Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
1He retain- ed blood, but substituted "water" in place of Vkta, the most important of the three, for reasons best known to him. il INTRODUCTION. system of Medicine in all its departments, but it is the Science of Life entire. Though it is customary and convenient to group apart such phenomena as are termed mental and such of them as are exhibited by men in society, under the heads of Psycho- logy and Sociology, yet it must be allowed that there are no absolute demarcations in Nature, corresponding to them, and so in the entire Science of Life, psychology and sociology are inseparably linked with Anatomy and Physiology, nay, more, with Pathology and Hygiene and above all with Treatment. In short the Biological Sciences must deal with whatever phenomena are manifested by living matter in whatever condition it is placed. Life in health ( ^^5: ) as well as Life in disease ( ^:?irTf: ), therefore, fall within the scope of Biology— even life exhibited by man in Society ( f%cTTf%cf ) is not exempted from it. f^cnficf ^Ji -^'MM^i^^f f%mf%cT^ 1 ^^^ era ^5r^?TT#V. ^ ^'^ 11 '^T^, #^r^T, x^ ^'^m 1 In calling Ayurveda, therefore, the entire Science of Life, Ayurveda, the "^^ ^'^ "°^ ^"'^^^ ^^ ^"^ prejudice entire Science of of our own, but we rely solely on ^ ®* facts and figures, and these, when closely studied, will lead any one to arrive at the same conclusion, not unlike our own and to interpret Ayurveda as a collection of Biological Sciences in all departments. Ill the firs': place, for the guidance of our readers, we will mention that the name Ayurveda itself is a strong evidence in favour of its being called the Science Negative Eviden- ^r t -^^ o ji n c ces thereof:— Of Life. Secondly, we will refer to I. The Name it- (\^q arrangement of the subject-matter in the Sarira-sthana which is popu- larly belived to be the anatomical portion of the book, as tending to the same conclusion. In II. The arrange- .. . . . .... ., ment of the sub- this section, chapters on Midwifery ject-matters. ^nd Management of Infants follow close to the heels of those on Anatomy and Physiology, and INTRODUCTION. iH
2In II. The arrange- .. . . . .... ., ment of the sub- this section, chapters on Midwifery ject-matters. ^nd Management of Infants follow close to the heels of those on Anatomy and Physiology, and INTRODUCTION. iH these latter again are immediately preceded by chapters on Psychology. This intermixture is certainly an anomaly and can in no wise be satisfactorily explained unless we have to look upon these as general truths of Biology, elucidated by the Introduction of special truths exclu- sively collected from the science of medicine — fviw^rrf^^ ^^T^ 4j»<[Mlciif*f I To. call it Descriptive Anatomy or Physiology, in the modern sense of the term is simply ridiculous. The absence of any reference to brain and Want of Descrip- spinal cord, to pancreas and heart, in tive Anatomy and ^ > f » Physiology in the a book of Anatomy and Physiology is Ithlnaitself^-^"^^" unpardonable and in the Sarira-sthana we feel this absence almost to despon- dency. Moreover, in western medical science, Grey's Ana- tony and Kirke's Physiology, for instance, in their bulk, exceeds, each, more than a thousand of pages and to present to the public, under the same name less than half a dozen of pages, as the result of Indian wisdom, is certainly a very miserable contrast — a contrast that is calculated to inspire no admiration, but, on the contrary, to generate in scientific minds an universal apathy, at least an apathy towards all that is connected with the system of Indian Medicine. In order to save our venerable Rishis from this disastrous plight, we announce here foremost of all, that our beloved Science of Ayurveda is by no means an Encyclopaedic work, but distinctly possesses every characteristic ces°^'*'''® ■^'''^®''" that "^a^^s the Science of Biology. I The definition The very name Ayurvada indicates Same as Life as that it is actually a science of Ayus same sense as Mr. Herbert Spencer understands by his remarkable definition of Life. In liis masterly classification Mr. Herbert Spencer has, in his Biology, given, indeed, the first place to Anatomy and Physiology, but still it is divested of any elaborate chapters dealing with the subjects. B IV INTRODUCTION.
