Videshi scholarship mangles Ayurveda once more .. Disease Models are misinterpreted, mauled and misrepresented

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 work “Models of Disease” , pre-print paper by Dominik Wujastyk are examined with the traditional drishti. Some of the important and essential “tools” of videshi scholarship, are “misinterpreting epistemology , mixing of vocabularies from different traditions , skewing of ontology , agenda driven mischievous translations”. All of these and more are on display in this work of “scholarship”. Despite the malicious and venomous nature of scholarship, such scholars are celebrated in India as intellectual colonization of most Indian Universities and institutes , is much too deep, and a level playing field for authentic discourse is yet to be achieved. The narrative of the many newly minted Hindu activist groups is also shallow and such scholarship is often celebrated as example of India’s ascendancy and Soft Power. Scholars such as Wujastyk are regularly feted using taxpayer money. They are celebrated as frequent “scholars/speakers” at various institutions in India. (ex: at the National Institute of Advanced Studies).

Indian civilizational thought leaders such as Shri Rajiv Malhotra have been talking about the the malicious nature of India oriented studies for decades , but very little seems to have changed. The intellectual rot is astonishingly deep and is not going to be fixed anytime soon.

See the previous articles of Dr.Priyanka here.

Author’s Note: This article is the purvapaksha on the paper titled “Models of disease” (Pre-print draft)  authored  by DW1 (that also quotes from articles of other authors) in which he discusses various “Models Henceforth Termed as “Octet” for expediency of disease “(as referred to, by the author) in Ayurveda. Here are some of the key aspects put forth by DW that are far from being accurate that need rebuttal.  Since these aspects are scattered all over the article, they are compiled and brought under different headings, in order that they can be given a common explanation, avoiding repetition.

CS:Charaka Samhita, SS:Sushruta Samhita, AH:Ashtanga Hrudaya, DW:Wujastyk Dominik 

Loose translation to some of the frequently appearing terms is given below,

Asatmya-Indriyartha-Samyoga(AIS):Non-wholesome Sensory contact/Sensory stimulus, Atman/Paramataman: Supreme being ,Bhutatman: Embodied  being , Kala: Represented by transformation, Vedana: Emotional  and physical ripples, Mahabhuta: 5 elements , Satmya: Congenial/Conducive an individual, Agni: Biological fire , Dosha:Vata-Pitta-Kapha, Dhatu: Bodily tissues.

[Sentences taken from the DW’s article verbatim are italicized.]

Highlights of Claims

A. The alleged Buddhist roots of Ayurveda: 

DW begins the discussion by quoting an instance, where monk Moliya Shivaka enquires with Buddha about the causes for various sensations2 (Term used by DW for vedana). For which Buddha then enumerates the Octet, viz. “some pain arises from bile, some from phlegm, some from wind, some from humoral colligation, some from changing climate, some from being ambushed by difficulties, some from external attacks, and some, indeed from the ripening of karma”,[(which DW refers to as causes of pain) (referred to as “Octet”/”Eight factors” of  Buddha- here in the article] as the reasons for the sensations and says that the people who held the view that, the “ripening of Karma” as the cause of sensations (~Vedana) were over-generalising it2. According to DW, this was the “first instance in documented Indian medical history, that these medical categories–explanations were systematically combined” and DW goes on to claim that, it was these “eight factors” that went on to become cornerstones of nosology of classical  ayurveda2

DW states “ the formality of vocabulary of “eight-factors” enumerated by Buddha shows that he was consciously referring to a form of medicine that had a theoretical underpinning, but it was only several hundred years after Buddha that these concepts(ayurvedic) were explicitly worked out4. According to DW, these “eight factors” represent “eight distinct models of disease etiologies”3. DW’s article says, that the first references of “developed disease theory” are found in Buddhist canonical literature, the terminologies (vocabulary)in which is parallel to later-formalised ayurvedic literature4. DW, while trying to establish the alleged Buddhist roots of ayurvedic literature, takes “sannipata” a disease condition as an example and states that “use of the term “sannipata” in Buddha’s list’s particularly telling”3, equating it to the sannipata in ayurvedic literature and that it was borrowed from the former. DW argues on similar lines about “prajnaparadha” of CS, later in the article. 

B. De-linking Ayurveda from Vedas:

DW’s article states “the early vedic literature like Rigveda( that he refers to as religious literature) contained prayers and invocations for health and against diseases”, but the models of disease behind this material is theoretically unsophisticated and are not a product of professionalized class of healers5.   

C. Disregard for Charaka & Sushruta samhitas(CS and SS): 

The focus of discussion in DWs paper is the “Models of disease” in ayurveda. DW though often quotes and discusses verses from CS, lauds Ashtanga Hrudaya(since it belongs to post classical era) as being a “skilful & entirely plausible synthesis of ancient works”. However, DW as an eyewash states, “in doing so, we lose the complexity and plurality of the ancient works”(referring to CS & SS) 6. In DW‘s opinion, Samhitas like CS and SS show “medicine doctrine still in formation while, Ashtanga Hrudaya showed a settled medical orthodoxy6

DW citing few verses from the first chapter of AH, related to the causes of disease, states “this is a fine, concise and orderly statement of the causes of disease. But, it is selective, omitting several older classification schemes from the Caraka and Suśruta compendia that cut across these categories in awkward ways”. Further DW adds “Vagbhata has made it all make sense, but we lose the historical view of a tradition forming its theories out of the messy processes of debates and evaluation7. Here DW’s affinity to Vagbhata (Ashtanga Hrudaya) is quite evident.

D. Roots of Ayurveda !! – A shift in focus from Buddhist to Greek philosophy.  

DW refers to the “Octet” as “Causes of sensations”, “Causes of pain” and finally “DISTINCT DISEASE AETIOLOGIES” in various places in the article. 

The focus slowly but surely gravitates from the “Octet”, to a different set of concepts that include some items from the “Octet” plus other concepts like “1.Equality of humors. 2.Affinity 3.Raw residues. 4.Errors of judgement. 5.Diseases of body- environment and supernatural. 6.Invasive diseases. 7.Epidemic diseases and finally. 8.The contagion”(Verbatim)8, which DW refers to as the “models of disease”. Moot question is whether both the categories that he is trying to portray as the “models of disease” actually represent the “Models/Types” of diseases in Ayurveda ?  

