THE LOST ART OF SCHOLARLY DEBATE

The Lost Art of Scholarly Debate: Why Ayurveda Has Abandoned Its Own Intellectual Tradition

Dr Aakash Kembhavi

In universities across the world, students of literature gather in seminar rooms to debate whether Hamlet’s madness was genuine or feigned. Philosophy departments host conferences where scholars argue over competing interpretations of Kant’s categorical imperative. Psychology programs dedicate entire courses to contrasting Freudian and Jungian frameworks, examining where they converge and diverge, and what those differences mean for clinical practice.

These disciplines thrive on intellectual plurality—the recognition that great thinkers can disagree, that texts can bear multiple interpretations, and that wrestling with these disagreements is not a weakness but the very essence of scholarly rigor.

Yet in Ayurveda education—a tradition born from the Atharva Veda and nurtured through centuries of vigorous philosophical debate across Darshanas—this culture of critical inquiry has virtually disappeared.

We have replaced debate with dogma, interpretation with recitation, and scholarly discourse with rote memorization. The very tradition that emerged from the dialectical methods of Nyaya, the analytical rigor of Vaisheshika, and the epistemological investigations of Mimamsa now teaches its texts as if they were instruction manuals rather than philosophical treatises worthy of deep, contentious engagement.

The question is not merely academic. It cuts to the heart of what Ayurveda is and what it can become: Can a medical system maintain intellectual vitality when it has abandoned the very methods that gave it birth?

The Foundations We Have Forgotten

Ayurveda did not emerge in a vacuum. It developed within—and in dialogue with—some of the most sophisticated philosophical systems humanity has produced.

The Nyaya Darshana provided the logical framework for valid reasoning (pramana), establishing how we can know what we know. The Vaisheshika offered ontological categories for understanding material reality—categories that directly inform Ayurvedic concepts of panchamahabhuta and dravya-guna. The Samkhya philosophy underpinned much of Ayurveda’s metaphysics, while Yoga provided both methodology and therapeutic application.

Buddhist and Jain medical traditions didn’t just coexist with Ayurveda—they challenged and refined it. The debates weren’t polite academic exercises; they were vigorous contests where practitioners defended their epistemologies, their diagnostic methods, their therapeutic approaches.

Charaka Samhita itself references the Kashi Sammelan—great scholarly assemblies where ideas were tested through debate. The text acknowledges that knowledge advances through yukti (reasoning), pramana (valid means of knowing), and anumana (inference)—not through blind acceptance of authority.

Even the structure of classical Ayurvedic texts reveals this dialectical heritage. They present purva-paksha (opposing views) before establishing siddhanta (established conclusions). They acknowledge sandeha (doubt) and viparyaya (contrary knowledge) as necessary steps toward nischaya (certainty).

This was a tradition that argued its way to truth.

The West Remembers What We Have Forgotten

Consider how Western academia treats its foundational thinkers:

Shakespeare has thousands of professors globally who have devoted careers to interpreting his work. They disagree—sometimes fundamentally—about character motivation, thematic emphasis, historical context, and contemporary relevance. These disagreements haven’t diminished Shakespeare; they’ve enriched our understanding of the inexhaustible complexity of his work.

Freud and Jung are studied not as gospel but as thinkers whose disagreements (on libido, the unconscious, the role of spirituality) illuminate different dimensions of human psychology. Students learn both, critique both, and develop informed positions on which frameworks serve which purposes.

Impressionist painters—Monet, Renoir, Degas—are analyzed for their technical differences, their divergent approaches to light and form. Art historians spend lifetimes examining how Monet’s lily ponds differ from Renoir’s, and what those differences reveal about perception, technique, and artistic vision.

Philosophers from Plato to Derrida are subjected to endless interpretation, re-interpretation, and counter-interpretation. Entire academic careers are built on arguing for new readings of familiar texts.

This is not pedantry. It’s the recognition that great works are inexhaustible—they reward repeated examination, support multiple interpretations, and remain relevant precisely because they can be perpetually re-engaged.

Now contrast this with Ayurveda education.

The Poverty of Contemporary Ayurvedic Scholarship

Ask a typical Ayurveda professor: “Do Charaka, Sushruta, and Vagbhata agree on the etiology of prameha? If not, what are the differences, and what do those differences suggest about their diagnostic approaches or therapeutic priorities?”

