Snayu Sharira: Bhavaprakasha Counts Nine Hundred Bindings and Draws the Body as a Lattice Window

📖 24 min read · Classical Ayurveda Texts · Bhavaprakasha, Purva Khanda

Where the Snayu Passage Sits in the Bhavaprakasha

The Bhavaprakasha does not begin its account of the frame with the frame. It begins with the doshas, moves through the dhatus, and only then arrives at the parts you could point to — the bones, then the junctions between them, then the vessels, then the bindings. By the time Bhavamisra reaches the passage this article is about, he has already given the bone count and the joint count, and he has just finished the seven hundred sira and their division among vata, pitta, kapha and rakta.

That sira section ends on a small verse that is easy to skip and is the hinge into everything after it: the vessels differ visibly by what fills them — the vata-carrying ones aruna, tawny; the pitta-carrying ones warm and dark; the kapha-carrying ones pale, cool and firm. It establishes the assumption the rest of the chapter runs on: that the structures of the frame are distinguishable by inspection, and therefore countable.

Then, without ceremony, the text changes subject. Medasah sneham adaya sira snayutvam agatah. The sira, having taken unctuousness from the medas, arrives at snayu-hood.

We have written about the joints and the vessels this passage follows on from in a separate reading of the joint and vessel enumeration, and about the bone count that precedes both in the Sharira Sankhya passage of the Sushruta Samhita. This article picks up where the vessel count stops.

Snayu: A Sira That Took Fat From the Medas and Hardened

The first thing the chapter says about the snayu is not what it does. It is where it came from.

Two claims are packed into one line. The first is developmental: a snayu is not a separate kind of thing from a vessel. It is a vessel that has been through something. What it went through was contact with the medas — the fatty dhatu — from which it drew sneha, the quality of oiliness or unctuousness that runs through the whole of the classical vocabulary as the opposite of dryness and brittleness.

The second claim is the one that makes the first testable. Paka here is the word ordinarily used for cooking, ripening, maturation. The sira's paka is mridu, soft; the snayu's is khara, rough or hard. So the difference between a vessel and a binding, in this account, is a difference of degree along a single axis: how far the maturation has gone. A snayu is what a sira becomes when it takes on oil and then sets.

This cuts against how a modern reader arrives at the passage. We come expecting a taxonomy — vessels here, ligaments there, different tissues with different origins. Bhavamisra offers a continuum with a hardening step in it, and what follows is an enumeration of things at one end of it.

A binding is not the thing it binds. Bhavamisra's verse puts the load-bearing property in the lashing, not in the timber.

Bandhana: What the Snayu Is Said to Bind

The next verse gives the function, and it gives it as a list of what is held rather than as a description of holding.

Bandhana is a plain word. It is what you do to a bundle of firewood. The text does not reach for an abstraction; it says these are the things that tie the flesh, the bone and the fat, and that also tie the junctions. And it closes the verse by returning to the comparison the derivation verse set up: sirabhyah sudridhah — firmer than the vessels. The hardening step from the previous verse is now doing work. It is what makes a binding a binding.

Notice what the list includes and what it does not. Mamsa, asthi, medas — flesh, bone, fat — and the sandhis. Not the sira. Not the dhamani. Not the internal organs. The snayu, in this account, binds the solid components of the frame and the places where they meet. It is structural in the narrow, mechanical sense of the word, and the simile that follows in the very next verse confirms that this narrowness is deliberate.

Nau Yatha Phalaka: The Boat of Lashed Planks

Here the chapter stops counting and shows you something instead.

Read it slowly, because the simile is more exact than it first appears. A plank boat is not carved from one piece. It is an assembly of separate flat things, each of which on its own is useless in deep water. What makes the assembly float and carry is not the planks and not the shape — it is bandhanaih venubhih, the bamboo lashings that hold plank against plank. Remove the lashings and every component remains, and the boat is a pile of wood.

The parallel Bhavamisra draws is therefore not “the body is like a boat.” It is narrower and better than that. It is: the load-bearing property of the body belongs to the bindings, not to the parts they bind. The bones are the planks. The snayus are the lashings. And bhara-saha — able to bear weight — is predicated in the simile of the boat and in the conclusion of men, in the same two words, so that the transfer of the property is impossible to miss.

