{Spam?} RE: [HealthyIndia] Ayurveda is not scientific.

[Guest guest]

Dear Anti Jagat

and Jagat;

Life is a chemical, a set of organized molecules

or matrix of strings (as per chaos theory) and all that in imbalanced condition

and moving. Laws of physics differ at levels of biology, or chemical, or molecular

or psychological or quantum level or at levels even beyond time and space. Similarly,

at certain levels, medical science gives predictable results, and at certain

other times, medical sciences fail. To criticize anything is wrong. Be kind to scientists.

Science is civilization of blind-men.

If there are blind men all over, they are very good at measuring everything,

and give it a lot of definitions. By this way, every communication between

blinds becomes highly verifiable. They will be very intolerant, and will like

to regulate everything. In that sense, blind men know far more by their measurements

than those with eyes. Empirical observation is relative and a sum and purified empirical

observation that helps to have predictive qualities, is their sciences.

 

I am against any regulation of sciences or

non sciences. I also am against criticism. Neither are sciences bad nor good.

It is just a matter of a state of relative comments. Medical sciences and Ayurveda can coexist and it is a matter of survival of both

and to work in complimentarily. As long as we are a set of medicals, we are

uses of medical sciences, and as long as we are spirit or soul, we are a condition

in Ayurveda.

 

Regards

K G Misra

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Jagannath Chatterjee

Thursday, August 10, 2006

3:38 PM

To:

 

[HealthyIndia] Re:

Ayurveda is not scientific.

 

@,

" ..> wrote:

>

> " Unlike allopathic drugs where you can test for a chemical,

> enforcement is not easy for Ayurvedic formulations. "

>

> I fail to see why not. Everything (food, medicine, herbs) at some

level

> is just chemicals, including the human body. There is nothing about

> ayurvedic substances that would make them outside the scope of

> chemistry.

> I see nothing at all in your explanation that would preclude

regulating

> Ayurveda.

-----------------------------

 

There have been many efforts to isolate active ingredients and then

manufacture and prescribe their chemical equivalent. They have either

not worked at all, worked unsatisfactorily, or had undesirable side

effects. This proves that there is more than just the " active

ingredient " that is involved.

 

And may I ask, if natural products are available then why should we

go in for chemicals? If chemicals are dangerous in the environment,

as pesticides in food, then why are they not harmful as medicines

forced into our fragile natural body?

 

And may I also ask why emphasis is not given to nutrition and natural

modes of healing in modern medical science? Today the doctors seem to

exist only as salespersons for the drug industry. They only know how

to prescribe medicines. They do not bother about prevention of

disease or about counselling patients.

 

Let me remind you doctors, that the doctors real task is to PREVENT

disease and not try to treat it after the disease has occurred. In

China there is the practice to pay the herbal doctors only when the

people are healthy. The payment is stopped when the people fall ill

because it denotes that the healer has failed in his duty.

 

Our anger is not directed against specific doctors, they can only

practice what they are taught. We are against the system called

modern medicine and we wish the doctors to realise the truth and

bring in the required reforms instead of opposing them.

 

Regards,

Jagannath.

 

 

 

" Our ideal is not the spirituality that withdraws from life

but the conquest of life by the power of the spirit. " - Aurobindo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s

low PC-to-Phone

call rates.