In the latter half of his article DW suggests that SS was not in complete agreement about the widespread use of “Dosha theory”, hence placed it in a relatively minor/secondary position9. He also then tries to estrange folklore practices from Ayurveda saying “Dosha theory” was a mere “Veneer”10

DW refers to “Octet” of Buddha as “Distinct disease aetiologies” and that, ayurvedic nosology(classification of disease) was built later, based on this. The term “Distinct” would mean that these are “Distinct”(separate/independent) causes of diseases and not interconnected. Most of these concepts (the Octet & DW’s list) taken up are causative factors of the disease as suggested even by DW. But, are they independent of each other, when he refers to them as “Distinct”? When seen with an ayurvedic background, this Octet is not independent and cannot cause a disease single-handedly. There is a common thread that interlinks them all without which the disease cannot manifest, which DW skips to discuss. 

In order to draw any serious conclusions like the ones in Dw’s article that, ayurveda borrowed concepts from Buddhist teachings, it is crucial to compare at the level of fundamental concepts of a shastra that threads different concepts together. In DW’s paper, Ayurveda is alleged to have borrowed the concepts of “Models of disease” from Buddhist teachings. Whether these claims hold any water or not, let’s explore.

Claims in DW’s article, in a nutshell:

  • The cornerstone principles of Ayurveda as being borrowed by Buddha’s Octet
  • The treatises like CS and SS had between them some disagreements about the stature of “Dosha theory”, “Bhuta”(~Bhutik afflictions) and so on. 
  • “Dosha theory” was just a “veneer” over folklore practices. 
  • The Octet of Buddha are “Distinct Aetiologies” 
  • Buddhist teachings gifted some of the characteristic concepts like Sannipata and Prajnaparadha to Ayurveda. 


In order to examine the veracity of the above claims, it is necessary to explain the “constituents” and the “process” involved in the “manifestation of disease” as per Ayurvedic treatises, only then it is possible to rebut the claims made in the article.  

Purvapaksha: In a nutshell:

The disease trail begins with the “Genesis” of an individual- How he is in regular interaction with the universe-The “continuity(~parampara)” of the “vedana”(~emotional –physical ripples)-How the “Trini ayatanani”(Root cause-Triad) affect him (in health and disease)- “Disturbance in Dosha” by trini ayataayatanani, followed by the process of pathogenesis that includes all the factors (Octet and models in DW’s list) at different stages & spheres of life, culminating in the manifestation of signs and symptomatology.  

Process of Disease Causation / Manifestation as per Ayurveda

When it comes to the disease process in Ayurveda several factors come into play

  • Causative factors operational at different spheres (mundane/ physical) & spiritual) of life.
  • “Primary” cause for disease initiation.
  • “SUBSTRATUM”-the “PURUSHA”  the  principle focus of ayurveda and Astik tradition.  

Purusha(not=man): The Epicentre

Purusha(~Atman) is at the epicentre of ayurvedic principles just like in other fellow Indian philosophies. Purusha has been defined in various ways as 1. Eka-dhatwatmaka purusha( constituted of ~atman)11. 2. Chaturvimshatika purusha (A conglomeration of 24 components)12 and 3. Shad-dhatwatmaka purusha(~Atman+five bhutas in subtle form)13. Diverse definitions are given only for the better understanding and to meet the contextual needs, based on the shastra adhikarana(subject matter). These definitions are like “looking at the same thing from  different angles”, they are either simplifications or elaborations of the same fact. These definitions do not in anyway contradict each other. 

Shad-dhatwatmaka purusha:The substratum 

Shad-dhatwatmaka purusha (Atman+Five bhutas in subtle form) is the “adhishthana/  adhikarana” (~Substratum)  for treatment (~chikitsa) as per ayurveda14. Since, Ayurveda is operational both in the mundane and the spiritual planes, the concept of “Ekadhatu and Chaturvimshati purusha” also have been elaborated in the treatises, which are more important from the spiritual perspective.   

Bhutatman(~Embodied being):The experiencer. 

Atman, a component in the shad-dhatwatmaka purusha refers to the bhutatman15 (~embodied being), a reflection of the paramatman(~supreme being) present in us all. This bhutman is the experiencer  of “Sukha-Dukha-Iccha-Dwesha etc”16 not the paramatman, as he is nirguna (attribute-less)17Bhutatman, is bonded to the intellectual karanas(~tools) like “Buddhi-mana-indriya” etc.,(~Intellect-Processing faculty-Sense faculties etc)18 & Karma, and is the “Bhoktru”(~experiencer) of “sukha-dukha-iccha-intellect-memory-“I”ness etc” and these are referred to as its characteristics. Bhutatman together with the five mahabhutas in subtle form, constitute the “shad-dhatu purusha”, the substratum for chikitsa(~treatment) as per ayurveda. Whether in the state of health or disease, a person should be seen as constituted of the “karmic metaphysical entity the bhutatman  and the five elemental physical body”. A person should be looked at and manoeuvred at these levels for which ayurveda offers three treatment modalities (~Types of chikitsa) i.e “Daivavyapashraya- Yuktivyaprashraya- Satwavajaya19 to achieve health & sukha(~pleasing ripples) in the mundane plane and facilitates “Moksha”. The substratum (the subject) of the disease/health is this purusha, and any external change or trauma, will bring about a change in the former.   

Disease & Health : In the realm of “Panchabhoutikata  & Atman” paradigms

As per Ayurveda every component in the body is composed of panchamahabhutas. Same panchamahabhutas in different permutation and combination, form “Dosha-dhatu-mala” the fundamental units of the body. One is healthy when these are in normalcy and becomes sick when they are disturbed/impaired/aggravated20. The panchamahabhutas(~five elements) in subtle state embedded in the “Shukra+Shonita”(conjugation of male-female reproductive tissue) powered by the bhutatman form the “Garbha”(~results in conception)21. The five mahabhutas in subtle form(~Tanmatras), these tanmatras become grosser and grosser to form various components of the body. So everything in the body is essentially panchabhoutik22. Therefore, Birth-Health-Illness are all within the realm of panchabhuta and bhutatman (+intellectual karanas) i.e the “shad-dhatwatmaka purusha. Envisaging ayurveda devoid of “Shad-dhatwatmaka purusha” is impossible, since it forms the very substratum.    

The constant communion (relationship) between the “LOKA” & “PURUSHA”:

Whether it is health or disease, it is a modification/change in the state of these factors. These factors in the body (shad-dhatwatmaka purusha) are constantly in communication with the factors of the outer world(~loka) and is influenced by it23. Details of “How-Why-When” of the state of bodily components (dosha-dhatu-mala-agni) are changed/influenced and its consequences are given  in ayurvedic treatises. 

Any external agent, whether in the form of Food-Activity and also the factors like Season, Trauma (~kala-abhighata) from among “Octet” of Buddha’s list, influence the shad-dhatwatmaka purusha, bringing some change in the latter. Does it mean that “kala abhighata”(~season-Trauma) is adopted from “Octet” of Buddha and that too as  “Distinct model/ Aetiologies” in ayurvedic treatises as alleged by DW?