The question will likely be met with discomfort, deflection, or—most commonly—an answer that homogenizes the three, smoothing over differences to present a unified “Ayurvedic view.”

This is intellectually dishonest and pedagogically disastrous.

Charaka, Sushruta, and Vagbhata did not always agree. They worked in different time periods, different geographical regions, with different patient populations and different philosophical influences. They emphasized different aspects of treatment—Charaka leaning toward internal medicine and constitutional approaches, Sushruta pioneering surgical intervention, Vagbhata attempting integration and systematization.

These are not trivial differences. They reflect fundamentally different clinical philosophies that have profound implications for practice.

Yet we teach them as if they spoke with one voice. We memorize their classifications without examining why those classifications differ. We recite their formulations without asking what therapeutic principles guided their choices or why later commentators modified them.

We have students who can quote shlokas but cannot explain why Charaka lists 20 types of krimi while Sushruta lists 7. We produce graduates who memorize dosha imbalances but cannot articulate why Chakrapani interprets ama differently than Dalhana, or whether those interpretations matter clinically.

This is not education. This is indoctrination.

Where Are Our Shakespeare Scholars?

In a healthy intellectual tradition, we would have:

Charaka specialists who have spent decades studying not just the Samhita but the commentaries—Chakrapani, Jejjata, Shivadasa Sena—analyzing how interpretations evolved and why.

Sushruta scholars who can discuss the surgical innovations in context of their time, compare Sushruta’s anatomy with Charaka’s, and explain what Dalhana’s commentary adds or alters.

Vagbhata experts who can articulate how Ashtanga Hridaya synthesizes earlier traditions, where it innovates, and where it simplifies perhaps at the cost of nuance.

Comparative scholars who examine the same condition across all three texts, mapping agreements and disagreements, and proposing clinically relevant implications of those differences.

Dravya-guna specialists who don’t just memorize properties but can debate why Bhavaprakasha differs from Dhanvantari Nighantu on certain plants, what that suggests about regional variations or evolving understanding.

Rasa Shastra historians who can trace the development of mercurial preparations, their philosophical underpinnings in alchemical traditions, and the debates about their safety and efficacy.

We would have monographs on single chapters of classical texts. We would have conferences where scholars present competing interpretations. We would have journals dedicated to philosophical and textual analysis, not just clinical trials.

Instead, we have professors who teach multiple subjects because there aren’t enough faculty, who learned Ayurveda primarily through rote memorization themselves, and who have neither the training nor the time to engage in deep textual scholarship.

We have turned our scholars into administrative workers and our texts into exam syllabi.

The Clinical Consequences of Intellectual Impoverishment

This is not merely an academic lament about lost erudition. The absence of scholarly debate has direct clinical consequences.

1. Inability to Navigate Textual Contradictions

Patients present with complex, multifactorial conditions. Classical texts offer various approaches—sometimes complementary, sometimes contradictory. A practitioner trained in critical analysis can evaluate these options, considering context, individual presentation, and available evidence.

A practitioner trained only in memorization faces contradiction as crisis. Unable to reconcile differences, they either:

  • Follow one text dogmatically (often whichever they memorized most recently)
  • Abandon classical texts altogether in favor of modern medicine
  • Apply treatments mechanistically without understanding underlying principles

None of these produce excellent clinical reasoning.

2. Stagnation of Therapeutic Innovation

Innovation in any medical tradition comes from deeply understanding existing knowledge, identifying its limitations, and building on its foundations.

When we don’t understand why Charaka preferred certain formulations or what principles guided Sushruta’s surgical approaches, we cannot intelligently adapt them. We can only repeat them—which works until we encounter a situation the texts didn’t explicitly address.

The tradition becomes fossil rather than living knowledge.

3. Vulnerability to Pseudoscience

When authentic scholarship is absent, the vacuum fills with pseudoscholarly nonsense. We see:

  • Texts misquoted and taken out of context to justify questionable practices
  • Selective citation that ignores contradictory evidence
  • Claims that “Ayurveda says” something when the reality is far more nuanced
  • Conflation of folk practices with classical traditions

Without genuine scholars who can authoritatively engage with texts, anyone can claim anything. The tradition becomes whatever the loudest voice declares it to be.

