Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c7.s3.t5.14

c7.s3.t5.14

5. The system of Vāgbhaṭa I represents, as usual, a compromise between the two systems of Ātreya-Charaka and Suśruta. From the latter he adopts the two *hanu* or jaw-bones, and from the former the two *dant-olūkhala*, or tooth-sockets. In the main, therefore, inasmuch as he holds not one, but two jaw-bones or maxillaries, he is a follower of Suśruta; but as a concession to the doctrine of Ātreya-Charaka, he divides each maxillary into two separate bones, viz. its alveolar process (*dant-olūkhala*) and its body (*hanu-bandhana*), the latter including, in the case of the inferior maxillary, its two rami. Another concession to that system appears to be Vāgbhaṭa’s use of the term *hanu-bandhana*, instead of the simpler Suśrutiyan term *hanu*. It seems probable that Vāgbhaṭa I failed to understand the significance of the word *mūla* in the Charakiyan term *hanu-mūla-bandhana*, bond at the base, or back, of the jaw. That word renders the term applicable only to the lower jaw-bone, and signifies its two rami, by which it is attached to the rest of the skull. The omission of the word *mūla* shows that Vāgbhaṭa I understood the term *hanu-bandhana* to be applicable to both jaw-bones, and to indicate that the jaw-bones were attachments of the skull. In his system, therefore, the term *hanu-bandhana* is a mere descriptive synonym of the simpler term *hanu* (§ 38, cl. 6).