There is a second word doing quiet work. Baddha-baddhah — bound and bound, the reduplication carrying the sense of bound repeatedly, bound over and over. It is not one lashing per junction. It is a junction wrapped again and again, which is exactly how a plank hull is lashed and exactly what a count of nine hundred for two hundred and ten junctions implies. The number and the picture agree before either is explained.

Jalavat - like a net. A lattice is a solid pierced by openings; a net is openings held by a solid. The chapter uses both in one sentence.

Nine Hundred: The Total and Its Three Parts

Now the count.

Shatani nava. Hundreds, nine. The figure comes as a number-word, not as a numeral, which matters for reasons we set out below. And it comes with an instruction attached: shrinuta yatnatah, listen with effort. The text is signalling that what follows is the kind of material a student is expected to memorise, and it is right — what follows is four nested sums.

The first division is three ways:

Six hundred, two hundred and thirty, seventy. They sum to nine hundred exactly. That is the first thing to check and it closes.

The second thing to notice is the shape of the distribution, which the text states and then never comments on. Two-thirds of every binding in the body is in the arms and the legs. Six hundred of nine hundred, precisely two in three. And the head and neck together take seventy — less than a twelfth of the total — for a region that houses, on this same text's account, the seats of every sense.

Set against the boat simile that reads as an engineering claim rather than a curiosity: the lashings are heaviest where the load is. A scheme that spread its bindings evenly would be one that had not been looked at. This one is lopsided in the direction the simile predicts.

One Hundred and Fifty to a Limb: The Sum You Can Check

The six hundred is then broken down, and this is the passage where the enumeration earns its credibility, because the sub-totals close without being told to.

Thirty, thirty, thirty, ten, forty, ten. The sum is one hundred and fifty, and the text says so: evam sardha-shatam ekasmin sakthini bhavanti — thus there are one hundred and fifty in one limb. Then it does the economical thing and refuses to repeat itself: etena itarat sakthi bahu cha vyakhyatau, by this the other leg and the two arms are explained. One hundred and fifty, four times, is six hundred.

Two sums have now closed — the six sites into one hundred and fifty, and the four limbs into six hundred — and neither closure is announced. You have to do the arithmetic yourself to find them. That is the strongest available evidence that a classical figure was transmitted rather than invented, and it is a test we have applied to every enumeration in this series: a number that was made up to sound impressive does not have parts that add up.

One feature of the breakdown looks at first like a contradiction. The binding verse said the snayus bind the sandhis, yet in the limb count the two obvious junctions get the fewest — knee ten, groin ten — while the long segments take the most. The chapter does not explain this, and we will not invent an explanation. What can be said is that the verse names four things bound — mamsa, asthi, medas and the sandhis — and only one of the four is a junction. Most of what a snayu binds, on the text's own account, is not a joint at all.

Not every site is given the same weight of cord. The limb enumeration is lopsided, and it is lopsided towards where load is carried.

Koshtha and Griva: Where the Other Three Hundred Sit

The trunk and the upper body are handled in two short passages, and both close as well.

Sixty and sixty and eighty and thirty is two hundred and thirty. Thirty-six and thirty-four is seventy. Six hundred and two hundred and thirty and seventy is nine hundred, and the chapter closes on exactly that sentence: evam snayunam nava-shatani bhavanti.

Four sums, four closes, at three levels of nesting. We have now checked this enumeration as thoroughly as the printed page permits, and it holds at every level.

The internal shape is again worth a moment. Within the trunk, the back takes eighty — more than any other single site in the body outside the thigh — and the chest takes thirty, the least. Within the seventy above the shoulders, the neck slightly outweighs the entire head. Whatever else this scheme is, it is not a scheme that put its bindings where the important organs are. It put them where a load path would run: back, waist, flanks, thigh.

Dhamani: Twenty-Four From the Nabhi

The snayu section ends and a new one opens without a transition sentence. The subject changes from what binds to what conveys, and the organising principle changes with it — from regions of the body to directions of travel.

Everything in that verse is a choice. Nabhito jatah — born from the navel. Not from the heart, not from the head. The nabhi is the origin point, which is a position this text holds consistently: it is the centre from which the frame is described outward, the same way the sira account before it took the nabhi as the hub from which the seven hundred vessels are reckoned.

