Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge
Vol. 8 (3), July 2009, pp. 364-368
Tāmalakī — An analytical review
Binay Sen* & SD Dubey
Department of Dravyaguna, Faculty of Ayurveda, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 5, Uttar Pradesh
E-mail: [email protected]
Received 1 May 2007 revised 22 April 2008
Āyurvedic Materia Medica consists of crude drugs mainly of plant origin and there is considerable variation in the
identity of the genuine species of the source plant. Vernacular names of plant signify habitat, morphological characters,
useful parts, properties, actions, etc. are the keys of plant identification in Āyurveda. In many cases, one synonym is found
for different plants. It is because of similar habitat, gross morphological characters, broad spectrum of therapeutic indices
and so on. Hence, by single name/synonym, it is natural to consider more than one plant. Tāmalakī may be considered as an
example of this phenomenon. In this study an attempt has been made to designate plant species of Tāmalakī by analyzing
different views of some Āyurvedic and modern scholars.
Keywords: Āyurveda, Tāmalakī, Śvāsa, Gunakarma, Bhūmyāmalakī
IPC Int. Cl.8: A61K36/00, A61P1/04, A61P1/06, A61P1/08, A61P9/00, A61P11/00, A61P11/06, A61P11/10, A61P13/00,
A61P13/02
The word Tāmalakī and its commonly accepted
synonyms Bhūmyāmalakī are not found in Vedas and
works of Kālidāsa. Except Tāmalakī, no other
synonyms are found in Caraka Samhitā (CS), Suśruta
Samhitā (SS), Astāńga Hrdaya (AH) and Astāńga
Samgraha (AS). In these texts, it is used both externally
and internally in different formulations for multitherapeutic purposes. In CS, it appeared in group of
Kāsahara and Śvāsahara Mahākasāya and in Madhuraskandha1,2. The drugs, which are Madhura (sweet),
predominantly Madhura, Madhura in Vipāka
(metabolism) or Madhura in Prabhāva (effect) are
included in this group3. It is also included in Rasāyana,
Balya and Brmhanīya preparations like Cyavanaprāśa,
Amrtaprāśa Ghrta, Madhuparnādi Taila and Baladī
Basti4. A single drug remedy (Tāmalakī Śrta/decoction)
is found in the treatment of Rājayaksmā associated with
6 symptomatology5. From this description it is clear that
Caraka has described Gunakarmas (properties and
actions) of Tāmalakī. In Suśruta Samhitā, the plant is
neither found in any Gana nor in Varga. Few
preparations of Ghrta have been used in the treatment of
Jīrnajvara, Śvāsa, etc.6 Both Vāgbhatas have the
similar views to that of Caraka. In addition, some
new formulations like Jīvantyādi Cūrna (AH),
Nidigdhikādi Ghrta, Kāsmaryādi Ghrta and Pāthādi
____________
*Corresponding author
Cūrna (AS), are prescribed in Śvāsa, Kāsa, Yaksmā
etc.7,8 In Hārīta Samhitā, though the word Tāmalakī is
not mentioned but in few preparations like
Cyavanaprāśa and Balādi Ghrta, the word Cāmalakī
and Tamālakī appeared, respectively9. It seems to be
printing mistake and not the new synonyms, as neither
the earlier nor the later authors have mentioned them
in any of the context. In Cikitsāgranthas, Cakrapāni
was the first physician, who has mentioned its single
external application (as Lepa) in eye pain with the
name Bhūmyāmalakī10. The synonym Bhūdhātrī and
Bhūmyāmalakī are first appeared in Astāńga Nighantu
(18th Century AD) and Paryāyaratnamālā (19th Century
AD), respectively11,12. Successive Nighantukāras also
include some more synonyms. These synonyms are
found in different formulations in Cikitsāgranthas like
Kūdhātrī, Bhūmyāmalaka, Bhūmyāmalī, Jatā, etc.13-16
The actions and indications are more or less similar. The
word Tāmalakyau has been mentioned by Bañgasena,
perhaps indicating its two varieties17.
