Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s1.t15: § 19. Criticism of Gaṅgādhar's Recension

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s1.t15

Language
English

§ 19. Criticism of Gaṅgādhar's Recension

c6.s1.t15.1

1. At the end of the Non-medical Version, as given by him, Gaṅgādhar adds the remark: ‘this is the statement found in the *Agneya Purāṇa* and in the *Yājñavalkya Saṃhitā* Law-book.’ As a fact, however, it is not a real quotation that he gives, but an ‘edited’ recension of the statement. For his recension differs considerably in several points from the traditional recension in the Law-book.

c6.s1.t15.2

(*a*) In No. 6 Gaṅgādhar counts four heels instead of two.

c6.s1.t15.3

(*b*) In No. 18 *c* he counts thirty-five back-bones instead of forty-five.

c6.s1.t15.4

(*c*) In No. 20 he counts two *jatru* (collar-bones) instead of one (windpipe).

c6.s1.t15.5

(*d*) In No. 23 *a* he counts six bones instead of three.

c6.s1.t15.6

(*e*) In No. 27 he counts fifteen breast-bones instead of seventeen.

c6.s1.t15.7

(*f*) In No. 7 *a* he inserts four wrist-bones.

c6.s1.t15.8

(*g*) In Nos. 18 *a*, *b* he inserts a sacral and an anal bone.

c6.s1.t15.9

2. Among these differences, the items *c*, *d*, and *f* enable us to see the reason which led Gaṅgādhar to elaborate his emended recension of the Non-medical Version. We have seen (§ 17) that the traditional Non-medical Version entirely neglects to count the two arms and four wrist-bones. From the fact of Gaṅgādhar counting the four wrist-bones, it is evident that he had noticed the defect of the traditional recension. But it may be asked why he did not also count the two arms. The answer is indicated

c6.s1.t15.11

by the differences noted in the items *c* and *d*. They show that Gangādhar was acquainted with the interpretation of Vijñāneśvara in his Mitaksharā Commentary (§§ 20, 21). He followed that commentator in including the arms under the term ‘forearm’ (No. 8, *aratni*); also, in taking *jatru* to refer to the two collar-bones, as well as in allotting two bones to each of the three items: brows, eyes, cheeks. As Vijñāneśvara, however, failed to realize the omission of the four wrist-bones, Gangādhar supplied the deficiency. Moreover, he did not follow Vijñāneśvara in discounting the four bases (No. 4, *sthāna*). There is, however, still another circumstance that influenced Gangādhar’s emended recension; namely, his acquaintance with Suśruta’s statement on the skeleton. From the traditional recension of that statement (§ 27), he obtained his count of four heels, as well as of the sacral and anal bones.

c6.s1.t15.12

3. The combined result of the two modifying influences was the augmentation of Gangādhar’s list by twelve bones. And it was to counterbalance this excess that Gangādhar reduced the back-bones by ten, and the breast-bones by two; as thus:

c6.s1.t15.13

| Grand total of the Non-medical Version (§ 20, col. iv) | | 360 |
| Add, Two extra heels in No. 6 | . . . | 2 |
| Four wrist-bones in No. 7 *a* | . . . | 4 |
| One extra *jatru* in No. 20 | . . . | 1 |
| Three extra bones in No. 23 *a* | . . . | 3 |
| One sacral bone in No. 18 *a* | . . . | 1 |
| One anal bone in No. 18 *b* | . . . | 1 |
| | | — 12 |
| Total | . . . | 372 |
| Deduct, Ten back-bones in No. 18 *c* | . . . | 10 |
| Two breast-bones in No. 27 | . . . | 2 |
| | | — 12 |
| Balance | . . . | 360 |

c6.s1.t15.14

It seems hardly necessary to point out, and it will be shown in the Third Section, that all this manipulation of the numbers of the list is performed without any reference to, and has no warrant in, the actual state of the skeletal structure.

c6.s1.t15.15

4. Regarding the influence of the statement of Suśruta on the recension of Gangādhar, another indication of it may be noted in the latter's employment of the terms kūrca, cluster (§ 18, footnote), and kūrpara, elbow-pan (No. 11). Both terms are peculiar to the system of Suśruta (§§ 27, 28). The genuine recension of the Non-medical Version does not use the term kūrca at all, and instead of kūrpara it uses the term kapola (No. 11 in § 16). The reason, no doubt, why Gaṅgādhar preferred the Suśrutiyan term kūrpara was that he saw that the term kapola was misleading. It properly signifies the cheek, and is here out of place, because the cheeks are enumerated afterwards under the name gaṇḍa (No. 23 a). The fact is (§ 21, cl. 3) that kapola is an ancient false reading for kapāla, a pan, which signifies the pan-like olecranon process of the elbow (§ 53), and which is used in the Medical Versions of Charaka (§ 4) and Bheḍa (§ 12) in the slightly modified form of kapālikā, a small pan.¹

c6.s1.t15.16

¹ As a fact, the India Office MS., No. 540, of the Viṣṇu Smṛti, reads kapāla; see § 84.