Ayurveda too like other Indian philosophies propounds “Loka purusha siddhanta23 (~Microcosm & macrocosm –Brahmanda & Pindanda). The amsha (part) of the outer (Loka), influences its reflected resident in the body(purusha) and there is a constant interactive and responsive system in the body. The response of such an influence is conveyed to the bhoutik(~five elemental) components of the body like “dosha”etc., impairment which results in disease causation. Doshas [Vata-Pitta-Kapha], Sannipata (~VPK together)] ,kala, karma, Abhighata” are among the “Octet” and  are all causative factors, yet can they be all be given an equal status and be  brought under the heading of “Causes of Pain/Disease” as it is done in Buddha’s list, since some of these are “primary”while some are “secondary”causes of disease. Only the disturbed doshas initiate the disease process, while undisturbed doshas(~in normalcy) endow “health”. “Dosha” is a causative factor for the disease manifestation, no doubt. But it cannot be called as an independent causative factor because it is dependent on other factors for its state. The state of dosha is determined by other the factors influencing it24. Doshic aggravation is a cause, at some point and an effect at another. All these factors cannot be grouped under one heading and given equal status of “causative factors”. And mere putting them together (“Octet” of Buddha) will not be enough to qualify them to be called as “Developed disease theory” as claimed by DW.  

Disease, a collective  consequence  

“Categories of diseases” and their “Root causative factors have been detailed in ayurvedic trteatises. “Octet” of Buddha are seen as “Distinct aetiologies” by DW. But, the disease process is a collective effect of all these factors playing their roles at different times (some of them may overlap)- at different spheres of life and are interrelated and cannot be considered as “distinct etiologies”. 

Different spheres of “life”(and “disease”),and their causative factors is explained in the context of “Dukha traya/(Trividha Dukha)25” of SS, which is dealt later in this article.  

Knowledge about 1. The disease process. 2. Factors contributing to them. 3.Which factors contribute to which part of the disease manifestation is important.  The “Octet” and the “list of models of diseases” ( DW’s List), if read superficially like DW has, it is no wonder that they resemble the Buddhist ideas and can even resemble the concepts from greek philosophy. A thorough understanding of the fundamental concepts and the “disease process in entirety” demonstrates  the fact that, these concepts are not same as their alleged parallels and are definitely not borrowings from Buddhism.  But, are unquestionably novel to Ayurveda and continuous with Astik wisdom.


(Parampara of “Atman & Vedana”)

As explained in the above paragraphs, Bhutatman(~embodied being) is the experiencer of “Vedana”(~emotional-physical, both pleasurable and aversive ripples, including disease). As and when the Bhutatman’s karmic traces are worn out and when it is free from “Rajas-Tamas” , its attachment to intellectual Karanas (explained above) will dissolve, culminating in its “re-unification” with the Paramatman a state, free of “Vedana26.   

Atman27 is Anadi(~beginningless) and parampara prapta (~continuous) so is the “Vedana28. Keeping in view the recurring nature (~parampara) of the atman and vedana, CS recommends “Naishtiki chikitsa”(Moksha)28 an everlasting break in chain as the ultimate means to get rid of “vedana and dukha”. 

Every concept in Ayurveda, has this underlying layer of spirituality (paaraloukika aspect) which is inseparably associated. Any attempt at removing this layer will distort the concepts of Ayurveda, making them the Buddhist/Greek “look alikes”, which in reality are quite in contrast with their foundational concepts.

This is what DW has attempted in the article. 

TRINI AYATANANI (The root cause triad)29: ( Root cause of “Vedana”)

CS states, “upadha”(~desire) is the cause for “dukha” and ensnares a person in the vicious cycle of re-birth 30. The very root causes for dukha are said to be the “Triad constituted of Prajnaparadha–Asatmya indriyartha samyoga(AIS) and Kala”. 

According to CS, this triad is pertinent to both the mundane and spiritual spheres of life31. Their wholesome use (~Sama yoga) endows a person with “Arogya(~health & well being)” and “Sukha(~pleasing ripples)” at the mundane plane, and on the spiritual plane they facilitate the practises for moksha. On the contrary, their Non-wholesome use (~Vishama yoga) is the root cause of all the “diseases”(ill health) and “dukha”(~aversive ripples), keeping a person bound to the inveterate cycle of re-birth31. The constituents of the triad are not independent and bear an influence on each other. This triad forms the primary and most pertinent tenet of CS. 

Role of individual component of “Trini ayatanani in causation of the disease and its influence at different spheres of life will be discussed here on, to establish the Astik foundation of Ayurveda and making the underlying connection stand out and glaring, which will consequentially rebut the claims made in the paper. 


Prajna(~wisdom/supreme wisdom) is attributed with utmost significance in ayurveda. Prajna is constituted of three components “Dhee-Dhruti-Smruthi”(~Intellect-Regulatory faculty-Memory)32. When these components get “impaired”(~Vibhramsha) a person begins to commit “ashubha karma” i..e. non-virtuous deeds pertaining to Kaya-Vak-Mana (~Body-Speech-Mind). This phenomenon is termed as“prajnaparadha33. Prajnaparadha is said to perturb/aggravate the doshas (Vata-Pitta-Kapha & RT) resulting in various diseases34.

Where “Asatmya-indriyartha samyoga”(AIS) and “prajnaparadha” cross each other’s paths:

Prajna” and its components have a karmic influence, but their post-birth manoeuvring is possible. As explained above the bhutatman bound by the karma, endows certain attributes to the individual. Meaning, a person is endowed with the components of prajna,(“Dhee-Dhruthi-Smruti”) by “Atmaja and Satwaja bhavas”(~Characteristics of Atman & Satwa)35 i.e the quality and state of prajna is pre-ordained to an extent. However, they can be modified post-birth.

 If a person indulges in a “Wholesome sensory contact(Contact of sense faculties with respective to objects)”(~Sama Indriyartha samyoga) & Sadvrutta( Codes of conduct), these components get augmented(~apyayana of mana-indriya-buddhi) resulting in “sukha” and “arogya”36 at mundane plane and also endows a person with “Pareekshaka gunas37(Characteristics that loukikas are devoid of) paving way for moksha. On the contrary, if a person indulges in “Non-wholesome sensory contact” (~Vishama indriyartha samyoga) the components (Buddhi etc) get impaired (~Upaghata), resulting in “diseases and dukha” at mundane sphere and binding him in re-birth cycle36

In a nutshell, the type of sensory contact, decides the state of the intellectual components like “prajna” etc,. This is how, Prajnaparadha and AIS are interrelated and both can be causes as well as effects of each other, root being the prajnaparadha. Prajnaparadha in the form of ashubha karma (kaya-vak-mana) leads to disturbances in the “Doshas”(VPK-Rajas tamas) the key players in disease manifestation. 

