Better late than never!

I extend my warm congratulations to Prof Kishor Patwardhan. He needn’t feel diminished. The greatest glory of a man is not in never falling, but in rising every time he falls.

Instead of hounding Prof Patwardhan for his changed stance, I hope ayurveda academics take a leaf out of his book and become a bit conscientious. Things will begin to look up if just a dozen of them become as intellectually honest. Fundamentally, academics getting fat salaries from government-run institutes need to see how sinful it is to hand over an unprocessed proto-science to gullible youngsters and then mislead them into believing that it is a super-sophisticated advanced science.

As a medical system, Ayurveda is valuable immensely for its observations, only marginally for its theories, and not at all for its speculations. As long as the academia stays intellectually inept to grasp this basic truth and modify its approach accordingly, it will continue to be a madhouse. With better funding, it’ll only be a better-funded madhouse.

• Affiliation: Ayurveda Physician and Homi Bhabha Fellow, IISc Bengaluru
• Country: India

Such article can only be written by theoretical persons and not by the one who is capable enough to apply the principles of Ayurveda in practice. One can not reach at any conclusion by mere sitting in a room with a pen and a paper and some reference articles and books. Ayurveda is more of subjective and Importance is given to functional aspects. Many of things can neither be translated nor be interpreted in terms of western science. Author has no right to come to the conclusion to call the concepts of Ayurveda as obsolute. His very statement i..e Tridosha is a theory itself is wrong. Tridosha is a theorem and we are able to practice based on the tridosha theorem and cure several patients. Such ignorant papers might mislead the young generation. Ridiculous article. I pray sincerely that such articles dont come up in the future and may this person be cornered and not entertained.

• Affiliation: Ayurveda doctor
• Country: India

This is what happens when you separate a healing system from its base. This was done when the British doctors found that the people of India did not turn to their superior science and preferred to stick to ayurveda. A commission was set up. The commission decided that ayurveda was a mixture of religious texts and herbal practices. Worse these herbalists were also dead against the small pox vaccine program and attempted to deal with the vaccine toxins in their own way. The recommendation was that ayurveda should be divorced from its philosophy and the ayurvedic colleges instructed to pursue the scientific method. This created a horde of graduates who were neither here nor there. Taught by the gora sahebs these physicians thought it better to endear themselves to their new found teachers.

The anatomy and physiology of ayurveda depends upon the Samkhya philosophy. The basic building blocks are space, air, fire, water, and earth based on which we have constitutions like vata, pitta and kapha. There are three states of mana, buddhi and ahankar (mind, intellect, ego). And there are mental states of sattva, rajas and tamas (purity, passion, and inertia). There is also the energy body with 6 invisible energy vertices in the spinal region and 72,000 channels that are within and without forming the aura. The vitality that drives all processes is termed the prana shakti. All of this was considered superstition.

The same thing happened with homeopathy. In India the course curriculum is designed the mainstream way. Homeopathic philosophy and holism is paid scant respect and students are taught pathology based medicine. They are also told in no uncertain terms that they must bow down to the dominant concept. The emerging physicians thus have no qualms about suggesting antibiotics and falling at the feet of vaccination. The discerning ones study the real science after they pass out.

We are much taken up by anatomy, physiology and pathology. We dream of hijacking every cell of the body, reaching into the mitochondria and DNA to come out with miraculous cures. But disease proliferates and patients suffer all their life.

To heal one needs to understand how the whole system works driven by vitality. Symptoms are guiding forces. Delving into the mind and emotions offer solutions. Instead of cutting open everything the full system is to be used for a cure.

• Affiliation: Researcher
• Country: India

Respected Sir,
This introspection and the bold decision to accept it openly is really commendable.
I think you have opened Pandora’s Box (if others in ‘power’ do not close it forcefully).
A person like you, who has gone far deeper in so-called ‘scientific evidence’ and realized that something is going wrong, will be the real torch bearer for the future generation.
If i may, i will humbly suggest you that human anatomy and physiology is much beyond the perception of scientific evidence. A simple example: I think we can rely completely on western science has understood the human mechanics only if it can demonstrate, in vitro, ‘meal’ being digested and converted into Rasa, Rakta etc body tissues…. till then, lets not undermine the wisdom of Rishis…..

• Affiliation: CCRAS
• Country: India

Kishor Pawardhan has exposed the hollowness of the anatomical and physiological underpinnings of the Ayurvedic curriculum. Himself a widely published researcher and an accomplished teacher of Ayurvedic physiology he confesses that he too interpreted the Ayurvedic texts in the quest for “validation of what I was supposed to teach, which was otherwise mostly obsolete material…(my) enthusiasm to prove ancient Ayurveda literature (as)relevant was boundless…. though I never suggested that the ancient scholars knew it all, I certainly made their writings sound relevant” he writes in a frank, four page personal essay. His justification for his having followed the beaten track is ironically “that all commentators had done it” and he wanted “ to make the writings of ancient scholars sound relevant.” Having himself subscribed to this subterfuge he laments that “simply because the verses were amenable to interpretation, to superimpose modern science over classical references was unscientific.” He warns that “Such laboured misinterpretation could lead to clinical misapplication and misjudgement” and could also “smother innovation”.
For this Mea culpa to come from one of the most published and respected Ayurvedic teachers and researchers would have taken enormous courage -more so as he continues to be a serving member of the Faculty of Ayurveda at BHU. By doing this, Dr Patwardhan has raised issues which the NCISM must confront with an open mind and academic integrity.
While castigating the analogies used in interpreting Ayurvedic physiology, based on compelling rationale, I wish Dr Patwardhan had also highlighted where Ayurveda actually scores in contemporary times and how it provides a scholastic basis for most health traditions, tribal and folk medicine and countless home remedies which Indian families continue to use throughout the country. Lakhs of formulations included in the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library are accessible to 13 patent offices worldwide and India’s approach has been recognised by the World Intellectual Property Organisation. The formulations have been painstakingly listed after relying on the actual stanzas in the ancient texts. This endorsement of the utility of ancient knowledge validates Ayurveda is matchless.
This seminal work of TKDL has helped foil hundreds of patents filed before international patent examiners who have rejected the so- called inventions and discoveries based on the documentation in the ancient texts available in digital format. If patent examiners across the globe have given credence to this traditional wisdom why cannot the NCISM include this in the curriculum of Ayurveda and other traditional medical systems in India ? Similarly, Ayurvedic herbal and other formulations along with Panchakarma procedures have become popular and are being utilised by a significant population for various health issues.
NCISM needs to encourage the study of these based on published therapeutic and observational studies. Students of Ayurveda also need to be convinced how far the observance of the Ayurvedic daily and seasonal regimen contribute to healthy life-styles , increased longevity and fostering mental peace and a happy disposition.These too are integral teachings of Ayurveda.
If instructed properly the students on becoming practitioners could teach people to invest in their own health the natural way. The practitioner, the educationist and the researcher if equipped to deal with real health and life-style situations, before there is a need for hospitalisation is felt, could answer a real need . Instead of regurgitating Sanskrit stanzas propped up by shaky interpretations as Dr Patwardhan has illustrated, millions of Indians could receive direct benefit from contemporary approaches . NCISM needs to focus on a curriculum which teaches students to give people what they are seeking; to prepare future practitioners to take on the mantle of family doctors with a grounding in anatomy, physiology, pharmacology but also a knowledge of the properties of plants and their application which is the real strength of Ayurveda. If this is done by addressing the needs of the population from birth, childhood, adolescence , middle into old age, Ayurveda could still become the answer the world is seeking.
Kishor Patwardhan has been forthright and what he has said must be examined and acted upon by NCISM. I wish he had also clarified that Ayurveda continues to have enormous relevance provided the claims are based on published, peer- reviewed research not on didactic claims and rhetoric ! Were NCISM to teach students why peer reviewed published work is essential and were to provide access to practical knowledge and skills, Ayurveda could yet reinvent itself !Until then start by listening to Dr Patwardhan !

