Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A Concise History of Science in India c12.s2: Historical Period

A Concise History of Science in India c12.s2

Language
English

Contents

Historical Period

c12.s2.1

With the advent of the Aryans and the development of the Vedic literature, prehistory passes into history in India. Animal world, to the Vedic people, was not a separate entity, but a part of the great cosmic system embracing the whole world. Biological phenomena, therefore, are not separately treated but, along with other cosmic phenomena, are diffused throughout the Vedic and classical literature. Sifting through this vast mass of literature spread over centuries, a difficult but rewarding exercise, reveals that the ancient Indians were keen observers of the living world, amassing facts of natural history, speculating upon the nature and origin of life, attempting to classify living beings into rational groups based on the modes of reproduction, ways of living or dietary values. Their anatomical, physiological, embryological and genetical observations, however, were chiefly based on their knowledge about man. The only other animals receiving similar treatment were the cattle, horse and elephant, that is, animals of economical or military importance.

c12.s2.2

a Mackay (2), p. 382.

Animals and Natural History

c12.s2.t1.1

Natural history is probably the most appropriate term to express the observations recorded by the ancient Indians. Though animal names were galore in ancient texts, the science of naming animals had not achieved the status of taxonomy. Animals were observed and named simply for recognition. Several animal names have been based on some structural peculiarities or some distinct traits in habits, making recognition easy. However, these names are not accompanied by any descriptive details which can be taken as an aid to identification. Nevertheless, a good many animals mentioned in the ancient texts have been identified with species known today, because their names have passed on through centuries without any change or as easily reconcilable derivatives and are still in use in different parts of India.

c12.s2.t1.2

Observations on habits and habitats of several animals have been recorded in the sacerdotal and lyrical works. The impact of Nature on the creative faculties of the poets of olden days has received wide acclaim for their beauty and vividness.

c12.s2.t1.3

Saṃhitās, Brāhmaṇas and Upaniṣads

c12.s2.t1.4

The *Saṃhitās*, the *Brāhmaṇas*, the *Āraṇyakas-Upaniṣads* contain several names of animals as well as observations on their habits and habitats. Macdonell and Keitha have compiled a list of over 260 animal names used in the Vedic literature. Raob has also dealt with Vedic animals while recording the knowledge of Indian fauna through the ages. The majority of animals listed therein comprise mammals and birds, while reptiles (chiefly serpents), fishes and insects are not numerous. The *Yajurveda* and the *Atharvaveda* are, in particular, full of animal names. The *Yajurveda* provides a list of animal victims in the *aśvamedha* with the horse, as the name of the ritual implies, occupying the place of honour. In the *Atharvaveda*, snakes and worms (*kṛmi*) are mentioned in some details. The Atharvan priest, in giving a series of charms against snake-poison, describes different types of snakes as follows:

c12.s2.t1.5

a Macdonell and Keith, I and II.

c12.s2.t1.6

b Rao (H. S.), pp. 251-80.

c12.s2.t1.7

‘O *kairāta*, speckled one, *upatṛṇya* (grass-dweller), brown one listen to me; ye black repulsive reptiles, (listen to me)!...’
‘I release (thee) from the fury of the black serpent, the *taimāta* the brown serpent, ...’
‘Both *āligī* and *viligī*, both father and mother, we know your kin everywhere...’
‘The daughter of *urugūlā*, the evil one born with the black—of all those who have run to their hiding-place the poison is devoid of force.’
‘The prickly porcupine, tripping down from the mountain, did declare this: “whatsoever serpents, living in ditches, are here, their poison is most deficient in force”.’a

c12.s2.t1.8

The toxic effects of snake-poison are described with prescription of necessary chants to destroy them. The importance of snakes was obvious and a special science—*sarpavidyā*—formed an important and recognized branch of knowledge from Vedic times.

c12.s2.t1.9

Sixteen types of *kṛmis*, the obnoxious worms, are mentioned in the *Atharvaveda*.b These were regarded as poisonous and spoken of as found in the mountains, forests and in the human body. These were believed to cause diseases of cattle and man. In man, the worms infested the head and ribs and crept into the eyes, nose and teeth. These were described as having dark brown bodies, white in the forepart, with black ears and three heads!

c12.s2.t1.10

Twenty-eight arthropod names are listed in the Vedic literature, mostly referring to insects, in addition to a few scorpions and spiders. These include ants, bees, cochineal insects, flies, mosquitoes, fireflies and locusts. The depredations caused by the locust to crops were well known, and a few names indicate vermins damaging grains and seeds. Caterpillars and grasshoppers were also distinguished. There is also a reference to crabs.

c12.s2.t1.11

Of other invertebrates, pearl and conch-shells (Mollusca) are mentioned.

c12.s2.t1.12

The vertebrates figure pre-eminently in the Vedic literature. Seven fish-names appear in the texts, but it is not certain whether these names refer to individual species or to a group as a whole.

c12.s2.t1.13

Among the reptiles, snakes, as mentioned earlier, figure prominently, and about 29 names are used to denote various types, some of which are doubtless group-names. Other reptiles include the gharial, chameleon, monitor lizard and tortoise.

c12.s2.t1.14

Birds and mammals occupy a prominent place in the Vedic literature. Several species of birds, many of them recognizable, have been listed. These include common forms like the sparrow, myna, parakeet, cuckoo, pigeon, etc., birds of prey like the vulture, hawk, eagle, owl, aquatic and semi-aquatic forms like the heron, stork, curlew, ducks, geese, swan, and several others.

c12.s2.t1.15

a AV., V, 13.5–9; Bloomfield's translation.

c12.s2.t1.16

b AV., II, 31.1–5.

c12.s2.t1.17

The mammals known to the Vedic people are of three categories, domestic, semi-domestic and wild. Practically all the species represented in the Harappa culture were known, not surprisingly, because the advent of the Aryans did not make any change in the wild life then extant. The domestic animals were the cow, buffalo, elephant, horse, camel (not very popular), ass, mule, sheep, goat, pig, dog and cat. The jackal and the wolf, and possibly the hyena, skirted the forests around human habitations. The mongoose and the rat were forms common within and around settlements.

c12.s2.t1.18

Among wild beasts were the carnivores like the lion, tiger, leopard, bear, wolf and hyena. The artiodactyls included the antelope, gazelle, spotted deer, barasingha, sambhar, etc. There is also mention of others, such as the polecat (?), wild boar, monkey, gaur, porcupine, hare and pangolin (?), and the rhinoceros and elephant.

