Videshi scholarship accuses Charaka of “plagiarism” : The Battle for Āyurveda begins …

Dr Priyanka Shandilya

Editorial Note: This article is part of a Series on the purvapaksha of Western interpretations of Āyurveda. The claims and arguments made in the paper “The Path to Liberation through Yogic Mindfulness in Early Ayurveda” by Dominik Wujastyk are examined with the traditional drishti. One of the traditional “tools”of the videshi trade of scholarship, is “wedge-manufacturing”. The Buddhism vs Hinduism wedge is one of the oldest tricks in the videshi arsenal. Previously, we have seen, the Ethics wedge and the Greek wedge . This article presents an analysis of the Buddhist wedge. Charaka is supposed to have “plagiarised” from Buddhist vocabulary and research and appropriated important concepts without attribution.

The implication being that Charaka is not be trusted , and thereby Ayurveda is a “shady” body of stolen and incorrect knowledge , which is not to be trusted. These sort of veiled pre-emptive attacks are very much the dominant “style” of videshi scholarship.

The shallowness of Wujastyk’s scholarship and devious motives are laid bare in another incisive work of purvapaksha by Dr. Priyanka

---

DW , Author: Dominik Wujastyk, C.S: Charaka samhita, S.S: Sushruta samhita, PYS: Patanjala Yoga Sutra

Atman/Paramatman: Supreme being, Bhutaman: Embodied soul, Indriyas: Sense organs, Indriyartha/ Vishaya: Objects of sense organs, Buddhi:  Interpretation-Decision making faculty, Mana: Mind, Processing faculty, Smruthi:  Memory/recollection, Moksha:  Liberation

---

 “The path to liberation through yogic mindfulness in early ayurveda”¹ is a work by D.Wujastyk based on the “passage of verses 137-155” from C.S which the author terms as the “Yogic tract in ayurveda”. DW discusses how this “Yogic tract” in C.S consisting of “Smruthi”(~memory) exactly overlaps with that of the “Buddhist meditation techniques(Mindfulness/Recollection practice)” concluding it to be an adaptation from Buddhist-teachings.  Below are some of the key aspects discussed by DW¹. 

DW’s work¹ is based on “verses 137-155”(the passage) from first chapter of Sharirasthana, a section from C.S which the author seems to consider as the whole representation of the “Yogic tract in ayurveda”. This tract contains the description on “Smruti-tatwasmruthi-Ashtasiddhi-Ashta Smruthi kaarana-Smruthi as an important tool for moksha”, which DW interprets as being an adaptation from Buddhist-teachings as he finds the “conceptualisation-language-content” to be similar.

DW, in an attempt to establish the Buddhist origin of “Ashta smruthi kaarana”(Eightfold Causes/Path to ~memory) appearing in the passage of CS, states how yogic texts like Maitrayaniya upanishad-Sankhya darshana– do not have similar references, and claims that C.S shows no awareness of Bhagavadgeetha elsewhere. And concludes  that the concept is a direct adaptation from Buddhist meditation techniques, interpreting them as “STEPS of Mindfulness”.

DW interprets the word “Dharma” appearing in the same passage as “Dhamma” to claim its Buddhist roots. Further the author picks the term “Dukha”(~Misery) from the same passage to insinuate the Buddhist origin of the entire passage(tract), because “Dukha” is at the core of the Buddhist doctrine and mindfulness is the tool for liberation, where he equates Mindfulness of Buddhism to “Tatwa-smruthi” of C.S.

DW goes on to claim that, this adopted “Yogic-Tract” was incorporated in “Yagnyavalkya and Vishnu smruthis” after it appeared in C.S in Sanskrit language, politely accusing C.S of plagiarising the Buddhist content. DW also alleges that the cornerstone principles of ayurveda appeared first in Buddhist teachings and were only adopted by ayurvedic texts later.    

Do the views/claims have any substance/truth in them? Did C.S “copy” the concept of “Smruti” from the Buddhist-teachings?

The article mainly focuses on deciphering the below concepts as per the Aastik(Ayurveda) texts like C.S and Bhagavadgeetha. The tract that DW chooses to call “Yogic tract” is only a small-part of the entire Yogic trail in C.S. Hence, an elaborate explanation about the “Yogic-tract in entirety” as per Ayurveda(Aastik sciences) is given which would eventually show the incorrectness of the above claims revealing some striking differences between the two philosophies (Ayurveda-Buddhism).