• Affiliation: Former Secretary Ministry of Ayush (earlier Department of Indian Systems of Medicine & Homeopathy under Ministry of Health.
• Country: India

I am not a medical professional. I teach and research in management and business admin. The problem is one of seeking only objectivity as truth. If the subjective experiences and the decisions that emerge from them give superior results, then why not accept the role of the “subject” as a “variant” agency. Outliers in many instances are more interesting and research as a vocation has to accommodate for outlying subjects too. If the above is acceptable, as teachers and researchers more of our time will be spent in cleaning up ourselves rather than in pursuing truth out there, outside.

• Affiliation: Nitte DU
• Country: India

Firstly let me congratulate you for this. It’s a self introspection. I too have gone through the same stage during my early days. But seeing the stalwarts like Sri P. K. Warrior Sri Raghavan Thirumulpadu Sri Rajagopal and of course my father who (all of them ) were not only academicians but also roaring practitioners I thought what I learned and comprehended was not upto the mark
But today I after I have put not leas than 36 years of practice and also 15 years of academics I think we need to re evaluate our principles. I can also imagine so many eyebrows going up. But I feel some one should say that the king is nude. Let this article be a reason for this.

• Affiliation: Triveni Nursing Home
• Country: India

Still based on personal experience i have seen ayurvedic and homeopathic medicine work better, for my allergy modern medicine was nothing but a complete waste of money, but homeopathy cured my allergy. So I feel your article is full of bs

• Affiliation: Patient
• Country: India

Dear Dr. Suresh Kumar,

In fact, teachers like me, who teach non-clinical subjects, have always been made to feel that all the principles and theories that we teach are useful and applicable in clinical practice. It is primarily the physicians who propagate such impressions. It took me years to realize that it is mostly not the case. If a few more physicians gather the courage to say what you have said can truly change the system.

Thanks a lot for your comment!

• Affiliation: Banaras Hindu University
• Country: India

Dear Ms. Shailaja Chandra Madam,

Thanks a lot for your remarks!

My essay, as you can make out, is focused only on Ayurveda Physiology. Within the given word limit, this is what I could write. You have closely observed the Ayush sector for many decades and your impressions are of immense value. I do not undermine the positive aspects of Ayurveda. Medicinal plants, different formulations, and therapeutics – are the areas that truly deserve our attention.

However, there is no sufficient evidence to suggest that our theories typically guide our physicians in their clinical decision-making except as heuristic models. One of the established Vaidyas too has accepted this fact here in his comment. What I am arguing here is that if these theories are not guiding decision-making, then there is a need for these theories to be tested/ modified/ discarded. Our students spend a lot of time cramming hundreds of shlokas describing these theories which they are unlikely to put into clinical use.

We need to make Ayurveda a dynamic inquiry-based science instead of projecting it as a faith-based tradition is what I am trying to suggest here.

Thanks again for your thoughtful remarks!

• Affiliation: Banaras Hindu University
• Country: India

Dear Dr. Naveenchandar,

Thanks for your comment. However, I would like to point out here a myth that we have been carrying along. This myth is that basic sciences such as anatomy and physiology exclusively “belong” to current biomedical sciences, or, so-called “modern” medicine. Don’t you think this attitude of “owning” an entire branch of science is detrimental to the growth of science itself?

• Affiliation: Banaras Hindu University
• Country: India

I being a student can understand the power of Ayurveda but you being a teacher that too for many years in a renowned college don’t know what you are saying that too at a public platform. I’d rather suggest you to read samhitas and try and start practicing Ayurveda because it’s never too late for anything.
I really wish you get to rectify your mistakes before it’s too late and plz listen to real renowned vaidyas on you tube it may work as an eye opener to you and you may get to unfold beautiful principles of Ayurveda. And still if you feel that we need to obsolete the text written in our samhitas then I guess you should resign because we don’t need teachers like you… You’ve earned in the name of Ayurveda and now you are demeaning it, you should feel shameful… This is not acceptable…

• Affiliation: RGGPG Ayurvedic college paprola Kangra Himachal Pradesh
• Country: India

Dear Ms. Kirti Sharma,

This is an academic debate and as soon as you start a personal attack, the debate loses its meaning.
Please tell us which statement in the essay is wrong and why. Do you still think that the blood cells are formed in the stomach? Do you still think the role of kidneys in urine formation has been explained in Ayurveda classics? If yes, please share the details. And please read one of the interesting comments shared by an established Vaidya on this page.

Thanks for your interest.

• Affiliation: Banaras HIndu University
• Country: Varanasi

Thank you, Dr. Srivvatsan,

Your comment has been really helpful. I agree with the points you have raised and I am convinced that we need to keep these facts in mind while framing further strategies.

Thanks for your interest!