c12.s2.t1.19

It is rather surprising that the *Ṛgveda* does not mention the tiger, a beast so familiar to the Harappans and so common in the later *saṃhitās*. The most popular carnivores in the *Ṛgveda* are the wolf and the lion. Among the domestic animals, cattle and horse occupy the place of honour; and there are plenty of special terms to distinguish different kinds among these and their calves and foals. In the later stage of the Vedic period, the cow became a very important animal; it was sanctified and its slaughter had been prohibited (except on certain special occasions), a decree that has been so faithfully honoured by the Hindus of all castes even to this day.

c12.s2.t1.20

The mythology and legends of the Vedic period have been considerably influenced by animals. Many animals, specially the horse and also the kine, goat and deer, figure as the mounts of gods or drawing their luminous cars through the air. The importance of the cow in the Vedic and post-Vedic literature has already been mentioned. In the ritual of sacrifice, the most common practice to appease the galaxy of gods, animals (of several types) figure prominently. The serpent, as a noxious creature, is one of the most conspicuous animals, specially as the foe of Indra, appearing in the form of a demon. Many birds are alluded to as bringing bad omen or good luck.

c12.s2.t1.21

The ethology of animals did not escape the attention of the Vedic bards. In fact, many animal names take after some peculiar traits either in their structures or in their habits.

c12.s2.t1.22

The Indian python, frequently referred to in the sacred and mythological lores, is the *ajagar* (the swallower of goats). The Indian koel's habit of depositing its eggs in the nests of other birds is noticed, and the *Vājasaneyī* and the *Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitās* call this bird *anya-vāpa* which means sowing for others; its other name *parabhṛta* also connotes its parasitic habits. The spiders are called *ūrṇanābha*, meaning wool in the navel, an appellation no doubt inspired by the way in which the material forming its web comes out of the abdomen.

c12.s2.t1.23

The cock is *kukkuṭa*, an onomatopoeic word, suggesting the sound emanated by its crowing. Several references are made in the *Ṛgveda* and *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* to the casting of slough by serpent. Mention is made in the *Atharvaveda* and *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* of peculiar movements of snakes, earning the name of *Datvatī rajju* or ‘toothed rope’.a Similar lines are also found in the *Aitareya Āraṇyaka*. The poisonous character of snake-bite is frequently mentioned in the *Ṛgveda* and other *saṃhitās*. The *Atharvaveda* mentions the torpidity of snakes in winter when they creep into the earth, a phenomenon now well known as hibernation. The mongoose (*nakula*) has been regarded as the deadly enemy of snakes and immune to their poison by the use of a healing plant, perhaps a blind belief that still persists among our people.

c12.s2.t1.24

The carnivorous beasts, the lion and the tiger, were dreaded for their dangerousness. The roaring (*nāda*) of the lion is compared to the thunder in the Vedic texts. The king of beasts, as it is called, wanders about (*kucara*) and lives in the hills (*giriṣṭha*) and is the terror of other beasts whom he slays. The lion, being dangerous to men, was trapped, ambushed or chased by hunting bands.b The tiger, not mentioned in the *Ṛgveda*, finds, however, a frequent mention in the *Atharvaveda* which is taken as an evidence of eastward extension of the Aryan territory during the time when it was said to be composed. The destructive nature of this beast is often alluded to and it passed, like the lion, as a symbol of strength. Man-eating tigers (*puruṣād*) are also mentioned.c

c12.s2.t1.25

The frog is mentioned as the harbinger of rain. The awakening of frogs at the beginning of the rainy season inspired an interesting hymn in the *Ṛgveda*d graphically re-enacting a scene with which people in India are very familiar. The chorus of the croaking frogs is compared to the chants of priests exhilarated by *soma* and with the clamour of pupils at school repeating the words of their teacher. The relevant portion of this hymn is quoted below:

c12.s2.t1.26

b The *Ṛgveda* refers to the lion as follows: ‘Exceedingly wise they roar like lions mightily’ (*ṚV.*, I, 64.8); ‘roar as the lions roar’ (*ṚV.*, III, 26.5.7); ‘like a dread lion’ (*ṚV.*, IV, 16.14); ‘as a snared lion leaves the trap that caught him’ (*ṚV.*, X, 28.10).

c12.s2.t1.27

(1) The frogs have lifted up their voice, the voice Parjanya hath
inspired.

c12.s2.t1.28

a The figure of speech ‘toothed rope’, or ‘the rope full of teeth’, is also used in the *Atharvaveda*. Thus ‘on a distant path shall move the biting rope (the serpent)…’, *AV.*, IV, 3.2. The *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* has it ‘… for snakes are like rope, and snakes’ haunts are like wells (pits)…’ (*Śat. Br.*, IV, 4.5.3).

c12.s2.t1.29

c ‘The forest animals, the wild animals homed in the woods, the man-eating lions and tigers that roam’ (*AV.*, XII, 1.49). Elsewhere, ‘Thyself a tiger, dost thou upon this tiger-skin stride (victorious) through the great regions’ (*AV.*, IV, 8.4). The tiger’s skin was a mark of royalty, as the tiger, and also the lion, was regarded as the king of animals.

c12.s2.t1.30

d *ṚV.*, VII, 103; English translation by Griffiths.

c12.s2.t1.31

(2) What time on these, as on a dry skin lying in the pool's bed,
the floods of heaven descended,
the music of the frogs comes forth in concert like the cows
lowing with their calves beside them.
(5) When one of these repeats the other's language, as he who
learns the lesson of the teacher,
your every limb seems to be growing larger as ye converse
with eloquence on the waters.
(7) As Brāhmaṇs, sitting round the brimful vessel, talk at the soma-
rite of Atirātra,
so, frogs, ye gather round the pool to honour this day of all
the year, the first of rain-time.

c12.s2.t1.32

Post-Vedic literature follows the tradition of the Vedas in recording the names of animals and some observations on their natural history. As food and as offerings for sacrifice, animal life had acquired an important status. The sport of hunting which is one of the time-honoured recreations and means for obtaining protein food must have assisted in amassing observations which gradually accumulated and served as a storehouse of knowledge that stimulated thought and developed concepts about classification, heredity, embryology, etc.

c12.s2.t1.33

*Animals in the Epics*

c12.s2.t1.34

Constant references are made to animals in the two great epics, the *Rāmāyaṇa* and the *Mahābhārata*.

