Vyādhikṣamatva

It is said that due to some specific causes even unwholesome food does not produce disease immediately. All unwholesome food articles are not equally bad; all doshas are not of equal strength nor are all bodies capable of resisting disease equally. Āyurvedadīpikā states that, resistance to disease includes both attenuation of the manifested disease as well as prevention of the un-manifested one. Here also he applies the rule pradibandhābhave sati kāraṇatvaṃ. This concept is explained more in explicitly in Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha as doṣakopavighnata. Even though all the pathological factors for the manifestation of diseases i.e., nidāna, doṣa, dūṣya are present, their proper combination alone produce diseases. Certain inhibiting factors prevent the combination of these units. This is called as doṣaprakopaṇa prativighna (Humoral Morbidity inhibiting) factor. That is why all etiological factors do not produce disease. Likewise all humoral factors are not of equal strength and all the human bodies are not of equal strength79. In certain bodies even greater morbidity does not cause disease. Likewise, high incompatible substance does not cause any symptom due to bala.²³⁶ A.Raghu etal acknowledges Āyurvedadīpikā’s interpretation of the role of kāla in determining the bala. It is very much logical for Cakrapāṇidatta to conceive a pronounced psychosomatic interaction in cases of prolonged duration and minimum such interaction in cases of short duration, indirectly making some implication on bala.