• Affiliation: Banaras Hindu University
• Country: India

I am an Ayurvedic Vaidya, practising for the last 26 years in Kerala, attending all types of cases despite a post-graduation in Salakyatanthra. I was teaching in Ayurveda colleges and was a principal of an Ayurveda college for 5 years. Parallel to formal education, I have had the opportunity of learning Ayurveda traditionally under Vaidyabhushanam K. Raghavan Thirumulpad for 21 years. With this background, reading Dr Kishor’s confessional essay was an interesting exercise.
To confess is not a bad art especially when you feel guilty about some of your past actions about which you feel ashamed or embarrassed. Your action might have affected the lives of many, but still, that cannot be considered illegal under a court of trial, and the victims of your crime have no opportunity to ask for legal and deserving reparation. Confessions of an individual are the results of deep introspection. They are also the doors (or windows) for many others outside to introspect and confess. That way, Dr Kishor’s confessions are important and praiseworthy. I congratulate him on that.
Dr Kishor narrates his own experiences of teaching Ayurveda physiology through an approach that involved a laborious reinterpretation of ancient literature using the recent advances in the field of medical physiology. Now he is convinced that his earlier writings were faulty. And he argues that instead of using such reinterpretation to prove obsolete concepts, they can be dropped altogether from the curricula of Ayurveda programmes.
He puts his ideas to move forward in three statements: 1, the immediate need is to evolve a rigorous method to identify such content in the present curricula of Ayurveda programmes that can safely be dropped, 2, the logical next step is to subject our theories and principles to scientific scrutiny and 3, instead of teaching obsolete concepts in Ayurveda anatomy and physiology, the Ayurveda system deserves that our students be taught in-depth contemporary anatomy and contemporary physiology.
This is not a new demand. There were uproars and outcries to revoke obsolete Ayurvedic theories (especially related to Sareera) in the past also. I remember, in Kerala, there were many scholars like Dr C. R. Agnives, Dr N. V. K. Varier and many others of the same feather who had this opinion years back. They had very strong feelings that the topics should undergo rigorous validation. If I remembered it right, Dr N. V. K. Varier, a hard-core Marxist, had gone to the level of opining that the tridosha theory cannot be accepted unless and until it is validated using the methodology of dialectical materialism. (Of course, they might have changed it later). It was there in the air of the Ayurveda campuses as one among the students’ union demands in the 1980s (or even earlier) to drop all obsolete sections from the curriculum. Students’ unions believed that the syllabus shall be subject-specific and not text-specific. They also observed that the Sanskrit language was a big obstacle as far as the proper articulation of the topic in the classrooms is concerned.
This is not a matter to be commented upon by emotional compulsions. We should look into this matter seriously.
It shall be accepted that Ayurveda academy (not only in BHU, but all across the country) is not working on Ayurvedic premises. This is the most important point that one should understand about Ayurvedic education in India today. It is an amorphous mix of Ayurvedic literature and allopathic explanations and a predominantly allopathic practising style. All literature in Ayurveda – commentaries on classics, textbooks, guides, or popular stuff – written in the last 100 years (or more) shows the same tendency in varying degrees, to explain Ayurvedic principles and practices in terms of modern science. This was considered a big ‘scientific act’ that keeps on revitalizing Ayurveda. Dr Kishor correctly identifies this in his confession.
As all the academy is uniform that way, and as all the teachers are academically trained, all the students of Ayurveda in the last 75 years (at least) were influenced by this way of revitalized and ‘scientificised’ Ayurveda in their formative years and that continues.
There are many states in India where Ayurveda doctors practising allopathy is permitted: in some places it is legitimate, but in some others, it is tolerated. There is a big change in this trend towards the south. Here, Ayurvedic doctors practise Ayurveda and otherwise it is considered quackery. In Kerala, my home state, Ayurveda enjoys a high degree of social patronage and the public never prefers their Ayurvedic doctors practising allopathy. It is not legitimate as well. But from Central India to the entire North and East, it is not so. Only a handful of graduates stick on to Ayurvedic practice. Even the academies make no exception in this regard. This is not a new development but continues to be so for decades. There is every reason to think that this influential group of vaidya-turned-allopaths contributed heavily to designing the Ayurvedic curricula from time to time. This is one important factor, among many others, behind the ever-increasing allopathic load of the Ayurveda syllabus and the allopathic interpretations of Ayurvedic literature.
Similarly, the farrowing of books and guides by some ‘professional’ writers as dictated by monopolised publishers and the listing of such worthless comparative literature in the syllabus as text or reference, have also contributed significantly to the trend of making Ayurveda more and more ‘scientific’. (There are many other factors, which include social and political, behind this. But I am not going to elaborate on them in this piece).
Dr Kishor is trying to see everything in the light of modern science. Meantime, there are issues in his observations. Putting Popper’s falsifiability principle to evaluate the scientificity of Ayurveda is the first one among them. The falsification principle deals with modern science and not Ayurveda. Ayurveda operates as per its methodology which is different from that of modern science. Even in the case of modern science falsifiability is not an unchallenged approach. Many authors have highlighted their discontent in this regard.
He points out that there is a tendency among Ayurveda scholars to rescue their theories by proposing ad hoc conjectures and reinterpretations whenever they are refuted. But interestingly, this allegation is equally applicable to falsifiability as well. For example, in one of his interesting articles, Adam Becker, a writer and astrophysicist, observes that “falsifiability doesn’t work as a blanket restriction in science for the simple reason that there are no genuinely falsifiable scientific theories. I can come up with a theory that makes a prediction that looks falsifiable, but when the data tell me it’s wrong, I can conjure some fresh ideas to plug the hole and save the theory” (https://aeon.co/essays/a-fetish-for-falsification-and-observation-holds-back-science).
The biggest difference between modern science and Ayurveda is that the former is very reluctant to accept the existence of a principle called consciousness whereas the latter cannot be construed at all without the principle of consciousness. This is an important point that is to be identified while criticising Ayurveda from the viewpoint of modern science. It may be interesting at this point to recollect Galileo Galilee’s famous observation that “consciousness exists completely outside the physical realm” and hence it is not within the framework of science. Ayurvedic theory and practice spin around a living body which is more qualitative than quantitative. And modern science finds it very difficult to accommodate something qualitative.
Let us forget all these debates. After all, I always wonder what is wrong with Ayurveda being considered and continuing as a non-science. Science is one method of inquiry, but not the ultimate one. There can be many other methods. And the methods of science need not be as innocent and unbiased as highlighted by its followers. There are many scholars, not Ayurvedic, across the world who criticise the methods of science for many valid reasons. So, even if one admits Ayurveda is a non-science, it is not a matter to be ashamed of. Still, it can be a valid tool of enquiry.