While going through the different views of
Nighantukāras and Kosakāras, it is observed more
than hundred synonyms for Tāmalakī or
Bhūmyāmalakī. Tāmalakī has appeared in Siddhasāra
Nighantu (7th Century AD) with two synonyms Ajhatā
and Bahu-pattrā18. Almost all the authors have
accepted Tāmalakī, Bhūmyāmalakī and Bhūdhātrī as
synonymous. Botanical identification of genuine
SEN & DUBEY: TĀMALAKĪ - AN ANALYTICAL REVIEW
sources of Tāmalakī on the basis of synonyms is quite
a difficult task because it has been made complicated
in these texts by giving similar synonym to more than
one plant; For example Vitunnaka, Śivā, Uttamā, Vīrā,
Vrsyā, Visaghnī, Āmalakī, Amrtā, Uccatā are used for
it, are well known different plants19-22. Apart from
this, few synonyms like Sūksmaphalā, Phalamālā and
Bahuphalā given to it are indicative of general
characters of a group (Genus-Phyllanthus) of plant
taken as Tāmalakī in practice11,23. Therefore, it is
necessary to study the Gunakarma in available
Nighantus and Kosas to identify the possible sources
of it. Among the Nighantus it is surprisingly noticed
that the source plant described in Rāja Nighantu (RN)
is Kasāya and Amla22 whereas in Bhāva Prakāśa
Nighantu (BN) is Tikta, Kasāya and Madhura in
Rasa24. The actions and indications are also found
somewhat different in them. The plant mentioned in
RN is having predominant action in urinary system
whereas in BN, the same is in respiratory system.
Moreover, the synonyms like Bhūmyāmalī,
Drdhapādī, Jatā, Visaghni (RN) and Bhūmyāmalakī,
Ajatā (BN) strongly suggest that both the plants are
different species of Tāmalakī. Further, it is supported
by the description found in Sanskrit lexicon
Śabdakalpadruma in context of two plants namely
Bhūmyāmalī and Bhūmyāmalakī. Though the word
Bhūmyāmalī has been equated with Bhūmyāmalakī,
but some more synonyms are given to it, which are
not mentioned for the latter one. In respect of
properties and actions, the author has quoted RN and
BN, respectively25. In Kaiyadeva Nighantu (KN),
synonyms Drdhapādā, Drdhā, etc. have appeared and
is considered as appetizer, useful in Kustha, Śvāsa,
etc23. Thus, on the basis of synonyms, properties and
actions more than one plant may be considered in
these texts.
By analyzing different views of ancient
commentators, it is observed that most of them have
equated Tāmalakī with Bhūmyāmalakī or Bhūdhātrī.
In context of morphological characters, different
terminologies
such
as
Dalaphalikā
and
Sahapatraphalā are coined, which denote small
capsule (fruit), having attachment with leaf in each
axil26-28. The interpretation given by other
commentators also signify general characters and thus
identification of any particular species on this ground
is not possible. Most of the modern authors have
taken Phyllanthus niruri Hook.f. (syn P. fraternus
Webster, Family: Euphorbiaceae) as the source plant
365
of Tāmalakī. But, there are different views observed
in relation to its vernacular names and botanical
sources. For example, it has not used the word
Tāmalakī for any species referred, but the synonyms
mentioned by previous authors are included for P.
urinaria Linn. and P. niruri Hook. f. On the other
hand different regional names are mentioned for P.
maderaspatensis Linn. and P. simplex Retz.29. It
presumes that though the authors have not used the
word Tāmalakī for any of above 4 species but
accepted all in regards to their vernacular names. The
word Tamravalli (Tamra means coppery and Valli
means climber) has been used for P. urinaria Linn.,
which is not rationale with its morphological
characters, because it is erect in nature, not a
climber29.
