Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s1.t16.2

c6.s1.t16.2

2. As to the omission of all mention of the wrist-bones, the commentators do not seem to have realized it at all, for none of them makes any reference to it. Gangādhar, as we have seen (§ 19), did realize it; and he, therefore, introduced the wrist-bones (maṇika) in his reconstruction of the Non-medical Version. But the early commentators noticed only the omission of the arms—a circumstance, indeed, which cannot surprise us, seeing that the arms form such a conspicuous part of the body. But the way in which they deal with the omission is characteristic. The only solution of the difficulty which they are able to suggest, consistently with their respect for the integrity of their sacred text, is to declare that the arms (bāhu) are virtually included in the term forearm (aratni, No. 8). Thus Vijñāneśvara says (see § 80), ‘the bones of the arms, being implied in the term forearm, number four’; and his explanation is unquestioningly adopted by the later commentators, Śūlapāṇi and Mitramiśra (§§ 81, 82).¹ The total inappropriateness of such an interpretation is obvious; for the entire arm (or upper extremity) consists of three bones, two in the forearm and one in the arm. The total, accordingly, of the bones of the two upper extremities amounts to six. But Vijñāneśvara and his followers do not seem to have been aware of the fact that the forearm contained two bones. This is pretty clear from their comments (see §§ 80-82). Their idea was that each extremity consisted of two bones, arm and forearm, and similarly leg and thigh, each containing a single bone. Anyhow, Aparārka, while giving the same explanation (§ 79), candidly says, ‘though the term forearm (aratni) does not really include the arm (bāhu), yet here, for the sake of securing the number four of the bones, it is so employed’ (i. e. as inclusive of the arm). This shift of interpretation necessarily led to another incongruity. If the term forearm (aratni) included the arm (bāhu), by parity of reason the term leg (jaṅgha) must include the thigh (ūru). As a matter of fact the commentators do draw that conclusion. Thus Aparārka expressly says (§ 79), ‘similarly the word leg (jaṅgha) here signifies the whole lower extremity, and hence the bones of the two legs number four.’ But he fails to notice that the bones of the thighs are expressly and separately enumerated in verse 87, where accordingly he counts them a second time.