There is always this question in the air regarding all systems of Medicine: Is medicine a science or art? Philosophers of medicine always appreciated the art in it. Ayurveda is always more about philosophy and art than about the science in it. What is derogatory about it?
Dr Kishor tries to focus primarily on his domain i.e., Kriyasareera. With some examples, he highlights the idea that the principles of kriyasareera are not scientific. They are obsolete pieces that should not be taught to any modern student. When you have a notion in your mind that it should be ‘scientific’, then you become judgemental about everything and start scrutinising. Unfortunately, it is scrutiny using the concepts of modern scientific physiology which you have accepted as the base. In this scrutiny, when you validate one Ayurvedic principle and accept it as scientific or otherwise, it shall not be forgotten that the tool with which you evaluated the principle itself need not be valid tomorrow. Because they are ‘scientific’ and they are on an intensive falsification drive throughout and may be refuted tomorrow. Then what will you do? This is the fate of all tools of scrutiny that you are going to employ to validate Ayurveda.
The branches of Moulika sidhantha, Kriyasareera, Roganidana, and Kayachikitsa in Ayurveda should work in sync in the academy. There should be creative dialogues between them. Projecting the Maulika Sidhantha to a living body is what is called Kriyasareera. Proper understanding of these two is essential for proceeding to learn and practice Nidanasasthra. Chikitsa is the prayoga of what the learner has gathered through the proper understanding of the earlier three. Maulika Sidhantha represents all the theoretical foundations of the sasthra. It has in it many inputs from different philosophical schools called darsanas like Sankhya, Nyaya, Vaiseshika and Advaitha. Ayurveda darsana tries to accommodate the essential components of all these schools that are beneficial in its context, i.e., understanding the living body. Many basic principles of Ayurveda are adaptations, modifications or improvisations of the approaches that one sees in darsanas. Understanding and explaining the living body based on the Maulika sidhanthas is called Kriyasareera. The learner needs to understand the functioning method of the body in the Ayurvedic way. It is this training which prepares him for the understanding of Nidanasasthra. Only with the background of Kriyasareera and Nidanasasthra, the learner succeeds in understanding the methods of chikitsa properly. The application of sidhanthas varies with changes in place and time. Earlier explanations may not be sufficient to explain a new experience. This may initiate new discussions about the validity of existing sidhanthas in that regard. Accordingly, new insights about the body may emerge. These insights may contribute to modifying the existing sidhanthas or proposing new ones. It is the regular exercise of giving and taking between the four quarters that makes the Ayurvedic body of wisdom vibrant and new. All the contemporary understanding of the body and its diseases shall be incorporated into these exercises. This shall be a regular event in all academies. The departments shall not be water-tight compartments. And the clinical-nonclinical divide, which is not original to Ayurveda, shall not grow beyond the purpose of administrative convenience.
The above exercise is not going to be beneficial to the sasthra, its students or society if it is not carried out on Ayurvedic premises. It is neither just an accumulation of data nor validation of the principles using some tool that is not meant for the job. It is an organic procedure to connect the theory and practice uninterruptedly happening within the system. Practice shall be the real testing ground for theory. In Ayurveda, the real practitioners are outside the campus. The teachers shall reach out to them and see how they put the theory into practice. This is not happening at present. There they think that Ayurveda is all about the Samhithas, their interpretation, reinterpretation and ‘scientific’ manipulation. This has caused great damage to the methodological integrity of Ayurveda. This is to be regained and put back in place.
Dr Kishor makes a statement towards the end: “Instead of teaching obsolete concepts in Ayurveda anatomy and physiology, the Ayurveda system deserves that our students be taught in-depth contemporary anatomy and contemporary physiology, since understanding the biological basis of a disease is essential for any physician, irrespective of the stream”. This statement shows that though confessional, Dr Kishor is nowhere near to suggesting a real solution. Concepts of Ayurvedic anatomy and physiology are not obsolete. They are to be understood and taught on Ayurvedic premises. Regaining the original premises of Ayurveda in teaching and practice is the only solution here. He thinks that the biological basis of diseases is universal sans boundaries of different systems. That is not true. Each system has its way of understanding the biological basis of diseases. And that is its originality and that is why we have different systems. You cannot expect to practice Ayurveda with a biological understanding of the disease in terms of modern medicine. A Vaidya should have an understanding of a disease based on Ayurvedic kriyasareera to treat it in the Ayurvedic way. For example, we treat diseases diagnosed by modern medicine by different names like chronic kidney disease, epilepsy, Ulcerative Colitis, Autoimmune Thyroiditis etc. This is done using the principles of Ayurveda Kriyasareera and not the biological basis of those diseases as explained in modern medicine. Meantime, the Vaidyas need not keep their eyes and ears closed when it comes to the contemporary understanding of these diseases. All those information is complementary to the Ayurvedic understanding when you are trained to foot firmly on your Ayurvedic platform.
Dr Kishor thinks that Ayurvedic theories are not tested and the scholars always think of them as irrefutable. This is not true. Ayurvedic principles are repeatedly tested. Unfortunately, Dr Kishor is not getting any idea of this, I am afraid. The real testing of theories is continuously happening in clinical practice wherever it is done in an Ayurvedic way. Vaidyas do not think the textual propositions as irrefutable. For example, nagaradi kashayam (the famous amruthotharam kashayam) is indicated in the text for treating jwaras of all dosha predominance. Vaidyas put this indication under repeated trial. As a result, they understand the qualities of the combination well. They do not prescribe this kashayam in jwaras of all dosha predominance. It is prescribed only when the jwara is kapha-pitha predominant and specifically when there is amam. Indeed, the text is not revised accordingly. It is because the Vaidyas do not enjoy the privilege of such exercises. They are also the least bothered about getting their work published in peer-reviewed journals or getting recognised for the same. They have no priorities of departmental promotions or increments in their perks. They focus on patient care. Instead, the academy could have done this exercise based on the information from the practising vaidyas.
A culture of rigorous interactions between the departments of Maulika Sidhantha, Kriyasareera, Roganidana and Chikitsa shall exist in the academy. This will pave way for the systematic review of the literature and revision of the same, wherever it is required, properly and pragmatically. I can give any number of examples to show this sort of real testing being done on Ayurvedic theory and practice in the field. Dr Kishor may identify that it is because of these exercises of the Vaidyas that Ayurveda is still a living system in the country, and not because of the ‘strained’ interpretations that the academy made (unwittingly or otherwise) all these years.
A worthy trial that I would recommend to the NCISM would be to keep all the topics of modern medicine alien to the freshly enrolled students of Ayurveda for not less than 2 years. This will help in connecting them with the Maulika Sidhantha and Kriyasareera properly and will train them to perceive a living human body in the Ayurvedic way.

