By Durgadas, Veda Kovid, AYT
Ayu. Clin, Ayu. Pharm, AMPKT, AMBT, ALC
(c) Durgadas (Rodney) Lingham / Arogya Ayurvedic Health Ltd.
All Rights reserved.
No part of this article may be copied or reproduced in any manner, except by direct permission from the author.
Tradition and Vaidyas vs Westernised Liberality:
Historically ancient sciences have been shared around the globe and as the modernisation of socialistic movements took place such as Jainism and Buddhism, there have been an abundant number of people wishing to franchise and open up the ancient teachings to the world, claiming such as “traditional” on one hand, but ignoring the actual classics’ word on such and personal qualities on the other.
These sciences when applied in a generic model can be useful. But as for the greater scope of claiming traditional lineages and applied teachings with respect to such, these fall into another matter. Here the spiritual Ayurvedic aspects and the rational aspects must be understood in their entirety, not simply pertaining to the physical applications; the methodical karmic methods that require skill in training of the Brahmana and others in the fields of astrology and ritualism here play an important part classically as well, which also connected with the sciences (i.e. knowledge of all shad darshanas in their integral aspects).
While the science of Ayurveda was taught to many in the ancient world such as the Persians, Chinese and notably the Arabs who translated the ancient texts where they reached the Latin world, such occurred in later times under Buddhistic influences in India, the ancient form of liberal socialism, which caused much distress to traditional Brahmanical teachings due to their [incorrect] dissemination.
The question here arises, should non-Hindus, as in those not born Hindus, really be practising Ayurveda as per tradition? Here, they would fall into the traditional category of chandalas or out-castes, existing outside the varna of caste-system of Hindus – possessing not even basic qualities that are even required for initiation into Ayurvedic study of the shudras (lowest labouring class) as per tradition (Sushruta Samhita, Sutrasthana, II.5); such should also be of proper qualities, mentally and physically (ibid, II.3), not simply as per the open-ended non-Hindu aspects of later Buddhistic interpretations.
Related sciences (inferring jyotisha, yoga etc.) are also stated to be learnt by the physician or practitioner traditionally from reputed and qualified people in these respective fields; here also those proficient in only one field of expertise alone or Vedic science is said to be unable to be qualified to deduce anything correctly, as one muts be proficient in many sciences, not simply one (as Ayurveda) alone – Sushruta, Sutrasthana, IV.6-9.
Here, unless one is a yajnapati (one skilled in the tradition art of vaidika ceremonies and sacrifices), a jyotishi (astrologer), a yogi (understand the deeper facets of Raja-Yoga and the various facets and systems of yoga as a whole, as also yogic psychology) in addition to the vedas and their mantras, the systems as nyaya, vaisheshika etc. (other darshanas) as also vedanta, one cannot actually understand or help patients through bhutavidya or Ayurvedic psychology or issues such as karmajarogas (karmic diseases), not understand them! Many are this mithyavaidyas or false practitioners of Ayurveda.
This brings into question those who qualify from [generic regime] Indian systems and others, and rigidly apply these systems or the New-Age style in the west to the pseudo-systems that fall in between these as a culmination of B.A.M.S graduates posing as “traditionalists”, wishing to superimpose their own systems, but ignoring these ancient injunctions where it suits in a Buddhist-style.
Historically this has caused problems in the traditional system of teaching – especially outside of Hinduism. The misinterpretation of the texts as warned by Sushruta and others outside Hindu lineages lead to the systems such as marmapuncture and marmapressure in southern India as a result of Buddhism and Jainism – notably seen today as practised by the thiyya caste of southern India that became kalari physicians of other castes and over time influenced them – themselves originating from Sinhalese Buddhists who due to the orthodoxy of southern India (hence the preservation of Sanskrit learning, older Vedic systems, Dhanurveda and Ayurveda etc. there) as far back as with Shankaracharya who sought to reform these practices) were not allowed into the Hindu fold due to their impure (ashuddhi) characteristics and being seen as chandalas or anarya (not-noble), i.e. outside the Hindu caste system. While they were still South Asians and connected to Hindu systems via derivations such as Buddhism and Jainism, it still didn’t allow them to be included into the traditional Ayurvedic systems or Hindu fold (to keep it pure and untainted) – which raises the question today of those practicing Ayurveda and (ironically) taking up these non-original tainted systems of marma manipulation and such, arising from people outside tradition as them [Europeans and non-Hindus].
