Accounts of Pathogenic Organisms in The Early Texts of Ayurveda Author P Ram Manohar
Accounts of Pathogenic Organisms in The Early Texts of Ayurveda Author P Ram Manohar
Accounts of Pathogenic Organisms in The Early Texts of Ayurveda Author P Ram Manohar
4 (2012) 545-559
P. RAM MANOHAR*
INTRODUCTION
The contribution of Ayurveda to the history of medical ideas has not
been adequately studied and acknowledged. Timelines of the history of
development of medicine blissfully ignore significant milestones achieved
* Director and CSO, AVP Research Foundation, 136-137, Trichy Road, Ramanathapuram P.O.,
Coimbatore - 641045, Tamil Nadu, India; email: [email protected]
546 INDIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY OF SCIENCE
External Parasites
The external pathogens are young and mature lice as well as ants. It
is quite easy to identify and characterize these organisms.
PATHOGENIC ORGANISMS IN THE EARLY TEXTS OF AYURVEDA 547
Fig. 1. The classification and nomenclature of pathogenic organisms (kr. mis) described in the
works of Caraka (C), Susƒruta (S) and Va– gbhat. a (V)
The names of three of the pathogens of the blood are related to the
hair. There are the eaters of the hair of the head (kesƒa–da) and the small hairs
of the body (loma–da). The meaning of the name lomadv īpa is not clear -
loma means body hair and dv īpa means island. Saurasa is derived from the
word surasa– meaning rich in water or sap. It is a synonym of a few medicinal
plants as well as the name of a serpent demon. Saurasa means originating
from surasa– and in this context may refer to the serpent demon to indicate
the virulent nature of the organism.
Audumbara means similar in appearance to the fruit of udumbara
and it may indicate the shape or color of the fruit. Jantuma–tara means
mother of pathogenic organisms. This name may indicate the ability of the
organism to multiply profusely inside the body. Nakha–da means that which
eats away the nails and danta–da is that which eats away the teeth. The exact
meaning of the word kikkisƒa is not clear. Kus. .t haja means the organisms that
are born out of skin diseases and par īsarpa means that which spreads all
over very fast3.
the implication of this word is not clear. Ajava– and vijava– could indicate the
slow movement of the pathogen. The meanings and implications of the
names kipya and cipya are not clear. Gan. d. u–pada indicates earthworm like
appearance and dvimukha means having two heads5.
very clear statement of the existence of microscopic life and a strong evidence
to suppose that ancient Ayurvedic physicians were aware of microscopic life
albeit they could not study it in sufficient detail.
On the other hand, the pathogens of the blood don’t appear to be
worms either. We can say that they are an indication of the fact that the
ancient Ayurvedic physicians came very close to discovering microscopic
life but could not carry these studies further for want of appropriate
instruments and tools.
understood. While the classical texts themselves are silent, one commentator
opines that a disease is transmitted on close contact between people because
–
the sin is transferred from one person to the other25. The Caraka Sam . hita
says that the same disease affects many people because common factors like
the land, water and air get polluted and the seasons get deranged26. There is
no evidence to suggest that Ayurveda recognized the role of pathogens in
transmission of infectious diseases as well as epidemics.
pathogens have been described and herbs and formulations have been listed
for use in diseases involving pathogenic organisms. A very interesting topic
that emerges from the discussion of pathogenic organisms in Ayurveda is the
microbicidal properties of medicinal plants described in the classical
Ayurvedic texts.
Although the pathogenic organisms described in Ayurvedic texts
include parasites and worms and perhaps not microbes, the medicinal plants
that have been ascribed with kr. mighna property (the ability to kill kr. mis or
pathogenic organisms), have been shown to have microbicidal activities as
well as has been revealed by modern scientific research on medicinal plants.
.
Tulas ī, Haridra–, Vidan ga, Vaca– and Guggulu are examples.
