Asathoma sadh gamaya
Thamasoma jothir gamaya
Mruthyorma amrutham gamay
Let the light of knowledge surround us and illuminate us, guide us, piercing the dark.
Good evening friends, it feels great to meet all of you, and I am really thankful to the prithvi community of friends, who in an informal way have been succesfully organising prabodhan for some years now. It feels good to be associated with good people. I thank them for the opportunity.
I stand before the sadhas, as a life long learner and a simple practitioner of ayurveda. I hail from a traditional family of siddha vaidyas, who are famous in our locality, I completed b.a.m.s in 2009, myself and my wife dr.manasa are running a small clinic at a semi urban town in southern tamilnadu.
I am here to share my experiences and understandings on ayurveda. My college was a three storeyed single block, which housed 4 colleges! Ayurveda, siddha, homeopathy and a polytechnic. And in one of the very first introductory sessions one of our lecturer warmly welcomed ‘welcome to the museum..whatever you read, learn is all history, which has very minimal relevance to your life and future’ I was shocked. What am I doing here?
And all these years we have been taught the atmosphere is composed of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen. Human body consists of 206 bones, there is blood, lymph, muscles, brain, spine, heart, lungs in it. That’s what science is all about, that’s how we have been taught. Suddenly you are being told that this universe or prapancham is composed of 5 mahabhutas. And you have thri doshas, 7 dhatus in your body. I was bewildered, confused.
My dear friends, most of us would have faced a similar situation. The difference lies in what we choose to become, one of the statistics put down by dagmar wujastyk claims that 70% of ayurvedic graduates work in non ayurvedic fields, either as allopathic doctors in nursing homes, or in medical coding, medical billing, medical transcription or they remain unemployed. 20% doctors are employed in ayurvedic field, institutions, pharma, spas etc. and there is a meagre 10% who get into practice. The distribution of ayurvedic practice is also not even. Todays ayurvedic practice is urban centric.
When you have a conflict between science and ayurveda, the conditioned mind mostly chooses rational science over abstract ayurveda, and our sub conscious mind dismisses ayurveda, and there is a question of survival too, they form the bulk of 70 %. there is the othere extreme, who totally shun anything modern and vouch for suddha ayurveda. And there is another category, who are in constant dialemma and in confusion, before they take a decision the 5 and a half years would have elapsed in a whisker of time. He comes out neither as an expert in ayurveda nor as a skilled allopath, You think yourself as a doctor and the society doesn’t think so. You will be disillusioned with clinical practice, by the time you come out of internship you will come to know that you can never become a cardiac or a neuro surgeon you have known. On the other hand you will find the quacks showing up in tv, blabbering something and charging heftily right before your nose. You will come to know or atleast meet one foreigner who has great interest in ayurveda. Somedays you will be sitting lonely in your clinic, and on that day you will have 20 different ayurvedic pharma company representatives, explaining the same formulation for liver, acidity, joint pain, piles etc under different patent names. You hear and feel pity for students who stand in que with 10 lakhs outside ayurvedic colleges to get admission. And you have friends who pay 10-15 lakhs for a postgraduate seat, though you very well know that in pg also we are being exposed to the same u.g material. So the entire ayurvedic spectrum is flourishing, but not me!
Hope I am not sounding too negative, but this is the reality. here the search began for me.. Dear friends , according to me the true quest for ayurveda begins outside college, at a crisis point, when you face the patients, when a patient trusts you, trusts the system, and you are in a pressure to either perform or perish. And I started reading the texts, started observing things, thought over them. And tried certain things, sometimes they clicked sometimes not. I I slowly started understanding what ayurveda is, , and I am here on the verge of a tradition, a culture which is one of the oldest organised system of medicine, which has understood the wellbeing and disease and has fought the diseases of not just mankind, animals and plants, which has strived for restoring balance. I am indebted to this tradition, so is every human living in the indian sub continent, the mere fact we have survived all these years is a living proof of the efficacy of ayurveda, the native innate intelligence. And I realise, I have to keep this fire alive, and submit myself humbly to the divine intelligence to pass through me. at this moment thanking my lecturer for the disillusionment..yes ayurveda is a history, but it is a living tradition too.
Ayurvedic ithihas is one of the boring subjects, you need to remember all the dates and datas which are irrelevant to ayurvedic therapy or practice or Atleast we think so. To understand what we can do, we have to know where we began with, what we have done. Interpreting the history we can have some key understandings.
When one of my writer friend in tamil told that there is scanty evidence for ayurvedic medicine when compared to allopathy, I sent him a detailed reply. And that stirred the process of writing a book on ayurveda. For that purpose I started reading and collected material. And I havent yet completed the process. In this session, I am trying to share the ideas I have gathered.
