Indian Medicine in Sri Lanka - article ; n°1 ; vol.76, pg 201-216

Jinadasa Liyanaratne

Description

Bulletin de l'Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient - Année 1987 - Volume 76 - Numéro 1 - Pages 201-216
16 pages
Source : Persée ; Ministère de la jeunesse, de l’éducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l’enseignement supérieur, Sous-direction des bibliothèques et de la documentation.

Informations

• Publié par: BULLETIN_DE_L-ECOLE_FRANCAISE_D-EXTREME-ORIENT
• Publié le: 01 janvier 1987
• Nombre de lectures: 38
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

Jinadasa Liyanaratne
Indian Medicine in Sri Lanka
In: Bulletin de l'Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient. Tome 76, 1987. pp. 201-216.
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Liyanaratne Jinadasa. Indian Medicine in Sri Lanka. In: Bulletin de l'Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient. Tome 76, 1987. pp. 201-
216.
doi : 10.3406/befeo.1987.1724
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/befeo_0336-1519_1987_num_76_1_1724MEDICINE IN SRI LANKA* INDIAN
BY
Jinadasa LIYANARATNE
It may be reasonably presumed that Indian medicine found its way to Sri Lanka in the dim past
with the first migrations of the Indian peoples into the Island. As stated by Paranavitana (1934: 1),
"The ancient culture of Ceylon, both material and spiritual was derived from India; and it may be
presumed that from the earliest times, the people of Ceylon, too, practised very much the same
system of medicine as was practised in India. So far as the material available for a study of this subject
goes, it is apparent that the system followed by the indigenous physicians of Ceylon is the Ayurveda,
though as it is natural, there were drugs and methods peculiar to the island ..."
In fact, what is considered as traditional knowledge of indigenous medicine in Sri Lanka is,
by and large, Àyurveda in its classical Indian form, especially as far as doctrine is concerned
(See, e.g., Pilapitiya [1983]: 8&-101).1
In specifying the nature of Àyurveda in Sri Lanka, a practising Àyurvedic physician,
D. M. Jayasinghe (1968: 85-86) says:
"Àyurveda in Sri Lanka is a mixture of the two traditions of Àtreya and Dhanvantari, the two
traditions of Pulasti and Agastya, and the tradition of rasa. Although it does not differ much from the
Àyurveda of India in respect of principles and doctrines, there are, in our indigenous system of
medicine, certain differences with regard to therapeutics, medical compositions and simples."2
It has to be noted that the rasa tradition referred to here is the system of medicine
attributed to Siddha Nàgârjuna (Jayasinghe 1968: 74), and characterized by the use of
minerals like mercury in therapeutics.
* I am thankful to Dr. Arion Ro§u for the courtesy of reading through the ms. of this article very carefully and
making useful observations, especially with regard to the names of plants and diseases.
1 However, it has to be noted that there are some scholars who maintain that prior to the introduction of Indian
medicine, there was, in Sri Lanka, a highly developed system of indigenous medicine. Most of the assertions of the
advocates of this theory are based on myth and legend (see, e.g., Nânavimala [1966]: iii-iv); Kamalavartti 1970:
65-69). Nevertheless, two points raised in this connection by J. C. Kannangara, Àyurvedic physician, are worthy of
note: 1) some of the medical compositions found in treatises written in Sri Lanka after the ancient indigenous
medicine got mixed with the medical systems of North and South India are not found in any medical treatise of the
Indian subcontinent; 2) some of the simples prescribed in ancient Srilankan medical compositions are not even
mentioned in any lexicon of North India (Kamalavartti 1970: 68).
2 My translation. 202 Jinadasa Liyanaratne
The study of the history of Indian medical systems practised in Sri Lanka has naturally to be
based mainly on the medical treatises that were used. However, the student of the subject is
often confronted with problems of authorship and chronology. A case in point is the
authorship of the extant Sàrârthasamgraha (SS), attributed to King Buddhadàsa (с. 398-426
A.D.), whom, the Pali chronicle of Sri Lanka, the Culavamsa (CV), traditionally ascribed to
the 13th century, presents as a highly skilled physician and author of a "summary of the
essential content of all medical text-books" (Geiger 1953: 13). In the first place, the language
in which this "summary of the essential content of all the medical text-books" - sâratthasam-
gaha - was written is not indicated in the CV. It would have been written in Sinhalese, Pali or
Sanskrit.
Paranavitana (1934: 2) pointed out that the Sanskrit work SS of today, "from the language
