Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s1.t17: § 22. The Non-medical Version of the Institutes of Vishnu

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s1.t17

Language
English

§ 22. The Non-medical Version of the Institutes of Vishnu

c6.s1.t17.1

1. The essential identity of the Non-medical Version, as it is found in the Institutes of Vishnu, with the same Version as it occurs in the Law-book of Yājñavalkya, is shown by the fact that it also omits all mention of the arms and wrist-bones, and that it also corrects the resulting shortage of six bones by a corresponding increase in the number of bones of the breast and face, as explained in § 17 (p. 48).

c6.s1.t17.2

2. On the other hand, there are significant points of difference. These will be enumerated with reference to the table given in § 20.

c6.s1.t17.3

(a) The list in the Institutes omits No. 4, bases (sthāna), altogether.

c6.s1.t17.4

(b) In No. 20 it counts two jatru or collar-bones.

c6.s1.t17.5

(c) In No. 23 a it counts two bones for each of the three items: brows, eyes, cheeks; that is a total of six bones.

c6.s1.t17.6

Referring to column VI of that table, it will be seen that these three points of difference exactly reflect the interpretation which Vijñāneśvara, in his Mitaksharā Commentary, places on the statements of the Law-book of Yājñavalkya. According to him, the item ‘bases’ (sthāna) is practically superfluous; accordingly the Institutes of Vishnu omits that item altogether. Again, Vijñāneśvara takes jatru to mean collar-bone, and counts two of them, in spite of the plain statement of the text that there is only one jatru: the Institutes, as interpreted by Nanda Paṇḍita, follows suit. Once more Vijñāneśvara counts two brows, two eyes, and two cheeks: the Institutes does the same, and in fact actually introduces the number two (dve) into the text (p. 56, footnote). The conclusion from this remarkable agreement is unavoidable that whoever drew up the list as we find it in the Institutes, did so on the basis of Vijñāneśvara’s interpretation, and that accordingly the introduction of that list in the Institutes cannot be placed earlier than the date of Vijñāneśvara, that is after 1100 A. D. (§ 14). Seeing that the Institutes of Vishnu appears to be often quoted in the Mitaksharā,¹ it does not seem impossible that the appearance of the list in the Institutes is due to Vijñāneśvara himself.

c6.s1.t17.7

¹ See Professor Jolly's Introduction, p. xxxii, in Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii. It would be interesting to examine (what I have not been able to do) all early quotations of the list from the Institutes. If no quotation earlier than Nanda Paṇḍita can be found, the introduction of the list into the Institutes may be due to that commentator who adopts all the views of Vijñāneśvara.

c6.s1.t17.8

3. In connexion with the late date of the introduction of the Non-medical Version into the Institutes of Vishnu, it is instructive to note the attempts that have been made, in some manuscripts of that work, to amend the text so as to remedy the great defect of the omission of the arms. As to the omission of the wrist-bones it appears never to have been realized by any one, copyist or commentator. Among the seventeen MSS. enumerated in § 14, there are four, Nos. 4, 12, 13, 17 (see § 84), which offer a curiously emended text. They omit the clause referring to the thighs and shoulder-blades (ūro-'ṃsayoḥ, No. 66 in Professor Jolly's edition, and Nos. 12, 13 in the table in § 20), and instead of the clause referring to the long bones (pāṇi-pāda-śalākāśca, No. 59 in the edition, and No. 3 in the table) they substitute the clause: 'two arms, two forearms, two thighs' (dve bāhū, dve prabāhū, ūru-dvayam). But this emendation is no real improvement; for though it introduces the arms (bāhu), and retains the thighs (ūru), it eliminates the shoulder-blades (aṃsa), and reduplicates the forearms (prabāhu) which had already been mentioned under the term aratni (No. 63 in the edition, and No. 8 in the table).² But though the emendation is not a success, it at all events proves that the text of the Institutes, so far as the list of the bones is concerned, was not considered too sacred to be altered. In the case of the Law-book of Yājñavalkya, as shown in § 21, though the commentators recognized the omission of the arms, they were unwilling to meddle with the time-honoured text, and accordingly had recourse to shifts of interpretation. The fact that there was no reluctance to meddle with the text of the Institutes of Vishnu, would seem to show that in that work the list enjoyed no right of inviolability, but was known to be of recent introduction.

c6.s1.t17.9

² With regard to the repetition of the forearms, it may be noted that it only occurs in two MSS., viz. Nos. 12 and 17. In the critical footnotes in the Bibliotheca Indica edition, p. 197, the reading in question, which occurs in No. 12 (Professor Jolly's MS. V), is not recorded.