It is popularly believed or told that ayurveda is holistic system. Allopathy is reductionistic. The idea of holism means, understanding the functioning of our body in total, treating in total. The superspecialities are springing up, there is a popular joke, where soon you are going to have seperarate specialists for each eye. This approach is what we call as reductionism. These ideas are not new to us, the brahma vadha of vedanta, the all encomprising brahman is in a way can be understood as holism, breaking down in to anoos and paramanus the search for the basic element is reductionism, vaiseshikam is a classical example. In my understanding ayurveda is neither completely holistic, nor it denies reductionistic approach. Actually our ancestors were more pragmatic, more broad minded and accomodative then most of us. I would rather say ayurveda is inclusive and pluralistic. We donot forsake the symptomatic approach. Remember the ganas, vedhana asthapana, kandugnam etc. remember the yogas told in classical texts. Sa dhaha jwaram- give shadanga paniyam.
Historians opine that charaka samhitha took nearly four centuries to attain the current form. The sushrutha samhitha which we currently read has variable reading in almost every line. Look at the names charaka, sushrutha, the meanings convey something to us. Also look at vyas and valmiki. Charaka means one who walks profusely, may be a man who has travelled extensively. Sushrutha, one of the interpretation is one who has good knowledge, one who has listend and learned well. Valmiki, Like the mites which gather material and construct the structure collectively, classical metaphor for a compiler. Vyas, one who edits and compiles. The word samhitha itself denotes a compilation. Interestingly the word sangraham- means integration. Why vaghbhattas text is regarded as the most important work is because it integrates both the samhithas. In the process, few portions are lost, and few are updated, charkas philosophical outlook takes a back seat and sushrutha’s pragamticism gains prominence.
What is the fundamental criteria for science? In which there is a logical system explaining the phenomenon, and constantly improves, transforms updates and moves ahead. Is there any real conflicting point between science and ayurveda? I don’t think so. The idea that ayurveda is static is a colonial mindset. Infact ayurveda is so dynamic and inclusive. Evidence based practice is the approach of modern conventional medicine, where as the approach of ayurveda is practice based evidence. From an apex, knowledge and evidence is created and dispensed to a wider people in allopathy. Where as in ayurveda the ancient acharyas have meticulously documented from folk and tribal medicine. They have created a logic system of pancha mahabhuthas, tri doshas, gunas etc. whatever fits in the logic framework and has produced result have been documented and thus classical indian medicine is born! Another contrasting facet that has to be pointed out, unlike the allopathic system which rejects outwrightly those that doesn’t fit in to its logic system, ayurveda doesn’t do so. Allopathy rejects ayurveda because it doesn’t fit into its logic system. If they have seen the result, and if it doesn’t fit into the logic system, it doesn’t reject that. It documents that also. Classical examples of this phenomenon is complex yogas and the concept of prabhavam. So the basic mantra is “whatever works”
There is a pattern in the evolution of medicine. At one point of time the concept of harmony formed the basis of medicine. Be it our own vatha, pitha, kapha or the chinese concept of yin yanga, or the 4 humor theory of hippocrates. Colonilaism didn’t inhibhit china, even today the basic concepts of traditional chinese medicine are taught along with allopathy in china. Today traditional chinese medicine is the largest alternate medicine sector. Science and history go in parallel, they have roots in philosophical trends. The modern medicine is a product of industrialisation. The fundamental principles that guide it are derived from the same. This will evolve and change as the society drifts. Ayurveda is human’s concrete effort, and through this effort he has tried to create a knowledge to overcome the disease, to have a sukhayu, hithayu, dheergayu, and to attain enlightment. In the broadest sense allopathy is not an antagonist force that has to be fought against. Indeed it is an extension of mankind’s struggle against disease. All the criticisms made against the modern medicine is of the same as that of industrialization, and consumerism. Now, the counter culture which antagonised these forces also become a part of consumerism. The wellness industry is booming, look at the nonis and aloes. There is detergent soap and toilet cleaner labelled as ayurvedic. Anything ayurvedic sells. The ayurveda which is taken to the west is distorted, fragmented and reduced. The package today is ayurveda + tantra + yoga.