Āhārapariṇāma

The ingested food will be subjected to combustion by the digestive fire in the form of bhūtāgnis alternatively the digestive mechanism acting here is the respective dhātvāgnis²³⁷.The process of metabolism goes on incessantly in the body by which there is a continuous depletion of dhātus as time moves forward and is replenished by the food and thus, the integrity of the body is maintained. The usage kālavadanasthitasarvadhātupāka in the verse 28.4 is interpreted differently by some commentators. They attribute this to be the epithet of the body. According to them, only timely intake of food is responsible for the causation of plumpness etc., of the body. The process of transformation of food in to the bodily tissue elements, according to them, should go on incessantly. If the nutrition to any tissue element is obstructed, there will be no replenishment of the loss or growth of that particular tissue element .Hence the question of plumpness etc., would not arise. This explanation does not appear to be relavant. This will be a repetition as this idea is already contained in the subsequent statement namely anupahatasarva dhātūṣmamārutasrotaḥ. In order that the promotion of plumpness of the body is maintained, it is necessary that all the dhātvāgnis, the vyānavāyu and the srotas should remain unimpaired. Here Cakrapāṇidatta also brings in the element of dharma also for the proper utilization of food and maintenance of śarīra²³⁸. As the result of this process of digestion, food gets differentiated in to nutrient part called sāra and the waste product called kiṭṭa. From kiṭṭāṃśa the vāta (flatus?) etc are produced, vāta is also produced from fasting and exercise²³⁹. Āyurvedadīpikā explains that the transformation by bhūtāgnis also takes place at the level of dhātus since they are also composed of pañcamahābhūtas. Even these dhātvagnis and bhūtāgnis act on line in same way as that of jaṭharāgni.²⁴⁰The essence gives rise to the dhātus in their successive order. The essence of the food nourishes the sense organs. The commentator refers three views about the process of transformation of food to dhātus, based on three popular maxims or laukikanyāya: kṣīradadhinyāya, kedārikulyanyāya, and khalekhapotanyāya. The kṣīradadhinyāya explains the transformation of food in to successive dhātus similar to the conversion of milk to curd. The digestive product of food goes to the abodes of rasadhātu and remaining portion comes in contact with rakta and is utilized for its nourishment and so on to the successive dhātus. This is the way the process of transformation of dhātus has been explained by kedārīkulyanyāya. Based on Suśruta Āyurvedadīpikā explains that the digestive process from rasa to śukra will take one month. In khalekapotanyāya the digestive products of food goes to various dhātus through different channels and provide them with nutrition. The nourishing part meant for a particular dhātu will not come in contact with the portion meant for other dhātus. The time meant nourishment is directly proportional to the length of the concerned srotas. As the length increases the time for nourishment also increases. Here Āyurvedadīpikā, clarifies that the rakta get obstructed in rājayakṣma is not the poṣakadhātu but is the one related to heart and there is no apparent contradiction in accepting this view. The commentator also points our attention towards the fallacies attached to each nyāya. The kṣīradadhinyāya fails to explain the instantaneous increase of śukra, when vājīkaraṇa drugs are used. This can be explained by kalekapotanyāya, the products of vājīkaraṇa drugs and diet due their specific action, come in contact with śukra and nourishes it instanstaneously. Further, if there is vitiation of the digestive product of the food, as per the kṣīradhadhinyāya all other dhātus should also get vitiated, as all of them are products of āhārarasa. In this nyāya further transformation will result only in the production of vitiated dhātus. According to khalekapotanyāya only those dhātus are vitiated whose nutrient portions in the digestive product of food are vitiated and not others because the nutrient portions of these dhātus remain unaffected. If kṣīradadhinyāya is accepted in the case of atimedura or excess of medodhātu, the quantity of astidhātu should also show a corresponding increase.But here we observe a decrease in asthidhātu. Thus kṣīradadhinyāyya seems to be fallacious. If this nyāya is accepted the fasting will result in the death of the individual. On fasting for one month, the whole body should be of śukra only. Cakrapāṇidatta gives equal importance for khalekhapotanyāya and kedārīkulyanyāya in Āyurvedadīpikā. According to both the nyāyas, it is by specific action that the digestive product of the vṛṣyāhāras and auṣadhas pass through the dhātus, namely rakta etc., and instantaneously produce śukra. Similarly according to both the nyāyas all dhātus need not get vitiated by the vitiation of rasadhātu since the portions meant for the nourishment of each dhātu is separate and they may not get vitiated simultaneously. According to kedārīkulyanyāya instead of entire transformation of rasa to rakta, only the portion homologous to each dhātu will be transformed to the respective dhātus. Thus an increase in medas need not necessarily increase asthi because astidhātu does not get nourishment from medas. Thus both these nyāyas are considered equally valuable for a due appreciation of the process of the transformation of the dhātus. Hence it is not possible to say as to which one of them is more correct especially when our present day knowledge about such phenomena is limited. The nyāya do not contradict each other with regard to the actual manifestation of dhātus. So there need not be any controversy about the comparative merits or demerits of these nyāyas. Further, in cikitsāsthāna he opines that khalekapotanyāya is not appropriate. If accepted it will be very difficult to prove that the nourishment of the rakta takes places out of the nutritive fraction of rasa²⁴¹. He wants the readers to refer the vividhāśītapītīyādhyaya for details where kṣīradadhinyāya is rejected and khalekapotanyāya and kedārīkulyanyāya are given equal status. If this rendering is correct one then it is an apparent contradiction in the stand of commentator. In Bhānumatī, the stand is clearer in nature, Cakrapāṇidatta clearly states that he is more inclined towards kedārīkulyanyāya.²⁴²Cakrapāṇidatta explains two types of rasa; one is sthāyi or poṣya or the stable tissue element and the other the poṣaka or asthāyi or the non permanent tissue element which nourishes the successive dhātus. In the context of rasa, both sthāyi and poṣaka fractions are connoted by the term rasa. In the case of sthāyi and poṣaka fractions, there is no difference in the locations and hence the number of dhātus is only seven and not fourteen²⁴³. Bhagavan Das and R.K.Sharma considers the narration of these nyāyas in connection with dhātupariṇāma, the concept of poṣya and poṣaka dhātus, the classification of buddhi as sahaja, the concept of vyādhyutpāda-prati bhandhakavtva, and enumeration of parāpara ojas as the original contribution of Āyurvedadīpikā.²⁴⁴ The possibility of Cakrapāṇidatta being a follower of contemperoy ideas about concepts as observed by Prof. Meulenbeld hold²⁴⁵.

