Article on  Comparison of Gangadhar Teeka and ChakrapaniTeeka : "Roga Chatushka"

                                                           Published in July 2018

Clinical features of Jalpakalpataru on rogachatushka

                                                                                                by Vaidya  Yashashree V. Joshi,

Department of Samhita & Basic Principles                              College of Ayurved,   

Bharati Vidyapeeth  (Deemed to be University) Pune, India                                                                                              

  

ABSTRACT

Clinical features of Jalpakalpataru on rogachatushka

Vaidya  Yashashree Joshi,                                                                                                            BV(DU), College of Ayurved, Pune

Key-words: Gangadhar, Chakrapani  

Introduction: Oftentimes, Gangadhar Rai’s ‘Jalpakalpataru’ is overlooked considering it is reflecting darshanik aspects of Ayurved. It is also alleged that Gangadhar has less commented on sutras related only to clinical issues. The author wished to study purely clinical chapters of Charak-Samhita to assess this supposition and explore Gangadhara’s mastery in Ayurved as a medical science. For this the author has selected rogachatushka from sutrasthana.

Methodology: the study was done by reading Jalpakalpataru on rogachatushka and comparing it with Ayurved-deepika.

Discussion: author has come across certain appealing clinical descriptions. These are discussed in article with following classification-

            1     Clinical description which is not found in Ayurved-deepika

      2A  Clinical description which differs from  to Ayurved-deepika

      2B  Clinical descriptions which give new dimensions to thought-line in principle.  

4        Clinical descriptions which need to be explained with more details

XXXXXX

  

                                       Clinical features of jalpakalptaru on rogachatushka

Vaidya  Yashashree V. Joshi,                                                                                                            BV(DU), College of Ayurved, Pune

Key-words: Gangadhar, Chakrapani

Introduction: Gangadhar Rai’s ‘Jalpakalpataru’ is oftentimes overlooked by scholars. In comparison with Chakrapani’s Ayurved-deepika, Jalpakalpataru has more emphasis on darshanik aspects of Ayurved. Therefore it is perceived to be less elaborate about clinical issues.   

On this background, study of Jalpakalpataru on purely clinical chapters of Charak-Samhita is undertaken, to assess this supposition and to explore Gangadhara’s mastery in Ayurved as a medical science. With this view, rogachatushka from sutrasthana is selected.

Methodology: the study was done by thorough reading of Jalpakalpataru on rogachatushka and comparing it with Ayurved-deepika. Details of the Charak-Samhita referred for this study are as follows- print form of Charak Samhita, edited by Kaviraj N. Sengupta and Kaviraj B. Sengupta, published by  Chaukhamba Orientalia, Varanasi, 2^nd edition,1991, part 2. This book is printed with both commentaries under discussion. The complete matter discussed further is based on the two commentaries exclusively on Charak sutrasthan chapter no. 17,18,19,20 i e rogachatushka.

Discussion: Chronologically Gangadhara Rai (19^th century AD) is much later than Chakrapani (11^th century AD).

The name ‘Jalpakalpataru’ signifies this commentary as a ‘Kalpataru’ for Jalpa. Jalpa means debate and Kalpataru is a tree which fulfils wishes of a person approaching to it. Thus ‘Jalpakalpataru’ is a commentary which is ready-reckoner for debate.

Furthermore in accordance with taru (tree) he has mentioned the commentary of each chapter as a branch (shakha) of that tree. Jalpakaplataru on rogachatushka is enriched with cross references from Charak Samhita itself (references from maharogadhyaya, vatakalakaeey, trishothiya, shareersthana in  commentary on chapter17) as well as references from Sushrut Samhita and Nimi in commentary on all chapters of rogachatushka. At few places, other’s opinion is mentioned as “anyatra drushyate”. This indicates that Gangadhar Rai has studied other’s Samhitas also.

After meticulous study of both commentaries with the view of comparison in clinical features, Gangadhar Rai’s mastery in Ayurved is revealed. The data is collected with same point of view.