It has been reported that P. niruri Hook. f. (Fl Br
Ind.) non Linn. has been renamed as P. fraternus
Webster in 195730. But most of the later authors have
ignored it and taken P. niruri and P. fraternus as
different species or subspecies. P. amarus Schum. &
Thonn., P. fraternus Webster and P. niruri auct. non
L. are considered synonymous, the source of
Bhūmyāmalakī or Tāmalakī. But in a clinical trial, the
authors have quoted P. amarus (gathered from India)
and P. niruri (gathered from Hainan Province in
China), which contradicts the previous statement and
supports both as different species31. The Botanical
Survey of India has identified that the commonly
known P. niruri Linn. has 3 sub-species namely, P.
amarus Schum. & Thonn., P. debilis Klein. ex. Willd
and P. fraternus Webster. A reputed US taxonomist
identified P. amarus Schum. & Thonn. as a sub
species of P. niruri Linn.32. In another report,
Botanical Survey of India, stated that the P. niruri is a
mixture of 3 distinct species namely, P. amarus,
Schum. & Thonn., P. fraternus Webster and P. debilis
Klein. ex. Willd33. P. fraternus and P. debilis have
also been described as closet relative and both
interbreed when they come together30. Likewise much
confusion is observed among the modern botanist
especially in relation to P. niruri and P. fraternus.
The contemporary Āyurvedic authors invariably
accepted Bhūmyāmalakī and Tāmalakī as synonyms
and taken P. niruri Linn., P. fraternus Webster, and
P. urinaria Linn. as the source plant34-36. The other
species (P. simplex Retz. and P. maderaspatensis
Linn.) are also used in practice with the name
Bhūmyāmalakī 36. In Kerala, Tāmalakī has been
identified as a mixture of 2 different but closely
366
INDIAN J TRADITIONAL KNWOLEDGE, VOL.8, NO.3, JULY 2009
related species, viz. P. amarus Schum. & Thonn. and
P. debilis Klein. Ex. Willd 37. Morphologically, the
most specific synonyms Jatā, Ajatā and Drdhapād(ī)ā
are observed in P. urinaria, P. fraternus and P.
amarus, respectively, (Figs. 1-4). Different
pharmacological activities reveal that P. niruri is
effective in non-bacterial upper respiratory tract
disorders and is having antioxidant property38-40.
Practically, it is observed that it is less bitter than P.
amarus38. On these basis Tāmalakī used in the
treatment of respiratory diseases (Śvāsa, Kāsa, etc),
Rasāyana, Balya, Brmhana purposes and appeared in
Madhura-skandha may be taken as P. frateruns
(syn. P. niruri). P. armarus has hepatoprotective
activity41-42. Āyurveda's doctrine also supports its
effectiveness in gastrointestinal disorders, as it is
predominantly bitter and so stimulant and digestive43.
Therefore, the source plant of Tāmalakī appeared in
context of Jvara, Gulma, Kustha and Vātarakta may
be considered as P. armarus. P. urinaria is
considered to be an excellent diuretic and much used
in dropsical affections, also in gonorrhoea and other
genitourinary troubles29,30. It implies that it may be
successfully used in the treatment of Mūtrakrcchra,
Mūtrāghāta and other diseases where diuresis is
required.
Literally, the word Tāmalakī means thinner and
smaller (‘iÉxÉÖgSÉɺÉÉ´ÉÉàÉãÉBÉEÉÒSÉ’)44 than Āmalaki (Emblica
officinalis Gaertn.)44. Bhūmyāmalakī, Bhūdhātrī and
Ksetrāmalakī also have the similar meaning.
Synonym Jatā defines having more fibrous root (‘VÉ]
ZÉ] ºÉÆPÉÉiÉä vÉÉiÉÉä&’)45, Ajatā signifies less and short
fibrous roots (‘xÉ\É <−ÉnlÉæ +Éã{ÉÉÉÊxÉ Øº´ÉÉÉÊxÉ SÉ VÉ]É
àÉÚãÉàɺªÉÉ&’) and Drdhapād(ī)ā indicates hard root
system (‘ofÃÆ {ÉÉnÆ àÉÚãÉÆ vÉÉ®ªÉÉÊiÉ <ÉÊiÉ’)46. In Nighantus,
Kosas and Cikitsāgranthas, the word Tāmalakī
stands for generic epithet, which signifies more than
SEN & DUBEY: TĀMALAKĪ - AN ANALYTICAL REVIEW
one species having almost similar morphological
characters and useful in different ailments.
