There was a science of Ayurved from immemorial times in our sub-continent. The science of Allopathy grew up after Ayurved; we would like to discuss it first.
Hippocrates, the founder of Allopathy, was born in 460 B. C. He wrote concerning treatment, “The physicians must be able to tell the antecedents, know the present and foretell the future, must meditate these things, and have two special objects in view; namely, to do good and to do no harm.”
In the two thousand years since the birth of Hippocrates Allopathy has undergone some heavy criticism and made great progress. In 1605 Lord Bacon wrote about the condition of Allopathic Medicine in his essay-
The Proficiency and Advancement of Learning, “To see the daily labours of physicians in their visits, consultations, and prescriptions, one would think that they diligently pursued the cure and went directly in some beaten track about it; whoever looks attentively into the prescriptions and directions will find that the most of what they do is full of uncertainty, wavering and irresolution without any certain view or the foreknowledge of the course of the cure.”
In 1668 Hermann Boerhaave was born in Lyden, Holland. He was a famous physician and leading chemist of his day. He wrote, “If we weigh the good that has been done to mankind by a handful of true disciples of of Aesculapius against the evil wrought to the human race by a great number of doctors since the origin of medicine to our own time, we shall doubtless come to think that it would have been better had there never been any doctors in the world.” His contemporary, Dr. Frederick Hoffman, used to say his patients, “Flee from doctors and drugs if you wish to be well.”
William Coolin was born in Scotland in 1720. He was a professor of chemistry in Edenborough University. No good writer on medicine was living then. He wrote a Materia Medica which was later translated by Samuel Hahnemann into German. Dr. Coolin wrote in this book, “Our materia medica is filled with innumerable false deduction which are nevertheless said to be derived from experience.”
At a later period we find in Dr. Paris’s Pharmacology: “There exists a fashion in medicine, as in other affairs of life, regulated by the caprice and supported by the authority of a few leading practitioners, which has been frequently the occasion of dismissing from practice valuable medicines and substituting others less certain in their effects and more questionable in their nature.”
Dr. Moore wrote in his book, -Health in the The Tropics, “Although it is undeniable that the science of medicine has made rapid advances during the last half a century, all these advances have been, in a great measure, confined to the art of diagnosis. The means of cure which a physician of the present is enabled to call to his aid are scarcely, with the exception of quinine, larger than that his predecessors enjoyed at the commencement of 1800.”
Bernard Shaw wrote in Doctor’s Dilemna, “During the first great epidemic of influenza towards the end of the nineteenth century, a London evening paper sent around a journalist-patient to all the great consultants of the day and published their advices and prescriptions; a proceeding passionately denounced by the medical papers as a breach of confidence of these eminent physicians. The prescriptions were different, and so were the advices.” This statement of Bernard Shaw tallies with similar ones of Dr. Paris.
On May 31, 1916, in Delhi the Chief-Commissioner, Hon. Haley, delivered a lecture on the prize distribution day in the Tibbia College. He said, “Western science is by no means definite. It is continually throwing off old ideas for new ones. None can say that western science is better than castern.
Dr. Hermanne Hill, Ph. D., (U.S.A.) wrote to a man of religious institution of Bengal, “I regard the Hindu system of medicine, from what little I know of it, as vastly superior to the so-called western science of medicine. In my estimation the latter is no science at all, because it doesn’t even know the fundamentals.”
According to Ayurved the body in balance is in health. Balance means a balance of the three elements: bayu, pitta, kaffa. Unbalance or predominance of any one of the three may bring disease. If the unbalance fails to touch or disturb the organs, no disease results.
Bayu, pitta, and kaffa are the physical aspects respectively of the balanced, restless, and listless states of the Self. “Bayu does not mean wind at all, but comprehends all the phenomena of motion which come under the cell life, or to be more explicit, functions of the central and sympathetic nervous system; the word pitta does not essentially mean bile, but signifies the functions of metabolism and thermogenesis or heat production comprehending in its scope the process of digestion, coloration of blood and formation of various secretions which are either the means or ends of tissue combustion; and the word kaffa does not mean merely phlegm, but is used primarily to imply the function of cooling and preservation and secondarily the production of the various preservative fluids.”
