AyurvedGuru

It Would Be A Very Interesting And Engaging Study To Try To Fix The Date Of Atreya. There Is A Certain Preceptor Atreya, The Teacher Of Jivaka, The Stroies About Jivaka Are Found In The Literatures Of Various Countries Where Buddhism Flourished.

Tibetan, Burmese And Sinhalese Versions Differ In Many Points. In The Tibetan Tales, We Find That Atreya Of Takasila Was The Preceptor Of Jivaka. The Burmese Versions Says That Jivaka Went To Kasi And Not To Tasasila For Studies. They However, Differ On The Points Of The Atreya’s Preceptor Ship To Jivaka. They Say That Jivaka Preceptor Was Disaparmukha Or Manakacraya Or Kapilaksa. Moreover, In The Tibetan Stories Where Atreya Is Mentioned As The Preceptor Of Jivaka, We Do Not Find Any Other Epithet Of Atreya. In One Book The Epithet Pingala Is Used For Atreya.

Jivaka Has Never Mentioned Anywhere Atreya As His Preceptor Nor Agnivesha As His Co-Student. In The Same Way, Agnivesha Never Mentions Jivaka Anywhere In His Whole Treatise. Jivaka Went To Study ‘Head Surgery’ According To A Tibetan Stories While Punarvasu Atreya Was Primarily A Physician.

In The Caraka Samhita, Some Mention Of Abdominal Surgery Is Found But No Reference At All To ‘Head Surgery’. Thus The Inference That Atreya Was The Preceptor Of Jivaka Is Based On Flimsy Grounds And Even The Acceptance Of Atreya As The Preceptor Of Jivaka Does Not Establish His Identity With Punarvasu Atreya. Some Scholars Suggest That He May Be Bhiksu Atreya But As We Shall See That Bhiksu Atreya Was A Contemporary Of Punarvasu Atreya Even That Theory Is Erroneous.

The Person Referred To As Bhiksu Atreya In The Text Of Caraka Is Not The Preceptor Of Jivaka. The Preceptor Of Jivaka If He Was At All An Atreya, He Must Be Some Other Descendent Of Atri.

As We Have Seen Above Taksasila Is Mentioned In Connection With Jivaka. There Is No Mention Of Takasasila In Caraka, Bhela And Kasyapa Samhita Though We Find The Names Of Gandhara, Pancala, Kampilya, Kasi, Pancaganga Etc. This Inevitably Leads Us To The Conclusion That Taxilla Had Become A Reputed Seat Of Learning. Inquiry Into The Period Of Taxilla Will Help Us In Fixing Up The Period, Or At Any Rate The Terminus Ad Quem Of Atreya’s Period.

1.  There Is No Mention Of Taxilla In The Vedas Or In The Un-Palisades.

2.  In The Uttarkhanda Or The Supplementary Portion Of Ramayana, We Find That Bharata Conquers The Country Territory And Hence It Is Called Takasasila.

3.   Jammejaya’s Serpent Was Performed At This Place.

4.   Taxilla Becomes A Famous Seat Of Learning By The Seventh Century B.C.

5.    Historical Records Place Its Glorious Period From 700 B C To 500 A.D Attracting Scholars From Distant Cities E.G.

Rajagarha, Kasi And Mithila. Jivaka, Brahmadatta, Kautilya, Patanjali, Parsva, Vasumitra And Asvaghosa Are Scholars Of Taxilla.

6.     The Grammarian Panini Mentions Taxilla. From The Above Data Atreya Seems To Have Flourished Before The Glorious Period Of Taxilla. Now, The Glorious Period Of Taxilla Coincides With The Times Of The Buddha And As The Buddha Period Is Placed, By Historians, In The 6th Century B.C We Can Say That Atreya Flourished Before The Period Of Buddha. Thus The Biddha Period Becomes The Terminus Ad Quem.