This comparative study does not aim to declare any one of the commentators is superior over the other one. The sole intention of this study is exploration of Gagadhar Rai’s clinical approach. 

For the sake of better understanding, all collected references of clinical descriptions are categorised as following --

             1     Clinical description which is not found in Ayurved-deepika

      2A  Clinical description which differs from  to Ayurved-deepika

      2B  Clinical descriptions which give new dimensions to thought-line in principle  

4        Clinical descriptions which need to be explained with more details

These are explained further with references. For each example referred here, the part from commentary is mentioned in English and page number of above mentioned book is given in bracket.

Let’s discuss one by one :

1.      Clinical descriptions  which are not found in Ayurved-deepika  --

§  Suryavarta-ardhavbheda-shankhak: These diseases are described in chapter 17. Gangadhar mentions that all of these get manifested with tridoshas but the ratio of dominance of tridosha in each of them is quite different. He quotes that Nimi has stated suryavarta as vata-kapha dominant and gives further explanation. Additionally he depicts one more condition with name “suryavarta-viparyaya”.

Table 1. Tridosha dominance in shiroroga (diseases of head region): (pg 691)

Disease	Vata	Pitta	Kapha
Suryavarta	+ +	+	+ + +
Suryavrta-viparyaya	+ + +	+ +	+
Ardhavbheda	+ + +	+	+ +
Shankhaka	+ +	+ + +	+

Surprisingly, he mentions - treatment for both, suryavarta and suryavarta -viparyaya is same.

§  Difference in Charak Samhita and Sushrut Samhita : Gangadhar observes difference of opinions in quotations of these two Samhitas on the types of shiroroga.  Sushrut states raktaja (disease with rakta dominance) and kshayaja shiroroga (disease due to depletion of dhatus) separately which are not found in Charak Samhita. Gangadhar quotes both and says Charak includes raktaja in pittaja shiroroga and kshayaja in vata-pitaja shiroroga. Thus, Gangadhar reconciles this apparently observed disparity in scientific manner. (pg 691-2)

§  Sannyasa: (pg 756) In ashtodareeya chapter, Acharya Charak gives description of sannyasa as ‘tridoshatmakah, mana-shareera-adhishthanah’. (coma is a condition developing due to vitiation of all three doshas and has origin at both sites - mind and body), Here Gangadhar explains this phenomenon as “yugpat ubhayashray”. This means the word ‘mana-shareera-adhishthanah’ indicates imprisonment of body and mind by tridoshas at the same time fraction. Thus, in sannyasa functional capacity of both- body and mind is lost simultaneously.

§  Chaya (accumulation) and kopa (aggravation) : These two terms are much familiar. A special feature of these terms is given by Gangadhar in the description of types of spread of doshas (dosha-gati) (pg 721). He interprets these as - Chaya and kopa are types of vriddhi (increase). Chaya is ‘na-anya-dushak’ as it takes place at its own site whereas kopa is ‘anya-dushak’ as it occurs in other’s site. That means in the state of chaya there is no involvement of any other dushya but in the state of kopa, involvement of dushya gets started. The particular words namely ‘na anya-dushak’ and anya-dushak’ help to understand the meaning of chaya and kopa more precisely. (dushya is anything which gets vitiated due to dosha).

§  Meanings of certain Nanatmaja vyadhi : Gangadhara comments elaborately on nanatmaja vyadhi. Very first he gives reasoning behind the description of vataja – nanatmaja vyadhi at first place as – vata has capacity to produce more diseases than pitta & kapha, additionally many times vata dominant diseases are severe. Further he gives meanings of so many nanatmaja diseases listed in Samhita; sometimes they differ than the conventional meaning s. a. bahushosha is avabahuka (vataja), anga-sweda is continuous sweating in less quantity (pittaja), atrupti is constant feeling of hunger (pittaja), kamala is a specific stage of pittapandu and is bahupitta kamala (pittaja).

