Acknowledgements: The author extends heartfelt gratitude to Sri Chittaranjan Naikji, a distinguished engineer-turned-philosopher, whose books on Indian philosophy provide a crucial foundation for this article. The author also acknowledges Sri Chittaranjan Naikji for his meticulous review and insightful contributions to the article.

The Proposal: “Mixopathy” or Holistic? 

There is a recent proposal for an integrated mixed curriculum for Āyurveda and Allopathy (MBBS-BAMS program) in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) of 2020. The Central Government, via the Union Minister of State for Health and AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homoeopathy), announced the proposed integrated course in May 2025. The aim is to blend a vibrant traditional form of medicine with modern medicine, which currently dominates the healthcare landscape. This proposed holistic health approach has drawn vociferous criticism from the Indian Medical Association (IMA), the body representing allopathic doctors, who object to what they term ‘mixopathy’ and its consequent adverse effects.

Modern medicine encompasses foundational subjects such as anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry, which are broadly categorized as "preclinical subjects". The clinical subjects include medicine, surgery, gynecology, and others. The Āyurvedic BAMS course lasts for a similar duration and covers roughly equivalent subjects. The overarching intention behind integrating the two systems is to provide comprehensive care for individuals and society, positing that the shortcomings of one system could be addressed by the other.

There are significant challenges in designing a combined curriculum and securing international recognition for such degrees. Drug interactions present a complex issue; in poly-drug therapy involving both systems, there is scant research, necessitating a fresh start. Allopathic doctors have largely opposed these initiatives, labeling them as unscientific and potentially compromising patient safety. There is a fierce debate from all sides. However, is such a combination feasible or even desirable? The answer, in a single word, is no. The primary reason for such an arrangement is the incommensurability of paradigms, and the most unfortunate consequence is the injustice it inflicts upon both systems.

Āyurveda: A Note 

Extreme claims, such as head transplantations, present an unbalanced view and, unfortunately, parody the strengths of Āyurveda. Āyurveda, at its core, is a tradition that spans at least 2,500 years and comprises two main schools represented by their foundational texts: the Caraka Saṃhitā and the Suśruta Saṃhitā. Records dating back to the 6th century BCE indicate that procedures such as limb amputations, fracture settings, haemorrhoid excisions, tonsillectomies, caesarean sections, craniotomies, abdominal operations, and stone removals were commonplace in India.

Caraka Saṃhitā, likely dating back to 500 BCE, consists of 120 chapters, divided into eight sections covering surgery, pediatrics, conditions of the head and eyes, mental diseases, reproductive systems, pharmacology, therapeutics, and toxicology. It details various plant products (including roots, bark, pith, exudation, stalks, juice, sprouts, fruit, flowers, ash, oils, thorns, and more), 165 types of animal products, and 64 minerals used for therapeutic purposes. This significant work was translated into Persian, Arabic, and Latin.

The Suśruta Saṃhitā comprises 192 chapters, with the initial nine devoted solely to surgical instruments. The colonial powers rediscovered Suśruta's plastic surgery techniques, particularly the method of rotating forehead skin flaps for reconstructions of amputated noses. This revelation came as a surprise when a potter in Pune successfully performed the procedure according to these ancient texts. Suśruta classified surgery into eight types: extracting solid bodies, excision, incision, probing, scarification, puncturing, evacuating fluids, and suturing.

Āyurveda posits that nature is the source of diseases, yet it also holds the remedy. Central to Āyurveda is the tridoṣa theory, which suggests that an imbalance in the body's elemental composition—classified as vāta (air and space), pitta (fire), and kapha (water and gross matter)—leads to disease. Interventions aim to restore this balance. Despite differing guiding principles, Āyurveda as a medical system engages deeply with physiology, anatomy, and observational studies of diseases.

Āyurveda has maintained the notion of health as a condition of total physical, mental, and social well-being for millennia. Key principles, including the sāttvika diet, yoga, prāṇāyāma, and meditation, are integral to preventive medicine. Moreover, meditation and deep breathing are vital for mental and emotional well-being, offering solutions to various psychosomatic illnesses.

