Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s2.t4: § 31. Continuation

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s2.t4

Language
English

§ 31. Continuation

c6.s2.t4.1

1. In the second place the number ten, given in the Traditional Recension as the aggregate of the bones of the sole, cluster, and ankle (Nos. 2, 3, 4 in § 27), is inconsistent with other explicit statements of Suśruta. His commentator Dallana¹ explains that number ten in the following way:

c6.s2.t4.2

¹ The earlier commentator Gayadāsa also mentions ten as the aggregate, though he does not enter into further details.

c6.s2.t4.3

The term sole (*tala*) refers to the five long bones (*śalākā*) and to the single bone that connects them. The cluster (*kūrca*) and the ankle (*gulpha*) contain two bones each. Hence we have ten.’ (Original Text in § 96, cl. 4.)

c6.s2.t4.4

Dallana, therefore, identifies Suśruta’s sole (*tala*) with Charaka’s long bones (*śalākā*) and base (*sthāna*), that is, with Nos. 5 and 6 in § 4. He thus obtains six bones for the sole. Adding to them two cluster-bones and two ankle-bones, he makes up the aggregate ten. It has been pointed out in § 9, cl. 1 *b*, that the terms cluster (*kūrca*) and base (*sthāna*) are merely two different names, employed by Suśruta and Charaka respectively, for the same portion of the hand and foot, viz. the carpus and tarsus. Differentiating them, after the manner of Dallana, argues a want of anatomical knowledge such as cannot be attributed to Suśruta. In fact, as will be shown in § 40, the person responsible for this incongruity is, in all probability, Vāgbhaṭa I. But in any case, it is quite sufficient by itself to discredit the genuineness of the Traditional Recension.

c6.s2.t4.5

2. But further, the aggregate ten conflicts with the explicit statements of Suśruta himself regarding the number of clusters (*kūrca*) and ankle-bones (*gulpha*). On Ḍallaṇa’s theory there would be two clusters and two ankle-bones in either foot, and homologously two clusters and two wrist-bones (*maṇibandha*) in either hand. This results in an aggregate of eight clusters (*kūrca*), four ankle-bones (*gulpha*) and four wrist-bones (*maṇibandha*). On the other hand, Suśruta teaches explicitly that there are only four clusters in the hands and feet, two ankle-bones and two wrist-bones. Thus in the fifth chapter of the Anatomical Section (*Śārīra Sthāna*) he says:

c6.s2.t4.6

‘There are six clusters (*kūrca*) in the hands, feet, neck, and penis : namely, two in the hands, two in the feet, and one each in the neck and penis.’ (Original Text in § 96, cl. 5.)

c6.s2.t4.7

That is to say, there is one cluster in each hand and foot, making four ; also one each in the neck and penis, making two ; or an aggregate of six.¹ Again in the sixth chapter of the same Section, Suśruta says:

c6.s2.t4.8

¹ Kūrca simply means a cluster of something, but not necessarily a cluster of true bones. In the case of the hands and feet, it is a cluster of small bones; but in the case of the neck, it refers to the cluster, or series, of imperfect cartilaginous rings which compose the windpipe (trachea), and apparently a similar view was held of the structure of the penis.—There are several other passages in the Compendium of Suśruta which confirm his doctrine of there being only four clusters in the hands and feet. They occur in the sixth chapter, on the ‘vital spots’. There Suśruta speaks of 27 such spots in the sinews (*snāyu-marmāni*, Jīv. ed., p. 337, cl. 10) and 44 such spots causing weakness (*vaikalya-karaṇī marmāṇi*, Jīv. ed., p. 338, cl. 13). These numbers will not work out correctly, unless the clusters included in them are counted as being only four. The peculiar force of these passages lies in the indirectness of their evidence.

c6.s2.t4.9

‘There are two ankle-bones (*gulpha*) and two wrist-bones (*maṇibandha*).’ (Original Text in § 96, cl. 6.)

c6.s2.t4.10

3. It is evident, therefore, that Ḍallaṇa’s explanation of the aggregate ten involves a doctrine which was not held by Suśruta. It is, as will be shown in § 39, in reality the doctrine of Vāgbhaṭa I. An aggregate of ten, in fact, directly conflicts with the explicit doctrine of Suśruta. According to the latter, the sole (*tala*) consists of five long bones (*śalākā*, § 28, cl. 3) ; and there are one cluster (*kūrca*) and one ankle-bone (*gulpha*). The true aggregate, therefore, can be no more than seven; and it follows that Suśruta’s list of the bones, in its genuine form, must have contained that aggregate, but not ten.

Linked texts (1)