Regarding science - I have no
fight with modern science. But I refuse to grant it the position of the ONLY
valid system. And I also refuse the demand that other systems, including
ayurveda, need to be validated in its language.
Sridhar Bhaskarla Very aptly said. In my
childhood, I was an ardent believer. By mid-school, after knowing a bit of
science, I became a non-believer. While doing physics in my PG and M.Phil, I
realized how stupid I was to be a non-believer. Since then I have been
agnostic.
Sometime back, in the office, I
got engaged in a serious discussion that involved people from other religions
who were rather insulting Hindu religion and its practices. I gave them only
one example. You take our 'panchangam' and you can verify dates, days,
eclipses, moon phases, sun-sets, sun-rises and say they are 'right' because you
can use modern science to explain them. But you say rahu-kala, good muhurtha
etc., computed using the same formula are superstitions because they are beyond
the comprehension of modern science. So which is right and which is wrong?.
They had no answer.
T.R.
Shashwath Isn't the answer obvious? The observation is pretty much
spot on, but the inference is bullshit...
I see people raising this argument almost always only when they want to continue a practice that has no provable benefit, and often one which is patently dangerous.
I see people raising this argument almost always only when they want to continue a practice that has no provable benefit, and often one which is patently dangerous.
T.R.
Shashwath OK, the very idea that planetary configurations can be
used to predict anything except tomorrow's planetary configurations. Neither
stars nor planets affect our day-to-day lives, and there is neither empirical
evidence nor a workable hypothesis to suggest that they do.
Aparna Krishnan Things are proved, disproved
and unproved. Today the humility to accept the third category seems lacking.
Something to do with modern scientific education, where what cannot be seen in
the lab microscope does not exist !
T.R.
Shashwath On the other hand, I think that purely as a means of
recording and tracking time, luni-solar approaches like the Panchangas are way
better than purely lunar (the Islamic calendar) or purely solar (Gregorian)
systems. With these systems, it becomes possible to maintain some kind of
parity with the cardinal points of the year - solstices and equinoxes, and it's
also possible to easily compute the day of the year purely by observation of
the sky. In a society without accurate timekeeping systems, this is brilliant.
T.R.
Shashwath Aparna Krishnan There are many unproved things
floating around in modern science - string theory is one such, and until
recently, so was the Higgs Boson, for example.
However, what science does do is to say that if something is disproved, you can't keep latching back onto it. Astrology is an example of something that's been completely disproved, both by increasing knowledge of how astronomical bodies work, and by empirical means. Another is homeopathy, which has been disproved in exactly the same way. At this point, it's time to put these to rest.
Things unproved would include the efficacy of certain Ayurvedic and other traditional medicines (though others are disproved, like rhino horn preparations in traditional Chinese medicine), or, well, the existence of god (though there are certain atheists...)
However, what science does do is to say that if something is disproved, you can't keep latching back onto it. Astrology is an example of something that's been completely disproved, both by increasing knowledge of how astronomical bodies work, and by empirical means. Another is homeopathy, which has been disproved in exactly the same way. At this point, it's time to put these to rest.
Things unproved would include the efficacy of certain Ayurvedic and other traditional medicines (though others are disproved, like rhino horn preparations in traditional Chinese medicine), or, well, the existence of god (though there are certain atheists...)
Sridhar Bhaskarla T.R. Shashwath /*people
raising this argument almost always only when they want to continue a
practice*/ This is the inference that is to be termed in the same lingo you
used. I don't follow muhurthas and mudas, but I don't vehemently abuse it
because I don't have the ability to
judge. People confuse technical systems with irrational customs. BTW, the
inference I intended to give out was not to believe superstitions, but to start
thinking beyond the paradigm created by modern science. Modern science assumes
certain fundamental natural laws (based on observation again) and then build on
top of them. It is not averse to oops factor either and hence the versions like
modern physics emanate. More than the constraints, this modern science seems to
be giving people a kind of haughty and supercilious attitude which is more
dangerous. Aparna Krishnan Madam - Even science got stuck with
microscope part and Heisenberg had to come up with the uncertainty principle.
T.R. Shashwath I had seen enough Ayurveda in my life and we never went to English doctor until our family ayurvedic doctor (Tarakaturi Achari of Machilipatnam) passed away at the age of more than 100. His hospital was always filled with patients and he would cure many diseases that would otherwise take a very long time to cure if not not cured by allopathy at all. He was treating dreadful deseases like cancer, brain tumour etc., with ease. Just one small pill a day is enough for a diabetic person to eat as he likes like a normal being. Tonsils would disappear forever in a week's time. Now how do we make such Ayurveda to be *scientifically* proven?. Subject those drugs to lab tests and come out with the results?. In deed, do we need to?
I still remember UK terming Yoga as as unscientific sometime back. Now it is a world-wide phenomenon. Unfortunately Ayurveda is dying with people like Tarakaturi Achari. Soon it will disappear and remain as one of the superstitions.
The test that stands ahead of any test is the 'time test'. Practices like Ayurveda, Yoga etc., were followed for many centuries with 'proven' results. It is good to be proven by modern science, but not must, just like mechanics of quantum particles cannot be proven by Newton’s laws of motion. Hence I appreciated Aparna Krishnan's post earlier.
T.R. Shashwath I had seen enough Ayurveda in my life and we never went to English doctor until our family ayurvedic doctor (Tarakaturi Achari of Machilipatnam) passed away at the age of more than 100. His hospital was always filled with patients and he would cure many diseases that would otherwise take a very long time to cure if not not cured by allopathy at all. He was treating dreadful deseases like cancer, brain tumour etc., with ease. Just one small pill a day is enough for a diabetic person to eat as he likes like a normal being. Tonsils would disappear forever in a week's time. Now how do we make such Ayurveda to be *scientifically* proven?. Subject those drugs to lab tests and come out with the results?. In deed, do we need to?
I still remember UK terming Yoga as as unscientific sometime back. Now it is a world-wide phenomenon. Unfortunately Ayurveda is dying with people like Tarakaturi Achari. Soon it will disappear and remain as one of the superstitions.
The test that stands ahead of any test is the 'time test'. Practices like Ayurveda, Yoga etc., were followed for many centuries with 'proven' results. It is good to be proven by modern science, but not must, just like mechanics of quantum particles cannot be proven by Newton’s laws of motion. Hence I appreciated Aparna Krishnan's post earlier.
No comments:
Post a Comment