Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s3.t3: § 40. The Relative Date of the Three Lists

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s3.t3

Language
English

Contents

§ 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 (5)