• Affiliation: GURU, Rashtrya Ayurveda Vidyapeedh
• Country: India

Dear Dr. Prasad Sir,

Thanks for sparing your time on this. In the following paragraphs, I quote your statements and present my responses sequentially.

Prasad:
“Ayurveda operates as per its methodology which is different from that of modern science.”

Kishor:
Scholars have argued that the principles of research in both the streams are not incompatible with each other. [1] This argument is based on Ayurveda literature as well as Nyaya-Vaisheshika principles. However, ancient scholars did not have suitable tools to explore physiology and hence their speculations were faulty.

Prasad:
“The biggest difference between modern science and Ayurveda is that the former is very reluctant to accept the existence of a principle called consciousness whereas the latter cannot be construed at all without the principle of consciousness.”

Kishor:
An enormous amount of work has gone into consciousness research in contemporary science, neurophysiology and anaesthesiology being two such notable branches. In June 2022, International Anaesthesia Research Society has carried an article titled “Consciousness” in its official journal. The article delves into multiple aspects of consciousness.[2]

Prasad:
“After all, I always wonder what is wrong with Ayurveda being considered and continuing as a non-science. Ayurveda is always more about philosophy and art than about the science in it. What is derogatory about it?”

Kishor:
There is nothing wrong, if in its ‘artform’ it can treat patients successfully using its own physiology. But it can’t do that, is the truth. Ayurveda physicians today must depend on laboratory tests to understand pathology. If Ayurveda physiology was complete, many tests described in ancient texts would suffice. (Rakta-Shuddha and Ashuddha Rakta, Purisha- Jale nmajjana/ Mutra- Pipilika parisarpana, Tailabindu etc). Curious to know how would you explain this, considering your argument that Ayurveda practitioners are the only true saviours of Ayurveda, as you suggest towards the end? Do you see this as laborious interpretation, or as total dismissal of Ayurveda principles, or as a natural assimilation that follows Nyaya-Vaisheshika principles? If it is the last one, would you please explain with one example of, say, serum creatinine, the Nyaya-Vaisheshika principles that lead to the understanding the kidney functions?

Prasad:
“Dr Kishor tries to focus primarily on his domain i.e., Kriyasareera. With some examples, he highlights the idea that the principles of kriyasareera are not scientific. They are obsolete pieces that should not be taught to any modern student. Unfortunately, it is scrutiny using the concepts of modern scientific physiology which you have accepted as the base.”

Kishor:
It is the truth that has been accepted as the base of this scrutiny, not the modern science. Semen is not formed in bone marrow is truth. There are no ducts that connect intestines and urinary bladder is the truth. Blood cells are formed in bone marrow is the truth. It is not scientism but, it is the truth that forms the basis of this argument. Whatever method that leads to truth is acceptable.

Prasad:
“Understanding and explaining the living body based on the Maulika sidhanthas is called Kriyasareera. The learner needs to understand the functioning method of the body in the Ayurvedic way.”

Kishor:
Your own Guru, Vaidyabhushanam K. Raghavan Thirumulpad in his book ‘Ayurveda Parichaya’ writes categorically: “Ayurveda is indeed a physical science. Such explanations presented in Sankhya concerning with cosmogony as Mula Prakriti producing Mahat, Mahat producing Ahamkara, Ahamkara producing Tanmatra, Tanmatra producing Bhuta etc. have got little relevance in the study of Ayurveda. Only those aspects that are perceivable through the sense organs are to be called Vyakta and that is also how Bhuta is defined in Ayurveda. Therefore, all entities prior to the manifestation of Bhuta can be collectively called ‘Avyakta’. Akasha is perceivable through Shabda, Vayu is perceivable through Sparsha, Agni is perceivable through Rupa, and so on.” What you are suggesting looks contrary to this. It would be nice if you could explain the physiology of urine formation using the Samkhya and Nyaya-Vaisheshika siddhanta.

Prasad:
“The application of sidhanthas varies with changes in place and time. Earlier explanations may not be sufficient to explain a new experience. This may initiate new discussions about the validity of existing sidhanthas in that regard. Accordingly, new insights about the body may emerge. These insights may contribute to modifying the existing sidhanthas or proposing new ones.”

Kishor:
Academia has been doing the same by incorporating new insights into the curricula. But you have a problem there. Hence, an example to show how modern physiology of formation of blood cells in the bone marrow can be incorporated into Ayurveda using Nyaya-Vaisheshika principles would be a wonderful insight that will benefit all readers. I take it as a learning opportunity.

Prasad:
“Concepts of Ayurvedic anatomy and physiology are not obsolete. They are to be understood and taught on Ayurvedic premises.”

Kishor:
I again ask a similar question: to kindly explain the process of formation semen inside the bone marrow along with the process of oozing out of the semen through small pores in the bones, on the Ayurvedic premises. Again, this would be a learning opportunity for me.

Prasad:
“A Vaidya should have an understanding of a disease based on Ayurvedic kriyasareera to treat it in the Ayurvedic way.”

Kishor:
A sixty year old male presents with fatigue as the chief symptom. He is otherwise well and not on any medication. There is no history of reduced appetite/fever/weight loss. On examination, no abnormality is found except for mild pallor.
How does one approach a case like this using the ayurveda (tridosha) framework? If it is plainly diagnosed as a case of panduroga and treated along ayurvedic lines, diagnoses with grave prognosis (such as renal cell carcinoma, for example) would be missed. If you propose that such cases require the aid of modern investigations, you are simply endorsing the view that the classical ayurveda framework is incomplete and therefore unsafe if applied without crucial inputs from current pathology. (This is not an imaginary example. It is taken from a real-world clinical incident in which a renal cell carcinoma patient had to pay the price of delayed diagnosis for about 6-7 months.)