Did ayurveda borrow “Prajnaparadha” concept from Buddhist teachings?

Even though DW explains the triad, his main focus is on Prajnaparadha. DW, describing prajnaparadha (errors of judgement– DW’s words) as one of the models of disease, insinuates that the term and also the concept itself could have a Buddhist origin. DW says, “prajna” is the wisdom attained by realising the impermanent nature of everything. Describing how “aparadha” could have a buddhist trail, DW picks the word “Aparadha” and equates  it with “Error” referring to an incident where “King  Ashoka warned his readers that the stone masons might make mistakes in carving the lettering, they might make Aparadha”.  DW exclaims “how did Charaka unpack the concept of prajnaparadha”.

Realising that everything is impermanent is not the idea of “prajna” as per Ayurveda/ Astik tradition. Also when it comes to comparing Buddhism and ayurveda, they fundamentally differ from each other 1.Number  of mahabhutas as per Buddhism is four, while it is Five in ayurveda (Astik). 2. Nairatma vada(Concept of atman) is opposite to ayurveda. 3. Kshana bhanga vada, the impermanence theory is not endorsed by ayurveda. Swabhavoparama concept from CS 38 is often interpreted as being similar to “Kshana bhanga”, but in reality they are different. If Ayurveda and Buddhist teachings were to be compared at the level of their fundamental paradigms, it would result in an entirely different idea of “purusha” and will be only “an entity formed of the conglomeration of only four mahabhutas(1), devoid of the akasha bhuta. and “atman”(2). Likewise kshana bhanga vada /Theory of impermanence(3) also should be applied to ayurveda. Then the diseases too would be impermanent in nature and should pass without needing any intervention/treatment. CS has taken up this subject and has refuted the impermanence nature of disease upholding the need for active intervention38.

This is where Ayurveda and Buddhist theories diverge. Hence, suggesting that the concepts are borrowed from Buddhism is dubious and flawed  

2. ASATMYA- INDRIYARTHA SAMYOGA(AIS) (~Non-wholesome sensory contact).

Sensory contact(Contact of sensory faculty with respective object) is of two types 1. Wholesome(~Sama). 2. Non-wholesome(~Vishama). Non-wholesome sensory contact  (~Asatmya / Vishama indriyartha samyoga) can again be of  three types 1.Excessive contact.  2. Sub-optimal contact.  3.Wrongful contact 39Prajnaparadha instigates a person to indulge in the “non-wholesome sensory contact” (~AIS)40, resulting in above consequences (explained above). As explained earlier, AIS and prajnaparadha are interconnected. 

Satwa/Mana” plays a pivotal role in AIS and Prajnaparadha. It is the mana, which moderates between the object(~Indriya -artha) and the respective sense faculty(~Indriya) and presence of mana is mandatory for cognition/perception41. Whether the sensory contact is wholesome or not, the participants such as Indriya and specially the  mana are always involved. 

Like “Buddhi”, Satwa too has a karmic trace to it but can be modified or tamed post birth. The type of individual’s  satwa is pre-ordained to a great extent(carried to future janma)42 but can be modified. CS states, a person’s satwa is determined or influenced by the type of things that he constantly and repeatedly exposed to and indulges in43. If mana is “satwa”(one among tri-gunas) dominant, it will result in Sama or Satmya sensory contact and if dominant of “raja-moha”, the contact will be “Vishama or Asatmya sensory contact44. And “Asatmya indriya artha samyoga(~Non-wholesome sensory contact) leads to aggravation/disturbance of the doshas45

Concept of “Satmya”: Looking beyond “Habit change & Second nature”:

Non-wholesome sensory contact is termed as “Asatmya”indriyartha samyoga(AIS) and wholesome is termed as “Satmya” IS.  Here the terms satmya and asatmya need attention. DW, in his paper, discusses “Satmya” (which he terms as affinity) as one of the models of diseases. Even though he mentions  few definitions of satmya, like, “Wholesome, having an affinity to one’s self” etc., discusses it in the backdrop of “Oka-Satmya”( One small aspect of Satmya). DW says this concept is “similar to but different from the European idea of“nature as in one’s personal disposition46

Let us see what Ayurveda has to say about “Satmya”. There are several types of satmya, but the type taken up by DW is “Oka-Satmya”. Satmya can be defined as “Diet and activity that brings about a positive change (conducive effects) in the body 47. Satmya is discussed in two broad aspects in CS, 1.Satmya.  2.Oka satmya.

1.Satmya:A given diet/activity is deemed to be hita (~that maintains dhatu samya),when applied as per the guidelines of ayurveda and produce a congenial effects on the body, resulting in dhatu samya– enhanced bala(~endurance) and thereby enhanced ayus.  CS says, a. Diet and activities applied in accordance to one’s habitat, season and bodily  conditions (as recommended in ayurveda)48. b. Judicious inclusion of all the six tastes( Shad-rasas) in the diet49 c .Indulgence in “Satmya indriyartha samyoga” ( wholesome sensory contact), will result in Dhatu Samya,  in other words Sukha and Arogya.  (While, Asatmya indriyartha samyoga results in dukha, hence has to be refrained from.). 

2.Oka-satmya–  Any diet or activity which gives some congenial effects merely by virtue of its use over a longer period of time,  is termed as oka satmya50, even if it is a non-congenial one (“a-hita” category in ayurveda).  Even though these practices are apparently beneficial, need to be modified and changed to those of “Hita” category through a gradual process51 to achieve Dhatu Samya. Ayurveda gives description of the process of conversion from Ahita to hita. This applies to activities like Excessive and improper indulgence in “exercise- sleep- laughter- speech- walk- intercourse” and so on also.

Satmya” is applicable to food- activities and  “indriyartha samyoga”.  Satmya, is another example to of how the concepts in ayurveda are interwoven and have a widespread applicability.  Hence, threading them together is essential to retain the conceptual purity

Diet- activities (including AIS) is a potential causative  factor for diseases and  Sudden with-drawl of habituated practices (oka stamya)  is also said to cause various diseases53. Satmya though has been taken up as one of the “models of diseases”(causes) by DW, the aspects that actually contribute in disease causation have not been discussed. 