c12.s2.t1.35

Chaudhuri and Roy have provided lists of animals, both aquatic and terrestrial, as extant in the *Rāmāyaṇa*. They include the commonly known mammals, birds, fishes, insects, etc. The aquatic animals are the mythological *makara* (whose identity is still in dispute), *nakra* (crocodile, gharial) and *timi* (whale). The insects are *indragopa* (cochineal), *kośakāra* (silkworm), *daṁśa* (gnat), *maśaka* (mosquito) and *ṣaṭcaraṇa* which literally means six feet and can be applied to any insect. The scorpion (*vṛścika*) is also referred to. Fishes have been identified by Hora (1952) as *Garra mullya* (*cakratuṇḍa*), *Mastacembalus armatus* (*nalamīna*), *Labeo fimbriatus* (*rohita*), *Channa striatus* (*śakula*) and *Wallago attu* (*pāṭhīna*). There are a few names signifying snakes. Birds include the *kāraṇḍava* (coot), *kurara* (osprey), *krauñca* (pond heron), *cakravāka* (brahminy duck), *koyaṣṭībhas* (lapwing), *kadamba* (purple moorhen), *kaṅka* (gray heron), *gṛdhra* (vulture), *śikhin* (peacock), *śyena* (hawk or falcon), *dātyūha* (waterfowl), *madgu* (aquatic bird, probably cormorant) and *sārika* (a bird of doubtful identity).

c12.s2.t1.36

The most familiar animal in the *Rāmāyaṇa* is indeed the *kapi* or monkey. There was a varied assortment of these creatures variously called *golāṅgula*, *gopucchas* (probably synonymous with the Indian langur), *vānara* (similar to man and living in forests), *plavaga* or *plavaṁga* (moving by leaps, a familiar habit of monkeys when running). The monkey was also known as *śākhāmṛga* (an animal living in the branches of trees, obviously referring to its arboreal habits). Eleven types of deer are listed in the *Rāmāyaṇa*, some of which are no doubt our common species.

c12.s2.t1.37

The *Mahābhārata* is full of references to a large variety of animals, many of which are common to *Rāmāyaṇa* and the Vedic literature. Of great interest in this epic is the *Āstīkaparva*, which deals with the *nāgayajña* of Janmejaya, a descendant of the Pāṇḍavas. Janmejaya, to avenge the death of his grandfather Parīkṣit who was the fatal victim of snake-bite, organized a big snake-hunt to decimate the serpent tribe on the earth. In connection with this anti-snake ritual, about 170 species of snakes are listed. Vedi has compiled a list of snakes mentioned in Indian literature. This list enumerates 418 names, of which many are no doubt synonyms.

c12.s2.t1.38

The *Mahābhārata* has interesting explanations for the poisonous nature of some snakes and their forked tongues (*dvijihva*). Some snakes are poisonous because they licked drops of the *halāhala*, deadly poison retrieved along with *amṛta* from the primordial sea when it was churned by the gods and demons.

c12.s2.t1.39

Similarly, the forked tongue of snakes has a mythological explanation. The much sought-after vessel of *amṛta* was kept on a bed of sharp-edged grass (*kuśa*) under strong guard. The snakes sneaked near the repository, crawling unnoticed; their darting tongues were said to be split into two by the sharp blades of *kuśa*.

c12.s2.t1.40

*Animals in the Medical and Miscellaneous Works*

c12.s2.t1.41

The two great medical works, the *saṃhitās* of Caraka and Suśruta, give an almost complete list of animals of various groups known till then as also some details about anatomy, zoological classification, ecology and dietary value of animals, and physiology of man. The treatment followed is basically similar in the two treatises. While Caraka gives some details about parasites, Suśruta's spectrum is much wider, embracing leeches, insects, spiders, scorpions, frogs, fishes, reptiles (specially snakes), birds and mammals.

c12.s2.t1.42

Suśruta's account of fishes inhabiting various freshwater habitats reveals a keen insight into the correlation between the form and locomotion of fishes, as Horaa has pointed out. The rudiments of the science of functional morphology, that is correlation between forms and functions, are clearly discernible is Suśruta's compendium.

c12.s2.t1.43

Ray and Gupta have given an interesting scientific synopsis of the *Caraka Saṃhitā* with references to Caraka's zoology. For Suśruta, the excellent English translation of the *Suśruta Saṃhitā* in three volumes by Kunja Lal Bhishagratna,b as also Seal's work, are recommended.

c12.s2.t1.44

a Hora (1), pp. 1-7.

c12.s2.t1.45

b 'Bhishagratna' is the Ayurvedic title conferred on the author Kunja Lal Bhaduri. On the title-pages of the volumes the prefix 'Kavirāj'—a title equivalent to 'Doctor' as is usually ascribed to medical practitioners—has been used for the author's name. 'Sharma', used as surname by the author on the dedication page of Vol. 1, is often used by the Brahmans.

c12.s2.t1.46

Reverting to early natural history one cannot but be impressed by allegorical tales, narrated in the *Jātakas*, dealing with animals. Hora,a and Hora and Saraswatib have given primarily an account of fish in the *Jātaka* tales and sculptures (Fig. 8.11), but have also casually mentioned other animals, elephants, monkeys, antelopes, crabs, crocodiles (?), sharks (?), etc., occurring in the tales and associated sculptures at Bharhut (200 B.C.)

c12.s2.t1.47

FIG. 8.11. Animals in *Jātaka* sculptures (after Hora, 1955).

c12.s2.t1.48

and Sanchi (100 B.C.). The animals mentioned in the inscriptions on rock and pillar edicts of Aśoka have been given by Chakravartic and Hora.d Jayaram has given an account of the knowledge regarding animal life in India during the early Jaina and Buddhist period. An important development during this period was the propagation of the creed of *ahiṃsā*, a reaction against the sacrificial ritual of the Vedic Hindus. Though there is no substantial addition to the list of animal names which had already gained currency during the period prior to this, there is a distinct change in the outlook towards animals. It was decreed that animals should not be needlessly slaughtered, though there was no ban on eating meat. For the first time we hear about national parks (*abhayāraṇya*), where animals could move about unmolested. In Kautilya's *Arthaśāstra*, there are indications of regulations governing fisheries, livestock, hunting, etc.

c12.s2.t1.49

a Hora (5), pp. 1–13.

c12.s2.t1.50

b Hora and Saraswati, pp. 15–30.

c12.s2.t1.51

c Chakravarti (M.), pp. 361–74.

c12.s2.t1.52

d Hora (2 ii), pp. 43–56.

c12.s2.t1.53

The period preceding the Christian era and a few centuries immediately after, witnessed intense philosophical-scientific activities, no doubt activated by the Buddhist and Jainist reaction towards orthodox Brahminism (in centuries preceding the birth of Christ) and Hindu reaction against Buddhism in the following half millennium after the Gregorian Calendar was introduced. This was the period of Hindu Renaissance, which crystallized the different systems of philosophy and produced commendable works on mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, physics, botany and zoology.

