I remember the words of Dr.Prakash – Director of CFTRI, Mysore, who is into the “Nutrition” research… he always said “our ‘scientific researches’ are still in infancy of understanding the basics, where as sciences like ‘Ayurveda’ are so advanced and have made understanding of the nature very simple and practically proven. So, don’t underestimate the strength of your Ayurvedic science”.
On the contrary there are some “nutritional experts” who say the following…
1. Ayurveda and Nutrition are ‘professional rivals!!!
2. An Ayurveda person is totally from a different field and should not talk about nutrition, about which he/she has “no idea”.
3. Nutrition relies upon research data and they are published in scientific journals, which is like ‘ultimate truth’.
What this means is “sciences are not rivals, some ‘professional people’ see them as rivals…!”
They say that Ayurveda and Nutrition are professional rivals! They claim nutrition is only “their field” and Ayurveda experts should not talk about it! This shows their ignorance about other sciences. Ayurveda has nutrition as its main concept. The principles of understanding is different, that’s all.
Also, in Ayurvedic studies in India, it will be taught as an integrative system where subjects ranging from anatomy to medicine including preventive medicine, nutrition, pathology, laboratory studies, scientific research methodology, bio-statistics etc etc plus basics of many systems of medicine like naturopathy, homeopathy, unani, siddha are studied along with the classical texts of Ayurveda. The problem here is not for the Ayurveda person but the other way around where “they” don’t understand the concepts of Ayurveda!!!
Our culture says “let noble thoghts flow to us from all the corners” and so called “Nutritional right holders” have closed their windows for any such in-flows. They want all of us to agree to what their “researches” say. They don’t even keep their senses open to see the limitations of such “researches”. They don’t see that the research which recommends ‘drinking alcohol is good’ at one point of time, recommends the total opposite in the next year. They claim that it is because, it accepts changes in the concept+observed facts! Facts can be misleading sometimes…
eg: 1. As per research, cure from cancer in 1 patient among 50 treated, is insignificant. But, to that one patient who survived, it is highly significant! Don’t you agree to this???
2. Research says take medicine “A” for disease “D” and millions of people use it. After 2 years it says that medicine can result in death because of disease “H”, so stop using it. What those millions of people who used it for 2 years should do?!!! This means, research has its own limitations and all that comes through the filter of “scientific research” is not the ultimate truth!
Regarding the data published in “journals”, I read many of those journals on a regular basis and I find many articles as stereotype and many a times biased and seem to be influenced by some kind of lobbying! Above all, the articles are based on the same kind of research which I gave examples above. So, they are not ultimate verdicts in anyway.
Conclusively, I am not saying that research is bad and we should stop believing in it. All I mean to say is “Open your hearts, senses and brains to study from other sciences also and accept good practices & advices from them with an ultimate goal of helping the mankind, instead of rivalry between professional people. No science belongs to a single person or group of people, it belongs to all. If there is controversy in the concept/belief then subject it to reviews again and again”.