Ayurved - An Evolutionary Perspective

Ayurveda is an ancient Indian medical practice. It is also a kind of philosophy. It treats body and mind in an integrated way.

In Indian tradition, Aurveda is considered as an Upaveda of Atharvaveda or Ṛgveda. It is also considered as a Panchama Veda (Fifth Veda in addition to main four Vedas - Ṛgveda, Sāmaveda, Yajurveda, and Atharvaveda). If we assume regularisation and compilation of Ṛgveda to have happened during 1700 BCE-1400 BCE and of Atharvaveda to have happened during 1400 BCE to 500 BCE then we can place Āyurveda (Charaka Saṃhitā) thereafter, say, 500 BCE - 200 BCE since some of the latter commentators like Vijñāna Bhikṣhu assumed Charaka and Pataṅjalī, the supposed author of Mahābhāsḥya (circa 200 BCE) to be one and the same person. 

The text which survives now however, might have been sourced from the "regularization" of 6th century CE of the much older tradition. Another textual tradition viz. Suṣhruta Saṃhitā may be even older since it is mentioned in Shatapatha Brāhmaṇa; but, here also the surviving redaction have been sourced from a compilation in Common Era (later than 4th century CE). Whatever may be the antiquity of Āyurveda or speculations of the Indic medical schools in general, our main concern is to see the evolutionary perspective over their timeline. We will use the term Āyurveda in a more general sense of medical practices, methods, and philosophical as well as religious speculations which originated in the Indian subcontinent.

"Sushruta Saṃhitā and Charaka Saṃhitā have religious ideas throughout", observes Steven Engler (2003), who then concludes "Vedic elements are too central to be discounted as marginal". These ideas include treating the cow as sacred, inclusion of theory of Karma, self (Atman) and metaphysical reality (Brahman) along the lines of those found in ancient Hindu-Vedic texts.

However, adds Engler, the text also includes another layer of ideas, where empirical rational ideas flourish in competition or cooperation with religious ideas. A somewhat similar point had been made by S. N. Dasgupta (1931) in respect of Charaka Saṃhitā’s relation with Atharvaveda. He said: “Faith in the mysterious powers of occult rites and charms forms an essential feature of the popular Hindu mind and it takes oftentimes the place of religion in the ordinary Hindu household.” Yet, in a 173-page survey of the Indian Medical Schools in his “A History of Indian Philosophy” (Vol.2, Ch. 13), Dasgupta found the empirical-rational side of Ayurveda along with its faith-based side. 

The mixing of faith and common sense empiricism is seen when Āyurveda texts and their commentators describe “fetus conception and development”: 

The fetus cannot be produced only by the union of semen (शुक्र) of the father and the menstrual blood (शोणित) of the mother. Such union produces a fetus only when Ātman with its “subtle body” becomes connected with it by means of its karma. The elements that contribute to the general features of the child are (a) mother’s part (menstrual blood), (b) father’s part (semen), and (c) karma of each individual (of previous birth). The body composition is explained mostly using Sāṅkhya concepts of Bhūtas (Mahābhūta, Sūkṣhmabhūtas), basic universal qualities - Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas - and manas. Dalhaṇa, one of the commentators, says that Sattva, Rajas and Tamas refer “manas”, the mind component, which is the product of their combined evolution. 

The gradual development of the fetus as described in Ayurveda shows almost all characteristics of the morphogenetic process of human fetus.

In the very first month the fetus has a jelly like form (Kalala, कलल); in the second month the material constituents of the body having undergone a chemical change (अभिप्रपच्यमान) due to the action of cold, heat, and air, the fetus becomes hard (घन). In the third month five special eminences are seen as also the slight differentiation of limbs. In the fourth month the differentiation of limbs is much more definitive and well manifested; and owing to the manifestation of the heart of the fetus the entity of consciousness also is manifested, since the heart is the special seat of consciousness (!). So, from the fourth month, the fetus manifests the desire of the object of senses. In the fifth month the consciousness becomes more awakened; in the sixth intelligence begins to develop; in the seventh the division and differentiation of limbs becomes complete. In the eighth, the vital element (ojas) still remains unsettled, and so, if a child is born at this time it remains short-lived. Various texts may show some divergence of opinion on the fetus conception and its development; but the theme of ‘gradual development’ remains the same. 

Dr. Sanjeev Rastogi argues that Ayurveda, fundamentally proposes a few dictums, which are connected to the modern contexts of origin of life. These dictums are:

(1) Non-Existence and Existence cannot trade with each other (Bhagavadgītā 2.16). So, basically non- existence cannot give rise to existence. Its Ayurvedic version is “every living thing comes from a preexisting living thing”. 

(1a) Origin of life process begins from Avyakta (invisible) and reaches to Vyakta (visible) stage after passing through intermediate stages.  

(1b) Though Dr Rastogi does not mention it, if we want to view the development in (1a) in Sāṅkhya framework, then Avyakta to Vyakta progression goes through number of elemental transformations which produce Sūkṣhma Bhūtas, Mahā Bhūtas, and Jñānendriyas (cognitive organs) and Karmendriyas (conative organs) thereby producing the entire Nirindrīya (inorganic) and Sendrīya (organic) Sṛṣhṭī (world) including living beings that we see around. 

