Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s3: C. The System of Vāgbhaṭa I

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s3

Language
English

Contents

C. The System of Vāgbhaṭa I

§ 37. The Statement of Vāgbhaṭa I

c6.s3.t1.1

1. The system of Vāgbhaṭa I regarding the bones of the human body is contained in the fifth chapter of the Anatomical Section (Śārīra Sthāna) of his Summary, and runs as follows:

c6.s3.t1.2

‘In the body there are three hundred and sixty bones. Of these there are one hundred and forty in the extremities; one hundred and twenty in the trunk, and one hundred in the head. That is to say, in each lower limb there are five nails; three bones in each toe, aggregating fifteen; five long bones with one bone to support them; two bones each in the cluster, ankle, and leg; and one bone each in the heel, knee, and thigh. All these, nails and bones, exist also in the upper limbs exactly as in the lower. There are twenty-four ribs, and just as many sockets and tubercles. There are thirty bones in the back, eight in the breast, one each in the pubes and sacrum; two in the two hips, and as many severally in the collar-bones, shoulder-peaks (*aṃsa*), and shoulder-blades, as well as in the windpipe (*jatru*) and palate jointly; thirteen in the neck; four in the windpipe (*kaṇṭhanāḍī*); and two in the jaws. There are thirty-two teeth, and as many sockets. There are three bones in the nose, and six in the cranium.’

c6.s3.t1.3

2. The total 360, detailed in the above statement, works out as shown in the subjoined Table:

c6.s3.t1.4

I. Four Extremities.

c6.s3.t1.5

| 1. Nails (*nakha*) | . . . . | 5 × 4 = 20 |
| 2. Phalanges (*aṅguli*) | . . . . | 3 × 5 × 4 = 60 |
| 3. Long bones (*śalākā*) | . . . . | 5 × 4 = 20 |
| 4. Bases (*pratibandhaka*) | . . . . | 1 × 4 = 4 |
| 5. Clusters (*kūrca*) | . . . . | 2 × 4 = 8 |
| 6. Ankle-bones (*gulpha*) | . . . . | 2 × 4 = 8 |
| 7. Legs (*jaṅgha*) | . . . . | 2 × 4 = 8 |
| 8. Heels (*pārṣṇi*) | . . . . | 1 × 4 = 4 |
| 9. Knee (*jānu*) | . . . . | 1 × 4 = 4 |
| 10. Thigh (*ūru*) | . . . . | 1 × 4 = 4 |
| | | — 140 |

c6.s3.t1.6

II. Trunk.

c6.s3.t1.7

| 11. Ribs (*pārśvaka*) 24 | | |
| Sockets (*sthālaka*) 24 | | 72 |
| Tubercles (*arbuda*) 24 | | |
| 12. Back (*pṛṣṭha*) | . . . . | 30 |
| 13. Breast (*uras*) | . . . . | 8 |
| 14. Pubes (*bhaga*) | . . . . | 1 |
| 15. Sacrum (*trika*) | . . . . | 1 |
| 16. Hips (*nitamba*) | . . . . | 2 |
| 17. Collar-bones (*akṣaka*) | . . . . | 2 |
| 18. Shoulder-peaks (*aṃsa*) | . . . . | 2 |
| 19. Shoulder-blades (*aṃsa-phalaka*) | . . . . | 2 |
| | | — 120 |

c6.s3.t1.8

20. Cheeks (*gaṇḍa*) . . . . 2
21. Ears (*karṇa*) . . . . 2
22. Temples (*śaṅkha*) . . . . 2
23. Windpipe (*jatru*) . . . . 1
24. Palate (*tālu*) . . . . 1
25. Neck (*grīvā*) . . . . 13
26. Windpipe (*kaṇṭhanāḍī*) . . . . 4
27. Jaw-attachments (*hanu-bandhana*) . . . . 2
28. Teeth (*danta*) . . . . 32
29. Sockets (*ulūkhala*) . . . . 32
30. Nose (*nāsā*) . . . . 3
31. Cranium (*śiras*) . . . . 6

