Export Introduction: Ayurveda is a time-honored medical discipline that aims to maintain the well-being of a healthy individual and alleviate the ailments of an afflicted individual. The mention of diverse samhitas in Ayurveda is a notable aspect. Numerous scholars composed commentaries on the Charakasamhita to comprehend its profound significance. The commentaries provide a comprehensive explanation of the subject matter discussed in the Samhita, including jangama, parthiva, audbhida, and other technical terms. Numerous commentaries remain inaccessible in their entirety, and several others are yet to be published. Acharya Jogindranath Sen authored a pair of commentaries on the charakasamhita, with the charakopaskara commentary being recognized as prominent within the Ayurvedic community. However, the Charakavivriti commentary authored by the individual in question did not attain widespread recognition. The following research aims to conduct a comparative analysis of herbal substances as outlined in Charakavivriti and Charakopaskar commentary. Methods: The study conducted herein involves a comparative analysis of the first 20 chapters of Chikitsasthan in charakavivriti commentary. In addition, the Charakopaskar commentary has been examined in conjunction with the aforementioned chapters. Result and Conclusion: A total of 504 audbhida dravya references were analyzed. Of these, 129 plants showed identical interpretations in both commentaries, whereas 110 plants exhibited differing interpretations of the same Sanskrit terms. In addition, 67 plants were commented upon exclusively in Charakavivriti, whereas 198 plants appeared only in Charakopaskara. Variations in interpretation, despite both works being authored by the same scholar, reflect distinct interpretative frameworks – Charakopaskara often emphasizing principles of bhaishajya-kalpana (pharmaceutics), which influenced the classification and therapeutic contextualization of certain herbs. This study particularly focused on the differences in plant nomenclature, therapeutic use, and inclusion in formulations as interpreted by each commentator, which significantly influenced their herbal classifications and textual emphasis.
Makwana et al. (Wed,) studied this question.