T IS VERY HUMAN TO DISAGREE

Science is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction, or reliably-predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique, technology, or practice, from which a good deal of randomness in outcome has been removed.

In its contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. Science like ayurveda as discussed in this article is called applied science to differentiate it from experimental science, although the two are commonly interconnected. It is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. Scientists are also expected to publish their information so other scientists can do similar experiments to double-check their conclusions. The results of this process enable better understanding of past events, and better ability to predict future events of the same kind as those that have been tested. (This, I know is a bit disgusting to explain class 10 essays to an elite super class crowd. And it exposes the author to the risk of being branded as a plagiarist. But the author loves to take the chance a hundred more times. So kindly bear, or just skip. For the art of reading is to skip judiciously. The lesser mortals please read on).

Scientific fields are commonly divided into two major groups: natural sciences, which study natural phenomena (including biological life), and social sciences, which study human behavior and societies. These groupings are empirical sciences, which mean the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions. There are also related disciplines that are grouped into interdisciplinary and applied sciences, such as engineering and health science. Within these categories are specialized scientific fields that can include elements of other scientific disciplines but often possess their own terminology and body of expertise. Formal science, which also includes statistics and logic, is vital to the empirical sciences. Major advances in formal science have often led to major advances in the empirical sciences. The formal sciences are essential in the formation of hypotheses, theories, and laws, both in discovering and describing how things work (natural sciences) and how people think and act (social sciences).

Ayurveda as we all know was not blessed to enjoy the status of a perfect disciplinary science, let aside the fact that some formal science had greatly enriched it. Its status of disciplinary science is still much debatable. No science in this world could go hand in hand with theology, because science bred where theology died. Strangely, in the case of ayurveda, its acquaintance with gods and scholars insulated it from conquests and manipulations. We have seen many people speaking high of these things, proclaiming it as the best medical philosophy due to its divine connections. All these efforts could only be considered as the practitioner’s high flying ambition of being the preacher of goodwill. It is a matter of fact that conquests and manipulations enrich the science and not deteriorate, for knowledge can neither be looted nor destroyed. Only if the practitioners show the guts to relieve the science from the bondage of theology can it climb the steps to success.

Much has been said about the origin of ayurveda. Its birth in Vedas, the authorship by the all knowing Aryans etc. The word Aryan comes from the Sanskrit, arya meaning noble. Historians believe the original home of the Aryans was in the lands south of the Ural Mountains in what is now Kirghizstan. When life became tough, because food was scarce, drop in temperature and the pressure applied by the yellow-skinned tribes in the north, the Aryans began to move away in different directions. Some went to Greece, some to Iran, and some to Afghanistan. From the eastern front some groups moved to India. The whole process of migration took place between 2000 and 1500 BC. They entered India from the North West and initially settled in the land between the tributaries of the River Indus. There were more than 1200 such settlements of migrants. Many of them settled along the banks of Saraswati River. They settled to an agrarian life, supplemented by cattle grazing. These settlers along the banks of Saraswati River came to be known as Saraswats. The coming of Aryans marks the beginning of a historic period in India. The age between this and the decline of Harappan civilization 1500 BC and 500 BC is a "dark" period about which little is known.

The Vedas are among the oldest sacred texts. The Vedas date to roughly 1500–1000 BC, and the "circum-Vedic" texts, as well as the redaction of the Samhitas, date to c. 1000-500 BC, resulting in a Vedic period, spanning the mid 2nd to mid 1st millennium BC, spanning the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age. The Rig-Veda was compiled from as early as 1500 BC over a period of several centuries. The Vedic period reached its peak only after the composition of the mantra texts, with the establishment of the various shakhas all over Northern India which annotated the mantra samhitas with Brahmana discussions of their meaning, and reached its end in the age of Buddha and Panini and the rise of the Mahajanapadas. Archeologists makes special reference to the Near Eastern Mitanni material of the 14th c. BC the only epigraphic record of Indo-Aryan contemporary to the Rig Vedic period and gives 1500 BC (Patañjali) as an age for all Vedic Sanskrit literature, and 1200 BC as an age for the Atharvaveda.

Most scholars assumed an Aryan homeland either in Europe or in Western Asia, and Sanskrit must in this case have reached India by a language transfer from west to east, in a movement described in terms of invasion. With the discovery of Bronze Age attestations of Indo-European in the 20th century (Anatolian, Mycenaean Greek), Vedic Sanskrit lost its special status as the most archaic Indo-European language known. The Indus Valley civilization was discovered in the 1920s. The discovery of the Harappa and Mohenjo-daro sites changed the theory from an invasion of "advanced" Aryan people on a "primitive" aboriginal population to an invasion of nomadic "barbarians" on an advanced urban civilization. The decline of the IVC at precisely the period in history for which the Indo-Aryan migration had been assumed provides independent support of this scenario. This argument is associated with the mid-20th century archaeologists, who interpreted the presence of many unburied corpses found in the top levels of Mohenjo-daro as the victims of a warlike conquest.