Ancient practitioners understood the use of intoxicating substances for anesthesia. While the atomic and germ theories underpin modern medicine, the ancient Vaiśeṣika philosophy alluded to atoms and molecules. Contemporary Āyurveda, however, adopts a systems approach, suggesting that a pure chemical may not be effective unless combined with other known and unknown substances. Concerning surgery and the management of more tangible matter, the prescribed procedures were grounded in well-organized anatomical, physiological, and surgical principles that have endured over time.

Dharampal, the British Records, and Colonial Consciousness 

Believing that everything from the past is “primitive” and viewing the present merely as a stepping stone towards a “progressive” future reflects a colonial mindset that hinders Indians from recognizing their traditional past and its accomplishments. Regrettably, few Indians are familiar with Dharampal and his influential works, such as The Beautiful Tree and Indian Science and Technology in the Eighteenth Century. The inclusion of this remarkable scholarship in our school curriculum would strongly change the misconception that Indians were a primitive people prior to colonial rule.

Beginning in 1964–65 and continuing for over a decade, Dharampal meticulously gathered archival British records from the remotest libraries in both India and England. The materials he unearthed significantly challenge the prevailing perceptions of Indian society. According to Dharampal, neglect, disdain, and economic disintegration had uprooted and erased indigenous sciences and technologies, not only from society but from the Indian collective memory as well. He asserted that Indian society was remarkably adept in the arts and sciences of its era, with an undeniable command over its immediate natural environment that warranted recognition.

Reuben Burrow (1790) remarks, 
“Hindoo religion probably spread over the whole earth; there are signs of it in every northern country and in almost every system of worship.” (A proof that the Hindoos had the Binomial Theorem, Asiatic Researches, 1799)

Burrow further posits in this essay that Stonehenge, arithmetic, astronomy, astrology, holidays, games, the names of stars and constellations, ancient monuments, laws, languages, and the Druids of Britain all have clear connections to the ‘Hindoo world’! 

In relation to pre-colonial Indian medical practices, Dharampal cites Dr. Helenus Scott in reference to Indians performing cataract surgery and the removal of renal calculi (stones) from time immemorial. Dr. Scott states that, “They practice with great success the operation of depressing the crystalline lens when it becomes opaque, and from time immemorial, they have cut for the stone at the same place that they now do in Europe.”

Dharampal also notes that inoculation using materials from diseased individuals to combat smallpox was nearly universal in many regions of Northern and Southern India until it was prohibited in several locations under the Bengal Presidency around 1802–1803. Ro. Coult (1731) writes, 
"The operation of inoculation, referred to by the natives as tikah, has been known for at least 150 years. Their method of performing this operation involves taking a small amount of pus and dipping it into the point of a fairly large, sharp needle. They make several punctures in the hollow under the deltoid muscle. If the punctures do suppurate and no fever or eruption occurs, then they are no longer susceptible to the infection.”

Holwell, for the College of Physicians in London in 1767, gave the most detailed account of inoculation practices in India, covering the timing, methodology, dietary restrictions, and other pre- and post-inoculation care. He believed that after the inoculation, one in a million people had a chance of contracting smallpox. He was impressed, and he wanted a more profound analysis of the procedure for application to the Western world. Importantly, Holwell’s account relates to the prevalence of some theories of bacterial infection. He stated that Indians believed "imperceptible animalcule" caused smallpox and other epidemical diseases. When taken in through food, they pass into the blood, where, at a certain time, their malignant juices excite fermentation and end in an eruption on the skin.

The Superintendent General of Vaccine Inoculation in 1804 thought that fatalities among the inoculated were around 1 in 200 and 1 in 60–70 for Indians and Europeans, respectively, unlike the one in a million believed by Holwell. British rule changed the status of vaccination as a universal practice. Public revenues financed inoculators in India, and when the British precipitated a collapse in the fiscal system, it likely led the inoculators to seek employment in other fields. 

