1. Swami Vinaya Chaitanya:
... using 'health care' as far as possible, I know it is already there, but in some places medical care is used now, would be better.
------------
2. C. K. Raju:
While
allowing this particular mechanism or arrangement to function, however,
there is a need to continue with more rounds of discussions. Somehow, I
feel that we should be reinventing the whole mechanism of creating this
knowledge by transferring minimum skill needed to reinvent them to
ordinary people. This is because the threat appears to be to the body of
knowledge which can be easily suppressed if it can be narrowed down to a
few points. In this scheme, ordinary people discover new methods, and
if it is corroborated to be a new form of knowledge, the same could be
protected in public domain as a public resource. Such forms of practices
with a bottom-up approach enriches the body of knowledge at a far more
greater pace than with any existing top-down approach. In the bottom-up
approach our aim would then be restricted to validating claims coming
from ordinary people and protecting the knowledge as a public resource.
-----------------
3. Govindraj:
how
it will cater the different health needs of the society in total is not
clear.anyway thanks for the venture to preserve and make an environment
to practise the traditional system .sure it will address at least a
certain area of health demands
----------------
4. Argo Spier:
It
is a thorough charter that expresses clearly its goals. Yet one may ask
whether it doesn't contain some hidden elements of a top-down approach
which may provoke resistance and debate on the grassroots level right
from the beginning of the launch of it. The question is whether
'movements' designed on draft tables really take off with the flight
that the very designers of it mean to distinguish from existing social
desires? The revival of the Siddha-marmavaidya practices, should it
receive its impetus from a perfect co-ordinate intellectual approach? Or
should it rises in slow-growth from the very subtle social fabric in
which it has met with its decline? One can ask, instead of having a full
architectural scheme as to how a resurrected house of
Siddha-marmavaidya practices should look like in the times of new, would
it not be wiser to consider, before preceding too fast, the very reason
for its decline in the first place. It may well be that the surface
super-structure in the past didn't provide for the fragile undergrowth,
the domain where real social movements ignite and that the new charter
may be of a similar making.
To
explain this in an easy anecdote or metaphor one can consider the story
of the she sheep that had the habit of grazing on the fringes of the
farmer's land. Although the grass was most salacious on the farmer's
land, she, while being on the fringe, continuously stuck her head
through the fence and tastes of the neighbor’s grass. This was a bad and
headstrong trait of hers and it angers both the farmer and his
neighbor. The real annoyance however came about when she had offspring,
two little lambs. They proved to have the same trait and streak,
plucking continuously at the neighbor’s grass and persist to graze on
the fringes of the pasture. The trait in them is same as the mother’s.
The
issue in the dream of the 'new' Siddha-marmavaidya practices forces the
question, on whose pasture will it be erected, the farmer's or the
neighbor’s? I would suggest that it is a 'where' question that will
determine the success of the charter and not a 'how' one. -
------------------
5. Argo Spier:
c.k.raju's
comment - although I understand what he means by his use of the term
'ordinary' people, the usage isn't correct. There ARE no 'ordinary'
people. Everyone is special. Smile! A bottom-up approach (including the
less educated in these practices) has its limits too. Much discussion on
grassroots level may have progress stranded on irrelevant educative
issues ... which however, do have a function to a certain degree in the
individual's insight. Personally I am against too much brainstorming a
la Rogers in forming processes. A complete bottom-up approach isn't the
solution. There has to be architectural design form the top-down. The
mean between top-down and bottom-up may then be the ideal but how to
achieve this? The comment/concern I made in the previous post really
referred to meta-historic strains in social movements. For the
resurrection of processes that ended in a past time, the ashes of those
very same processes must be used to from the glue or cement holding the
new structure together. If not, then the 'new movement' will just
'imitate' the old one and die too in a future time. Care should be taken
that it does not become an exercise of re-doing that what now, in the
present time, is considered to have been valuable ... then. The new
movement should look like this =
old lost practices (failure) + new architecture (top-down) + positive inclusion of grassroots remnants (bottom-up) = new house
Am
I advocating Hegel? Not really, I am just conservative. The new IS
always the ALL of the old reshaped. This discussion binds with the
question 'Can art be created from art' - the answer is no. Implying that
you can never have the same practices resurrected in the same way as
they were. I am saying that you can never have the resurrection that the
charter wishes to bring about. You will have different practices ...
art. Something that is new. The novelty of this 'new' will be the only
motors that will drive bring about the enthusiasm needed for change on
the grassroots level.
-----------------
6. C. K. Raju:
Its
not the top-down that is problematic - its extent of concentration at
the top that is worrying. In fact there is hardly any down element here.
