RA

[Guest guest]

ayurveda, "Dr. Venu Gopal M.D \(Ayurveda\)"

<dr_venug wrote:

>

> Dear

> Many thanks for valuable inputs.

> Once again the conflct

> I state some forms of (Not all) auto-immune reactions in the body are due to formation

of the AMA in the body.

> AMA is not =Mere Auto immunity.

 

correct, what i meant to state is that autoimmunity is entirely dependenty upon ama

 

probably i should have written my equation thus ama=>autoimmunity

 

for arguments sake however, the beauty of the comparison is that AI is not limited to a

particular disease, and has many many diseases associated with it - its a "mechanism" that

is very very similar to the pathology of amavata

 

at some point science will catch up to Ayurvedic thinking, and this is an excellent

example, not taking a "disease-naming" approach but looking at underlying physiological

mechanisms

 

if we should all be purists none of us would be discussing this issue, with you and i on

opposite sides of the planet, typing away at our computers - this has definite effects upon

knowledge and perception which cannot be ignored

 

please review the pathological mechanism of leaky gut and the pathology of amavata, if

you want i can send you some more information - it is a quantum leap from prameha =

diabetes, and actually supports ayurvedic thinking

 

the texts state that ama is an actual substance deposited in joints, but where is it? no

physical ama can be found, none can be seen objectively, but if we equate ama and AI

then we can understand how the 'principle' of ama aggravates the immune system to do

its dirty work, and the inflammatory pannus of RA

 

 

> Dr.Shirsh bhate alredy expressed his view what happens with the comparision those

lead to confusions.

> Ayurveda very much distingueshed from other systems,It has its own style of

Anatomy,physiology,pharmacology,aetiology,dignosis,treatment.All these are

interdependent.

 

i understand this argument well, and have a of sympathy for it

if i was speaking with a medical doctor i would profess your position

but in totality i see the subtlety of the arguments... there is no clear demarcation between

ayurveda and science

 

for e.g. dr mana bajracharya of kathmandu rec'd a classical ayurvedic education, and

represented a hereditary tradition of buddhist-priest physicians that extended back over

800 years; he had access to a formidable stream of authentic hereditary teachings, as well

as ayurvedic texts written in both sanskrit and prakrits that aren't even known by most

physicians of today

 

and yet after practicing for a number of years he sought yet more knowledge, and taught

himself western anatomy, which he began to see as a superior system (which is debatabe,

but certainly modern anatomists have corrected many misconceptions in ayurveda, such

as the number of bones) and brought it into the fold of his ayurvedic knowledge

 

at some point Ayurveda will be updated and synergized with modern medicine - the very

profound and rich concepts presented in ayurveda, while based on a different system of

logic cannot be describing some different reality, some different body - it is all one body

 

 

> The treatment and selection of the medicine purely authenticative on the symptoms

and diagnosis perseived through the ayurveda methods only.

> For example if a patient diagnosed in modern medicine as "amoebiasis"

 

yes, and what about the concept of krimis (worms)? these could be seen, not inferred,

they exist - similarly amoebas exist, but they are too small to be seen by the naked eye,

and thus ayurvedists chose to understand amoebiasis as something else, looking at the

underlying mechanisms, which are actually more important anyway

 

but i wonder what the acharyas would have made of microscopes - in the spirit of free

inquiry i am very confident that they would have made use of them, and adapted their

thinking accordingly although it might not have made a demonstrable impact upon actual

treatments (although its an interesting speculation)

 

i guess the question is whether ayurveda can remain a totally classical system (one if we

were to compare it to indian classical music is missing some of the ragas) , or will we see

the fusion of ayurveda with other allied healing traditions?

 

in summation, yes we should honor the tradition of ayurveda, but this should not stops us,

like dr mana bajracharya, to continually broaden our knowledge and find links which

brings together knowledge, for the betterment of the people

 

todd caldecott