modes of thinking in Ayurveda

[Guest guest]

what is Ayurveda? there are many perspectives on this, and many ways

of approaching the subject

 

for argument's sake, i think there are three primary ways or modes in

which to approach Ayurveda:

 

1) the scientific perspective: this perspective evaluates Ayurveda by

comparing it to modern medicine, and backward engineers traditional

rationales so that they might make sense from a medical or strictly

"scientific" perspective - very often this approach fails to recognize

the unique qualities of Ayurveda, or for that matter, any holistic,

truly integrated approach because these systems require a significant

shift in how we look at ourselves and the world. For example, medical

researchers may examine the use of a particular herb that has been used

in Ayurveda for a particular ailment: first, the ailment is understood

in a purely medical context (first mistake) - secondly, the subtleties

and techniques of the practitioner are ignored (second mistake);

thirdly, the individual needs of the patient are standardized (third

mistake); and last, the therapeutic regimen itself is reduced to a

series of bioactive principles, but unfortunately, only those that are

recognized by the current science, e.g. a specific group of chemical

constituents (last mistake) - the net result is a ghost image of

Ayurveda, one that has been stripped of its capacity to provide the

kind of insight that both the practitioner and patient require to

promote wellness.

 

2) the traditional, orthodox perspective: this perspective is akin to a

matter of faith for many, and advocates of this approach make an appeal

to the great antiquity of Ayurveda and its divine origins. With such

people however there is almost no point arguing anything on this

matter, because they have "transcended" the need for logic . Such

advocates believe that Ayurveda is the ultimate in health care, and

will say and do almost anything to support their contention, even

drawing on modern research, almost always presenting just one side of

an argument. The orthodox tradition also believes in the perfect

integration of Ayurveda with all other vedic sciences, and sees it as a

shastra within the Rg veda, already described and elucidated. Thus

Ayurveda is necessarily integrated with other vedic sciences such as

jyotish and vastu. Advocates of this tradition believe that Ayurveda

cannot be separated from these other endeavors.

 

3) the traditional, heterodox perspective: this perspective recognizes

all the tenets of the orthodox perspective, but doesn't believe that

any one perspective on the subject transcends the need for continual

reassessment and the acknowledgment of diversity. The heterodox

tradition rejects any one belief as being correct, but rather,

acknowledges a spectrum of thinking on various subjects in Ayurveda.

For example, many physicians now are from brahmin families, and they

believe Ayurveda to be their birthright- the irony of course is that

being an ancient physician in India necessarily made one an out-caste

of sorts (i.e. even the ashvinis were outcastes of sorts), and

physicians would wander from place to place all over the subcontinent

and beyond learning their craft and trade by practicing on all people

from all walks of life, and through traveling were exposed to new and

different ideas. The Ayurvedic materia medica reflects this reality,

for example, all the medicinal plants that displays the prefix "china"

(i.e. from china), e.g. chinatikshna (Piper cubeba) and chinakarpura

(Cinnamomum camphora) - some of the most important medicinal plants

used in Ayurveda are non-native, e.g. nutmeg, coconut, sarsaparilla

etc. - obviously early Ayurvedic physicians learned how to use them

from non-Indians, and incorporated this into their thinking

 

nowadays, i believe that we require ALL THREE MODES to truly understand

Ayurveda

of them, i honestly believe that only the heterodox tradition is

completely safe, effective and practical because:

1. the medical approach is not Ayurveda, and is devoid of the

traditional indications and contraindications that represent a series

of time-honored checks and balances

2. the orthodox approach is faith-based, and may recommend

inappropriate therapies or too easily reduce complex scenarios to

simple scenarios by its dogmatism - in this regard there are some

recent books on the subject published in the West that favor an

orthodox approach have that been heavily criticized within the holistic

community because the approach presented is too formulaic and as a

result potentially dangerous. Further, orthodox advocates of Ayurveda

state Ayurveda is presented as a universal science, but of course their

intent is essentially proselitizing, and turns off non-Hindus in great

numbers

 

nowadays we need to understand the science as well as the traditions,

and admit the diversity of knowledge and approaches in what is a vast

field

 

there is no "right" answer in Ayurveda, only debate and consensus

what is required of us is humility, something i find lacking in both

the scientific and orthodox perspectives

 

as far as discussing allied subjects including farming, architecture,

astrology etc. on this list, i feel that all this is relevant, but is

of secondary importance to the greater truth that Ayurveda is a safe,

efficient and effective approach to health and wellness that should be

made available to all people, to support the creation of a truly

global, holistic medicine that is the best of the best

 

that is my opinion, from someone who straddles Western herbal medicine,

Chinese medicine and Ayurveda, and who is keen to keep expanding my

awareness of health and healing, with my intelligence (buddhi) as my

guide

 

best to all...

Caldecott

todd

www.toddcaldecott.com