Goals of Analysis  

1. To explain “Yogic tract in entirety” as per Ayurveda (Aastik tradition).
2. To re-establish the “Vedic/Astik” roots of “The passage(Verses 137-155” and “Yogic tract” in C.S.
3. To understand  how Ayurveda conceptualises “Moksha”(~ Liberation)
4. To find whether or not “Mindfulness/Recollection” is same as “Smruthi/Tatwa smruthi” of C.S
5. To establish the role and conceptualisation of “Smruthi” and “Tatwa-smruthi”in liberation in ayurveda.

“YOGIC TRACT”– The Ayurveda(Aastika) Way.

Understanding the phenomenon of “Creation”(~Srushti) of the universe/individual, provides the  background to understand why the concept of Yoga originated. Creation is nothing but the “Manifestation of the un-manifest(Paramatman/Avyakta/atman) i.e “Eternal-Formless being” attaining a “Perishable-Impermanent Form”.

Creation as per Ayurveda involves the process of formation of “Corporal-Five elemental being” from the “Subtle-eternal Atman”². Dissolution or Liberation is the inverse process of Creation. Yoga is that mode through which the perishable-corporal being achieves unification with the subtle supreme-being³. This entire process forms the subject matter of “Yogic tract”.

Realization of the nuances of “Creation & Dissolution” is said to lead to liberation. Process of creation constitutes “24(or 25) components” in it⁴. Every component is termed as a “Tatwa”⁵, “Paramatman/Atman” being the supreme. C.S says, the realisation of the “Atma-Tatwa”(~Tatwa-Jnana/Satya buddhi⁶) liberates an individual.

This is the reason why “seekers” in India are referred to as “Tatwadarshi-Tatwajnani-Tatwavit”^7,8 in texts like C.S and Bhagavadgeetha.

It is all about “Rajas” and “Tamas”

An individual is entrapped in the unending cycle of birth and death due to the impediments like “Rajas and Tamas”, that hinder the attainment of moksha(~liberation)⁴.

The trigunas, “Rajas-Tamas-Satwa” attain dominance/variance through the “Object of senses” (Vishaya) that one receives through sense-organs during the process of cognition and through the “food” we eat.

Sensory contact & its influence on “Buddhi”:

The information processed by the mind (~manas) is conveyed to the “buddhi” for discrimination and decision making, completing the “process of cognition”. It is the “Buddhi” (~Interpreting-Discriminating-Decision making faculty) which discriminates between “Good-bad, Transience-permanence and Right-wrong”⁹.Buddhi performs these functions when in “Normalcy” (Non-vitiated)¹⁰, while is incapable of doing so, when “Impaired”(Bhramsha).

The “enhancement” and “impairment” of “Buddhi” is determined by the type of “Sensory contact”(contact between Sense-organs and its objects)¹¹. Buddhi is enhanced by the “Wholesome sensory contact”, resulting in pleasing ripples (~Sukha) and it gets impaired by the “Unwholesome sensory contact” resulting in unpleasant ripples(~dukha)¹².

“Wholesome sensory contact” is “optimal” in nature while “Unwholesome sensory contact” could take place in three ways 1.Excessive 2.Sub-optimal 3.Wrongful¹³. As ‘Sensory Contact” hugely influences the buddhi, taming of the senses (Indriyanigraha) forms an integral part of yogic framework.

Mind as a carrier regulated by “Dhruthi” ¹⁴ (~regulatory factor) conveys the information from the sense organs to “Buddhi” for interpretation and decision-making. This info is later stored as Smruthi (~memory).The input is “processed-interpreted-stored” by “Buddhi-Dhruthi-Smruthi” which together are variants/forms of “PRAJNA”¹⁵(~supreme/ultimate wisdom, Optimal Prajna, a desired state¹⁶ and a mainstay of Bhagavadgeetha¹⁶).

“Buddhi-Dhruthi-Smruthi”(Prajna) become impaired by “Unwholesome sensory contact” which is when a person indulges in misdeeds and aggravation of “rajas-Tamas”happens¹⁷.