On this note, Charaka (Sutrasthana, XI.9-10) lays stress on avoiding the divergent teachings and texts due to their contradictions [relative to tradition] .While some here may interpolate their non-Vedic stance, Charaka follows up (ibid, 28), stating that the Vedas are the accepted or authorised texts and any others that are not contradictory to the Vedas are hence accepted alone.
Here the characteristics of the Vaidya (physician or practitioner) should be likened to shaucha (purity) in Yoga, which means of the mind, body and also genetic heritage (jati or varna) for retaining the knowledge.
While historically there have been [exceptionally rare] examples of chandalas or those outside the mainstream systems that have been accepted, these are exceptions beyond the normal case – just as Yogis and Rishis such as Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Ramana Maharishi and their unique realisations were themselves rare examples, even of Brahmana castes that attained lofty states.
The modern liberal age however seeks to over-simplify and seek justification for deviations of the ancient traditions, in which here the shastras or classical texts appear to both warn against and also note of proper qualities for practitioners which where, as rare notable cases existed – these cannot be applied to nor correlated with the modern-day acceptance of the masses to justify the existence of their practice of sacred doctrines such as Ayurveda.
If we apply such logic, then anyone can do a course, pass a test and change their DNA to become a Brahmana or even a Deva or celestial. The truth, however, is otherwise!
Women and Ayurveda:
This may come as quite a surprise to many, but yoga and Ayurveda were traditionally under the domain of male practitioners and teachers. I have noted elsewhere the case for this, which wasn’t anything to do with the charges against men by today’s neo-liberal groups as feminists, who superimpose their Eurocentric Abrahamic biases upon the culture of India.
Ayurveda today has sadly become reduced down to the system of purvakarmas or preliminary therapies to even proper Panchakarma techniques and of them when they are performed, are in their shamana or palliative forms, thus misappropriating the term ‘panchakarma’ and giving an incorrect view of tradition. Imagine if we did this in western medicine, where it became reduced down to the sphere of nursing alone and didn’t involve Doctors, specialists and surgery! Sadly, this is what has occurred with Ayurveda, under the domain of women alone.
In a similar heir, people doing Reiki, Pranic-Healing and such have no knowledge of the greater tradition in which aspects as chakras, their own anatomy and science nor the fact that they reflect psychological states in the Yogic and Ayurvedic traditions. Such people are like a surgeon who wants to operate without first studying anatomy, physiology, pathology or even the use of surgical instruments etc. IT IS DANGEROUS TO SELF-PROCLAIM SUCH THINGS, YET WE SEE IT OFTEN WHEN VAIDIKA TRADITIONS ARE APPROPRIATED BY THE WEST!
Ayurveda looks at men and women in the following model:
Women = Soma (lunar) somatically and agneya (fiery) reproductive system.
Soma is made up of the elements of jala (water) and prithivi (earth). It is gravitational (gurutva) and slow (manda) in nature.
This means that women are more suitable for careers in counselling, nursing, midwifery and sympathising, as is the maternal aspect of the soma.
Men = Tejas (fiery) somatically and saumya (lunar) reproductive system.
Tejas is made up of the elements of jala (water) and agni (fire). It is sukshma(subtle) and tikshna (sharp) in nature.
This means that men are more suitable for direct and more fiery and harsh actions like surgery, advising patients of the truth of their illness for their own good.
This is why men were seen as reflections of Lord Shiva as the atman (Self), being of more subtle aspects relating to fire = consciousness (chidagni) and viveka(discrimination) whereas females were reflections of the physical creation (jagat) and illusory fields (maya), being of the more dense elements. This made men more naturally suited to attaining consciousness, whereas the karma of women to facilitate their husbands (Rishis, yogis) in this process. In saying this, some women did transmutate their energies as some men did and become great yoginis – but these are EXCEPTIONS to the rule rather than THE RULE itself.