4. Disconnect Between Philosophy and Practice

Ayurveda’s clinical practices are inseparable from its philosophical foundations. Concepts like prakriti, agni, ama, and ojas only make sense within larger metaphysical frameworks.

When we teach the practices without the philosophy—or teach the philosophy as mere background rather than active framework—we produce practitioners who apply Ayurvedic techniques without thinking Ayurvedically.

They might prescribe triphala for constipation (mechanistic symptom management) rather than analyzing whether the constipation reflects vata provocation requiring oleation, pitta involvement requiring cooling, or ama accumulation requiring deepana-pachana—each suggesting different treatment approaches.

The Pedagogical Failure: How We Teach What We Don’t Understand

The absence of scholarly depth in Ayurveda isn’t primarily a faculty failing—it’s a systemic failure that begins in how we educate educators.

Consider the typical pathway to becoming an Ayurveda professor:

  • Undergraduate education focused almost entirely on passing examinations (memorize, write, forget)
  • Postgraduate specialization that adds more content but rarely teaches critical textual analysis, hermeneutics, or scholarly methodology
  • PhD programs that often prioritize pharmacological lab work over philosophical or textual scholarship
  • Faculty positions where teaching loads are heavy, administrative burdens are heavier, and research expectations focus on publishing laboratory studies in impact-factor journals

Nowhere in this pathway is there systematic training in:

  • Classical languages at a level sufficient for nuanced textual interpretation
  • Hermeneutical methods for engaging with ancient texts
  • Comparative analysis across different Ayurvedic authorities
  • The philosophical darshanas that undergird Ayurvedic concepts
  • The history and evolution of Ayurvedic thought
  • Scholarly debate and dialectical reasoning

We don’t have scholars teaching Ayurveda. We have clinicians teaching textbooks about Ayurveda. The distinction is critical.

A Shakespeare professor has read not just Shakespeare but centuries of Shakespearean criticism. They know the debates, the schools of interpretation, the evolution of understanding. They can place a single sonnet in literary, historical, and philosophical context.

Can an Ayurveda professor do the equivalent with a single shloka from Charaka?

Most cannot—through no fault of their own. They were never trained to do so.

What Genuine Scholarly Debate Would Look Like

Imagine an Ayurveda seminar course on “Comparative Concepts of Agni in Classical Texts”:

Students would read primary source excerpts (in Sanskrit with translation) from:

  • Charaka’s discussion of agni in Chikitsa Sthana
  • Sushruta’s treatment of agni in surgical context
  • Vagbhata’s synthesis in Ashtanga Hridaya
  • Commentaries by Chakrapani, Dalhana, and Arunadatta

They would analyze:

  • Definitional differences: Does each text define agni identically?
  • Classification variations: Why does one text emphasize jatharagni while another focuses on dhatvagni?
  • Clinical applications: How do these conceptual differences translate to treatment approaches?
  • Philosophical foundations: How do different darshana influences shape each text’s understanding?

Students would write papers arguing for interpretations, would debate in class, would learn that uncertainty and disagreement are not weaknesses but engines of deeper understanding.

Compare this to current pedagogy: “Learn the 13 types of agni. Memorize their functions. Move to next topic.”

One approach creates scholars and critical thinkers. The other creates information repositories.

The Path Forward: Rebuilding Scholarly Culture

Reviving genuine intellectual discourse in Ayurveda requires multi-level intervention:

1. Restructuring Academic Training

Mandatory coursework in:

  • Advanced Sanskrit with focus on technical medical terminology
  • Hermeneutics and textual interpretation methods
  • Comparative textual analysis
  • History and philosophy of Ayurvedic thought
  • The darshanas and their relationship to Ayurvedic concepts

PhD programs that value philosophical and textual scholarship equally with laboratory research. A dissertation comparing diagnostic methods across classical texts should be as respectable as one on phytochemistry.

2. Creating Specialist Positions

Universities should hire textual scholars whose primary work is deep engagement with classical texts—not as clinicians or pharmacologists, but as interpreters, translators, and analysts.

Imagine positions like:

  • Chair of Charaka Studies
  • Professor of Ayurvedic Philosophy
  • Scholar-in-Residence for Dravya-guna Historical Analysis

These scholars would teach advanced seminars, mentor research students, and produce scholarly works that deepen the field’s understanding of its own foundations.

