Sambhashanam or Mounam ?

"Only one who studied the texts of Ayurveda and has a fairly good understanding of the subject has the authority to comment about it's efficacy or standard."

As part of a recent awakening call regarding the mention of a variety of traditional medical systems under the Classification of  " Quackery " we are witnessing a lot of angry reactions from the community that learns, practices and preaches the principles of said systems. Though, I fall under the particular class, that reacted to the news, it also made me wonder which battles are actually worth fighting ? 

Traditional medicine of all forms are a part of time tested methods that are largely experience based and found to be effective for many millennia. The entire episode led me to refer back to Rogabhishagjitiya Vimana in Charakasamhitha. Debates and discussions are an integral part of the Medical Society           ( Vaidya Samooha ), but a good debater would assess a lot of factors and decide the fruitfulness or futility of a discussion. Discussions could be friendly or hostile and opponents could be superior, inferior or equal, as per the chapter. What's even more interesting is the types of assemblies. ( Text quoted below )

Types of assembly

परिषत्तुखलुद्विविधा- ज्ञानवती, मूढपरिषच्च| सैवद्विविधासतीत्रिविधापुनरनेनकारणविभागेन- सुहृत्परिषत्, उदासीनपरिषत्, प्रतिनिविष्टपरिषच्चेति | तत्रप्रतिनिविष्टायांपरिषदिज्ञानविज्ञानवचनप्रतिवचनशक्तिसम्पन्नायांमूढायांवानकथंचित्केनचित्सहजल्पोविधीयते; मूढायांतुसुहृत्परिषद्युदासीनायांवाज्ञानविज्ञानवचनप्रतिवचनशक्तीरन्तरेणाप्यदीप्तयशसा महाजनविद्विष्टेनापिसहजल्पोविधीयते| तद्विधेनचसहकथयताआविद्धदीर्घसूत्रसङ्कुलैर्वाक्यदण्डकैःकथयितव्यम्, अतिहृष्टंमुहुर्मुहुरुपहसतापरंनिरूपयताचपर्षदमाकारैर्ब्रुवतश्चास्यवाक्यावकाशोनदेयः; कष्टशब्दंचब्रुवतावक्तव्योनोच्यते, अथवापुनर्हीनातेप्रतिज्ञा, इति| पुनश्चाहू(ह्व)यमानःप्रतिवक्तव्यः- परिसंवत्सरोभवान्शिक्षस्वतावत्; नत्वयागुरुरुपासितोनूनम्, अथवापर्याप्तमेतावत्ते; सकृदपिहिपरिक्षेपिकंनिहतंनिहतमाहुरितिनास्ययोगःकर्तव्यःकथञ्चित्| अप्येवंश्रेयसासहविगृह्यवक्तव्यमित्याहुरेके; नत्वेवंज्यायसासहविग्रहंप्रशंसन्तिकुशलाः||२०||

Assembly may also be of two types - learned and ignorant. Again from the other point of view, it is of three types – friendly, neutral and prejudiced. One should not discuss anything, or anything cannot be discussed in the the assembly of learned prejudiced persons endowed with general and specific knowledge, powerful expressions,discussion techniques and assembly of ignorant prejudiced persons. In the ignorant friendly or ignorant neutral assembly, however, one may discuss with another who is devoid of learning, understanding, discussion techniques, and is not famous and is despised by great men. While discussing with such a person one should use long sentences having incomprehensible and long aphorisms.One should ridicule the opponent again and again with body gestures before the gathering and should not give opportunity to him to speak, while using difficult words one should remind the opponent that he is not speaking or his proposition does not stand. Again calling him one should say- you should learn for one year, perhaps you have not learnt from a preceptor or it is sufficient for you. The opponent, having defeated once, is always considered defeated and should not be entertained again. Some say that the same method is applicable in case of hostile discussion with a superior opponent but, in fact, confrontation with a superior person is not at all desirable. [20]

