three therapies of south india 43
My response to requests to summarize ayurveda is to say that in order to
learn ayurveda one has to go to an ayurvedic medical school for three years and
then work as an apprentice for a period of time afterward—which is similar
to what is required to become a practitioner of biomedicine, although one
can also learn ayurveda outside an institutional setting. Th is best summarizes
ayurveda because it says that it is vast and complex, that it takes years to acquire
a working knowledge. When asked to summarize ayurveda, I also try to off er
some qualifi ed comparisons to allopathic medical practices.
Perhaps to one who is raised in a society in which biomedicine is dom-
inant, other medicines (collectively labeled “alternative” in North America) are
assumed to be more simple or reducible to neat, holistic concepts. “Alternative”
medicines are often imagined to have something in common with one another,
and labels attributed to these therapies, such as “holistic” or “herbal,” may be
inspired by a yearning for what is lacking in biomedicine. At the same time,
“holistic” is not necessarily a misleading description of ayurveda. Th ere is a set of
theories in ayurveda that practitioners attempt to relate to practice. Ayurvedic
physicians do take into account diet, lifestyle, medication, the time of year and
the patient’s psychological state in considering an illness and its treatment, but
then so do allopathic doctors to some degree. Th e diff erence is that there is a
greater diversity of factors that ayurvedic physicians ideally should consider,
and ayurvedic physicians show a greater concern for the eff ects of environ-
ment, diet and lifestyle on the physical states of the body.
Th e label “herbal” is somewhat appropriate as ayurvedic medicines contain
more “natural” ingredients in the sense that these are less processed, subject
to fewer laboratory refi nements than allopathic drugs. However, ayurvedic
medicines are often manufactured in factories, and the ingredients used are
not limited to “herbs.” Ayurvedic pharmaceutical manufacturers use original
plant materials, as well as minerals and animal products, that contain natur-
ally occurring active ingredients while active ingredients in allopathic medi-
cines are often artifi cially created or replicated in isolated chemical form in
laboratories.
Another salient diff erence between allopathy and ayurveda is seen in each
system’s relation to its early, foundational medical texts. Whereas the medical
writings of Hippocrates, Aristotle and Galen are no longer regularly invoked
in contemporary allopathic research and practice, ayurvedic researchers and
practitioners frequently dialogue with classic texts including Caraka Samhitā
(composed between 1000 B.C.E. and 200 C.E.), Suśruta Samhitā (composed
between the seventh century B.C.E. and 0 C.E.) and Astāngahrdayasamhitā
(sixth to seventh century C.E.).^2 Th ese treatises, written by early physicians,
describe principles and attributes of bodily function, explain specifi c treatments