{{Short description|Ancient Sanskrit medical compendium}}
{{italic title}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2022}}
{{Use Indian English|date=September 2022}}
[[File:The Susruta-Samhita or Sahottara-Tantra (A Treatise on Ayurvedic Medicine) LACMA M.87.271a-g (1 of 8).jpg|thumb|250px|Palm leaves of the ''Sushruta Samhita'' or ''Sahottara-Tantra'' from [[Nepal]], stored at [[Los Angeles County Museum of Art]]. The text is dated 12th-13th century while the art is dated 18th-19th century.]]
{{Hindu scriptures}}
The '''''Sushruta Samhita''''' ({{langx|sa|सुश्रुतसंहिता|lit=Suśruta's Compendium}}, {{IAST3|Suśrutasaṃhitā}}) is an ancient [[Sanskrit]] text on [[medicine]] and one of the most important such treatises on this subject to survive from the ancient world. The ''Compendium of [[Sushruta|Suśruta]]'' is one of the foundational texts of [[Ayurveda]], alongside the ''[[Charaka Samhita|Charaka-Saṃhitā]]'', ''the [[Bhela Samhita|Bhela-Saṃhitā]]'', and the medical portions of the [[Bower Manuscript]].{{Sfn| Meulenbeld|1999|pp = 203–389 (Volume IA)}}{{Sfn|Rây|1980}} It is one of two foundational Hindu texts on the medical profession that have survived from ancient India.Wendy Doniger (2014), On Hinduism, Oxford University Press, {{ISBN|978-0199360079}}, page 79;
Sarah Boslaugh (2007), Encyclopedia of Epidemiology, Volume 1, SAGE Publications, {{ISBN|978-1412928168}}, page 547, '''Quote''': "The Hindu text known as Sushruta Samhita is possibly the earliest effort to classify diseases and injuries"
The ''Suśrutasaṃhitā'' is of great historical importance because it includes historically unique chapters describing surgical training, instruments and procedures.{{Sfn|Rây|1980}}{{Sfn|Valiathan|2007}}{{pageneeded|date=November 2023}} The oldest surviving manuscript of the ''Suśrutasaṃhitā'' is MS Kathmandu KL 699, a [[palm-leaf manuscript]] preserved at the [[Kaiser library|Kaiser Library]], Nepal, dated to 878 AD.{{Cite book |last=Wujastyk |first=Dominik |url=https://books.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/xa/catalog/book/1203 |title=On the Plastic Surgery of the Ears and Nose |last2=Birch |first2=Jason |last3=Klebanov |first3=Andrey |last4=Parameswaran |first4=Madhu K. |last5=Rimal |first5=Madhusudan |last6=Chakraborty |first6=Deepro |last7=Bhatt |first7=Harshal |last8=Lele |first8=Vandana |last9=Mehta |first9=Paras |date=2023 |publisher=Heidelberg Asian Studies Publishing |doi=10.11588/hasp.1203}}{{cite journal|author= Kengo Harimoto| title= In search of the Oldest Nepalese Manuscript|journal= Rivista degli Studi Orientali| volume=84|year=2011|pages=85–88}}
==History==
{{Quote box |width=26em | bgcolor=#FFE0BB |align=right |salign = right
|quote='''Ancient qualifications of a Nurse'''
Translator: Bhishagratna{{Sfn| Bhishagratna|1907|p=307}}}}
===Date===
The most detailed and extensive consideration of the date of the ''Suśrutasaṃhitā'' is that published by Meulenbeld in his ''History of Indian Medical Literature'' (1999–2002). Meulenbeld states that the ''Suśrutasaṃhitā'' is likely a work that includes several historical layers, whose composition may have begun in the last centuries BCE and was completed in its presently surviving form by another author who redacted its first five sections and added the long, final section, the "Uttaratantra."{{Sfn|Meulenbeld|1999|pp=203–389 (Volume IA)}} It is likely that the ''Suśruta-saṃhitā'' was known to the scholar {{ill|Dṛḍhabala|qid=Q107208659|display=true}} (fl. 300–500 CE), which gives the latest date for the version of the work that has survived into the modern era.{{Sfn|Meulenbeld|1999|pp=203–389 (Volume IA)}}
In ''Suśrutasaṃhitā - A Scientific Synopsis'', the historians of Indian science Ray, Gupta and Roy noted the following view, which is broadly the same as Meulenbeld's:{{Cite book |last1=Ray |first1=Priyadaranjan |url=http://n2t.net/ark:/13960/t6066dz1s |title=Suśruta saṃhitā: (a scientific synopsis) |last2=Gupta |first2=Hirendra Nath |last3=Roy |first3=Mira |date=1980 |publisher=Indian National Science Academy |location=New Delhi |pages=4 |language=English |oclc=985517620}}