Cakrapāṇidatta differentiates the avasthāpāka and niṣṭāpāka, while explaining the aṇupāka or subtler digestive process. Āyurvedadīpikā explains that there is no confusion between two pākas. The former merely represents the transformation of the rasa of the food as a whole during the process of digestion in the gastro-intestinal tract while the latter represents the rasa that ultimately emerges out of these ingredients at a post digestive stage. A part from the post digestive effects which are different for different tastes, ingredients having a particular type of rasa does affect the avasthāpāka during the process of digestion in as much as food dominated by madhura produces more kapha in the first stage of this pāka in comparison with the food dominated by other rasas. Similarly, food dominated with amla will produce more pitta during the second stage than other rasas. Thus avasthāpāka and niṣṭāpāka of different varieties of tastes does not come in clash with niṣṭāpāka or vipāka of different rasas. Vipāka represents the rasa of the ingredients at the time of metabolism when the food product is transformed in to two parts namely rasa and mala. The avasthāpāka represents the rasa of the food during the process of digestion, which obviously takes place at a different time, i.e. prior to the process of the metabolism. Therefore, there is no contradiction in the description of avasthāpāka and vipāka. Not withstanding the difference in the timings of avasthāpāka and vipāka, description of both in the treatise is necessary in as much as depending up on the conduciveness or otherwise of these rasas, the doṣas generated during the avasthāpāka are either aggravated or alleviated respectively at the stage of vipāka. Āyurvedadīpikā draws our attention to a different view regarding the avasthāpāka. According to some physicians : generally speaking there is no manifestation of kapha etc., from the food possessing all the six rasas. As a matter of fact, during the first stage of avasthāpāka, madhurarasa manifests itself and kapha is generated.Similarly in the case of pitta and vāyu are produced in the subsequent stages of pāka. While some other physicians are of the opinion that these doṣas are not generated by the interaction with agni and they hold the view that the very nature of these three sites results in the generation of these doṣas. Cakrapāṇidatta cites Su.26.42 and resolves this controversy and justifies his own interpretation in preference to other alternate views. According to another text, madhura and amla being inherent in kapha and pitta respectively cause the generation of these rasas. This is in conformity with Āyurvedadīpikā. Some hold the view that in the first avasthāpāka, fraction of the food causes aggravation of kapha doṣa. This view is also accepted by Āyurvedadīpikā. This is due to the specific nature of the avasthāpāka that the fraction of food, which causes aggravation of the kapha, becomes explicit in sweetness, aggravating kapha specifically there by. According some other school of physicians, during the avasthāpākā, kapha and pitta get only stimulated (īraṇamātra) and these doṣas do not actually get aggravated at that time. According them, it is only at the stage of niṣṭhāpāka that the doṣas get aggravated. This view does not hold well according to Āyurvedadīpikā. According to Cakrapāṇidatta, kapha and pitta get aggravated during the first and second stages of avasthāpāka respectively, and at the stage of niṣṭhāpāka, these doṣas are produced as by- product or malarūpa. Cakrapāṇidatta clarifies that though there are several varieties of agni responsible for the synthesis and nourishment of upadhātus are functioning in body and they are grouped under the class of bhūtāgni. Any change in the nature of jaṭharāgni will be reflecting in its moieties bhūtāgnis and dhātvagnis.²⁴⁶

Cakrapāṇidatta explains the usage of ṣoṣyamāṇa instead of pacyamāna to highlight the point, that in the lower part of pakvāśaya there is not much agnivyāpāra and the term highlights greater role of vāyu²⁴⁷.

Āma

Āyurvedadīpikā explains that āma, will vitiate the body only when it is in contact with vitiated doṣas²⁴⁸. The commentary also provides divergent views on the concept of āma. To some it is conglomeration of malas; some regard it as annarasa; and first doṣaduṣṭi is regarded as āma by some physicians. Bhoja favours the idea indigested rāsa as āma and Iśvarasena also proposes almost similar idea²⁴⁹.

Pathya

Āyurvedadīpikā explains the concepts of pathya as that which is conducive for the bodily srotases. The term patha covers both doṣas and dhātus, along with their srotas. Alternatively it covers both the preventive as well as curative aspects of Āyurveda. Other scholars are of the opinion that the psychological disposition towards the treatments (which covers food, regimens, and medicines) determines its wholesomeness and unwholesomeness. If the given food or medicine is in conformity with the patient’s personal liking are effective and not other wise. Thus the concept of pathya in one sense is a relative one.²⁵⁰ Even the narration which suggests about the absolute form of apthya is relative in its strict sense. The counter acting causes like deśa, kāla, saṃyoga, and saṃskāra etc, countering those apathyas may turn to be pathya.²⁵¹ Again the apathyas like viṣa etc., can be utilized in to pathya by its judicious usage.²⁵²