Have you ever thought why yoga is not mentioned as a part of ayurveda? There is a reference of naishtiki chikitsa in charaka, which is very close to the ideas of pathanjali yoga sutra. Other than that, the idea of kundalini, nadi etc are incorporated at the time of sharangadhara in 13th – 14th century. Traces of such integration begins with the period of chakradhatta. Remember the first slokas in charaka, when the sages who immersed themselves in the tapas for the attainment of mukthi were hampered with diseases, they asked indra to teach them ayurveda. The idea that human body is important sadhana for attainment of moksha forms the basis of tantra. The word tantra itself means body. Ayurveda must have had its connection with the tantric system. The tantric rituals derive themselves from tribal or shamanic ideals. Ashtanga yoga, which includes pranayama and asana is very well a part of tantra. Tantrics live a secluded life, yoga and some rituals, mantras are part of it. The idea that ayurveda is a upaveda of atharva veda isitself a clear evidence of its tantric connections. Yogis munis and siddhas live a secluded life. Sushruta samhitha’s patriarchial figure is kasiraja divodasa. And almost all the prominent ayurvedic physicians were court physicians and scholars in the kings assembley. At some point of time the ancient medicine underwent suitable modifications to suit the masses. It was patronized by kings. The tantric system existed seperately. There were buddha anda jaina tantrics apart from shaiva and vaishnava tantrics. Buddhic tantrism played an important role in evolution of rasa shastra. Hope you all remember nagarjuna. The aim of yoga and rasa shastra are therapeutic, they aimed at moksha. You can find the beneficial effects of asana listed in hatha yoga pradipika but we have references on vyayama in dinacharya. we donot have indications of doing asanas and pranayamas in the diseased conditions. Rasa shastra is essentially a part of tantric sysytem. Among the 18 siddhars who are considered to be the originator of siddha medicine, rarely we find court physicians. Mostly they are sadhakas and wanderers who lived an isolated life. The lineage of siddha medicine is as old as ayurveda. Rather they had been twin sides of a single coin. The conslolidation as a separate system of medicine though came much later, probably by 16-17th century. Naadi pariksha is an essential part of siddha medicine. We hardly find enough literature on naadi in ayurvedic texts. alchemy was a pan world phenomenon, butnowhere there was so much therapeutic manipulation.
The current ayurveda which we have learnt from institutions is shaped up by following 3 criterias. (1) British colonialism and the dominance of allopathic medicine, (2) the pressures of modernization, and (3) Ayurveda’s diaspora into the world beyond the boundaries of South Asia. Of these the most important aspect is the role of colonial rule. There is a famous quote of McCaulay “I don’t know sanskrit or any of the indian languages, but I am sure that all that is written in indian literature doesn’t equal a single book in my library” ignorance coupled with arrogance is a dreadful combination. McCaulay framed education for the british India and it continues so. This colonial attitude created some serious problems for us. Our knowledge system and knowledge transfer tradition was completely collapased by the time they left us. India reacted in two ways to the colonialism, either they accepted that we have a bad tradition and the western ideals are superior and the native ideas are inferior. The other response is constructing a golden past, an unmistakeable tradition, a sense of superiority. My friends, both the inferiority and the superiority of our tradition are the products of colonialism. The same phenomenon has happened in ayurveda too. Compare the 70-20-10 ratio I have told regarding the ayurvedic practice. Backdoor entry into allopathy or integrated ayurveda or suddha ayurveda. Once we take a stand that all that has been said is static then we become stagnant, history gives us only two options either progress or perish. As I have told previously, ayurveda is the medicine compiled from grassroot , slowly it climbs the ladder of classical medicine. Ayurveda is the grassroot medicine, medicine of the mass, people’s medicine, there are several layers, hakkims, village vaidyas, tribal doctors, the midwife. Interestingly, in the classical ayurveda there is no reference of female vaidyas, where as in the midwife and tribal we have references. Atleast in this aspect, we must be thankful to the democritization and institionalisation of ayurveda, we don’t have gender bias. Colonialism wiped out the confidence. We could observe a trend, in the 60s and 70s allopathy occupied the position of medicine of the elite. It was the indigenous system which remained people’s medicine. Every village had its own vaidya, but the tradition broke, the vaidyas didn’t enjoy patronage they lost social respect. They didn’t want there children and grand children to proceed and in another twenty years trend changed. Slowly allopathy occupied the position of people’s medicine. It had support from the state. In the post globalisation era, like many others ayurveda also reached far off lands. And now again ayurveda is coming back to us, it is no more a people’s medicine. Ayurveda is the medicine of elite today. the charges are skyrocketing.
I think I have briefly elaborated on some aspects of ayurveda. Hope I was not boring, if you felt so please excuse me. I don’t claim all my observations are authentic, but atleast I am sure that this will stir up a thoght process in you. One point I would like to make strongly is, suddha ayurveda is a myth. You cannot categorize like that. At one point of time when we lost one of our senior to this suddha ayurveda ideology, I came to this point. No other sysytem gives so much importance to patients. Ayurveda is so patient centric and subjective. When the current modern medicine wants to have an impersonal doctor – patient relationship, our charaka advocates to treat the patients as you treat your own children. I was always awestruck at the compassion. This oneline conveys somany things, and the responsibility of a physician is ultimate. We have to think over, what we have to do? With an open mind let us introspect. It is an urgent call my dear friends. Ayurveda must not drift from common man.
“sarve jana santu niramaya!”
Thank you.
-suki