Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s2.t1: § 26. Suśruta's Statement and its Recensions

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s2.t1

Language: English

§ 26. Suśruta's Statement and its Recensions

c6.s2.t1.1

1. Suśruta's system of the bones of the human body is stated in the beginning of the fifth chapter of the third or Anatomical Section (*Śārīra Sthāna*) of his Compendium.

2. There exist two recensions of this statement. One is printed in Jīvānanda's edition of the Compendium, p. 331, paragraphs 15 and 16 (Calcutta, 1889), as well as in all other editions with which I am acquainted; e. g. in the editions of Madhusūdana Gupta, p. 339 (Calcutta, 1834), of Prabhuram Jīvanaram, p. 481, paragraphs 18–21 (Bombay, 1901), Vīrasvāmi (Madras). The other occurs in Gaṅgādhar's Commentary (called *Jalpa-kalpataru*) on the Compendium of Charaka, p. 188, lines 5–14 (Berhampore, 1879, see § 3). These two recensions differ so widely from each other that it becomes necessary once again to inquire into their respective authorization.

c6.s2.t1.3

3. The recension which is found in Jīvānanda's and all other prints, and which, in the sequel, will be referred to as the Traditional Recension, has in its favour not only all available manuscripts, but also all ancient commentaries on the Compendium of Suśruta, as well as all such older medical works as adopt Suśruta's system of the skeleton. Or shortly, the Traditional Recension is supported by the whole body of existing witnesses.

c6.s2.t1.4

4. As regards manuscripts, I have been able to examine the following eleven copies, in all of which the existence of the Traditional Recension has been verified:

c6.s2.t1.5

1. The Alwar Palace Library MS., No. 1703.¹
2. The Benares College MS., No. 23 (old No. 64), fols. 18, 19.¹
3. The Deccan College MS., No. 406, of 1895–8, fols. 37 b, 38 ; dated Saṃvat 1704 = A. D. 1647.
4. The Deccan College MS., No. 948, of 1884–7, fol. 14 ; undated.
5. The Deccan College MS., No. 949, of 1884–7, fols. 53 b, 54, 55 a, with Dallana’s Commentary ; undated.
6. The Deccan College MS., No. 956, of 1891–5, fol. 15 ; undated.
7. The Deccan College MS., No. 224, of 1882–3, fols. 23, 24 a; dated Saṃvat 1640 = A. D. 1583.¹
8. The Bodleian MS. (Hultzsch), No. 349, fol. 31, in Śāradā characters, on paper, undated ; a Kashmir MS.
9. The Bodleian MS., No. 739 (Wilson 290), fol. 19.
10. The India Office MS., No. 72 b (Cat. No. 2645), fol. 17 ; dated Saṃvat 1696 = A. D. 1639 ; contains only the Śārīra Sthāna.
11. The India Office MS., No. 1842 (Cat. No. 2646), fols. 21 b, 22 a; undated, contains Chandraṭa’s revision of the text, based on the Commentary of Jaijjaṭa.

c6.s2.t1.6

¹ A copy of the statement on the skeleton from MS. No. 1 was most kindly supplied to me by Major P. T. A. Spence, British Political Agent; from No. 2, by the Principal of the Benares College; and from Nos. 3–7, by Professor K. B. Pathak, of the Deccan College.

c6.s2.t1.7

It should be observed that these MSS. come from widely separated Indian localities, and that three of them, Nos. 3, 7, 10, are of a considerable age—facts which enhance the value of their testimony as that of independent witnesses.

c6.s2.t1.8

5. As to old commentaries, we have the two works, compiled by Gayadāsa and Dallana (§ 2). Of the former, I have been able to consult the unique MS. preserved in the Cambridge University Library, Add. 2491, fols. 48 b, 49 a; of the latter, the Deccan College MS., No. 949, of 1884–7, fols. 53 b, 54, 55 a (see above, No. 4). Of the latter, there is also the edition published by Jīvānanda, Calcutta, 1891. Both commentaries are based on the Traditional Recension, and contain not the remotest indication of being acquainted with the recension printed by Gaṅgādhar. A number of other old commentaries are known by name, for which Dr. Cordier's *Récentes Découvertes*, pp. 13, 14, may be consulted. But no copies of any of them—so far, at least, as the Anatomical Section (*Śārīra Sthāna*) is concerned—have as yet come to light.

