[Buddha-l] Re: Aama do.sa I

[Joy Vriens]

Thanks for your as always informative messages. So when are you are going to start writing a blog? ;-)
>Medical knowledge is a special case -- a guild of highly trained and skilled 
>practitioners, that often jealously guard their professional secrets.
I don't mean to denigrate the "medical knowledge" of the past, but your descriptions raise some questions. Can we really talk about medical knowledge in a pre-science period where e.g. notions like psychosomatic disorders weren't known) ? Where would we have to draw the line between the legitimate doctors of those days and the charlatans? It's hard to imagine (and my imagination is my final judge, so please remain within its limits) for me that the majority of the people had access to those legitimate treaty writing doctors who probably only worked for courts and the higher classes. So what "doctors" did most people see if they saw any at all? And then I remember the exhibit (sorcery and healing) I mentioned earlier on this list. Those "doctors"/healers would use anything that worked or had any effect. Yes a lot of spells (and the wise Marcelle of the exhibit knew the real power didn't reside in the spells, but rather in the mind), but not only that, they would borrow and us!
 e anything having any power or persuasive power in any field, including the holy, the demonic and why not the practices and theories of more officially "legitimate" doctors. And perhaps the legitimate doctors were less contemptuous of charlatanish methods, providing they had some effect? Perhaps they were not exposing charlatans, but fighting rivals. In our "rationalist" world it is easy to expose a charlatan for his not complying with scientific methods, but what scientific methods could an Indian charlatan be accused of for not complying with? In a world where macrocosm, microcosm and mesocosm are considered so intermingled, not to say one, do you think the legitimate doctors managed to keep their knowledge purely medical?
Joy