Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s3.t1: § 37. The Statement of Vāgbhaṭa I

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s3.t1

Language: English

§ 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:

‘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.

Linked texts (1)

Suśrutasaṃhitā — Suśruta & Nāgārjuna (siddha/alchemist), Sanskrit