The Student of Āyurveda (3b): Methodology of Teaching and Study

The three methods of learning are adhyayana or the study of the text by the student, adhyāpana or instruction by the teacher and tadvidyasambhāṣā or discussion with the experts in the field or colloquies.^[1]

Adhyayana implies recitation of the sūtras of the selected text with due concentration while attempting to grasp their meaning. The process is repeated till the student is able to remove his deficiencies and is in a position reveal those of others. This procedure is to be continued through the day into the night without a break.^[2] Cakrapāṇidatta, however, adds that even though the disciple is required to pursue his study without a break, he should put his studies on hold at such times when the study of the Vedas is also disallowed.^[3] There are instructions on the mode of recitation during study: one should not recite words incomplete in sound, not in high voice nor in a coarse voice, not without proper accents nor without proper morphological symmetry, neither too fast, not too slow, not with excessive delay, neither in a very high pitch nor in very low pitch.^[4]

According to Caraka, the treatise (tantra) should be divided into sections (sthāna), chapters (adhyāya) and topics (praśna), and each of these have to be studied according to sentence, idea of the sentence and its particular significance. The teacher has the responsibility of interpreting the text with regard to the principles of elaboration, contraction, thesis, reasoning, exemplification, correlation and conclusion in a manner that would be intelligible to all the three categories of disciples-superior, mediocre and inferior. The difficult concepts are to be explained repeatedly till the meaning is clear to the student.^[5]

Suśruta also insists on a methodical study of the text with emphasis on understanding its meaning. The preceptor should take a verse at a time and explain it in full, half or quarter according to the capability of the student (yathāśakti). Then each verse, in full, its half or quarter, should be again sequentially clarified. As each verse is read, word by word, the teacher should summarise and explain the correlation between their different portions.^[6] This indicates three levels of receptivity of the pupil; thus, word, quarter verse or the whole verse would be taught to students of inferior, medium and superior degrees of abilities.^[7] The teaching style would depend on the pupil’s ability.

The preceptor is advised to teach in an even pitched voice neither too fast nor too slowly and without undue movement of eyes, eyebrows, lips or hands. The language should be refined. Emphasis is laid on correct and distinct pronunciation of the words: there should be nasal twang or ambiguity or undue emphasis on any letter.^[8] The teacher, thus, discourses on the one hundred and twenty chapters of the treatise by explaining each verse and its parts, word by word, to the attentive student.^[9] Studying a subject without comprehending it fully is burdensome for the student just like the load of sandalwood placed on the back of an ass. The ignorant animal is unable to appreciate the fragrance of the wood and feels only the weight.^[10] Similar is the state of learning of a person who may have studied many sciences but is ignorant of their inner meaning. This is an unmistakable indictment of the system of learning by rote.

Though it is not clearly stated, it is evident that the teacher reads from the manuscript and is closely followed by the student. There is no reference to the student taking notes or writing any important points. The preceptor had to necessarily ascertain the ability of the student which would decide the manner of his teaching, whether he would take an entire verse or its fraction at a time. One of the students in the class was selected as the representative as we find that Suśruta is chosen to submit questions on the behalf of his group.^[11] The reason why Suśruta is selected as their representative is not clear and in the text, we notice that the preceptor addresses the representative alone and not the other students. Similar is the system followed in the class of Punarvasu Ātreya which consisted of six pupils but the preceptor addressed Agniveśa alone.^[12]

One noticeable aspect of medical instruction is the ample scope of student-teacher interaction and the intellectual exchange of ideas. We have instances of Agniveśa placing several queries to his teacher^[13] and the entire second chapter of the Śārīra-sthāna is in the dialogical format wherein Ātreya answers as many as thirty-six queries of Agniveśa. Further, in the third chapter of same section, when Bharadvāja counters Ātreya’s hypothesis on the formation of the embryo with his arguments, he is refuted by Ātreya by his reasoning, thus exposing students to the nature of the dialectic.

