Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Is Ayurveda scientific? Scientific Method contd...


ఆలోపతి-ఆయుర్వేదం


అలోపతి-ఆయుర్వేద వైద్యరంగాలలోనూ ఇటువంటి విచక్షణే చేయవలసి ఉంది. అనుభవం, పరిశీలన ఆధారంగా ఆయుర్వేదం అనేక ప్రాపంచిక విషయాలను చిలికించింది. జ్యోతిష్యం లాగ కాక ఆయుర్వేదంలో రోగ నిర్ణయానికీ, చికిత్సకూ సంబంధించి విజ్ఞాన సిద్ధాంతాన్ని ఏర్పరచడానికీ వీలుగా ఆధారం ఉంది. అయితే ఆయుర్వేదం ఇంకా విజ్ఞాన సిద్ధాంతంగా పెంపొందలేదు. వాత, పిత్త, కఫం అనే ప్రతిపాదనలుగానీ, రస, కామ, రక్త, మాంస, మేధ, అస్తి, మజ్జ, శుక్ర అనే ఏడు సారాంశాల విషయంగానీ, ఆధునిక శారీరక శాస్త్రం కనుక్కొన్న వాటితో సరిపోవడం లేదు. ఈ విధంగా ప్రత్యక్షంగా వ్యవస్థాపితమైన జ్ఞానంతో పొందికగా లేకపోవడం వల్ల ఆధునిక విజ్ఞానానికి ఆయుర్వేదం ఆమోద యోగ్యం కాదు.

ఆయుర్వేదానికి భిన్నంగా ఆలోపతి సిద్ధాంతం ప్రత్యక్షపరిశీలనపై ఆధారపడి ఉంది. మానవుని శరీరంలో ఏది ఎలా పనిచేస్తుందో గమనించారు. ఇది ఒకవేళ అసంపూర్తిగా ఉన్నప్పటికీ ప్రశ్నించటానికి వీలులేని వాస్తవాల నాధారం చేసుకొని గట్టి ప్రాతిపదికలు చేసింది. ఆధునిక వైద్య శాస్త్రంలో కొన్ని రోగాలకు మాత్రమే నిర్దిష్టంగా చికిత్సలు కనుక్కొన్నారు. కాని రోగ నిర్ణయం మాత్రం తిరుగులేనిది. కాన్సర్ (పుట్టుకురుపు) ఎలా పెంపొందుతుందో, దీనిని ఎలా నయం చేయాలో ఇంకా తెలియదు. తొలిదశలో కనుక్కొంటే మాత్రం నయం చేయగలుగుతున్నారు. మధుమేహం, చలిజ్వరం, ప్లేగు, సన్నిపాతజ్వరం, కలరా, రక్తపుష్ఠి లేకపోవటం, నంజువ్యాధి, ఎముకలు సరిగ్గా ఎదగకపోవటం ఇత్యాదుల విషయంలో వివరాలతో సహా రోగనిర్ణయం తెలుసు. వీటిలో కొన్నిటికి ఆయుర్వేదం చికిత్స చేసి ఫలితాలు సాధిస్తున్నది. అయితే ఈ రోగాలకు చెప్పే కారణాలు, ఎలా నయమవుతున్నాయో వివరించే విధానం కృత్రిమంగానూ, దోష పూరితంగానూ ఉన్నాయి.

3 comments:

తాడేపల్లి లలితాబాలసుబ్రహ్మణ్యం said...

Dear Sir,

i can not help expressing my displeasure over this unscientific series of posts, the apparent aim of which is to cast aspersions on whatever traditional method you despise. it is not as much of the untruth or partial truth of what you say, as your insensitivity and lack of sympathy or appreciation for certain things that baffles me. Let me say what you have left unsaid.

THE NAKED TRUTHS ABOUT ALLOPATHY :

1. Allopathy's crowning glory rests chiefly on two things and nothing else. One is anti-biotic drugs and the other, surgical intervention. Both these are the most recent additions which were not crafted to perfection until about half a century ago.

2. The other claim of allopathy-namely modern diagnostic methods including x-rays and scanning-is mostly a case of serendipity in other areas of research which allopathy could take advantage of in a timely fashion. Apart from these accidentally discovered tools of extremely recent origin, traditionally allopathy had no known diagnostic method whatsoever.

3. Till date, allopathy has no permanent cure in for any killer disease like asthma, diabetes, hypertension, epilepsy, cancer, gastric trouble, migraine, issuelessness etc. All it can offer is some temporary relief for these diseases. Even allopathic surgery proves to be just a temporary relief in these areas.

4. Allopathy should be credited with inaugurating a new department of diseases called IATROGENICS. These are the very special and brand-new diseases brought about by the process of allopathic treatment and its side-effects.

5. You accuse Ayurveda of lacking a proper theory for treating diseases. This accusation does not apply to Ayurveda as aptly as it does to allopathy. Allopathy has never tried to go into the root cause of illness. It has been always satisfying itself and the patients with temporary make-do methods on a regular basis, whereas Ayurveda clearly came out with the finding that "Whatever man takes in will manifest as health or disease in him."

