having the potency for curing the diseases.
Properties of the Raw Drugs are described in technical language revealing the effect of these raw drugs on the biological system singly or in combinations.
Formulations are calculated combinations and pharmaceutical processing of one or more raw drugs with the view to effect a balanced curative action in the biological system without producing side effects. Sometimes, single drugs are used after processing, but without combining with other drugs.
Indications of these formulations are given in terms of specific nosological entities described and defined in technical language on the basis of certain epistemological premises. Ayurveda has a sophisticated system of nosology (nomenclature and classification of diseases) in which diseases have been named and classified under 20 to 25 major headings.
Tools to study Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia in evolutionary perspective
To study Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia in evolutionary perspective, we propose the following markers as useful tools.
Changes in Ayurvedic Nosology
Constant revisions and changes in Ayurvedic nosology reflect an alert and dynamic state of Ayurvedic knowledge which promptly identifies and documents emergence of new diseases even as it searches for new medicines to cure them.
Changes in Drug Sources and Raw Drugs
Addition and deletion, nomenclatural changes, recognition of varieties and acceptance of substitutes of drug sources and raw drugs will serve as useful markers to understand and evaluate the growth of Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia against various chrono-geographical reference points.
Changes in understanding of Drug Properties
Expansion in understanding of properties and clinical applications of drug sources and raw drugs will also enable us to detect evolutionary trends in Ayurveda.
Changes in Drug Formulations
Formulation of raw drugs into new recipes in accordance with the peculiar needs of specific chrono-geographical contexts serve as another useful marker to understand the dynamic process underlying the evolution of Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia.
One of the most important factors which operate behind the above 2 trends in the growth of Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia is the changing pattern of disease occurrence in human society at different chrono-geographical landmarks.
The other important factor which stimulates the revision of the Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia is the non-availability of drug sources. The problem surfaced prominently with the spread of Ayurvedic knowledge to various parts of the Indian sub-continent. It can be generalized that changing pattern of disease occurrence and non-availability of drug sources with specific reference to the spread of Ayurvedic knowledge over wider geographical zones are important factors which underlie the dynamics involved in the evolutionary growth of Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia.
It is interesting to note that attempts were also made to refine already known remedies and there was also the search for more efficacious remedies, which served as another impetus for the evolution of Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia. In the classical texts, very often one encounters the usage “atah siddhatamaan yogaan shrunu” i.e. the best amongst the known formulations will be enumerated for management of the disease. This clearly points out that attempts were constantly made to discover better remedies even for diseases with known cures. In other words, the carriers of Ayurveda were engaged in a perpetual quest for excellence and did not sit complacently even in the absence of challenges posed by non-availability of drugs or the emergence of new diseases.
Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia in the Vedic Period
Though written documents are available on Indian Medicine in this period, they are interspersed in the body of Vedic literature, esp. in the Atharva Veda and then in the Rig Veda. Vedic life reflects an impressive reverence for plants and also a profound understanding of plant life especially with regard to their medicinal uses.
If the seeds of Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia were sown in the Pre-Vedic period, it can be said that they sprouted in the Vedic period. Recently, certain western scholars are strongly raising the viewpoint that there are glaring differences in the theoretical framework of Vedic Medicine and Ayurveda. But they would still accept that the roots of Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia could be traced to Vedic or even the Pre-Vedic Period in Indian history.
Nosology in the Vedic Period
Some of the well recognized nosological entities found in Vedic literature are 1) Hrddyota (Chest pain), 2) Hariman (Jaundice), 3) Balasa (Swelling), 4) Yakshma (Tuberculosis), 5) Jayanya (Venereal disease?), 6) Kshetriya (Genetic disease?), 7) Rapas (Poison), 8) Takman (fevers), 9) Kasa (Cough), 10) Ameeva (Malnutrition), 11) Vishkandha (Tetanus), 12) Unmaada (Insanity), 13) Krimi ((Worms), 14) Asthicinna (fractures), 15) Arus (wounds), 16) Asraava (Oozing wounds), 17) Kilasa (Leucoderma),
18) Grahi (Seizures), 19) Apachi (Rash with pustules). Many of these Vedic terms are still ill-understood and the translations can be considered as only tentative. Some of the names of diseases have been retained in the Post-Vedic period while new nomenclature has emerged for others.