He gives meaning of harsha as romaharsha. Further he mentions other’s opinion about harsha as ‘hrishtachitta’ resembling with ‘euphoric state of mind’.  Then he denies other's opinion considering chalaguna is responsible for harsha and states that hrishtachitta is not effect of chalaguna. Instability is main effect of chalaguna. Hrishtachiita is a long-lasting phase of mind          [-mind is stable in one and same euphoric state for longer period]. Thus he turns down this meaning.  

§   Anshanshakalpana in vikrut karma of dosha: This description can be said as a very much useful contribution of Gangadhar (pg 775). His study of gurvadi gunas from vaisheshik darshan is reflected here with applied aspect. In the description of vata dominant vikrut karma, he mentions gunas responsible for them.  All these are given further in table-

Table 2 – vata-vikruta-karma  and responsible gunas

Vata-vikruta-karma	Responsible gunas
From sransa to cheshta	Chala
Kahartva	Khara
Parusha (lack of sneha)	Ruksha
Vishadatva (apaichchilya)	Vishada
Sushirata	Sukshma
Shosha	Ruksha, laghu
Supti	Laghu, chala
Sankocha	Sheet
Khanjata	Laghu, ruksha

2A  Clinical description which differs from Ayurved-deepika --

§  Inclusion of madatyaya in mada (pittaja nanatmaja vyadhi):  In chapter no 19, madatyaya is not counted separately. Chakrapani justifies this as – madatyaya is not mentioned separately because mada gets converted into madatyaya. Gangadhara refers chapter 18 in which it is mentioned that inclusion of all diseases in every description is nearly impossible. Therefore, many diseases do not found any mention here in chapter19 and madatyaya is one of them. With this reasoning Gangadhara opposes Chkrapani’s justification (pg 758) and  moreover clarifies difference between mada and madatyaya as follows-- madatyaya gets developed due to excess  consumption of alcohol [madya] and mada is a separately manifested disease due to vitiation of rakta mainly, along with vatadi doshas.

§  Example  of prakruti vishesh and sthana vishesh (Chapter 19/14, pg 759-760):

Sarve vikara vata-pitta-kaphan naativartante |Vata-pitta-shleshmanam tu khalu sthan-samsthan-prakruti-visheshan sameekshya tadatmakanam api sarvavikaran.....|| Ch. Su. 19/14

        After stating indivisible relation between dosha and disease, Acharya Charak says- physician should understand a disease by examining specifications of sthana(site), samsthana(symptom), prakruti(cause) in relation with dosha.  While commenting on this, Chakrapani mentions ‘shleshma-pleehodar’ as example of prakruti-vishesh. [Shleshma is cause here.] Gangadhar reads this example as ‘pleehodar’ and declines it stating that it(pleehodar) is example of sthana-vishesh and he gives sheetajwara & ushnajwara as example of prakruti-vishesh.[sheeta & ushna are causes here.]

Actually Chakrapani’s prefix-word- ‘Shleshma’ to pleehodara is not considered by Gangadhar. As per this prefix, shleshma is cause (prakruti) here. Thus, examples of prakruti-vishesh given by both are correct.  [for details please refer - Udar Chikitsa chapter. Chakrapani has explained- five types of pleehodara in Udar chikitsa chapter.]

2B  Clinical descriptions which give new dimensions to thought-line in principle-- 

§  Sannipata and vikruti-vishama-samavaya: In chapter no 19, samkhya samprapti (counting of types) of diseases is given. Regarding the number of disease-types counted here, Gangadhhara explains that only those numbers of vyadhis are mentioned here for which treatment differs to certain extent. In case of sansarga (combination of two doshas) and sannipata (combination of three doshas), only those are separately written, whose treatment modifies as per type of dosha dominance. For sansarga, mixed treatment is beneficial, so they are not counted.  Sannipat are counted separately because they originate with vikruti-vishama-samavaya and need specific treatment & not only mixed treatment.  He further emphasises that separate mentioning of sannipata at other places also carries this aspect of treatment.   