c6.s3.t1.9

§ 38. Criticism of the Statement of Vāgbhaṭa I

c6.s3.t1.10

1. A comparison of the statement of Vāgbhaṭa I with the Traditional Recensions of the statements of Charaka and Suśruta shows plainly that the former is a combination of the two latter. The list of Suśruta contains 300 bones; that of Charaka 360. Vāgbhaṭa I adopts the list of Suśruta, and enlarges it by adopting from the list of Charaka such items as appear to be omitted by Suśruta. He does not explain his reason for proceeding in this manner; but it may be surmised to have been something of this kind. It has been pointed out in § 30 that the traditional list of Suśruta is incomplete in respect of the shoulder-blades. The omission is too conspicuous to be easily overlooked; and it would seem that Vāgbhaṭa I had recognized it, and that he was thus caused to mistrust the exhaustiveness of Suśruta's list of 300 bones, especially as he knew that the list of Charaka included no less than 360 bones. Noticing that the list of Charaka contained several items which were absent from that of Suśruta, he concluded that the number 360 was the true total of the bones of the skeleton, and that this number might be secured by inserting, from the list of Charaka into that of Suśruta, all the apparently missing items. Of course, such a proceeding is altogether superficial and theoretical, and proves a total want of experimental knowledge of the composition of the skeleton; for, in reality (as will be shown in the Third Section, see the Table in § 46), both systems, of Suśruta as well as Charaka, are, from their respective points of view, exhaustive. The procedure, here imputed to Vāgbhaṭa I, may seem strange; but the evidence for it, set out in the sequel, is very strong.

c6.s3.t1.11

2. The case may be illustrated by the subjoined Table:

c6.s3.t1.12

| | | I. Vāgbhaṭa | II. Suśruta § 27 | III. Charaka § 4 | IV. Adopted from Charaka |
| 1. | Nails . . . | 20 | — | 20 | 20 |
| 2. | Phalanges . . | 60 | 60 | 60 | |
| 3. | Long bones . . | 20 | 20 | 20 | |
| 4. | Bases (*sthāna*) . | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
| 5. | Clusters (*kūrca*) . | 8 | 8 | — | |
| 6. | Ankle-bones and | | | | |
| | wrist-bones . . | 8 | 8 | 6 | |
| 7. | Legs and forearms | 8 | 8 | 8 | |
| 8. | Heels . . . | 4 | 4 | 2 | |
| 9. | Knees and elbows . | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
| 10. | Thighs and arms . | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
| 11. | Ribs, sockets, &c. . | 72 | 72 | 72 | |
| 12. | Back . . . | 30 | 30 | 45 | |
| 13. | Breast . . . | 8 | 8 | 14 | |
| 14. | Pubes . . . | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 15*a*. | Sacrum . . | 1 | 1 | — | |
| 15*b*. | Anus . . . | — | 1 | — | |
| 16. | Hips . . . | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 17. | Collar-bones. . | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 18 | Shoulder-peaks . | 2 | — | 2 | 2 |
| 19. | Shoulder-blades . | 2 | — | 2 | 2 |
| 20. | Cheeks . . | 2 | 2 | 0¹ | |
| 21*a*. | Ears . . | 2 | 2 | — | |
| 21*b*. | Eyes . . . | — | — | — | |
| 22. | Temples . . | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 23. | Windpipe (*jatru*) . | 1 | — | 1 | 1 |
| 24. | Palate . . | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| 25. | Neck (*grīvā*). . | 13 | 9 | 15 | |
| 26. | Windpipe (*kaṇṭha*). | 4 | 4 | — | |
| 27. | Jaws . . | 2 | 2 | 3¹ | |
| 28. | Teeth . . | 32 | 32 | 32 | |
| 29. | Sockets of Teeth . | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 |
| 30. | Nose . . | 3 | 3 | 1¹ | |
| 31. | Cranium . . | 6 | 6 | 4 | |
| | Totals . | 360 | 300 | 360 | 57 |

c6.s3.t1.13

¹ To Vāgbhaṭa’s Nos. 20, 27, 30, aggregating 7, correspond Charaka’s Nos. 26, 27, 28 (§ 4), aggregating 4.