Hariman or Jaundice is treated more as a symptom than a disease in the Vedic Period, but it is treated as an independent disease in Ayurveda. Diseases like Jaayanya and Kshetriya are ill-understood and we cannot make any definite statement about their identity in Ayurvedic literature.
Drugs in the Vedic Period
Prof. P.V. Sharma has enumerated the plants mentioned in Vedic literature. He stimulates about 67 plants in Rig Veda, about 82 plants in Yajur Veda, about 289 in the Atharva Veda, about 129 in the Brahmana Literature and about 31 in the Upanishads.
Many of the Vedic plants have not been satisfactorily identified. The names of many plants have undergone changes in the Ayurvedic literature and the names of many plants have continued to be in usage. The plant known as Amamri in Vedic literature became popular as Amrta and Guduchi (Tinospora cordifolia) in Ayurveda, Trshta as sarapunkha (Tephrosia purpurea), Nyastika as Shankhapushpi (Convolvulus pluricaulis), Nitatni as Kaakamachi (Solanum melongena) and Aavaya as Sarshapa (Brassica campestris).
Drugs Properties in the Vedic Period
Clear concepts of drug action are not seen in Vedic literature. Yet, there was an appreciation of certain general actions of drugs which leads to cure of disease. Prof. P.V. Sharma enumerates about 26 types of drug actions found in Vedic literature like Mutrajanana (diuretic) Vajeekarana (Aphrodisiac), Vishaghna (Alexipharmic), Deepana (Carminative) and so on. Some actions like Vasheekarana and Kriyaadooshani are not seen in later Ayurvedic literature.
Formulations in the Vedic Period
Although drugs were used in the Vedic period, their applications in medicine were based on a magico-religious perspective. In many instances, the drugs were not actually administered to the patient. In the management of Yakshma, many herbs are used. But these herbs are only held in the hands of healer and stroked or waved over the patient. On many occasions, plants are used as Amulets. It is said that the scent of the burning guggulu (Commiphora Mukul) plant can cure diseases. Some plants are applied as ointments or poultices.
An arrow-like reed was used as a catheter to liberate the obstructed flow of urine. But some scholars opine that the reed may not have been used physically as it is practically difficult to do so. The entire concept must have been symbolic. Others opine that it may have been actually used. Whatever the truth, the fact is that Vedic Medicine was predominantly based on Mantras, amulets and Charms and Formulations in the strict sense of the term are not seen in Vedic literature.
The plant Nyastika, later popular as Sankhapushpi is attributed with medhya property i.e., enhancement of mental functions. Sankhapushpi is used for the same purpose in Ayurveda but after thoughtful formulation and pharmaceutical processing.
Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia in the Post Vedic Period
As already pointed out, the Post Vedic Period marks the emergence of a distinct Indian medical tradition with independent literature in the name of Ayurveda. The seed of Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia which was sown in the Pre-Vedic Period and which sprouted in the Vedic Period grew into a big tree and the growth has continued unabated up to contemporary times, though the tree has been flowerless, fruitless and even leafless at times.
The Post Vedic period we know consists of the Samhita Period and the Nighantu Period. Let us look at the Samhita Period first. During the Samhita Period, the tree of Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia grew but was surrounded by other vegetation of Ayurvedic knowledge. It was still confined within the body of the main treatises and did not emerge independently. During the Nighantu Period, this tree began to grow independently, as is evidenced by independent literature dealing with Pharmacopoeia.
Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia in Samhita Period
During the Samhita Period which lasted for nearly 800 years, the major works of Ayurveda were composed. Unfortunately, many of them are not available today. Amongst the available works, few are incomplete like Bhela Samhita and the Kashyapa Samhita. It is not possible to look at these works now. We will build up our arguments based on the Charaka Samhita, Sushruta Samhita, Ashtanga Sangraha and the Ashtanga Hrdayam. Though these works are available in complete form, the Charaka Samhita and the Sushruta Samhita have undergone major revisions at least twice and represent a time span which extends from 300 BC to 400 AD. Astanga Sangraha and Astanga Hrdayam emerged between 500 AD and 600 AD. It is convenient to consider Charaka Samhita and Sushruta Samhita as belonging to the Early Samhita Period and the Ashtanga Sangraha and Ashtanga Hrdayam as belonging to the Late Samhita Period.
The Early Santhita Period
As we study, the Charaka samhita and the Sushruta Samhita, we find that the 3 chronological layers (i.e., the time of original composition, the time of redaction and the time of filling missing portions in these texts) are very difficult to discern. So the static picture that will be generated by a superficial analysis can be misleading and will hide an inherent dynamic nature for want of sufficient tools to conduct critical literary research. The Plants Kumkuma and Japapushpa, for instance, are found only in the portions of the Charaka Samhita filled in by Drdhabala.
Another problem is that the natural resources used in medicine mentioned in these Samhitas have not been organized into a full-fledged pharmacopoeia to date. An Ayurvedic scholar in Katmandu has discovered a Nighantu named Soushruti. It is believed to be a kind of appendix to the drug names mentioned in the Sushruta Samhita, but has not yet been published. No such work has been discovered for the Charaka Samhita.
The major hurdle which one has to confront while studying these Samhitas is the synonym of drug names. Each drug source is referred to by more than one name and authorities do not have unanimous opinions on the matter. About 1270 plant names are mentioned in the Sushruta Samhita and about 1100 in the Charaka Samhita. Scholars have not yet fixed the number of individual plant species that these names represent. The estimated range from 250 to 800. Dr. K.H. Krishnamurthy gives the highest estimate of 793 individual plants represented by 1270 plant names in the Sushruta Samhita. The number of citations of these plant names counts up to 9584 in the Sushruta Samhita and 12,301 in the Charaka Samhita.
More literary research is required to generate a systematic pharmacopoeia of natural resources used in Charaka Samhita and the Sushruta Samhita. Foundational steps to achieve this task would be: 1) the grouping of synonymous names on the basis of rigorous criteria, 2) systematic organization of data pertaining to these names and 3) comparison of morphological and clinical properties profile generated by the study of compiled data vis-à-vis specimens used in order to fix the botanical identity.
These natural resources which serve as drug sources have been formulated into specialized recipes which are indicated in a range of more or less clearly defined nosological entities classified under 20 to 25 broad headings. Specific pharmaceutical processes have also been mentioned for these recipes. Just as drug source names need to be grouped after fixing their synonymy, a meticulous enumeration of formulations mentioned in these texts should be undertaken to highlight the recipes common to both the works.
Keeping the above facts in mind, we will attempt to create a sketch of the Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia as it appears during the early Samhita Period.
Nosology in the Early Samhita Period
The nosology in the Charaka Samhita and Sushruta Samhita differ mainly because of the former deals with general medicine and the latter with the surgery. Ayurvedic Nosology is characterized by the sequential arrangement of diseases revealing their causal links, which is more important from the point of view of general medicine. For instance, Jvara is followed by Raktapitta, which is followed by Gulma. This means Raktapitta can develop from Jvara and Gulma can develop from Raktapitta and so on. In the Charaka Samhita, we have this kind of a unique sequential arrangement, typing and classification of diseases. The Sushruta Samhita does not appear to emphasize on the sequential arrangement of disease entities. In the space of 30 chapters, the Charaka Samhita classifies and enumerates 100 and odd disease entities under 28 clear nosological entities in Ayurveda. The diseases mentioned in the Sushruta Samhita are more or less the same as Charaka Samhita, but greater attention is paid to surgical conditions. Ophthalmology, Dentistry and ENT are dealt with greater detail in the Sushruta Samhita. While Sushruta emphasizes on 107 vital parts (marmas) important in surgery, Charaka discusses only the three vital internal organs (trimarmaas) important from the viewpoint of general medicine. The most important characteristic of Ayurvedic Nosology is the dosha-dhaatu-mala concept which gives it an empirico-rational nature which is not seen developed in the Vedic Period.