Towards the end of the preceptor’s speech at the initiation ceremony, Dhanvantari quotes authoritative verses informing the student about the times and places of anadhyāya, that is, the days and occasions when and places where study should be suspended or not taken up.^[14] The days and hours unsuitable for study are the eighth, the fourteenth and the fifteenth days of both the dark (kṛṣṇa pakṣa) and bright fortnights (śukla pakṣa), as well as the dawn and the twilight hours. Study should also be avoided at time of untimely thunder and lightning, when the pupil himself, his relatives, the state or the king are in trouble, during war, important festivals and natural calamities, and at other times when brāhmaṇas do not study.

Many of these rules applicable to students of the Vedas were adopted in medical training. Manu prescribes that the Vedas should not be recited on new and full-moon days, or on the eighth and fourteenth days of each half-month. The new-moon day destroys the teacher, the fourteenth day the pupil, the eighth and the full-moon days destroy all remembrance of the Veda.^[15] The morning and evening twilight hours, according to the Manusmṛti, are meant for the recitation of the Savitṛ hymn. He, who fails to do so, shall be excluded like a śūdra from all the duties and rights of an Aryan.^[16] This text mentions certain other occasions when recitation should also be discontinued: during dust-storm in the day or when fierce winds are audible at night, when thunder, lightning and rain are observed together, or when large fiery meteors fall on all sides, when the sky is preternaturally red (for instance, before a huge storm), or when unseasonal clouds appear, if one hears the preternatural sound from the sky, or the rumbling of an earthquake, or when the lights of heaven are surrounded by a halo, etc.^[17]

It seems that these phenomena were understood as harbingers of something ominous, and as the Vedas were treated as sacred texts, they could not be read or recited at inauspicious times. It is, perhaps, to underline the importance of Āyurvedic learning that the medical student is advised to avoid his study at all other times when brāhmaṇas refrain from it.^[18] At troubled times when the mind is not at peace, it is difficult for the student to concentrate. This is probably why times of distress, whether for the student, his relatives, the state or the king are occasions for studies to be kept in suspension. Through their inclusion, the preceptor impresses upon the young mind that he should also be conscious of his duties to the family, to the king and the state in time of need. According to the brahmanical texts, birth or death in one’s own family or in that of the ruling family makes one impure. Hence, Vedic studies are kept in suspension at these times as also during a war.^[19] Suśruta says study should also be avoided at a cemetery, a slaughter house, in a moving vehicle and when one is unclean.^[20] The mention of the cemetery and the slaughter-house is extremely noteworthy which has been discussed below.

The enumeration of times and places unsuitable for learning in the Saṃhitās, according to Preisandanz, more or less conforms to the traditional occasions when study is not allowed, such as the one in the Manusmṛti and does not exhibit any characteristic which may be considered specific to the medical tradition.^[21] There is one other noteworthy point to which she has drawn attention: this enumeration does not occur in the Caraka Saṃhitā in the context of the preceptor’s speech at the initiation ceremony but in the Sūtra-sthāna in the chapter entitled “The Description of Sense Organs” in the context of the principles of good conduct (sadvṛtta), which would ensure freedom from disease (ārogya) and victory over the senses (indriyavijaya).^[22] Here, the unsuitable times for study are during unseasonal lightning, when the quarters appear as if being burnt (the skies appear to be blazing), or when there is a conflagration or great multitude of fire (agnisamplave), earthquake, important festivals, fall of meteors, solar and lunar eclipses, on a new moon day, at dawn and dusk.^[23] Blazing skies, conflagrations, earthquakes and falling meteors are not specifically mentioned by Suśruta but would be included in natural calamities.