in which it is written, and other internal evidence, does not seem to be a work of the 5th
century."
Paranavitana's view is refuted by Pannasara ([1958]: 192), who says that the former has
mistaken the Sinhalese sannaya (interverbal paraphrase) of a later period for the original
composition of Buddhadàsa. Pannasara ([1958]: 192-199) gives an analysis of the contents of
the SS and points out many similarities in its contents and those of the Astângahrdayasamhità
of Vagbhata. Now, Vagbhata is considered to have lived in the period between the 7th and
the 10th centuries a.d. (Filliozat 1975: II)3 in which case, the attribution of the 55 to King
Buddhadàsa becomes an anachronism, unless it is surmised that Vagbhata was inspired by
Buddhadàsa, which is quite unlikely.
Any serious examination of questions of this nature has been rendered difficult due to the
lack of a comprehensive catalogue (or catalogues) of Srilankan medical treatises, and also for
want of information on the critical apparatus in the published editions of Srilankan medical
works.
In this context, we have selected two medical treatises for the purposes of the present
essay, one, for the light it throws on Indian literature available in contemporary Sri
Lanka, and the other, for the information it provides with regard to a particular school of
medical practitioners of Indian origin.
The first of these treatises is the Bhesajjamanjusàsannaya (BMS) written in the 18th
century a.d. by Valivita Saranamkara, at the request of King Sri Vïraparâkrama Narendra-
simha (1707-1739). 4 This is a Sinhalese sannaya to the Pâli Bhesajjamanjusâ (BM) written
during the reign of King Sri Pandita Parâkramabâhu of Dambadeniya (1236-1270), by
Paspiruvanmulasâmi (P. Paricaparivenasamuhanàtho) of Brahmin origin (P. Brahmanvayo).5
It is generally believed that the BM, written by a Buddhist prelate, was meant for the use of
Buddhist monks (De Silva 1933: 39; Godakumbura 1955: 332; Sannasgala 1964: 669).6 This,
3 For different views with regard to the date of Vagbhata, see Mukhopadyaya 1974: 790-796. See also Cordier
1896: 3-4; 1901b: 147-181.
4 Printed editions of the BMS: Kulatilaka 1962; Dharmananda 1967. Palm-leaf mss.: Bibliothèque Nationale,
Paris: Indien 924, Pali 560; British Library, London: Or. 12137, Or. 6612(2). Somadasa (1959: 69; 1964: 52)
mentions 38 mss. of the BM and 30 mss. of the BMS available in Sri Lanka.
5 For the interpretation oiparivena and mula, see Gunawardana (1979: 9, 283).
6 An argument adduced in support of the view that the BM was meant for Buddhist monks is that paediatrics
(kumâracikitsà) and obstetrics (garbhinicikitsà) are excluded from it. (Sannasgala 1964: 669). According to this
reasoning, it is difficult to explain why the author included a chapter on veneral disease (upadamsapaddhati) when
Buddhist monks are committed to a life of celibacy. Indian medicine in Sri Lanka 203
in our opinion, is an inaccuracy resulting from two causes: 1) a partial interpretation of the
three preliminary stanzas of the work, and 2) the Theravàdin position that the practice of
medicine was prohibited for Buddhist monks.7
It is true that the first two preliminary stanzas mean that with the knowledge gained from
the BM, the fellow monks were to treat each other when they fall ill, with the prayer "be
cured". But in the continuation of the statement in the third stanza, the work is compared to
' ' a valuable treasure in the hands of physicians' ' , an idea which is reiterated in th» colophon to
the sannaya.* This is a clear indication that the BM was meant for the Buddhist monks in
particular and the medical practitioners in general.
However, what is important to note in the present study is the indebtedness of the BMS to
classical Indian medicine. In fact, at the beginning of the sannaya (ms. of the Bibliothèque
Nationale in Paris, Pali 560, f. 1, 1.1), it is said that the BM is a Pâli version of the medical
science that came down from the tradition of Mahâbrahma, Daksa Prajâpati etc. and
expounded in the Yogàrnnava, the Cintàmanisannaya, the Yogaratnàkara etc.9
In the body of the text a large number of Indian medical treatises and authors are cited. A
complete list of these references is given as Appendix I to the present essay, and it will be
observed that in that list, especially Aggivessa (Agnivesa), Bhela, Jatukanna (Jatukarna),
Hàrita, and Kharapâni (Ksârapâni) represent the Àtreya (clinical) school, and Orabbha
(Aurabhra) and Sussuta (Sušruta) the Dhanvantari (surgical) school. Most of the nidána
gâthas are drawn from Vagbhata's Astàngahrdayasamhità.
The Influence of Indian medical works on the author of the BM can be understood in the
light of the contribution of Pandita Parâkramabâhu (Parâkramabâhu II) to the cultural uplift
at the time. The CV says with regard to tha