[INDOLOGY] Mosquitoes

Mon Oct 26 09:16:21 UTC 2020

Dear colleagues,

Many thanks to Patrick McCartney, Cristophe Vielle, Martin Straube, Lubomìr Ondračka, Asko Parpola, Klaus Karttunen, Dan Lusthaus, Steve Farmer, Peter Wyzlic and Dominik Wujastyk for their responses to my request for materials about mosquitoes and disease-bearing insects. As ever, I am bowled over by the generosity of the list’s members.

Yours, with best wishes,

Jim 

> On 23 Oct 2020, at 22:00, Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> What Dan and others say is quite right.  Ayurvedic literature works with various etiologies: humoral, environmental, seasonal, karmic, etc., with contagion only faintly referenced.  Ken Zysk and Rahul Peter Das have both written about contagion in the classical texts, while one can also point to the contagious transmission of syphilis mentioned by Bhāvamiśra in his Bhāvaprakāśa (16 cent.).
> Having a medical system that explains disease in terms of individual constitutions raises a difficulty for physicians when faced with finding an explanatory model for epidemic disease (janapadoddhvaṃsa), where everyone comes down with the same symptoms in spite of being different people.  In this case, the explanation is that the shared environment is blighted. (Caraka offers a chapter that has much in common with the Hippocratic treatise "Airs, Waters, Places" as Zysk has discussed.)  And one of the elements in that blight is mosquitoes.  In my essay "Models of Disease in Ayurvedic Medicine" I go into this and give more detail (pp. 46-8 of the published version).
> 
> Best,
> Dominik
> 
> --
> Das, R. P. (2000). “Notions of ‘contagion’ in Classical Indian Medical Texts.” Contagion: Perspectives from Pre-modern Societies, pp. 55–78.
> Wujastyk, D. (2017). “Models of Disease in Ayurvedic Medicine.” (ed.) Jackson M.The Routledge History of Disease, pp. 38–53. Routledge: Abingdon. DOI: 10.4324/9781315543420. Draft copy at https://www.academia.edu/25517629/ <https://www.academia.edu/25517629/>.
> Zysk, K. G. (2000). “Does Ancient Indian Medicine Have a Theory of Contagion?” (ed.) Conrad L. I. & Wujastyk D.Contagion: Perspectives from Pre-modern Societies, pp. 79–95. Ashgate: Aldershot, Burlington USA, Singapore, Sydney.
> --
> Professor Dominik Wujastyk <https://apps.ualberta.ca/directory/person/wujastyk>,
> Singhmar Chair in Classical Indian Society and Polity,
> Department of History and Classics <http://historyandclassics.ualberta.ca/>,
> University of Alberta, Canada.
> 
> South Asia at the U of A: sas.ualberta.ca <http://sas.ualberta.ca/>
> 
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 12:35, Steve Farmer via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info <mailto:indology at list.indology.info>> wrote:
> Hi  Jim,
> 
>> I’ve been asked whether I know of any studies of mosquitoes or other disease-carrying insects in Indian literature. I don’t, and a search of the indology archive reveals nothing either. I would be very grateful for any suggestions.
> 
> I take it you’re looking for premodern references of the sort that Dan’s email provides, copied below. But NB his correct suggestion that none of these link disease transmission to mosquitoes or other insects. That only came following Sir Patrick Manson’s work in China in the late 1870s on mosquitoes as a vector for human filariasis,  Charles Finlay’s early work on yellow fever in Cuba starting in 1881 — which initially was widely ridiculed — and finally Ronald Ross’s work in the Indian Medical Service in the 1890s, which definitively identified the malarial parasite in the gut of mosquitoes transmitting the disease. 
> 
> For that work in 1902 Ross received the second Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine. A great account by Ross of his work on mosquitoes and malaria — and his life in India as well, where he was born — is found in his massive (and wonderfully eccentric) 1923 memoirs, which you can find scanned in online here:  https://tinyurl.com/yxo7taao <https://tinyurl.com/yxo7taao>
> 
> The strictly medical literature on mosquitoes, India, and many of these other diseases for obvious reasons is massive. A PubMed key word search I made this morning on India, mosquitoes, and malaria — leaving aside all other mosquito-transmitted viruses now known (e.g., Zika, West Nile virus, Chikungunya virus, dengue, yellow fever, etc.) — came up with over 4000 titles, going back to an 1899 article in the Indian Medical Gazette entitled “The Extermination of Mosquitoes,” which refers to Ross’s revolutionary work.
> 
> This paper and many other early papers on related themes are now scanned in and available at PubMed. Google scholar, which covers papers in non-medical journals as well, will give many thousands more.