c6.s3.t1.14

3. The following points may be observed. In the first place, the list of Vāgbhaṭa contains every item of the Suśrutiyan Traditional Recension (§ 27). To these it adds Nos. 1, 18, 19, 23, 29 from the list of Charaka (§ 4), aggregating 57. This aggregate is short of the required sixty by three. From Nos. 15 *b* and 25, in column II, it appears that Vāgbhaṭa I obtained the required three by adding four to No. 25 and deducting No. 15 *b*; that is to say, he counted thirteen neck-bones, instead of nine, and omitted the anal bone as a separate item. The reason for his adopting this, apparently, very arbitrary proceeding can only be conjectured. The following however suggests itself. It is significant that Vāgbhaṭa’s No. 25 numbers thirteen, the exact sum of Suśruta’s Nos. 25 and 26. Both these two items constitute the same part of the body: in Sanskrit, both *grīvā* and *kaṇṭha* denote the neck, the former referring more especially to the posterior, the latter to the anterior portion. This being so, Vāgbhaṭa placed to the credit of No. 25 the aggregate amount thirteen, which Suśruta had divided between Nos. 25 and 26. But as he thus obtained one bone in excess (i. e. four instead of three) he saved one bone by counting the two bones in Nos. 15 *a* and 15 *b* as constituting a single bone. He could do this all the more readily as he could not help observing that in the system of Charaka (as will be shown in § 60) the sacrum and coccyx (or anal bone) constitute but a single bone, which that system includes among its forty-five bones of the vertebral column.

c6.s3.t1.15

4. The explanation of Vāgbhaṭa’s procedure, here suggested, of course, involves the assumption of his failing to note that he counted the four bones of No. 26 (i. e. the windpipe) twice over; that is, once separately, in No. 26, and again as included in the thirteen bones of No. 25. But this is, by no means, the only instance of such inattention on the part of Vāgbhaṭa I. We have another conspicuous example in his Nos. 4 and 5, where he also counts the same bones twice over, once in No. 4 as bases (*sthāna*) and again in No. 5 as clusters (*kūrca*), these being the Charakiyan and Suśrutiyan terms respectively for the same organ (see § 49). There is a third instance in Vāgbhaṭa’s Nos. 23 and 26, where he counts the windpipe twice over;

c6.s3.t1.16

once in No. 23 under the Charakiyan term *jatru*, and again in No. 26, under the Suśrutiyan term *kaṇṭhanāḍī*. In fact, if the explanation, suggested above, is correct, Vāgbhaṭa I actually counts the windpipe thrice over, in Nos. 23, 25, and 26.

c6.s3.t1.17

5. The inconsistencies, or incongruities, mentioned above are not the only ones of the list of Vāgbhaṭa I. There are others, affecting his Nos. 5, 6, and 8. In No. 5, he counts eight clusters (*kūrca*), that is, two in either hand and foot. But in the same fifth chapter of his Anatomical Section (*Śārīra Sthāna*) he says that there are altogether only six clusters, of which, moreover, two are in the neck (*grīvā*) and penis (*meḍhra*), leaving only four for the hands and feet (Original Text in § 96, cl. 5). According to his own statement, therefore, there is only one cluster in either hand and foot. Again in No. 6, Vāgbhaṭa I counts eight bones in the ankles, that is to say, according to the homological principle of his list, four ankle-bones (*gulpha*) in the feet, and four wrist-bones (*maṇibandha*) in the hands. But in the seventh chapter of his Anatomical Section, treating of the ‘vital spots’ (*marman*), he counts only two ankle-bones and two wrist-bones (Original Text in § 96, cl. 6). Again in No. 8, Vāgbhaṭa I counts four heels; that is to say, one in each of the four limbs; and thus commits the incongruity of ascribing a heel to either hand.