3In liis masterly classification Mr. Herbert Spencer has, in his Biology, given, indeed, the first place to Anatomy and Physiology, but still it is divested of any elaborate chapters dealing with the subjects. B IV INTRODUCTION. In the science of Life a short reference to the structures of the body or its functions is quite sufficient to illustrate its principles, and if we fail to find therein any discourse on the descriptive Anatomy and Physiology, we still consider that there is nothing amiss. But unfortunately the fate of Ayurveda is otherwise. Though the very name indicates that it is Biology pure and simple, still it is denounced for its dificiencies in Anatomy and Physiology, and doomed for ever. Sanskrit words are notorious for their confusion of meanings, but, as regards Ayurveda there exists no difference of opinion, at least, so far as the first word is concerned. Ayus is Ayus everywhere in Ayurveda and it is the only fault our venerable Rishis may be reasonably charged with, that they did not put themselves into any great trouble to explain Ayus, but, on the contrary, unlike scientific men, misspent their energy to ascertain the significance of the insignificant portion of Ayurveda, that is the meanings of the root "F/^a" in the light of Grammar. The scientific ear, ever unsatisfied with these grammati- cal eruditions, has ultimately thrust an Encyclopaedic value upon what is properly speaking, a book of Biology. Of course, there is a marked difference between the two. An ordinary treatise on Biology deals with the general truths of life, and does not represent, by way of illustrations, all its special truths, nor their practical sides, but so far as Ayurveda is concerned, the general truths of Biology are thrown into the background and the special truths, gleaned exclusively from the science of medicine, are given great prominence (fir^^irf^ ^T^ ^^^f^cnf'T ), so much so, that it is now regarded as a system of Medicine and Surgery which has neither Biology, nor Anatomy, nor Physiology, nor Pathology — but is a systematised Empiricism or Quackery. This is certainly a great misfortune. Apart from the name, the arrangement of the subject, to which we have just referred, at least, in the section of Sarira-sthana (the falsely so-called Anatomy of INTRODUCTION. V the Hindus), — is a direct contradiction to its bieng considered as an Encyclopaedic work. The existence of the chapters on midwifery and management of infants in the same, following immediately the chapters on Anatomy, serves as a strong
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
1He retain- ed blood, but substituted "water" in place of Vkta, the most important of the three, for reasons best known to him. il INTRODUCTION. system of Medicine in all its departments, but it is the Science of Life entire. Though it is customary and convenient to group apart such phenomena as are termed mental and such of them as are exhibited by men in society, under the heads of Psycho- logy and Sociology, yet it must be allowed that there are no absolute demarcations in Nature, corresponding to them, and so in the entire Science of Life, psychology and sociology are inseparably linked with Anatomy and Physiology, nay, more, with Pathology and Hygiene and above all with Treatment. In short the Biological Sciences must deal with whatever phenomena are manifested by living matter in whatever condition it is placed. Life in health ( ^^5: ) as well as Life in disease ( ^:?irTf: ), therefore, fall within the scope of Biology— even life exhibited by man in Society ( f%cTTf%cf ) is not exempted from it. f^cnficf ^Ji -^'MM^i^^f f%mf%cT^ 1 ^^^ era ^5r^?TT#V. ^ ^'^ 11 '^T^, #^r^T, x^ ^'^m 1 In calling Ayurveda, therefore, the entire Science of Life, Ayurveda, the "^^ ^'^ "°^ ^"'^^^ ^^ ^"^ prejudice entire Science of of our own, but we rely solely on ^ ®* facts and figures, and these, when closely studied, will lead any one to arrive at the same conclusion, not unlike our own and to interpret Ayurveda as a collection of Biological Sciences in all departments. Ill the firs': place, for the guidance of our readers, we will mention that the name Ayurveda itself is a strong evidence in favour of its being called the Science Negative Eviden- ^r t -^^ o ji n c ces thereof:— Of Life. Secondly, we will refer to I. The Name it- (\^q arrangement of the subject-matter in the Sarira-sthana which is popu- larly belived to be the anatomical portion of the book, as tending to the same conclusion. In II. The arrange- .. . . . .... ., ment of the sub- this section, chapters on Midwifery ject-matters. ^nd Management of Infants follow close to the heels of those on Anatomy and Physiology, and INTRODUCTION. iH