The question Preisandanz raises here is-why are the occasions when study has to be interrupted and the desired and undesired modes of recitation not mentioned or alluded to in the eighth chapter of the Vimāna-sthāna? She argues that the answer may lie in the assumption that that the author of the section on the initiation of the medical student in the Caraka Saṃhitā considered it self-evident that the general rules for study are formulated by largely depending on the rules for Vedic study and also apply to medical study. On the other hand, Suśruta thought it necessary to address the issue in the context of medical study and instruction in order to demonstrate or emphasise the orthodox nature of the medical tradition and its transmission.^[24]

We may also mention that the curriculum of the medical study was not confined to medicine alone; the student is expected to listen to lectures delivered by specialists of other related bodies of knowledge (śāstras) for it is not possible to comprehend all the branches of knowledge in one treatise.^[25] Thus, a physician is expected to be bahuśruta or well informed by studying philosophy, literature, basic sciences, grammar, logic, etc., and specialised branches within medicine itself. A good grasp of grammar, rhetoric and logic was essential for ensuring defeat of one’s opponent in debates, as described by Caraka which we have discussed below. In this respect, we may assert that the educators took a remarkably holistic perspective of the medical curriculum for knowledge of a single science could be constrictive in deducing the correct inference.

The third method of learning is participation in debates or colloquies to which prominence is attached in the Caraka Saṃhitā. Participation in colloquies with another physician (tadvidyasambhāṣā) is said to enhance knowledge and bring joy. It increases expertise, promotes eloquence and brings fame. It also helps to eliminate any doubts about something that had been read or heard earlier. In the absence of any doubt, repeated hearing affirms something that has been read or heard previously. One becomes aware of many new things not known before. When the preceptor is pleased with his devoted disciple, he discloses secret principles to him. These are enthusiastically revealed by the student during the course of the discourse with fellow debaters with the objective of scoring victory over them.^[26] As they such a rewarding experience, professional discussions are highly recommended by Caraka. It has been pointed out that the merits of discussion are demonstrated through the many discussions held with other experts on the subject under Ātreya’s guidance. Besides promoting understanding at the training level, discussion stood the physician in good stead in later years when he had to face competition from rivals, win academic and professional renown and perhaps obtain royal favour and patronage.^[27]

Two types of colloquies are described:

1. sandhyāya/anuloma-sambhāṣā or friendly and
2. vigṛhya/ pratiloma-sambhāṣā or hostile.

For engaging in friendly discussions, participants should ideally be endowed with scientific and true knowledge and have the ability of arguing a point and countering it without anger and envy. They should also be genial by nature, pleasant in conversation, and be able to accept other’s views and capable of convincing others.^[28] Friendly discussions are held with the preceptor and brahmacārins or classmates.^[29] We can get an idea of the procedure of these sessions. Participants are encouraged to speak and ask questions to others with confidence as well as give detailed answers to questions of others without fear. He should not be apprehensive of being defeated. Should one excel in the discussion, he should not be boastful about defeating his opponents nor rejoice in his achievement. Neither should he dogmatically neither hold on to his view nor describe something he does not know. Rather it is advised that he should try and convince the other side politely and be careful in his behaviour with his opponents who should be treated with civility.^[30]

The aim of friendly discussions is clearly not about scoring points or achieving victory over the other participants. The friendly nature of the deliberations is brought forth by the emphasis on civility and graciousness towards one another. Another aspect which draws our attention is the clear rejection of dogmatism by our classical authors for it is said that one should not hold on to his convictions because of past loyalty. It, therefore, implies that the stress is on hearing the other views patiently and to accept them if they are rational and convincing. One may have to revise what one may have read or been taught.

