knowledge of ayurveda.

[Guest guest]

i want to know why there is need of central council of ayurveda if

there are unqualified sadhu, sant, sanyasies and swamies can treat all

diseases without having proper knowledge & degree of ayurveda.

[Guest guest]

That's a tough question… There are crooks in every type of business…

licensing is at least a way of cutting down on this, but nothing is a

sure fire system… The best way to judge anyone is there reputation…

 

When I was in school there was a lot of talk about licensing of

Ayurveda is the United States… getting grandfathered in if it ever

came about… A good friend of mine said something that made a lot of

sense to me… He said that the government in my lifetime would never

license Ayurveda. He proceeded to say that when he went to school at

Palmer College for Chiropractics there were only two Colleges as such

in the US and there was three students talking about opening another

credited College. To this day there is still only the two… The thing

here is that the government does not what anything to interfere with

the cash flow of the pharmaceutical companies… It has been said that

for everyone who is dying of cancer there is three people making a

living… sad but true… if cancer all the sudden just disappeared the

whole world go financially bankrupt and there would be more suffering

then the cancer it self causes…

 

Sorry! I kind of got of topic here… if would be good if there was a

central council as you put it if for no other reason for the exchange

knowledge… just my two cents …Noel…

[Guest guest]

ayurveda , " drashwani_ayur "

<drashwani_ayur wrote:

>

> i want to know why there is need of central council of ayurveda if

> there are unqualified sadhu, sant, sanyasies and swamies can treat

all

> diseases without having proper knowledge & degree of ayurveda.

 

dear dr ashwani ayur

 

Unqualified sadhus, sant and sanyasies can treat several diseases

without proper(?) knowledge and degrees of ayurveda because they

learnt ayurveda from mother nature, in the same school where charaka,

sushruta, vagbhata, bhavmishra etc learnt. did these ayur celebrities

have proper knowledge or degrees of universities?

 

Sadhus and sanyasis understand not only physical but etherial

(energy) bodies in addition to mind and spirit. In 90% diseases, it

is adequate to treat mind alone first and no drug is needed. But

common patient trusts the cure only if some medicine is given to

ingest or apply. What sadhu gives is 50% of the time placebo only,

that works and cures. How many qualified drs will keep shop open if

they are told to offer only " no medicine " cures? or cures which will

not cost beyond Rs 100/- a month?

 

were there chemistry labs with Charaka, sushruta etc? Most of the

knowledge given by ancient sage is derived by understanding nature on

higher level, not on the level of chemicals such as flavonoids etc!

 

If we start studying nature in the same manners as sadhus, same

knowledge mother nature gives to all, including qualified doctors.

And why sadhus and sants should not be eliminated from the scene, the

reasons are given at:

 

http://health.ayurveda/message/6976

 

Please join some Gurukulam in Uttaranchal (e.g. Kangdi, Kankhal) for

few weeks and take a glimpse at ayurveda in its glorious colors

first. To speak your own language, sadhus and sants in thatched huts

are needed to help poor patients cure some difficult diseases with

most inexpensive or free medicines such as air, oxygen, green grass,

water etc. Those who have abundant resources can of course visit

ayurvedic qualified doctors in cities and repay debts incured in last

birth.

[Guest guest]

> Unqualified sadhus, sant and sanyasies can treat several diseases

> without proper(?) knowledge and degrees of ayurveda because they

> learnt ayurveda from mother nature, in the same school where

charaka, sushruta, vagbhata, bhavmishra etc learnt. did these ayur

celebrities have proper knowledge or degrees of universities?

 

Your question can be interpreted in 2 ways. One that Charak, Sushrut,

Vaghbhat, Bhavmishra did not have proper knowledge. This would be

preposterous to suggest. So I think what you mean to ask is whether

these people had proper training. The answer is yes. Unfortunately

none of the people you have mentioned simply woke up one morning and

declared that they were experts in their field. Proper training

schedule (much rigorous than today's universities) was the norm in

those days, and the criteria of who could train and who could not was

very stringent. Infact if we were to apply those criteria today 99.99

person claimimg to know ayurveda would be disqualified (including me,

I must admit :-> ). As to whether they had degrees as we know them

today, indeed they had degrees as they were awarded in those days,

acharya being one of them. Those who think registration of doctors

(or medical field) is a recent phenomenon, please be reminded that if

you practised medicine without the King's permission (which is akin

to today's government), the only punishment was death. There was no

method to go in appeal and remain on the death row for years. This

explains why the quality of medical education and medical practise

was so high in those days.

 

> Sadhus and sanyasis understand not only physical but etherial

> (energy) bodies in addition to mind and spirit. In 90% diseases, it

> is adequate to treat mind alone first and no drug is needed. But

> common patient trusts the cure only if some medicine is given to

> ingest or apply. What sadhu gives is 50% of the time placebo only,

> that works and cures. How many qualified drs will keep shop open if

> they are told to offer only " no medicine " cures? or cures which will

> not cost beyond Rs 100/- a month?

 

The day inflation comes to the point that a family of four can

subside on Rs.400/- a month, I would be happy to offer cures that do

not cost Rs.100/- a month. Please don't confuse price of medicines

with the issue of the neccesity of having proper training.

I may not be an expert on this, but sadhu and sants don't qualify to

know about the ethereal world. These people are called " Rishis " .

Being a sadhu or sant can be a step towards being a rishi. And to be

a rishi you need years and years of training and sadhana.

 

> were there chemistry labs with Charaka, sushruta etc? Most of the

> knowledge given by ancient sage is derived by understanding nature

on higher level, not on the level of chemicals such as flavonoids etc!

 

There were not because the science of chemistry as we know it today

did not exist. I am pretty sure that Charak, Sushrut etc. would be

the first to incorporate this knowledge if they were around today.

Only things is that they would not have accepted them in their

entirety, but would have modified them in a way that would give

better results. In fact the ayurveda we know today is a culmination

of the best of the knowledge that was available in various fields of

knowledge that existed in those days.

 

 

> If we start studying nature in the same manners as sadhus, same

> knowledge mother nature gives to all, including qualified doctors.

> And why sadhus and sants should not be eliminated from the scene,

the reasons are given at:

> http://health.ayurveda/message/6976

 

Sorry to contradict, but this message in no way endorses sadhus and

sants, but mentions the valid fear that rampant modernisation would

rob ayurveda of its soul. A sadhu is a " good person " , so any one can

be a sadhu. Being a sadhu is not a license to do anything and

everything. Similarly a sant is one who " always does, thinks and acts

good or what is right " . This is a bit difficult and hence evryone

cannot be a sant. But again being a sant does not mean that that the

person becomes a " jack of all trades " .

 

> Please join some Gurukulam in Uttaranchal (e.g. Kangdi, Kankhal) for

> few weeks and take a glimpse at ayurveda in its glorious colors

> first. To speak your own language, sadhus and sants in thatched huts

> are needed to help poor patients cure some difficult diseases with

> most inexpensive or free medicines such as air, oxygen, green grass,

> water etc. Those who have abundant resources can of course visit

> ayurvedic qualified doctors in cities and repay debts incured in

last birth.

 

I have no problem with the join Gurukulam bit, but the last sentence

is a uncalled for remark on qualified doctors in cities. I can write

a solid rejoinder, but such remarks are best ignored.

 

Vd. Selex M. Shirodkar

http://www.geocities.com/selexms/