§  Use of adjective ashu/kshipra/sheeghra in samprapti: Acharya Charak has used words like sheeghra/kshipra in the description of galashotha –galashundika and upajivika (pg 735); but has not include rakta in description.  Whereas Achary Sushrut mentions rakta in this same context.  Gangadhar asserts that use of these adjectives themselves indicates involvement of rakta in samprapti [because rakta is fast spreading/circulating]. He draws same conclusion for ‘rohinee’ (pg 741). This guideline is very much valuable for physicians to understand disease and to chalk out treatment.   

§  One symptom from two different doshas: Supti (loss of sensation of touch) is mentioned as vata vikruta karma and also as kapha vikruta karma. Thus it is developing from two doshas. Here arises the question – how to know which dosha is exactly responsible for onset of supti in patient? Gangadhar helps here by saying – presence of supti at the sites of vata (vatasthana) indicates its origin from vata and presence of supti at kaphasthan indicates is origin from kapha (pg 781). That means examination of particular ‘dehadesha (location on body)’ gives clue for further treatment.  Obviously, it is applicable for some other symptoms like kandu, kleda.

§  Aasthapan-anuvasan’ one word use: In the description of vata-upakrama (pg 776) one combined word-form of two words. ‘Aasthapan-anuvasana’ is used by Charakacharya.  Gangadhar clarifies that –use of two basti in singular form is indicative of need of duel basti course for vata regulation.  Such singular forms of two words at other places are likely to carry the same meaning.

4        Clinical descriptions which need to be explained with more details--

§  Prameha-pidaka  asadhyata– for madhumeha and prameha-pidaka, Gangadhar says –there is no onset of prameha-pidaka, when madhumeha is asadhya.(pg711).

§  Kalakruta dosha-gati – Gangadhar elaborates kalakruta doshagati. (pg 722-723-724). This is status of dosha as per Ritu (season). He gave so much elaboration on this point. The gist of the whole explanation is mentioned below as per my understanding----  kalakruta doshagati is of two types viz –prakruti = normal and vaikruti = abnormal. Prakruti is related to Swastha phase and vikruti is related to diseased phase. Gangadhar calculates ritu as per Sushrut Samhita - that means he includes pravrit in six ritu and excludes shishir. He mentions chayadi phases of doshas as per these six ritus with two aspects viz- normal and abnormal. These aspects are figured out in following tables—

Table 3.  Prakruti Doshagati

Dosha	Greeshma	Pravrut	Varsha	Sharad	Hemant	Vasant
Vata	Chaya	Prakop	Prasham
Pitta			Chaya	Prakop	Prasham
Kapha	Prasham				Chaya	Prakop

Table 4 : vikruti doshagati

Dosha	Sharad	Hemant	Vasant	Greeshma	Pravrut	Varsha
Vata	Chaya	Prakop	Prasham
Pitta			Chaya	Prakop	Prasham
Kapha			Prasham		Chaya	Prakop

[point to be noted here is that - in swastha-chatushka, Acharya Charak has included shishir and excluded pravrit.

§  Babahuvreehi & karmadharay – one term is used in two consecutive verses by Acharya Charak namely ‘swadhatu-vaishmya-nimitta’. This is in relation with ‘diseases- developing from their root cause namely doshas’. Gangadhar explains it with two different types of ‘samaas’ in two verses. He applies bahuvreehi for one and karmadharya for other. The exactly differentiating aspect with these applications is not cleared. ( pg 759-760) . (Chakrapani has given meaning as per karmadharay in second verse.)

This is an honest attempt to highlight Gangadhar Rai’s clinical approach. The stalwarts in Ayurved are requested to comment freely on the points expressed in this article and also to throw light on the doubts.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

reference text:

Charak Samhita, edited by Kaviraj N. Sengupta and Kaviraj B. Sengupta, published by  Chaukhamba Orientalia, Varanasi, 2^nd edition,1991, part 2.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------