And the division is by direction. Ten urdhvaga, upward-going. Ten adhoga, downward-going. Four tiryag-gata, transverse. Ten plus ten plus four is twenty-four, and that sum closes too — but this is the last one in the chapter that will.

The ten that go up get a function list rather than a location list, and it is almost entirely about the outward-facing life of a person: the five sense-objects — sound, touch, form, taste, smell — then breathing in and out, yawning, sneezing, laughing, speaking, weeping. The text puts a sneeze and a spoken sentence in the same category: something conveyed upward and released. The ten that go down get the opposite brief, carrying purisha, mutra, shukra and artava downward. Perception upward, elimination and generation downward.

The Ten That Go Down Become Thirty, and the Thirty Close

Then the downward ten do something the upward ten do not: they divide. Each of them, on reaching the region of the pittashaya, becomes threefold, and ten times three is thirty. The chapter then itemises what those thirty carry, and the itemisation is the most granular passage in the whole window.

Ten, then two six times over, then eight. Twenty-two and eight is thirty. The sum closes, and it closes on a residue — the text assigns the specific functions first and then says ashtau anyah, eight others, for sweat. That is the grammar of a real inventory rather than a decorative number: the specific items are named and the remainder is accounted for.

One line in this passage is easy to read past and shouldn't be. The pair that serves the production of shukra and the pair that serves its release are said to be, in women, the pairs for the appearance and release of artava. The text is not describing two anatomies. It is describing one scheme with a variant term, which is a small but real piece of evidence about how the classical anatomists thought about generative function — as one architecture with different contents, not as two designs.

Nabhito jatah - born from the navel. The chapter reckons outward from a single centre, and everything it counts is counted from there.

The Four That Go Across, and the Count That Will Not Stop

Which leaves the four transverse dhamanis, and here the chapter abandons counting altogether.

Asankhyeya. Not-to-be-counted. In a chapter that has just closed four separate sums to the unit, that word is doing something deliberate. Bhavamisra is not saying the number is large. He is saying the enumeration stops here, and he says it about the group with the smallest count in the verse.

That is the pivot of the whole passage. The twenty-four divide ten, ten and four — and it is the four, the least of the three groups, that goes on dividing until it exceeds description. The smallest group by count becomes the largest by extent. Everything up to this point in the chapter has been an argument that the body is a countable assembly. This one sentence concedes that below a certain scale it is not.

Uttarottaram — each after the other, successively — is the word that makes it a process rather than a figure. A hundredfold, then a thousandfold, then again. The text is describing repeated branching without a terminus, and it reaches for the only honest label available.

Gavakshita: The Body Read as a Lattice Window

And then, having conceded that the branching cannot be counted, the chapter tells you what it looks like.

A gavaksha is the pierced window of Indian building — the jali, the jharokha, the screen that lets air and light through a wall without opening it. Bhavamisra turns the noun into a past participle and applies it to the frame: it is not merely like a lattice, it has been latticed, made porous throughout by the branching just described.

The gloss adds a second image on top of the first. Jalavat — like a net. A lattice is a solid pierced by openings; a net is openings held by a solid. They are the same object described from opposite sides, and putting them in one sentence is precise rather than redundant. The wall is what you see; the mesh is what does the work.

It is also, quietly, the answer to the question the snayu section raised and left open. The boat simile said the body's ability to bear weight belongs to its bindings. The lattice simile says the body's ability to be reached belongs to its openings. Bhavamisra has given the same frame two structural properties from two enumerations, and the second one is about to become the whole point of the section.

Gavakshita: the frame described as a pierced screen, made porous throughout by a branching that stopped being countable.

The Mouths at the Roma-Kupa, and What the Twak Lets Through

This is the passage the section has been building to, and it is the most consequential sentence in the window.

Roma-kupa is the pit of a body hair — the follicle. The innumerable transverse branches, on this account, terminate there, and the surface of the body is therefore the open end of the entire branching system. Four things are then said to happen at those mouths, and they are four different kinds of thing, which is what makes the passage interesting.