Europeans began to view practices that were universally effective as hazardous. The frequent smallpox epidemics in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries largely trace back to the state’s indifference to universal inoculation. Despite the prohibitions, the indigenous inoculation continued discreetly until approximately 1870. Edward Jenner (1749–1823), much later, took credit for developing the first vaccine for smallpox from cowpox pustules in 1796. Thus, inoculation was one indigenous medical practice that pre-dated the Western medical practice and is now a universal standard of healthcare. The well-established and highly effective Indian inoculation practice remains a blip in the history of Indian medicine and the consciousness of most Indians. 

The Philosophical Underpinnings of Indian Traditional Sciences

Vedas and Upavedas

Fundamentally, Āyurveda belongs to the category known as “traditional sciences”, while contemporary medicine falls under the category of “modern sciences”. René Guénon (1886-1951) adeptly elucidates the distinctions between these two categories in his seminal work, The Crisis of the Modern World (1927). At a fundamental level, the “traditional sciences” derive from ultimate metaphysical doctrines, whereas the “modern sciences” begin with an atomic understanding of matter and its applications. The former adopts a top-down approach, starting from Unity, dividing into a world of multiplicity, and ultimately converging back towards that Unity. In contrast, the latter confines itself to the realm of matter, characterized by increasing multiplicity and division, while lacking the guiding principle of higher unity.

The four puruṣārthas (objectives of human life) represent a foundational metaphysical doctrine within Bhāratīya philosophy. These are dharma (duty), artha (material wealth), kāma (desires), and mokṣa (liberation). The extensive body of knowledge known as the Upavedas (upa meaning ‘secondary' to the Vedas) primarily addresses artha and kāma (the outer world), while the Vedas focus on dharma and mokṣa (practices for the inner realm of self-realization). Naturally, there are areas of overlap between these.

Consequently, each Upaveda, which pertains to the material world, is grounded in one or two of the principal Vedas. The Vedas consist of four texts: Ṛg, Yajur, Atharva, and Sāma. The overarching philosophy of the Upavedas is to use the material world to achieve the ultimate transcendental realm. Thus, āyurveda, being an Upaveda, has a significant teleological role in maintaining the health of individuals, facilitating their journey towards the final state of mokṣa.

For the sake of completeness, the four principal Upavedas are:

  • Āyurveda, the medical and surgical science, is associated with the Ṛgveda and Atharvaveda. 
  • Arthaveda encompasses subjects related to economics, political science, law, ethics, constitutional studies, defense management, sociology, trade, commerce, and both civil and military engineering; it is linked to the Yajurveda. 
  • Sthāpatyaveda, which pertains to engineering and architecture (derived from the Atharvaveda). 
  • Gāndharvaveda, which represents the wisdom of arts and crafts (associated with the Sāmaveda). 

Traditional and Modern Sciences: The Work of René Guénon 

Traditional and modern sciences may address the same issue at the gross level, such as the human body in medical sciences; however, their foundational principles differ markedly. The following section summarizes and paraphrases René Guénon's thoughts regarding the distinction between these two major concepts. This understanding lies at the heart of the problem of the incommensurability of paradigms.

There are two radical and mutually incompatible conceptions of science: traditional and modern. Traditional sciences continue to exist in the East today, whereas they were present in the West only during antiquity and the Middle Ages. “Traditional sciences” represent changes in the form of an intact metaphysical doctrine. In traditional civilisations, all knowledge derives from or applies to the "core" of intellectual intuition or pure metaphysical doctrine. Relative knowledge in areas such as social institutions and sciences is a dependency, prolongation, or reflection of absolute knowledge. 

The relative, while not non-existent, occupies its rightful but secondary and subordinate place. Sciences and social institutions exist within a realm of form and multiplicity. In modern sciences, a build-up of intricate knowledge is incomprehensible in its entirety. The plethora of detailed knowledge fails to recognise the higher principle of unity.

