English
Caraka uses two other terms, aksaka (collar-bone) and amsa. This word amsa seems to be a wrong reading, as Hoernle points out; for in reality there are only two bones, the scapula and the collar-bone. But could it not mean the acromion process of the scapula? Though Susruta omits the shoulder-blade in the counting of bones in Sarira, v. (for this term is aksaka- samjne), yet he distinctly names amsa-phalaka in Sarira, vi. 27, and describes it as triangular (trika-sambaddhe) ; and this term has been erroneously interpreted as grivayad amsa-dvayasya ca yah samyogas sa trikah by Dalhana. The junction of the collar-bone with the neck cannot be called trika. 5 Caraka counts fifteen bones in the neck. According to modern anatomists there are, however, only seven. He probably counted the transverse processes xt] Bones in the Atharva-Veda and Ayur-veda 287 in the plural); 17. the collar-bones (amsau in the dual)?; 18. the brow (Jalata); 19. the central facial bone (kakatika)*; 20. the pile of the jaw (hanu-citya)*; 21. the cranium with temples (kapalam)°. and got the number fourteen, to which he added the vertebrae as constituting one single bone. Susruta counts nine bones. The seventh bone contains spinous and transverse processes and was probably therefore counted by him as three bones, which, together with the other six, made the total number nine. 1 Caraka counts forty-three bones in the vertebral column (prstha-gatasthi), while the actual number is only twenty-six. Each bone consists of four parts, _viz. the body, the spinous process, and the two transverse processes, and Caraka counts them all as four bones. Susruta considers the body and the spinous process as one and the two transverse processes as two; thus for the four bones of Caraka, Susruta has three. In Caraka the body and the spinous process of the twelve thoracic vertebrae make the number twenty-four; the five lumbar vertebrae (body + spine + two transverses) make twenty. He adds to this the sacrum and the coccyx as one pelvic bone, thus making the number forty-five; with Sugruta we have twelve thoracic vertebrae, six lumbar vertebrae, twelve transverses, i.e. thirty bones. The word kikasa (A.V. 11. 33. 2) means the whole of the spinal column, anikya (A.V. II. 33. 2) means the thoracic portion of the spine, and udara the abdominal portion. 2 Both Caraka and Susruta call this aksaka and count it correctly as two bones. Cakrapani describes it as “ aksa-vivaisakau jatru-sandheh kilakau”’ (they are called aksaka because they are like two beams—the fastening-pegs of the junction of the neck-bones). SuSruta further speaks of amsa-pitha (the glenoid cavity into which the head of the humerus is inserted) as a samudga (casket) bone. The joint of each of the anal bones, the pubic bone and the hip bone (nitamba) is also described by him as a samudga. This is the “‘acetabulum, or cotyloid cavity, in which the head of the femur, is lodged” (Susruta, Sarira, v. 27, amsa-pitha-guda-bhaga-nitambesu samudgah). 3 Laldtais probably the two superciliary ridges at the eye-brow and kakdsika the lower portion, comprising the body of the superior maxillary together with the molar and nasal bones. Caraka counts the two molar (ganda-kiita), the two nasal, and the two superciliary ridges at the eye-brows as forming one continuous bone (ekasthi nasika-ganda-kita-lalatam). 4 According to Caraka, the lower jaw only is counted as a separate bone (ekam hanv-asthi), and the two attachments are counted as two bones (dve hanu-miila-bandhane). Susruta, however, counts the upper and the lower jaws as two bones (hanvor dve). Though actually each of these bones consists of two bones, they are so fused together that they may be considered as one, as was done by Susruta. Caraka did not count the upper jaw, so he counted the sockets of the teeth (dantolikhala) and the hard palate (talusaka). Susruta’s counting of the upper hanu did not include the palatine process; so he also counts the ¢dlu (ekam taluni). 5 Sankha is the term denoting the temples, of which both Caraka and Suégruta count two. Caraka counts four cranial bones (catvari sirah-kapalani) and Susruta six (Sirasi sat). The brain-case consists of eight bones. Of these two are inside and hence not open to view from outside. So there are only six bones which are externally visible. Of these the temporal bones have already been counted as sankha, thus leaving a remainder of four bones. Susruta divides the frontal, parietal and occipital bones into two halves and considers them as separate bones, and he thus gets the number six. Both the frontal and occipital are really each composed of two bones, which become fused in later life. Though the author has often differed from Dr Hoernle, yet he is highly in- debted to his scholarly explanations and criticisms in writing out this particular section of this chapter. 