c12.s2.t1.54

In the post-Christian period, specially in the later half of the first millennium A.D., some remarkable works on Sanskrit poetry were produced. Among these the lyrics and dramas of Kālidāsa have received world-wide acclamation for the poet's deep understanding of Nature. As Macdonell, while discussing the works of that great poet Kālidāsa, aptly remarks about *Ṛtusaṃhāra*: 'Perhaps no other work of Kālidāsa's manifests so strikingly the poet's deep sympathy with Nature, his keen powers of observations, his skill in depicting the Indian landscape in vivid colours.'a This is true indeed not only of Kālidāsa but also of many other Sanskrit poets and dramatists.

c12.s2.t1.55

Animals and plants figure prominently in Kālidāsa's poetry, details about which can be seen in Law's bookb on the birds of Kālidāsa, and in various articles by Guptac dealing with birds and insects mentioned by the poet. His understanding of animal life can be easily gauged by an account of summer in *Ṛtusaṃhāra*, in which the effects of heat on animal life are vividly portrayed by the thirst or lethargy that it produces in serpent, lion, elephant, buffalo, boar, gazelle, peacock, crane, frog and fish; and the devastation caused by forest fire is graphically described as the tongues of flame devour trees and shrubs and drive before them crowds of terror-stricken beasts.

c12.s2.t1.56

Varāhamihira, the great encyclopaedist, did not fail to mention nature and animals in his *Bṛhatsaṃhitā*, in which he has extensively described the cow, dog, cock, tortoise, goat, horse and elephant in separate sections.

c12.s2.t1.57

The *Amarakośa*, a great lexicographic work by Amar Singha, gives meanings, synonyms and definitions (at places) of practically all animal names in the Vedic and post-Vedic texts. For a list of animal names current during and before this great lexicon (as important as Pāṇini's grammar), one can unhesitatingly refer to this work. Though not zoological by any means, the animals have been listed according to their habitats as well as habits.

c12.s2.t1.58

a Macdonell, p. 337.

c12.s2.t1.59

b Law (S. C.).

c12.s2.t1.60

c Gupta, pp. 145–72.

c12.s2.t1.61

Classification of Animals

c12.s2.t1.62

The *Ṛgveda* does not furnish any indication of classification of animals other than the division of common mammals into two groups, viz. the domestic forms (*grāmya*) and those living in forests (*āraṇya*), the wild animals. Later in the *Atharvaveda* we come across the term *jagat*, moving or mobile, to encompass the domestic forms vis-à-vis *śvāpada* which include the wild ones. Among the domestic forms, the solid-hoofed (*ekaśapha*) horse, ass and mule and the split-hoofed (*dviśapha*) were further distinguished from one another by the presence of incisors in both the jaws (*ubhayadanta*: in the *Ṛgveda* and later *saṃhitās*) and by having incisors in the lower jaw only (*anyatodanta*) as in the cattle and sheep. Man has been included among the *ubhayadanta*, that is with incisors in both the jaws, in a passage in the *Taittirīya Saṃhitā*. Man as *dvipada* (biped) was further distinguished from the *catuṣpada* (quadruped) animals. Mammals were called *paśu* (also *mṛga* later on), birds (*pakṣī* having wings) and reptiles (and perhaps other crawling animals) were *sarīsṛpa* (the crawlers); snakes were *sarpa*, and insects (and probably their larvae) were *kīṭa* (non-flying) and *pataṅga* (winged insects). In the *Atharvaveda*, as we have already seen, obnoxious parasites of man and cattle were called *kṛmi*; possibly all (or at least some) of the kinds named were worms parasitizing man and domestic animals.

c12.s2.t1.63

The first attempt to classify animals in a rational (though not natural) way is found in the *Chāndogya Upaniṣad*, where they are divided into three groups according to the nature of their *bīja*, literally meaning seed, but metaphorically implying mode of origin and development. These three groups of animals are *aṇḍaja* (born from egg), *jīvaja* (born alive or born from womb) and *udbhijja* (born from sprouts). The *Aitareya Āraṇyaka* adds one more group, *svedaja* (born out of sweat), generated by hot moisture to comprise flies, worms, etc., which becomes *jarāyuja* in later works. Further, the term *jīvaja* of the *Chāndogya* is replaced by *jaruja*. The term *jarāyu*, used in *Atharvaveda* in the sense of 'serpent's skin', is more frequently used in the later Vedic texts to denote the outer covering (chorion) of the embryo as opposed to ulva, the inner covering or amnion (*Ṛgveda*, *Vājasaneyī Saṃhitā*, *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*, *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*, etc.). The *jaruja* or *jarāyuja*, therefore, comprises placental mammals.

c12.s2.t1.64

The *Manu Smṛti* divides the living world into *sthāvara* (fixed or immobile plants) and *jaṅgama* (the mobile animal world). The animals are further classified into three groups, namely (i) *jarāyuja* which includes *paśu* (domestic quadrupeds), *mṛga* (wild herbivores), *vyāla* (wild carnivores), *ubhayatodanta* (with incisors on both jaws), *rākṣasa*, *piśāca* and man; (ii) *aṇḍaja* which includes birds, snakes, crocodiles, fishes, tortoises and turtles and similar kinds of terrestrial (*sthalaja*) and aquatic (*audaka*) animals; and (iii) *svedaja* which comprises organisms born out of heat and moisture of the earth, viz. stinging gnats and mosquitoes (*daṃśa* and *maśaka*), lice (*yūka*), flies, bugs and others.

c12.s2.t1.65

The class *udbhijja* comprises the fixed plant world. Terms such as *pratuda* and *viṣkira* came to be used later by Caraka and Suśruta for birds, the former to indicate those which tear their food with their beaks and the latter for those which scatter their food with claws. There is also the use of the term *pañcanakha* (five-clawed) which includes *śvāvit* (? pangolin), *śallaka* (porcupine), *godhā* (monitor lizard), *khaḍga* (rhinoceros), *kūrma* (tortoise) and *śaśa* (hare).

c12.s2.t1.66

The division of the animal world into four groups according to their modes of birth, first made in the Vedic literature, gained wide currency in the post-Vedic literature and found frequent mention in the *Purāṇas* and the *Mahābhārata*. Caraka and Suśruta both followed this classification in their medical treatises.

c12.s2.t1.67

According to Carakaa the *jarāyuja* (placental animals) includes man, the quadrupeds, etc.; the *aṇḍaja* (egg-born or oviparous) fishes, reptiles and birds; the *svedaja* (born of moisture and heat, i.e. spontaneously or asexually reproduced) worms, mosquitoes, etc.; and all animals, born of vegetable organisms, are included in the class *udbhijja*. He further mentions that each *yoni* has innumerable divisions and consequently the appearance, etc., of organisms are also exceedingly varied.