Prasad:
“Indeed, the text is not revised accordingly. It is because the Vaidyas do not enjoy the privilege of such exercises. They are also the least bothered about getting their work published in peer-reviewed journals or getting recognised for the same. They have no priorities of departmental promotions or increments in their perks. They focus on patient care.”

Kishor:
Is it not the duty of a Vaidya to publish the new clinical results, for the betterment of the humankind, if not for his/her career? Focusing on patient care should also mean sharing their experiences with academia. We have been trying to gather how Vaidyas use Ayurveda principles in diagnosing and treating different clinical conditions. However, the response we are receiving has been very poor. [3]

Prasad:
“A worthy trial that I would recommend to the NCISM would be to keep all the topics of modern medicine alien to the freshly enrolled students of Ayurveda for not less than 2 years. This will help in connecting them with the Maulika Sidhantha and Kriyasareera properly and will train them to perceive a living human body in the Ayurvedic way.”

Kishor:
Every school going kid is introduced to basic human physiology during high school and intermediate level science education. Hence, are you suggesting that all formally school-educated students must be declared unqualified to study Ayurveda? Will not their prior exposure to biology create problems in studying Ayurveda?

References:

1. Vinodkumar MV, Anoop AK. Review on comparability of ‘classical’ and ‘contemporary’ research methods in the context of Ayurveda. Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine. 2020 Oct-Dec;11(4):539-546. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaim.2019.02.005. PMID: 31387787; PMCID: PMC7772492.
2. Mashour GA. Consciousness. Anesth Analg. 2022 Jun 1;134(6):1118-1125. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005983. Epub 2022 May 10. PMID: 35595688; PMCID: PMC9093729.
3. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfoZjhriFLhbpPatSSRFpjtTgRD2foJ4utcHJChpCGCVAGASA/viewform

• Affiliation: Banaras Hindu University
• Country: India

Namaskar!
Similar dilemma and hurdles aroused when I was trying to understand classics while doing MD (Rasashastra) at Jaipur.
Classics tell Rasa(parada) as Shiva veerya and one of the potent elements on earth to heal, rejuvenate as well as make our body everlasting (dehavad).

If I try to analyse this principle based on modern chemistry ,Mercury is such toxic metal that don’t dare to touch it , or stay in the room where it gets spilled. So it is total nonsense to think about its medicinal value.Leave it and change your path.And how could a metallic liquid be the sperm of Shiva, it is nonsense story.
There I many such instances where I supported my science on one hand and criticised it on other way.But support was always one step ahead than criticism due to the teachings of great gurus who taught to understand the things written between the lines and who taught to believe in things yet to be proven.
Thank you!

• Affiliation: Patanjali Ayurveda Medical College
• Country: Nepal

Dr. VG Sharma,

I have the following points to make regarding your comments.

1. What Karl Popper has suggested is not a scientific theory to test! It is all common sense and perfectly applicable in the context in which I have cited it. It is a tool that one can use to test other theories and by itself is not a theory. Falsification is a principle that we use whenever we propose a hypothesis. If the hypothesis can be stated in falsifiable language, it means that it is testable. Otherwise, it would only be an untestable assertion. So, calling the principle of falsifiability “pseudoscientific” would be a gross error.

2. You have raised a question pertaining to Sanskrit grammar. If you contend that the explanation of “formation of semen from the bone marrow” is wrong, you should also be able to state “what is the correct meaning of the verse” that proposes the formation of semen in the bone marrow. Charaka Samhita describes this process as follows: (Chikitsa Sthana, 15th Chapter, 32-35)

“The sneha (fatty) portion of majja (marrow) produces shukra (semen). The porosity in the asthi (bones) is produced because of the factors such as vata and akasha. Shukra comes out of asthi through these pores just as the water coming out of a new earthen vessel. Through the channels known as shukravaha srotamsi, this shukra spreads all over the body. Shukra is thus collected in the urinary bladder and is then discharged.”

Without explaining this using the right kind of Sanskrit grammar, your objection to my view becomes unfounded.

3. The mere existence of three different explanations (Nyaya) of “Dhatu Parinama and Dhatu Poshana” indicates that the theory itself is unsettled. Had there been clarity, only one explanation would have been sufficient, which is characteristic of settled facts.

4. “The proposition that each set of tissues/organs grouped under this conjecture could be based on drug action” is not based on any evidence. When you say “Dhatu parinama appears more likely as a model, which, by explaining how quickly drugs are transported across body and which organs behave similarly under target-specific action” you are bringing in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics and still you say that this cannot be called physiology. Without physiology how can pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics be even explained? The concept of “Prabhava” itself shows that the existing rules of Rasa-Guna-Virya-Vipaka are often insufficient to explain the drug actions.

5. “Therapeutics that are useful in Vata Rakta and Vata Vyadhi are also useful in treating diseases of reproductive tract” is something that you state but is not mentioned in textbooks. Further, there are no published studies to support this.

6. You state that “Medicine’s aim is to build working models of disease and health based on available data, test them and use them as needed. As long as these models deliver their promised outcomes, they are not outdated. In my experience, the models that Ayurveda developed 2600+ years are still working fine.”

The problem precisely is that these models do not deliver their promised outcomes. Agnivesha himself points to this in the Charaka Samhita. Vide the paper by GL Krishna referenced in my article. If it is your view that the Ayurveda models are robust, just prove it. A Nobel will be yours!

I also ask, had these models been precise and adequate, why do Ayurveda clinicians use modern laboratory investigations to diagnose diseases? Dosha model should have been sufficient to diagnose any condition, in that case, using Vriddhi-Kshaya features.

• Affiliation: Banaras Hindu University
• Country: India

Thanks for your kind reply. I cannot write as much as should as the comment word limit is 800. Apologies for any perceived inability to express myself in that limit. I noticed that you misquoted me repeatedly. Keeping all that in mind, allow me to make a few points.

****

Dr. Kishor: So, calling the principle of falsifiability “pseudoscientific” would be a gross error.

Me: “falsifiability” has been repeatedly rejected by leading scientists ever since its inception. Physicist Sean Carroll’s “What scientific theory is ready to retire” is a good starting point. When the status of falsifiability is shaky and is most likely to be abandoned, I don’t think it is wise to use it to judge anything related to Ayurveda. The popularity of falsifiability is easily attributed to two logical fallacies – The Appeal to Authority Fallacy and The Bandwagon Fallacy. The “principle” of falsification itself is an excellent example of two other logical fallacies – The False Dilemma Fallacy and The Hasty Generalisation Fallacy.