These two dictums suggest that intermediate stages from the invisible to the visible, and forming the organic and inorganic world are either gradual (क्रमसृष्टी) or instantaneous (युगपत सृष्टी). Āyurveda does not propose the instantaneous production of the world thereby aligning itself with evolutionary approach of Sāṅkhya. The world of gradual change (क्रमसृष्टी) can be viewed as a Developmental Evolutionary (DE) model of Sāṅkhya as we have seen earlier. The difference is that here Avyakta is a conscious principle unlike Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya.

In Āyurveda, the term ‘prakṛti’ is used in a different context and way from the Sāṅkhya school; it denotes the characteristic physiological, physical and mental features of an individual in relation to his overall health. This Āyurvedic prakṛti is classified into subgroups depending on the predominance of a specific dosha (deformation). Etymologically Prakṛiti (pra = primary or first, kriti = formation) stands for the prototype representing the basic formative distinction in a given individual. According to Dr. Rastogi, for practical purposes, prakṛti can be characterized by the observation of dosha (दोष) activity in the body and eventually to the Pañchamahābhūta status in the body. Tracing the origin of prakṛti to its Pañcha-bhautic ancestry, one is able to identify certain pattern of combinations of the Mahābhūtas. Ayurveda identifies these patterns of prakṛti as subgroups with the predominance of one or more dosha in an individual case. Seven subgroups of Prakṛiti are possible, representing differential combinations of each one of the Tridoṣhas (three imbalances), namely Vāta (gaseous imbalance), Pitta (Acidic imbalance) and Kapha (phlegmatic imbalance).

Knowledge of the basic prakṛti of a person is useful to stay in a state of positive health and prevent disease. Recent research has tried to identify the inherited possibilities of human prakṛti by observing positive correlation between specific alleles and prakṛti subtypes. An advancement to this correlation is made by identification of biochemical correlates and whole genome expression to the various prakṛti types. If the Avyakta of Ayurveda is a genome like source of cosmos which tautologically includes all the information for the cosmic process of guṇotkarṣha (evolution of properties) and guṇāpakarṣha (involution of properties), then prakṛti is a genomic prototype of the similar process in respect of the development of individual living being. Thus, the Prakṛiti of Sāṅkhya finds its analog in the Āyurvedic concepts of Avyakta (unmanifested) in relation to the cosmic development, and in the concept of prakṛti (prototype) in relation to the individual development.

Āyurveda axiology: According to Dr Sengupta, Āyurveda’s axiology, i.e. Charaka’s karmic axiology is different from other types of karmic axiology which Hindu belief systems follow. These types of axiology are essentially differentiated on the force of their “free will”. For example, Pauruṣha vādins, such as those who follow Yogavāsiṣhṭha, think that determined human efforts based on free will can control karma and karmaphala. There is no bond of karma that can resist or oppose the free willed, determined efforts. At the another extreme there are fatalists like Ājīvakas and Sharaṇāgatas (surrenderists) who think that God (Ishvara) controls everything and there is no point in resisting His will. They do not believe in their own free will and assume that God (or unseen force of karma) decides everything. This is either a one way command system or a closed karmic loop controlled entirely by the causality of immanent karmic forces. In between there is a normative kārmic theory of Pātañjala Yoga among other variations of kārmic axiologies including axiology of Vedic karma. In these axiologies, the effect of ripe karma (Prārabdha) is immutable. Only the fruits of unripe karma are destroyed by Knowledge. In Yoga’s karmic axiology there is a definitive scope of free will at the micro level. This free willed micro-level karma of previous birth determines the particular nature of our next birth and hence determines the overall circumstances of our life at the macro level. This normative theory maintains a scope for changing the overall course of our life of the present birth through our micro actions; and this space between the normative karmic theory of classical Yoga and the Pauruṣhavādins of Yogavāsiṣhṭha is occupied by Āyurveda’s kārmic axiology. Like the Pauruṣhavādins, Charaka does not introduce the immutability of ripe karma (Prārabdha); but, at the same time he accepts the force of extremely strong Prarabdha. Except this strong Prārabdha effect, the effect of all other karmas can be modified by an apparently “non-moral” course of conduct, involving the observances of the ordinary daily duties of life. The fruits of all ordinary actions can be arrested by normal physical ways of well balanced conduct, the administration of proper medicines and the like. This means that our ordinary actions in the proper care of health, taking proper tonics, medicines and the like can modify or arrest the ordinary course of fruition of our karma. This non-moral aspect sets apart the Āyurveda’s karmic model from other kārmic models. Āyurveda of Charaka understands the psychological aspect of the karma theory and adapts it to its own goal of healthy life.

Future: The contemporary research to make Ayurveda discipline compatible with modern science suggests that this ancient tradition entering into the present times is not averse to take an adaptive, and empirical-rational course of future development. It is not only evolutionary in itself, but it is also open to the evidence based acceptance of other evolutionary models and their adaptations to its own medical and health care procedures. In this respect, Āyurveda typically represents the Āstika belief systems as reflected in Darshana-s (theosophies) which are keen to retain their affiliations to scriptures and traditions but at the same time equally keen to maintain their empirical rationality. This empirical rationality have sustained the usefulness and relevance of Ayurved even in the modern age.