2In II. The arrange- .. . . . .... ., ment of the sub- this section, chapters on Midwifery ject-matters. ^nd Management of Infants follow close to the heels of those on Anatomy and Physiology, and INTRODUCTION. iH these latter again are immediately preceded by chapters on Psychology. This intermixture is certainly an anomaly and can in no wise be satisfactorily explained unless we have to look upon these as general truths of Biology, elucidated by the Introduction of special truths exclu- sively collected from the science of medicine — fviw^rrf^^ ^^T^ 4j»<[Mlciif*f I To. call it Descriptive Anatomy or Physiology, in the modern sense of the term is simply ridiculous. The absence of any reference to brain and Want of Descrip- spinal cord, to pancreas and heart, in tive Anatomy and ^ > f » Physiology in the a book of Anatomy and Physiology is Ithlnaitself^-^"^^" unpardonable and in the Sarira-sthana we feel this absence almost to despon- dency. Moreover, in western medical science, Grey's Ana- tony and Kirke's Physiology, for instance, in their bulk, exceeds, each, more than a thousand of pages and to present to the public, under the same name less than half a dozen of pages, as the result of Indian wisdom, is certainly a very miserable contrast — a contrast that is calculated to inspire no admiration, but, on the contrary, to generate in scientific minds an universal apathy, at least an apathy towards all that is connected with the system of Indian Medicine. In order to save our venerable Rishis from this disastrous plight, we announce here foremost of all, that our beloved Science of Ayurveda is by no means an Encyclopaedic work, but distinctly possesses every characteristic ces°^'*'''® ■^'''^®''" that "^a^^s the Science of Biology. I The definition The very name Ayurvada indicates Same as Life as that it is actually a science of Ayus same sense as Mr. Herbert Spencer understands by his remarkable definition of Life. In liis masterly classification Mr. Herbert Spencer has, in his Biology, given, indeed, the first place to Anatomy and Physiology, but still it is divested of any elaborate chapters dealing with the subjects. B IV INTRODUCTION.
3In liis masterly classification Mr. Herbert Spencer has, in his Biology, given, indeed, the first place to Anatomy and Physiology, but still it is divested of any elaborate chapters dealing with the subjects. B IV INTRODUCTION. In the science of Life a short reference to the structures of the body or its functions is quite sufficient to illustrate its principles, and if we fail to find therein any discourse on the descriptive Anatomy and Physiology, we still consider that there is nothing amiss. But unfortunately the fate of Ayurveda is otherwise. Though the very name indicates that it is Biology pure and simple, still it is denounced for its dificiencies in Anatomy and Physiology, and doomed for ever. Sanskrit words are notorious for their confusion of meanings, but, as regards Ayurveda there exists no difference of opinion, at least, so far as the first word is concerned. Ayus is Ayus everywhere in Ayurveda and it is the only fault our venerable Rishis may be reasonably charged with, that they did not put themselves into any great trouble to explain Ayus, but, on the contrary, unlike scientific men, misspent their energy to ascertain the significance of the insignificant portion of Ayurveda, that is the meanings of the root "F/^a" in the light of Grammar. The scientific ear, ever unsatisfied with these grammati- cal eruditions, has ultimately thrust an Encyclopaedic value upon what is properly speaking, a book of Biology. Of course, there is a marked difference between the two. An ordinary treatise on Biology deals with the general truths of life, and does not represent, by way of illustrations, all its special truths, nor their practical sides, but so far as Ayurveda is concerned, the general truths of Biology are thrown into the background and the special truths, gleaned exclusively from the science of medicine, are given great prominence (fir^^irf^ ^T^ ^^^f^cnf'T ), so much so, that it is now regarded as a system of Medicine and Surgery which has neither Biology, nor Anatomy, nor Physiology, nor Pathology — but is a systematised Empiricism or Quackery. This is certainly a great misfortune. Apart from the name, the arrangement of the subject, to which we have just referred, at least, in the section of Sarira-sthana (the falsely so-called Anatomy of INTRODUCTION. V the Hindus), — is a direct contradiction to its bieng considered as an Encyclopaedic work. The existence of the chapters on midwifery and management of infants in the same, following immediately the chapters on Anatomy, serves as a strong
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.