The first is outward: svedah sravanti, the sweat flows. The second is inward and nutritive: the rasa is supplied. The third is the one that matters most for how the classical tradition understood its own external procedures. The fourth is sensory: touch, pleasant or unpleasant, is received at the same mouths.

Take the third slowly. Abhyanga is anointing with oil. Parisheka is pouring or affusion — a stream directed over the body. Avagahana is immersion, sitting in a bath. Alepana is the application of a paste. These four are the classical external procedures, and the verse says that their virya — their potency, the operative quality of the substance — having been pakva, matured or processed, in the twak, is then made to enter within by way of these mouths.

That is a mechanism. It is the classical tradition's own account of why anything applied to the outside of a person was thought to be worth applying at all: because the surface is the open end of an innumerable branching network whose mouths are at the hair roots, and because the twak is not a barrier in this scheme but a processing stage — the place where virya is pakva before it goes anywhere.

We want to be exact about what this is. It is a statement of how a sixteenth-century compiler, transmitting a much older surgical tradition, explained a class of procedures — a piece of intellectual history. It is not a claim about any product, ours or anyone else's, and nothing here should be read as one. The four procedures that verse names are procedures, not things on a shelf.

The fourth item is not an aside. One structure, four traffics, two going out and two coming in — the lattice is not a general metaphor for permeability but a specific claim that the same openings serve secretion, nutrition, conveyance and sensation.

Mrinala and Bisa: The Lotus-Stalk Simile That Closes the Section

And then, in the manner the chapter has already established, it hands you a picture to hold the idea in.

Mrinala is the lotus stalk; bisa is the lotus fibre or rhizome. Anyone who has snapped one knows what the simile is pointing at: the stalk is not solid. It is run through, along its whole length, by longitudinal channels that are plainly visible on the broken face, and they are there svabhavatah — by nature, not by damage. Break it anywhere and the same pattern of openings appears.

That last point is the argumentative work the simile does. The objection to the lattice claim is obvious — a person looks solid. The lotus stalk also looks solid and is not, and its openings are original to it. The simile answers the objection with something anyone in sixteenth-century India could pull out of a pond.

It is also the third simile in a single passage, and the three of them form a set worth naming: a lashed boat for how the frame holds together, a pierced window for how it is open, a cut stalk for why the openings are natural. Three ordinary objects, three structural properties. The chapter explains itself entirely through things you could put on a table.

Svabhavatah - by nature. The lotus stalk looks solid and is not, and its openings were never put there by anything.

Two Counts Running in Opposite Directions

Set the two halves of this window side by side and something falls out that neither half states.

That is not a flourish we are adding. It is visible in the text's own vocabulary. The snayu passage ends with evam snayunam nava-shatani bhavanti — thus there are nine hundred. The dhamani passage ends with ta asankhyeyah — they are innumerable. Two closing formulas, one asserting a total and the other withdrawing the possibility of one, a few lines apart.

It is also why the section can end on the roma-kupa passage without any sense of a change of subject. Once the conveying structures are innumerable and reach everywhere, saying they open at the hair roots is not an extra claim — it is the same claim, stated at the surface.

A Note on the Numbers: Why We Quote Words, Not Digits

Every figure in this article has been taken from the Sanskrit number-word, not from a printed numeral, and that is a deliberate policy rather than a stylistic preference.

The edition this passage is read from is a scanned Hindi-commentary Bhavaprakasha in which single Devanagari digits are frequently ambiguous. Digits that differ by one stroke are genuinely hard to separate at this scan quality, and a commentary numeral and the Sanskrit word beside it do not always agree. A number-word — shatani nava, chaturvimshatih, ashtau, saptatih — is spelled out across several syllables and cannot be corrupted by a single ambiguous stroke.

Where a word was itself unclear, we used the arithmetic to decide, and we have flagged each place we did so. The neck-and-head figures are the example: only one reading lets the sum close at seventy and the grand total close at nine hundred, so that is the reading we took. Where neither the word nor the arithmetic settles a figure, we have left it out of this article rather than guess.

The Same Enumeration Elsewhere in the Classical Library

Bhavamisra was a sixteenth-century compiler and the Bhavaprakasha is explicit about being a compilation. This passage is not original to it; it reproduces, in places almost word for word, material from a surgical tradition several centuries older.