c6.s3.t1.18

6. There is another incongruity in Vāgbhaṭa’s No. 27, he counts two *hanu-bandhana*, or jaw-attachments. Suśruta counts two *hanu*, or jaws, and Charaka counts two *hanumūla-bandhana*, or attachments at the base of the (lower) jaw. Both are consistent views; for, as will be explained in § 65, in the system of Suśruta the two *hanu* signify the two maxillary bones (superior and inferior), while in the system of Charaka the two *bandhana* signify the two rami of the inferior maxillary. Vāgbhaṭa I, noticing the terminological difference, but not understanding its reason, sought to compromise it by adopting the contracted term *hanu-bandhana*, or jaw-attachment, and treating it as a synonym of the simple term *hanu*, jaw; the two jaws being, in his view, as it were two attachments to the face.

c6.s3.t1.19

7. There is a further inconsistency in Vāgbhaṭa’s omitting to count the two eyeballs (*akṣikośa*) in his number-list, while he mentions them in his class-list of the very same bones (Original Text in § 93) which he adopts from Suśruta. He also adopts from Suśruta the description of the outer cover, or shell, of the eyeball as made of bone (§ 30, Original Text in § 96, cl. 2). The fact is interesting, because it shows that the text of the Compendium of Suśruta, on which Vāgbhaṭa I based his anatomical theories, was already in his time in a corrupt state. It is not probable that if Vāgbhaṭa I had found the eyeballs included among the bones in the number-list of Suśruta, he would have omitted them from his own number-list, while it is quite credible, considering his other inconsistencies, that he should not have recognized their wrongful omission from the list of Suśruta.

c6.s3.t1.20

8. The inconsistencies and incongruities as exposed above clearly prove that Vāgbhaṭa I possessed no experimental knowledge of the skeleton, but that he constructed his list of its bones theoretically from the information provided in the Compendia of Charaka and Suśruta—which compendia, as we shall see in the following paragraph, he cannot have possessed in their original and genuine form, and which, from want of anatomical knowledge, he was unfitted to use critically.

§ 39. Relation of Vāgbhaṭa’s List to the Traditional List of Charaka and Suśruta

c6.s3.t2.1

A comparison of the list of Vāgbhaṭa I with the traditional lists of Charaka and Suśruta, as exhibited in the Table in the preceding paragraph, brings out the following points:

c6.s3.t2.2

1. The principle on which the list of Vāgbhaṭa I is constructed is to take the list of Suśruta as its basis, and add to it such items of the list of Charaka as do not occur in it.

c6.s3.t2.3

2. The list of Suśruta which forms the basis of the list of Vāgbhaṭa is, in every point, identical with the traditional list of Suśruta as it at present exists (§ 27). This is proved by the fact that the list of Vāgbhaṭa shows every one of the inconsistencies which have been exposed in §§ 30-3 as existing in the Traditional Recension of Suśruta’s list. That is to say: (a) both reckon the aggregate of Nos. 3-5 (§ 37, or Nos. 2-4 in § 27) as ten, resulting in the aggregate forty for the four extremities; (b) in order to make up that aggregate ten, both count eight clusters, and four ankle-bones and four wrist-bones; also they count four bases in addition to the four clusters; (c) both count four heels; (d) both omit the two shoulder-blades¹ and the two eyeballs; (e) both count wrongly eight bones and one bone in Nos. 13 and 24 respectively.

c6.s3.t2.4

¹ The two shoulder-blades, it is true, appear in the list of Vāgbhaṭa I, but they have been adopted into it from the list of Charaka.

c6.s3.t2.5

3. The list of Vāgbhaṭa I is indebted to the list of Charaka in two ways: (a) in order to raise the grand total from 300 to 360, the former adopts Nos. 1, 18, 19, 23, 29 from the latter; and (b) in order to obtain the aggregate ten for Nos. 3-6, it similarly adopts No. 4, bases (§ 31).