Males due to their fiery nature don’t make good counsellors and nurses, due to their harsh nature. The maternal nature of the mother (female) is required here and vice versa.
The yogic model was one of men reflecting the antarayaga (inner sacrifice, such as of the ego) and esoteric and women reflecting the bahyayaga (outer sacrifice) or the exoteric. The latter precedes the former in yogic lore; we have to transcend the world or manifest and understand it, before we can access the higher self. In all ancient cultures, the male was the self and sky personified (Dyaus), whereas the female counterpart was the world and earth personified (Prithivi).
As per this model, men are not suited as counsellers and caregivers and mothers whereas women are with their lunar side, good for communication.
Yoga subscribed to the same model. While the cult of the Goddess did involve women, this was mutual in the rituals for males and females within the tantrikatraditions, however the hatha-yoga facet of this tradition that was based primarily on purifying the body, austerities as brahmacharya (celibacy) and rigorous exercises formed a part of the male-dominated martial-arts system of Gorakshanatha for creating Gurkha warriors to be sent forth and defend India against Islamic attacks at the time. Here, women, like children and the elderly were the protected and not the protectors.
The delicate minds of women and their hormonal cycles and emotional being was also rendered unfit for battle as well, unless (as few did), they overcame these – in the same light as men were not as suited to raising children and being the caring figure and personality due to their more fiery, aggressive and confrontational nature that didn’t make good nurses and caregivers! In addition, the main reason was that yoga and Ayurveda saw babies as having more self-confidence in life and being born strong mentally and physically with mothers that were not exposed to anything harsh (battle, surgery, violent or harsh speech etc.), as such could act upon the subconscious of the mother (even in the future) or when pregnant, could cause issues as miscarriage or deformities in the child and especially compromise their psychological state (as make them born predisposed to anxiety-related and security issues). This came into regulating ahara or intake of both food (anna) and lifestyle impressions (vihara) for the mother or women.
These are the traditional reasons that yoga and Ayurveda were suited for men alone as practitioners and vaidyas. Moreover, the harsh, abrasive and rajasika actions of the shad kriyas of hatha-yoga itself could affect the delicate hormonal system of females, itself being agneya or pitta / fiery in nature and rajasika itself. It was aimed at transforming the male soma complex of their sexuality into a more fiery complex for a higher kshatra-rajas or militant-zeal for war and thus a yogic transmutation inwardly as well.
Some of the stories of the soma-complex that women are born with are also reflected in the tales of Soma / Chandra (the moon) and Shukracharya (Venus) themselves historically, both who had feminine qualities and both also stood for the asura or physical world and matter of materialism or desire (raga, or passion), the biological nature of women, which gives them also more grounding, a heavier more dense (gurutva) nature than men, required for retrospective as opposed to impulsive, brash and aggressive actions of men. This is how the yin compliments the yang. Ayurveda itself works upon this model for healing via the properties of dravyas or substances, especially Ayurvedic nutrition and pharmacology.
The ida nadi in yoga is also the lunar and feminine, derived from the term Ila, the first woman who was the teacher to mankind in the Rigveda and also the celestial muse, often cognate with the goddess Vak (speech). Here, females represent the manifest word and teaching, as through mantra and bhasha (language), whereas men represent the power of the Rishi behind it in the subtle or elemental (akashika) form as akshara or the seed-syllables, the pranic realm. Here also, males represented the oratory form of Vedic knowledge, whereas females represented the physical or written word and teaching.
This shows that females represented the bulk of knowledge as teachers of celestial traditions to children which, as noted, was the toned-down version of the teaching of the Rishis which was often fiery and harsh. It was for the advanced world. This more clearly demonstrates that the role of men and women isn’t about sexist fascism, but about the bipolar energies of the ancient systems of the east, as with yin and yang in China or soma and agni in India and harmonising these in society to avoid disorders socially, or in either gender.