प्रत्यवरेणतुसहसमानाभिमतेनवाविगृह्यजल्पतासुहृत्परिषदिकथयितव्यम्,अथवाऽप्युदासीनपरिषद्यवधानश्रवणज्ञानविज्ञानोपधारणवचनप्रतिवचनशक्तिसम्पन्नायांकथयताचावहितेनपरस्यसाद्गुण्यदोष

बलमवेक्षितव्यं, समवेक्ष्यचयत्रैनंश्रेष्ठंमन्येतनास्यतत्रजल्पंयोजयेदनाविष्कृतमयोगंकुर्वन्; यत्रत्वेनमवरंमन्येततत्रैवैनमाशुनिगृह्णीयात्| तत्रखल्विमेप्रत्यवराणामाशुनिग्रहेभवन्त्युपायाः; तद्यथा- श्रुतहीनंमहतासूत्रपाठेनाभिभवेत्, विज्ञानहीनंपुनःकष्टशब्देनवाक्येन, वाक्यधारणाहीनमाविद्धदीर्घसूत्रसङ्कुलैर्वाक्यदण्डकैः, प्रतिभाहीनंपुनर्वचनेनैकविधेनानेकार्थवाचिना , वचनशक्तिहीनमर्धोक्तस्यवाक्यस्याक्षेपेणअविशारदमपत्रपणेन, कोपनमायासनेन, भीरुंवित्रासनेन, अनवहितंनियमनेनेति| एवमेतैरुपायैःपरमवरमभिभवेच्छीघ्रम्||२१||

In a learned friendly or ignorant friendly assembly, one should initiate hostile discussion with an inferior or equal opponent. Or in a friendly neutral assembly having persons with attentive listening, learning, understanding abilities, power of discussion one should initiate discussion after carefully examining the strength and weakness of the opponent. If opponent is stronger then one should not continue discussion giving it up without any apparent sign; but where the opponent is weak he should be subdued immediately. The means adopted to subdue the inferior opponent immediately are as follows: opponent having no scriptural knowledge should be defeated by quoting long aphorisms; opponent devoid of confirmed meaning of sentences should be defeated by using sentences with incomprehensible and long aphorisms; one devoid of imagination should be defeated with similar sentences having various meanings; one devoid of power of speaking should be defeated by contradicting the half-said sentence; one devoid of skill should be defeated by putting him in embarrassing situation; one with irritability should be defeated by teasing him; one with cowardice should be defeated by terrorizing; one devoid of carefulness should be defeated by imposing discipline. Thus by these means one should subdue the inferior opponent immediately. [21]

Vaidyas with common sense have the option of choosing when to keep mum vs engage in open battle. The basic decision is to gauge whether the assembly is friendly, neutral, prejudiced, learned or ignorant. Most people will have a combination of these qualities which would allow for either a sensible discussion or senseless banter with no conclusion. As vaidyas, we have a responsibility to learn the shastra in the best manner and also develop our oratory skills , sharpen them according to the need of the century. 

What was the method of a debate and what conclusion can one reach at the end of a debate ? Here, I'd like to take the example of Mandanamishra and Adi Shankara's classical, famous debate.The entire incident can be read here : Link for debate. The specific point of interest is "  If Shankara loses in the debate, He would become disciple of Mandana Misra and get married in life. If Manadana Misra loses, he should become a Sanyasi and disciple of Shankara. This was the bet of the debate. " . 

The purpose of the debate was to achieve a state of nil bias, and gain true knowledge about whichever subject was being debated upon. Upon achieving that state the opponent would correct his/her view upon the subject and not remain stuck adamantly to false claims. 

Finally coming back to the topic at hand here, only one who studied the texts of Ayurveda and has a fairly good understanding of the subject has the authority to comment about it's efficacy or standard. All other views are simply invalid in the eyes of society. This doesn't mean that we should sit quietly and not put forth correct knowledge, we however need not waste time and energy which could be productively directed towards the betterment of society , through the use of our shastra.