6. Untill recently, allopathy had no diet theory. Allopathic doctors were completely nonchalant about what their patients ate during the treatment. They used to flatly dismiss the effect of food on health. With the rampant spread of diabetes and cardiac complaints, recently they have started paying attention to this vital aspect of treatment. This feature is clearly copied from Ayurveda, Unani and Homoeopathy.

Even at that, allopathy is having teething troubles. Allopathic doctors are new-comers in this field and mistake the fats available in raw foods as dangerous to health, while the traditional medicine maintains that pure and refined fat extracts cause harm unlike those in raw foods.

6. Thus the standard method of alopathy has been to initially dismiss every threory unknown to it and then copy it later when it is found useful. Thus it grew at the expense of other medical disciplines. Currently they deny the Ayurvedic theory of "fluctuating heat" in human beings, because they mistake it for commonplace body temperature. But they will make it their own once they found it useful, but continue to claim that other medical disciplines are all wrong.

7. Different sciences owe their growth not as much to their intrinsic worth as to favourable social developments and state patronage. Fossil fuel was known long before automobles were invented. But it was the discovery of its implications for the mass transport sector that made extensive research on the same possible. Otherwise, people would have been left content with using it just for cooking or arson.

Similarly, institutes like CTRI (Rajahmundry) came into being during the heydays of world-wide smoking. Now with a ban tobacco in many countries and a consequent drop in its exports, they are confronted with the question of relevance in spite of proven medical properties of tobacco.

It should not be forgotten that allopathy is the science of victors and the rest belong to the vanquished. Naturally, the former received high-level state patronage for a couple of centuries and while latter struggled for minimum survival. Consequently, allopathy which was originally in no way better than the rest before the European colonialism, was subsequently able to improve itself with fresh research inputs from all the countries under the sway of the while man. Homoeopathy, though originated in a European country had to suffer too because that country was not a colonial power.

The so-called modern outlook in the light of which you choose to belittle traditional scineces, is only the outlook of Western whites. It is the way they chose to perceive the world. But in the name of scinetificity, nobody has the right to demand that every human being on the globe should conform ot subscribe to it in every matter, for that is not the only angle to knowledge. Truth is one, but actualities are many. If actualities are many, approaches are as many too. People are free to develop their own philosophy of science. I see nothing wrong in it.

innaiah said...

Prof A B Shah who wrote the series did not deny ayurveda totally. He says that ayurveda embodies a number of empirical findings culled from experience and observation.He says that it provides raw material for a scientific theory of diagnosis and cure the disease.That is what the government ayurveda research institutions are claiming to do now to attain the statue of Scientific medicine.
What Prof Shah questioned is three humors and seven essences which are not compatible with physiology.
Deviprasad Chatopadhyaya in his SCIENCE AND SOCIETY studied the ancient ayurveda research.He said that orthodox hindus denied ayurveda and did not allow to dissect the body to study the anatomy. The Ayurveda pandits had to seek the help of poor people during nights to get the dead bodies so that they could secretly dissect the bodies and study anatomy.
He also pointed out how Ayurveda exhibited the useful ness of Cow meat, and 20 other cow items , which the orthodox hindus did not allow to proceed with. Only later they claimed cow as pious.
Even ayurveda also was accepted only later where as earlier hindus condemned it !
It is necessary to comment cautiously without sweeping remarks. Our beliefs and sentiments are different from Scientific study.
There is no sentimental attachment to allopathy from scientific point of view. It is constantly scrutinised, observed, criticised, corrected and improved. That self correction is essential part of scientific method.

తాడేపల్లి లలితాబాలసుబ్రహ్మణ్యం said...

Innaiah Garu,

The idea that every concept should lend itself to empircal study or physical verification is a dogma. This is what I called by the name of Goobhyaalochana (compartmentalized thinking).

No doubt, a physical concept certainly contributes to our understanding of a phenomenon. But that method will be a non-starter if the real and life-size picture of the concept inquestion goes deeper and well beyond what is physically manifest.

A concept is the sum total of many phenomena. It can be understood only in its totality , but not in bits and pieces, as being attempted to by the zealots of allopathy with regard to three humours and seven essences. Otherwise, it will turn out to be something like an attempt to find out life in a living person by ripping him apart.

Illness is not simply an outward phenomenon or a physical oddity or a purely pathological question, answer to which can be found locally in the patient's body itself. Vaatha, Pittha and Kapha are three standard reflexes of the body to the external forces of wind, matter and water. They can be understood only by watching how the body fails to respond to these forces adequately. The practice of putting everything under the big lens works out best for allopathic doctrines, but not to everything else in the world.

The said gentleman, Sri Deviprasad Chattopadhyay is a well-known leftist and well-read man. But his one and only mission of life is to shatter every matter of heritage value to pieces. No wonder, he commands no respect or credibility among our patriots.

Even if Ayurveda is not as resourceful as being claimed by its apologists, there is a need to develop it on such lines with improved reasearch facilities and liberal monetary encouragement.. After all it is our own precious heritage. It is the symbol of our originality. In this regard, we should take a cue from the Communist China which treats both allopathy and indigenous systems of medicine on equal footing.

Mere science has no appeal for me. I want science with dignity, yes, dignity at the international level.