CONCLUSIONS
The classical texts of Ayurveda that were composed and edited in the
time period spanning a few centuries before and after the Common Era have
documented the Ayurvedic understanding of the role of pathogenic organisms
in development and progress of diseases. However, rather than being the
primary cause of a disease, they get involved in a particular stage of the
disease. One of the most fascinating aspects of these accounts is the
classification of organisms into the natural and the pathogenic. Although
there is no further description about the natural and harmless organisms that
live in the human body, the very reference to such organisms raises the
question as to whether the ancient Ayurvedic physicians were aware of
microbes. Such a supposition gains strength when we consider the reference
to invisible pathogenic organisms residing in the blood vessels that are
circular in appearance and without feet. However, in the absence of evidence
of the use of any microscopic instruments, it is difficult to judge whether
these invisible organisms are microbes, though textual statements confirm
that some of these pathogens cannot be seen by the human eye and that
Ayurvedic physicians were aware of microscopic life. Kr. mi is a broad term
and may be aptly translated as pathogenic organisms instead of worms as it
includes parasites, worms and perhaps microbes also. Ayurvedic texts make
mention of communicable diseases and epidemics. Yet, they did not recognize
the role of pathogenic organisms in transmission of disease. The description
of flies depositing pathogenic organisms on wounds may be an early reference
556 INDIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY OF SCIENCE
ABBREVIATIONS
.
As. .t a–n ga Hr. daya - AH Bhela Sam –
. hita - BH
–
Caraka Sam . hita - CS Cikitsa– Stha–na - Ci
Nida–nastha–na - Ni Ha–r īta Sam –
. hita - HS
Tr. t īya Stha–na - Tr Susƒruta Sam –
. hita - SS
Su–tra Stha–na - Su– Uttara Stha–na - Utta
Vima–na Stha–na - Vi
organisms into the external and internal. Susƒruta classifies them into three types that
grow on feces, mucus and blood.
3. See CS, Vi, 7.11, SS, Utta, 54.15 and AH, Ni, 14.51 for descriptions of the pathogens
that grow in the blood.
4. See CS, Vi, 7.12, SS, Utta, 54.12 and AH, Ni, 14.47-50 for descriptions of the pathogens
that grow in mucus secretions.
5. See CS, Vi, 7.13, SS, Utta, 54.8 and AH, Ni, 14.46 for descriptions of the pathogens
that grow in the feces.
6. See Dalhan. a’s commentary on SS, Utta, 54.7 pointing to the innumerability of the
. kr. m ī n. a m
pathogens - ja–tigrahan. am . sƒatya
– – – – – –
. a nantyakhya pana rtham, tacca nantyam vim
–
meva varuddham .
–
7. See Cakrapan. idatta’s commentary on CS, Vi, 7.10 about the different names for
pathogens in different geographical regions - krim ī n. a–m . jña svasƒa stravyavaha
– – –
. sam
rasiddha desƒa ntaraprasiddha ca boddhavya
– – – –
8. See BS, Su–, 26.31-33 for an enumeration of pathogens. Elaborate descriptions are not
available in this text. The names of the pathogens are 1. mr. jja–, 2. jara–yuja,
3. leva–, 4. ru–paka, 5. bahuru–paka, 6. par ī sarpa, 7. visarpa, 8. gotraja, 9. netraja, 10.
roma–da, 11. rohita, 12. kas. .t a, 13. da–run. aka, 14. sƒiroja, 15. dantaja, 16. sƒles. maja, 17.
sƒakr. da–sƒraya, 18. lohita, 19. ka–laka, 20. sƒatama–tr. ka. Meulenbeld derives these names
differently and reads majja–ja instead of mr. jja–, combines leva– and ru–paka into lamba–
ru–paka and splits rohita into antra–da and ahita.
9. See HS, Tr, 5 for descriptions of pathogens. This text classifies pathogens into external
and internal and lists six and seven names in each category making it a total of
thirteen. The six external parasites are 1. kr. s. n. ayu–ka, 2. sƒvetayu–ka, 3. carmayu–kika–, 4.
binduk ī , 5. matkun. a, 6. mastakayu–ka– and 7. yas. mika– . The seven internal parasites
are 1. pr. thumun. d. a–, 2. kam – – –
. cukasannibha, 3. dha nya n. kura, 4. suks. ma, 5. an. u and 6.
suc ī mukha
–
10. See Meulenbeld’s (p.624) obserervations on the aptness of the term udara–ves. .t a of
Va– gbhat.a to describe the round worm. He points out that this could be the gan. d. u–pada
of Susƒruta and the kim –
. cukasannibha of Har ta.
