Reflection-12

One evening, after a gap of a few days. Dr. Azad’s clinic. Rohan, Kabir, and Aarav sit across from Dr. Azad.

Dr. Azad: I see you after a few days’ gap. Where had you been?

Kabir: Uncle, we read the twelfth lesson. It was long, and we needed extra time to understand it. In the meantime, we had to return the original book to the library and get it issued again. That also took some time.

Dr. Azad: Ah, I thought you had lost interest in the book. So, Lesson 12 under the Peepal tree—what did you make of it?

Rohan: Padārtha as the set of things we can talk about. Six boxes: dravya, guṇa, karma, sāmānya, viśeṣa, and samavāya.

Kabir: I think they are not strict boxes. They are like interconnected rooms within a building.

Dr. Azad: That is an interesting way to put it.

Aarav: And doṣa as dravya for practice, even if not visible. We had discussed this earlier too, but not in such detail.

Aarav: Also, a need for clarity: karma as capacity, kriyā as execution, kārya as outcome. A neat triad.

Kabir (leaning forward): But tell me honestly, is this retelling authentic? The way it untangles doṣa and other confusions, it almost felt too modern.

Dr. Azad: A fair doubt. This text is not a literal translation of the Caraka Saṃhitā. It is a re-presentation, shaped for today’s reader. The mysterious author has made the material more accessible while remaining faithful to the spirit. He has not hidden the fact that Ayurveda’s own texts contain tensions and contradictions. Instead, he has brought them to the surface and tried to resolve them. That is what makes the handling of doṣa stand out. In the Saṃhitā and in standard teaching, the conflicts are usually passed along: sometimes doṣa appear as bodily wastes, sometimes as circulating substances, sometimes as invisible principles. Students are told to accept them all without critical analysis. Here, for once, there is a consistent stand. Doṣa are counted as dravya, but of the postulated kind, useful because they have guṇa and karma, inseparable and explanatory, but not to be confused with bile or mucus. That explicit clarity is rarely found in textbooks.

Rohan: So you are saying the author has not betrayed the tradition, but rather has done the work of clarification that teachers often avoid.

Dr. Azad: Precisely. It is a faithful act of sharpening, not distortion. It takes the spirit of Ayurveda’s pragmatism seriously: do not cling to contradictions for their own sake, but resolve them if they blur practice.

Kabir: That actually makes the text feel more alive.

Dr. Azad: And that is exactly what good teaching should do.

Aarav: The method part at the end was also interesting. Charaka said that to test herbs, first observe animals, then try small doses, then scale up carefully. But is it really true that animals self-medicate? Could that have been how some herbs entered the materia medica?

Dr. Azad: There is growing evidence that they do. Chimpanzees have been observed swallowing rough leaves of Aspilia plants whole, without chewing, which flush out worms from their intestines. Elephants are known to chew the bark of certain trees when unwell. Cows and goats instinctively avoid many poisonous plants, but when infected, they sometimes nibble bitter-tasting herbs. Biologists today call this field zoopharmacognosy. As a scientific discipline it is new, but the behaviours are ancient. It is plausible that early healers, out of necessity, observed animals and took cues from them. Not every drug in the Ayurvedic pharmacopoeia would have come that way, but surely some did. That method of beginning with careful observation in nature, then moving step by step, is a sound way to build knowledge.

Rohan: It feels almost like a clinical trial, beginning with observation in animals, then gradually moving to humans.

Dr. Azad: Exactly. It is not random. It is structured inquiry, though without today’s instruments. In modern medicine, we have refined these steps into pre-clinical testing, toxicology, phase-wise clinical trials, randomization, double-blinding, biomarkers, and statistics. The principle, however, is continuous: begin with small and cautious observations, check for harm, test systematically, and only then generalize. What Charaka describes in simple terms: observe, taste, escalate, evaluate, is the same logic, scaled to the tools and methods available.

Kabir: So Ayurveda was already working with a scientific spirit, even if without modern apparatus.

Dr. Azad: Yes. The spirit of controlled doubt and repeated observation was present. What modern science adds is rigor in quantification and reproducibility, and global methods of testing. But the roots of inquiry, turning experience into validated knowledge, are the same.