> 
> In the Victorian era — due to the obvious importance of yellow fever and malaria to the Empire — discussions of malaria, in later periods mosquitoes, and related political issues were a recurrent theme in British literature.  For a fine account of that literature, see Jessica Howell’s new book from Cambridge U. Press (2019), Malaria and Victorian Fictions of Empire. 
> 
> Her substantial bibliography starts on p. 202. That, and a good bit of her book as a whole, is available via Amazon. Go to https://tinyurl.com/yybqhfjf <https://tinyurl.com/yybqhfjf>
> 
> Cheers,
> Steve
> 
> The Systems Biology Group
> Palo Alto, CA
> 
>> On Oct 23, 2020, at 7:54 AM, Dan Lusthaus via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info <mailto:indology at list.indology.info>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear James, et al.,
>> 
>> The idea of disease had not yet included the discovery of germs (there were occasional theories from Greece, Rome, Medieval Islamic medicine about infectious “seeds” that could be transmitted by contact or through the air, but identifying actual germs awaited the 19th c in the west), so in ancient and medieval India the belief was that disease was more likely to be caused by an imbalance of the three doṣas, demons, bad hygiene, or immodest lifestyle, but not by germ transmission. So mosquitos and snakes — one causing temporary discomfort, and the other more dangerous because of lethal venom — were not considered disease transmitters per se.
>> 
>> There is a stock phrase repeated numerous times in Buddhist texts, initially in the Nikāyas as examples of painful adversities, and in later texts, such as Asaṅga’s Abhidharmasamuccaya, with a slightly expanded list, as examples of rūpic impingement.
>> 
>> One such example from the Majjhima-nikāya:
>> 
>> Sabbāsava Sutta [Skt: Sarva-āsrava] (MN 2 / MN i 6 ) 
>> 
>> Katame ca, bhikkhave, āsavā paṭisevanā pahātabbā? Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu paṭisaṅkhā yoniso cīvaraṃ paṭisevati: ‘yāvadeva sītassa paṭighātāya, uṇhassa paṭighātāya, ḍaṃsamakasavātātapasarīsapasamphassānaṃ paṭighātāya, yāvadeva hirikopīnappaṭicchādanatthaṃ’. 
>> 
>> And what are the defilements that should be given up by using?  Take a mendicant who, reflecting properly, makes use of robes:  ‘Only for the sake of warding off cold and heat; for warding off the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and reptiles; and for covering up the private parts.’ 
>> (Bhikkhu Sujato tr.)
>> 
>> “What taints, bhikkhus, should be abandoned by using? Here a bhikkhu, reflecting wisely, uses the robe only for protection from cold, for protection from heat, for protection from contact with gadflies, mosquitoes, wind, the sun, and creeping things, and only for the purpose of concealing the private parts.
>> (Bhikkhu Bodhi tr.)
>> 
>> And what, monks, are the cankers to be got rid of by use? (1) In this teaching, monks, a monk, wisely reflective, uses a robe simply for warding off the cold, for warding off the heat, for warding off the touch of gadfly, mosquito, wind and sun, creeping things, simply for the sake of covering his nakedness.
>> (I.B. Horner tr.)
>> 
>> […]
>> 
>> Paṭisaṅkhā yoniso senāsanaṃ paṭisevati: ‘yāvadeva sītassa paṭighātāya, uṇhassa paṭighātāya, ḍaṃsamakasavātātapasarīsapasamphassānaṃ paṭighātāya, yāvadeva utuparissayavinodanapaṭisallānārāmatthaṃ’. 
>> 
>> Reflecting properly, they make use of lodgings:  ‘Only for the sake of warding off cold and heat; for warding off the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and reptiles; to shelter from harsh weather and to enjoy retreat.’ 
>> (Sujato)
>> 
>> ==
>> But one is expected to tolerate these sorts of pains and adversities, so they are not thinking of them as occasions for contracting lethal diseases — the snakes have venom, which of course they acknowledge, but the texts also advocate tolerating snake bites as well.
>> 
>> ==
>> Asaṅga, Abhidharmasamuccaya:
>> 
>> Gokhale ed., p. 2:
>> kiṃlakṣaṇaṃ rūpam / rūpaṇa lakṣaṇaṃ rūpam / tad dvividham / sparśena rūpaṇaṃ pradeśena rūpaṇaṃ ca / sparśena rūpaṇaṃ katamat / karacaraṇapāṣāṇaśasradaṇḍaśītoṣṇakṣutpipāsāmaśakadaṃśasarpavṛścikādīnāṃ sparśena vyābādhanam / pradeśena rūpaṇaṃ katamat / deśena rūpaṇa midaṃ cedaṃ ca rūpamevaṃ caivaṃ ca rūpamiti praṇihitāpraṇihitacetovitarkeṇa pratibimbacitrīkāratā // 
>> 