 3. KALA/PARINAMA [That which doesn’t allow stagnation] or [Transformation ]

Kala is the third component in “Trini ayatanani”. Kala is that factor which cumulates and binds together all bhutas (~all those with existence) and that which does not allow stagnation54. It is a factor that brings about “parinama” or change in a state of a given thing.  The term “parinama55, one among the triad is used interchangeably with “Kala” in different contexts. Because kala brings about “parinama”.  Parinama is the stipulated effect seen after the passage of a stipulated kala.

Kala, is said to influence the disease causation in various ways like 1. Seasonal change and its influence on “Dosha” 2 .Diurnal changes and its influence on dosha. 3. Transformation seen by swabhava (Swabhavika vyadhis like aging –death- thirst- hunger and so on)56. Kala, like any other causative factor, brings about a change in the “shad-dhatwaka purusha” effecting a change in its state (in other words mainly panchamahabutas-change in the state of dosha + other components like dhatu, agni).

The penetrating influence of kala: “Kala-karma samyogah….” often uttered by vaidyas. 

Above description is mainly about the physical body and diseases. Kala” and “karma” are interwoven. In CS, karma and its effects is often dealt while describing “kala” of the trini ayatanani57 and in the context of “ayus”(~life span)58Kala (Karma–daiva), has a continued presence that permeates through janmas at the spiritual sphere. It is with the passage of kala that karma vipaka- kshaya happen, resulting in fructification or expense of karmas. So, kala and karma need to be looked at in concert, not as “distinct” as seen by DW.

In a nutshell, AIS-Prajnaparadha and kala are interconnected. Life (disease/ health) is the interplay of AIS and PA in the realm and supervision of kala. Like AIS and Prajnaparadha, kala too bears an influence on both physical and spiritual spheres of an individual. The “trini ayatanani” disturb/aggravate the “Doshas” resulting in the disease manifestation, hence both “Trini ayatanani and Doshas” are the causative factors, but are operational and come into play at different levels/stages. Ayurvedic treatises give an elaborate list and categories of nidanas (~causative factors) for various illnesses that fall under “trini ayatanani”. It is the primary causative factor that brings about a change/ modification in the state of “dosha-dhatu-mala-agni” and so on in the body. Both “Trini ayatanani” and “tridoshas” are considered as causes for diseases, but are never placed under the same heading.Kala”(one among the triad) and “Doshas” cannot be brought under one heading  as is done in case of “Octet” of Buddha, since the action-influence of these factors are at different spheres, of which one is the primary and other the secondary cause. Grouping them under one heading does not fit in with the theoretical framework of ayurveda

Discussion on Dosha and Disease

DW makes some comments on “doshic theory” of ayurveda, 1. That it is a “2+1”(Kapha pitta+ Vata) theory a parallel to  Greek philosophy. 2. Dosha theory of ayurveda is used as “Veneer” over folklore practices. 3. Ayurveda acharyas were not in complete agreement with the importance attached to “Dosha theory”. 4. Some concepts + Folk traditional practices are devoid of “dosha theory”. 

How and when does the “Dosha” makes its appearance in the disease process ? Here is a brief description of the manifestation of disease as per ayurveda. As explained earlier, the “adhishtana”(~substratum) of the disease is shad-dhatwatmaka purusha. So, the entire process right from the indulgence in causative factors up to the manifestation of signs and symptoms, is an interplay and interaction between the loka and purusha, which results in a change in the internal space of pancha mahabhutas (dosha-dhatu-mala-agni). All -Improper dietary and lifestyle practices (the causative factors) come under the heading of “Trini ayatnani”. 

Nidanas(~causative factors) affect the body in various ways,1.Disturb the “dosha”.2. Make the “dhatus” susceptible. 3. Afflict the “agni” resulting in apakwa “ahara rasa utpatti”. “Disease process” is a complex one involving several components at different stages. Here for the benefit of readers, it has been simplified. 

Significance and Inevitability of “DOSHA” in DISEASE & HEALTH: Not a “VENEER”

Aggravated doshas tend to leave their abodes and start roaming in the body, in search of suitable/favourable environment to settle59** .On finding a suitable site, the doshas lodge themselves there and start interacting with the resident “Dosha-Dhatu-agni”. Unless and until the dosha/s gets aggravated and it afflicts (~Dooshana) the dushya(subject of affliction) there cannot be any disease. Conceiving the process of “disease manifestation” devoid of dosha and claiming dosha theory to be a veneer only, is not plausible as per ayurveda.  

[**DW referring to this line, states that it is from an “older unidentified text”, in fact it from the same chapter of SS that discusses “dukha traya”. Similar verse is found in CS also].

 “Dosha”-Dhatu-Mala, are said to be the roots (fundamental units) of the body. When in normalcy, they sustain the body and when impaired they destroy it. Hence dosha theory is not optional and merely a “veneer”, since removing this so-called “Veneer”,is like pulling out  the very foundation of ayurveda.   


DW picks the term “sannipata”(~Conditions involving all three doshas) appearing in CS and SS (which he does not refer much) as being same as “sannipata of Pali”, insinuating its Buddhist origin.  

“Sannipata” is a term present in both Sanskrit and Pali. In pali writings, sannipata is used for suggesting a “conglomeration/meeting” 60also. In sanskrit, the meaning of a term depends on many factors like 1. The Context & Text(Shastra) in which a term is used 2. Origin(Root) of the term and so on. But, these nuances do not seem to matter much to DW, as mere semblance in the vocabulary are presented as evidences to prove the origin of a given concept ignoring the larger and solid connecting body of knowledge. 

To suggest the serious nature and incurability of “sannipata” DW takes up a condition “sannipata apasmara” as an exemplar. Whereas, the fact is that all other “sannipatas” too are difficult to manage. The reason, for considering only the “sannipata apasmara” as an example is not known.  

DUKHA TRAYA25(~Trividha dukha): Is it independent of “Dosha theory”?

SS explains the concept of “Dukha traya”(i.e. Diseases pertaining to Adhyatmika-Adhibhoutika-Adhidaivika spheres of life). DW commenting on this claims that,  “Dosha” has been relegated to a relatively minor position in SS, as the primary(grand) classification of diseases in SS is based on the classification of “Dukha traya”. DW implies that “SS underplays the importance of dosha theory, as it places the same in a relatively minor position in its grand scheme classification, while  the same treatise ELSEWHERE mentions “Dosha to be the root cause of all diseases”. DW through this tries to suggest that SS contradicts itself and inconsistent in its stand on Dosha theory.  

Here, two questions arise 1. Does SS really relegate dosha to a relatively minor position?  2. Was there really a disapproval by SS for the widespread use of dosha theory as suggested by DW ?  