3. Establishing Forums for Scholarly Debate

  • Annual conferences focused specifically on textual and philosophical issues (separate from clinical conferences)
  • Peer-reviewed journals dedicated to Ayurvedic textual scholarship, hermeneutics, and history
  • Online platforms where scholars globally can engage in sustained debates about interpretation
  • Public lectures where competing interpretations are presented and debated

4. Integrating Debate into Standard Curriculum

From undergraduate level forward:

  • Seminar courses built around discussion and debate, not lectures
  • Assignments requiring students to identify and analyze textual disagreements
  • Assessment methods that reward critical thinking over memorization
  • Encouragement of respectful disagreement as evidence of engaged learning

5. Reviving the Commentarial Tradition

Classical Ayurveda thrived through commentary. Later scholars engaged deeply with earlier texts, clarifying, critiquing, expanding. This tradition has largely ceased.

We need contemporary scholars writing:

  • New commentaries on classical texts in light of modern knowledge
  • Comparative analyses across texts and traditions
  • Historical contextualizations that illuminate why texts say what they say
  • Critical editions that resolve textual variations and interpretive ambiguities

6. Creating Institutional Incentives

Universities must reward this kind of scholarship:

  • Promotion criteria that value textual analysis and philosophical work
  • Research grants for non-laboratory scholarly projects
  • Teaching loads that allow time for deep study
  • Recognition that building scholarly culture is as important as clinical expansion

The Intellectual Courage We Need

Reviving scholarly debate in Ayurveda requires something more challenging than institutional reform: intellectual courage.

It requires courage to say: “I don’t know what this shloka means, and different scholars interpret it differently.”

It requires courage to acknowledge: “Charaka and Sushruta appear to disagree here, and I’m not certain which approach is more clinically relevant.”

It requires courage to embrace: “There may not be one ‘Ayurvedic’ answer—there may be multiple valid perspectives within the tradition.”

This feels uncomfortable in a medical education system that prizes certainty. Students want clear answers. Licensing boards want standardized knowledge. Patients want confident recommendations.

But false certainty is more dangerous than acknowledged complexity. A practitioner who understands the nuances, debates, and limitations of their knowledge is better equipped than one who mistakes memorized dogma for truth.

Every mature intellectual tradition has learned this. Literary scholars don’t claim there’s one correct interpretation of Macbeth. Philosophers don’t pretend Kant and Mill can be seamlessly reconciled. Psychologists don’t teach that Freud alone has the answer.

Why should Ayurveda pretend to a unanimity that doesn’t exist?

Conclusion: Reclaiming Our Inheritance

Ayurveda emerged from one of history’s most sophisticated philosophical cultures—a culture that valued debate (vada), reasoning (yukti), evidence (pramana), and intellectual rigor above mere tradition.

The Buddha himself encouraged his followers: “Do not accept something simply because it has been said by your teacher or is found in your scriptures. Examine and analyze it yourself.”

This spirit animated Ayurveda’s development. The great acharyas didn’t simply accept what came before—they engaged, questioned, refined, and advanced the tradition through critical thought.

We have betrayed that inheritance.

We have reduced a vibrant intellectual tradition to exam syllabi. We have replaced scholarly discourse with rote learning. We have produced generations of practitioners who can recite texts but cannot interpret them, who know what the classics say but not why, who lack the tools to engage critically with their own tradition.

The revival of Ayurveda—not as nostalgic preservation but as living, evolving knowledge—depends on reviving the scholarly culture that birthed it.

We need professors who are genuine scholars, students who learn to think critically, institutions that value intellectual depth, and a profession that understands that wrestling with difficult questions is not a sign of weakness but of vitality.

The West didn’t make Shakespeare timeless by treating his work as sacred and unquestionable. They made him timeless by endlessly questioning, interpreting, debating, and re-engaging with his work.

Ayurveda deserves the same respect—the respect of genuine scholarly inquiry.

Until we reclaim that tradition, we are not educators. We are custodians of a museum, preserving artifacts we no longer truly understand, teaching texts we can recite but not interpret, practicing a medicine whose philosophical foundations we’ve forgotten.

The acharyas would not recognize what we’ve made of their tradition.

It’s time we remembered what they knew: Truth emerges not from unanimity but from rigorous, honest, sustained debate.

That is the tradition we must revive. Not someday. Now.

Share your thoughts in the comments below.