****

Dr. Kishor: Without explaining this using the right kind of Sanskrit grammar, your objection to my view becomes unfounded.

Me: Besides this argument being “The Burden of Proof Fallacy”, I owe no explanation here more so because basic Sanskrit is taught in BAMS. You cannot expect others to make up for what you did not care to study.

****

Dr. Kishor: The mere existence of three different explanations (Nyaya) of “Dhatu Parinama and Dhatu Poshana” indicates that the theory itself is unsettled. Had there been clarity, only one explanation would have been sufficient, which is characteristic of settled facts.

Me: Three nyayas of Dhatu Parinama were written by commentators who lived millennia after the original textbooks were written. That only proves that the commentators were confused, not that the textbook itself is confusing. After all, the commentators lived in a period when Sanskrit as a language was on decline. Dhatu parinama is already settled, as it is clear to anyone with adequate knowledge in Sanskrit.

****

Dr. Kishor: Without physiology how can pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics be even explained?

Me: I am ever so sorry for being vague due to word limit. What I meant is– Ayurveda acharyas were able to vaguely identify the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of medicines they used but that was most likely to be from the observations they made while experimenting, and I don’t think we do need to attribute their ideas to correct or incorrect understanding in physiology.

****

Dr. Kishor: “Therapeutics that are useful in Vata Rakta and Vata Vyadhi are also useful in treating diseases of reproductive tract” is something that you state but is not mentioned in textbooks.

Me: I clearly wrote “many medicines mentioned in vatavyadhi & vatarakta are excellent medicines of infertility as well”. What you quoted is your own reading. Read the formulations mentioned in vatavyadhi & vatarakta. My point is clear beyond doubt. Those medicines are still used in infertility. We study it in Charakasamhita, Kayachikitsa and Prasutitantra-streeroga. For example, bala-taila from vatarakta is “shukra-asrug-dosha-nashanam”. The complete lack of BAMS level knowledge in a BHU professor is terrifying.

****

Dr. Kishor: If it is your view that the Ayurveda models are robust, just prove it.

Me: again “The Burden of Proof Fallacy”. Nevertheless, aren’t BAMS doctors proving it every single day? I don’t think you will get it because your publications reflect that you’ve zero clinical knowledge. But I agree with that we need to find some ways to document our clinical experiences though most clinicians don’t have the time and peace to do it.

****

Dr. Kishor: why do Ayurveda clinicians use modern laboratory investigations to diagnose diseases?

Me: After BAMS, I went Kerala to study under one of the Ashtavaidyas who also introduced me to many BAMS doctors from traditional Vaidya families. I haven’t seen any of them using modern laboratory investigations in any stage for understanding the disease. Because they treat shotha, not hyperthyroidism, they treat vatarakta and amavata, not arthritis. Yet, their results were always centuries ahead of those who taught me in BAMS. If you are unknown to the existence of such doctors, I can only ask you to get to know them. I am not saying that Ayurveda cures everything but Ayurveda definitely delivers what it promises.

****

Me: It is difficult to hold serious discussions on Ayurveda with someone of poor Sanskrit sknowledge, broken understanding of Samhita and alarmingly inadequate clinical experience (not forgetting the megalomaniac demeaning undertones). I am sorry that your teachers wronged you in irredeemably worst ways possible. Kindly stop weaponising it against the rest of us, respected Sir. Have great times ahead.

• Affiliation: Private practitioner
• Country: India

Dear Dr. VG Sharma,

The kinds of ad-hominem attacks you have resorted to, speak a lot! Instead of arguing on the points being discussed, it is disappointing that you have resorted to personalised attacks.

Anyways, this kind of showing off does not offend me and I still have the following points to record:

1. Even if you keep the principle of falsifiability completely away, my arguments still stand valid by applying the principle called “common sense”. However, if we stop valuing the falsifiability principle, most of our research that depends on “hypothesis testing” would be rendered invalid! That poses an even greater threat not only to Ayurveda but to the entire research process in science itself!

2. A reading of Charaka Samhita, Chikitsa Sthana, 16th Chapter on Panduroga leads to a reference to Shilajatu Vataka, which has been indicated in Shukra Dosha as well. Following your line of argument (where you cite Bala Taila) would logically lead to an inference that Shukra would be the Dhatu to form immediately after Rakta Dhatu! This is because Rakta is the Dhatu that is directly involved in Pandu Roga. You are using cherry-picked references to prove your point, ignoring many other contradictory references. Further, Vatarakta is not even a disease that uniquely affects Majja.

3. Can I ask you what led you to believe that I do not know even the basics of Samskrita? The logic of Panchami vibhakti is a frequent argument that Ayurveda academia invokes to suggest that a certain reference in the text does not indicate the process of formation of one Dhatu from another. A straightforward reading is what is needed in science, even according to the rules of Shastra. Other figurative readings are applicable in artforms such as creative literature. (Please refer to the usage of Abhidha, Lakshana and Vyanjana in Samskrita Vyakarana). However, what is interesting is that even this logic fails in explaining the text that I have quoted from Charaka Samhita, Chikitsa Sthana, 15th Chapter. Well, in fact, the burden of proof lies with you in this case because you are the one who has invoked the logic of Panchami Vibhakti. I would call this attitude of yours “escapist” because you are not answering my query citing no reason whatsoever.

4. As I have explained in another reply, any knowledge that depends on a particular language for its existence cannot be called science. Science is always translatable and language cannot be a barrier to its understanding.

5. What you say about commentaries is not logical. If the facts in the textbooks were completely settled, nobody should have had confusion about them. The application of “Samanya-Vishesha” theory is one such example. All understand it the same way and all agree to it. Nobody has any confusion because it is a valid theory.

6. If any physician practices and prescribes medicine in the 21st century without resorting to any diagnostic tools, it simply suggests that such physicians pose a threat to society. Please refer to the case of renal cell carcinoma that has been cited in another reply to understand what I mean.