SS, after describing the “vyadhi (Dukha traya classification)”manifesting in the three spheres in detail states  that,  the “Dosha is the root cause of all diseases” 61 giving an analogy to show the inevitability of dosha in the causation of a disease. Also the verse that says, dosha is  the root cause of all diseases, is not present ELSEWHERE as stated by DW, but in fact is placed immediately (Very next verse) after the description of “Vyadhi(Dukha traya)” in the same chapter. SS in another context too states that “There can be no disease devoid of dosha”62, which rebuts the DW’s opinion of SS giving a secondary position to doshas and that it contradicts itself.     

AMA= Raw residues of AL ?

Impairment in the agni (~biological fire) can happen at various levels/stages in the disease process, consequence of which is the impaired metabolism, formation of “Ama” and improper nourishment.  “Ama” is an invariable associate/part of the disease process. DW says “ama” shares similarity with the concept of “Raw residues” in the work “On Medicine” by the Greek author Anonymus Londinensis. DW chooses to discuss the concept of “ama” in treatises, again selectively. DW, tries to emphasise that the “ama” is an independent potent model of disease, referring to a verse from “Ayurveda Sutra”, highlighting selectively the “ama” aspect, leaving aside the dosha theory63


Disease process encapsulated: The process of disease begins with the “shad-dhatwatmaka purusha” indulging in “Trini ayatanani”, resulting in the aggravation of doshas. The aggravated doshas afflict various subjects(~Dushya) culminating in the manifestation of signs and symptamatology. 

Factors mentioned as the causative factors by Buddha(Octet) and the models compiled by DW, at different points in time associate together and of course influence different spheres in an individual. But isolating them and calling them “Distinct etiologies” will distort the fundamental tenets of ayurveda, which is exactly the case in DW’s article. When seen in fragmented ways, even the concepts from western medicine look similar to the ones in ayurveda. Can we draw any conclusion based on that? Therefore, it is pertinent to look at the disease process in entirety in order that the conceptual authenticity is preserved. More over once these concepts are isolated from each other, they become useless for all practical purposes. 

The argument  of DW regarding the dosha theory being just a veneer has been refuted above. Ashtanga Hrudaya(AH)(which DW seem to prefer over CS & SS), states in different contexts that “Dosha(~tridoshas)Mandagni(~impaired biological fire)-Vega dharana(~Suppression of natural urges)-Trini ayatanani( triad)” 64as being the causative factors of diseases. Does it mean, AH contradicts itself?  NO. It is only the demand of the prakarana to showcase the importance of a particular concept, they are tinted. There is a sound reasoning for doing so and are definitely not contradictory.

Inseparability of “Dosha theory” with Ayurveda

DW, while trying to distance folklore medicine in India from its vedic roots, puts forth an argument stating, “Doshic theory was used just as a veneer over many of the folk traditions” (to digest the latter into ayurveda). He seems to be suggesting that the “dosha theory” is not mandatory to Ayurveda/Folk-lore medicine. To justify this argument he takes “Visha” (~poison & its treatment in ayurvedic literature) and “Suryaavarta”(A disease condition of “Shiras”) as examples from classical treatises. DW states 1.Visha, from SS does not have any underlying theoretical framework and is symptomatic. 2. The treatment for “Suryavarta” cannot be justified or explained in terms of dosha theory.  In actuality, both the claims are false. Suryavarta chikitsa can be justified as per Dosha and Disease Theory of ayurveda. 

Coming to whether “Visha” is devoid of any underlying theoretical model and is just symptomatic. If a treatment modality/therapy has to alleviate the “symptoms”, an accurate diagnosis (Identification of underlying theory concerning ”dosha-dhatu-agni”etc., and their states.) is very essential. It is the accurate identification of “Visha”(~Bite/poison) [(and embedded doshic nuances, its sthana (~Location)], which will ensure the alleviation of the effects of poison. This identification process involves diagnosing the underlying theoretical model which is continuous with the fundamentals of the disease and dosha theory in ayurveda classics.

Visha: SS says, visha possesses 10 gunas(~quality) and is said to affect the body in different ways including Vata-pitta 65. There is a verse that details about what component is afflicted by which quality of visha and also another verse mentioning “tridoshas” being affected when afflicted with visha66. Below are the three instances from SS, in the context of visha, that show its inseparability with Tridosha theory. 

1. Snakes (Sarpa) are broadly of three types “Darveekara-Mandalina and Rajimantha” and they are said to disturb Vata-pitta and kapha respectively 67. The signs-symptomatology and the treatment employed, varies based on this fact. Identification of the snake and features of snake bite {specific features (like colour of bite site etc,.) are enumerated in the texts} are consequential. 2. SS states, that visha chikitsa should be done only after a due consideration to “Prakruthi-Satmya-desha69. Therefore, visha chikitsa is not independent of dosha theory neither is devoid of theoretical model. 3.Virility and quantity of venom(~visha)  is on the higher side in some seasons(kala)68. Therefore, kala (~seasons) is an important factor in visha chikitsa, this idea too is continuous with the other ayurvedic fundamental concept. This goes to show that, visha chikitsa has a strong theoretical base just like any other disease in ayurveda. 


Ayurveda propounds vimshati (Twenty) gunas which encompasses the “dosha and bhuta theory”. Treatment is nothing but the correction/manipulation of these twenty gunas of the body through medicines, food and so on. Likewise, the folklore medicine too concurs with the twenty guna- dosha- mahabhuta theories. CS describing the perpetuity of ayurveda gives three reasons to explain eternal nature of ayurveda, of which “permanence  of 20 gunas and its attributes/manifestations”70 also is one. The fundamental principles like mahabhuta- twenty gunas- Dosha are all eternal, but the way we put them to use may change. Just like some practitioners today, use rice bran oil for shodhana(~purification therapy) in hypercholestremia. Question here is not whether it is fully right, but, this is what the adaptations mean. 

DW believes that, ayurveda was more of an open sourced body of knowledge, which was compiled out of the information gathered from “ajapa-avipa-vruddha stree(Goatherd-shepherd –Old women) etc,. Fact of the matter is that the Ayurvedic texts advise the vaidyas, to seek the help of ajapa-avipa-vruddha stree only in select contexts71,72. They did not contribute to the concepts/change principles of ayurveda as DW insinuates, rather their help was to be taken in their area of expertise which is “drug identification and paricharya(midwifery)” etc,. This practise is prevalent even today, because people living in the hilly regions (ajapas and avipas,) have a first hand knowledge about the identification of medicinal plants. In some remote parts of India, we can see older women (Soolagitti in Kannada) performing labor even today.