The traditional conception ties all sciences as particular applications to the principles. For Aristotle, physics is secondary to metaphysics, with higher principles existing above nature and reflected in its laws. In contrast, the modern conception asserts the independence of various sciences and dismisses anything that transcends them as ‘unknowable’. Western science primarily seeks practical applications. Modern science, deeply entrenched in change and lacking a definitive starting point, reduces itself to probabilities, approximations, or hypothetical constructs. Any coincidental alignment with traditional sciences has no meaning. Ancient teachings require no such validation, and attempting to reconcile two disparate paradigms is futile.

Modern scientific conclusions, many times temporary, exist within the realm of hypothesis, while traditional sciences represent the undeniable outcomes of intuitive metaphysical truths. Modern experimentalism has the misconception that facts can substantiate a theory. However, various theories invariably fit the same facts, and at times, preconceived theories assist in their elucidation — the theory-ladenness of observation. Traditional sciences enabled experimental investigations strictly within the confines of higher knowledge.

Traditional science reflects not only higher knowledge within a domain but also facilitates the attainment of that knowledge itself. Traditional sciences are thus often referred to as "sacred" sciences with these two complementary roles. In contrast, modern or “profane” sciences are incapable of fulfilling either function. 

The traditional perspective views knowledge as either unfolding (or descending) from foundational principles to practical applications or as an acquisition (or ascending) from lower levels of understanding to higher ones. Sacred science is finally grounded in universal principles, intellectual intuition, and the most direct and profound knowledge. Consequently, any science can transform into a sacred science if higher knowledge remains in view. From the traditional standpoint, every science ultimately attains this unity.

The ‘profane realm’ is not opposed to a ‘sacred realm’; rather, it represents a ‘profane perspective’ or ignorance of anything beyond the lowest level of reality. By severing all ties with transcendent truth and supreme wisdom, modernity amasses vain and illusory knowledge that emerges from imaginary speculation, which would ultimately pose an obstruction to ascending to higher knowledge. This approach exemplifies the ‘rationalist’ error of entirely denying intellectual intuition.

Commenting on the above passage, philosopher Chittaranjan Naik draws attention to a slight variation in the Bhāratīya perspective. He says that: 
“In Indian traditions, knowledge (vidya) is classified into two types: para vidya (the higher, transcendental) and apara vidya (the lower, related to the material world). Indian tradition does not assert that all apara vidyas, although derived from the Vedas, necessarily lead to the attainment of higher knowledge. Therefore, apara vidyas can be further divided into two categories. Some are part of the six darshanas and serve as auxiliaries to para vidya, acting as complementary aids in the pursuit of higher knowledge. Other apara vidyas—such as Ayurveda, Dhanurvidya, Gandharvashastra, and those associated with metallurgy, engineering, architecture, shipbuilding, etc.—may not directly contribute to higher knowledge but do not obstruct its acquisition. In contrast, the so-called profane sciences, including allopathy, physics, quantum physics, chemistry, and even AI, could hinder the pursuit of higher knowledge.

Indian traditions maintain that the lower vidyas, even if not helping directly, do not obstruct an individual (Jiva) when the time comes to ascend to higher knowledge. Consequently, all apara vidyas are regarded as “sacred sciences” because they are grounded in the Sacred Word, the Vedas, whose truths are self-established (svatah-siddha), rather than due to the apara vidyas having complementary roles.

Conversely, the profane sciences are often based on principles that contradict the truths found in the Sacred Word or deviate from its intended meaning, thereby significantly hindering an individual's pursuit of higher knowledge. For instance, a blending of Ayurveda and Allopathy would result in a discipline that loses the sanctity of being a “sacred science” and devolves into a “profane science”. This illustrates the fundamental issue with all profane sciences: the belief in the truth of their postulates can become an obstruction to the quest for higher knowledge.”

Science Versus Metaphysics 

Many have written extensively on this subject, but Venkat Nagarajan, in his incisive article, The False Supremacy of Science, summarizes why science and metaphysics cannot be directly compared because they approach reality from fundamentally different perspectives. In modern scientific philosophy, the validation of scientific theories was initially based solely on empirical evidence. However, revolutionary changes in scientific thought replaced this reliance with the criterion of falsifiability, which recognized that any current theory could potentially be disproven by a competing one in the future. A typical example is the replacement of Dalton’s atomic model by Niels Bohr’s atomic model.

