The Classical Doctrine of Indian Medicine: Its Origins and its Greek Parallels c9.5

c9.5

Several hymns enumerate the limbs of the body of man or of the cow or of the celestial bull (*RV.*, X, 90 and 163; *AV.*, II, 33 almost identical to *RV.*, X, 163; *AV.*, IX, 7 & 8; X, 2 & 9; XI, 3 & 8, etc.). Hoernle had thought to have found in the Hymn X, 2 of the Atharva, a nomenclature of bones related to the one found in the *Caraka-saṃhitā* (*Śār.*, VII). Now the observed concordance does not imply any relation of dependence between the two texts. First of all it is abusive to claim that the hymn in question contains a nomenclature of bones. This hymn enumerates the limbs of the body of the Cosmic Man, asking, regarding each of them, its respective creator. Caraka, on his side, indicates the number of bones contained in each part of the body. It is not at all necessary to suppose that in the times of the *Atharvaveda*, there already existed a list comparable to that of Caraka and which, as believed by Hoernle, inspired the hymn in question. This hymn refers only to the most commonplace notions regarding the human body, and when two texts start enumerating the parts of the human body, the concordances, established perforce between them, do not suppose any imitation of one by the other. Besides, the Vedic hymn contains several terms which are entirely unknown to Caraka or which have been employed by him in other passages only. Without paying any heed to these facts, Hoernle has prepared a table (p. 112) where the words of the hymn and those of Caraka are put in correspondence, one against another, and are accepted as synonyms. But in order to maintain these similarities, he is forced to lend to the author of the Vedic hymn the strangest ideas. This is how he establishes a