3

What is the validity of Ayurveda in the face of modern medicine?

The issue is that the Ayurveda texts were orally passed down for millions-billions of years from Vishnu (who orally passed it to Brahma, and so forth):

Charaka Samhita - At first, Prajapati received the Ayurveda in its entirety as recited by Brahma, from whom the Ashwins received it, and from the Ashwins, lord Indra received it fully.

So this means the knowledge of Ayurveda hasn't been "verified" or "updated" in billions of years:

This tri-aphorismic, continuing from time immemorial and virtuous knowledge which was known to Brahma first.

Humans evolve and can change biologically, diseases come and go, microbes mutate and acquire new resistances, materials and new technology offer alternative treatments that get improved over time. But since Ayurveda doesn't get updated (since it's an oral tradition), contemporary scientific inquiry into medicine is superior to Ayurveda since it's based on present-time, direct perception of facts, and it's a living tradition that gets improved over time as opposed to a static (oral) tradition.

Ayurveda was the only option in ancient times when they didn't have the concept of modern science. But now, anyone would choose direct perception of facts over an oral tradition of recollection of facts.

My question is, does Ayurveda truly contain eternally valid knowledge regarding human health and medicine? What indicators does it give to show this?

Ikshvaku
  • 22,130
  • 2
  • 39
  • 116
  • 2
    This question is really nice! Although a verse confirming its eternity would not change the accepted status. Ayurveda if eternal would not need experiment or any updates. It can however be extended. "The status called pesudo which drives people away from taking its benifit must be removed, not for scientific reasons but at least for its effect as a placebo". – Second Feb 24 '21 at 15:59
  • 1
    (not the downvoter) but according to your logic are Vedic mantras or other other Hindu mantras ineffective due to the fact that they aren't evolving with time? – Rickross Feb 25 '21 at 07:32
  • 1
    Knowledge doesn't have the need to evolve with time. Science evolves with time because science doesn't have the full knowledge yet. – Rickross Feb 25 '21 at 09:10
  • Good question! Too bad that it doesn't fit into this site's strict rules for answers not being opinion-based, which is also true. That's because the question is not asking for quoting scriptures, it is more of an analysis. Ayurveda does not contain eternal unchanging knowledge. But the methods and techniques used in it are eternal. Ayurveda is based on observation, inference and experiment. Observation of symptoms, experiments using different organic and inorganic curatives, inference based on the results of the experiments. This methodology is at the heart of every science (cont'd below) – RamAbloh Feb 27 '21 at 20:32
  • but just like the vast majority of results of science of 200 years ago is outdated today, a significant portion of Ayurveda of 2000 years ago is outdated today. There is no doubt it was the pioneer of its heyday, when it was the world leader in surgery in addition to pharmacopeia or pharmacology. But Ayurvedic doctors today don't do surgery. That itself makes Ayurveda at least 50% useless. What remains that is useful are the various lehyams (लेह्यम्), churnams (चूर्णम्), vatis (वटी), etc. that are effective in curing age-old ailments such as common cold, diarrhea, indigestion... – RamAbloh Feb 27 '21 at 20:39
  • I only use Ayurvedic medicines for such low level ailments. This is because these have been around forever, and their external symptoms have not changed. The fundamental method of Ayurveda is to observe external symptoms including pulse. Modern medicine has gone much further through the discovery of microbes and targeted treatments. Modern surgery has advanced by leaps and bounds, whereas Ayurveda has not made progress. Otherwise, Ayurvedic doctors would have come up with a vaccine for the Covid-19. – RamAbloh Feb 27 '21 at 20:46
  • @Rickross "but according to your logic are Vedic mantras or other other Hindu mantras ineffective due to the fact that they aren't evolving with time?" -- this is a fallacious argument. Vedic mantras are metaphysical in application, whereas Ayurveda is physical in application. The Atma is eternal, but the body needs proper treatment to be healthy, and treatments need to keep updating according to changing threats. – RamAbloh Feb 27 '21 at 20:55
