Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s1.t17.6

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.