मातापित्रोरपि च ते प्रागुत्पत्तिर्न युज्यते॥१८॥
कर्मजस्तु मतो जन्तुः कर्मजास्तस्य चामयाः॥
न ह्यृते कर्मणो जन्म रोगाणां पुरुषस्य वा॥१९॥
Translation: Bhadrakapya said " No. Blind does not have blind parents. Your theory does not explain origin of Mother and Father.
( I Propose) Organisms and their diseases originate from Karma (Behaviors). Without Karma no organism can be born and diseases are also a result of Karma.
Commentary (Chakrapani): If inheritance theory was correct then a blind person should procreate blind children is the thrust of argument. Another reason (for refutation of inheritance theory) is given as the impossibility of origin of first organism. ( Chakrapani does not comment on Karma theory)
Commentary (Vishnu): Bhadrakaya here is offering two very strong objections to Inheritance theory.
1. All diseases are not inherited. Inheritance of acquired characteristics is a very long standing debate. Currently there is a trend to synthesize Darwinian and Lamarckian theories. Epigenetics is the whole discipline in the forefront of this school of thought. Still nobody can deny that many diseases are not inherited.
2. Origin of first organism cannot be explained by theory of inheritance. Currently there is no satisfactory scientific theory about origin of first organism. We do not even know for certain whether first organism originated on earth or elsewhere. The central dogma RNA to DNA to Proteins does not explain origin of RNA.
As to the proposal of Bhadrakapya that Karma is the cause we should think whether it is Karma in this incarnation or in an earlier incarnation. I do not want to go into the controversial area of reincarnation. Ayurveda believes in reincarnation. The discussion about that topic is in तिस्रैषणीय अध्याय सूत्रस्थान११ (Chapter 11 in Sootrasthana). When a disease is not explainable by obvious causes usually it is explained by invoking Karma in earlier incarnation. A large section of Ayurvedic literature deals with Karmaja Vyadhi Chikitsa or treatment of diseases caused by past behaviors.
Even if we discount the reincarnation theory and look at the proposal of Bhadrakapya there is certain merit in the argument. Behavior, may it be instinctive or by free will, is an essential factor in generation of diseases. ( When we cannot come to any conclusion as to which behavior caused a disease we call it idiopathic and traditional Vaidyas call it Karmaja.)
Whether this factor (Behavior) is sufficient is another point to ponder.
As to the proposal of Bhadrakapya that Karma is the cause we should think whether it is Karma in this incarnation or in an earlier incarnation. I do not want to go into the controversial area of reincarnation. Ayurveda believes in reincarnation. The discussion about that topic is in तिस्रैषणीय अध्याय सूत्रस्थान११ (Chapter 11 in Sootrasthana). When a disease is not explainable by obvious causes usually it is explained by invoking Karma in earlier incarnation. A large section of Ayurvedic literature deals with Karmaja Vyadhi Chikitsa or treatment of diseases caused by past behaviors.
Even if we discount the reincarnation theory and look at the proposal of Bhadrakapya there is certain merit in the argument. Behavior, may it be instinctive or by free will, is an essential factor in generation of diseases. ( When we cannot come to any conclusion as to which behavior caused a disease we call it idiopathic and traditional Vaidyas call it Karmaja.)
Whether this factor (Behavior) is sufficient is another point to ponder.
Madan wrote
ReplyDeleteThis journey embarked on here of working through Charak Samhita - the initial line-by-line energy provided by yourself and then collectively with many minds contributing and providing their views is the best way to reap the benefits of this ancient text and also prepare it for the next few centuries.
A few of the aims and goals I can readily visualize for such a venture:
- To study the main text and the major commentaries [list below is based on information available via the Internet; there could well be others]:
- Bhattara Harishchandra's "Charakanyasa" (c.6th century),
- Jaijjata's "Nirantarapadavyakhya" (c.875),
- Cakrapanidatta's - "Carakatatparyatika / Ayurveda Dipika" (1066)
- Shivadasa Sena's "Charakatattvapradipika" (c.1460)
- Narasimha Kavirāja's Charakatattvaprakasha & Gangadhara Kaviratna's 'Jalpakalpataru' (1879)
with a view to i) assessing the accuracy of the translations and biases / 'spins' in the interpretations and ii) to map the influences these interpretations (may) have had on different schools of learning and teaching of Ayurveda, iii) to highlight the present day relevance of these interpretations and justification for further interpretations / critiques / commentaries
- Based on current / contemporary understanding of Biology and concepts, to benchmark the best possible interpretation of contemporary value / relevance
- To make suggestions on how Ancient Knowledge will guide the future - the much discussed "Shastra for Science" aims. For instance, can we complement what Frank John Ninivaggi MD (Yale School of Medicine) has compiled in "Ayurveda: A Comprehensive Textbook of Traditional Indian Medicine for the West (Praeger Press, 2008)"?
Madan wrote
ReplyDeleteEpigenetics, The Human Microbiome and other such new areas of study are filled with surprises - enough to negate many contemporary gene- / genome-centric views and conclusions about health and disease. The abstract below of an early study from China is a good example of the increasing understanding about the Human Microbiome's role in health and disease.
This, from China, is just one example - there are innumerable other important studies with good evidence for links to obesity and diabetes and many other metabolic diseases. For instance, the directions being provided by Gökhan S. Hotamisligil, M.D., Ph.D. (James Stevens Simmons Professor of Genetics & Metabolism Chair, Department of Genetics & Complex Disease Harvard School of Public Health). His research examines the molecular mechanisms of nutrient sensing and response pathways as they relate to physiological metabolic homeostasis and also to these pathologies and how immune response is integrated to metabolic homeostasis. For recent published work see: Cell Metabolism 2010, 11:467-478; Cell 2010, 140:338-348; Nature Medicine 2009, 15(12):1383-92; Cell 2008, 134:933-944; Nature 2006, 444(7121):860-867; Science 2006, 313(5790):1137-40; Cell 2007, 129(3):537-48, Nature 2007, 447(7147):959-965.
Madan wrote
ReplyDeleteFrom a distance this looks like an outline of the 'agni-ojas-bala' axis that Prof. R H Singh and Prof. M S Baghel propose in their many presentations - and implied in Ayurvedic texts and the Shastras.
The Hotamisligil Lab was also the discovers of the first lipid hormone (!) and described in a 2008 paper "Identification of a lipokine, a lipid hormone linking adipose tissue to systemic metabolism." PMID: 18805087 (abstract below).
All these studies and surprising / unexpected results point to:
1 - the incompleteness in our knowledge - some of it arising from the overemphasis and many a times incorrect gene-centric approaches (and confirms comments in Charaka Samhita about the Science of Life ... that it will never be complete).
2 - the even bigger challenge - translating all this and showing how they match well the language of Ayurveda and to concepts and system level integration well described in Ayurvedic texts,
3 - how Shastra can guide Science - for instance the "agni-ogas-bala axis" and how all this fits in with key contemporary research questions of how the 'immune response is integrated to metabolic homeostasis' (issues of great public health significance as recognized by researchers in Harvard School of Public Health)
4 - the need to integrate such new knowledge into Medical Curricula - both Ayurvedic and Modern Medicine. In the context of Ayurvedic Research and Teaching - this integration has to be done in conjunction with a deep appreciation of all that Ayurvedic Philosophy stands for in terms of health and disease.