  • @RamAbloh Doesn't ayurveda treat ailments caused by dosha imbalance? If doshas are eternal, then the knowledge in it could be eternal. Ayurveda might have other remedies for covid aside from the vaccine. – Ikshvaku Feb 28 '21 at 00:34
  • It is a fallacious argument according to you. Mantras also have "physical" applications.@RamAbloh – Rickross Feb 28 '21 at 05:40
  • @Rickross "it is a fallacious argument according to you". Ayurveda actually studies physical symptoms and prescribes physical treatments. Show me such a procedure for mantras. – RamAbloh Feb 28 '21 at 17:55
  • @Ikshvaku As I said, the methodology used in Ayurveda is valid. But because it is limited in the parameters it uses, its results are also limited. The doshas are not root causes, they are inferred internal symptoms not proven by physiological explanations. Many different diseases cause the same kind of dosha imbalance. Ayurveda in its prime time was able to deduce through experiment the treatment for symptoms. But its treatments were also limited by the limited understanding of chemistry and biochemistry before modern science. (cont'd below) – RamAbloh Feb 28 '21 at 18:14
  • Ayurvedic medicines are wholistic treatments. This is a limitation when a specific targeted treatment is needed. Ayurvedic medicines are also limited by the preparation methods, which became stagnant sometime in medieval times. – RamAbloh Feb 28 '21 at 18:19
  • 1
    I didn't mean specifically a "vaccine", but any specific treatment for Covid. Ayurvedic approach would have been to observe the symptoms of the patient. So the symptoms would show up just like for a common cold or flu - coughing, runny nose, breathing issues, etc. So how does Ayurveda distinguish Covid from common cold, without the knowledge of viruses and targeted chemical treatments to kill the virus? How would the knowledge of dosha imbalance help distinguish the same symptoms caused by a flu virus vs Covid virus? So far I haven't seen any Ayurvedic doctors come forward. – RamAbloh Feb 28 '21 at 18:23
  • Doshas are not defined specific enough, they are very vague and cannot be measured and quantified accurately. If they say you have kapha, they cannot say how much, in what units of measurement, etc. In modern medicine they can do a blood test and tell you precise measured quantities of various biochemicals, and study specific treatments targeting those biochemicals, to bring back their measurements to healthy levels. – RamAbloh Feb 28 '21 at 18:29
  • Ayurvedic medicines are good in slowly and gradually improving your overall health when there is a low-level problem, and improving your immunity, similar to eating healthy foods. It is more of a preventative approach rather than a drastic and urgent treatment for severe problems. This again reflects the less accurate and outdated parameters used in Ayurveda. – RamAbloh Feb 28 '21 at 18:33
  • @RamAbloh You also mentioned Ayurveda is based on scientific investigation. If so, how come the knowledge doesn't get updated? The texts are still stagnant. It seems to be just an oral tradition in which the knowledge is revealed by Gods. So the text would just say, "for fever, eat this herb". That's not science, that's divine revelation. – Ikshvaku Mar 02 '21 at 14:15
  • @RamAbloh Not saying Ayurveda is false, I'm saying it doesn't fit the definition of science; it is more religious than scientific. For example, the three doshas are metaphysical entities revealed by a God and are not currently visible to scientific instruments. – Ikshvaku Mar 02 '21 at 14:16
  • @RamAbloh The whole point of divine revelation is because these facts can't be detected through sensory perception (science), so someone with greater perceptual capacities; i.e. a God, has to reveal these facts. – Ikshvaku Mar 02 '21 at 14:19
  • The knowledge in Ayurveda didn't get updated the same way that the knowledge in other areas didn't get updated. For e.g. Baudhayana Shulba Sutra of 600 BCE or earlier has the knowledge of Pythagoras' triangle theorem way before Pythagoras, but the geometry in India never went too far. Advancement in science needs a constant interest and continued questioning of old knowledge. We see this questioning and updating happening in all ancient classical areas in India. We see for example, in Ashtadhyayi, Panini quoting previous teachers and sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing. (cont'd below) – RamAbloh Mar 03 '21 at 01:13