c6.s1.t15.17

§ 20. The Commentaries on the Non-medical Version

c6.s1.t15.18

1. The commentaries on the Non-medical Version contained in the Law-book of Yājñavalkya throw not a little light on the subject of the defects and peculiarities of that Version. The subjoined table exhibits a conspectus of their theories of interpretation. Columns I to IV refer to the Law-book itself, and columns V to VIII to the commentaries of Aparārka (V), Vijñāneśvara (Mitaksharā, VI), Śūlapāṇi (VII), Mitramiśra (VIII). Column III gives the number of bones of each item of the list, and column IV the totals of the bones named in each verse. For the original texts and translations of the commentaries, see §§ 79–82.

c6.s1.t15.19

| I. VERSE. | II. ITEMS OF LIST. | III. YĀJN. | IV. YĀJN. | V. AP. | VI. VIJN. | VII. ŚUL. | VIII. MIT. |
| 85 | 1. Teeth and sockets | 64 | | | | | |
| | 2. Nails (*nakha*) | 20 | 108 | 108 | 104 | 104 | 104 |
| | 3. Long bones (*śalākā*) | 20 | | | | | |
| | 4. Bases (*sthāna*) | 4 | | | | | |
| 86 | 5. Phalanges (*aṅguli*) | 60 | | | | | |
| | 6. Heels (*pārṣṇi*) | 2 | | | | | |
| | 7. Ankle-bones (*gulpha*) | 4 | 74 | 74 | 74 | 74 | 74 |
| | 8. Forearms (*aratni*) | 4 | | | | | |
| | 9. Legs (*jaṅgha*) | 4 | | | | | |
| 87 | 10. Knee-caps (*jānu*) | 2 | | | | | |
| | 11. Elbow-pans (*kapola*) | 2 | | | | | |
| | 12. Thighs (*ūru-phalaka*) | 2 | | | | | |
| | 13. Shoulder-blades | 2 | 14 | 12 | 14 | 14 | 14 |
| | 14. Collar-bones (*akṣa*) | 2 | } | 2 | | | |
| | 15. Palatal cavities (*tālūṣaka*) | 2 | | | | | |
| | 16. Hip-blades (*śroṇi-phalaka*) | 2 | | | | | |
| 88 | 17. Pubes (*bhaga*) | 1 | | | | | |
| | 18. Back-bones (*pṛṣṭha*) | 45 | | | | | |
| | 19. Neck-bones (*grīvā*) | 15 | 63 | 63 | 64 | 64 | 64 |
| | 20. Windpipe (*jatru*) | 1 | | | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| | 21. Chin (*hanu*) | 1 | | | | | |
| 89 | 22. Basal tie-bones | 2 | | | | | |
| | 23 *a*. Bones of brows (*lalāṭa*) | 1 | | I | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| | ,, eyes (*akṣi*) | 1 | 78 | 2 80 | 2 81 | 2 81 | 2 81 |
| | ,, cheeks (*gaṇḍa*) | 1 | | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| | 23 *b*. Nasal bone (*nāsā*) | 1 | | | | | |
| | 24. Ribs, &c. (*pārśvaka*) | 72 | | | | | |
| 90 | 25. Temporal bones (*śaṅkha*) | 2 | | | | | |
| | 26. Cranial pan-shaped | 4 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 |
| | 27. Breast-bones (*uras*) | 17 | | | | | |
| | Grand totals | | 360 | 360 | 360 | 360 | 360 |

c6.s1.t15.20

2. It will be noticed at once that the totals of Aparārka (col. V) differ from those of the three other commentators (cols. VI, VII, VIII). The latter agree among themselves; and a comparison of their comments shows that the views of Vijñāneśvara, who is the oldest among them, have been simply adopted by the two others. Aparārka, who was a near contemporary of Vijñāneśvara, holds an independent view, which differs in respect of four of the six totals; viz. the first, third, fourth, and fifth. These differences will now be considered seriatim.