Discussion
Caraka has indicated Tāmalakī predominantly in
diseases of respiratory system and as Rasāyana. Later
on apart from above indications and actions it is used
as diuretic and hepatoprotective. It is natural that by
the name Tāmalakī more than one plant has been
taken by the physician because of similarity in
morphological characters and multiple therapeutic
indices. The word Tāmalakyau mentioned by
Bańgasena is an example. In Nighantus and Kosas the
same is more obvious. The modern authors also
followed the previous scholars by accepting more
than one species by the name Tāmalakī. The
synonyms Drdhapādī and Jatā mentioned in RN for a
single plant are not practically observed. But on the
basis of Gunakarma, Jatā (P. urinaria) should be
considered in this context. Tāmalakī of RN, KN and
BN may be indicative of 3 different species namely,
P. urinaria, P. amarus and P. fraternus on the basis
of Gunakarma and specific synonyms Jatā,
Drdhapād(ī)ā and Ajatā, respectively. To achieve the
maximum therapeutic efficacy, the specific plant may
be used accordingly.
Conclusion
It may be concluded that Tāmalakī should be
taken as generic epithet, which includes more than
one plant under the commonly accepted name
Bhūmyāmalakī in practice. P. niruri and P.
fraternus are synonymous as reported in WI. P.
amarus is a different species, which may be a
subspecies of P. fraternus. Synonyms Jatā, Ajatā
and Drdhapād(ī)ā indicate 3 different species
namely, P. urinaria, P. fraternus and P. amarus,
respectively. P. urinaria, P. fraternus and P.
amarus may be used successfully as diuretic, in
respiratory tract diseases and in gastrointestinal
(hepatic) disorders, respectively.
Acknowledgement
Authors wish to pay special regards and thanks to
Lt Prof PV Sharma for his inestimable suggestions
and valuable references provided during the course of
study. Authors also extend our thanks to Prof VK
Joshi, Prof KN Dwivedi and Dr AK Singh
(Department of Dravyaguna, IMS, BHU) and Prof
NK Dubey (Depatrment of Botany, BHU) for their
367
valuable concerns. Authors are also thankful to Mr
OP Gupta for images acquisition. This work is part of
MD (Ay) Dravyaguna thesis of the first author.
References
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Acharya JT, Caraka Samhitā of Agniveśa (with ‘ĀyurvedaDīpikā’ commentary by Cakrapānidatta), (Chaukhamba
Surbharati Prakashan, Varanasi), Su. (Sūtra-Sthāna)
4 /16(36), 16(37), 2000.
Acharya JT, Caraka Samhitā of Agniveśa (with ‘
Āyurveda-Dīpikā’
commentary
by
Cakrapānidatta),
(Chaukhamba Surbharati Prakashan, Varanasi), Vi. (VimānaSthāna) 8 /139, 2000.
Acharya JT, Caraka Samhitā of Agniveśa (with ‘ĀyurvedaDīpikā’ commentary by Cakrapānidatta), (Chaukhamba
Surbharati Prakashan, Varanasi), Vi. 8 /138, 2000.
Acharya JT, Caraka Samhitā of Agniveśa (with
Āyurveda-Dīpikā commentary by Cakrapānidatta),
(Chaukhamba Surbharati Prakashan, Varanasi), Ci.
(Cikitsā-Sthāna) 1-I /63, 11 /37, 29 /93, Siddhi-Sthāna.
12 /19(2), 2000.
Acharya JT, Caraka Samhitā of Agniveśa (with ĀyurvedaDīpikā commentary by Cakrapānidatta), (Chaukhamba
Surbharati Prakashan, Varanasi), Ci.8 /70, 2000.
Acharya JT, Suśruta Samhitā of Suśruta (with
Nibandhasańgraha commentary by Dalhana), (Chaukhamba
Surbharati Prakashan, Varanasi), Ut. (Uttara-Tantra) 39 /219,
225; 51 /27, 2003.
Paradakara HS, Astāńga Hrdayam of Vāgbhata, (with
commentaries Sarvāńgasundarā of Arunadatta &
Āyurvedarasāyana of Hemādri), (Chaukhamba Orientalia,
Varanasi), Ci.4 /44, 2005.
