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

[Joy Vriens]

Hi Dan, (I made some hopefully fortunate cuts in order for the message to pass)

>> 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) ? 
 
>Why do you assume that Indian (or for that matter Greek, Chinese, Islamic) 
>medicine were unaware of psychosomatic issues?

Physical and mental factors can be mutually causative as you say. The exemple you give from the CS concerns amongst others the negative influence of certain emotions on the digestion process, which everybody on this list probably experienced for themselves. But what in the case of apparently phyisical disorders "entirely" caused by mental factors, like the cases of hysteria studied by Charcot etc? What about the miracles performed by Christ and other prophets or healers where the blind were made to see and the cripple to walk? Thoses cases were likely to be treated as cases of possession, by those who distinguished between physical disorders (in a more or less Cartesian or materialistic sense, if such people existed in those days), physical disorders caused by demons, planets etc. or simply possession. Were those Indian and Chinese doctors capable of distinguishing between a genuin physical disorder and physical ailments created by mental disorders and did they make that dis!
 tinction? If such legitmate doctors did exist e.g. in a Chinese court, how come the emperors were so eager to have their mantrins perform magic rituals (as described by Michael Strickmann)? Why didn't the doctors expose them as charlatans? Or if they did, why didn't the emperors act accordingly? 

>After the food discussion this same chapter goes on to define debate 
>(vaada), proper and fallacious arguments (and is the earliest extant Indian 
>text to do so -- all the subsequent traditions, such as Nyaya, the 
>Buddhists, etc., draw their vocabulary of these matters from this 
>treatise!), and states: 
 
>"The debate among physicians relates to nothing else but the science of 
>medicine. The various details about statements and rejoinders as well as 
>fundamental principles (of the debates) mentioned above of course relate to 
>all the scriptures. A physician should make statements with due regard to 
>the principles of debates. He should not make statements of the context or 
>contrary to scriptural prescriptions or without due examination or 
>irrelevant, confused or too sketchy statements. Whatever he states should BE 
>BASED ON ARGUMENTS. All debates equipped with arguments and flawlessness go 
>a long way towards proper treatment because they enhance the enlightening 
>powers of mental faculty. The mental faculty undisturbed well accomplishes 
>all the objects in view." 

But could those arguments also include the influence of certain planets, demons, karma? 
 
>By "scripture," here it means aapta -- the authoritative traditional lore 
>that has been accumulated through investigation, tested, continuously 
>debated and bone fide. 
> 
>Sounds fairly scientific, don't you think? 

As far as unbalanced humours, digestion, evolution of the human embryon etc etc are concerned yes, of course, but I still wonder about the other causes I sometimes read about that you are so silent about :-) Perhaps the CS (that I don't know) is a particularly serious medical (in a more contemporary scientific way) treaty and doesn't mention them.  

>>Where would we have to draw the line between the legitimate doctors of 
>those days and the charlatans? 
 
>We, as non-physicians, are the intended dupes of the charlatans, so they 
>will make it hard for us to tell the difference.

Would those vicious charlatans go as far as to actually heal people? :-) 
I wonder why the Chinese courts were duped or was that perhaps also for diplomatic religious-political reasons? 

>Actually, the charlatans' main targets were the court and the wealthy -- con 
>men are in it for the money. 

I think we ought to distinguish between charlatans who are conmen and simply in it for the money and sincere but perhaps naive and irresponsible charlatans that are charlatans de facto but not intentionally. Sometimes doctors with a proper medical training are called charlatans by others because they try more unusual alternative methods.  

>I don't know the socio-economic distribution of doctors, or percentage 
>present per population in India in the past. The Caraka-samhita does not 
>promote the idea of only serving the well-to-do, but takes, in many places, 
>a compassionate view toward all sufferers, similar to the Hippocratic 
>spirit. The economics of medicine remains a problem, even today (especially 
>in the US). 

As always you are far ahead of us but we will follow :-(
 
>> 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? 
 
>I'm not sure what "purely medical" means. Medicine is about health and life 
>and what complicates that, and what to do about maximizing health and 
>minimizing or curing the complications. So medicine is a large as life 
>itself. What box do you want to confine it to? 

I have been hinting at it a couple of times in my answer. Could you say something about those planets and demons or karma or say if the CS mentions them?

Joy