Discussions
Deep meditation as a valid “scientific” method: A flawed argument
An interventional neurologist recently responded to my two-year-old article suggesting that Ayurveda should be approached in a qualia-centric manner. He questions the fundamental assumptions of what he calls “Western” science yet tries to use the same to claim that ancient Ayurveda and Yoga masters gained the knowledge of the functioning of human body through deep meditation. He appears to consider deep meditation as a valid scientific method, despite it lacking external validity. At the same time, he advocates for external validity to test Ayurveda therapeutics. I draw attention to this contradiction in his argument.
Copyright and license ©Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 2025: 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.
A qualia-centric approach to Ayurveda and Hindu knowledge systems can address modern science’s blind spot
Reading Neurologist Venkatraman’s above 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. 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.