288 Speculations in the Medical Schools [cH. Organs in the Atharva-Veda and Ayur-veda. We have no proofs through which we could assert that the writer of the Atharva-Veda verse knew the number of the different bones to which he refers ; but it does not seem possible that the references made to bones could have been possible without a careful study of the human skeleton. Whether this was done by some crude forms of dissection or by a study of the skeletons of dead bodies in a state of decay is more than can be decided. Many of the organs are also mentioned, such as the heart (hrdaya), the lungs (kloma)', the gall-bladder (haliksna)*, the kidneys (matsnabhyam)*, the liver (yakna), the spleen (plihan), the stomach and the smaller intestine (antrebhyah), the rectum and the portion above it (gudabhyah), the 1 Caraka counts kloma as an organ near the heart, but he does not count pupphusa. In another place (Cikitsd, xvi1. 34) he speaks of kloma as one of the organs connected with hiccough (hrdayam kloma kantham ca talukam ca samasrita mrdut sa ksudra-hikveti nrnam sadhya prakirtita). Cakrapani describes it as pipdsa-sthana (seat of thirst). But, whatever that may be, since Caraka considers its importance in connection with hiccough, and, since he does not mention pupphusa (lungs—Mahd-vyutpatti, 100), kloma must mean with him the one organ of the two lungs. Susruta speaks of pupphusa as being on the left side and kloma as being on the right. Since the two lungs vary in size, it is quite possible that Susruta called the left lung pupphusa and the right one kloma. Vagbhata I follows Susruta. The Atharva-Veda, Caraka, Susgruta, Vagbhata and other authorities use the word in the singular, but in Brhad-Granyaka, 1. the word kloma is used in the plural number; and Sankara, in commenting on this, says that, though it is one organ, it is always used in the plural (mtya-bahu-va- cananta). This, however, is evidently erroneous, as all the authorities use the word in the singular. His description of it as being located on the left of the heart (yakrc ca klomdanas ca hrdayasyadhastad daksinottarau mamsa-khandau, Br. I. 1, commentary of Sankara) is against the verdict of Susruta, who places it on the same side of the heart as the liver. The Bhava-prakdsa describes it as the root of the veins, where water is borne or secreted. That kloma was an organ which formed a member of the system of respiratory organs is further proved by its being often associated with the other organs of the neighbourhood, such as the throat (kantha) and the root of the palate (talu-mila). Thus Caraka says, ‘‘udaka- vahanam srotasam talu-miilam kloma ca... .}ihva-tdlv-ostha-kantha-kloma-sosam ...drstva” (Vimdna, v. 10). Sarngadhara, 1. Vv. 45, however, describes it as a gland is hicineg secretions near the liver (jala-vahi-sira-milam trsnad-tchaddanakam tzlam). 2 This word does not occur in the medical literature. Sayana describes it as “etat-samjnakat tat-sambandhat mamsa-pinda-visesat.’”’ This, however, is quite useless for identification. Weber thinks that it may mean “gall”? (Indische Studien, 13, 206). Macdonell considers it to be ‘“‘some particular intestine” (Vedic Index, vol. 11, p. 500). 8 Sayana paraphrases matsnabhyam as vrkyabhyam. Caraka’s reading is vukka. Sayana gives an alternative explanation: ‘‘matsnabhyam ubhaya-parsva- sambandhabhyam vrkyabhyam tat-samipa-stha-pittadhara-patrabhyam.” If this explanation is accepted, then matsnd would mean the two sacs of pitta (bile) near the kidneys. The two matsnds in this explanation would probably be the gall bladder and the pancreas, which latter, on account of its secretions, was probably considered as another pittddhara. xt] Organs in the Atharva-Veda and Ayur-veda 289 larger intestine (vanisthu, explained by Sayana as sthavirantra), the abdomen (udara), the colon (plasi)!, the umbilicus (abhi), the marrow (mayabhyah), the veins (snadvabhyah) and the arteries: (dhamanibhyah)*. Thus we see that almost all the important organs reported in the later Atreya-Caraka school or the Sugruta school were known to the composers of the Atharvanic hymns’. Bolling raises the point whether the Atharva-Veda people knew the difference between the sira and the dhamani, and says, “‘ The apparent distinction between veins and arteries in I. 17. 3 is offset by the occurrence of the same words in vil. 35. 2 with the more general sense of ‘internal canals’ meaning entrails, vagina, etc.— showing how vague were the ideas held with regard to such subjects*.”’ But this is not correct; for there is nothing in 1. 17. 3 which suggests a knowledge of the distinction between veins and arteries in the modern sense of the terms, such as is not found in VII. 35. 2. The s#kta 1. 17 is a charm for stopping the flow of blood from an injury or too much hemorrhage of women. A handful of street-dust was to be thrown on the injured part and the hymn was to be uttered. In 1.17.