Aarav: Then the categories in Lesson 12, dravya, guṇa, karma, sāmānya, viśeṣa, samavāya, are not rigid truths, but a framework that supports this ongoing process of testing.

Dr. Azad: That is the point. Think of them as beams in a house. They let you build and live safely. But when a beam cracks, you do not worship it; you replace it. Categories are useful only so long as they help explain and predict.

Rohan: We would like to get more clarity about ontology and epistemology. Ontology asks what exists. Epistemology asks how we know. Could we have quick examples?

Dr. Azad: Ontology first. We sort the world. A fish, a butterfly, a snake, and a tree. We notice wings, compound eyes and six legs for butterflies, no limbs for snakes, fish in water, trees with roots and leaves. We build categories. Animal versus plant. Vertebrate versus invertebrate. Insect versus reptile versus fish. Living versus non-living. Even finer, has red blood versus no red blood. That is ontological work.

Kabir: And epistemology?

Dr. Azad: How we justify those categories and definitions. We observe many insects with six legs and compound eyes. We generalize. We ask if our sample is good. We test whether exceptions show up. We check if our methods are reliable. That is epistemology.

Rohan: The lesson says some dravya are concrete, like ghee and stone, and some are postulated, like doṣa or self. Is that okay in ontology?

Dr. Azad: Yes, if you define clearly what kinds of things your discipline admits. Each field has its own ontology. Biology accepts cells, enzymes, and species; physics accepts energy, mass, and charge; economics accepts money and markets; literature accepts fictional characters. Mathematics works with abstract entities such as numbers and π, while technology deals with virtual entities such as a PDF file. Some worldviews also admit spiritual entities.

Rohan: Does medical science accept non-material entities?

Dr. Azad: Of course! In medical science, some kinds are material and concrete, such as a bone or a red blood cell. Others are categories or universals, such as tissues or hormones. There are events, like fertilization, and processes, like digestion or homeostasis. It also recognizes relations, for instance gene–protein interactions, and properties, such as iris colour or height.

Kabir: So, Ayurveda has listed its ontology explicitly.

Dr. Azad: Yes, Ayurveda, likewise, declares its ontology openly. It recognizes six fundamental categories: dravya, guṇa, karma, sāmānya, viśeṣa, and samavāya, and extends them with others such as doṣa, agni, ojas, dhātu, and mala. Together these form its own ontological framework.

Kabir: What about interoperability? Same entities should make sense across subfields: DNA in genetics and medicine, energy in physics, chemistry and biology, gravity in physics and biology. How does Ayurveda cope?

Dr. Azad: Yes, within science you want one ontology that operates across disciplines. Physics informs chemistry and both inform biology. In Ayurveda the kit is internally coherent: doṣa balance affects agni, which affects ojas and dhātu. But across domains you need to be careful. You map, you test, you revise. That is the way forward. Science does not accept entities such as Agni and Ojas in their current form. They need to be rigorously redefined using measurable, inferable terms.

Kabir: Online I saw clinical microbiology called bhūta vidyā, free radicals called āma, autoimmunity called ojas vaiśamya. I have even seen pañcamahābhūta and doṣa explained inside a single cell using modern biology.

Dr. Azad: That is the problem of uncritical appropriation. It feels neat, but it breaks both ontologies. Bhūta vidyā is not microbiology by default. Charaka did not have access to microscope. Āma is not the same as free radicals, which is a recent understanding. Ojas vaiśamya is not autoimmunity without a worked mapping as immunology is relatively a recent branch. Charaka knew clinical presentations well. Using these signs and symptoms we can map some autoimmune diseases to Ayurveda labels. But their pathophysiology does not match. This needs to be re-worked. If you make such identities, you need definitions, measures, and tests that make the terms interoperable. Otherwise, you commit category errors.

Aarav: Then calling something “rheumatology in Ayurveda” is risky.

Dr. Azad: Correct! Unless Ayurveda first sharpens its own ontology for joints, pain, stiffness, swelling, function, and then specifies a mapping to shared clinical outcomes. Without a rigorous mapping, the title borrows authority without shared meaning because of incompatible pathophysiological understanding. Define the terms, set measurable endpoints, show that predictions match observations. Only then use the label.

Aarav: If the mapping fails, is Ayurveda in trouble?

