1. Sex and Alcohol in Charaka Samhita

 

From the standpoint of orthodox religion, the Charaka Samhita (C.S.) wants to look very pious when it recommends brahmacharya or celibacy and even goes to the extent of declaring that it is the best road to liberation (i.30.14).

Now the essential precondition of brahmacharya is abstinence from sex, and as understood by our Indian Law-givers, also abstinence from alcohol.[P.V. Kane, on the authority of Apastamba, Manu, and Yajnavalkya observes that one of the essential preconditions for the observance of celibacy or brahmacharya is 'to abstain from every kind of intoxicant' (History of Dharmasastras ii.374)]

 

Strangely, however, the same text (C.S.) contains a very long chapter (with four sub-chapters) on vajikarana, prescribing recipes for increasing sexual stamina. The chapter opens with a rather lurid description of how an exhilirating female partner best stimulates sex in the male (C.S. vi.2A.4). Elsewhere, while recommending the regulation of sexual behavior according to seasonal variation, it advises one to have as much of sex as one may like with the coming of winter: prakamam ca niseveta maithunam sisiragame. This, to say the least, can hardly be said by any true brahmacharya enthuiast.

 

But, by its inherent nature (svabhava) alcohol is to be viewed as on par with food. Consumed without consideration of rational application or yukti, it leads to disease. Consumed with due consideration of rational application (or yukti), it is like nectar.

Further, the Charaka Samhita is keenly aware of the undesirable consequences of excessive drinking.It prescribes certain remedies for alcoholism, inclusive of the controlled use of alcohol itself, and--reckless to the orthodox ethico-religious norm--"the aid of affectionate embraces of women's bodies full of the warmth of youth, the warm clasp of their waists, thighs and full grown breasts" (vi.24.134).

 

What is important to note here, is that the in the extant forms that they reach us the primary source books of Ayurveda are not coherent texs. They are full of anomalies and inconsistencies ranging from the intermixture of incompatible philosophical views to crude contradictions of practical precepts.

 

These incompatibilities can only be explained if we imagine that they are in the nature of ransoms offered to the orthodoxy--the stamp of religion given on science in the hope of making it acceptable to orthodoxy. Thus the medical text gets invaded by extra-medical ideas and attitudes. The importance of Charaka Samhita also lies in the fact that we find in it certain rules formulated by the ancient physicians whereby the truly medical and extra-medical views are to be differentiated according to them; these rules (which are thoroughly scientific and rationalistic) enable us to make a critical assessment of the text without depending on any criterion which may be called arbitrary from the standpoing of Ayurveda. Following the rules formulated by the ancient doctors enables us to reject the extra-medical nonsense found in this book, and retaining the objective medical information which is also present in the Charaka Samhita.

 

2. Charaka Samhita and Holy Cow

 

In a number of passages of the Ayurvedic text Charaka Samhita, we find the enthuiastic recommendation of the worship of the cow along with other holy objects such as the gods and the brahmins. A typical example is the advice 'deva-go-brahmana-guru-vrddha-siddha-acaryan arcayet' (i.8.18): one should worship the gods, cows, brahmins, preceptors, spiritual adepts, and teachers. The same discourse naturally prohibits hostility in any form against such holy objects such as the brahmins and the cows: na brahmanam parivadet, na gavam danda udyacchet--"Nothing adverse is to be said against the brahmin, the staff must not be raised against the cow."

As one of the purifying procedures to be observed before collecting the medical herbs is mentioned, sampujya devata asvinau go-brahmanau ca --'having worshipped the gods, the Asvins, as well as the cows and brahmins'.

 

These are only a few examples of the purely religious interest in the cow which one frequently comes across in Charaka Samhita.

 

Strangely though the same text also clearly shows a clear medical interest in the same animal i.e. an interest in its flesh from the therapeutic point of view. In particular, we find the cow being discussed in certain passages of the text which appear audaciously objective--even heretical--from the viewpoint from which the worship of the cow is recommended.

We are told of the exact place the animal has in the general zoological classification of the ancient doctors, who are frankly interested in the classification because it gives them the clue to the properties of the animal flesh strictly discussed as diet or drug.

 

The doctors seem to be specially impressed by what we call the protein value of the cow's flesh. In their terminology, it is highly mamsa-kara or 'promoter of flesh' (i.27). So it is specially recommended to persons badly in need of adding flesh to their bodies--to those who are suffering from the loss of flesh due to irregular fever, dry cough, etc. as well as to those that have excessive appetite because of living the life of hard manual labour. As the text puts it:

 

gavyam kevala-vatesu pinase visama-jvare
suskakasa-srama-atyagni-mamsakasaya-hitam ca tat (i.27.79-80).

These two attitudes it should be noted do not signify any ambivalence; they only exemplify a flat contradiction since one cannot worship the cow as a god as well as freely eat it to satisfy one's mere physical requirement. But,since this is a medical text, the important question is: which is of these two attitudes to the cow is presumably the attitude of the physicians proper? There can be only one answer to this; it is the attitude to the cow's flesh as diet or drug and not the attitude to the cow judged as holy object or worship. Evidently, the worship of the cow is recommended from the viewpoint of orthodox religion and the prescription of its flesh from that of medicine proper.In our text, the former is loosely superimposed on the latter, without any effort to make the two cohere.