No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
In the Vedas and the earlier medical works there occur some anatomical terms which have never, or at least not usually, been correctly understood, but which, on reference to the actual human skeleton, can, with much probability, be identified.
page 915 note 1 Only the upper part of the trachea (with the larynx) is in the neck ; the lower part (with the bronchi) is in the thorax.
page 920 note 1 On this number Suśruta differs from Charaka. This is not the place to explain the difference. It is fully discussed in an osteological monograph which I hope shortly to publish. — In the numeration list the windpipe is called kaṇṭḥanāḍī in distinction from grīvā, or cervical column.
page 924 note 1 The figure of the altar, given in Professor Eggeling's translation (Sacred Books of the East, vol. xliii, p. 98), may be usefully consulted.
page 926 note 1 Suppurating scrofulous glands, according to U. C. Dutt's translation in his edition of the Mādhava Nidāna, p. 193.
page 927 note 1 Dr. Wise, in his System of Hindu Medicine (reprint, p. 325), identifies it with the scrobiculus cordis, vulgo, pit of the stomach.
page 932 note 1 I cannot enter into them here. This would take me too far afield. The case is fully discussed in my forthcoming monograph on the Osteology of the Ancient Indians.
page 934 note 1 The correct reading occurs also in Ḍallana's comment (Jīv., p. 644) on Suśruta, Cik. Sth. i, 39, where also the diseases of the neck and head (ūr-dhvajatru-gata-roga) are referred to.
page 934 note 2 The edition of Sudhākara Dvivedi, p. 844, has kukṣayoḥ sandhiḥ, joint of the two abdomens. I have no MSS. to verify; but that reading is manifestly false; it is either a misprint or a false reading.
page 937 note 1 Of course this interpretation necessarily disconcerted the whole count of the osteological summary; and they were compelled to resort to all sorts of shifts to work out the required total of 360 bones. These shifts cannot be explained here ; they are fully discussed in my forthcoming monograph on the Osteology of the Ancient Indians.
page 938 note 1 Unfortunately, Professor Stenzler, owing to insufficiency of manuscripts, and no doubt misled by the commentaries, has adopted, in his edition, the spurious reading ekaikam.