c12.s2.t1.68

Pāṇini defines *kṣudra jantu* as small organisms or animals without bones (*anasthi*) or animals so small that hundreds or even thousands of them can be held in the palm of a hand or animals up to the size of the mongoose.b Patañjali further elaborates the definition of small animals (*kṣudra jantu*) as follows: ‘What are *kṣudra jantu*? Boneless are *kṣudra jantu*. Or those that number more than a thousand in a palmful are *kṣudra jantu*. Or those that cannot be easily crushed are *kṣudra jantu*. Or animals up to ichneumon (*nakula*) are *kṣudra jantu*.’

c12.s2.t1.69

The definitions of small (or minute) organisms given by Pāṇini and Patañjali are, however, defective, since these include boneless and bloodless (red blood) creatures up to the size of the mongoose (ichneumon), the latter having both bones and blood. Obviously, these are an assemblage of small organisms from very minute to those up to the size of ichneumon.

c12.s2.t1.70

Praśastapāda, the well-known Vaiśeṣika philosopher, divides animals into two great divisions: *ayonija* or animals that are asexually reproduced and are of small dimensions (*kṣudra jantu*) of Pāṇini and Patañjali, and *yonija* or sexually reproduced from the union of male and female germ elements. The *yonija* are further subdivided into *jarāyuja* (man, domestic and wild quadrupeds), or viviparous, and *aṇḍaja*, the oviparous animals like birds and *sarīsṛpa* (reptiles, etc.).

c12.s2.t1.71

b *MBhā.*, 2.4.1.

c12.s2.t1.72

In Praśastapāda’s own words:

c12.s2.t1.73

*tatra śarīraṃ dvividhaṃ yonijamayonijaṃ ca | tatrayonija-*
*manapekṣaśukraśoṇitaṃ … | śukraśoṇitasannipātajaṃ yo-*
*nijaṃ tattu dvividhaṃ jarāyujamaṇḍajaṃ ca | mānuṣapaśu-*
*mṛgāṇāṃ jarāyujaṃ pakṣisarīsṛpāṇāmaṇḍajam* |c

c12.s2.t1.74

a *CS. Śā.*, 3.16.

c12.s2.t1.75

c *PBh. dravya, pṛthivīnirūpaṇam.*

c12.s2.t1.76

He thus modifies the Vedic classification of animals, retaining the *aṇḍaja* and *jarāyuja* and including them in the *yonija* division (organisms formed out of the union of semen and menstrual blood), while including small animals into *ayonija* or asexually reproduced forms. The *svedaja* and *udbhijja* are not, however, mentioned, because probably the division *ayonija* was developed to include these. Udayana has defined the term *jarāyu* as placenta; and the *sarīsṛpa*, according to the same author, includes insects, fishes, reptiles and snakes.

c12.s2.t1.77

Suśruta divides animals into four groups, e.g. *samsvedaja* or *svedaja*, *jarāyuja*, *aṇḍaja* and *udbhijja*. In various texts the order of enumeration is, however, different. Ḍallaṇa, the commentator of Suśruta, defines the *svedaja* as organisms born out of moisture and heat, which are essential in generating all forms of animal life.

c12.s2.t1.78

Among the examples of the four groupings are mentioned *vyāla* (carnivorous quadrupeds) and *paśu* (herbivores) as *jarāyuja*; birds, snakes and *sarīsṛpas* among *aṇḍaja*; *kṛmi*, *kīṭa* and *pipīlikā* (worms, insects, ants, etc.) among *svedaja*; frogs and cochineal insect as typifying those that burst forth from the ground, the *udbhijja*.a Ḍallaṇa further thinks that these divisions are really cross-divisions. He mentions that bats and *valākās* among birds are viviparous (some *valākās* are oviparous, some are viviparous). Similarly, among the *aṇḍaja* snakes, *ahipatākā* (a kind of non-venomous snake) is viviparous.b The same is true of some species of ants which lay eggs or burst forth from the ground in the *udbhijja* way.

c12.s2.t1.79

The *sarīsṛpas* together with the birds and snakes are included among the oviparous or *aṇḍaja* animals by Suśruta, which contain, in the opinion of Ḍallaṇa, fishes and *makara* (sea-monsters with fierce teeth = ? sharks) and also tortoises and crocodiles.

c12.s2.t1.80

The same commentator explains that the *svedaja* organisms are produced due to the moisture and heat either of the earth or of the organisms. Among these the worms (*kṛmi*) arise from the moisture of the faeces in the bowels or from putrefying dead bodies, as Guṇaratna notes in *Tarka-rahasya-dīpikā*. They may also arise from decomposing milk or curd.

c12.s2.t1.81

The moisture-born *kīṭa* includes scorpions and the six-spotted venomous insect *ṣaḍvindu*. According to Patañjali (also Suśruta in *Kalpa-sthāna*, Ch. VII) scorpions arise from cow-dung, excreta of snakes and rotten wood.

c12.s2.t1.82

The *pipīlikā*, that is, ants and the like insects, as Ḍallaṇa comments, have a triple mode of birth; they are born from moisture and heat (*svedaja*), from eggs (*aṇḍaja*) and sometimes burst forth from the ground (*udbhijja*).

c12.s2.t1.83

b Although all snakes are oviparous, in some (Viperidae and some other species of colubrids) the eggs continue development inside the 'uterus' and the young ones are born alive. These are examples of ovo-vivipary. Perhaps Ḍallaṇa observed such cases when noting that *ahipatākā* is viviparous.

c12.s2.t1.84

Śaṅkara (*Chāndogya Upaniṣad*, *Prapāṭhaka* 6, part 3) commenting upon the classification of animals, divides them into three groups only, *jīvaja* (viviparous), *aṇḍaja* and *udbhijja*. Śaṅkara, like Caraka, agrees that *udbhijja* animals arise from vegetable organisms, but he also holds the view that *svedaja* animals must be included partly under *aṇḍaja* and partly under *udbhijja*.

c12.s2.t1.85

a Seal, p. 179.

c12.s2.t1.86

Seala thinks that Śaṅkara's explanation takes it that, though vegetable organisms may pass off into animal, inorganic matter without *bīja* (seed or ovum) cannot give rise to animal life or, in other words, life cannot arise *de novo*, the elementary fact that every student of biology has to learn in school. Patañjali, however, believes that not only animal organisms but also vegetable organisms, e.g. grasses, can grow from inorganic matter. The *dūrvā* grass is cited as an example; it can grow from deposits of hair of goats and cows, just as scorpions are seen to develop from cow-dung. Patañjali explains that these are not cases of growth but merely of unfolding (transformation).

c12.s2.t1.87

A different system of classification of animals has been devised by Umāsvātī in the ancient Jaina work, *Tattvārthādhigamasūtra*. Here, the number of senses possessed by an organism is taken into account, and the animal is placed in an ascending series according to this number.