In Order To Fix Atreya’s Period With Degree Of Accuracy, One Will Have To Establish The Upper Limit Or The Terminus Of A Quo Of Atreya’s Period. In The Caraka Samhita We Find References To Kampilya And Pancala. The Former Place Is Well Known In Sukla Yajurveda, Taittirya Brahman, And Maitaryaniya, Kathaka Samhita, While The Latter Also Seem To Have Been Equally Well Known In The Veda, Brahmans And The Upanishads. So, Atreya Must Have Flourished During The Period When Kampilya And Pancala Are Well Known Places. As These Places Were Well Known In Vedic, Bahamans And In The Upanishads Periods, We Can Say That Atreya Must Have Flourished Not Later Than This Period.

Thus The Brahman Or The Upanisadic Period Is The Latest Time When Atreya Must Have Systemized And Preached The Medical Science. Having Determined The Atreya Flourished Before The Buddhist Period And During The Upanisiadic Period, We Must Try To Narrow Down The Period Between The Terminal A Quo And Terminus Ad Quem As Much As Possible.

The Study Of The Contemporizes Of Atraya In Order To Attempt To Fix Their Dates Is Bound To Yield Useful Results. In The Caraka Samhita, We Find From Various References That Marica, Kasyapa, Varyovida, Marisci And Kasyapa Were Contemporizes Of Atreya.

Marica And Kasyapa Are Mentioned As Rsis Who Attended The Himalayan Conference In The Company With Atreya.

Here, As Seen In The Above Passage, Atreya, Marici, And Vayovida Meet In The Same Assmebly And Discus. In This Assembly Marici Gives The Authoritative Statement About The Action Of Pita While Vayovida Establishes The Actions And Qualities Of Normal And Abnormal Vata. This Shows That All These Were Contemporaries.

Here Marici Kasyapa Is Quoted By Atreya As The Propounder Of The Theory That The Spirit Is Unthinkable As It Is Not The Object Of Direct Observation.

The References Pertaining Ot Varyovida Are As Follows:

Here Varyovida Is Mentioned As The Authority On Vata Or Vayu And He Is In Discussion With Marici And Atreya.

Here We See Him As The Propounded Of The Theory Of The Nutrient Fluid Being The Source Of The Both- Man And Disease. He Is Contemporary Of Atreya As Well As Of Nimi Of Videha.

Varyovida Attends This Assembly Met To Discus The Categories Of The Taste. Among Others Who Attend Are Nimi Of Videha And Kankayana The Physician From Bahhaka (Modern Balkh). Varyovida Propounds The Theory That There Are Six Catogries Of Tastes. He Is Given The Epithet Of Rajarsi While Nimi Is Given The Epithet Of Raja.

These References In The Caraka Indicate The Atreya, Marici, Kasyapa, Varyovida, Nimi Of Videha And Kanakayana Of Bahlika Flourished At The Same Period. If We Can Fix Up With Certainty The Date Of Any Of Them, The Dates Of All Others Can Be Decided By The Process Of Synchronism.

The Contemporaneity Of Atreya, Kasyapa And Varyovida Is Supported By Kasyapa Samhita Also.
Varyovida And Nimi Propound Their Own Theories About The Classification Of Disease And The Presiding Rsi Kasyapa Gives The Final Authoritative Decision In The Matter.

In This Assembly Atreya Punarvasu, Bhela And Kasyapa Meet Together. Atreya Punarvasu And Bhela Gives Their Own Theory And Kasyapa The Master Preceptor On Pediatrics, Gives His Decisive Opinion On The Subject.

These References From Kasyapa Samhita Also Support The Fact That Marici Kasyapa, Punarvasu Atreya, Varyovida And Bhela Were Contemporaries And The Bhela Samhita Corroborates The Contemporaneity Of Atreya And Kasyapa.

In Trying To Fix The Date Of Atreya, Internal Evidence Of The Text Will Greatly Help. In Caraka We Find That It Enumerates Three Hundred And Sixty Bones In The Human Body. In The Suruta Samhita We Find That Only Three Hundred Bones Are Enumerated. But Susruta Was Awareof The Enumeration Of Bones As Three Hundres And Sixty In Works Interior To Him.

“The Professors Of General Medicine I.E. Ayurveda, Speak Of Three Hundred And Sixty Bones But Books On Surgical Science Know Only The Theree Hundred.

“The Commentators Dalhana Saya Here ‘Veda; Is Used To Signify Ayurveda And Not The Four Sacred Vedas.”