Drugs in the early Samhita Period
The estimate of the plant drug sources used in this period ranges from 250 to 800. The identity of many of these plants is disputed so much so that there are 1) Totally unidentified plants, e.g. Karttariya of Sushruta Samhita 2) problematic plants E.g. Soma which is correlated to many botanical identities like Sarcostemma brevistigrma, Ephedra vulgaris and 3) properly identified plants E.g. Agastya which is identified as Sesbania grandiflora.
Some plants are unique to the Charaka Samhita and some others unique to the Sushruta Samhita. Some are common to both. It is beyond the scope of this write up to give an elaborate enumeration. Many of the Vedic drug sources fell into the disuse E.g. Kiri, Kukusa. Some continued to be in use E.g. Khadira, Jeevanti. Many new drug sources were discovered and introduced and list doubled E.g. Agastya.
Drug properties in the early Samhita Period
The rational approach advocated by Ayurveda necessitated this development of a theoretical framework to understand drug actions. In the Charaka Samhita and the Sushruta Samhita, we find the systematic exposition of the Rasa-Guna-Virya-Vipaka Siddhanta. But for the difference in opinion regarding Vipaka, the concepts of both Charaka and Sushruta are more or less identical. Perhaps the most important development in this period was elaborate methods of pharmaceutical processing and the actual internal administration of drugs which was not prevalent in the Vedic Period. Many kalpanas or processes like Panchakashaya Kalpana, Arishta Kalpana, Ghrta Kalpana, Taila Kalpana etc., emerged.
Formulations in the early Samhita Period
Drugs were used mostly in combinations to prevent side effects and ensure a balanced action. The exact numbers of formulations mentioned in the 2 Samhitas have not yet been fixed. They may range between 2000 to 3000. Some formulations are common to both the Samhitas while some are unique to each text. For instance, the formulation Agastya Rasayana is in both the Samhitas while Mahamayura Ghrta is mentioned only in Charaka Samhita and Gandha Tailam only in the Sushruta Samhita.
The Late Samhita Period
The late Samhita Period represented by the works of Vagbhata viz., Ashtanga Sangraha and Ashtanga Hrdayam marks the instance of first major revisions made in the Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia. Though the studies are not complete, we will try to present some sample data.
Nosology in the late Samhita Period
Vagbhata has synthesized the views of Charaka and Sushruta and created changes in accordance with the need of the times. Though he has utilized the nosology of both Charaka and Sushruta, Vagbhata arranges the diseases in a sequential order which differs from the one seen in the Charaka Samhita. For instance, after jvara and Raktapitta, he places Kasa and Svasa instead of Gulma. Urustambha, which is dealt with separately in the Charaka Samhita is included within the scope of Vatavyadhis. Otherwise, we get a nosology in the late Samhita period that synthesizes the views of the medical and surgical schools of Ayurveda.
Drugsin the late Samhita Period
In this period, many drugs were discarded from the Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia and the divine drugs serve as a good illustration. New names were introduced for many plants. New plants were also incorporated. Perhaps substitution also started on a small scale during this period. The number of drug names in the Ashtanga Hrdayam is about 1150; less than that found in the Sushruta Samhita and more than that in the Charaka Samhita. However, the total number of references to usage of medicinal plants is almost the same as that of the Sushruta Samhita i.e. 9887. The number of drug names found in Ashtanga Sangraha is same as in Ashtanga Hrdayam. Yet, the maximum number of references to the usage of medicinal plants is found in this work, i.e.,17,898.
Drug Properties in the late Samhita Period
The basic concepts of drug action and pharmaceutical processing remained the same. But this period marks an expansion in understanding drug actions and the drugs mentioned in the Samhitas of Charaka and Sushruta is seen applied more elaborately.
Formulations in the late Samhita Period
Just as in the case of nosology, Vagbhata synthesizes the formulations mentioned by both Charaka and Sushruta. In the process, he discarded some formulations and made some additions too. E.g. Drakshadi Kashaya is a new formulation by Vagbhata Gandha Tailam has been taken from the Sushruta Samhita and Mahamayura Ghrta has been taken from the Charaka Samhita.
Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia in the Nighantu Period
Finally, we come to the last but long phase in the evolutionary history of Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia. This period marks the independent emergence of Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia with specific literature. The tree of Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia finally comes to light and stands out conspicuously among the vegetation representing other branches of Ayurvedic knowledge. This period can be further subdivided into various chrono-geographical landmarks. But such an elaborate description would be beyond the scope of this article.
Nosology in the Nighantu Period
Major revisions were made in Ayurvedic nosology for the first time in Madhava Nidana (8th Cent. AD). Amlapitta, Amavata, Medoroga, Sitapitta, Masurika and Yonikanda are some of the new diseases enumerated in this work. Vrndas Siddhayoga (9th Cent. AD) enumerate new nosological entities like Snayuka and Vardhma. Vangasena’s Chikitsa Sarasangraha (11th Cent. AD) introduces Somaroga, Mutratisara Paschattaka and Sayyamutrana, Sarangadhara Samhita (13th Cent. AD) gives a novel system of nosology enumerating diseases like Jaratipittabhavasula, Pratyanaha and Andavrddhi.
Damodara’s Arogyachintamani and Kalidasa’s Vaidyamanorama (14th Cent. AD) highlights the diseases called Astishrava for the first time. In the Bhavaprakasa of Bhavamishra (16th Cent. AD), Phirangaroga and sitala are enumerated. In the Vaidya vinoda samhita (17th Cent. AD), a disease by name Munnatakhyaroga is seen.
In the Harita Samhita, Amadosha has been divided into many types not seen in other literature. Narayana Pandita’s Jvaranirnaya enumerates many types of Sannipatajvaras not mentioned in the Samhitas. Arogya raksha kalpadruma and Chikitsamanjari, used by Vaidyas of Kerala, contain new nosological entities. New types of Visarpa and Apasmara have been enumerated and defined here.
Even as diseases were added, some diseases were also discarded in the later literature. Phakka (Kashyapa Samhita), Batalika (Bhela Samhita) and Batalika (Charaka Samhita) are examples of nosological entities which are not seen mentioned in the Nighantu Period.
Drugs in the Nighantu Period
The Nighantu Period is characterized by profuse addition of new names for drugs even as some old names were discarded, the introduction of new drugs, discarding of old drugs, merging of drug identities, the introduction of substitutes, identification of varieties and in recent times, by adulteration.
Increase in the nomenclature of drugs: In the Nighantu Period, names for drugs increased by geometrical proportions. The plant Guduchi, for instance, is referred to with only a few names in Samhitas. At least forty names are seen in the Nighantus. In the case of Shatavari, another plant, the few names increased to more than a hundred. Few names have been discarded. But the general trend has been to add more names. A typical example of a drug becoming popular by a new name is Tulasi, which was known as Surasa in the Samhitas.
Introduction of new drugs: Akarakarabha (Anacyclus pyrethrum), Ahiphena (Papaver somniferum), Kupeelu( Strychnos nux vomica), Kumari (Aloe vera), Kulinjana (Alpinia galanga), Kumkuma (Crocus sativus), Chandrashoora (Lepidium sativum), Chopachini (Smilax sp.), Chauhara, Jayapala (Croton tigliurn) Tamakhu (Nicotiana tobacum), Dhoomapatra(Aristolochia bracteata), Parasikayavani, Babbula (Acacia Arabica), Mastagi, Mayaphala (Querenus infectoria), Bhanga (Cannabis sativa), Sanaya (Cassia senna), Sindoori (Bixa orellana) etc are examples of plant drugs which were introduced in the Nighantu Period.
Discarding of old drugs: The so-called divine drugs esp. Soma and its varieties mentioned in the Sushruta Samhita are typical examples of discarded drugs. Prof P.V. Sharma points out the strange case of Tuvaraka. Though it is mentioned in the Sushruta Samhita, it is not found in Charaka Samhita or even in the Nighantus, it came back into Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia in recent times through the Ayurveda Vijnana in which it is known as Kushtavairee.