Dr. Azad: Not by default. It means the bridging needs more work. Interoperability matters when you claim cross-domain identity. If you insist that agni is to be admitted into science ontology, then you owe a rigorous measurable and inferable definition. If you say agni is a clinical construct that tracks clinically observable transformative functions, you test its predictions and keep it as a tool.

Rohan: Returning to categories. The lesson itself admits that many entities placed under one category resemble those in another. This is most evident between dravya, guṇa, and karma. Does this not weaken the scheme?

Dr. Azad: No. Rather, it shows intellectual humility. The categories are tools for thought, not rigid compartments. Take yukti: in one sense it is a pramāṇa, a means of knowledge, yet here it is listed as a guṇa, an inherent coordination. Or saṃskāra: it could be seen as karma when we describe the act of boiling milk, but as guṇa when we speak of the lasting change produced. Even sukha and duḥkha: they might be treated as mental processes, yet are counted as guṇa because they are postulated to exist as states within the self. Charaka’s point is that the scheme should not be treated as complete and final. If future understanding requires shifting an entity from one category to another for clarity, it should be done. That openness to revision is the true scientific spirit.

Kabir: Buddhi, intellect, is listed as guṇa, not dravya. On the other hand, mind is a Dravya.

Dr. Azad: True. Here the medical text argues that buddhi needs self and mind to function, so it stays a guṇa. If cognitive science later forces more autonomy, you can promote it. Ontology follows use and evidence.

Aarav: Epistemology in the lesson felt simple: pratyakṣa and anumāna. Where are experiments?

Dr. Azad: They are there in spirit. The lesson says: start with observation, test carefully, escalate dose, watch effects. That is controlled inquiry. Modern science adds statistics, randomization, biomarkers. The logic is the same. Question, doubt, test, replicate, look for predictive and explanatory power.

Kabir: Does modern medicine also use postulated entities to explain and predict?

Dr. Azad: Yes. Every science does. Modern medicine speaks of genes, neurotransmitters, or immune memory long before they are directly observed or fully characterized. They begin as theoretical entities whose existence is inferred from effects and later confirmed by evidence. What matters is that such entities remain open to revision when data improve. Ayurveda can do the same if its postulated entities yield consistent and testable predictions.

Rohan: That makes sense! What about śabda, authoritative testimony? Science does not treat it as an independent warrant, right?

Dr. Azad: In Ayurveda it is admitted. In science it is background, not proof. So when you cross domains, you downshift testimony and upweight reproducibility and quantification. You can still honour texts as hypotheses and heuristics.

Kabir: The pseudoscience fight in our debate club was loud. Someone said content in Ayurveda makes it pseudoscience.

Dr. Azad: That is an erroneous and dangerous statement. It is not the content, but it is how you defend it when it fails. Ptolemy’s geocentric model was wrong, yet it was science for his time. It made testable predictions and got revised. If a theory faces clear counter-evidence and responds by stretching ad hoc fixes to protect itself from any test, then you make it pseudoscientific.

Aarav: So how do we test sāmānya and viśeṣa, like increases like, opposites reduce?

Dr. Azad: Treat them as first-pass rules. Write a prediction. Choose measures. If a kapha-heavy pattern meets dry and hot inputs, you predict reduction in specific signs. If not, you investigate why. Maybe the dose was off, maybe the pattern was misread, maybe the rule itself needs revision.

Rohan: What would count as falsification for a doṣa-based plan?

Dr. Azad: Repeated failure under correct application with better alternatives succeeding. That is where ontology gives way to revision.

Aarav: The lesson closes with method. Observe animals, taste carefully, scale up. Today we also have sequencing, metabolomics, imaging.

Dr. Azad: Add them. Instruments expand pratyakṣa. Statistics strengthen anumāna. Yukti becomes model building. Keep the spirit, upgrade the tools.

Kabir: Sounds like the book is clear. These lists are guides. You can add new ones, delete some when found not useful, and revise the framework as new evidence emerges.

Dr. Azad: Exactly. Build, test, and if a beam cracks, replace it.

The teenagers leave the clinic still debating. They wonder what Charaka would add to his list of categories if he were here now, and what he would judge unnecessary and remove. Their discussion drifts toward how ontology itself changes with new knowledge.