This Proves That Atreya Is Anterior To Sursuta And That The Two Systems Differ With Regard To The Number Of Bones In The Human Body. This Theory Or Fact Of Atreya;s Priority To Sursuta Is Supported By The Great Scholar Hoernle, Although He Ascribes To Atreya The Period Of Takasasila’s Glory. Speaking About Sursuta He Says, “He Must Have Been Acquainted With The Doctrines Of Atreya. With Reference, For Example, To The Bones Of The Human Body, He Introduce His Own Exposition With A Remark Pointing Out The Difference Between Atreya’s System And His Own In Respect Of The Total Number Of The Bones.”
Besides This, There Are Clear Indications In The Satapatha Brahmana, A Post-Vedic Work, That The Author Was Acquainted With The Doctrine Of Both Atreya And Sursuta.

“But Indeed That Fire-Altar Also Is The Body, The Bones Are The Enclosing Stones And There Are 360 Of These, Because There Are Three Hundred And Sixty Bones In Man. The Marrow Parts Are The Yajusmati Bricks, For There Are Three Hundred And Sixty Of These And Three Hundred And Sixty Parts Of Marrow In Man”.

In Caraka We Find There Are Fourteen Bones In The Breast. In Sursuta This Number Is Given As Seventeen.
Satapatha Seems To Have Taken The Number Of Breast Bones From Sursuta.

The Anatomical Comparisons Quoted Above Show That At The Time Of Satapatha, Both The Medical Schools, Of Atreya And Susruta, Were In Existence And That The Author Possessed Some Knowledge Of Their Respective Theories Of The Skeleton. For He Derived From The Sursuta The Allotment Of Seventeen Bones To The Breast While According To Caraka The Bones Are Only Fourteen, While He Got The Total Of 360 Bones Of The Skeleton From Atreya, Sursuta Having Only300. In His Choice Of Particulars From The Two Systems, Of Course, He Was Guided By The Requirements Of His Mystic Treatment Of The Fire Altar.
The Author Of The Satapatha Bahaman Is Yajna Valkya Who Is Said To Have Flourished At The Court Of The Janaka, The Famous Kinf Of Videha, And Contemprory Of Ajatasatru. The Latter, The Celebrated Ruler Of Magadha Was A Contemporary Of The Buddha. His Accession Took Place Approximately In 554 B.C.

Accordingly, Yajnavalkya May Be Dated About 575 B.C. So The Dates Of Atreya And Sursuta Must Be Placed Some Time Before The Period And Atreya Being Anterior To Sursuta, He Can Safley Be Placed A Least In The Seventh Century B.C.

This Date Of Atreya Is Pushed Back To Further Antiquity By The Evidence Found In The Artharvaveda. As Evidence Of The Very Early Date Of The Both, Atreya And Susruta, We Have A Rather Significant Passage In The Artharvaveda. It Occurs In The Tenth Book, As A Hymn On The Creation Of Man, In Which The Several Parts Of The Skeleton Are Carefully And Systematically Enumerated In Striking Agreement More Especially With The System Of Atreya As Contained In Caraka’s Compendium. The Date Of The Artharvaveda Is Not Exactly Known, But It Belongs To The Most Ancient, Or Primary Vedic Literature Of India. It Cannot Be Placed Later Then The Eighth Century B.C Because References To It Are Found In Secondary Vedic Works, Such As The Satapatha Brahman Above Referred To. The Large Portion Of It (Books I To Xviii) Admittedly Belongs To A Much Earlier Period, Possibly As Early As About 1000 B.C, And The Hymn Is Question Is Included In This Older Portion. Moreover, Within That Portion It Belongs To A Division (Books Viii-Xii) Which Bears A Distinctly Hieratic Character. It Thus Takes Us Back To That Pre Historic Or The Semi Mythical Age Of The Medicine Man Who Combined The Functions Of The Priest And Physician. This Period As Already Stated, Is Represented Conspicuously By The Great Sage Of Bhardwaja And To Him It Actually Ascribes The Authorship Of One Of The Hymns (The Twelth Of The Tenth Books) Of That Hieratic Division.