Merging of drug identities: A very interesting phenomenon that has occurred during the Nighantu Period is the merging of drug identities. As pointed out by Prof Meulenbeld, names, which indicated different plant drugs earlier, began to denote the same drug later on. Examples are arjuna-kakubha, aralu-syonaka, tilvaka-lodhra, klitaka-madhuyasti, gundra-eraka, chavya-gajapippali. Turushka-silhaka, kusa-darbha.
Introduction of substitutes: The introductions of many new plants go unnoticed because they have been incorporated as substitutes for plants whose identity had become obscure. Shankhapushpi is a typical case. Name of the plants used in the name of Shankhapushpi match with the morphological description of the plant given in Sushruta Samhita. Plants like Strobilanthes ciliata, Barleria prionitis etc have been introduced as substitutes for sahachara. In other cases, plants, which are used as substitutes have a separate identity. Thus, Musta is to be used in the absence of Ativisha in certain situations. The most popular drugs, which were substituted, are the members of the Ashtavarga Mahameda, Kakoli, Kshirakakoli, Rddhi, Vrddhi, Jivaka and Rshabhaka.
Identification of varieties: Many new plants introduced into Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia go unnoticed because they have been accepted as varieties of already known plants. Thus, Wedelia calendulaceae has been introduced as Pita Bhringaraja or yellow variety of Eclipta alba. In another instance, Geophylla repens coming under the family Rubiaceae has been introduced as Krishnamandukaprni, the black variety of Mandukaparni which is Centella asiatica belonging to the family Umbelliferae. In other cases, other species of the same genus have been introduced as varieties. Various species of the genus Sida were introduced during the Nighantu Period as various types of Bala (Sida cordifolia). A most interesting situation is encountered in the case of Vishnukranta viz., Evolvulus alsinioides. It was earlier known as the blue variety of Shakhapushpi but later got a separate identity in the name of Vishnukranta.
Adulteration: In modern times, confusion regarding the identity of drugs coupled with the scarcity of especially the plant drugs has led to increasing adulteration. Without recognizing this phenomenon, wrong identification of Ayurvedic drugs is taking place.
At the turn of the 10th Century AD, a most fascinating development took place in the field of Ayurveda. Mineral substances were introduced profusely into Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia to the effect that compounding medicines from these substances developed into a separate branch called Rasashastra, which almost attained the status of a separate medical system. Towards the late Nighantu Period, the mineralo-metallic preparations were absorbed into the main framework of Ayurveda. Throughout the country today, the majority of Ayurvedic Physicians use mineralo-metallic preparations in their practice. To build up a complete picture of the evolutionary history of Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia, it is imperative that one studies the evolution of Rasashastra in 3 stages.
1) The introduction of mineralo-metallic substances into Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia. This trend is detectable in the late Samhita Period in the Ashtanga Sangraha and Ashtanga Hrdayam. Mercury is seen mentioned here and also in the portion of Sushruta Samhita redacted by Nagarjuna.
2) Evolution of mineralo-metallic substances into a separate discipline called Rasashastra. This started from the 11th Century onwards and books like Rasa tarangini, Rasa ratnasamucchaya, Rasa kamadhenu etc. deal exclusively with Rasashastra.
3) Absorption of mineralo-metallic preparations into main streams of Ayurveda. Text books on Ayurveda towards the tail end of the Nighantu Period contain both herbal preparations and a larger number of mineralo-metallic preparations which were created during the development of Rasashastra. In the Sarangadhara Samhita itself, we can see the beginning of this trend that continued further in works like Yoga ratnakara, Gada nigraha and Vangasena Samhita.
Drug properties in the Nighantu Period
The theoretical framework for studying drug action was formulated during the early Samhita Period. Some differences in opinion prevailed between the views expressed in the Charaka and Sushruta Samhita. Vagbhata accepted the views of Charaka, which became established towards the end of the Samhita Period. In the Nighantu Period, the views of Sushruta were strongly revived by Bhadanta Nagarjuna in his classical work called Rasavaiseshika Sutra, which expounds the Ayurvedic approach to pharmacology in great detail. The Nighantu Period is characterized by the emergence of independent literature on Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia, which are of the following types.