There are five categories within Bayu: (1) Udan, (2) Pran, (3) Saman, (4) Apan, (5) Byan. Udan bayu is in the throat; Saman in the abdomen; Apan in the rectum ; and Byan in the body as a whole. Udan disorder creates headache, skin disease, ear troubles, teeth decay, hoarseness. Disordor of Pran bayu brings disease to the respiratory system. Saman brings loss of appetite and digestion; also anemia. Apan bayu brings disorder and malady to the penis and rectum, seminal discharges, gonorrhoea, and child-bearing difficulties. Disordor of Byan bayu can invite any body ailment.
There are also five categories of bile or pitta: (1) pachak, (2) ranjak, (3) shadhak, (4) alochak, (5) bhrajak; functioning respectively in the stomach, liver and spleen, heart, eyes, and skin. The first digests, the second forms blood, the third helps the memory, the fourth aids sight, and the fifth keeps the skin smooth and glazy. If pitta secretion is disturbed in any one of these categories, there arises the possibility of disease.
Kaffa can also be put in five categories: (1) cledan, abalamban, (3) rashan, (4) snehan, (5) shleshan; existing respectively in the lower abdomen, heart, throat, head, and joints. Cledan puts eaten food into a liquidy condition; abalamban controls the movement of the heart and limbs; rashan (saliva) helps the mouth and tongue to taste food; snehan makes possible the satisfaction of the senses; and shleshan lubricates the joints. When we are attacked by a preponderance of pitta, we feel heavy, sleepy, idle, phlegmatic. Raggedness and itchiness are also felt.
When we are attacked in any one of these three (nervous, combusting, cooling) systems, the antidotes of bayu, pitta, and kaffa, as known by the Ayurved physician (kabiraj ), are respectively prescribed. The Ayurved physician generally treats the disease itself not the symptoms.
These three physical aspects of the states of the Self are, we believe, a scientific truth. Allopathy is not aware of them, it is handicapped by an ignorance of the three aspects in so doing. Once we understand the body in this Ayurvedic way, many new medical possibilities open up for us. It is a matter of realization and experience.
Modern critics say, “Let us go along with Allopathy. Ayurved is not complete. Many texts of Ayurved have been lost, and its future is open to new discovery.” These few lines were published in a monthly some time ago. We agree. If we want to proceed with Ayurved, we will have to recover the lost texts and do research. In its height of glory, Ayurved had both a spiritual and practical side. We have forgotten the spiritual and are trying to go along with the practical only. Ayurved is actually at a standstill; for little or no new research is being done. It is limping along on one leg only, and it has lost many of its most precious ancient texts.
There are plenty of things, however, in Ayurved to be proud of. For example, surgery, which is the pride of western medicine, was finely developed in Ayurved. The lost texts are another thing. These include: Gab- ayurved, Ashwayurved, Gajayurved, Brikshayurved, which were respectively treatises on the treatment of cows, horses, elephants, and trees. The loss of such texts was undoubtedly a great loss.
During the twenty-first All India Ayurved Conference, Kabiraj Gananath Sen said, “Many Original books of Ayurved, written by our seers, have been lost; that is next to impossible for us to know our own medical science thoroughly. For 2000 years Ayurved has been on the decline. It will take some doing to revive it.” Mr. Sen added, “The books written by Charak, Susruta, and Bagvata are ideal treatments of their subjects. They elaborately indicate how diagnosis should be made.” We Ayurved-doctors should however learn to make use of such modern diagnostic aids as the thermometer, blood pressure gauge, and x-ray machine.”
In June, 1940, during the All Bengal Kabiraj Conference in Basirhat, Jadu Gopal Goswami said, “If you want to revive Ayurved, you will have to depend not on symptomatic treatment alone; you will have to include all eight methods of treatment in your repertory.”
