Ayurveda genesis?

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr.D.B.Muzumdar

I am just trying to understand this… Can you speculate on why the

graha chikitsa consisted of just Jyotish and Mantras… I can't seem to

see the reasoning behind grouping these two together?

 

Also I was wondering why you said that religion was non-existent in

those periods. Is it not told that the Rishis perceived the Vedas

directly from God? Maybe our definition of the word " religion " is

different. One of my passions and goals is to cross reference two

sets of work. {The Sacred books of the east} by Max Muller and his

colleague's, and the {Srimad Bhagavatam} by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

Prabhupada to get two different perspectives. Sometimes I think it

would just be easer for me to learn Sanskrit and go right to the

source…. Anyway I was under the impression that religion goes as far

back as man.

 

I know this subject is quite always from Ayurveda but I would be

interested in your thoughts on this… Thanks …Noel…

 

PS… I thank you for your respect of my age…this has been lost in my

society... It is very sad but true… Since I believe in divine

orchestration, I must believe that there is a divine reason for this

that I cannot see…

 

 

ayurveda , muzumdar <dahpc wrote:

>

> Dear Noel,

> I feel that your interest in Ayurveda is really deep-rooted.

<snip>

[Guest guest]

scuse me for butting in noel, but graha chikitsa is more complex than

that, and probably differs depending on local regional practices

i would think that this particular aspect of ayurveda is weak among

college trained physicians (given the nature of the subject, and how

it could be taught in an academic environment), but traditional

vaidyas borrow from a vast tradition that is integrated within the

sanatana dharma:

 

all in all, graha chikitsa can be broken down in to 5 components:

 

1. sound therapy (mantra chikitsa)

2. figure therapy (rupa chikitsa)

3. odor therapy (gandha chikitsa)

4. taste therapy (rasa chikitsa)

5. contact therapy (sparsha chikitsa)

 

these are used to treat afflictions of bhutas and grahas and

combinations thereof with vata disturbances

 

best... todd

 

> Posted by: " Noel Gilbert " noel_glbrt noel_glbrt

> I am just trying to understand this… Can you speculate on why the

> graha chikitsa consisted of just Jyotish and Mantras… I can't seem to

> see the reasoning behind grouping these two together?

Caldecott

todd

www.toddcaldecott.com

[Guest guest]

Dear Noel,

I got your point about Interpretation of Religion. I need to clarify this more.

Whenever Ayurveda has referred to DHARMA, the context is of fulfilling one's own

duties, obligations and responsibilities towards one's own self, his kith and

kin, his occupation/ source of livelyhood, his king and his society/country with

reference to good morals and behaviour. For example, the dharma of a student was

to do his studies properly, respect his Guru and use his knowledge for the

betterment of his family-clan-society-country in a rightful manner. So also the

dharma of Vaidya was to treat a person in pain-distress, have respect and

lustless approach towards female patients and have high sense of

alertness-responsibility-morality-compassion towards his patients and so on and

so forth.

Religion, the loose translation of DHARMA ,was not what it is percieved today as

Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism etc. In this sense had I quoted that

there was no religion in the Vedic times.

I think this should clear the issue. Regrets, this is the problem in translating

the Sanskrit text where the essence of meaning slips/diverts from its original

concept.

 

Dr.D.B.Muzumdar

M.D.Ayu-Med

< dahpc >

 

<snip> Also I was wondering why you said that religion was non-existent in

those periods. Is it not told that the Rishis perceived the Vedas

directly from God? Maybe our definition of the word " religion " is

different. <snip>

[Guest guest]

--- Noel Gilbert <noel_glbrt wrote:

<snip> Also I was wondering why you said that religion was

> non-existent in

> those periods. Is it not told that the Rishis

> perceived the Vedas

> directly from God? Maybe our definition of the word

> " religion " is

> different.

 

 

 

Vedas are not really religious books

they are books that could be called user mauals for

life.

I have found that ISKoN publications are not really

direct translations, but are more swayed to word

bhakti vedanta and would suggest you look for a

translation by some one else.

Bhagavatham is amazing - is a very symbolic

explanation of life on earth.

My husband has just completed a very beautiful series

on bhagavatham and its hidden mysteries

It tells about the emergence of humanity, man's

relation to plants and all other living things.

He has done a great job of understanding it and then

explaining it in very simple language so that its

secrets are accessable to all irregardless of

religion.

Rishis were not Hindu also, they would not be Rishis

if they were.

Those at the highest point of evolution see all as one

and at that stage religion becomes irrelevant.