The nine-hundred snayu figure and its three-way regional division appear in the Sushruta Samhita, Sharira Sthana, Chapter 5, in the same order and with the same sub-divisions, including the one hundred and fifty per limb. The boat-of-planks simile belongs to that tradition as well. The dhamani material — twenty-four from the nabhi, ten upward, ten downward, four transverse, the thirty-fold division of the downward group, the gavaksha, the roma-kupa and the lotus-stalk simile — corresponds to Sushruta Samhita, Sharira Sthana, Chapter 9, which is the chapter devoted to the dhamanis specifically.

The Charaka Samhita, Sharira Sthana, Chapter 7, which is the Charaka tradition's own body-count chapter, also gives nine hundred snayus. That agreement is worth noting because the two traditions do not agree on every body count — and on the dhamani figure in particular the classical sources are not unanimous, which is a fact about the literature we would rather state than paper over. The Ashtanga Hridaya of Vagbhata carries the same enumerations forward in its own Sharira Sthana, in the compressed form that text prefers.

So the correct description of what you have just read is: a sixteenth-century encyclopaedia transmitting a classical surgical anatomy, with a Hindi commentary added later still. We have written separately about what the Bhavaprakasha is and where Bhavamisra sits in the tradition, about the surgical text this material comes from, and about the structure of the Charaka Samhita.

Readers following this series through the Bhavaprakasha's account of the frame may also want the vital-point enumeration, the muscle and fat count, the account of how the dhatus are nourished, and the seven-dhatu overview. The covering that the roma-kupa open through is read layer by layer in our study of the Sushruta Samhita's measurement of the twak, and the classical procedure named first in the roma-kupa verse is described on its own terms in our guide to abhyanga. For the doshic framework all of this sits inside, see the tridosha reading of the Ashtanga Hridaya.

Reading Classical Anatomy Honestly — and What We Leave Out

Three things need saying before this article ends, and all three are refusals.

We have not translated the structures into modern anatomy. It is tempting to write that snayu means ligament and tendon, that dhamani means artery, that sira means vein. Those equations are approximate at best, and in several places they are simply wrong — the derivation verse at the head of this passage says a snayu is a matured sira, which no modern histology would say of a ligament and a vein. The classical terms carry a scheme of their own, and forcing them into a later scheme would invent a correspondence the texts do not make. So we have left them untranslated and glossed them by function as the chapter itself does.

This article does not reproduce doses, methods or procedures. The window it is drawn from names four external classical procedures in a single compound. We have named them, because the sentence is unintelligible otherwise, and we have deliberately gone no further: there are no dose figures, no quantities, no preparation methods, no sequences, no durations and no instructions of any kind anywhere on this page, and none should be inferred from it. Ayurvedic procedures belong with a trained physician who has examined the person in front of them.

This is not diagnostic guidance and not a self-assessment. It is a description of what a sixteenth-century compiler wrote about the structure of the body, offered as intellectual history. Nothing here is a basis for identifying anything about your own condition. If you have a health concern, consult a qualified healthcare professional; if you have an urgent one, seek immediate medical attention rather than a classical text.

Kalpana: Curna, and the Hand That Carries It

A note on why this section exists and what it is doing. The classical pharmacy sorts its preparations by kalpana — by physical form. A curna is a powder: dry material reduced by grinding and kept dry, the simplest of the classical forms and the oldest. Form is a fact about matter. It is not a property, not an effect and not a promise, and form is the only bridge we are willing to build between a classical reading and a shelf.

So what follows is a short list of the curna on our shelf, and the ordinary implement that carries one. Nothing here relates to the subject matter of the sections above, and nothing below is a claim of any kind. We are not going to pretend that a page about a sixteenth-century enumeration is a reason to buy anything — a chapter of the Bhavaprakasha is not a shopping list, and reading one is not a purchase decision. If you came for the text, the text is above and you have already read it.

We would rather declare the empty column than fill it. Nothing on our shelf has anything to do with what this chapter describes, and we sell no version of anything the chapter names. Three items, each a curna or the thing that applies one, listed by form alone:

Related Stories — More to Read

Shop all Ayurveda Hub products →

Frequently Asked Questions