The eight methods form the basis of Ayurved treatment. They are still known today, though the texts now lost. Symptomatic treatment is merely one side. Many Ayurved-doctors are not without prestige; yet daily the Allopathic doctors are gaining favour and reputation. Gradually Ayurved is being eclipsed by Allopathy, and the notion is gaining ground that Ayurved is not competent to deal with all diseases. It must be admitted that, leaving the spiritual aspect of medicine aside, many practical developments within Allopathy have no parallel within Ayurved and they surpass our comprension.
Allopathy says that human bones, muscles, nerves, etc. are all made of tissues in which there are many cells. It has thoroughly gone into the matter of tissue and its construction, and Ayurved cannot match its performance. Only Susruta in Ayurved has spoken of it, but that too briefly to profit us.
Let us compare Ayurved and Allopathy on one point for illustration. To know the digestive process we should be acquainted with the digestive secretions, the elements of our food, and the work of the stomach, intestines, etc. Many subtle things on these subjects have been unearthed by Allopathy. For example, the influence of glandular secretions on the nerves, the lower abdomen and its work, the liver and its function, the pancreas, upper abdomen, etc. are discussed in Allopathy with a wealth of detail which is absent from Ayurved discussions. Ayurved has actually given only a few lines on digestion:
“Food with the six flavours
goes sweetened into the stomach.
After decomposition
it is transformed into bubbled phlegm and gas,
which are then heated and made acid.
Passing into the intestines,
it is mixed with bile;
the vitalizing part is then absorbed,
the rest rejected.
But overcooked food lacks the six flavors;
it goes tasteless into the stomach,
forming gas and solid mass.
This author does not speak here of the effects of defective organs or of the functions of lungs, blood circulation, etc., whereas Allopathy has described these things in detail. Ayurved is behind Allopathy in this respect. On the whole, we may say Ayurved has to develop a lot if it is to be a complete science appreciated by the people.
We need a variety of ingredients to manufacture Ayurved medicines, but we know little about the effects of the ingredients. We know only what we have read in books and have made practically no experiments. But western medical firms have taken a genuine interest in the ingredients mentioned and are making laboratory tests of them. We have not taken a real interest in our Ayurved at all. That is why we have not employed scientific methods in the manufacture of Ayurved medicines.
We have personally inquired into a plant of Kashmir named Artemisia Maritima. The quantity of santonine in this plant is adversely affected by excessive or insufficient rain, too much or too little sun, and too dry or hard soil.
Ancient Ayurved too was not without its inquiries and conclusions. In our scriptures it is written that the efficacy of a medicine to be derived from the juice of a plant will be effected by the manner in which the bark of the tree or plant is cut. It is also written that some trees, having strong roots to the south, give one effect; whereas other trees, having roots in all directions, produce medicines with quite a different result. Stars also influence the efficacy of plants as medicine producers, it is written. It is further stated that serious and chronic diseases are sometimes cured by wearing certain herbs in one or other part of the body.
The saints of old cured many diseases by the application of herbs and drugs. Modern botany can help a lot in this art. In our country we usually obtain plants for medicinal purposes from gatherers and dealers. By here- ditary tradition these men are skilful in their works though they know nothing of medicine or botany or how to keep plants under varying conditions of light and heat. They are not even introduced to modern hygiene. Sometimes they put herbs in places where they soon rot. The brahmi herbs are the most used in Ayurved Medicine. But the brahmi and hydrocotyle plants are very similar and are often mistaken for each other. The two classes of herbs have quite different medical properties. Moniera Cuneifolia is sometimes mistaken for brahmi and hydrocotyle. So we cannot wholly depend on gatherers and dealers; we must instead depend on botanists who can distinguish one herb from another.