1) Kosas in which drugs are listed by synonymous names. E.g. Shiva Kosa.
2) Nighantus are similar to Kosas in which only drug synonyms are given E.g. Paryaya Ratnamala. Nighantus in whichdrug properties are listed without giving synonyms E.g. Madhava dravyaguna. Nighantus in which drug synonyms and drug properties are listed together E.g. Dhanvantari Nighantu. The first Nighantu was based on the drug names mentioned in the Ashtanga Hrdayam and was known as the Ashtanga Nighantu.
Knowledge regarding properties and actions of the drugs expanded during this period. We see
1) New properties and actions ascribed to drugs. E.g. Krimighna action is ascribed to Shankhapushpi for the first time in Ashtanga Sangraha, which becomes established in the Nighantu Period. Application of Tamalaki in Jaundice is noted only in the Yogaratnakara during the Nighantu Period.
2) Old insights on drug actions fading into oblivion. E.g. Tamalaki is recommended for management of Kasa and Svasa in Samhitas, but this emphasis is not so marked in the later period. In many cases, there is an expansion in clinical applications without a difference in view of drug properties. In some cases, there is a difference in view of regarding properties as well as applications. E.g. In Nighantus, there are differences in opinion amongst various authorities regarding the properties profile of plant drugs like Dronapushpi.
Knowledge regarding Pharmaceutical processing also underwent evolutionary changes during the Nighantu Period. New Pharmaceutical forms of medicine like Arka came on the scene during this period, not to speak of the many new forms which emerged through Rasasastra like Bhasmas and Sindhuras. The Sarangadhara Samhita devotes itself to a detailed discussion on pharmaceutical processing. The commentary on Chakradatta by Nischalakara known as Ratnaprabha also contains some new insights regarding this subject.
Formulations in the Nighantu Period
It goes without saying that many new formulations were incorporated into the Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia during Nighantu Period. The trends can be summarized as follows.
1) Continued usage of formulations mentioned in earlier texts
2) Discarding formulations mentioned in earlier texts and
3) Introduction of new formulations not mentioned in earlier texts.
Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia in the 20th Century
In the modern period, changes in Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia have been determined mainly by the influence exerted on Ayurveda as a result of its interaction with conventional medical science. While it is an indisputable fact that changes have occurred in Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia, it is a topic of debate whether such changes indicate an evolution in the sense we can appreciate the phenomenon up to the end of the Nighantu Period. Interaction with conventional medical science has triggered a conceptual crisis within the Ayurvedic community. On the one hand, we see the struggle of Ayurveda trying to maintain its identity by judiciously absorbing from conventional medical sciences. On the other hand, we also see Ayurveda giving itself away as a repository of ideas to nourish and enrich conventional medical science especially in the area of drug development in many cases. The purpose of systematically organizing the Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia is only to make it more accessible to search for first clues or leads to develop modern medicines.
Nosology in the Modern Period
In the area of nosology, for instance, new diseases are introduced by simply translating conventional medical terms into Sanskrit. There is no attempt to understand the new disease in terms of Ayurvedic concepts. Such trends are seen in works like Bhaisajyaratnavali of Govindadasa and Siddhanta Nidana of Gananatha Sen. This can be accepted as an indicator of change, but not of evolution in the positive sense. A really original work on Ayurvedic nosology is yet to emerge in our times.
Drugs in the Modern Period
It is heartening to note that the process of introducing new drugs has constituted into recent times. Authorities like P.V. Sharma in his work Dravyaguna Vignana Vol. 2 and Bapalal Vaidya in his work Nighantu Adarsha have included many new plant drugs in their works. E.g. Olate Kambal (Abroma augusta) and Parnayavani (Coleus aromaticus) are examples of newly introduced drugs. But the discarding of old drugs is obscure. The original sources of many drugs which are being used nowadays are not available and they are being adulterated or indiscriminately being substituted. This usually happens when popular formulations are used.