c12.s2.t1.88

1. Those animals which possess two senses—touch and taste:b
(i) *Apādika*—worms without appendages.
(ii) *Nūpuraka*—ring-like with pendants—Annelida.
(iii) *Gaṇḍūpada*—knotty-legged animals—Arthropoda (including Crustacea and Myriapoda).
(iv) Some kinds of molluscs, such as *śaṅkha* (conch), *śuktika* (pearl oyster) and *śambuka* (spiral shell, many snails).
(v) *Jalūkā*—leeches (Hirudinea).

c12.s2.t1.89

2. Animals possessing three senses, viz. touch, taste and smell:c
(i) *Pipīlikā*—ants.
(ii) *Rohiṇikā*—red ants.
(iii) *Upacikā*, *kunthu*, *tuburuka*—bugs and fleas.
(iv) *Trapusabīja* and *karpāsāsthikā*—cucumber- and cotton-weevils; lice.
(v) *Śatapadī* and *utpataka*—centipede and springtail.
(vi) *Tṛṇapatra*—plant-lice.
(vii) *Kāṣṭhahāraka*—wood-destroyers, e.g. termites or white ants.

c12.s2.t1.90

a Seal, p. 180.

c12.s2.t1.91

b *tad yathā kṛmyādīnām apādika—nūpuraka—gaṇḍūpada—śaṅkha—śuktikā śambukā—jalūkā—prabhṛtīnāṃ … sparśanarasanendriye bhavataḥ |* —*TSū. Bh.*, II, 24.

c12.s2.t1.92

c *pipīlikā—rohiṇikā—upacikā—kunthu—tuburuka—trapusabīja—karpāsāsthikā—śatapad-yutpataka—tṛṇapatra—kāṣṭhahāraka—prabhṛtīnāṃ trīṇi sparśanarasanaghrāṇāni |*

c12.s2.t1.93

3. Animals with the senses of touch, taste, smell and sight:a
(i) *Bhramara*, *varaṭa* and *sāraṅga*—bees, wasps and hornets.
(ii) *Makṣikā*, *puttikā*, *daṁśa* and *maśaka*—dipterous flies, gnats, mosquitoes.
(iii) *Vṛścika* and *nandyāvarta*—scorpions and spiders.
(iv) *Kīṭa-pataṅga*—flying and non-flying insects.

c12.s2.t1.94

4. Animals (man and the *tiryagyonis*) with five well-developed and active senses:b
(i) *Matsya*—fishes (Pisces).
(ii) *Uraga*—limbless reptiles including snakes.
(iii) *Bhujaṅga*—limbed reptiles and (?) amphibians.
(iv) *Pakṣī*—birds (Aves).
(v) *Catuṣpada*—quadrupeds (Mammalia).

c12.s2.t1.95

The first three divisions as stated above come under the invertebrates and include *svedaja* and *udbhijja* of the earlier classifications and the fourth includes only vertebrates.

c12.s2.t1.96

The fourth is further subdivided into the oviparous and viviparous groups:

c12.s2.t1.97

(a) *Aṇḍaja*—fishes and reptiles, including *sarpa* (snakes), *godhā* (monitor lizard), *kṛkalāsa* (chameleons and garden lizards), *gṛhagolika* (wall-lizards); *matsya* (fishes), *kūrma* (tortoise), *nakra* (crocodiles), *śiśumāra* (dolphins and porpoises) and *lomapakṣa pakṣi* (birds with feathered wings).c

c12.s2.t1.98

Two flaws in this otherwise good classification can be noticed. One is the inclusion of dolphins among *aṇḍaja* (perhaps their fish-like features and behaviour caused this mistake) and the omission of frogs because they were traditionally believed to be *udbhijja*, that is, bursting forth from the ground.

c12.s2.t1.99

(b) *Jarāyuja*—placental mammals. Here *jarāyuja* is restricted to mean those mammals that have non-deciduate placenta, e.g. man, cow, buffalo, goat and sheep, horse, ass, camel, deer, yak (*chāmara*), hog, *gavaya* (mithun), lion, tiger, bear, panther, dog, jackal, cat, etc.d (c) *Potaja*—mammals with deciduate placenta which is thrown off as an afterbirth, such as *śallaka* (porcupine), *hasti* (elephant), *śvāvit* and *lāpaka* (hedgehog and other insectivores), *śaśa* and *śāyikā* (hares and squirrels), *nakula* (mongoose), *mūṣika* (rats and mice), and *carmapakṣa pakṣī* (birds with leathery wings), that is, bats including *valguli* (flying fox), *pakṣivirāla* (Microchiroptera) and *jalūka* (apparently meaning blood-sucking bats or vampires).a

c12.s2.t1.100

a *bhramara—varaṭa—sāraṅga—makṣikā—puttikā—daṁśa—maśaka—vṛścika—nandyāvarta—kīṭa-pataṅgādināṁ catvāri sparśanarasanaghrāṇa—cakṣūṁṣi* | —*TSū. Bh.*, II, 24.

c12.s2.t1.101

b *śeṣāṇāṁ ca tiryagyonijānāṁ matsyoragabhujaṅgapakṣi—catuṣpadānāṁ sarveṣāṁ ca nārakamanuṣyadevānāṁ pañcendriyāni* | —*TSū. Bh.*, II, 24.

c12.s2.t1.102

c *aṇḍajānāṁ sarpa—godhā—kṛkalāsa—gṛhagolika—matsya—kūrma—nakra—śiśumārādināṁ* | —*TSū. Bh.*, II, 34.

c12.s2.t1.103

d *Jarāyujānāṁ manuṣya—go-mahiṣājāvikāśca—kharoṣṭra—mṛga—camara—varāha—gavaya—siṁha—vyāghrarkṣa—dvipīśva—śṛgāla—mārjārādināṁ* |

c12.s2.t1.104

Umāsvātī's classification, whatever might be its defects from the modern point of view, was distinctly a bold advance and excelled contemporary efforts made in the western world dominated by Aristotle's ideas and contributions. In fact, in their attempts to introduce systems of classification, the ancient Indians appear to have made much more serious efforts to bring together known animals within the bounds of certain rational groups and achieved a larger measure of success than did Aristotle.

c12.s2.t1.105

In addition to the classification of animals on the basis of their modes of reproduction or possession of a series of senses, Caraka and Suśruta classified animals according to their dietary habits and habitats. Though the two systems agree in broad outlines, there are some differences in details worthy of notice.

