Talk:Dosha

India Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reality?

"All Ayurvedic physicians believe that these ancient ideas, based in the knowledge discovered by the Rishis and Munis, exist in harmony with physical reality."

I'm not sure what this sentence means. That Ayurvedic physicians don't actually believe the concept of dosha is part of physical reality? That it's some kind of metaphor? JoeConrad (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know asking questions is not allowed in Ayurved! --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The general disclaimer that the article may represent fringe theories or not give appropriate weight to the mainstream view is misleading. This is specifically so because Ayurvedic principles have strong correlates with modern scientific medicine and it is only the amateur view on Ayurveda that sees it with skepticism. Fundamentally, modern medicine has Indian roots as the earliest medical treatise, which features extensive information on anatomy and surgery, the Sushruta Samhita is indeed of Ayurvedic origin. Ayurveda combines dosha analysis, herbal side-effect-free medicines, and lifestyle adjustments to correct the imbalance that causes disease. That is a far wiser approach that simply treating the symptoms, the treatment modality of the allopathic model of medicine. It would help in order to represent an alternative paradigm of medicine to consult appropriately qualified Ayurvedic physicians who are not only well versed but possessed licensed credentials from reputed universities in India to practice. Ayurveda is gaining prominence around the world, and it is debilitated by only the fact that the British colonisers destroyed hectares of Ayurvedic herbal plants in their appalling drive to destroy ancient India. However, modern companies like Himalaya Herbals and many others are reviving this ancient tradition to the benefit of a world who definitely needs an alternative take on medicine." - Nithin P. Gukhool — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npgukhool (talk • contribs) 12:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe interesting to you would be some recent threads that report about what reliable sources say on the topic, like 1, 2 or 3. The only way Dosha could be made to correlate to mainstream medicine and science would be in a framework of heavy syncretism. Also relevant would be the difference between "unanswered questions" (science will always seek to know more and will adapt its theories) and "unquestioned answers" (the world and science must be made to fit in a particular tradition or ideological system)... —Paleo Neonate – 14:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources

Encyclopedia of medical anthropology — Health and illness in the world's cultures. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenium Publishers. 2004. pp. 344, 779. ISBN 0-306-47754-8.

—Paleo Neonate – 04:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the above is a good source about the usage of the system in various circumstances but a bad source for an evaluation of its effectiveness or the reliability of its tenets. —Paleo Neonate – 01:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

Although I edited the article for tone, it should ideally be rewritten. The first step would be selecting sources, so that it can be written in accordance with Wikipedia standards (the sources should be uncontroversial and the text should cite them inline). The lead section would be written last and be a short summary of the article's body. —Paleo Neonate – 00:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doshas

"Doshas are purely imaginary their existence is not supported by any evidence. The Ayurvedic notion of doshas describes how bad habits, wrong diet, overwork, etc. may cause relative deficiencies or excesses which cause them to become imbalanced in relation to the natural constitution (prakriti) resulting in a current condition (vikriti) which may potentially lead to disease. For example, an excess of vata is blamed for mental, nervous, and digestive disorders, including low energy and weakening of all body tissues. Similarly, excess pitta is blamed for blood toxicity, inflammation, and infection. Excess of kapha is blamed for increase in mucus, weight, oedema, and lung disease, etc. The key to managing all doshas is taking care of vata, that is taught to regulate the other two.[unreliable source?]"

I'm not an expert on ayurveda or anything, but my understanding is that doshas specifically are a category/sliding scale, not any sort of substance one would actually expect to find in nature. It seems bizarre to say "Doshas are purely imaginary their existence is not supported" in the same way it would be bizarre to say "Meyers-Briggs types are purely imaginary, their existence is not supported". Arguing whether the types exist in themselves seems more like a philosophical argument than whether the medicine that follows from trying to account for/regulate those types is evidence-based. It seems to me that categories are all imaginary in the sense that we as humans construct them, but also real in the sense that we really did construct them.

There's also a sliding-scale aspect of doshas, which might be similar to a psychological diagnosis score or pain level. Has anyone found the pain scale/depression test score to exist? Do they exist? No, they are things we've constructed to do evidence-based or non-evidence-based medicine.

I think it would be good to reword this in a way that treats the doshas more like categories or diagnostic scales. The skepticism of this section could be rewritten to be about the ayurvedic methods that are supposed to regulate the doshas, rather than the doshas themselves. "The ayurvedic notion of doshas describes how bad habits..." this sentence seems like it uses the wrong word, I believe the correct sentence would be "The ayurvedic notion of ayurveda describes how bad habits..."

Again not an expert, but I think this was written by someone who didn't lean completely into what all these terms are and what they're supposed to represent. Here are some sources that use these terms in the way I described (not vouching for ayurveda one way or another here, just trying to get terms and description right): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4719489/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8221020/ 198.244.105.241 (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported and opinionated statement

"doshas are purely imaginary;" this is clearly an opinionated statement and is not factually supported in any way. While there is no scientific evidence for the existence of Doshas, it is fallacious to say that that means they are purely imaginary. I've tried to edit this and people keep changing it back to this unjustified and unverified opinion statement. 152.37.240.12 (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]