>> What is the characteristic (laksana) of matter? Change is the characteristic of matter. It has two forms: change in contact and change in localization. What is change in contact? It is the alteration caused by contact by a hand, a foot, a stone, a weapon, a stick, cold, heat, hunger, thirst, a mosquito, a gadfly, a snake, a scorpion, etc. What is change in localization? It is the imagination of form, through determined or undetermined mental conception, as such and such or some such other form. 
>> (W. Boin-Webb’s English tr. of W. Rahula’s French tr.).
>> ==
>> 
>> The Suśruta-saṃhitā describes five types of mosquitos, but only considers them to cause local pain, not transmit disease, though the bite of one of the five is considered similar to the bite of lethal insects).
>> 
>> From Kaviraj Kunja Lal Bhishagratna, An English Translation of the Sushruta Samhita, v. 2, Calcutta: 1911. 
>> 
>> (I don’t have an e-copy of the Skt to paste from, but Jolly provides it in “Mosquitoes and Fever in Suśruta” with a different translation, but the same conclusion, as above — the ancient and medieval Indian medical sources do not connect mosquitos with malaria or disease other than local irritation, except for one lethal variety.)
>> 
>> from Ch. 3 (diacriticals as in the book):
>> 
>> "Locations : —An animal poison is usually situated in the following parts, viz; the sight, breath, teeth, nails, urine, stool, semen, saliva, menstrual blood, stings, belching*, anus, bones, bile, bristles (Śuka) and in the dead body of an animal. 3.
>> "Of these, the venom of celestial serpents lies in their sight and breath, that of the terrestrial ones in their fangs while that of cats, dogs, monkeys, Makara (alligators?), Frogs, Páka-matsyas (a kind of insect), lizards (Godhá), mollusks (Snails), Prachalakas (a kind of insect), domestic lizards, four-legged insects and of any other species of flies such as mosquitoes, etc., lies in their teeth and nails. 4.
>> The venom of a Chipita, Pichchataka, Kasháya-vásika, Sarshapa-vásika, Totaka, Varchah-kita, Kaun- dilyaka and such-like insects lies in their urine and excreta. The poison of a mouse or rat lies in its semen, while that of a Lutá (spider) lies in its saliva, urine, excreta, fangs, nails, semen and menstrual fluid (ovum). 5 —6. 
>> "The venom of a scorpion, Viśvambhara, Rájiva-fish, Uchchitinga (cricket) and a sea-scorpion lies in their saliva. The venom of a Chitra-śirah, Saráva, Kurdiśata, Dáruka, Arimedaka and Śáriká-mukha, lies in their fangs, belching, stool and urine. The venom of a fly, a Kanabha and leeches lies in their fangs. The poison lies in the bones of an animal killed by any poison, as well as in those of a snake, a Varati and a fish*. The poison lies in the bile of a Śakuli, a Rakta-ráji and a Cháraki fish. The poison lies in the bristles (Śuka) and the head of a Sukshma-tunda, an Uchchitinga (cricket), a wasp, a centipede (Śatapadi), a Śuka, a Vala bhika, a Śringi and a bee. The dead body of a snake or an insect is poisonous in itself. Animals not included in the above list should be deemed as belonging to the fang-venomed species i.e., the poison lies in their fangs. 7— 11.”
>> 
>> ==
>> It goes on (ch. 8) to discuss “characteristic features and purifications of poisoned water, etc.”
>> 
>> Later it discusses bites from various types of insects, etc., such as centipedes (śata-padi), poisonous frogs (manduka), ants (pipilikā), “stinging flies” (makshikā), and mosquitos (maśakas):
>> 
>> "Maśakas (Mosquitoes):—Mosquitoes (Maśakas) are divided into five species, viz., the Sámudra, Pari-mandala, Hasti-maśaka, Krishna and the Parvatiya. A mosquito (Maśaka)-bite is characterised by a severe itching and swelling of the affected locality; while the symptoms which mark a bite by a Parvatiya one are similar to those of a bite by fatally venomous insects, and a sting of the points of their antennae is followed by the appearance of pustules (Pidaká) attended with a burning sensation and suppuration therein, when scratched by the finger-nails. The characteristic features of a bite by Jalaukas (leeches) with the mode of treatment thereof have already been described. 18.”
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info <mailto:INDOLOGY at list.indology.info>
>> indology-owner at list.indology.info <mailto:indology-owner at list.indology.info> (messages to the list's managing committee)
>> http://listinfo.indology.info <http://listinfo.indology.info/> (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info <mailto:INDOLOGY at list.indology.info>
> indology-owner at list.indology.info <mailto:indology-owner at list.indology.info> (messages to the list's managing committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info <http://listinfo.indology.info/> (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20201026/66d85fa2/attachment.htm>