10/04/2023
TRADITIONAL AYURVEDA VS 'AMERICAN AYURVEDA':
There has been a recent trend in what has become 'American ' a trend that dismisses the traditional traditional context of Ayurveda within the Vaidika ( ) sphere, and seeks to misappropriate this ancient system, calling it a better "version" than the traditional. It is not even "Colonialist Ayurveda" - for such resulted in schools of rhinoplasty being set up in London and helped escalate homeopathy in the United Kingdom, which added Ayurvedic facets!
This [American Ayurveda] can be good, but also dangerous for numerous reasons, as I shall briefly outline:
1. It seems to undermine that Ayurveda, and the Indic/Asian traditions have their own scientific and logical traditions, viz. , (not just Samkhya) that Ayurveda, itself, rests upon, and from whence many Greek philosophers themselves, in turn, derived their philosophies, and ideals that became the basis for the west in the first place.
2. Relative to these, Nyaya etc. schools were also often atheistic schools, placing more emphasis on logic and debate with numerous prerequisites for debates/discussion, which the "American Ayurveda" proponents dismiss, ignore and instead, favour the more socialist model of "My way or the highway", also known as screaming anyone else down. They don't and won't engage in debate, constructive discussion, nor provide references for their views in an almost Pentecostal fashion of 'speaking on tongues!'.
3. We cannot dismiss the validity of vis-a-vis congenital disorders in Ayurveda, and also it as a counselling tool, as also for phenotypes. Denigrating these traditions, ironically, also denigrates the traditions of psychics and mathematics as have today (historical Acharyas that gave us these arts, were also grammarians, astronomers and astrologers!).
4. Psycho-Somatics, perhaps the most important key that defines Ayurveda, not just via the enteric nervous system and issues, is ignored in 'American Ayurveda', which also doesn't tend to look at psychoanalytics and theory and practice, relative to these. This is the keystone of Ayurveda, as it, and Yoga, looks at the mind to such a deeper degree!
5. Sanskrit remains simplified, and doesn't also take in (a) historical context, (b) the various levels (viz. adhyatmika, adhidaivika,adfhibhautika) relative to Nirukta, and the Ayurvedic Nighantus - as also relative to the Brahmanas, Ayurveda Samhitas and such, and their own interconnections.
Reducing it down to Devanagari and a handful of words is like translating the Old Testament from contextual Rabbinical Aramaic to the Koine Greek. It lacks the original context, especially if one hasn't first studied the Vaidika and Classical Sanskrit, as also their literature(s) first.
The Samhitas are also clear about this, as per the " " of studies prior.
6. The pasteruisation of as a set of mere exercises and breathing techniques alone. Here, such is dangerous, since it doesn't consider any psychological element of tradition, nor exercises with which to prepare the mind and body first.
It also ignores the traditional historical context and also history of yoga, and the evolution and interconnections with Vaidika concepts such as and - vital to understanding the Ayurvedic counterparts.
In addition, it entirely ignores the aspect of yoga as the "psychological limb" of Ayurveda, as an integral aspect of BhuytaVidya or Ayurvedic Psychology, as well as the many practices and techniques that it also contains (which also includes the branches of Ta**ra and also the virtue/conduct facets as the Ithihasa-Purana literature).
Integral Ayurveda was always how and why Ayurveda worked. To fragment it, as with Yoga, is to make much less effective. It is like draining 75% of the oil from your car, failing to maintain and grease it, and expecting all gears, bearings etc. to run smoothly!
7. Such proponents also emphasise a weird "anti-Brahmin" sentiment. Yet, without Brahmins, we wouldn't have any Sanskrit, Yoga, Ta**ra - let alone Ayurveda today for these people to appropriate!
Would these people use such anti-Semitic statements such as "Rabbis/Rabbinical Traditions have ruined Judaism?". These same people also call Hinduism "Patriarchal" (with it's Shaktism etc.) - yet defend Semitic Faiths, devoid of any Shakti, of any female rights at all - and won't, for the most, even let non-adherents or females into their shrines!
8. Whilst wielding such banners as "BML" etc., these people bring up the historical caste-system of India as bigoted; yet forget their own place, that only decades they are guilty of; transferal of guilt isn't exactly an 'Ayurvedic' manner to deal with such.
JAY SHREE DHANVANTARI DEV!
-Durgadas Lingham, Ved Kovid