A scientific theory or hypothesis invariably links to a series of supporting premises, which limits this argument. Consequently, any falsifying evidence or observations may invalidate at least one of these supporting assumptions without necessarily disproving the theory itself. Subsequently, an attempt was made to argue that scientific theories could be shown to be conditionally true in a probabilistic sense based on empirical evidence. However, this argument also proved inadequate, as there are multiple ways to derive conditional probabilities, and there is no definitive basis to assert that one method of derivation is correct.

As Nagarajan points out, all efforts to establish the supremacy of science over metaphysics have ultimately failed. Therefore, one cannot make such claims without making a value judgment regarding the superiority of some form of intersubjective empirical verifiability. Such assertions of supremacy are not grounded in logic but rather in faith or belief.

Vedānta defines "Being" as Consciousness or the knowing Self, a concept that science does not recognize. The standard scientific-materialistic view posits that atoms, molecules, compounds, matter, life, mind, and consciousness evolve in that specific order. In evolutionary terms, life is often viewed as purposeless and accidental. In contrast, metaphysical systems attribute meaning and a definite purpose to life. These more holistic systems emphasize first-hand experience and unexplained phenomena in elucidating reality. Thus, science and metaphysical interpretations of reality are mutually exclusive theories that co-exist, with the choice of belief being an individual prerogative. Assumptions and value judgements underpin all scientific theories, while metaphysics rests upon the unshakeable foundation of Unity.

Bhāratīya philosophy distinguishes between parā vidyā and aparā vidyā, referring to the knowledge of the higher Self and the knowledge of the external material world, respectively. A fundamental tenet of Indian knowledge systems is that these two forms of knowledge are not antagonistic; rather, they are manifestations of a single unity, known as Brahman (or the Self or Consciousness). In this perspective, there is a profound spiritualization of every aspect of aparā vidyā (all secular activities that engage with the material world). The perceived antagonism between the ‘word of God’ and the ‘word of science’ does not exist within Indian knowledge systems. Most secular activities ultimately seek the unity that connects parā and aparā. In contrast, science, as popularised in Western culture, seeks unity solely within the realm of aparā, or the material world.

The Incommensurability of Paradigms 

V. Srinidhi (Engagements Between Ayurveda and Biomedicine: Practice, Policy, and Philosophy, 2018) outlines three fundamental principles of modern medicine, or biomedicine: 

1) The body is analogous to a machine and is a sum of its individual parts;  
2) Biophysical factors are the sole determinants of health and disease; and  
3) Knowledge is derived exclusively from observations, the validity of which is contingent upon adherence to the first two principles.

In Indian knowledge systems, which operate in a top-down manner, the prerequisites for studying Āyurveda include a comprehensive understanding of Saṃskṛta and a profound familiarity with Indian philosophical schools, primarily nyāya (the Indian equivalent of logic). This requirement is akin to necessitating knowledge of chemistry, physics, or English before pursuing modern medicine.

The foundational paradigm of Āyurveda begins with the primary nature of singular Consciousness and the secondary nature of mind and matter. Bhāratīya darśanas, despite minor variations, position consciousness (self, brahman) as the sole fundamental reality, from which ego, mind, and matter emerge in succession. In contrast, modern medicine prioritizes matter, progressing from atoms to molecules, then inorganic matter, organic matter, life, the brain, the mind, and ultimately consciousness. Thus, consciousness is regarded as secondary to increasingly complex forms of matter, which starkly contrasts with the paradigms of Bhāratīya darśanas that underpin Āyurveda. This conceptual attitude embodies a fundamental divergence between modern medicine and Āyurveda.

In Āyurveda, the mind is viewed as an essential and integral component of health and disease. In the Caraka Saṃhitā, although the mind is treated as a distinct entity from the body for analytical purposes, it is physiologically and therapeutically intertwined with human health and disease. Therefore, studying Āyurveda as an independent discipline, detached from the broader Saṃskṛta corpus encompassing mind and spirituality, undermines a more holistic understanding of Indian medicine. Srinidhi ultimately indicates that the levels at which the causal models of Āyurveda and biomedicine operate require careful interpretation; Āyurveda addresses the level of causes, whereas biomedicine focuses on effects.

