Discussions
A qualia-centric approach to Ayurveda and Hindu knowledge systems can address modern science’s blind spot
In this paper, I argue for approaching Ayurveda and Hindu knowledge systems in a qualia-centric manner, the way their originators intended. The materialist assumptions that underlie modern medicine, while undeniably effective, are not the only way to understand the body, just as the Western tonal system is not the only way to approach music. Using the wrong metaphysical lens is the root cause behind many seemingly intractable debates on the validity of Hindu knowledge systems. At the same time, it is important to have externally verifiable benchmarks — quality, reliability and efficacy — as universal metrics, and every healthcare provider must seek to meet them.
Copyright and license
©Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 2024: Open Access and Distributed under the Creative Commons license ( CC BY-NC-ND 4.0),
which permits only non-commercial and non-modified sharing in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
As the author acknowledges, what is written here applies only to those kinds of situations/illnesses where the body can heal itself and where the mind/brain is somehow involved (either diseases of the mind themselves, or diseases where “neuro-immunology” etc has been implicated).
Even within these narrow situations it is unclear whether the author is saying that the healing happens through a conscious “meditation” or an external intervention (like a placebo or a purgative).
As the author says, the advanced mediative states are only accessible to a few “capable” individuals. And also, to my knowledge, Ayurveda often doesn’t rely on teaching patients meditation.
Therefore the author is likely saying that through advanced meditation “capable” people discover “truths” about our body which they then use to intervene using tools like a placebo or a purgative which then causes an unconscious/subconscious change in the mind-body functioning of the patient leading to self-healing.
This is a plausible sounding explanation. But that explanation is useful only in two conditions
1. People do recover through these interventions, AND
2. There is no other explanation that makes sense.
This would require a case by case analysis, but my hunch is that either of these prerequisites fail in many of the common situations we come across.
To give a counterexample, when a Godman produces vibhuthi/bhasma from thin air, we can either explain it as “a quantum mechanics added reorientation of protons and neutrons using advanced mental capabilities that allow physical manipulation of subatomic particles” or we can say that “the Godman hides a powder solid between fingers which he then crushes”
One of those explanations do not rely on you to do years of “sadhana”.
@Akshay Dinesh – Your comment is pretty much correct, and I agree with most of it. Certainly the bhasma example you give the overwhelming likelihood is a fraud hiding it in his hand. Your understanding of the mechanism that I am postulating is also accurate. It is not the only mechanism, of course, but it is the main one I discuss in the article. I do agree that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and therefore strict and impartial outcomes analysis is the only thing that can answer all the lingering questions about these practices. Time to move past the desire to figure out “mechanism” from a Western metaphysical perspective, and just see whether the desired outcome is achieved or not. And I suspect some interventions and some Vaidyas will prove themselves effective, even if they aren’t able to explain why in terms that will resonate with a Western trained scientist.
Reading Neurologist Venkatraman’s article sparked deep reflection on his perspective—whether he is presenting a well-intentioned defence of Ayurveda or inadvertently misrepresenting its principles due to certain misconceptions. While his article contains many statements that do not directly relate to Ayurveda, rather than engaging in a detailed debate, I will simply highlight them with brief clarifications.
The assertion that Ayurveda was originally intended to follow a qualia-centric approach is not entirely accurate. The very term Samkhya derives from Samkhya, meaning quantity. Ayurveda integrates philosophical foundations from Samkhya (established by Kapilamuni) and Vaisheshika (founded by Kanad), both of which emphasize systematic classification, including quantitative analysis.
While qualia-centric methods are employed in Ayurveda—just as they are in modern medicine—they are applied primarily in contexts where quantification is not feasible. However, Ayurveda also extensively utilizes quantification. The Caraka Samhita contains an entire chapter, Shareer Sankhya Shareer, dedicated to numerical analysis. Thus, the statement that Samkhya and Vaisheshika attempted to build a physics system focused on qualities while neglecting quantities is factually inaccurate.
Referring to Ayurveda and the broader Indian knowledge system as “Hindu sciences” inadvertently isolates them from the global scientific discourse, whereas they have always been intended as universal bodies of knowledge.
Additionally, the interpretation of Agni in Ayurveda as literal fire is a significant oversimplification. In Ayurvedic texts, Agni is a fundamental concept linked to heat (Santapa), which has measurable thermal properties, and digestion and metabolism, which govern physiological transformation. Its meaning extends far beyond the conventional notion of fire.
The concept of Panchamahabhuta (the five super beings) is another area where misinterpretation arises. The word Bhoota refers to a being. Bhootas are not chemical elements but are beings, materialistic and non-materialistic. For instance, Akasha (space) is not a physical entity but represents the vacuum. Linking Prithvi is linked to smell, to the anus/defecation, and to the muladhara or root chakra. Jala to the urogenital organs, and the functions of micturition and sexuality. And Tejas lthe feet, and walking may be based on Yoga but it has no relation to Ayurveda.
Furthermore, while Ayurveda and Yoga share historical roots, they are distinct disciplines with different objectives. Ayurveda primarily focuses on health and disease management, whereas Yoga is fundamentally concerned with mental discipline and spiritual well-being. Concepts like Chakras, which belong to the domain of Yoga, should not be conflated with Ayurvedic principles. Similarly, Patanjali, who authored Yogasutras for mental discipline, also contributed to grammar (Mahabhashya) and, according to some views, to Ayurveda (Caraka Samhita). Each of these domains serve a unique purpose, and while interdisciplinary insights are valuable, unnecessary blending of concepts can lead to confusion rather than clarity.
By ensuring precision in how we present Ayurveda, we can better appreciate its depth while avoiding misinterpretations that may arise from unintended overlaps with other knowledge systems.