Sharma SP, Astāńga Samgraha of Vrddha Vāgbhata,
(with Śasilekhā commentary by Indu), (Chowkhamba
Sanskrit Series Office, Varanasi), Ci.2 /5, 4 /5, 5 /53, 2006.
Tripathi HP, Hārīta Samhitā of Hārīta, (Chowkhambha
Krishnadass
Academy,
Varanasi),
Tritiya-Sthāna
9 /48, 94, 2005.
Sharma PV, Cakradatta of Cakrapānī, (text with English
Translation),
(Chaukhamba
Orientalia,
Varanasi),
Netraroga /13, 1994.
Sharma PV, Astāńga Nighantu of Vāhata,
(Kuppuswami
Sastri
Research
Institute,
Madras), 1973, 208.
Chowdhury TP, Paryāyaratnamālā of Madhavakara, Vol II
(Patna University Journal, Patna), 1946, 122.
Pandeya GS, Gada Nigraha of Vaidya Sodhala, Part-1,
(with Vidyotini Hindi commentary by Indradeva Tripathi),
(Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Varanasi),
Leha Adhikāra /158, 1968.
Saxena N, Bańgasena Samhitā of Vańgasena, Vol II,
(Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Varanasi), Strīroga
/42, 2004.
Murthy KRS, Śārńgadhara Samhitā of Śārńgadhara,
(text with English Translation), (Chaukhamba Orientalia,
Varanasi), Madhyama Khanda 8 /11, 2006.
Shastri LP, Yogaratnākara, (with Vidyotini Hindi
commentary),
(Chaukhambha
Sanskrit
Sansthan,
Varanasi), Pūrvārdha/Kāsa/Jātyādidūmavarti, 2002.
368
INDIAN J TRADITIONAL KNWOLEDGE, VOL.8, NO.3, JULY 2009
17 Saxena N, Bańgasena Samhitā of Vańgasena, Vol I,
(Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Varanasi),
Śvāsaroga /55, 2004.
18 Emmerick RE, Siddhasāra Nighantu of Ravigupta,
(Franz Steiner Verlag GmbH, Wiesbaden),1980, 119.
19 Shastri
HG,
Amarakosa
of
Amara
Simha,
(with Rāmāśramī commentary), (Chaukhambha Sanskrit
Sansthan, Varanasi), Kānda 2 /Varga 4/126, 2006.
20 Sharma PV, Sodhala Nighantu (Nāmasańgraha &
Gunasańgraha) of Sodhala, (Oriental Institute Baroda),
Nāmasańgraha/ Candanādi Varga /424-425, 1978.
21 Vaidya RP, Madanapāla Nighantu of Madanapāla,
(with Bhashatattvaprakashini Hindi commentary), (Khemraj
Shrikrishnadass, Mumbai), Abhayādi Varga /34.
22 Bhattacharya A & Bhattacharya N, Rāja Nighantu of
Pt Narahari, (Pt Shri Ashubodh Vidyabhushan Bhattacharya,
Calcutta), Parpatādi Varga/91-93, 1933.
23 Sharma PV & Sharma GP, Kaiyadeva Nighantu
of Kaiyadeva, (Chaukhambha Orientalia, Varanasi), Osadhi
Varga /247-251, 1979.
24 Mishra BS & Vaishya RL, Bhāvaprakāśa of Shri Bhāva
Mishra, (with Vidyotini Hindi commentary, Notes &
Appendix), (Chaukhambha Sanskrit Sansthan, Varanasi),
Gudūcyādi Varga /277-278, 1999.
25 Deva RRK, Śabdakalpadruma, Part III, (Nag Publishers,
Delhi), 1987 536.
26 Sharma PV, Caraka Samhitā (critical notes), Vol IV,
(Chaukhambha Orientalia, Varanasi), Appendix, 37, Jejjata
on Ci.3.219, 1994.
27 Acharya JT, Suśruta Samhitā of Suśruta (with
Nibandhasańgraha commentary by Dalhana), (Chaukhamba
Surbharati Prakashan, Varanasi), Dalhana on Ut.51 /27, 2003.
