Reflection-3

Dr. Azad’s clinic. He is sorting out his patients’ files in a cupboard nearby. Kabir, Aarav and Rohan enter.

Kabir: Uncle, yesterday we read a chapter on Prakriti. It’s beautifully written. But can people really be grouped like that?

Rohan: I mean, one of them runs from danger, another gets angry and fights, and the third remains calm. Then their bowel habits, sleep, even their friendships: all of it correlate, across mind and body, across different aspects of the body. I find that a bit improbable.

Dr. Azad (smiling): Your doubts are reasonable. What you read is a stylized teaching model. This anonymous author has used only a few important illustrative features to teach the concept of Prakriti. Original texts contain a lot more.

Rohan: Is this material authentic?

Dr. Azad: Yes, it is, though not exhaustive. It gives a good idea of how this concept became essential to explore the differences among different individuals. But let’s begin here: do such patterns exist across physiology and behaviour? That question belongs both to tradition and to science.

Aarav: Has modern research tried to explore these patterns? Is there any scientific evidence that supports the idea of Prakṛti?

Dr. Azad: Yes, there is some. An emerging field called Ayurgenomics attempts to correlate Prakṛti types with genomic markers, enzyme activity, and disease susceptibility. For example, some studies suggest that individuals classified as Pitta-dominant may have a higher prevalence of certain CYP2C19 enzyme variants, which influence drug metabolism.

Rohan: That’s interesting. So, the way someone’s body reacts to medication might align with their Prakṛti?

Dr. Azad: That is possible. Some preliminary studies do suggest this. Different individuals, for example, may exhibit distinct metabolic profiles. But remember, these studies often select participants with clearly defined or extreme Prakṛti features. That helps reduce overlap but also introduces limitations.

Kabir: So, selection bias?

Dr. Azad: It is a valid concern, but in early research, such selection is a methodological necessity. However, it does limit how generalizable the findings are. In everyday life, most people are mixed types. This makes validation and replication difficult.

Aarav: But how were these traits grouped in the first place? Dry skin and racing thoughts? How does body frame relate to how someone forms relationships? These connections seem unexpected.

Rohan: And can such links even be tested in biology? Are they worth pursuing?

Dr. Azad: These are excellent questions. Correlations such as those between dry skin and cognitive restlessness, or heat intolerance and assertiveness, may seem speculative from a modern standpoint. But Ayurveda builds models based on long-term observation across physical, psychological, and relational domains. Whether those patterns reflect biological reality is what research must determine.

Kabir: But science needs testable hypotheses, right? Not just patterns that seem intuitive.

Dr. Azad: Absolutely. For such ideas to enter scientific discourse, they must be translated into observable properties. In many situations, that means measuring, for example, skin hydration, reaction time, sleep profiles, or stress hormones and potentially correlating them with psychometric tools such as the Big Five or Cattell’s 16PF.

Rohan: What is Big Five?

Dr Azad: It is a way of measuring personality traits along five dimensions. Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. 

Rohan: And what is Cattel’s 16PF?

Dr Azad: Also personality traits. This one has sixteen dimensions instead of three.

Kabir: But from a scientific point of view, these are no different from the Big Three in Ayurveda. Why three, or five, or sixteen? Why not eight or ten? They are all ways of categorizing people. Do either of them make any testable predictions or correlations?

Dr Azad: Good question. Let us explore that issue.

Rohan: So, can Prakṛti be mapped onto existing personality theories?

Dr. Azad: Possibly, there have been a few sporadic efforts. However, the alignment is not complete. The dimensions don’t always align. Western personality models are mostly restricted to personality traits. Prakṛti is more comprehensive. It encompasses not only innate constitutional features but also functional tendencies across physical, emotional, and relational domains.

Aarav: Then why not separate the two? Keep the bodily features on one side, the psychological ones on the other?

Dr. Azad: Well, Ayurveda considers them to be co-manifestations of the same underlying disposition. But your point is valuable. Research can and should test whether these co-manifestations actually correlate. That’s where multivariate biological studies come in.

Kabir: Like what? Could machine learning find patterns in big datasets, say, combining genomic, physiological, psychological, and behavioural data?

Dr. Azad: You are right. Researchers have begun using methods such as cluster analysis and other unsupervised learning techniques to identify natural groupings within biological and behavioural datasets. Some preliminary findings appear to support certain Ayurvedic typologies. But the evidence remains preliminary and uneven.

Rohan: So, you’re not saying that Prakṛti is scientifically proven?

Dr. Azad: No, it is not proven in the way that Mendelian inheritance is. But it is hypothesis-generating. But so are the models of personality traits that modern science accepts. They invite new ways of seeing connections. In the case of Prakriti, it triggers correlational hypotheses across systems: digestive enzymes, mood, skin, decision-making. That is worth exploring.

Aarav: So we’re not just talking about traditional ideas, but possible directions for integrative science?

Dr. Azad: Precisely. If we ask the right questions, Prakṛti could help research in preventive health, personalized nutrition, drug response, and more. But it requires rigor, transparency, and interdisciplinary thinking.

Kabir: And honesty about limitations.

Dr. Azad: That’s true. Especially with studies limited to small samples, subjective assessments, and populations already primed by cultural expectation. But we must also remain open to novel frameworks, even if they challenge our beliefs.

Aarav: Oh, by the way, I recently read an article in Nature that provides evidence for brain correlates for mental dispositions. Here, let me do a search. (Opens his laptop.)

The article is titled “The optimistic brain: scans reveal thought patterns shared by positive thinkers” published on 22 July 2025. It says that a brain scanning technology, called fMRI, combined with data from tests for levels of optimism and the patterns of responses to imagined future scenarios, suggests that “optimistic people have similar thought processes, but pessimistic people had more varying, idiosyncratic patterns.” Tali Sharot – she is a neuroscientist at University College London, thinks that optimism is inversely correlated with [poor] mental health, specifically depression.

Rohan: Wow! If this data is combined with Prakriti, I think something interesting could be coming out!

Aarav: So true! It means Prakṛti is not a label, but could be a lens too!

Dr. Azad: Very well put. A lens to observe variation: biological and psychological in an integrated way.