Background of the Qualities for a Vaidya:
Traditionally, not just women, but those who didn’t possess the sattvika or pure qualities shouldn’t become Vaidyas. I have seen many vaidyas in India in their seventies and eighties who are vigorous, strong, full heads of hair and can hear perfectly and read miles away. One shouldn’t be too fat nor too skinny, either and shouldn’t be bald, not wear glasses or have these issues. That comes as part of being a true Vaidya, rather than a hypocrite!
Sattvika shruti (perfect hearing):
Vaidyas should have perfect hearing. This means they should be able to hear and also remember things (smarana-shakti) and be masters of shruti-shastra as well as smriti-shastra. By hearing, they can hear subtle sounds of the patient’s body without instruments and be able to diagnose. Their sound (shabda) as in voice should also be strong, not weak and no stuttering etc. either, which are not signs of sattvika shabda.
Sattvika sparsha (perfect touch) :
This also means perfect hair, nails and skin as well without wrinkles, balding etc. They shouldn’t have excess vayu with shaking, fears etc. nor excessive dry skin, either. They should be able to perceive touch at the subtle level even of the pulse.
By altering the skin (tattoos, piercings, implants) across the body and over marmas especially, it deranges the touch perception and akasha in the body, which is wy it should be left pure. Gemstones can be used, however, as can pastes.
Sattvika drishti (perfect sight):
Vaidyas should have perfect eyesight for reading and also observing the patient overall. This means they shouldn’t have to wear glasses at all and should practice and be examples of what they preach relative to this. Vaidyas that wear glasses are frauds as they don’t reflect what they preach.
Sattvika rasa (perfect taste):
This here refers to their sense of taste and water in the body to be perfect. This means not to retain excess water or have excess mucous, either and should have the ojas to overcome colds and flus, as also viruses with ease. They should be able to taste everything in a dish and enunciate on the tastes and enzymic effects accordingly.
Sattvika gandha (perfect smell):
Smell relates to earth and here means the vaidya shouldn’t be too obese or carry excess weight. They shouldn’t be underweight, either. They should be able to sense smells from afar and be able to use this in their diagnosis, as related to taste.
These are reflected in the castes:
Brahmins (sattvika) – less, as less toxic food is taken in, so aushadhi (herbs, base herbs and formulas alone). This is due to their sattvika ahara or impressions and their satmya (suitability).
Kshatriyas (rajasika): more toxic, so panchakarma and shalyatantra (surgery), compound formulas, due to their rajasika aharas or impressions.
Vaishya and Shudra (rajasika-tamasika and tamasika): Surgery alone and alchemical formulas due to the grosser manifestation of diseases, due to their mixture of rajasika and tamasika impressions.
Thus, relative to elements, the Brahmins are closer to the atmika facets due to their more elemental properties compared to others. Hence, technically speaking, only Brahmins could really benefit from subtle therapies as mantra, yajna, puja etc. unless one was doing so specifically given for their karmaja-rogas or karmic disorders (by a reputed jyotishi):
Brahmins: akasha-vayu = eka
Kshatriyas: vayu-agni = dwau
Vaishya: jala = traya
Shudra: prithivi = chatura
Technically, we are all vaishyas and shudras in this age. Human bodies are “shaudrika” or they are the level of a tamasika person and mind. Mixed ones as the vaishyas started to ruin India due to the Yadava Dynasty that succeeded Sri Krishna in India, especially from Gujerat to Bihar. Such people split into mercantile castes (notably the ‘Patels/Patils’) and started to ‘cash in’ in Ayurveda and other sciences, causing them to become less savory than their Brahmin counterparts.
Goras (Northern Europeans, Brits) here are actually avarna, outside the caste system of India. Here, they would form the sub-castes under the chandala or outcastes, at the fourth level as shudras. Chinese and Greeks were given varnas, but not the Nordics of the Himalaya for example, regarded as pishachas due to their ghostly appearance, as related to the Nordics of Europe also (considered also inferior by the Greeks and Romans who were the darker Meditteranean people that civilised the European mainland).
We see here that traditional Ayurveda gave numerous considerations to people ad their gunas or qualities over other facets that are argued by today’s socialist SJWs.
Ved Kovid, Durgadas 