• Affiliation: Banaras Hindu University
• Country: India

REFUTING THE STATEMENTS OF AYURVEDA PROFESSIONALS ON THE BASIS OF PRACTICAL APPROACH

Reference – Patwardhan K. confessions of an Ayurveda professor. Indian J Med Ethics. Published online first on July 2, 2022.DOI: 10.20529/IJME.2022.049

In opinion of the above mentioned article terming certain Ayurvedic Principles are obsolete and author’s advice to remove from the syllabus.
On the basis of treatment of the patients of current scenario that we follow in our daily practice, it is my humble request to the author that without appropriate data, such statements against Ayurveda will create suspense of credibility. I want to ask from the author, did he applied the Basic Ayurveda Concepts of management in practice or not or has he discussed these principles with Ayurveda practitioners? If yes, then what is the basis to delete these Principles from the syllabus?
Irrational attitude and bias or prejudiced conceptions may lead to apprehension and mental aberration among Ayurveda students and fraternity.
For these basic Ayurvedic concepts criticized by Dr. K. Patwardhan (Author of above mentioned article), we use in our daily practice, If these are deleted from the syllabus, then how Ayurveda fraternity will treat mostly multisystem involved cases of current scenario.
There are various diseases and each disease can’t be named, so vaidya should not be ashamed and treat the patient according to the Dosha, Prakriti and Nidaan involvement.(CH. SU. 18/44)
So, if these Basic Principles are deleted no existence of Ayurveda will be there. Then what will happen, it is beyond our imagination.
Rather we consider that it is the need of hour to more and more strengthen these basic principles.
Ayurveda is such a Medical Science that is completely practical. If one’s intellect is unable to apply theoretical part with practical, it does not mean to drop from the curriculum of Ayurveda programmes.
Dr. K. Patwardhan’s notion is notional and not based on practical application. If Author uses his skill to treat the patients of current scenario on the basis of Holistic Ayurveda principles, there is no question that such conflict of thoughts and cognitive dissonance will arise among the students or Ayurveda fraternity.
It is our kind advice to the author that go to treat the ailing society of multiple diseases in a single body. Discuss diseases with Ayurveda fraternity and collect practical ideas, e.g. current diabetes is not only diabetes in majority of cases. Diabetes is presenting as metabolic syndrome and these cases responds very well to holistic Ayurveda basic principles. It seems to me that author of this article even is not aware about Vyadhi Sankar management. Vyadhi Sankar cases management in current scenario is only possible with Holistic Principles of Ayurveda. Without discussion practical aspect of Ayurveda, author’s suggestion is ridiculous to remove the basic principles from syllabus.
Basic Ayurveda principles can’t be translated to the modern science because original concepts are quite dissimilar of these two pathies.
Now the time has come to explain Nidan (Diagnosis) according Ayurveda concepts i.e. instead of telling cervical spondylitis, Ayurveda chikitsak should say, manya sandhigatavata, Hypertension should be interpreted as Vyan Vayu Vaishamya or Raktagatavata, likewise other Ayurveda terminology should be used in our daily practice.

Physiology is a subject of B.A.M.S. 1st year syllabus. It is Ayurveda teacher’s duty to explain Ayurveda physiology in clinical aspect according to the Holistic approach of management, because patient of current scenario are suffering from multiple diseases and system involvement. So patient of current scenario cannot be treated in pieces successfully. Ayurveda students need to explain according to patient sufferings, because you are aware that if you prepare a thorough history of a patient you will find multiple diseases in a patient, otherwise your efforts of teaching will go in vain.

Modern science is not dealing Holistically, instead we treat patient on the basis of basic principles of Ayurveda i.e. Tridosha, Aam – Niram, Anubandhya,Anubandha , Aavaranam, Ashayapkarsha etc. These basic principles are the backbone of our treating method.

We want to explain that we are getting marvellous results only on the basis of these basic principles. A patient of Takayasu’s Arteritis (pulse-less disease), the diseases have unknown cause in modern medicine Textbook. Now the treatment of this unknown cause Takayasu’s Arteritis is just symptomatic and not up to satisfactory result with bad prognosis. But when we see according to Ayurveda aspects, Pachan of Sukshma Aam Rasa and Shotha- har chikitsa gives relief and also pulse starts to be felt. This is discernible. How can modern science compare Sukshma Aam Rasa with modern concept? How can this chikitsa siddhanta justified?

We usually take help of modern technology to enhance the way of diagnosis in Ayurveda. It doesn’t mean that we have to compare and try to define Ayurveda according to modern views. If someone’s intellect does not understand the clinical application of authentic Ayurveda terms, it does not mean futile or obsolete. Each and every statement in Ayurveda text is completely practical and best suits to the multiple system involved patients of current scenario.
If any principle is dropped from syllabus of UG or PG Ayurveda, how the treatment of patients will be possible and a great havoc may arise in our health system.
I also become more confident about the basic principles, when I treat the cases and get amazing results. Our faith deepens in these principles.

It can also be added:
1. There is no need of modern conversion of every Ayurveda terminology.
2. Basic Principles of Ayurveda are quite different from modern medical science.

If we ask you for translation of modern terms into Ayurveda, can you solve the problem?
Likewise, why there is need of each Ayurveda term to be named according to modern science? It is not possible also, because basic approach of both these science is quite different. If one is not properly making efforts to understand Ayurveda, it doesn’t mean futile or obsolete. If someone thinks so, it may be a sign of imbecile or corrupt intellect.
Instead of words ‘obsolete’ or ‘futile’, one may legitimise that according to the multi-system suffering of patients, as we experience in our practice, Textbook of Kaya Chikitsa must be prepared accordingly. So that confusion of new doctors regarding management may be ended and they may treat patients more confidently. Because contemporary multisystem involved cases can easily be treated with Ayurveda Holistic management.
Whole Ayurveda literature is legitimate. There is no need to alter the terms used in textbooks or Samhitas. These terms used in the syllabus are basic foundations.
Without explaining theoretical aspect with clinical approach to the students, legitimisation is false and you can’t understand the Ayurvedic perspective of management. These concepts can’t be compared with modern science. If any effort made to illegitimise basic Ayurveda concepts, it will prove crisis of health.

• Affiliation: Guru-Rashtriya Ayurveda Vidyapeeth, New Delhi, (Moradabad, U.P.)
• Country: India

Sir ,
Gone through your essay and i can conclude one thing that ,we need introspection, on a higher scale just like a revolution .
Ayurveda fraternity here doesn’t need a mask to cover himself but ,it should stabilise it concepts providing scientific basis not hypotheesis.
We should accept that some more or less ,our concepts are obsolete and we must drip them.
And lastly ,
Respect for your courage and honesty .

• Affiliation: Student 3rd YEAR BAMS BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY
• Country: India