c6.s1.t15.21

3. In verse 85, Vijñāneśvara (in his commentary called Mitāksharā) makes the total of the bones to be 104. He arrives at this total by discounting the bases (sthāna). According to him the terms sthāna (base) and śalākā (long bone) refer to the same organ (hand or foot, as the case may be), but describing it from two different points of view: śalākā describes the two hands and feet with reference to the total number of their individual bones, which is twenty, while sthāna describes them with regard to the four sets into which those twenty bones are divided. Of course, in a mere enumeration of the bones, both terms are not required; and as we are not primarily concerned with any sets they may form among themselves, but only with their number as individual bones, the four sthāna (or sets of śalākā) are rejected from the count. On the other hand, according to Aparārka, the two terms śalākā and sthāna refer to quite different organs, śalākā denoting the long bones (metacarpal and metatarsal), and sthāna, the bases of the long bones, that is, the carpus and tarsus, or what Suśruta calls kūrca or cluster of small bones. The reason—a textual one—that led the two commentators to this difference of interpretation, will be found fully explained in an Exegetical Note, § 83. Here it is only necessary to point out that Aparārka is correct; for the interpretation of Vijñāneśvara entirely omits from the count two such important organs as the carpus and tarsus. The total of the bones in verse 85, therefore, must be 108, as stated by Aparārka.

c6.s1.t15.22

⁴ In verse 87, Vijñāneśvara makes the total of the bones to be fourteen, while Aparārka counts only twelve. The difference arises from Aparārka’s taking akṣa-tālūṣaka (Nos. 14, 15)

c6.s1.t15.23

to be but a single term, and to denote a single bone, that is, a bone situated, as he supposes, ‘on the edge of the eye’ (netra-prānta), there being, of course, two such bones, one on the edge of either eye.¹ On the other hand, Vijñāneśvara takes that term to be double, and to denote two distinct bones; namely, akṣa to signify ‘the bone between the eye and the ear’ (karṇa-netrayor-madhye),² and tālūṣaka to denote the hard palate (kākuda). In this case, so far as the counting is concerned, Vijñāneśvara, no doubt, is correct. Aparārka was probably led to his fanciful interpretation of the single term by the necessity of working out the required grand total of 360 bones. But with regard to the meaning of the term akṣa, both of them are wrong. That term is merely a shorter form of the word akṣaka, and denotes the collar-bone (§ 55).³

c6.s1.t15.24

¹ He evidently takes akṣa to be synonymous with akṣi, eye.

c6.s1.t15.25

² In fact, Vijñāneśvara’s akṣa is identical with Aparārka’s akṣa-tālūṣaka.

c6.s1.t15.26

³ Both Professors Stenzler and Jolly have been misled by the commentaries in their translations ‘Scläfen’ (Yajnavalkya’s Gesetzbuch, p. 98) and ‘lower part of the temples’ (Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, p. 284); so also Mandlik, p. 253, has ‘temples’.

c6.s1.t15.27

5. In verse 88, Vijñāneśvara makes the total of the bones to be sixty-four, while Aparārka counts sixty-three. The difference arises from the fact that Vijñāneśvara counts two jatru (No. 20), while Aparārka counts but one. In this case Aparārka again is right, for Vijñāneśvara commits the mistake of taking jatru to mean collar-bone. The subject will be fully discussed in the Third Section (§ 62); here it must suffice to point out that Vijñāneśvara’s interpretation is in the teeth of the text which he interprets, and which distinctly says that there is but one jatru.

c6.s1.t15.28

6. In verse 89, Vijñāneśvara makes the bones amount to eighty-one, while Aparārka counts eighty. The difference arises from their counting the bones referred to in the complex term lalāṭ-ākṣi-gaṇḍa, brow-eye-cheek (No. 23 a), in two different ways. Aparārka takes the term to denote one brow, two eyes, and two cheeks, or altogether five bones, while Vijñāneśvara counts two brows, two eyes, and two cheeks, or a total of six bones. In this case, both are wrong. In the text, that complex term is not qualified by any numeral—a circumstance which indicates that but one bone is reckoned for each of the three items.¹ Hence there are no more than three bones in No. 23 a, and the total of the bones included in verse 89 is really seventy-eight. That this is the true interpretation of the text is proved by the fact that it works out the correct grand total 360, as shown in col. IV (also § 16).

c6.s1.t15.29

¹ That is to say, ekaikam, ‘one in each,’ is to be understood with the clause lalāṭ-akṣi-gaṇḍe, but not dve dve, ‘two in each,’ as Vijñāneśvara understands. His erroneous interpretation has gained such credence that it has actually modified the text of the list in the Institutes of Vishnu (§ 22), and that it has been unquestioningly accepted by the translators of the two legal treatises: Professor Stenzler, p. 98, ‘an deren Wurzel zwei; ebenso an Stirne, Augen, Wangen,’ and Professor Jolly (Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, p. 284), ‘there are two (bones) to the forehead, (two) to the eyes, and (two) to the cheeks.’

Cites (6)