The
top should be minimalistic, doing a kind of regulatory exercise as well
as promoting new avenues and entrenching existing ones. To avoid being
controlled, this is a better way out.
Lastly,
on patenting.... knowledge should be in commons - which will prevent
patenting. Patent thrives on individuals and makes a huge dent on
promoting social community practices.
-----------
7. P. Madhu:
.... I would like to respond to Spier's comments:
1.
We have an alienated system of medical practice which treats 'patients'
as helpless consumers subjected to the total control of a medical
system- which reminds me erstwhile catholic church of monopolized
'divine' knowledge or Brahmanic system of total privileges. The patients
are dis-empowered as experimented object & data- there is no
reflexivity; especially patient reflexivity or community of patients'
collective reflexivity etc. are neither encouraged or headed to. All
become corporate subjects (indeed objects). The knowledge generated on
mute patients become corporate intellectual property - with which
corporates settle scores with each other & deprive or promote
knowledges that serve their motive of profit making. Since ideas can be
owned as property, they deprive even the future generations- yet to be
born the freedom to think on the ideas owned by the corporates. There is
absolute unfreedom promoted by the current practices of medicine.
Instead, the medical knowledge should be freed- patients should be
empowered to reflexiely analyze, criticizes & own and even break the intellectual-property rights regime. There should be discussions,
researchers by the patients on the use & misuse of medical systems -
also they should be free to come with alternatives- drawing from
whatsoever the sources.
2.
It is not that siddha practices met with their natural demise. Dominant
systems of medical practices of many kinds including modern medicine
& local dominant medical practices though appropriated a lot from
local siddha practices maintained oppressive relation with them.
Ayurveda for instance has appropriated a plenty of siddha traditions;
not just it appropriated medicines & practices along with caste
discriminatory practices- ayurveda system was discriminating siddha
practices, deliberately. Siddha practices indeed was attacked by modern
as well as local traditional practices of the dominant classes. The
colonial British dealth very severely with Siddha joining hands with
upper caste/ brahminical medicinal practices because both of the feared
the siddha system for multiple reasons. Siddha system is not merely
medical alone; it has martial art, tantrik, spiritual & lifestyle
aspects too. It has elements/potentials of local resistance. It had
sophisticated offensive & defensive martial/tantrik aspects. Further
it was misunderstood. For many reasons Both local elite & colonial
elites tried their best to end siddha systems and practices. Siddha
systems remained in spite of all politics & offenses against it. All
sorts of biases/ fears/ greeds were in work in suppressing the siddha
system. Thinking about siddha is not just thinking about health- but it
is also deeply political, spiritual & thinking loud about a huge
unfreedom unleashed against a system of spiritual-medicinal practice
commonly prevalent among the masses. They way in which it was working
has lots of uniqueness- which deserves to be studied. Unfortunately,
this vibrant field is now seen as something met with its natural demise!
3.
Within siddha traditions there are many schools complementing and
contradicting with each other- which deserves to be documented &
patiently studied.
4.
Siddha traditions offer medicine-less cure to many disorders/diseases -
often, medicineless cures are available in siddha systems that
otherwise require chronic chemical or surgical treatments!
5.
Siddha knowledges are easily stolen & later monopolized by by other
systems of medicines/ medical corporates- the stealth has to be
checked. Already stolen things should be exposed. Mostly, the communtis
from which the knowledge is stolen is let to die starving while
corporates/ others flourish out of the stolen knowledges.
6. There are fake- siddha practitioners & quakes internal to siddha practices.. which also has to be addressed.
7.
Ironically, the current symbol of modern medical system - the moses'
staff with two snakes intertwined in three spots- is a siddha icon too -
a major icon that can be still seen in the ancient temples of siddha
lineage!
--------------------------
Comment on Argo Spier: I think we can provisionally accept his formula for the revival, say, before the revival, a number of questions are to be addressed: one key question he mentions and highlight is: why such practices like marmachikilsa have declined, at what pace, and why such traditions only need revival, why can't there be continuity, and continue to flourishing, and also whether they have really declined, quite independent of some sort of episteme.The research is a real poser for the movement.
9. C. K. Raju:
The rounds of discussions with subject experts is by itself a kind of
praxis which would rejuvenate the dying forms of art, imbibing the
sense of purpose which the discussions bring to forefront. Therefore
discussions are the ones to be focused on - wherein the masters would
do the execution part.
However, since validation of these systems of medicine comes from
people - which are becoming less and less homogenous with passage of
time (evolution) - along with the evolution of herbal components into
different forms - we need to have something done at the ground level.
 |
No comments:
Post a Comment