"The Chronology Committee of the National Institute of Sciences of India (Proceedings, 1952),{{Cite book |last=India |first=National Institute of Sciences of |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wSg2AQAAIAAJ |title=Proceedings of the National Institute of Sciences of India |date=1952 |publisher=National Institute of Sciences of India |language=en}} was of the opinion that third to fourth centuries A. D. may be accepted as the date of the recension of the Suśruta Saṃhitā by Nāgārjuna, which formed the basis of Dallaṇa's commentary."The above view remains the consensus amongst university scholars of the history of Indian medicine and Sanskrit literature. ==== Hoernle's view ==== The scholar [[Rudolf Hoernle]] (1841–1918) proposed in 1907 that because the author of the ''[[Satapatha Brahmana|Śatapathabrāhmaṇa]]'', a Vedic text from the mid-first-millennium BCE, was aware of [[Sushruta]]'s doctrines, Sushruta's work should be dated based on the composition date of ''Śatapathabrāhmaṇa''.{{Sfn|Hoernle |1907 |p = 8}} The composition date of the Brahmana was itself unclear, added Hoernle, but he estimated it to be about the sixth century BCE.{{Sfn|Hoernle |1907 |p = 8}} However, Hoernle's view was based on the unexamined assumption that the ideas about the human skeleton in the ''Suśrutasaṃhitā'' preceded those of the ''Brāhmaṇa.'' He seems never to have questioned this assumption. Hoernle's date of 600 BCE for the ''Suśrutasaṃhitā'' was challenged by intervening scholarship over the last century. This scholarship was summarized by Meulenbeld in his ''History of Indian Medical Literature''.{{Cite book |last=Meulenbeld |first=Gerrit Jan |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/872371654 |title=A history of Indian medical literature. |date=2000 |isbn=90-6980-124-8 |volume=IA |location=Groningen |pages=361-363 |oclc=872371654}} Central to the problem of chronology is the fact that the ''Suśrutasaṃhitā'' was the work of several hands. The internal tradition recorded in manuscript colophons and by medieval commentators makes clear that an old version of the ''Suśrutasaṃhitā'' consisted of sections 1-5, with the sixth part having been added by a later author. However, the oldest extant manuscripts include the sixth section, called "The Later Book" (Skt. Uttara-tantra). Manuscript colophons refer to the whole work as "The Suśrutasaṃhitā together with the Uttara-tantra," reinforcing the idea that they are a combined work. Thus, it does not make sense to speak of "the date of Suśruta." Like "Hippocrates," the name "Suśruta" refers to the work of many authors working over several centuries. ==== Further views on chronology ==== As mentioned above, scores of scholars have proposed hypotheses on the formation and dating of the ''Suśrutasaṃhitā'', ranging from 2000 BCE to the sixth century CE. These views have been gathered and described by the medical historian Jan Meulenbeld.{{sfn|Meulenbeld|1999|pp=341–346}} ===Authorship=== {{anchor|Sushruta}} [[File:A statue of Sushruta at RACS, Melbourne.jpg|thumb|A statue of [[Sushruta]] (600 BCE) at [[Royal Australasian College of Surgeons]] (RACS) in [[Melbourne]], [[Australia]].]] ''Sushruta'' or ''Suśruta'' ([[Sanskrit]]: '''सुश्रुत''', [[IAST]]: {{IAST|Suśruta}}, {{lit|well heard}},{{Cite book|title = A Sanskrit-English Dictionary|last = Monier-Williams|first = Monier|publisher = Clarendon Press|year = 1899|location = Oxford|pages = 1237|url = http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/monier/serveimg.pl?file=/scans/MWScan/MWScanjpg/mw1237-suvarNya.jpg}} an adjective meaning "renowned"Monier-Williams, ''A Sanskrit Dictionary'' (1899).) is named in the text as the author, who is presented in later manuscripts and printed editions a narrating the teaching of his guru, Divodāsa.{{Cite book|title = An English Translation of the Sushruta Samhita, based on Original Sanskrit Text|last = Bhishagratna|first = Kunjalal|year = 1907|publisher=self-published|location = Calcutta|pages = 1|url = https://archive.org/stream/englishtranslati01susruoft|ref = bhishagratna}}{{Cite web|title=The Suśruta Project – The textual and cultural history of medicine in South Asia based on newly-discovered manuscript evidence|url=https://sushrutaproject.org/|access-date=2021-06-21|language=en-GB}} Early Buddhist [[Jataka tales|Jatakas]] mention a Divodāsa as a physician who lived and taught in ancient Kashi ([[Varanasi district|Varanasi]]). The earliest known mentions of the name Suśruta firmly associated with the tradition of the ''Suśrutasaṃhitā'' is in the ''[[Bower Manuscript]]'' (4th or 5th century CE), where Suśruta is listed as one of the ten sages residing in the Himalayas.{{Sfn|Kutumbian|2005|pp=XXXII-XXXIII}} After a review of all past scholarship on the identity of Suśruta, Meulenbeld concluded that:
