Pathology or dosha based treatment?

[Guest guest]

Dear JP ji,

 

Namaskar. I know it is very convinient and easy to treat patients based on the

pathology of disease. But in doing so we resort to mere palliation and deprive

the patient of a chance of cure. Unlike allopathy, which is purely pathology

based, ayurveda has a very deep understanding of disease. This is why ayurveda

is being adopted by more and more people today. They see in it a hope to escape

the vice like grip that disease has on man at various levels.

 

Ayurveda differs from "herbal treatment" because it has well defined principles.

In ayurveda we have the three doshas; vata, pitta and kapha, the three gunas;

sattwa, rajas and tamas, and the five koshas; physical, vital, mental, emotional

and spiritual as the basis of treatment. Thus the body-mind connection is very

clearly defined. In fact the mind receives more importance.

 

As Charaka points out;

"No ayurved can ever cure disease unless he has a thorough knowledge of the

workings of the human mind. For disease has its roots in the mind."

 

Resorting to allopathic diagnostic tools is secondary as these tools cannot help

us study the mind. Also allopathy is an assembly line form of treatment that

does not take note of the uniqueness of disease in every individual. Two persons

may have cancer but may require two different modes of treatment. Here the word

cancer tends to mislead us into thinking that both the persons have the same

disease and hence will require the same treatment. This is why people who buy

ayurvedic formulations based on advertisements do not get good results. A visit

to a vaidya is very essential if one is serious about cure.

 

Allopathy has corrupted both ayurveda and homeopathy. Its dizzy rise has made

the pharmaceutical industry of these systems formulate drugs based on allopathic

principles. The doctors also ask their patients to undergo diagnostic tests,

which are often unnecessary, just to prove to the patients that they are also

"scientific" and similiar to allopathy. While this hypocrisy will bring in

patients in the short run, only those vaidyas will flourish who can effectively

cure their patients. For this the vaidyas have to be properly grounded in the

basic tenets of ayurveda. If allopathic principles were correct then we would

have seen results and not the dismal scene that exists today.

 

Thus without attempting to "improve" ayurveda and bring it up to measure

according to allopathic parameters, attempts should be made to preserve and

enlarge the unique holistically ingrained component of ayurveda. The interests

of the patients and not the doctors/industry should be borne in mind. The

doctors should not fear that ayurveda will not flourish unless allopathy

approves of it. Ayurveda will survive and flourish because it represents the

truth and truth alone triumphs in the end.

 

Regards,

Jagannath.