Ethics in ayurveda
In the three classic tests of Charaka, Sushruta and Vagbhata there are
no separate sections on ethics. But ethical concepts are ever-present and an
ethical undercurrent runs through all the texts. To distil the ethical content
from these large texts is as difficult as extracting sugar from a cup of
sweetened milk. One can only attempt to present gleanings from here and there
to give a flavour of the ethical spirit which animates ayurveda.
Bioethics and ayurveda
On human beings as part of nature; their lives in harmony with nature;
the kinship with all forms of life and so on, ayurveda has plenty to say.
Consider the panchabhuta doctrine, so central to ayurveda: it says that the
universe consists of five elements that are the stuff of the stars, earth,
oceans, all living beings and everything that exists. These are, of course, not
the elements of the periodic table, but substances that are perceived by the
five senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch. The sensory experience
constitutes the basis of physical reality or nature - what is extrasensory may
or may not exist, but that is not part of nature. According to ayurveda what
exists in the human body exists in nature and vice versa, and their
interpenetration and interaction are constant and continuous. The homology
between the universal macrocosm and human microcosm was carried to extraordinary
lengths until humans were regarded as cosmic resonators. Hurting nature was no
different from harming oneself, and reverence for nature was ingrained in the
practice of medicine.
Health and disease
Ayurveda laid a great deal of stress on good health and its maintenance,
even as it laid out its elaborate encyclopaedia on diseases and their
management. Health was regarded as a state of equilibrium that was sustained by
a number of component equilibria. These included the equilibrium of the tissues
of the body; of doshas or functional units; of fires that burn in the tissues
and bring about changes such as food into tissues; of the body and its
surroundings, and so on. The human body was designed to maintain this
equilibrium, which was its natural state. Any deviation into disequilibrium,
which we call disease, was largely brought on by one's own misdeeds, and it
could be counted upon to resolve and return to equilibrium automatically. All
that the physician could do was to give a helping hand in the process. His task
had less to do with the removal of a cause, which was, according to ayurveda,
not the primary objective of treatment. Causes exist within the body and
without, but they are not necessarily pathogenic. They become pathogenic only
when the equilibrium is breached by the imprudent conduct of the individual.
Nor is it possible to sanitise the body and environment of causes. Then why
stress upon a cause to the exclusion of other considerations? Thus argued the
ayurvedic texts.