c6.s1.t17.10

4. It only remains to note two lesser points of difference and of agreement between the Institutes of Vishnu and the Law-book of Yājñavalkya. The two points of difference are the following:

c6.s1.t17.11

(a) In No. 1 the Institutes substitutes the curious term sūkṣma, or minute (sel. bone), for sthūla, to denote the sockets of the teeth.

c6.s1.t17.12

(b) It places No. 27, breast-bones (uras), not at the very end of the list, but between No. 24, ribs, and No. 25, temples—a location which is no less incongruous (see § 17).

c6.s1.t17.13

The two points of agreement are the following:

c6.s1.t17.14

(a) In No. 23 b the Institutes of Vishnu also uses the curious term ghanāsthikā, or ghana-bone, to denote the nose.

c6.s1.t17.15

(b) It also places the phalanges (No. 5) after the long bones (No. 3), whereas in the Medical Version of Charaka and Bheḍa the phalanges occupy their natural and logical position in advance of the long bones (§§ 4, 12).

c6.s1.t17.16

§ 23. The Non-medical Version in the ‘Anatomy’

c6.s1.t17.17

1. It remains to notice a work which also contains a version of Atreya’s system of the skeleton. Into the preceding discussion it has not been introduced, because its author and age are at present unknown. Nevertheless its testimony¹ on some of the points which have been discussed is sufficiently striking to deserve to be taken into consideration. Its name is simply Śārīra, or ‘Anatomy’, and so far as I know, it is not otherwise known. It is contained in the same MS. volume No. M. a. I. 483 (Cat. No. 167) of the Tübingen University Library which contains also the ‘Chapter on Anatomy’ of the Vishnu Dharmottara Purāṇa, already mentioned in § 14.² Its versified contents are compiled from many different sources, some of which are quoted by name.¹ Its statement on the skeleton, in particular, is taken from the Law-book of Yājnavalkya, and accordingly gives the Non-medical Version. Though in this case the source is not named, there can be no hesitation as to its identity, seeing that in most of the verses there is a literal agreement (see § 87). But the interesting point is that the agreement fails mainly in verse 87, where, as shown in § 21, the great defect of the Non-medical Version comes in. This verse is entirely rewritten in the ‘Anatomy’, so as to admit the insertion of the two arms and four wrist-bones.

c6.s1.t17.18

¹ This curiously corroborative testimony was discovered by me only after the preceding paragraphs had been written.

c6.s1.t17.19

² The MSS. of both works are written by the same ‘hand’ of

c6.s1.t17.20

¹ e.g. Charaka, Yoga-muktāvalī, Kaulāvali Nirṇaya, Lauha-pradīpa.

c6.s1.t17.21

2. The statement on the skeleton in the ‘Anatomy’ runs as follows (Original Text and literal translation in § 87):

c6.s1.t17.22

‘The body has six parts (aṅga), and of bones it has three hundred and sixty; namely,

[Verse 85] 1. 64 teeth (danta) with their sockets (ulūka).
2. 20 nails (nakha).
3. 20 long bones (śalākā).
4. 4 bases (sthāna) of the long bones.
[Verse 86] 5. 60 phalanges (aṅguli).
6. 2 heels (pārṣṇi).
7. 4 ankle-bones (gulpha).
8. 4 bones of the forearms (aratni).
9. 4 bones of the legs (jaṅgha).
[Verse 87] 10. 2 collar-bones (aṃsa).
11. 2 shoulder-blades (aṃsa-phalaka).

c6.s1.t17.23

a Bengali writer, and their leaves are numbered consecutively on the left-hand reverse margin. It was probably for this reason that in the Catalogue they are described as being a single work called Viṣṇudharmottara. But that they are really two separate works is proved by the following facts: (1) There is an alternative numbering of the folios on their right-hand reverse margins, which is separate for either of the two works; (2) The end of the first work is indicated on the obverse of the fifth folio (or the eighth of the total consecutive count) by the colophon iti Viṣṇudharmottar-oktaṃ Śārīraṃ samāptam, i.e. here ends the ‘Anatomy’ declared in the Vishnudharmottara; while the end of the second work is on the obverse of the thirteenth folio (twentieth of the total) as iti Śārīraṃ samāptam, i.e. here ends the ‘Anatomy’; (3) The subject of the two works is identical, and to a large extent they go over the same ground; witness, e.g. the occurrence of the list of bones in both works.