As is obvious from the foregoing, it is rather generally assumed that we owe the main part of the Suśrutasaṃhitā or an earlier version of it to a historical person called Suśruta. This assumption, however, is not based on uncontrovertible evidence and may be illusory. The text of the Suśrutasaṃhitā does not warrant that the one who composed it was a Suśruta. The structure of the treatise shows without ambiguity that the author, who created a coherent whole out of earlier material, attributed the teachings incorporated in his work to Kāśirāja Divodāsa...{{sfn|Meulenbeld|1999|p=342 }}===Religious affiliation=== The text has been called a Hindu text by many scholars.{{Sfn| Boslaugh|2007| p= 547, Quote: "The Hindu text known as Sushruta Samhita (600 AD) is possibly the earliest effort to classify diseases and injuries".}}{{Sfn|Schultheisz|1981| pp= 60-61, Quote: "(...) the Charaka Samhita and the Susruta Samhita, both being recensions of two ancient traditions of the Hindu medicine."}}{{Sfn|Loukas |2010 |p=646, Quote: Susruta's Samhita emphasized surgical matters, including the use of specific instruments and types of operations. It is in his work that one finds significant anatomical considerations of the ancient Hindu."}} The text discusses surgery with the same terminology found in more ancient Hindu texts,{{Sfn|Hoernle |1907 |pp = 8, 109-111}}{{cite journal | last=Raveenthiran | first=Venkatachalam | title=Knowledge of ancient Hindu surgeons on Hirschsprung disease: evidence from Sushruta Samhita of circa 1200-600 bc | journal=Journal of Pediatric Surgery | volume=46 | issue=11 | year=2011 | pages=2204–2208 | doi=10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2011.07.007 | pmid=22075360 }} mentions Hindu gods such as [[Narayana]], [[Hari]], [[Brahma]], [[Rudra]], [[Indra]] and others in its chapters,{{Sfn| Bhishagratna|1911|p=156 etc}}{{Sfn| Bhishagratna|1907|pp=6-7, 395 etc}} refers to the scriptures of Hinduism namely the [[Vedas]],{{Sfn| Bhishagratna|1911|pp=157, 527, 531, 536 etc}}{{Sfn| Bhishagratna|1907|pp=181, 304-305, 366, lxiv-lxv etc}} and in some cases, recommends exercise, walking and "constant study of the Vedas" as part of the patient's treatment and recovery process.{{Sfn| Bhishagratna|1911|p=377 etc}} The text also uses terminology of [[Vaisheshika|Vaiśeṣika]], [[Samkhya]] and other schools of [[Hindu philosophy]].{{Sfn| Bhishagratna|1911|pp=113-121 etc}}{{Sfn| Bhishagratna|1916|pp=285, 381, 407, 409, 415 etc}}{{Sfn|Engler|2003|pp=416-463}} The ''Sushruta Samhita'' and ''Caraka Samhita'' have religious ideas throughout, states Steven Engler, who then concludes "Vedic elements are too central to be discounted as marginal".{{Sfn|Engler|2003|pp=416-463}} These ideas include the use of terms and same metaphors that are variously pervasive in Buddhist and Hindu scriptures – the Vedas, and the inclusion of theory of [[Karma]], self ([[Atman (Hinduism)|Atman]]) and [[Brahman]] (metaphysical reality) along the lines of those found in ancient Hindu and Buddhist texts.{{Sfn|Engler|2003|pp=416-463}} However, adds Engler, the text also includes another layer of ideas, where empirical rational ideas flourish in competition or cooperation with religious ideas.{{Sfn|Engler|2003|pp=416-463}} Following Engler's study, contemporary scholars have abandoned the distinction "religious" vs. "empirico-rational" as no longer being a useful analytical distinction. The text may have Buddhist influences, since a redactor named [[Nagarjuna]] has raised many historical questions, although he cannot have been the person of Mahayana Buddhism fame.