c6.s3.t2.6

4. The list of Charaka on which Vāgbhaṭa I has drawn for his additions, is identical with the Traditional Recension of it as we have it in the manuscripts of the present day (§ 4). This is proved by the fact that both lists possess No. 18, shoulders, and No. 19, shoulder-blades. It has been shown in § 6 that the repetition of *aṃsa*, shoulder, by the side of *aṃsa-phalaka*, shoulder-blade, is an ancient corruption of the traditional text of the list of Charaka. Seeing that Vāgbhaṭa I adopts the error into his own list, it is evident that he read the list of Charaka, as we still have it, in the traditional text of our own day. The procedure of Vāgbhaṭa I, however, explains a peculiarity of his system. The shoulder-girdle contains only two separate bones, the collar-bone (*akṣaka*, No. 17) and the shoulder-blade (*aṃsa-phalaka*, No. 19), see § 56, cl. 2. Finding, in his text of Charaka, the apparent mention of *aṃsa* as a third bone, and not suspecting an error, he appears to have explained it by taking *aṃsa* to refer to the so-called 'shoulder-peak' (*aṃsa-kūṭa*), or the acromion process (§ 55, cl. 5). In this explanation he would probably have felt himself justified by the practice, observed by Charaka and Suśruta, of occasionally counting 'processes' of bones as separate bones (§ 44, cl. 1); but in doing so, he failed to notice that with those two writers *aṃsa*, in its technical sense, is a synonym of *akṣaka* and denotes the collar-bone, while, when used in a loose way, it indicates the shoulder generally (§ 55, cl. 4).

c6.s3.t2.7

Vāgbhaṭa I’s ill-conceived interpretation of the term *aṃsa* led to another unfortunate result, inasmuch as it appears to have served as the basis of the definition of *aṃsa*, which is given in the *Amarakośa*, the famous Vocabulary of Amarasiṃha, and which, in its turn, led to the misinterpretation of the term *jatru*; see § 62, cl. 8.

§ 40. The Relative Date of the Three Lists

c6.s3.t3.1

1. We are now in a position to draw certain conclusions regarding the approximate dates of the traditional lists of Charaka and Suśruta in relation to the list of Vāgbhaṭa I.

c6.s3.t3.2

2. It has been shown in the preceding paragraph that the list of the bones of the human body as constructed by Vāgbhaṭa I is substantially identical with the lists of Charaka and Suśruta as we possess them in the manuscripts of the present day. Moreover, at least three corruptions of the latter two lists, viz. the repetition of *aṃsa*, shoulder, in the list of Charaka (§ 6), and the omission of the shoulder-blades and the eyeballs in the list of Suśruta (§ 30), must have existed in their texts already in the time of Vāgbhaṭa I; for, as explained in the two preceding paragraphs the construction of his list presupposes them. Accordingly both lists, in their traditionally corrupted form, must be anterior to the date of Vāgbhaṭa I whatever the latter may be. On the other hand, it has been shown (pp. 76, 79, 85), regarding the omission of the shoulder-blades and eyeballs, and the count of seventeen bones in the neck, that the Non-medical Version of Atreya’s system presupposes the knowledge of a recension of Suśruta’s text which was more correct, and therefore presumably older than the corrupt traditional text. Similarly the Non-medical Version which ignores the erroneous repetition of *aṃsa*, shoulder (§§ 6, 16, 17), presupposes the knowledge of an older and more correct recension of the text of Charaka. Accordingly at the time when the Non-medical Version was composed, both the lists of Charaka and Suśruta must have existed in the earlier uncorrupted form, and the corrupt recension, traditionally handed down, must have come into existence at a later date: that is to say, between the date of the Law-book of Yājñavalkya, which contains the Non-medical Version, and the date of the construction of the list of Vāgbhaṭa I. As the date of the Law-book is about 350 A.D. (§ 14), the origin of the two traditional recensions cannot be placed earlier than the fourth century A.D.

