The last word in the ayurveda debate.

[Guest guest]

Re: [hc] Yoga and asthma. @, " wrote:On the contrary, being an Indian I am very> intrigued at the possibility of rediscovering useful complementary> treatments within Ayurveda. What I have said is that Ayurvedic> treatments should be studied according to the same methods that> conventional medicine is authenticated. I also pointed out thefallacies> in making generalizations to the effect that "x is a cure for y"based> on the logic that one or two people tried "x" and later found thatthey> no longer have problems with "y." There is a misconception prevalent> here that statistical methods in which proposed treatments areevaluated> alongside controls are specific to conventional medicine or "western> science" only. This is incorrect.

Many things can be studied using> statistical methods, and if the irrational, fanatical prejudices of> people like jagchat et al. could be overcome, it might finallyhappen> that real Ayurveda might find its niche in the mainstream as an> effective discipline for a particular set of problems.----------------------------How can modern medicine decide whether ayurveda is effective or not?Ayurveda is based on the vata, pitta, kapha theory. It is based onthe elements theory. It is based on the guna theory. It is based onwholism. It encompasses much more than medicine, which is only a partof its healing procedure. It is based upon prevention of disease byfollowing daily and seasonal routines. All these are alien to modernmedicine. And yet you talk of modern medicine examining andcertifying ayurveda.Ayurveda is not a disease specific approach, it is a dosha

specificapproach. If you do not accept the base of ayurveda you cannotunderstand it. You have to look at ayurveda from the viewpoint of itsprinciples.Can ayurveda evaluate your medicines? Then how can you expect thatyour medicine can evaluate ayurveda?The problem with your science it tries to understand the process morethan look at the results. This is why you have so many researchpapers, so many studies and yet have very poor results to show.What I quote are not straw figures. They are the reality. A realityyou are unwilling to accept even as it stares you in the face. Youare adopting an ostrich like approach. You are burying your head inthe quicksand of a distorted science and hoping all your problemswill be solved by a magic wand someday. Sadly that wont happen.The descartes model that you hold on to is a mechanical approach. Butman is not a mechanical entity. Man is a dynamic entity much of

whomlies beyond the senses. You concentrate on the body which is merelythe visible aspect of man. You cannot go further because yourmechanical science is sense bound. Therefore the chance of yourscience understanding man is very remote. And unless you understandman how can you ever hope to cure him?Instead of yelling at us it would be better if you catch hold of someayurvedic books and try to understand what rhe basic principles ofayurveda are. Till you do that you are unqualified to talk aboutayurveda let alone evaluate it.What I am trying to say is pure and simple common sense. You aregetting annoyed because we "unqualified people" are pointing outflaws in your science. Similarly the ayurveds also get annoyed whenyou comment on their medicines. The feeling is mutual. They do notwant to discuss their medicines with you because they fully wellrealise that you have no idea about them.And they are

right.Jagannath. "Our ideal is not the spirituality that withdraws from life but the conquest of life by the power of the spirit." - Aurobindo.

Get your email and more, right on the new .com