This phenomenon is called as “Prajna-Aparadha”in C.S¹⁸. This leads to the vicious cycle,

“Indriya-Nigraha”(Taming the sense-organs)

As it all begins with the “unwholesome sensory contact”, taming the indriyas is given utmost importance in ayurveda, description of which is continuous with other aastik texts like Bhagavdgeetha.

As per ayurveda, the triad formed of “unwholesome sensory contact”,“prajnaparadha” and “kala (Time of fructification)” is  the root cause of all illness¹⁹.

Ayurveda aims at correcting this, through practices like “Sadvrutta”²⁰and Achara-rasayana”²¹(~Codes-of-conduct) on mundane and spiritual fronts which bestow “Health” & “Control over senses”(~IndriyaVijaya)²².

The “parampara”(continuity) of “Vedana”(~Emotional and physical ripples, both Sukha-Dukha)²³ has been categorically mentioned in C.S. and the only way to permanently get rid of it is through “Naishtiki chikitsa”(Moksha)^24. Yoga facilitates moksha.

Idea of “Yoga”- The aastik way

 Yoga is defined “a ripple-less state (~Sukha-Dukha) in which  mind(~mana) stays tranquil in the atman (~the supreme) and where siddhis are attained”²⁵.

Any kind of ripple, either pleasant (~sukha) or unpleasant (~dukha) is undesirable as per the aastik sciences. That is why even “Joy (Harsha)”²⁶ is said to be a feature of an ill mind according to Ayurveda. Bhagavadgeetha, too opines the state in which a person remains undisturbed by either of the ripples (“Sama Sukha dukha / Sthitaprajna)²⁷ to be ideal.

The verse from the passage defining the “yoga”, is conveniently not taken up for discussion by DW.

DW claims that C.S shows no influence of the BG , while this tract in C.S, right from the “unwholesome sensory contact leading to amassing of rajas-tamas,  the role of prajna to yoga-moksha” in their entirety overlap with concept of “Yoga-Moksha” in Bhagavadgeetha ²⁸.

Mindfulness v/s Smruthi (Tatwa-smruthi) of C.S

Before we decide whether they are same or not, the concept of “Smruthi” and its role in liberation according to Ayurveda should be deciphered.

Concept of “Smruthi” and its role in moksha as per Aastik tradition:

 “SMRUTHI” is the faculty involved in the storage of information, cognised through “Seeing-hearing-Experiencing” and in its access²⁹. This essentially is a Post direct perception (Pratyaksha) phenomenon³⁰. Both the mundane sphere of “smruthi” and the sphere that facilitates spiritual transcendence are explained in ayurvedic literature.

Smruthi & Spiritual Transcendence

Is smruthi only a simple memory/recollection in the context of liberation? Or Is it the same as Buddhist mindfulness? What contributes to “smruthi” of an individual?

Smruthi is imparted by the “Bhutatman”³¹(embodied soul) and the “satwa”³²to a child during its conception. The bhutatma (reflection of the paramatman/ativahika purusha) non-liberated, embodied with karma (strong  tendencies of the past) along with mind dominated with rajas-tamas³³, is in constant search of a suitable womb to reap the fruits of its past deeds.

It is the embodied soul residing in each of us, that yearns to be liberated. It is the “rajas and tamas” that veils and impedes mana-indriya-buddhi, the instruments of cognition entrapping a person in the vicious cycle of birth and death³⁴.

“Smruthi” is determined by the dominant one, among the “trigunas”. Dominance in rajas-tamas diminishes the “smruthi”³⁵and that of “Satwa” enhances it endowing a person with extra ordinary smruthi. This is also a state where a person can recall his previous births, which is termed as “Jatismara” ³⁶.Jatismara also finds mention in the texts like Bhela samhita, C.S, S.S and Garbhopanishat^37.

An extraordinary enhancement of smruthi faculty also is one of the eight siddhis³⁸mentioned in the same passage, which DW claims as an adaptation from “Siddhi” of Buddhism. 

Heightened satwa-guna³⁹and purification of mind(~manas) bestows a person with an extraordinary “smruthi” that facilitates moksha⁴⁰. Moot question is “Smruthi” of what ? that liberates ? Is it recalling all the activities of the day as suggested by DW in recollection.