c12.s2.t1.106

Caraka's classification is as follows:

c12.s2.t1.107

(1) *Prasaha*—carnivorous and non-carnivorous animals and birds that fall on their food with force.
(2) *Anūpa*—animals that live in marshy or water-logged areas or graze on river banks.
(3) *Bhūśaya* or *vileśaya*—subterranean or cave-dwelling animals.
(4) *Vāriśaya*—marine and freshwater animals.
(5) *Jalacara*—amphibious animals.
(6) *Jāṅgala*—mostly species of deer that live in dry and hilly forested lands.
(7) *Viṣkira*—birds that scatter their food in picking.
(8) *Pratuda*—birds that pierce or tear their food (worms or fruits) with beak.

c12.s2.t1.108

Suśruta's classification begins with two divisions which are further subdivided into 13 groups distinguished by natural differences in food and habitat. The first two divisions are: (1) *jāṅgala* or animals that live on dry hilly country or jungles and (2) *anūpa*, comprising animals that live in marshy or water-logged lands (or in water).

c12.s2.t1.109

The 13 classes within these two divisions are:

c12.s2.t1.110

(1) Jāṅgala animals: *jaṅghāla*, *viṣkira*, *pratuda*, *guhāśaya*, *prasaha*, *parṇamṛga*, *vileśaya* and *grāmya*.
(2) Anūpa animals: *kūlecara*, *plava*, *kośastha*, *pādina* and *matsya*.

c12.s2.t1.111

a *potajānāṃ śallaka—hasti—śvāvillāpaka—śaśa—śāyrikā—nakulamūṣikādināṃ carma-pakṣiṇāṃ ca pakṣāṇāṃ jalūkā—valgulī—bhāraṇḍa—pakṣivirālādināṃ garbhojanma* |

c12.s2.t1.112

The land animals (*jāṅgala*) have three groups exclusively made up of birds. These comprise *prasaha* including birds of prey, like vultures, kites, owls, etc., *viṣkira* meaning birds that scatter their food while picking up, and *pratuda*, that is, birds that pierce and tear their food. Except that Caraka’s *prasaha* includes birds as well as mammals, the other two groups are similar. The remaining five groups of *jāṅgala* animals, with the exception of several kinds of reptiles included under *vileśaya* and a few under *parṇamṛga*, contain mammals.

c12.s2.t1.113

The *parṇamṛga*, creatures that live in the trees (arboreal animals), are apes, monkeys, squirrels, and some reptiles and carnivores. The *jaṅghālas* are wild deer and antelopes, strong-legged and quick-footed, that run about on dry land. The *grāmya*, living in villages, comprises the horse, mule, ass, camel, goat, sheep, cow, etc. They are herbivorous quadrupeds, some of which are *ekaśapha* or solid-hoofed.

c12.s2.t1.114

The carnivorous beasts like the lion, tiger, wolf, hyena, bear, panther, cat, jackal, *mṛgervāru*, etc., comprise *guhāśaya* that live in natural caves or hollows. The wolf (*vṛka*) is defined as a dog-like animal, smaller in size than the lion and tiger.

c12.s2.t1.115

The animals leading subterranean life in burrows and holes, and therefore called *vileśaya*, include rodents, insectivores and reptiles.

c12.s2.t1.116

The *anūpa* group has a mixed assortment of vertebrates and invertebrates. The *kulecara* comprises herbivorous quadrupeds, like the elephant, rhinoceros, *gavaya* (mithun), buffalo and various kinds of deer, that frequent the banks of rivers and ponds. The *plavas* are aquatic birds like ducks, geese and cranes. Of the remaining three groups, the *matsyas* are fishes divided into two groups, marine and freshwater, *timi* and *timiṅgila* and *makara* (whales and sharks?) finding place among marine fishes. Forms of body and peculiarities of locomotion of freshwater fishes from different types of habitats have been described with a certain degree of accuracy.

c12.s2.t1.117

The *kośastha* of the *anūpa* comprises various kinds of molluscs living in shells. The *pādina* includes a mixed assemblage of animals having pedal, or fin-like appendages, and to this group belong the oval- or oblong-shaped tortoises and turtles (*kūrma*), crocodiles (*kumbhīra*), white and black crabs (*karkaṭa*) and the *śiśumāra*, apparently the dolphin, with a muscular body, sharp protruding snout, breathing with a blow-hole out of water.

c12.s2.t1.118

In addition to the dietary classification, both Caraka and Suśruta deal with groups of obnoxious and poisonous animals. Caraka’s *kṛmi-varga* dealing with worms or parasites contains four divisions depending on the location of the vermins, e.g. (*a*) those living in the body excretions—*yūka* (lice), *pipīlikā* (ants); (*b*) those living in the blood (blood-parasites)—*audumbara*, *jantumātā*, *keśada*, *lomada*, *lomadvīpa*, *saurasa*; (*c*) those living in the mucus and phlegm—*antrada*, *curu*, *darbhapuṣpa*, *hṛdayada*, *mahāguda*, *saugandhika*, *udaraveṣṭa*; (*d*) those living in the faeces—*kakeruka*, *leliha*, *makeruka*, *saśālaka*, *sausurūda*.a Except for the first two, it is not possible to identify the others by names only. It should, however, be acknowledged that Caraka ascribed certain diseases of men to parasites living inside various parts of the body.

c12.s2.t1.119

a Ray and Gupta, pp. 35–36.

c12.s2.t1.120

The creatures with poisonous fangs listed by Caraka under the *gomāyu-varga* include the rats, snakes (*āśīviṣa*), leeches, wall-lizards, spiders, scorpions, frogs, fishes, mongooses, flying insects, centipedes, hornets, tigers, lions, dogs and hyenas. Nine kinds of snakes, of which a few are apparently poisonous, are also listed.

c12.s2.t1.121

Suśruta has listed 20 kinds of worms (*kṛmi*) or parasites of men, originating in faeces (*purīṣaja*), cough or phlegm (*kaphaja*) or in blood (*raktaja*). Excepting for two or three, all the other names of parasites are different from those of Caraka.

c12.s2.t1.122

The noxious animals whose poisons are dangerous to man are listed by Suśruta in some detail. The seat of poison of celestial serpents lies in their breath, of terrestrial ones in their fangs, and of cats, dogs, monkeys, *makaras*, frogs, *pāka-matsyas*, monitor lizards (*godhā*), molluscs (snails), *pracalakas* (a kind of insect), geckos and many insects in their teeth and claws.