c6.s3.t3.3

3. The question suggests itself whether Vāgbhaṭa I himself might not be the author of the Traditional Recension of the statement of Suśruta on the bones of the human body. The evidence is not sufficient to return a decided answer; but whatever evidence there is seems certainly to point in that direction. The statement of Suśruta (§ 27) gives the aggregate of the bones contained in Nos. 2, 3, 4 of his list, but does not detail the number of bones of each item: sole (tala), cluster (kūrca), and ankle (gulpha). Whoever fixed the details so as to make the sole (tala) to include not only the five long bones (śalākā) but also the base (sthāna), must have been led to do so by noticing that the list of Charaka mentions the base (sthāna), while the list of Suśruta does not name it. He concluded, therefore, that Suśruta’s term sole (tala) must cover both the long bones (śalākā) as well as the base (sthāna). In other words, whoever fixed the details proceeded on the principle of adding to the list of Suśruta such items from the list of Charaka as did not appear to be contained in it explicitly. This, as has been shown in § 39, is precisely the principle on which Vāgbhaṭa I worked in constructing his own list. It seems probable, therefore, that it was Vāgbhaṭa I who for the purpose of preparing his own list, constructed the Traditional Recension of the list of Suśruta.

c6.s3.t3.4.1

4. It is a well-known fact that the text of Suśruta’s Compendium, after a time, fell into some disorder, which necessitated revision or reconstruction. Several such revisions, or reconstructions, must have been undertaken at different times. The first reconstruction may have been that to which we owe the addition of the Supplementary Section (Uttara Tantra). This is traditionally ascribed to Nāgārjuna, in the second century A.D. (§ 2). Seeing that the traditional text of neither Charaka nor Suśruta existed about 350 A.D., the approximate date of the Law-book of Yājñavalkya, it follows that Nāgārjuna, if he made any reconstruction of the text of Suśruta’s Compendium, can at all events not be credited with the particular reconstruction of Suśruta’s statement on the skeleton. Another revision was made by Candraṭa, the son of Tiṣaṭa. He states this fact himself at the end of his revised text, which he calls a pāṭha-śuddhi or ‘Emendation of the Text’. We have a copy of this revised text in the unique manuscript of the India Office Library, No. 1842 (Cat. No. 2646), described on pp. 927, 928 of the catalogue. So far as a cursory examination permits one to judge, it does occasionally, though not very materially, differ from the Traditional Recension of the Compendium. But in the statement on the skeleton there occurs a noteworthy varia lectio.

c6.s3.t3.4.2

Instead of the erroneous reading udara, abdomen, of the traditional text (§ 29), Candraṭa’s text has akṣa, collar-bone.¹ This circumstance—so far as it goes—makes against the hypothesis that Candraṭa was the author of the Traditional Recension. But there are two stronger objections to it in Candraṭa’s late date and comparative obscurity. The date of Candraṭa is not known; but it cannot well be earlier than the ninth or tenth century, because in his Commentary on the Cikitsā-kalikā² of his father Tiṣaṭa he quotes from the complement of Charaka’s Compendium, which was made by Dṛḍhabala; and the date of the latter must be in the eighth or ninth century (§ 2, cl. 9). He does not quote Bhoja³, while both Cakrapāṇidatta and Gayadāsa quote him, but do not quote each other. Hence it appears probable that the last-mentioned two authors were near contemporaries who were preceded by Bhoja who himself was preceded by Candraṭa. As the date of Cakrapāṇidatta is about 1060 A.D., the date of Candraṭa may be referred to about 1000 A.D. As to the point of obscurity, so much may be taken as certain, that whoever was the author of the Traditional Recension must have been a person of great reputation;

c6.s3.t3.4.3

for otherwise it is inconceivable how his recension should have obtained such paramount authority as to supersede every other recension, and to be the only one found in all existing manuscripts, and exclusively commented on in all known commentaries.¹ Chandraṭa certainly cannot be said to have held such a position. The only ancient medical author who by the uniform tradition of India holds a place equal to that of Charaka and Suśruta is Vāgbhaṭa I. He is the third in the traditional triad of great representatives of Indian medicine: Charaka, Suśruta, Vāgbhaṭa.² It has been shown (§§ 38, 39) that the principle on which the Traditional Recension of the statement of Suśruta is made is certainly one on which Vāgbhaṭa I worked in constructing his own statement. The conclusion therefore seems unavoidable that it was Vāgbhaṭa I who is the author of that Traditional Recension. The fact that the older recensions still existed in the fourth century A.D., at the date of the Law-book of Yājñavalkya, and the consideration that a sufficient interval must be conceded for the text to have fallen into such a state of corruption as to necessitate a thorough revision, or reconstruction, will accord with the early seventh century A.D. as the date of Vāgbhaṭa I, already suggested by other considerations (see § 2). It should, however, be distinctly understood that these conclusions regarding the date and authorship of Vāgbhaṭa I are not put forward as established facts.

