Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s1.t9: § 13. Peculiarities and Defects of Bheḍa's Statement

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s1.t9

Language: English

§ 13. Peculiarities and Defects of Bheḍa's Statement

c6.s1.t9.1

With reference to the condition of the text of the statement of Bheḍa the following points deserve notice:

1. Nos. 15 and 29, which are enclosed in angular brackets, are missing in the original Sanskrit text (§ 76). That these omissions are due to clerical lapses in the existing MS. is obvious from the fact that otherwise the required total (360) does not work out. Accordingly in the list (§ 12) they have been supplied.

c6.s1.t9.3

2. In No. 28 *b*, Bheḍa's text has the peculiar reading *hanu-kūṭa*, prominence of the jaw, where Charaka's text (§ 4) has *gaṇḍa-kūṭa*, prominence of the cheek. It will be shown in § 65 that though both terms may well be synonymous, the term *hanu-kūṭa* is really inconsistent with the system of Ātreya. It is not improbably, therefore, a false reading for *gaṇḍa-kūṭa*.

c6.s1.t9.4

3. In the original text (§ 76) the statement appears to contain two additional items, which have been omitted in the translation (§ 12). In reality these additions are merely explanatory (marginal) glosses which have been wrongly incorporated into the text. First, No. 9, in the original text, runs as follows: ‘two *maṇika*, two *pāṇika*, of the two hands.’ Here the two words *maṇika* and *pāṇika*, are simply synonyms, explanatory of each other; and either *maṇika* or *pāṇika* is the intrusive gloss, more probably, to judge from its secondary position, the latter. In the India Office MS., No. 881 (Cat. No. 2640), the word *pāṇike* is actually substituted for *maṇike*. Secondly, in No. 19, the original text has ‘two *tālūṣaka*, two *cubuka*’. Here, probably, there has occurred a misplaced insertion of the gloss cubuka. That word means ‘chin’, and probably served as a marginal gloss to explain the term hanv-asthi (No. 26). By some mischance or misunderstanding it got misplaced, and was then wrongly inserted into the text after tālūṣaka (No. 19). Both hanvasthi and tālūṣaka are very unusual terms, and the transfer of the gloss cubuka from one to the other is readily intelligible in the hands of an ignorant scribe.

c6.s1.t9.5

4. There is a difficulty with respect to the total of the listed bones. According to the introductory clause of the list, its total should be 360, but the addition of its items actually works out a total of 362. It is obvious that there must be a defect somewhere in the list. The probability, as will be shown in the sequel (§ 66), is that the defect lies in No. 28 a, b, c. The real text of the clause expressing that item must have run similarly to that in the list of Charaka (§ 4); and instead of a nasal bone, and a bone for the prominences of the jaw and of the brows respectively (i. e. three bones altogether), it must have spoken of but one bone, that is, a single complex bone, including all three organs: nose, prominences, and brows. With this correction we obtain the correct total 360.

c6.s1.t9.6

5. It is probable, however, that a further correction should be made. It will be noted that all the inconsistencies and corruptions, noticed in the case of the list of Charaka (§§ 5, 6), occur also in the list of Bheḍa. Accordingly, just as in the list of Charaka, No. 16 a, aṃsa, shoulders, should be omitted, and on the other hand, in No. 9, ‘four wrist-bones’ should be read instead of ‘two wrist-bones’. The total 360 thus remains untouched.