Dr. Azad’s clinic. Photocopies of the mysterious text lie open. The students have just read ‘Lesson 2: From Nature to Doṣa’ from the book.
Kabir: We read about Doṣas last evening. Do you think this chapter strictly follows the original Charaka Saṃhitā?
Dr. Azad: Well, the mysterious author seems to have cleverly incorporated some portions from Vāgbhaṭa and others from Suśruta too, to present an integrated view of Doṣa, even though the teacher in the book is portrayed as Charaka. There is some degree of creative liberty involved. For example, the text associates Kapha with water through the imagery of Soma. Some later interpreters take Soma to mean the Moon, but here, the author has chosen the legitimate meaning of Soma as water, which aligns better with Vedic usage. This is a perfectly acceptable move, especially since Kapha, etymologically, refers to water or aqueous qualities. The interpretation remains faithful to both linguistic roots and conceptual integrity.
Kabir: So these choices weren’t made casually?
Dr. Azad: Not at all. They are grounded in careful reading and interpretation.
Kabir: Uncle, we read how Charaka links wind, sun, and water to the three Doṣas. Were these three Doṣas intended as actual substances in the body?
Dr. Azad: This is a crucial question, Kabir. There have been many debates on this. Textbooks offer slightly confusing descriptions. They are often described as substances but treated as abstractions.
Kabir: What do you think of them?
Dr. Azad: The Tridoṣa: Vāta, Pitta, and Kapha are not to be treated like literal physical substances, nor are they merely analogies. I see them as functional categories. They help describe recurring patterns of control and regulation in the body: patterns we can observe in movement, transformation, and stability.
Aarav: But are such abstractions acceptable in science?
Dr. Azad: That is a very natural question to ask. Consider hormones. The word “hormone” does not refer to a single specific molecule. It is a functional category. Insulin, thyroxine, and cortisol are chemically distinct and synthesised by different glands, yet all are classified as hormones. Even though the entire category of hormones is not defined in terms of a common molecular structure, these molecules share certain key characteristics in their processes and functions. They circulate in the bloodstream, act at distant target sites, follow temporal rhythms, and their deviation from normalcy leads to consistent physiological effects. The category is abstract, but it is grounded in recurring patterns observed in the body.
Kabir: That is interesting. I just googled hormones and found this at the Cleveland Clinic website. (Reads):
Hormones control many different bodily processes, including:
Metabolism.
Homeostasis (constant internal balance), such as blood pressure and blood sugar regulation, fluid (water) and electrolyte balance and body temperature.
Growth and development.
Sexual function.
Reproduction.
Sleep-wake cycle.
Mood.
Kabir: Mood, Metabolism, and blood sugar regulation? Wow!
Aarav: So are doṣas similar in that way?
Dr. Azad: I would say, yes.
Aarav: But I find the comparison difficult. Even if “hormone” is an abstract category, its members, like insulin or cortisol, have a clear molecular structure. Do Doṣas have anything like that?
Dr. Azad: That concern is understandable. Let us take another functional category: ‘reproductive system’. Is there a single biomolecule that is shared across the reproductive systems of plants, birds, reptiles and humans?
Aarav: (after thinking for some time): No, actually, there is no single biomolecule shared across all reproductive systems. But I see your point: the concept of the reproductive system was developed long before we understood molecules like DNA.
Rohan: So, what you are saying is that in scientific inquiry, it is legitimate to postulate functional categories which need not correspond to a single anatomical or structural entity. It could be a category based on physiological processes or behavioural properties too.
Dr. Azad: Well put, Rohan. If you consider the history of biology, it might make more sense. The term hormān or hormē was used in early philosophical contexts before modern biology took shape. It was only in early 20th century that Ernest Starling coined the term “hormone” to describe secretin, the first such substance to be identified. Until then, physiological control was believed to operate primarily through the nervous system. The idea of chemical messengers came later, and the molecular identities of hormones were established gradually over time.
Aarav: Do you mean to say that Doṣas are yet to be defined in molecular terms so as to yield general testable predictions?
Dr. Azad: That is an open question. But what is clear is that Doṣas are categories constructed on the basis of clinical observation, much like hormones. Vāta is not simply the air in the lungs. It refers to patterns involving movement, variability, dryness, and irregularity- features seen both in bodily processes and in the environment. Pitta represents transformation, heat, sharpness, and change. Kapha stands for structure, heaviness, cohesion, and body’s ability to resist the diseases. All this is analogous to the postulation of hormones as a functional category.
Rohan: So these were not just speculative ideas. They were grounded in empirical observation?
Dr. Azad: Exactly. Charaka did not have access to molecular biology, but he practiced empirical reasoning. He observed patterns across seasons, times of day, stages of life, and phases of disease. He used inference from clinical regularities to postulate a functional system of knowledge.
Kabir: And when the Doṣas become disturbed, do they cause symptoms?
Dr. Azad: Yes. Just as an excess or deficiency of a hormone produces specific signs, the disturbance of a Doṣa results in observable changes. Both systems describe qualitative shifts in digestion, growth, energy, mood, complexion, and sleep, and both seek to explain these changes through underlying functional patterns. Charaka used guṇas, qualities, such as hot, cold, heavy, light, dry, and moist to organize clinical information.
Aarav: Then is the main difference between Ayurveda and modern science about the kinds of categories they postulate?
Dr. Azad: That is very close. Their ontologies are different.
Kabir: Now this is a new term for me. What is ontology?
Dr. Azad: Ontology refers to what each system regards as existing in reality. We have already discussed epistemology, which is about what exists in our knowledge of reality. Ontology is what exists in that reality. Modern biomedicine does not recognize Doṣas or Mahābhūtas in its ontology. Ayurveda, on the other hand, treats Doṣas, Dhātus, and Mahābhūtas as ontological entities.
Kabir: Religion admits God in its ontology, but science doesn’t. Right?
Dr. Azad: Yes, but let us not compare Ayurveda with religion, at least in its original form it wasn’t like religion.
Kabir: What do you mean by ‘in its original form’?
Dr. Azad: Well, often Ayurveda is taught as ultimate and final truth that cannot be challenged. But that is not how Ayurveda was in its original form.
Kabir: Do we have evidence to say that Ayurveda was scientific in its original form?
Dr. Azad: Yes, we can see many instances where Charaka has modified his theories whenever they did not match with the empirical observations. It will take some more discussions of this kind for you to fully appreciate the scientific temper in the ancient forms of Ayurveda.
Kabir: Oh, that is very interesting! So, can we say that both systems postulate abstract unobservable categories to predict and explain observed regularities, and the method of knowledge construction is not so different between the two?
Dr. Azad: Yes, that would be a reasonable conclusion.
Rohan: Then if Charaka had access to modern tools, he might have described Doṣas in molecular or even in terms of hormones?
Dr. Azad: Possibly. But that does not mean Doṣas are hormones. The point is that both are abstract, functional models used to explain systemic phenomena.
Aarav: So can we say that the ontologies of biomedicine and Ayurveda are different, but the epistemology is more or less similar?
Dr. Azad: Yes, that is a fair way to put it. They work within different frameworks, but both systems derive knowledge through observation, reasoning and the identification of patterns.
Kabir: This is so interesting. We will read the next chapter and come back tomorrow. Hope you won’t mind.
Dr. Azad: You are always welcome, boys.
#####
Leave a Reply