c6.s3.t3.4.4

They are, for the present, no more than historical speculations, or rather a working hypothesis, based on more or less conclusive evidence.

c6.s3.t3.5

¹ Also adopted by Gaṅgādhar (§ 35); possibly from Candraṭa.

c6.s3.t3.6

² See Professor Jolly’s article in the Journal, German Oriental Society, vol. lx, pp. 413 ff.

c6.s3.t3.7

³ Once however, Bodleian MS. (Fraser No. 21, Cat. No. 852), fol. 96 b, he quotes Bhoja the elder (vṛddha Bhoja). The earliest mention of Candraṭa, known to me, occurs in Śrīkaṇṭhadatta’s commentary on the Siddhayoga (Poona ed., p. 552). The date of Śrīkaṇṭha, a pupil of Vijaya Rakshita, is about 1260 A.D.

c6.s3.t3.8

¹ This remark refers particularly to the Traditional Recension of the statement on the skeleton, which is the only one known to, and commented on by Gayadāsa and Ḍallana. They give no indication of being aware of the existence of any other recension of that particular passage.

c6.s3.t3.9

² See Professor Jolly’s *Indian Medicine*, § 9. See also p. 10 for the testimony of the Chinese pilgrim Itsing.

c6.s3.t3.10

NOTE.—Whatever may be thought of the suggested authorship of the traditional text of Suśruta, there is distinct evidence of the text of Suśruta’s Compendium having been liable to be affected by the theories of Vāgbhaṭa I. For example, according to Suśruta’s doctrine, in the Anatomical Section (*Śārīra Sthāna*), chapter v, clause 33 (Original Text in § 94, cl. 1), there are altogether 500 muscles in the human body. Of these 500 muscles, 400 go to the four extremities, while there are 66 in the trunk and 34 in the neck and head. This is the traditional reading of that doctrine, as printed by Jīvānanda, p. 334, and supported by existing manuscripts. Daḷḷana, in his Commentary (Jīv. ed., p. 578), accepts that reading, but expressly states that Gayadāsa's Commentary followed a different reading, which allotted 60 muscles to the trunk and 40 to the neck and head; and he adds that this distribution of the muscles is also taught by Vāgbhaṭa I. Daḷḷana's statement is verified by the Cambridge MS. of Gayadāsa's Commentary,¹ and the printed text of Vāgbhaṭa's Summary (Aṣṭāṅga Saṃgraha), vol. i, p. 225, line 21.

c6.s3.t3.11

¹ Unfortunately the clause referring to the muscles is very badly mutilated in the MS., but sufficient of it still remains to confirm Daḷḷana's statement. See my Article on the Commentaries on Suśruta, in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1906.

c6.s3.t3.12

§ 41. The Origin of the Traditional Recension

c6.s3.t3.13

1. The homological character of the skeletal structure is too conspicuous in the four extremities to have escaped the notice of Ātreya-Charaka. But that he did not fully realize it, is shown, *inter alia*, by his treatment of the cranial bones, as compared with that of Suśruta (see §§ 28, 63). It was the latter who first recognized that the homological principle dominated the whole structure, and who explicitly used it as the basis of his classificatory list of the bones. This is shown, e. g., by his distribution of the ribs into two sets of 36 bones each (§ 27), and by his hemisection of the vertebral column and of the frontal and other bones of the head (§§ 44, 59, 63). In one point, however, viz. the ascription of three bones to each digit (p. 73), Suśruta pressed the homological principle too far; see § 47. Vāgbhaṭa I adopted that principle from Suśruta, but pressed it one point farther, extending it, still more erroneously (at least, in the sense in which he applied it) to the heels, of which he counted four, ascribing heels to the two hands as well as to the two feet.