CS also mentions another important clause while discussing the “identification and use of medicinal plants”. It says, that, ability to merely identify a medicinal plant by its name and appearance does not make person a “vaidya”, as thorough understanding of the “Guna and karma” of a drug, is very essential for  chikitsa(~treatment)71.  The principles and concepts of ayurveda have never and will never change and are eternal and continuous with vedic wisdom.


In every disease the doshic aggravation is inevitable and is invariably seen sooner or later. Ayurveda classifies diseases into “Nija(Endogenous) and Agantu(Exogenous)”73Nija diseases are those, which manifest when the above process explained in paragraph “Disease process encapsulated” takes place, where doshic aggravation precedes the appearance of signs and symptoms74. Agantu disease is caused due to external injury by “Vayu-Agni-Kshata-bhanga-Visha and affliction due to Bhuta” so on75. Effect of such external factors is experienced by the “Shad-dhatwatmaka purusha”. Signs and symptoms appear first, followed by the “doshic aggravation”. CS says, “Nija” at times can present itself like “Agantu” after sometime, and “agnatu” can exhibit “nija” like features76. SS too is in concurrence with this concept. 

In the context of “wound caused by external trauma” and “fracture-dislocations”, SS attaches significance to “dosha and the condition of the body”.  SS also says, 1.The process of healing/regeneration is hindered by “Doshic aggravation- Impaired agni-stress”77, a  classic example of how various aspects of a person and illness needs to be considered for chikitsa(~treatment) and  not an isolated part of him. 2. Vrana(~wound/ulcer) should be managed as the “agantu vyadhi” to start with and later treated based on the “doshic dominance” (agantu to nija transformation)78. So, Sushruta’s stand on “dosha” is same as that of Charaka’s and they are on the same page regarding “nija and agnatu”concepts too. 

BHUTA”(Bhutik affliction): Whether it is exogenous?

While describing the Nija and agantu model, DW tries to bring in difference in opinions in two treatises (CS and SS) saying that, BHUTA is categorised under agantu type in CS but is  not in SS. 

Since SS is a shalyatantra (Surgery) centred treatise79, only the physical traumas have been considered under the category of “agantu”, while CS adds “BHUTA” (attack of daiva-pishacha-yaksha-gandharava  etc,.) to the list of agantu disease. This surely does not mean, that some  difference of opinion regarding Bhuta exists.  

Reason why CS considers “BHUTA” as agantu/Invasive type 

A. As said earlier CS considers “Trini ayatanani” to be the root cause of all diseases including those from agantu origin88.  “BHUTIK” affliction is seen as an “Un-wholesome sensory contact of “Sparshanendriya” and in CS 80, the concept of “bhuta” is elaborated in the context of “agantu unmada” disease 81.  Here, CS describes the onset of agantu unmada as an “Aaghata”(Attack/Affliction)82and also the time of susceptibility to Bhutik aghata(affliction)83.  This is the rationale for placing bhuta under “agantu” disease or as an external invasion in CS.  Like other traumas, “bhuta” too is a mithyayoga of sparsha sensory faculty. The contact point is said to be “sparshanendriya”. Sparshanedriya, does not merely mean the “skin”, for sparsha (contact) could be at both physical as well as at the level of psyche (manasika)84

B. The principles of diagnosis and treatment for “BHUTAare same in both SS and CS. Both of them recommend a right blend of “Daiva and yuktivyapashraya” chikitas[ (Mantra-Mani-bali etc)+(treatment modalities in the form of medicines and food)]85.

C. Even though C.S mentions BHUTA as sparshanendriya mithyayoga (of agantu origin),  it holds “Prajnaparadha and Karma” as the root cause of BHUTA/agantu unmada86. CS and SS in this regard too, are on the same page. SS, describes “daivadi graham pida” under “Adhidaivika” category  of dukha traya87. So, one categorisation is based on the “secondary” cause(Un-wholesome sensory contact), while the other, a root “primary” cause (Karma-prajnaparadha) both of which are inevitable. This is how, different causative factors come into play at different spheres of life and at different points in time. Therefore picking and isolating them from the rest, will result in distortion of the concepts. Hence, it is pertinent to look at it in entirety. There is no controversy with regard to “BHUTA” and its categorisation; it is just a different way of presenting the same fact. 

DW in his attempt to de-link the concepts of ayurveda from the Vedas says that, the concepts of medicine in Atharavana veda are not a product of well-formed medical  theory, as it offers only prayers and invocations as remedial measures. But, this so called unsophisticated concept, forms one of the three major chikitsa modalities (Daiva-Yukti- Satwavajaya) in CS and SS.

Summary of Purvapaksha “MODELS OF DISEASES”

Attempts to DISCONNECT AND DISTORT, with intent to DIGEST

DW in the paper(pre-print) “Models of disease” takes up “Octet”/causes of pain explained by Buddha and picks different other concepts as “models of disease” from ayurveda treatises for discussion. The list of concepts compiled by him appears like he has cherry picked only those concepts that have a ‘superficial semblance” with that of the Greek and Buddhist concepts. He considers these concepts as, the “DISTINCT” aetiologies without establishing the connective principle, which forms the foundation of ayurveda and astik darshana. Disconnecting this binding thread, either deliberately or out of ignorance would only be a “fragmented and reductionist approach” which will ultimately result in distortion of ayurvedic concepts, making them “Greek look alikes”. It is also unclear, what DW is trying convey when he uses the term “Models” of diseases. 

DW does not explain or even mention the intrinsic connection between the concepts and their exact roles in the process of disease manifestation. Leaving out these details would give ayurvedic concepts a Greek/Buddhist appearance. DW, has chosen to disconnect the disease models from these elemental paradigms of ayurveda, like panchabhuta tenet and atma vada. DW avoids elaborating on most of the hallmark concepts of ayurveda, as elaborating them would have shown some glaring contradictions with their alleged parallels. 

Sleight of vocabulary and translation : “similarity” in vocabulary : THE PERPETUAL SHIELD    

Criteria for choosing a “model of disease” by DW for comparison  is not whether it really is a model/cause of disease as per ayurveda treatises, but is only their seeming semblance to the Greek/Buddhist theories. DW has carefully chosen only “Greek/Buddhist look alike” those concepts from the Samhitas specially CS for discussion. Author in his paper has used the term “Dosha and Dosha theory” in place of  “Humoral theory” in various places trying to equate “dosha with humors” of Greek concepts (refuted in previous Purvapaksha papers). 

DW does not explain how and what makes the  “Octet” of Buddha and those of Ayurveda to be similar. When the “sameness in the terminology” alone is cited to say that the Ayurvedic concepts are borrowed from Buddhism, then why not apply the same reasoning to other astik texts, that are continuous with Ayurveda in terms of “terminology-language-fundamental principles-style of narration”. 

