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
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 j.
porating Midwifery get at all confounded, if we are led to
into this Anatomi- believe that the science of generation cal section. ^
of a superior race (if we are at all
permitted to use the term) forms, indeed, an important depart- ment of Practical Biology.
From whatever standpoint we look to the question, we
find there are grounds to lead any one to pronounce in
our favour and to come to the conclusion at which we
now venture to arrive. Besides these two important facts,
we now cite the following passage as
Internal evidence. ^ • . i j • r c
a strong mternal evidence in favour of
our view. Maharshi Punarvasu, after giving us a short table
of the principal structures of the human body, remarks that
even this reference is considered by many as superfluous,
Reasons for omit- ''^ '^^ S'°"°^' ^^^^ ^" acquaintance ting Descriptive with the molecular construction of an
organism is quite sufficient to help us
as a reliable guide to treatment.
The passage referred to is quoted below : — ■
Now we ask the reader if this is not a sufficient evidence, proving to the hilt, that Ayurveda is nothing but Biology and that we run no risk of committing a grave omission if the chapter on Anatomy is wholesale dispensed with from Ayurveda. For the improvement of this awkward position — that in the section of Anatomy there should be no Anatomy ^-Ihe entire credit is due to Susruta, as he has very wisely made the suggestion, that a knowledge of the anatomical structures of the body is of great value, at least so far as it
VI INTRODUCTION.
helps the Surgeons and the Surgeons only in their operations.* But so far as Biology is concerned with medicine, Susruta does not forget to lay particular stress on the knowledge of the molecular construction of the body. The following memorable passages actually preached by this renowned Surgeon, some three hundred centuries ago, still stands as a model from which modern Science, even in its present ad- vancement, can draw inspirations. He says : —
I. T ^^^l^T 5^' tf \^cPH\ f%H*. I
^^cTT'^it ^^'^'T^T^'giT'^^ff fen: II
IT<5m^ f% ^^ ?^ ^Ml^^ Wtrl I
^RRTcT^^^ ^ '5TTf%^Tii[ II
That is, the protean work of the protoplasm in which the
great Self resides cannot be detected by the body's eye ; to
know its work, mind's eye is necessary, along with the body's
eye. For acquiring efificiency in Surgery alone, the dissection
* Susruta recommends dissection on dead human bodies and suggests that it is only required of those who will practise surgery and that students of medicine can do without it. Herophilus practised dissection on living bodies and with the object of practising medicine successfully, but it soon fell into disrepute and did not at all influence the art of Medicine.! He was condemmed even by his own pupil Philinus of cos who declared that all the Anatomy his vivisecting master had taught him had not helped him in the least in the cure of his patients. Such indeed was the fate of vivisection for which Europe now takes pride.
But Susruta's, Avagharskana is now considered by many as the only perfect mode of dissection ever known. It is with the help of this method of dissection that the layers of epidermis and dermis could be discovered and blood-vessels with their minute branches could be counted to be as many as thirty millions. Not only this, but also in the opinion of several European savants, Susruta still stands as a model of surgery and European surgery has borrowed many things from Susruta and has yet many things to learn.
INTRODUCTION. Vll
of dead body (not of living body as proclaimed by Herophilus), nay, the Avagharshana which brings into view
The knowledge ^^^ ^^^^^^ °^ ^^^ epidermis and the
of the Molecular dermis, the number and branches of
Construction of the ., , , , , ,. , -,
body is all that is blood-vessels and nerves that lie embed-
wanted. ^^^ j^ muscles, etc , is only necessary.
Professor Michael Foster's remarks in his article on Physiology in the Encyclopedia Britannica, to all appearnces, are just in the same line, if not identical with our extract, when he says **that the problem of Physiology, in the future, is largely concerned in arriving by experiment and infer- ence, by the mind's eye, and not by the body's eye alone, assisted, as that may be, by lenses yet to be introduced at a knowledge of the molecular construction of the protean protoplasm ; of the laws according to which it is built up and the laws according to which it breaks down ; for these laws when ascertained will clear up the mysteries of the protean work which the protoplasm does."
Ijo short the knowledge of the molecular construction of the body is just the thing with which Biology is concerned, and such is the unanimous verdict both in the East as well as in the West, in the most ancient and in the most modern Sciences of the world. Now, if the 'knowledge of the molecular construction of the protoplasm, of the laws according to which it is built up, and the laws according to which it breaks down,' is all that is necessary for an accurate knowledge of Anatomy and Physiology, our Ayurveda is pre-eminently the Science we want.
The following extracts, from Charaka Samhita, are cited here to prove that we are quite justified in our contention.
2. ^fl?:^icrTt ^ % ^%^^5mt fir^^ 1
That is, the body is composed of molecules and these are said to be numberless, because no body can count them up.
Vlll INTRODUCTION.
