वृक्षायुर्वेद (सुरपाल - प्राचीन भारतीय पादप-विज्ञान, कृषि एवं वृक्ष-चिकित्सा सटीक)

solve the riddle of the common verses in the two texts.
The theory for want of definite proof may be regarded
as unproved.
It becomes possible then to give a serious thought to
another theory putting Surapala in the tenth century. It
can satisfactorily explain Sarngadhara's compiling in
his work extracts from Vrikshayurveda, an authentic text
on that science by a reputed scholar like Surapala. Any
other theory which makes Surapala Sarngadhara's
successor will be hard put to explain why a great expert
in the science should borrow from compilations of his
predecessors. "A prominent physician" under the
patronage of a "great" king must do better than that to
deserve the "spotless" fame and the tribute that tradition
has paid to him by preserving his name through the
centuries. In spite of these difficulties, the facts—that
the science of Vrikshayurveda was well developed in
ancient India, that Vrikshayurveda was also the name
of an authentic text of that science, and that its author
was Surapala—which were already accepted have been
fully corroborated by the existence of the present
manuscript.
The existence of the manuscript has solved some
problems but it has also given rise to some new ones.
The most important problems are:
• How does one explain the overwhelming
resemblance between Upavanavinoda and the
present text of Vrikshayurveda?
• If in Upavanavinoda Sarngadhara compiled extracts
from several Vrikshayurvedas, then which extracts
could be the portions of the science of
Vrikshayurveda which Sarngadhara did not
compile?
• Does the present manuscript provide any clue to
it?
A comparison of the two texts, thus becomes essential.
The third text, viz., Brhatsamhita also can be considered
alongside as both the texts have borrowed material from
it.
The starting point for such a comparison is obviously
the scrutiny of the three texts with regard to the various
topics they discuss (Table 1). Even such a superficial
comparison of the three texts helps us to make the
following observations:
• The topics are more exhaustive, systematic, and
balanced in Vrikshayurveda than in the other two
texts.
• Topics such as planting, nourishment, diseases and
ailments, and treatment are most directly and vitally
connected with the science of plant life.
Vrikshayurveda treats them in the most exhaustive
manner and thus, justifies its title. While
Brhatsamhita treats these topics very briefly,
Upavanavinoda too compares unfavorably with
Vrikshayurveda.
• The basic principle of Ayurveda is the "Tridhatu"
theory according to which a perfect balance of the
three humors, viz., kafa, pitta, and vata signifies good
health and any imbalance indicates lack of it among
the human beings. If Vrikshayurveda is a science
concerning the trees it should also, in order to justify
its title, make the same "Tridhatu" theory applicable
to the trees. Curiously enough Brhatsamhita which
has a chapter "Vrikshayurveda" does not even refer
to this theory. Upavanavinoda mentions it and
makes it applicable to trees, but the treatment is

39