11. The descriptions of the external pathogens can be seen in CS, Vi,, 7.10 and AH, Ni,
14. 44.
12. The works of Caraka (Vi, 7.11), Susƒruta (Utta, 54.19-20) and Va– gbhat.a (Ni, 14.51)
unanimously state that the pathogens growing in the blood are invisible. While Caraka
and Va– gbhat.a mention that some of them are invisible, Susƒruta categorically states
that all pathogens growing in the blood are invisible.
13. See CS, Vi, 7.12 for description of shapes of pathogens growing in the mucus.
14. See CS, Vi, 7.13 for description of shapes of pathogens growing in the feces.
558 INDIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY OF SCIENCE
15. See CS, Vi, 7.10 for symptoms caused by the external pathogens.
16. See CS, Vi, 7.11 for symptoms caused by parasites of the blood.
17. See CS, Vi, 7.12 for symptoms caused by parasites of the mucus.
18. See CS, Vi, 7.13 for symptoms caused by parasites of the feces.
19. See AH, Utta, 23.12-15 for description of kr. mija sƒiroroga and Ni, 5. 43-44 for
description of kr. mija hr. droga
20. See Meulenbeld pp. 622-627, for discussion on the chapter dealing with kr. mis in his
translation of the Ma– dhava Nida– na
21. See commentary of Arun. adatta on AH, Ci, 14.51, where he explains that the pathogens
of blood cannot be seen with naked eye and can only be inferred by signs-
kecidadarsƒana–h. pratyaks. aprama–n. a–samadhigamya–h. ka–ryen. aiva–num ī yante.
22. See SS, Ni, 5.6, 8, 25, 26 where the involvement of pathogenic organisms in specific
stages of the disease is explained.
23. See AH, Ni, 14. 4-5 where the disease is said to attract kr. mis as it progresses.
24. See SS, Ni, 5.33-34 for a description of the modes of transmission of diseases. It is
interesting to note that this topic is taken up in the chapter on skin diseases, which
is explicitly stated to involve pathogenic organisms and are communicable. In AH, Ni,
14. 41, the same topic is discussed followed by a description of kr. mis. It almost looks
like the ancient physicians sensed the connection between pathogenic organisms and
communicability of diseases. But in fact, they did not discover this important link.
Gayada– sa addresses this issue in his commentary on the above verse in Susƒruta
–
Sam . hita , by raising the question - “How does disease get transmitted from one person
to the other?” and he answers, “By transfer of sin, just by contact with a person, the
sin is transmitted from one to another”.
25. See Gayada– sa’s commentary on SS, Ni, 5.33-34
26. See CS, Vi, 3.6 for a description of epidemics. The role of pathogenic organisms in
the spread of epidemics has not been recognized.
27. See SS, Ci, 1.119-122 where it is mentioned that flies can deposit pathogenic organisms
on wounds and cause severe swelling.
28. See SS, Ci, 1.133 for instructions to protect a wounded person from being attacked
by demons called as nisƒa–caras here.
29. See SS, Su–, 9.12 for a description of the methods of tempering the surgical instruments
in water, oil and alkaline solutions before use.
30. See CS, Vi, 7.14 for methods of treatment of pathogenic infestations.
31. See CS, Sû, 4. 11 for list of drugs that have kr. mighna action.
PATHOGENIC ORGANISMS IN THE EARLY TEXTS OF AYURVEDA 559
BIBLIOGRAPHY
–
Girijadayalu, S., (ed.) Bhela Sam . hita , Chaukhambha Bharati Academy, Varanasi, 1999
.
Harisastri, P. V., (ed.) As. .t a–n ga Hr. dayam, Chaukhambha Orientalia, Varanasi, 2002
Meulenbeld, G. J., The Ma–dhava Nidana and its chief commentary, E.J. Brill, Lieden, 1974
–
Ramavalamba, S., (ed.) Harita Sam . hita , Prachya Prakashan, Varanasi, 1985
Yadavji, T. A., (ed.) Susƒruta Sam –
. hita , Chaukhambha Orientalia, Varanasi, 1980
–
Yadavji, T. A., (ed.) Caraka Sam
. hita , Munshilal Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd, Delhi,
1992