c6.s2.t1.9

6. As to older medical works which explicitly adopt Suśruta's system of the skeleton, we have the following two (§ 2):

c6.s2.t1.10

(1) The *Śārīra Padminī*, by Bhāskara Bhaṭṭa (*c.* A. D. 1000), a manuscript of which is in the possession of Dr. P. Cordier (*Récentes Découvertes*, p. 30), dated Saṃvat 1735 = A. D. 1678; and from which a copy of the statement on the skeleton was very kindly supplied to me by the owner.

c6.s2.t1.11

(2) The *Bhāva Prakāśa*, by Bhāva Miśra, in the sixteenth century, edited by Jīvānanda, and others.

c6.s2.t1.12

Both works contain independently versified versions of the prose statement of Suśruta, made by the authors themselves, but based on the Traditional Recension of that statement.

c6.s2.t1.13

7. As regards Gaṅgādhar's recension, I have not been able to discover for it any authority whatsoever. It will be shown in the sequel (§§ 29-33) that the Traditional Recension is obnoxious to several very serious difficulties; and it is probable that the recension of Gaṅgādhar (§ 35) is a reconstruction of his own to meet those of the difficulties which he had noticed. Though in some respects, his reconstruction is an improvement on the Traditional Recension, it cannot be accepted as satisfactory, because it fails to meet the most serious of the difficulties of that recension.

c6.s2.t1.14

§ 27. The Traditional Recension of Suśruta

c6.s2.t1.15

1. The Traditional Recension of Suśruta's statement (Original Text in § 88) on the human skeleton runs as follows:

c6.s2.t1.16

‘The professors of General Medicine (*āyurveda*) speak of three hundred and sixty bones.¹ But books on surgical science (*śalya-tantra*) know only of three hundred. Of these there are one hundred and twenty in the extremities; one hundred and seventeen in the pelvic cavity, sides, back, abdomen (*udara*), and breast; and from the neck upwards there are sixty-three. In this wise the total of three hundred bones is made up. Now in each toe of the foot, there are three bones; this makes altogether fifteen. Those bones which constitute the sole, cluster, and ankle are ten. In the heel there is one; in the leg there are two; in the knee there is one; so also in the thigh. Thus there are thirty bones in one lower limb. The same count applies to the other lower limb, as well as to the two upper limbs. In the pelvic cavity there are five bones. Of these there are four in the anus, pubes, and hips; and the fifth constitutes the triangular (trika) sacrum. There are thirty-six bones in one side, and as many in the other. In the back there are thirty; eight in the breast; two in what are called the collar-bones (akṣaka-saṃjñā); nine in the neck; four in the windpipe; and two in the jaws. The teeth number thirty-two. In the nose there are three bones. There is one in the palate; also one each in either cheek, ear, and temple; and there are six in the cranium.’

c6.s2.t1.17

¹ The reference here is to the doctrine of Ātreya and his school, preserved for us in the Compendia of Charaka and Bheḍa (§§ 4, 12).

c6.s2.t1.18

2. This detailed enumeration works out a total of 300 bones, as shown in the subjoined table:

c6.s2.t1.19

c6.s2.t1.20

¹ Tala, kūrca, and kaṇṭha-nāḍī are identical with Charaka’s śalākā, sthāna, and jatru (§ 4) respectively.

c6.s2.t1.21

§ 28. Suśruta’s List compared with Charaka’s

c6.s2.t1.22

Comparing Suśruta’s list of bones with that of Charaka the following five points present themselves:

c6.s2.t1.23

1. The Principle of Position. Suśruta divides the body into three parts, and explicitly enumerates the bones in accordance with their position in those divisions. Charaka (as representing Ātreya) also refers to this principle, but does not explicitly apply it to his enumeration. In fact, if the Traditional Recension (§ 4) is correct, he does not strictly adhere to it (§ 5).

