Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
1ject-matters. ^nd Management of Infants follow close to the heels of those on Anatomy and Physiology, and INTRODUCTION. iii 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 exclusively collected from the science of medicine — ftrwjnl^^ *im^ ^F^cnf'T 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 ti^lnatomyTnd 'P^"'^ ^°''^' ^° P"""^^' ^"^ ^^^'^' '" Physiology in the a book of Anatomy and Physiology is Ithlnaitself?-"'^^' unpardonable and in the Sarira-sthana we feel this absence almost to despondency. 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 ^^Positive Eviden- ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^j^^ Science of Biology. I The definition The very name Ayurvada indicates ofAyus. . • • ,, . Same as Life as that it is actually a science of Ayus
2blrVspen^er'"' ^^''" ^""^ ^^^ ""^'^ ^^^' ^' "^^^ here in the same sense as Mr. Herbert Spencer understands by his remarkable definition of Life. In his 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. 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 /iyus 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 ''Fida" in the light of Grammar.
3The scientific ear, ever unsatisfied with these grammatical 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'SfJllR^ ^^1^ ^■'^fsifilf'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 additional evidence thereof. It is an anomaly no doubt, that Midwifery has been offered a place in the section of Anatomy, but the confusion does not Reasons for in cor- . . ,, t j j -r i ^ ^ porating Midwifery g^^ ^^ ^'' confounded, if we are led to into this Anatomi- believe that the science of generation cal seccionof a superior race (if we are at all permitted to use the term) forms, indeed, an important department of Practical Biology.
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.
1ject-matters. ^nd Management of Infants follow close to the heels of those on Anatomy and Physiology, and INTRODUCTION. iii 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 exclusively collected from the science of medicine — ftrwjnl^^ *im^ ^F^cnf'T 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 ti^lnatomyTnd 'P^"'^ ^°''^' ^° P"""^^' ^"^ ^^^'^' '" Physiology in the a book of Anatomy and Physiology is Ithlnaitself?-"'^^' unpardonable and in the Sarira-sthana we feel this absence almost to despondency. 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 ^^Positive Eviden- ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^j^^ Science of Biology. I The definition The very name Ayurvada indicates ofAyus. . • • ,, . Same as Life as that it is actually a science of Ayus
2blrVspen^er'"' ^^''" ^""^ ^^^ ""^'^ ^^^' ^' "^^^ here in the same sense as Mr. Herbert Spencer understands by his remarkable definition of Life. In his 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. 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 /iyus 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 ''Fida" in the light of Grammar.
3The scientific ear, ever unsatisfied with these grammatical 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'SfJllR^ ^^1^ ^■'^fsifilf'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 additional evidence thereof. It is an anomaly no doubt, that Midwifery has been offered a place in the section of Anatomy, but the confusion does not Reasons for in cor- . . ,, t j j -r i ^ ^ porating Midwifery g^^ ^^ ^'' confounded, if we are led to into this Anatomi- believe that the science of generation cal seccionof a superior race (if we are at all permitted to use the term) forms, indeed, an important department of Practical Biology.
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.