Typically, whenever the concepts from the two treatises CS and SS are chosen for discussion it is, either to lay claim to their alleged similarity to Greek/Buddhist parallels or to mischievously insert a false sense of contradiction between the classics. Even the “Parishad and Guru-shishya sutra”(symposium and a dialogue between guru shishya), styles of narration of CS and SS, draws a disdainful comment  from DW, calling them as “messy debates”. 

These things clearly show DW ’s intent is to make a case for the lack of novelty and originality to Ayurveda and that the concepts involved are of either Greek or Buddhist origin. The concepts that form the very essence of Ayurveda, for which the so-called parallels could not be found, are argued to be blemished and conflicting. This is a clear effort to bring in a sense of contradiction and controversy where none exist. 


  1. Wujastyk.Dominik. Models of Disease in Ayurvedic Medicine[Pre-print draft].To appear in Mark Jackson, ed. The Routledge History of Disease.2016..Pg:1-24

  1. Wujastyk.Dominik. Models of Disease in Ayurvedic Medicine[Pre-print draft].To appear in Mark Jackson, ed.The Routledge History of Disease.2016..Pg:1-2

  1. Wujastyk.Dominik. Models of Disease in Ayurvedic Medicine[Pre-print draft].To appear in Mark Jackson, ed.The Routledge History of Disease.2016..Pg:3

  1. Wujastyk.Dominik. Models of Disease in Ayurvedic Medicine[Pre-print draft].To appear in Mark Jackson, ed.The Routledge History of Disease.2016..Pg:3

  1. Wujastyk.Dominik. Models of Disease in Ayurvedic Medicine[Pre-print draft].To appear in Mark Jackson, ed.The Routledge History of Disease.2016..Pg:3

  1. Wujastyk.Dominik. Models of Disease in Ayurvedic Medicine[Pre-print draft].To appear in Mark Jackson, ed.The Routledge History of Disease.2016..Pg:4

  1. Wujastyk.Dominik. Models of Disease in Ayurvedic Medicine[Pre-print draft].To appear in Mark Jackson, ed.The Routledge History of Disease.2016..Pg:5

  1. Wujastyk.Dominik. Models of Disease in Ayurvedic Medicine[Pre-print draft].To appear in Mark Jackson, ed.The Routledge History of Disease.2016..Pg:6 onwards

  1. Wujastyk.Dominik. Models of Disease in Ayurvedic Medicine[Pre-print draft].To appear in Mark Jackson, ed.The Routledge History of Disease.2016..Pg:16

  1. Wujastyk.Dominik. Models of Disease in Ayurvedic Medicine[Pre-print draft].To appear in Mark Jackson, ed.The Routledge History of Disease.2016..Pg:6


11C.S.Sha. 1/1637C.S.Su.   28/3763Ayu.Su. Page 1 to 3
12C.S.Sha. 1/3538C.S.Su.   16/30-3664A.H.Su. 12/32,4/22, Ni.1/13,12/1
13C.S.Sha.  5/439C.S.Su.   8/16
14S.S.Su.  1/2240C.S.Su.   28/3965S.S.Ka.2/23
15C.S.Sha. 2/3141C.S.Su.   8/766S.S.Ka.3/24
16C.S.Sha. 1/71-7442C.S.Sha. 3/1367S.S.Ka. 4/29,37
17C.S.Sha. 1/15543C.S.Su.   8/668C.S.Chi. 23/7-8
18C.S.Sha. 3/19 &  C.S.Sha 1/35 44C.S.Sha. 1/10869S.S.Ka. 5/34-49,S.S.Ka. 6/32
45C.S.Sha. 1/12770C.S.Su. 30/27
19C.S.Su.   1/5846DW Page. 9 71C.S.Su. 1/120-121
20S.S.Su.  21/347C.S.Sha. 1/127, C.S.Su.11/38 & C.S.Vi. 1/2072C.S.Sha. 8/34
21C.S.Sha. 4/873C.S.Su. 11/45
22S.S.Su. 46/52648C.S.Su. 6/5074C.S.Su. 20/7
23C.S.Sha. 5/449C.S.Su. 7/4175C.S.Su. 7/51
24A.H.Su. 1/19, 12/3450C.S.Su. 6/4976C.S.Su. 19/7
25S.S.Su. 24/451C.S.Su. 7/36-3777S.S.Su. 23/21
26C.S.Sha. 5/2252C.S.Vi. 1/1978S.S.Chi. ¼
27C.S.Sha. 1/8253A.H.Su. 3/5879S.S.Su. 1/10
28C.S.Sha. 1/91-9454S.S.Su. 6/380C.S.Sha. 1/121
29C.S.Su.   11/3755C.S.Su. 11/4281C.S.Chi. 9/87
30C.S.Sha. 1/95-9756C.S.Sha. 1/110-11582C.S.Ni. 7/14
31C.S.Sha. 1/12957C.S.Sha. 1/116-11783C.S.Chi. 9/19
32Cha.Pa.C.S.Sha. 1/9858C.S.Vi. 3/3384C.S.Sha. 1/133
33C.S.Su.   11/3959S.S.Su. 24/1085C.S.Chi. 9/87,S.S.U. 60/20-53
34C.S.Sha. 1/10860Link- Above 
35C.S.Sha. 3/10-1361S.S.Su. 24/886C.S.Ni. 7/19-22
36C.S.Su.   8/1562S.S.Su. 35/1987S.S.Su. 24/7

Dr. Priyanka Shandilya
Dr. Priyanka Shandilya

3 thoughts on “Videshi scholarship mangles Ayurveda once more .. Disease Models are misinterpreted, mauled and misrepresented”

  1. Dr Rama Krishnan

    Absolutely scholarly marvellous rebuttal ! Kudos. My understanding of Ayurveda is limited but even I can see the flaws in the paper presented by DW.

  2. Pingback: Videshi scholarship mangles Ayurveda once more .. Disease Models are misinterpreted, mauled and misrepresented – INTELLECTUAL KSHATRIYA - Ayurveda

  3. Panchabhuta in Ayurveda are said to be in balance and the same thing applies to the human beings too. Ayurveda states that the human body is also made up of the 5 elements that are: Earth, Water, Fire, Air and Space. When these things occur within the body, the body suffers from sickness and diseases.

    The 5 elements are seen in the body in the form of 3 body types known as ‘Doshas’. The doshas exist in all matter and are composed of different combinations of the 5 elements. They are: Vata, Pitta and Kapha. Their influence affects all mechanisms of the body.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: