Ayurveda losing authenticity

AYURVEDA LOSING THE AUTHENTICITY Prof. Dr K Sasidharan Currently we too have become the part of a system which is designed by the west and at the same time we live in a nostalgia owing to the torchbearers of the biggest cultural traditions of the world. Naturally this puts much pressure on Ayurveda in India which have been moving on the path of traditional teaching and practice in the society. India’s traditional medical curricula focus too much on lectures and memorization. Theoretical interpolation is much evident in the classical systems like Ayurveda where the description of diseases and its management encompass multifactorial dimensions and there exists variations among countries in medical education due to differences in teaching tradition, culture, socio-economic conditions, the health and disease spectrum etc..After independence, political systems, technology and education , have undergone profound changes adapting the so called modernism. In fact the policymakers were not well-informed of, in evolving specific strategies in planning, implementing and evaluating the programs in Ayurveda as these systems feature different approaches in theory , practice and learning process fundamentally. Ayurveda has a unique self designed axiomatic framework as its foundation. Number of specific strategies to guide the so called reforms and restructuring are needed especially in traditional systems. In Ayurveda teacher is the supreme source of the knowledge, which encourages a student even how to learn the topics in a better manner .. Learner-centred learning is an active process, where the student does "learn to learn" through his own "digging" or study in the process of learning. At present this process has become much deteriorated due to the integrated study of Ayurveda with western systems resulting in near total alienation of the focus on Ayurveda in curriculam.. This also reflects in the practice of Ayurveda to large extent even in analysing the subtle nature of the disease in a deeper manner as enshrined in the science. The theory and practice have become diametrically opposite in approach despite the understanding that there should be a fundamental concurrence between the two aspects. It so happens due to preconceived knowledge of the basic sciences in the light of Newtonian theoretical model of the physical world which has become inappropriate in explaining the subtle nature of the universe. The celebrated scientists of the 20th century like Albert Einstein expressed the incongruity in this matter highlighting the dual state of existence in a much beautiful manner .Here this approach seems to coincide with Kapilas Sankhyasidhanta which stands as the epitome in the epidemiology of Ayurveda. Here the theorisations become very much structured and keep its concurrence always in the progression of the scientific deliberations in samhits. Here the bipolarity is arbitrary in observation and the fact that both the systems exist in one plane is the damn reality. Every transformation carries this knowledge of cause effect relationship in health and disease. In fact this vital link has been lost in due course of time in Ayurveda education in india while preparing the subjects and concerned topics in curriculam. In fact the policy makers miserably failed to transmit the abstract knowledge systems in curriculam , instead it became the copy cats of western medicine with the notion of introducing the advancements of science . As the theory and practice are closely connected each other, its application bear the concurrence in each situation without variance. Currently due to insufficient wisdom in the subject one goes directly to find equations between different systems and try to interpolate the possibility of identifying a solution .This often leads to incongruity in the inferential patters of observation with regard to fundamentals. How an information collected on the basis of entirely different parameters could be appropriate in a dissimilar situation which needs reciprocal concurrence theoretically? Here the cause effect relations become in a state of chaos and the accuracy of medication gets differed resulting in multiple therapies and medications at a time. As the pathology is multicentric any application encompasses the complexity in the disease progression taking every situation into consideration in a disease and one medicine for one disease seems to be illogical in this context. Here the relevance of patent drugs has to be discussed in detail in managing an exact state of an illness. Here does the medicine correct a symptom instead of balancing a disordered physiological situation ? Of course it is required in certain point of intervention in treatment but it canot be the strategy in disease management . Even two or more different formulations which are textually intended for different clinical conditions combine together in developing such patented products and it might embarrass a real physician to prescribe it in a disease more specifically. Rasavaiseshika sootra emphasises the fact that particular state of a disease is rather important than a gross disease and each situation warrants very particular management which is lacking in the current practice .Is this due to the search for compatibility with modern system in the diagnosis and management of an illness ? Acharyas have put forth clear axioms in prescribing each medicine considering many variables with the intention of correcting an inconsistent situation in a disorder which essentially occur in any disease process. Here the medicine and the given situation should act as a perfect match in creating an environment either to augment (samanya) or inhibit(visesha) certain factors in order to bring out the consistency. This needs an extensive intellectual exercise to know the complexity in permutations of properties through the varied inferential patterns in the progression of the disease. Here the emphasis is on the conceptual, rather than on the experimental part of the situation and has to be identified as the theoretical experiments in our thought which help understand the way things really are or, understand something about something as a consequence..For example it seems to be difficult to find the units between the polarity of properties in Ayurveda like the hot and cold or rooksha and snigdha. It is so natural that anybody can decipher its object and functions. Here the heat from the fire is no different from the Agni in the digestive process , hence the interaction of derived indexical signs become significant .It is fallacious to prove the scientificity of nature as the proof inducts in itself by explaining its essence . The progression of a disease is a transformation happening in multiple planes as a result of the shift from the natural substratum causing inconsistencies and subsequently to ultimate entropy in the systems. The appropriateness of medicines lies within this boundaries and in fact the substitutes play insignificant role here. The different formulations like kashaya, choorna, ghrutha, oils etc are to be administered sensibly to match the presented situation in an illness. In a context where one particular kashaya is prescribed , the administering of another formulation can give rise to contradictions resulting in inefficacy of the medicine. In same way, a prescription made on the basis of a different parameter in a disease context may not fulfill the required objectives like giving a brumhana module instead of langhana procedures. In fact both will be required in the same disease at different contexts. For example a very popular formulation , Maharasnadi kashaya is brumhana in nature but lucidly administered in all rheumatic diseases which often cause contradictions in applied aspects. The administering of therapies also seem to be empirical without considering the underlying disease progression . There exists a lack of reason due to want of the wisdom of textual indication in each condition in administering such therapies largely influenced by the modern interpretations .The gradation of rooksha to snigdha in the therapies does not get comprehended properly which needs certain correction in administration of therapies. The applied and theoretical portions get separated in two different subjects , hence confronts naturally. The applied part of therapy becomes the pharmaceutical aids and the logic in application becomes the knowledge portion leading to lack of synchrony in understanding the subject. Is this a willful lapse in structuring the syllabus in curriculum.? Are we really speaking on the holistic concepts of our great science ? But when the parameters totally change to know a situation in an illness and that too becoming the guidelines to prescribe a medicine , it naturally results in incongruity to what has been mentioned earlier. In this situation many tries in vain to explain the actual dynamics of interaction that what has been really intended in Ayurveda and drag the discussion to modern explanations to satisfy the audience .In fact this is not justice to this great system in the name of modernising Ayurveda , but incidentally the real wisdom is being tortured and it is nothing lesser than an intellectual subordination which is influencing us all since independence. It is true that the present education system in Ayurveda is moving in a direction which enable an aspirant to divulge from the theoretical complexities converting it into more palatable by incorporating the modern developments. We should know that any complexity remains same unless we dig into the subject , and it is not a fault in the subject !!! The present research findings in Ayurveda donot seem either to suit or influence the practice currently due to the wide difference in approach accepted in theory and practice. This is a great paradox that the researches contribute to the modern systems and not to Ayurveda .We have to introspect to many topics currently in the context that the west is looking to Ayurveda with great hope in the forthcoming century to learn it more authentic manner in the approach of medicine .Is it needed to integrate the western systems for the global acceptance or expansion of Ayurveda ??