{{Sfn|Meulenbeld|1999|pp = 347–350 (Volume IA)}} Zysk produced evidence that the medications and therapies mentioned in the Pāli Canon bear strong resemblances and are sometimes identical to those of the ''Suśrutasaṃhitā'' and the ''Carakasaṃhitā.''{{Cite book |last=Zysk |first=Kenneth G. |title=Asceticism and healing in ancient India: medicine in the Buddhist monastery |date=1991 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-505956-4 |location=New York}} In general, states Zysk, Buddhist medical texts are closer to ''Sushruta'' than to ''Caraka'',{{Sfn|Zysk|2000|p=100}} and in his study suggests that the ''Sushruta Samhita'' probably underwent a "Hinduization process" around the end of 1st millennium BCE and the early centuries of the common era after the [[Hindu philosophy|Hindu orthodox]] identity had formed.{{Sfn|Zysk|2000|p=4-6, 25-26}} Clifford states that the influence was probably mutual, with Buddhist medical practice in its ancient tradition prohibited outside of the Buddhist monastic order by a precedent set by Buddha, and Buddhist text praise Buddha instead of Hindu gods in their prelude.Terry Clifford (2003), Tibetan Buddhist Medicine and Psychiatry: The Diamond Healing, Motilal Banarsidass, {{ISBN|978-8120817845}}, pages 35-39 The mutual influence between the medical traditions between the various Indian religions, the history of the layers of the ''Suśruta-saṃhitā'' remains unclear, a large and difficult research problem.{{Sfn|Meulenbeld|1999|pp = 347–350 (Volume IA)}} ''Sushruta'' is reverentially held in Hindu tradition to be a descendant of [[Dhanvantari]], the mythical god of medicine,[[Monier-Williams]], ''A Sanskrit Dictionary'', s.v. "suśruta" or as one who received the knowledge from a discourse from Dhanvantari in Varanasi. ===Manuscripts and transmission=== [[File:Page of text from the Susrutasamhita Wellcome L0034906.jpg|thumb|260px|A page from the ancient medical text, Susruta Samhita.]] The oldest known [[palm-leaf manuscript|manuscript]] of ''the Sushruta Samhita'' is preserved at the [[Kaiser Mahal|Kaiser Library]], Kathmandu, Nepal as manuscript MS Kathmandu Kaiser Library 699. A microfilm copy of the MS was created by Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project (NGMCP C 80/7) and is stored in the National Archives, Kathmandu. The partially damaged manuscript consists of 152 folios, written on both sides, with 6 to 8 lines in transitional Gupta script. The manuscript has been verifiably dated to have been completed by the scribe on Sunday, April 13, 878 CE (Manadeva Samvat 301). Much of the scholarship on the ''Suśruta-saṃhitā'' is based on editions of the text that were published during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This includes the important edition by Vaidya Yādavaśarman Trivikramātmaja Ācārya that also includes the commentary of the scholar Dalhaṇa.{{Cite book|title = Suśrutasaṃhitā, Suśrutena viracitā, Vaidyavaraśrīḍalhaṇācāryaviracitayā Nibandhasaṃgrahākhyavyākhyayā samullasitā, Ācāryopāhvena Trivikramātmajena Yādavaśarmaṇā saṃśodhitā|last = Ācārya|first = Yādavaśarman Trivikrama|publisher = Nirnaya Sagara Press|year = 1938|location = Mumbayyāṃ|ref = trikamji}} The printed editions are based on the small subset of surviving manuscripts that was available in the major publishing centers of Bombay, Calcutta and elsewhere when the editions were being prepared – sometimes as few as three or four manuscripts. But these do not adequately represent the large number of manuscript versions of the ''Suśruta-saṃhitā'' that have survived into the modern era. Taken together, all printed versions of the Suśrutasaṃhitā are based on no more than ten percent of the more than 230 manuscripts of the work that exist today.{{Cite book|last=Kumarapuram.|first=Kunjunni Raja|url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/157800144|title=New catalogus catalogorum : an alphabet. register of Sanskrit and allied works and authors|date=1973|oclc=157800144}} ==Contents== {{Quote box |width=26em | bgcolor=#FFE0BB |align=right |salign = right |quote='''Anatomy and empirical studies'''