c6.s1.t17.24

12. 4 wrist-bones (*hasta-maṇika*).
13. 2 hollow bones (*nalaka*) of the arms (*bāhu*).
14. 2 hollow bones (*nalaka*) of the thighs (*ūru*).
15. 2 palates (*tālu*).
16. 2 eyes (*netra*).
17. 2 knee-caps (*jānu*).
18. 2 elbow-pans (*jānu-kapālikā*).
19. 2 hip-blades (*śroṇi-phalaka*).
20. 2 basal tie-bones of the (lower) jaw (*hanu-mūla bandhana*).

c6.s1.t17.25

[Verse 88] 21. 1 pubic bone (*bhaga*).
22. 45 back-bones (*pṛṣṭha*).
23. 10 neck-bones (*grīvā*).
24. 1 windpipe (*jatru*).
25. 1 (lower) jaw (*hanu*), or chin.

c6.s1.t17.26

[Verse 89] 26. 1 facial bone constituting nose, cheeks, and brows (*nāsa-gaṇḍakūṭa-lalāṭaka mukhe*).
27. 72 ribs (*pārśvaka*) with their sockets (*kaulaka*) and tubercles (*arbuda*).

c6.s1.t17.27

[Verse 90] 28. 2 temporal bones (*śaṅkhaka*).
29. 4 cranial pan-shaped bones (*śiraḥ-kapāla*).
30. 17 breast-bones (*uras*).

c6.s1.t17.28

These make up the skeleton of man.’

c6.s1.t17.29

3. Comparing the foregoing statement with what has been explained in §§ 17 and 21 regarding the construction of the Non-medical Version in the Law-book of Yājñavalkya, the following points may be observed:

c6.s1.t17.30

(a) The author of the ‘Anatomy’ noticed the omission of the arms and wrist-bones, and the consequent padding of verse 87 with otiose elements. Hence he entirely rewrote that verse, eliminating all padding, and thus making room for the inclusion of the four wrist-bones (No. 12) and two arms (No. 13).

c6.s1.t17.31

(b) He further noticed the difference in the way of counting the facial bones; viz. that Charaka counted a single bone for the complex of nose, cheeks, and brows, while the Non-medical Version counted four bones, one for each of the four items: nose, cheeks, brows, and eyes. Accordingly¹ he restored Charaka’s count (No. 26), which process involved the exclusion of the eyes.

c6.s1.t17.32

¹ Probably on the authority of Chakrapāṇidatta’s Commentary (§ 11).

c6.s1.t17.33

(c) On the other hand, probably accepting the authority of the system of Suśruta as against that of Charaka, he retained the eyes, but assigned to them a special place in No. 16, in the reconstructed verse 87.

c6.s1.t17.34

(d) For the same reason, he appears also to have retained the count of seventeen breast-bones (No. 30).

c6.s1.t17.35

The result of all this manipulation of the Non-medical Version was that there were now five bones in excess of the required total 360. Hence

c6.s1.t17.36

(e) He reduced the number of neck-bones by five, counting ten (No. 23) against Charaka’s fifteen (No. 23 in § 4).

c6.s1.t17.37

4. The whole operation, as above explained, may be exhibited thus:

c6.s1.t17.38

| Grand total of the Non-medical Version | . | 360 |
| Add, Two arms (No. 13) | . | 2 |
| Four wrist-bones (No. 12) | . | 4 |
| Two eyes (No. 16) | . | 2 |
| | | — 8 |
| Total | . | 368 |
| Deduct, Three facial bones (No. 26) | . | 3 |
| Five neck-bones (No. 23) | . | 5 |
| | | — 8 |
| Balance | . | 360 |

c6.s1.t17.39

The objection to this operation is twofold. First, the inclusion of the two eyes is not warranted by the Medical Version of either Charaka or Bheḍa. The eyes, in fact, form no item of the skeletal structure in the system of Ātreya, but belong to the system of Suśruta (§ 30). Secondly, the reduction in the number of neck-bones is not warranted by any true view of the skeletal system. The correct procedure for the author of the ‘Anatomy’ would have been to restore Charaka’s count of the breast-bones, that is, to count fourteen breast-bones (No. 24 in § 4) instead of seventeen. This reduction of three bones in the breast, together with the exclusion of the two eyes, would have given him the five bones which he required to redress the excess resulting from his operation.

c6.s1.t17.40

5. On the other hand a distinct improvement made by the author of the ‘Anatomy’ is his correction of the two ancient false readings kapola and ūru-phalaka (Nos. 11 and 12 in § 16, and see § 21, cl. 3), for which he substitutes the true readings ūru-nalaka and kapālikā.

Cites (8)