So The Period Of Atreya Can Be Bracketed Between The End Of Atharva-Period And The Beginning Of Satapatha Period.

Let Us See If The Method Of Exposition And The Language Used Are Of Any Help To Us In Fixing The Date. The Main Text Of Atreya Seems To Have Been Composed During The ‘Sutra Period’ Or The Aphoristic Period Which Appeared At The End Of The Vedic Period. The Rise Of This Class Of Writing Was Due To The Need Of Reducing The Vast And Growing Mass Of Details Of Knowledge And Experience Accumulated During The Vedic Period In The Whole Of Aryavarta, To A Systematic Shape And Of Compressing Them Into A Compact From Which Would Not Impose Too Great A Burden On The Memory, The Only Vehicles Of All Teaching And Learning In Those Days. The Main Object Of The Sutras Was Therefore To Supply A Short And Comprehensive Survey Of The Sum Of These Scattered Details. For This Purpose, The Utmost Brevity Was Needed, A Requirement Which Was Certainly Met In A Manner Unparalleled Elsewhere. The Very Name Of This Class Literature (Sutra, Thread, Or Clue From To Sew) Points To It Mains Characteristics And Chief Object Viz., Extreme Consciousness. The Prose In Which These Works Were Composed Is Such That The Wording Of The Most Laconic Expression Would Often Appear To Diffuse Compared With It. Some Of The Sutras Attain To Such A Degree Of Terseness That The Formulas Cannot Be Understood Without The Help Of Elaborate Commentaries. A Characteristically Aphoristic Verse Which Defines The Nature Of A Sutra Is Here.

“This Is Called A Sutra Which Has The Least Number Of Words, Is Unambiguous, Synoptically, All Embracing, Devoid Of Any Superficial Word And Faultless”.

According To It, The Compilers Of Grammatical Sutras Delighted As Much As In The Saving Of A Short Vowel As In The Birth Of A Son.

The First Section Of Atreya Samhita Is Called Sutra Sthana. This Sutra Style Needed Interpretation And Commentaries And Hence It Was Essential To Study Under A Guru Who Could Interpret The Sutras. This Is Also One Of The Reasons Why Later On So Many Commentaries On This Samhita Were Written.

Linguistic Investigations Tend To Show That The Sutras Are Closely Connected In Time With The Grammarian Panini, Some Of Them Appearing To Be Even Anterior To Him. We Shall Therefore Probably Not Go Far Wrong In Assigning 7th To 2nd Century B.C As The Chronological Limits Within Which The Sutra Literature Was Developed.

Another Evidence Which Leads Us To Place Atreya Some Time In The Satapatha Brahman Period Is The Assembly-System So Often Mentioned In His Treatise. The Philosophical Disquisitions Are The Characteristic Feature Of The Bahaman Period. It Was A Special Function Of The Brahma Priest To Give The Decision On Many Disputed Points That May Arise In The Course Of A Sacrifice, And This He Could Not Have Done Unless He Was A Master Of Ratiocination. Such Decision Which May Be Likened To The Chairman’s Rulings In A Modern Assembly Are Scattered Through The Ancient Brahman And Are Collected Together As So Many Deductions In The Purva Mimansa Aphorisms Of Jamini.

These Tournaments Of Arguments From A Prominent Features In The Later Books Of Satapatha Brahmana. The Hero Of These Is Yajnavalyaka Who Is Regarded As The Chief Of The Authority, Like Atreya In The Caraka Samhita.

In The Brhadaranyakopanisad Which Forms The Concluding Portion Of The Last Book Named Aranyaka Of Both The Recensions Of Satapatha Brahmana, The Second Part Of The Upanishad Consists Of Four Philosophical Discussions In Which Yajnavalkya Is The Chief Speaker. Out Of These Four, The First Is Great Disputation In Which The Sage Proves His Superiority Over Nine Successive Interlocutors. The Second Discourse In The Dialogue Between King Janaka And Jajnavalkya. The Third Discourse Is Another Dialogue Between Them. The Fourth Is The Discourse Between Yajnavalkya And His Wife Maiteryi.

Help

For More Information Please Contact To Our Website:
Www.Ayurvedguru.Com