c6.s2.t1.24

2. The Principle of Homology. The osteological system of Suśruta is strictly based on the principle of homology, according to which the several organs of the right and left, and of the upper and lower halves of the body, correspond to each other. This comes out clearly in the Table in § 27, where the bones of the four extremities are succinctly enumerated on that principle. On the other hand, Ātreya-Charaka does not appear to have fully realized the homologies of the skeleton. The order in which he enumerates the bones of the four extremities (Nos. 8-15 in § 14), no doubt, indicates some degree of recognition of the principle of homology; and the manner in which he arrives at his total number of the vertebral column is intelligible only on the implication of the same principle (§§ 59, 61). But in the latter case, it is not applied by him with the thoroughness of Suśruta, and it fails him entirely with respect to the cranial and facial bones, which are treated by Suśruta alone on the homological principle (§§ 63, 66). The clearness with which that principle was recognized by Suśruta is shown by the subjoined statement (Original Text in § 96, cl. 1) in the sixth chapter of his Anatomical Section, which is devoted to an enumeration of the so-called ‘vital spots’ (marman) in the body.

c6.s2.t1.25

‘In particular, just as there are in the leg (or lower limb) the three mortal spots: ankle, knee, and ischio-pubic arch,¹ so there are in the arm (or upper limb) the three mortal spots: wrist, elbow (kūrpara), and collar-bone. Just as between the hip-bone and the scrotum there is the ischio-pubic arch, so between the breast-bone and the armpit there is the clavicular arch.’

c6.s2.t1.26

¹ The viṭapa, or ischio-pubic arch, is formed by the combined rami of the os pubis and the ischium. See Figs. 4 and 20.

c6.s2.t1.27

On the other hand (see §§ 41, 47) Suśruta carries his principle of homology to undue lengths in postulating three joints in each of the phalanges, and (at least, according to the Traditional Recension ¹) the existence of heels in the hand.

c6.s2.t1.28

¹ On this point, however, the Traditional Recension is wrong; see § 32.—A neat statement of the homologies of the four extremities occurs in Aruṇadatta's Commentary to the Aṣṭāṅga Hṛdaya, Śārīra Sthāna, ch. 3, verses 14, 15 *b* (vol. ii, p. 549 in the first edition): ‘the bones of the two upper limbs are homologous to those of the two lower limbs. They may be detailed as follows: The hand corresponds to the foot, the base of the hand to the heel, and the wrist to the ankle. The cluster exists alike in both. The forearm corresponds to the leg, the elbow to the knee, and the arm to the thigh.’

c6.s2.t1.29

3. Alteration of Terms. The list of Suśruta introduces three new terms. These are No. 2, *tala*, No. 3, *kūrca*, and No. 15, *kaṇṭha-nāḍī*, which take the place, respectively, of Charaka's terms *śalākā*, *sthāna*, and *jatru*. The identity of the organs indicated by these alternative terms will be discussed in the Third Section (§§ 48, 49, 62). A fourth new term, which does not occur in the list, but is mentioned in the passage just quoted, is *kūrpara*, which is an alternative for Charaka's *kapālikā*, elbow-pan (No. 13 in § 4), and for the false term *kapola* of the Non-medical Version (No. 11 in § 16; see § 19, p. 52).

c6.s2.t1.30

4. Alteration of Items. Suśruta omits from his list the thirty-two sockets of the teeth which occur in the list of Charaka (No. 2 in § 4). On the other hand, he introduces the two ears (*karṇa*), and (as may be mentioned here in anticipation of § 30) also the two eyes (*akṣi*). The omission of the sockets is due to Suśruta's counting two jaws in the place of Charaka's one (lower) jaw (No. 26 in § 4). The insertion of the ears and eyes is due to Suśruta's counting cartilaginous structures among the bones of the body (§ 30). The whole subject, however, of these alterations, as well as of others affecting the numbers of the bones in each item, will be discussed in full detail in the Third Section.

c6.s2.t1.31

5. Alteration respecting Structure. With regard to two points Suśruta's views of the skeleton differ very considerably from those of Ātreya-Charaka. These are the structure of the vertebral column and of the skeletal face. On both points, as will be fully explained in §§ 59, and 65, 66, the system of Suśruta marks a distinct advance in anatomical knowledge.

Linked texts (5)

Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā — Vāgbhaṭa, Sanskrit
Carakasaṃhitā — Agniveśa (Āyurveda) & Caraka, Sanskrit
Suśrutasaṃhitā — Suśruta & Nāgārjuna (siddha/alchemist), Sanskrit
Bheḷasaṃhitā — Bheḷa, Sanskrit
Bhāvaprakāśa — Bhāvamiśra 1550, Sanskrit