How can we control the collection, preservation, and production of herbs? The herbs used in Ayurved practice grow in both lowland and high mountains. We need to cultivate lands specifically for medicinal herbs. If we dont’t feel it necessary to cultivate new lands for the purpose, we are at least to protect the herbs already growing and give them scientific nourishment. We are to test them chemically for their medicinal properties, and where these are lacking we are to supply the right foods to make up the deficiency. Botanists will be needed to control this work. They will be needed to supervise the preservation, selling, and storing of medicines in every village herbal outlet. We do not wish to deprive men of their ancestral calling, but their activity should come under strict supervision.
Acharjya Prafulla Chandra Roy wrote in the preface to his History of Hindu Chemistry, “Mr. Wilson helped western people to know about Ayurved Science by publishing afew articles in oriental Magazine (1803), and Mr. Rawlie published the Antiquities of Hindu Medicine (1837), and Weise published, A Commentary on the Hindu System of Medicine (1845). Thakur of Gondal is trying to bring out more on the same subjects. Dr. Uday Chand Datta researched and wrote a Materia Medica. But in our country no chemical research laboratoay for Ayurved medicine has yet been established.” Acharjya Roy’s History of Hindu Chemisry is the first enterprise of Ayurved propagation. He brought Ayurved to the attention of the modern world.
Ayurved is based on both spiritual and laboratory knowledge. We know from history that first the Arabs, then the people of the West, knew about chemistry. The Arabs produced many kinds of chemical solutions from elements in Ayurved herbs. For example, they knew about jaran (preparation of essences), vidraban (liquification of essences), sangmisran (mixing of essences), khar (alkalinization of essences), amla (acidification of essences). Rawlie said, “The famous Arabian chemist Gabor learned chemistry from Ayurved Science.” From all this we can gather that there was such a thing as Ayurved Chemistry; what we need today is to use modern chemistry to brighten it up.
In 1940, one Ayurved Research Institution named Nagarjun Rashashala was established in Samadas Baidya Sastra Pitha, Calcutta. On this opening day Kabiraj Bimalananda Tarkatirtha said in his presidential speech, “The institution is meant for only Ayurved Research of all kinds, such as investigation into the properties of Ayurved medicines, chemical tests of all kinds of herbs, the search for new medicines, the discovery of medicines for cancer and other incurable diseases, a scientific system of treatment by pulse feeling and other methods of diagnosis.” But may we here add our opinion that the institution should devise such means that Ayurved may grow in all ways:- such as, methods of manufacture and preservation, the adding of new ingredients containing vitamins A, B, C, D, E, and G with Chyabanpras, the manufacture of Sarnasindur with substitutes for gold. In conclusion we say again that unless Ayurved devises newer and better remedies and newer and better instruments of medicine manufacture its future does not look very bright.
On December 27, 1940 the Jugantar’ printed the following in its editorial column, “In India the system of treatment has followed that of western countries for a number of years. We have had our share of successful doctors, yet we regret to note that we have done nothing remarkable to advance the cause of medicine as a whole. India still depends wholly on others for medicines and medical line. Japan and Turkey have progressed far more than she.
Ayurved has something, no doubt, to contribute to all the other medical systems, but as yet she is backward and does not stand abreast of her contemporaries. In our country most medical practice owes a good deal to Ayurved but none cares to pay the debt by furthering Avurved Science. Intellectuals sometimes appreciate it and have sympathy for it, but they do little for it practically. At the Silver Jubilee of the Astanga Ayurved College Sri S. Radhakrishnan said, “we are not only to look at the economic side of Ayurved; we are also to see its scientific basis. Many valuable gems are hidden in it. They are to be explored and enjoyed by the world.”
First we dealt with Allopathic Science and its progress. We were and are proud of Allopathy. It has kept abreast of the times and continued to move forward. Ayurved could not do nearly as well. Indian pharmacopia cannot be based on Ayurved alone at present. Additions must be made from Allopathy. This is not difficult to do inasmuch as as Ayurved and Allopathy have an inner sympathy. When Ayurved adopts Allopathic research methods, the day of her advance will not be far distant. In olden days she used many instruments similar to those used by Allopathy today. Moreover she made use of a tripartite method of treatment that could be of great benefit to modern Allopathy. The two medical systems have much to give each other.