c12.s2.t1.123

Among the noxious forms are listed 18 types of rats, 67 ‘families’ of insects and 30 kinds of scorpions. The scorpions are classified into *manda-viṣa* or mild-poisoned (12 kinds) germinating from cow-dung or any other rotten substances, *madhyaviṣa* or medium-poisoned (3 kinds) and strongly poisoned or *tīkṣṇaviṣa* (15 types) which germinate from the putrefied dead body of a snake or any poisoned animal. Their characters and effects of venom are also described. Spiders are classed into fatal (non-curable) and non-fatal (curable) types depending on the nature of their poison. Of the 16 kinds of spiders listed, eight are fatally poisonous and the other eight are mildly poisonous. Centipedes are divided into eight kinds, and among insects, following centipedes, are listed eight different kinds of frogs that are said to be venomous.

c12.s2.t1.124

Snakes are treated by Suśruta in great detail. Five different ‘families’ are noted, of which one is non-venomous and four (including a hybrid group) are venomous. The venomous group includes *dārvīkara*, the cobras of 26 varieties, hooded serpents, swift in their movements and with marks of chariot-wheels, ploughs, umbrellas, etc., on their hood. *Maṇḍalī*,a another group of venomous serpents containing two species, are thick, slow-moving, nocturnal and bear circles or rings on their bodies. They do not have hoods. *Rājimat*,b the third group of venomous serpents, contains ten forms, non-hooded and nocturnal in their habits, bears series of dots or marks, often of variegated colours, on the upper parts and sides.

c12.s2.t1.125

a The description of *maṇḍalī* (vipers) given by Suśruta is fairly accurate. He lists two species of vipers, and this is in agreement with the current knowledge about Indian snakes. Only two species of vipers, *Vipera russelli* and *Echis carinatus*, are known in India, and the description given by Suśruta tallies fairly well with that of *V. russelli*—the Russell's viper.

c12.s2.t1.126

b This corresponds fairly well with coral snakes.

c12.s2.t1.127

Twelve non-venomous species and ten of hybrids (*vaikarañja*) are listed. *Ajagara*, the Indian python (*Python molurus*), is mentioned as non-poisonous.

c12.s2.t1.128

Suśruta has also extensively dealt with the leeches (*jalaukā*) which were utilized in sucking out vitiated blood from the body. *Jalaukā*, creatures whose lives depend on water, are divided into 12 ‘species’, of which six are venomous and six non-venomous. Characters of different ‘species’ are described in some detail, which include the colouration, size, girth, distinctive spots, etc., on the body. The natural habitats of the leeches and their geographic distribution are also given. Venomous leeches are said to originate in the decomposed urine and faecal matter of toads and venomous fishes in pools of stagnant and turbid waters. The origin of non-venomous forms is ascribed to such decomposed matter as the putrefied stems of several aquatic plants and the common zoophytes that live in clear water.

c12.s2.t1.129

The value of accurate identification of animals and plants was not unknown to the ancient Indians. The nomenclature adopted by them, generally derived from some characteristics of the organism or from their habits or habitats, is an adequate testimony to their efforts in this direction. Apparently, because of their constant familiarity with nature and life around them, they relied almost exclusively on names for identification of living objects and have left little descriptive accounts. For example, Varāhamihira, according to B. K. Sarkar,a emphasized the importance of names in different countries; and hence the animals first be identified by their names! He also attempted to classify animals according to their habits into nocturnal and diurnal kinds and into those that are seen during both day and night.

c12.s2.t1.130

References available in ancient texts indicate that the Indian philosophers and scholars of antiquity were also systematists and did try to identify animals and plants more or less along lines now characteristic of modern taxonomists. Sealb quotes from some (unnamed) handbooks the precise descriptions of deer and birds given by Ḍallaṇa, the commentator of Suśruta. He further cites the authority of Ḍallaṇa who has referred to the classification of *kīṭas* (insects and reptiles) by Lādyāyaṇa, a noted specialist on the group. Lādyāyaṇa gave criteria for distinguishing various types of *kīṭas* by structural and behavioural peculiarities like ‘(1) dottings or markings, (2) wings, (3) pedal appendages, (4) mouth, with antennae or nippers (*mukhasandaṁśa*—Ḍallaṇa), (5) claws, (6) sharp-pointed hair or filaments, (7) stings in the tail, (8) hymenopterous character (*saṁśliṣṭaiḥ pakṣaromabhiḥ*), (9) humming or other noise, (10) size, (11) structure of the body, (12) sexual organs . . . and (13) poison and its action on bodies.’c Last but not the least, we should like to refer to Ghosal's elaborate treatment, in his own way, of classification of animals in ancient Hindu literature.a

c12.s2.t1.131

a Sarkar (B. K.), pp. 208–96.

c12.s2.t1.132

b Seal, p. 197.

c12.s2.t1.133

c Seal, p. 200.

Anatomy and Physiology

c12.s2.t2.1

Ghosal states that the growth of knowledge of anatomy in ancient times took place chiefly from the necessity of treatment of human beings and domestic animals, and was based on the animals sacrificed in *yajña*. He further states that there are evidences of development of the knowledge of comparative anatomy in the ancient literature. The data compiled by him, though valuable as an indicator of the interest in animal and plant life, throw little light on the knowledge about anatomy that the ancient Indians actually possessed. He has, however, cited numerous ancient references (mostly in manuscript form) dealing with the veterinary sciences, specially those referring to elephants and horses, which were of importance to the kings and emperors in hunting and warfares. The treatises on veterinary medicine, the *Gajāyurveda* and *Aśvāyurveda*, have chapters on the anatomy and physiology of elephants and horses, but besides enumerating various parts of animal bodies along the lines given in the *saṃhitās* of Caraka and Suśruta, there is nothing descriptive of note.

c12.s2.t2.2

Embryology

c12.s2.t2.3

As in anatomy and physiology, embryological knowledge of the ancient Indians was exclusively the product of observations made on human beings.

c12.s2.t2.4

The semen, according to Suśruta, is the final product of metabolic activity of the body. Conception has been considered to be due to the union of sperm and ovum. The various signs of pregnancy, and preparation necessary for a full-term pregnancy, along with the developmental stages of the foetus, beginning from the conception to the delivery, have been fairly accurately described in the Vedic and later Indian literature. The *Garbhopaniṣad* is one of the earliest works to record the development of human foetus. A more detailed account of the early development is given by Suśruta. Keswanib has summarized the information contained in these two works.

c12.s2.t2.5

b Keswani, pp. 206–25.

c12.s2.t2.6

Heredity and Sex-Determination

c12.s2.t2.7

The question of transmission of hereditary characters occupied the thoughts of the ancient Hindus since the Vedic times. In the *Brāhmaṇas* the question is first asked how specific characters are transmitted from the parent to the offspring. The offspring belongs to the same species as the parent—how does it happen? And, the answer given is: species are like so many moulds into which the ovum is cast, even as molten metals are cast into the oven.

First 142 of 162 passages. Read on

Cites (32)