c6.s3.t3.14

2. It is Vāgbhaṭa’s extended application of the homological principle which explains the origin of the Traditional Recension of Suśruta’s list of the bones. That list (§ 27) states only the aggregate of the three items (Nos. 2, 3, 4), sole (*tala*), cluster (*kūrca*), ankle (*gulpha*). In order to determine the details of this aggregate, Vāgbhaṭa I consulted the list of Charaka. Here (§ 4) he found the three items, No. 5, long bones (*śalākā*), No. 6, base (*sthāna*), No. 8, ankle (*gulpha*). Failing to notice that the bases of Charaka were equivalent to the clusters of Suśruta, he concluded that Suśruta’s sole (*tala*) must include the long bones (*śalākā*) as well as the bases (*sthāna*) of Charaka’s list; and he thus set up four items: long bones, base, cluster, ankle, as identical with Suśruta’s three items: sole, cluster, ankle. Further, noticing that the list of Charaka counted four ankle-bones in the two feet (No. 8 in § 4), he allotted two bones to Suśruta’s ankle, and similarly two bones, to his cluster, forgetting that Suśruta himself had elsewhere allotted only one bone to either, the cluster and the ankle.¹ Such would seem to have been the consideration on which Vāgbhaṭa I arrived at the details of his own four (or Suśruta’s three) items; as thus:

c6.s3.t3.15

¹ The fact that Suśruta looked upon the ankles of the foot as constituting but one bone, is illustrated by the term *valaya*, anklet, which he applies to them. The *valaya* is a heavy bangle worn on the foot; see Fig. 2 illustrating § 30.

c6.s3.t3.16

sole long bones, & 5 bones / base, & 1 bone / cluster, & 2 bones / ankle, & 2 bones aggregate 10 bones.

c6.s3.t3.17

Next, on the principle of homology, he multiplied this aggregate by four, obtaining forty as the grand aggregate of the bones of his four items in the four extremities. By a further, but erroneous, application of the same principle to Suśruta’s No. 5, heel (*pārṣṇi*), he obtained his four heels; and the correct application of it to Suśruta’s Nos. 6, 7, 8 (§ 27) gave him another set of sixteen bones. Totalling the sums so far obtained (i.e. 40 + 4 + 16 = 60), and adding the sixty phalanges (No. 1 in § 27), Vāgbhaṭa arrived at the grand total of one hundred and twenty for the bones of the four extremities.

c6.s3.t3.18

3. Let us remember that the list of Suśruta in its original form counted seventeen bones in the breast and two in the palate (§ 33). The numbers in that list must have been as below:

c6.s3.t3.19

| | *Trunk.* | | | *Neck and Head.* | |
| 9. Pelvis | . | 5 bones | 14. Neck | . | 9 bones |
| 10. Sides | . | 72 | ,, | 15, 16. Windpipe, jaw | 6 | ,, |
| 11. Back | . | 30 | ,, | 17. Teeth | . | 32 | ,, |
| 12. Breast | . | 17 | ,, | 18, 19. Nose, palate | . | 5 | ,, |
| 13. Collar-bones | . | 2 | ,, | 20-3. Cheeks, &c. | . | 12 | ,, |
| | Total | 126 | ,, | | Total | 64 | ,, |

c6.s3.t3.20

Accordingly Suśruta’s list would have contained the following totals:

c6.s3.t3.21

Four Extremities (as calculated by Vāgbhaṭa I) 120 Trunk . . . . . . . . . 126 Neck and Head . . . . . . . 64 Grand total 310

c6.s3.t3.22

This grand total having ten bones in excess of the required 300, it became necessary for Vāgbhaṭa I to make a corresponding reduction somewhere. He determined to make it in the bones of the breast and palate, reducing their numbers from seventeen and two (= 19) to eight and one (= 9) respectively—an operation which gave him just the required ten (19—9). It may be asked what made him select for reduction just those two items, the breast and palate. The answer to this question can only be conjectured; but what may be said on the subject will be found explained in the Third Section (§§ 57 and 67). Of course the process here suggested by which the Traditional Recension of Suśruta’s statement on the skeleton was constructed is purely speculative: it may or may not have so happened; but to myself it appears to possess much probability.

Linked texts (6)