The second type of discussion is of a completely different nature which lays emphasis is on scoring points and achieving victory over one’s opponents. Therefore, it is advised that before participating in the discussion, one should assess the abilities of the opponent and the disposition of the members of the assembly. The strengths of a good debater are textual knowledge, practical experience, good memory, the presence of mind and eloquence, while irritability, lack of knowledge, cowardice, weak retentive power and carelessness are his drawbacks. A self-assessment as well as an appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of his opponent is essential for one desirous of in engaging in a hostile discussion.^[31] Based on this comparative assessment, the opponent may be described as superior (pravara), inferior (pratyavara) or equal (sama). However, these are by no means the only categories of opponents. Other factors like family status, conduct, religion, etc., should not be taken into account in this connection.^[32] Very importantly, all statements made by the participants had to be based on reason. Such debates helped to sharpen the mental faculty and achieve the objects of medicine.^[33]

Debates were, thus, regarded as being useful in enhancing one’s intellect and enriching the grasp of the subject but these may not have been the only objectives. It has been commented, “In this pedagogical context, the topic of debate or colloquy (sambhāṣā) is introduced inasmuch as debate is considered a didactic means to be employed beneficially in medical training and as a useful tool in the continuing refinement and improvement of medical knowledge…debate was also practiced, even in a ruthless manner, to resolve conflicts arising from the competitions between rival traditions or schools of physicians, more precisely to neutralize adherents of other traditions as well as outright quacks, by means of successfully conducted debates on medical topics and thus to counteract professional competition.”^[34]

Moreover, debates and discussions helped the student to develop the concept of inference (anumāna) and the faculty of reasoning (yukti) which undoubtedly helped in developing analytical skills but more importantly for the clarification of concepts and growth of the knowledge as Caraka advises that a physician should always purify his intellect for the sake of giving proper treatment.^[35]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Caraka Saṃhitā Vimānasthāna 8.6.

[2]:

Caraka Saṃhitā Vimānasthāna 8.7.

[3]:

Commentary to Caraka Saṃhitā Vimānasthāna 8.7.

[4]:

Caraka Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 8.24.

[5]:

Caraka Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 30.16-17.

[6]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 3.54.

[7]:

Ḍalhaṇa’s commentary on Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 3.54.

[8]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 3.54.

[9]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 4.5.

[10]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 4.3-4.

[11]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 1.12.

[12]:

Caraka Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 1.30-31.

[13]:

Caraka Saṃhitā Vimānasthāna 7.8; Śārīrasthāna 1.3-15; Śārīrasthāna 2.3, 5.

[14]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 2.9-10.

[15]:

Manusmṛti IV.113-114.

[16]:

Manusmṛti II.101,103.

[17]:

Manusmṛti IV.102-105, 115.

[18]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 2.10.

[19]:

Manusmṛti IV.110, 121.

[20]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 2.10.

[21]:

K. Preisandanz, “The Initiation of the Medical Student in Early Classical Āyurveda: Caraka’s treatment in context”, in B. Kellner et al. (Eds.), Pramāṇakīrtiḥ. Papers dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the occasion of his 70th birthday, Part 2, Wien: Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 70.2, 2007, p. 645.—https://www.istb.univie.ac.at/caraka/file_download/36 (accessed on 2.4.2014)

[22]:

K. Preisandanz, “The Initiation of the Medical Student”, p.645.

[23]:

Caraka Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 8.24.

[24]:

K. Preisandanz, “The initiation of the Medical Student”, p.648

[25]:

Suśruta Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 4.6.

[26]:

Caraka Saṃhitā Vimānasthāna 8.15.

[27]:

M.S.Valiathan, The Legacy of Caraka, p.lxxxiii.

[28]:

Caraka Saṃhitā Vimānasthāna 8.17.

[29]:

Caraka Saṃhitā Vimānasthāna 8.18.

[30]:

Caraka Saṃhitā Vimānasthāna 8.17.

[31]:

Caraka Saṃhitā Vimānasthāna 8.18.

[32]:

Caraka Saṃhitā Vimānasthāna 8.19.

[33]:

Caraka Saṃhitā Vimānasthāna VIII.67.

[34]:

K.Preisendanz, “Logic, Debate and Epistemology in Ancient Indian Medical Science-An Investigation into the History and Historiography of Indian Philosophy”, Indian Journal of History of Science, Vol.44 (2), 2009, pp.261-302.

[35]:

Caraka Saṃhitā Sūtrasthāna 9.20.