By their union, they build up the body, and this union is governed by three Laws, viz., the Laws of Vayu, Karma and Swabhava (which are almost equivalent to the three Biological Laws, Z^., the law of heredity, the law of external relations and the law of molecular motion caused by Ethereal vibrations compared with which nerve-impulses — akin to electric force, — are grosser and coarser shocks). So far we think we have proved that Ayurveda, as a Biology is not defective, if it contains no descriptive Anatomy and Physiology— descriptive in the same sense as Grey's Anatomy or Kirke's Physiology is. Its Histiology is molecular; its Pathology is molecular ; its
Physiology is molecular. Molecular in every sense is
the Biology of the Hindus. Virtually speaking, Ayurveda is our Science of Life, and we will presently shew that Lije and Ayus are identical.
The continuous adjustment of molecules, their successive
breaking down and building up within an organised living
body, without destroying its identity, is the definition of Ayus
as suggested by Maharshi Punarvasu.
He says :—
In another place the same definition is repeated with a slight modification and in this he enumerates ^TTT^ff^:,
(consciousness) as the most distinctive of'Ayu. ^^^'^^^^^^ characteristic of ^I'wj. According to this
definition, aifl^f^^r^imMT: and %i^Tg- ?t^: re'er to an organised living body ; f^^: and '^ig^^: are identical with processes of breaking down and building up of the organism without destroying its identity. The idea of continuous adjustment is included also in these two words. So we find, the definition oiAyus^ as sugessted by Punarvasu,
includes more than what is proposed in
The same as Life, x/r tt u .. c > j /- •.• t t -x
Mr. Herbert Spencer's definition oi Ltfe.
The words ^ilr and eftf%?TiT, as explained by the great annotator
Chakrapani, represent two more distinct phases of Life, the
Inroduction. Ix
first bearing upon the cistence in the system of a preven
tivefactor of putrefaction, the second
More compre- ... , ,
hensive than Life PO'»'"g ^^ the agent or agenr. hat
as defined by Mr. adjit the internal relations Herbert Spencer.
catttouche?, which professor
Foster speaks of as "contiuously passing from protop
protoplasm and compared/ith which the nervous
^ „ „. , , (whih are perhaps electrical in
Prof. Michael ^ ,
Foster on the The- are rosser and coarser shocks. ' ory of Sensation. ^^-^^^^ ep'ahei, viz., "^^lf^/' as em
plained by Chakrapani — t^I^?^ mWT*[ ^TT^fw^'— furnishes us\^ with a clue to determine wat Ayus ( ^[^: ) actually means. Our Sacred Upanishads now come for-
J Upa^n'fste °^ ""-^^ °"' '^"«f ='"d '«" "'■ '" 'he first place "^g: flTC" ie , Ayu and Prana are one and the same prinole. In the second place, "?[: im: ^ ^:", i.e , Prana and Vdy are identical. In the third place, '% 1^ ^^?i ^fTT^n^'n'RT:",?'.^., Vayu is not unlike Ether. In the fourth place, '^T3 ^-^^t w", i.e,^ the primitive fluid ^according to Lord Kelvin)^ divided into two parts, viz., — without motion, another edued with motion. In the place, "^4f%«5in^if\ />., everything in this world waves of this Ether enduecwith motion. In the sixth pi "^rg^ ^*^:" "^gx^ t%, W m^g", ie., Vayu is the univei-.^. store of energy ; in the Phjical world it is known by the name of Vayu ; in the Liing world it is called under a different name and that nam is Prana (mw.)
From the above short tab we come to know that the agent that adjusts the internl relations to external relations, is Ayus and that Ayus is Liftand that Life is a motion of the great etherial fluid which is kown in Sanskrit as ^'is" and that
*'^T^^ is the sum of all the various The same as pri- . . • , • , j . • i • ,
mitive fluid as de- energie— biological and abiological—
fined by Lord which nder the name of heat, light,
Kelvin. » 5 I
electricy or consciousness, etc., manifest
themselves both in the Physiil as well as in the Metaphysical
X INTRODUCTION.
world, and that Prana (vm',) is another name of the same force that, in acting on an aggregated living body, divides itself into five distinct forces, viz.y Prdna, Apdna^ Samdna, Uddna^ and Vydna, and subserves the functions of correlation ( ^rgt ) and sustentation ( f^ ) and controls oxidation (^^). So Prana continuously helps to adjust, like the main-spring of a watch, the internal relations to the external relations. We are indebted to the master mind of Sankara for his able exposi- tion of the functions of this main-spring, vJyu a5dlth7r. "^ ^^at is, of the etherial vibrations (mgiiro:) as transformed into the vital force in an organised body. We quote below what he says about it in his celeberated commentary on the Vedanta Darsana.
The five divisions -s _-. _c
of V^yu in its ac- 'H^* ^^ ^^"^ ^'^ '^ cf^T^^ STTST^ ^f-
tion on a living ^^^ , ^fc^^w ^ w^w^ ^ ^ fw-^ I aggregate.