28 Sharma SP, Astāńga Samgraha of Vrddha Vāgbhata (with
Śasilekhā commentary by Indu), (Chowkhamba Sanskrit
Series Office, Varanasi), 2006 Indu on Ci.7/10, 2003.
29 Kirtikar KR & Basu BD, Indian Medicinal Plants, Vol III,
(Lalit Mohan Basu, Allahabad), 1935, 2222-2227.
30 Anonymous, The Wealth of India (Raw Materials Series),
Vol VIII (Publications & Information Directorate,
New Delhi), 1969, 34-36.
31 Sharma PC, Yelne MB & Dennis TJ, Database on Medicinal
Plants used in Ayurveda, Vol III (Central Council for Research
in Ayurveda & Siddha, New Delhi), 2001, 512-517.
32 Thyagarajan SP, Traditional Medicine with Modern
Parameters, Herbal Tech Industry, (Samanthi Publications
Pvt Ltd, Chennai), 1 (6), (2005), 18.
33 Thyagarajan SP, Jayaram S, Gopalakrishnan V, Hari R,
Jeyakumar P & Sripathi MS, Herbal medicines for liver
diseases in India, J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 17 (3s) (2002)
370-376.
34 Mishra BS & Vaishya RL, Bhāvaprakāśa of Shri Bhāva
Mishra, (with Vidyotini Hindi commentary, Notes &
Appendix), (Chaukhambha Sanskrit Sansthan, Varanasi),
1999, 460.
35 Sharma PV, Dravyagunakosa, (Chaukhambha Publishers,
Varanasi), 82, 1997, 130.
36 Sharma PV, Dravyaguna-Vijñāna, Vol 2, (Chaukhambha
Bharati Academy, Varanasi), 1998, 640.
37 Satyavati GV, Gupta AK & Tandon N, Medicinal Plants of
India, Vol 2, (Indian Council of Medical Research, New
Delhi), 1987, 407.
38 Sen B, Studies on Tāmalakī with special reference to its
Shwasahara Karma, MD (Ay) Thesis, Dravyaguna, (Institute
of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi),
2005, 191, 210.
39 Yeolekar ME, Shahani S, Desouza A, Ghai H, Chawda MB,
Evaluation of Efficacy and Safety of Tab. Nirocil® in
Non-Bacterial Upper Respiratory Disorders, Solumiks
Herbaceuticals Limited, Ayurvani®, 1 (2) 2005.
40 Tasaduq SA, Singh K, Sethi S, Sharma SC, Bedi KL, Singh
J, Jaggi BS, Hepatocurative & antioxidant profile of HP-1,
a polyherbal phytomedicine, Human Exptl Toxicol, 22 (12)
(2003) 639-645.
41 Thyagarajan SP, Subramanian S, Thirunalasundari
T, Venkateswaran PS & Blumberg BS, Effect of Phyllanthus
amarus on chronic carriers of hepatitis B virus, Lancet,
2 (1988) 764-766.
42 Thyagarajan SP, Jayaram S, Villiammai T, Madanagopal N,
Pal VG & Jayaraman K, Phyllanthus amarus and hepatitis
B virus, Lancet, 336 (1990) 949-950.
43 Acharya JT, Caraka Samhitā of Agniveśa (with ĀyurvedaDīpikā commentary by Cakrapānidatta), (Chaukhamba
Surbharati Prakashan, Varanasi), Su. 26/ 42 (5), 2000.
44 Shastri HG, Amarakosa of Amara Simha (with Rāmāśramī
commentary), (Chaukhambha Sanskrit Sansthan, Varanasi),
Bhānuji Dīksita on Kānda 2 /Varga 4/126, 2001.
45 Mishra H, Brhaddhātukusumākara, (Chaukhamba Sanskrit
Pratisthana, Delhi), 2003, Bhvādaya 305-306 99.
46 Sen B, Studies on Tāmalakī with special reference to its
Shwasahara Karma, MD (Ay) Thesis, Dravyaguna,
(Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi), 2005, 49.