  • Similarly, in Arthashastra, Kautilya disagrees with many earlier teachers and puts forward his new ideas and results. This was seen for a period of time in all areas in India. In Ayurveda, the pinnacle of this continuous improvement is reached in Charaka, Sushruta and Vagbhata. Even among the 3, you see improvements and newer methods. After such heights were reached, a blind reverence enveloped these texts, and after these, all future Ayurveda was pretty much a summarizing exercise, with not many breakthroughs. – RamAbloh Mar 03 '21 at 01:26
  • See, the argument that Ayurveda is "metaphysical" is self-contradictory. If doshas, etc are metaphysical, then why prescribe physical medicines? All this mysticism is the very cause of stagnation. Dedicating the origin of knowledge to God was done in all areas. Panini is supposed to have received his sutras from Shiva. But he still quotes previous grammarians. Why would Shiva need to reference previous theories? He is God, so he is perfect, his knowledge should be perfect. It's because the philosophy is that God is the ultimate spiritual source of all knowledge, – RamAbloh Mar 03 '21 at 01:32
  • but the specifics are the output of human minds. For example, a temple is built by people, but they can say that God is the builder, because he is the builder of this universe. But saying so doesn't negate the fact that people actually sculpted stone and put pieces together to build it. – RamAbloh Mar 03 '21 at 01:34
  • 1
    And, to your comment that God has to reveal these facts, if God indeed actually revealed them he would do so in even more detail and accuracy, being all-knowing. Ayurveda is treating the body (strictly physical), it prescribes gross physical substances based on gross physical observations. So nothing in Ayurveda is extra-sensory. It is just matches the sensory technology and knowledge of its time. Doshas are physical. Kapha is phlegm, Vata is gas and Pitta is bile. So basically these are gross compounds made from the simpler biochemicals later discovered by modern medicine. – RamAbloh Mar 03 '21 at 01:42
  • 1
    If, as you say, God revealed Ayurveda, then it should have answers for all past and future ailments. It should have already talked about amino acids, lipids, DNA, etc. These intermediate minute details, building blocks of creation were all known to God because he created them. So why didn't he reveal these, which are more accurate, rather than vague and inaccurate "doshas"? Again, pointing back to my earlier comment, if doshas were the ultimate explanation, Ayurvedic doctors would have already had a cure for cancer, alzheimers, Parkinsons, Covid, and a host of other still incurable diseases. – RamAbloh Mar 03 '21 at 01:53
  • @RamAbloh Yeah this makes more sense. Also, is this the reason why in ancient India all knowledge was lumped together into the Vedic canon? Ayurveda is one upaveda along with gandharvaveda, dhanurveda, and sthapatyaveda. Are they called upaveda because they are based on the Veda, or because they are said to be divinely revealed? Gandharvaveda is said to be revealed by gandharvas. Even history (smritis) is lumped into the Vedic canon as "5th Veda". Was this lumping done to give the knowledge more legitimacy? – Ikshvaku Mar 03 '21 at 02:13
  • 1
    They are called 'upavedas' because they contain important knowledge like the Vedas, but they may not have eternal validity across all space and time. Gandharvaveda or Natyaveda is also a candidate for 5th Veda, but since the time of Bharatamuni's Natyashastra (i.e. Natyaveda), there have been many changes in music, dance, drama, aesthetics, etc. Similarly for Arthashastra, which has a lot of valuable knowledge, but we cannot base today's economics entirely on that text alone. Divine inspiration is true in the spiritual sense of being the ultimate origin of everything. And also for legitimacy. – RamAbloh Mar 03 '21 at 03:15
  • @RamAbloh "If God revealed Ayurveda, then it should have answers for all past and future ailments." - But here is thing. Every civilization has recorded gods coming down and teaching them how to make fire, medicine, language, farming, architecture, etc. Chinese have the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors myth, and so on with others. At that time in history, these were ground breaking revelations, so the gods only revealed what was sufficient at that time. In order to reveal cures for genetic diseases and microbial diseases, they would need to reveal modern technology. – Ikshvaku Mar 08 '21 at 12:28
  • @RamAbloh Why didn't they reveal everything that possibly exists? Probably because it's not necessary and not part of the plan. God has a plan for the progression of world history and world order. – Ikshvaku Mar 08 '21 at 12:30