Drug properties in the Modern Period
Though the attempt to understand drug properties on the basis of Ayurvedic parameter continues, there is a strong tendency to do so on the basis of the parameters of conventional medical science wherever drugs are described in Ayurvedic terms, the criteria adopted to do so is not well defined. This is another area where we have to clearly distinguish between change and evolution. Literature recording the properties of drugs has also undergone modifications. Western-style of writing is being adopted nowadays. E.g. Nighantu Adarsh by Bapalal Vaidya and Dravyaguna Vijnana by Prof. P.V. Sharma. But Prof. P.V. Sharma has also composed works in the Nighantu style like the Priya Nighantu. Pharmaceutical preparations have also undergone changes which we cannot be sure are indications of evolutions. In many cases, it represents the imitation of conventional medical science. Syrups, capsules, and injections are the examples
Drug Formulations in the Modern Period
In the area of formulations, new trends have developed. Yet the usage of classical preparations continues to prevail. The new formulations which are emerging now are not formulated on the basis of classical principles. Known as patent medicines, this class of Ayurvedic formulations has emerged as the result of an attempt to imitate the modern pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceutical establishments through a network of medical representatives market patent formulations. However, strict standards and regulations are not enforced for the development of these patent medicines in Ayurveda.
Another trend which has developed is to evaluate Ayurvedic drugs on the parameters of modern pharmacology. This type of study is done only on single drugs and not on combinations. The chemical profile of the drug is generated first and then the pharmacologically active compounds or molecules are isolated. Very often such studies lead to the conversion of Ayurvedic herbal drugs into modern chemical drugs. Again, we have to think whether this is change or evolution.
Conclusion
An attempt has been made in this write up to trace the evolution of Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia from the Pre Vedic Period up to Modern Period. Partly due to constraints of space and partly due to lack of well-organized data only a hazy picture could be generated. It was seen that the growth and evolution of Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia could be compared to the sowing of the seed (Pre-Vedic Period) its germination (Vedic Period), its growth in the shade of other vegetation (Samhita Period) and finally its development into an independent full-grown tree (Nighantu Period). Some indicators were provided and directions for further study pointed out. In the Modern Period, we are witnessing changes in Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia which we are not sure to indicate an evolution in a healthy sense. Sometimes Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia is being organized only for the sake of ransacking it to get leads for the development of modern drugs. This can be compared to the felling and cutting of the tree of Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia to use the wood as raw material for new construction. At other times, Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia is changing on the model of conventional medical science. This can be compared to the creation of a hybrid variety from the tree of Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia. We do not know now whether such a change is desirable.
A true evolution of Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia in modern times can be confirmed only when it changes on the basis of its own fundamental tenets. To understand the nature of such evolutionary changes and to detect it in our times, we have to do a thorough study of Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia in evolutionary perspective. The intention of this write up is only to emphasize the importance of such an exercise. The evolution of Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia will be like fresh branching, putting forth new leaves and flowering and fruiting in profusion. Or, it could even be a radical renewal by fresh sowing. Let us see how things will take shape in the future.
REFERENCES
- Asceticism and Healing in Ancient India by Kenneth G. Zysk, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Delhi
- Ayurveda Vaigynanik Itihaas by Prof. P.V. Sharma, Chaukhambha Bharati Academy, Varanasi
- Dravyaguna Vijnana by Prof. P.V. Sharma, Chaukhambha, Bharathi Academy, Varanasi
- Glossary of Vegetable Drugs in Brhattrayi, KC Chunekar & TB Singh, Chaukhambha Bharati Academy, Varanasi
- Medicine in the Veda by Kennith G. Zysk, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Delhi
- Nighantu Adarsh by Bapalaal, Chaukhambha Bharati Academy, Varanasi
- Oriental Medicine, Serindia Publications, London
- Priorities in the study of Indian Medicine Ed by Prof. Meulenbeld, Indian of Indian Studies, University of Groningen
- Roots of Ayurveda, Dominik WuJastyk, Penguin Books India.
The Author is the Research Director, Amrita School of Ayurveda,Kollam