“Wholesome sensory contact” enhances the “Satwa-guna” and purifies the mind helping an individual to stay in the path of liberation facilitating “TATWA JNANA” and oneness with the “Atman (Supreme)⁴⁰.

In all aastik Indian sciences including C.S “TATWA SMRUTHI”^41, the recollection of “Atma-tatwa” is said to be the most important tool to attain moksha. 

“TATWA-SMRUTHI”: In C.S and Bhagavadgeetha

The recollection of the “I” (Atman)

“True knowledge through direct perception” (Yathartha pratyaksha) is the precursor to Yathartha smruthi (as it is/Real/True ~memory) and “Distorted Knowledge through direct perception”(ayathartha pratyaksha) is the precursor to Ayathartha smruthi (false/distorted ~ memory) ⁴².

This is why the cognition and its outcome in the form of yathartha or ayathartha is  important, as they determine the type of smruthi.  It is the “yathartha smruthi” (recollection of true form of atma tatwa) that is said to liberate a person as per C.S⁴³. For this to happen there has to be a continued “wholesome sensory contact”.

Relentless “wholesome sensory contact”, 1. Prevents amassing of rajas-tamas 2. Enhances satwa-guna 3. Results in “Yathartha perception”, the precursor to yathartha smruthi, facilitating moksha.

While, “Ayathartha smruthi” is  an impediment to yogic sadhana.  PYS⁴⁴ mentions smruthi in two contexts 1. As a “chittavruthi” which is “Ayathartha smruthi” 2. Smruthi as a yogic tool.

The “realisation of atma-tatwa(Tatwajnana) and its “smruthi”(recollection) is the one that liberates a person. This is mentioned in Bhagavadgeetha too⁴⁵.

As per Aastik tradition, there is another aspect of “smruthi” that  elevates a person spiritually. It is the “Relentless smarana”46 (Unbroken awareness) of the I-ness/Atman, a tool in the sadhana marga. This practice is mentioned in Bhagavadgeetha as “Naama/Krushna Smarana” ⁴⁷.

“Abhyasa”^48, , the relentless attention/awareness or practice is one of the “Ashta smruthi kaaranas” that are said to enhance the “Smruthi” as per C.S. Relentless smarana (Abhyasa) of the I/Atman brings about a “transformation”(~Samskara)⁴⁹ mutating the old, endowing “Tatwa smruthi”.

Bhagavadgeetha has something similar to say, “a person who recollects (smarana) Krushna at the time of death is said to get liberated”⁵⁰which is possible only through relentless “abhyasa^48a”. Acharya Shankara⁵¹ has likened this “constant smruthi of atma- tatwa” to that of a woman who constantly thinks of her husband at the back of the mind.

DW misrepresents the “Ashta smruthi Kaaranas” as “STEPS of Mindfulness”. According to DW, no parallels for “Ashta smruthi kaaranas” are found in aastik texts, but “Nyaya darshana”⁵² alone enlists similar 24 kaaranas(causes) for smruthi.

Eight siddhis are the by-products of sadhana about which the sages have cautioned because the seeker could be lured by them abandoning the sadhana. So, a constant smarana/smruthi  of “Atma-tatwa” will prevent the seeker from straying from his path to liberation. 

It is now clear that “Smruthi” in the context of Moksha in C.S is “Tatwa-smruthi”, which is same as that propounded in all the aastik sciences, most ancient of them being the Bhagavadgeetha and Chandogya.Upanishad⁴⁶.

Tatwa-Smruti is said to be the sole “path” to liberation by the seekers from different aastik schools41. Various forms of this constant awareness of “I” in the form of “I-am-that”, Aham-brahmasmi” formulated by various seekers convey the same message and are in line with the concepts in C.S and Bhagavageetha.

The entire yogic tract in aastik sciences begins and ends with the atman. And the entire tract in C.S., right from the A. Role of sense organs in (1.Cognition and 2. accumulation of rajas-tamas 3. Its taming 4. Its effect on the Prajna) B. Concept of prajnaparadha C. Allurement of senses D. Concept of vedana, its continuity across births E.Tatwa smruthi as path and partial destination, are all in line with Bhagavdgeetha²⁸, the most ancient “Documentation” of yoga.