1 Answers1

4

New Words, Old Concepts.

Example :
New word - hygiene/social distancing. Old concept - achara/madi
New word - plastic surgery. Old concept - Sushruta Samhita
New word - intermittent fasting. Old concept - upavaas
New word - avoid salt/spices for BP. Old concept - "ati tiksha/ushnva/lavana.." (Bhagavad Gita)
New word - meditation. Old concept - yoga/pranayama

This trend exists not only in Ayurveda, but in any field of Vedas.

New word - Atomic theory. Old concept - Parmanu (Vaisheshika)
New word - Materialism. Old concept - Lokayata/Charvaka
New word - Logic. Old concept - Tarka

Humans evolve and can change biologically, diseases come and go, microbes mutate.. Ayurveda doesn't get updated

There are infinite numbers. These numbers are all different from each other. Yet we know one simple to get to each one (just add 1 to previous number).
There are 4 yugas. Each has different situations, rules, rewards and punishments. Yet we know which Smriti to use for which Yuga.

All these so-called 'changes' are cyclic. So while it makes sense to say 'Laws change or Medicines change or People change', they only change on a relative scale, not an absolute scale.

For example, these were some of the taxonomies in Ayurveda:
bala (pediatrics), shalya, damstra (toxicology), shalakya (ENT), and kayachikitsa.

Ayurveda deals with treating Vata, Pitta, Kapha doshas which are eternal classifications of the body, in various proportions (just like Sattva, Rajas, Tamas gunas). More importantly, they deal with mental health, and the regulation of Prana to overcome physical diseases or pain (Raja Yoga). You can see youtube for videos of babas in Himalayas bare-bodied, shoe-less, rolling around snow at -10 degrees. Scriptures mention Sanjivani & Podhigai hill etc. which have herbs that can mend broken bones and possibly revive the dead.

I have personally directly seen Ayurvedic/Homeopathic medicines treat minor hormonal imbalances with perceptive, physiological (not just placebo) results within 1 month.

I have personally seen Jyotisha scholar predict a person's congenital diseases armed with nothing but their Janma Patrika. Yes, I applied the standard control trial with other Patrikas to rule out coincidences.

The only problem with Ayurveda, or any field of knowledge is it gets forgotten over time due to lack of experts who can speak/read that language - Sanskrit.

In a few hundred years, all our accumulated modern knowledge becomes out of date because none can speak/read "English". New 'scientists/inventors/discoverers' pop up who repeat the old concept in new words and win Nobel prizes. And that's OK.

ram
  • 8,076
  • 2
  • 30
  • 57
  • Thanks. Do you know if Ayurveda mentions the seven chakras and kundalini? – Ikshvaku Feb 26 '21 at 13:05
  • @Ikshvaku - kundalini, and how to physically raise through the chakras falls under Raja Yoga (or Ashtanga Yoga which has 8 steps), a separate treatise like HaTa yoga. You can read how Swami Vivekananda achieved siddhi (he could read minds) in his Complete Works. – ram Feb 26 '21 at 17:46
  • You really believe in Vivekananda? – Ikshvaku Mar 02 '21 at 14:18
  • @Ikshvaku - 100% believe his claims. his view of vedanta, close but not fully. – ram Mar 06 '21 at 00:22
  • Oh ok, I thought you didn't believe him. – Ikshvaku Mar 06 '21 at 13:50
  • @Ikshvaku - almost nothing in life is binary 0/1.. what he says is 95% common with what all acharyas say, so not believing him on those things is same as not believing our own acharyas. – ram Mar 07 '21 at 00:26
  • Ok I see, but what about his other stances like anti-caste, anti-brahmin, rejection of most of puranas and smritis, dharmashastras, etc? – Ikshvaku Mar 07 '21 at 00:30
  • 1
    @Ikshvaku - when a pendulum swings too far left, it can only be brought to center by swinging it too far right. In his time, people were stressing a lot on karma bhaga instead of jnana bhaga. This is not that different from your viewpoint that Mimsakas deny that Vedas talk about ephemeral deities to establish apaurusheyatvam i.e. Arthavada. He was not anti-brahmin. His guru Ramakrishna was brahmin. He was anti brahmin-monopoly. He doesn't reject smriti/dharma-shastras. He only rejects them if they're in conflict with Vedas (his definition of conflict notwithstanding). – ram Mar 07 '21 at 00:37
  • 1
    @Ikshvaku - and i still do not agree with many of his views. But his audience is different, hence his message is different. – ram Mar 07 '21 at 00:38
  • Ok, that's a fair stance. – Ikshvaku Mar 07 '21 at 00:38