Āyurvedic texts delineate three sources of knowledge: pratyakṣa (direct perception), anumāna (inference), and āptopadeśa (the teachings of an āpta or authority). Concerning the latter, the highest authority is the Veda, which, in most Indian schools, is regarded as apauruṣeya (non-human origin). As a result, the foundational principles (ontology) and methodologies for acquiring knowledge (epistemology) differ markedly between Āyurveda and modern medicine.

While the first two sources of knowledge are generally uncontroversial, the third source (āptopadeśa) and the fundamental ontology (consciousness as primary; mind-matter as secondary) are not derived from empirical observation but are viewed as revealed knowledge. In other words, only a qualified authority or an āpta can impart the theory of tridoṣa, its characteristics, the causal links, and the existence of metaphysical entities such as the soul and the mind. Nonetheless, direct observation and logic must be employed when diagnosing and developing a treatment protocol for a patient.

To explain why direct observation and logic are required in Indian philosophy as well as in Indian science would require a detailed analysis of what is called a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge in Western philosophy. In short, the two are not different kinds of reasoning (the one attributed to intuition and the other attributed to what is obtained from experience) as it is believed in Western philosophy. In Bhāratīya philosophy, these are two aspects of the same logic as applied to two modes of existence in order to make knowledge veridical. 

Āyurvedic treatment relies more on principles and the directly observable imbalances in doṣas than on providing specific prescriptions. It is up to the individual practitioner to exercise their judgment by analyzing various factors and selecting the appropriate remedy. Āyurveda addresses both health and disease, focusing on whole entities—such as a food item, an herb, or an individual—rather than on isolated parts. It posits that a comprehensive understanding of medical conditions and healthy behaviors can be derived from the first principles.

The system encompasses metaphysical elements, including divine cures, as well as non-biological aspects like the mind and the soul. Nonetheless, it permits an analytical framework where physical and biological factors can be examined independently. While emphasizing the value of the texts, it offers opportunities to interpret their meanings, particularly in practical contexts and in relation to other texts within the Saṃskṛta corpus. These factors likely contribute to the critique of Āyurveda as a non-falsifiable belief system rather than as a knowledge system open to 'scientific' inquiry.

Note: Part Two of this article will follow soon. 

References:

  1. Indian Science And Technology In The Eighteenth Century: Some Contemporary European Accounts by Dharampal (1971) 
  2. The Beautiful Tree by Dharampal (1983) 
  3. The Crisis of the Modern World by René Guénon (1927) 
  4. Understanding Hinduism: V. Foundational Texts of Hinduism by Shatavadhani Ganesh (2020) 
  5. Understanding Hinduism: VI. Bodies of Knowledge in Hinduism by Shatavadhani Ganesh (2020) 
  6. False Supremacy of Science by Venkat Nagarajan (2019) in Pragyata Online Magazine 
  7. Engagements between Ayurveda and biomedicine: practice, policy and philosophy: Doctoral Thesis at IIM-Bengaluru by V. Srinidhi (2018) 
  8. Natural Realism and Contact Theory of Perception: Indian Philosophy’s Challenge to Contemporary Paradigms of Knowledge by Chittaranjan Naik (2019) 
  9. On the Existence of the Self by Chittaranjan Naik (2021) 
  10. Fundamentals of Indian Philosophy by Ramakrishna Puligandla (1997) 
  11. Presuppositions of India's Philosophies by Karl H. Potter (1963) 
  12. Dr. Dean Ornish's Program for Reversing Heart Disease by Dean Ornish (1995) 
  13. Ayurveda for Revitalising Healthcare in India by P L T Girija, T. M. Mukundan, D. Srinivas (2025) 
  14. https://science.thewire.in/health/tamil-nadu-medical-college-dean-removed-for-administering-charak-shapath-to-new-students/  
  15. Reconceptualizing India Studies by S. N. Balagangadhara (2012)