Mindfulness-Recollection v/s Tatwasmruthi:

Mindfulness could aid in the process of cognition, as the absence of “Mind” leads to absence of cognition. Mindfulness is not same as “Tatwasmruthi” that appears in the context of “Yoga-Moksha” of C.S, which is about the “Atma-tatwa” which the Buddhists denounce.

DW even though defines mindfulness and recollection individually, uses these terms almost interchangeably at his convenience. Mindfulness pertains to being aware of every moment/action and strictly a “present” phenomenon.

While recollection, is something from the “past”. Upadhyayaji in “Bharatiya darshana”⁵³ states, “as Buddhists believe in “kshana bhanga vada”(everything is created afresh and destroyed every moment) how can the concept of smarana, which is a “past” phenomenon be accepted by them”.

TakeAways

“Yogic-tract & Smruthi of Aastik tradition”  V/S  “The Path To Liberation Through Yogic Mindfulness In Early Ayurveda” By DW

1. The entire yogic tract, in aastik tradition is centred around “Atman” and describes how the “paramatman” which is eternal and attribute-less (Nirguna) in unification with the intellectual instruments (Karanas) results in the creation of a “perishable form”(with attributes-saguna)⁵⁴. The entire journey of perishable embodied soul becoming one with the eternal- supreme being, forms the core of Indian traditional texts. This is where Ayurveda and Buddhism differ.

According to Buddhism, “atman” is not even independent, is perishable in nature and a name (vyavaharartha nama) given to the conglomeration of different parts (Sanghata-vada) ⁵³, which is in contrast to the aastik concept of atman.

When the foundational principles themselves differ in their goals and conception, drawing comparisons between them , especially by “scholars” is beyond absurd.

This yogic tract that author has chosen, includes the definition of “yoga” which the author side steps deliberately because it contains “Atma-Mana”, which is in line with “Yoga-Moksha” concepts of aastik tradition.

Ignoring the continuity (paramapara) of yoga⁵⁵, the author takes P.Y.S as the reference point, trying to establish that C.S was anterior to PYS so the “Yogic tract” could have been only borrowed from the Buddhist source.

DW distorts some of the concepts like “Ashta siddhi, ashta smruthi karanas, tatwa smruthi and its role in moksha” of C.S, to make them appear closer and similar to the ones in Buddhism.

As seen above we have shown how the “yogic tract” in aastik tradition is entirely different from the fragmented-isolated tract presented by DW. Hence such comparisons have no substance and hold no ground.

2. It is also astounding to note that, DW himself mentions about “Ashtanga ayurveda”(Eight “specialities” in ayurveda) from MAHABHARATA and yet claims that the fundamental concepts like tri-dosha etc., are  borrowed from Buddhist teachings.

Only he can clarify as to how the “Specialities” came to be, even before the foundational concepts.

3. Indian philosophies were not formulated by any one individual, but were conceived by sages through “Yogadrushti” and “Sadhana” that gave access to eternal wisdom. That is why all the Indian aastik sciences concentrically merge with each other, which the western scholars “frame” as plagiarism. It is well understood in the tradition that the “astik and astik-nastik (“Buddhism”) philosophies have congruence.

4.  Deforming the concepts like the one in this article, only creates an unnecessary divide and discord among the adherents (Hinduism-Buddhism), compromising on the principles of  “Bhuta-anukampa, Maitri, Karunya, Ahimsa⁵⁶” that form the foundational  ideas of Vedic sciences, which according DW were contributions from Buddhism. Every philosophy on Indian soil Astik or Nastik has vedic roots whether one acknowledges it or not. 

5. D.Wujastyk comes across as a vicious scholar, relentlessly trying to attempt divorcing Ayurveda from its vedic-aastik roots and connecting it to a philosophy that is foundationally different from it.

There have been concerted efforts to delink the Indian civilization from its vedic origin, through destruction of “documented” intellectual property and obliterating the vedic thinking in the Indian minds by infiltrating and replacing them with false narratives through the most biased form of documentation called “History”.

Despite multiple efforts to dismantle the dharma we have been able to revive and retain it. Even if the documented vedic wisdom is distorted/destroyed by “scholars”, the seekers in India have (historically) responded with rediscovery through ”Sadhana” .

In my opinion,we Indians are genetically rigged to seek and finally realize “Tat twam asi”.

---

---

 References