The characters described as asuras, the uncivilized, dark skinned, short stature, plunders of wealth and wives of kings in the Aryan literature bear striking similarity to the Dravidians who were killed or fought back to the south. Many occasions, in our epics, we come across the Aryan kings killing the asuras who continually disturb the sages. This might be a case of suppression of local rebellion, so heavily glamorized.

Therefore the very idea of formulation of ayurveda by Aryans stands doubted. They have just enriched an existing method of providing and preserving health. The referring to chariot races and herbs in the Vedas might have been added later. The cranial measurements of people of IVC and the equidated Dravidians bear striking similarity, which strengthens the idea of invasion of the Aryans. As we all know the theology of the indigenous tribe were not so strong, comprising of worshiping some animal figures, when compared to the high rated rituals, fire worship, sacrifices, and punishments etc of the Aryans. Hence the scientific approach of ayurveda were brought to a stand still and made to abide the "uncivilized concepts". This case is similar to the involvement and manipulation of the Catholic Church in the free growth of western medicine which happened centuries later.

Scientific approaches based on controlled experiments were few in ayurveda which thrived and grew purely on the observations made and recorded by great sages of the land. Susruthacharya was a great scientist who made observations above existing stigma of theology (although he refers to god in many contexts) methods of scientific research, the generation of hypotheses, about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. He also published the information so other scientists can do similar experiments to double-check their conclusions, in 1500 BC. There were a few more scientists like Hareetha, Madhava etc who cracked the shell of theology and enriched the science with relatively modern concepts. The Charaka samhita dated 300 BC had verses promoting surgery by dhanwantareeyas, but the two schools of science never went hand in hand, which is quite contradictory to line of development of other sciences of the world. Flipping the pages back, one can see the retrogression of the science due to advent of newer reigns and religions. But almost all other disciplinary science around the globe could provide enough fascination to the scientists and scholars that they risked their lives to enrich their like. Sadly our science, the greatest in long past, didn’t see such scholars rise to the occasion, or those who did couldn’t make it to the texts in our syllabus. A major cause for this might have been the inclination of the people to spiritual circles than materialistic possessions. Thus to make the science acceptable, it was conjured to do divine things. This also placed the preachers in apex of the social pyramid, and to rise oneself above from the apex level to enrich the already enriched, divine science is completely out of question.

Then came the expansion of science. But how and how much is something I wish not to deal with in here, in front of an elite readership. However, expansion shouldn’t be mistaken for development. The former deals with acceptability, reach and the latter with growth. We can see our science has expanded well but developed nil. It was almost insulated from the rapid growth of empirical and formal science by the occidental scientists. Never a science can thrive with insulation. Be it internal or external, sadly ours is internal. Except for some crowds which strive to expand the science, the deadlock still exists. Expansion without development exposes the science to the risk of being disintegrated. The biggest virtue of a science is its incompleteness. Whenever the scientists and disciples of a certain science believe that their science is perfect or complete, they are funding for its funeral. That is the present case scenario of ayurveda. Hardly can you find a disciple who has the guts to say we are incomplete. They may admit its all our fault and science is fool proof, kudos to their attitude, but the disciple and the discipline are one and the same entity. Just as that we find our theories and medicines have stood the test of time don’t exempt it from the status of incompleteness. Never was a time in history when ayurveda was complete, It still is not. But we need not have a complete science to pursue, that is what the, so called modern, occidentals do. And they stand chance to get widely accepted even though no single vital theory in medicine stood the test of time, and no theory was left unchanged in ten years. But that is something good for the science, certainly not for the patients, that it grows. Now just flipping the pages we can see how few theories we have updated. Is it because the science was foolproof, no it is because we were fools to believe it was. Now that we thrive with these principles is because of the greatness the science was thrust upon by the mindful people in the long past.

But this does not justify the art of adulteration; many are state of art in this field, postulates of ayurveda with the occidental concepts. Like the famous saying goes "don’t copy something you can not paste". Enrichment should come from within the science, and the disciples should start believing in ability and limitations of the science rather than its miracles and theology.

Just like the entire ayurveda seminars, symposiums and debates end, the reader may feel it is the author’s liability to provide a solution in the concluding paragraph, which invariably include recording and sharing data of treatments and medical procedures etc. But that, he has not posed a question exempts him from this mediocre practice. And that, these solutions have not struck the chord till now, doesn’t make it a bad idea to pursue. Still, its feasibility is a matter of concern. It will be of great help if the elite readership of the magazine comes up with ideas to enrich the science of life which is so heavily misunderstood.

ENCOURAGER-- It will be considered a laudable act, if the readers could prove the aforementioned theories (if all these could be called so), dealt above, foul. For my little knowledge says I am right, but sincerely hope I am not.