1. The way I use ′sickness′, ′illness′ and ′disease′ comes from Allan Young. The anthropologies of illness and ickness. Annu Rev Anthropol 1982;11: 257-85. While writing this article I was strongly inspired by two publications of Charles Leslie. Charles Leslie. Social research and health care planning in South Asia, Part I, Ancient Science of Life 1988;8:1-12; Social research and health care planning in South Asia, Part II, Ancient Science of Life 1988;8:75-91. I dedicate this article to the memory of Charles Leslie who in the 1960s lay the fundaments for the study of Asian medicine as a social-cultural phenomenon.
2. Ayurveda in its professionalized form is the largest and the most prestigious among the many forms of traditional Indian medicine. There are approximately 700,000 practitioners with a government sanctioned degree and a folk sector that consists of an estimated 1,400,000 midwifes, general herbalists, and specialists in the treatment of ailments such as snake bites, orthopaedic problems, diseases of the eye and skin, respiratory problems, diabetes, jaundice, anaemia, reproductive ailments, as well as common diseases such as cough, fever and indigestion.
3. For a discussion of biomedicine′s fatal embrace of traditional medicine, see for example Joe Alter. Heaps of Health, Metaphysical Fitness: Ayurveda and the Ontology of Good Health in Medical Anthropology. Curr Anthropol 1999;40:s43-58; Linda H. Connor. 2001. Healing Powers in Contemporary Asia. In Linda H. Connor & Geoffrey Samuel, editors. Healing Powers and Modernity: Traditional Medicine, Shamanism, and Science in Asian Societies. Westport: Bergin and Garvey; 2001. p. 3-21.
4. There are many examples that demonstrate the disregard for the distinction between the two knowledge paradigms such as the unquestioning association of the seven agnis (the seven ′fires′ that convert food into the seven Ayurvedic ′tissues′) with enzymes, the linking of the three doshas (humors and illness-producing substances) with neurohormones, and the translation of the concept of ojas (vital essence) into the idiom of modern-day immunology. Correspondences between concepts originating from different paradigms are postulated rather than argued. This shows a lack of and inter-scientific and therefore intercultural sensitivity. See for example Srinivasa Murti, G. 1948. The science and art of Indian medicine. Adyar, Madras: The Theosophical Publishing House; Charles Leslie.1992. "Interpretations of Illness: Syncretism in Modern Ayurveda", In: Charles Leslie and Allan Young, editors. Paths to Asian Medical Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1992. p. 177-208; Darshan Shankar & Ram Manohar. "Ayurvedic Medicine Today: Ayurveda at the Crossroads", in van Alphen, Aris, editors. Oriental Medicine. An illustrated guide to the Asian arts of healing, 99-108. London: Serindia Publications; 1995. p. 99-108; Maarten Bode. Integrated Asian Medicine and the Loss of Individuality, J Eur Ayur Soc 1998;5:180-195; Vincanne Adams. The sacred and the scientific: ambiguous practices of science in Tibetan medicine. Cult Anthropol 2001;16:542-75; G. Jan Meulenbeld. "The Woes of Ojas in the Modern World", In: Dagmar Wujastyk & Frederick M. Smith, editors. Modern and Global Ayurveda: Pluralism and Paradigm.s New York: Sunny Press; 2008. p. 157-76; Maarten Bode. Ayurvedic Pharmaceutical Products: Government Policy, Marketing Rhetorics, and Rational Use. In: Karen Eggleston, editor. Pharmaceuticals in Asia-Pacific: Manufacturers, Prescibing Cultures, and Policy. Palo Alto: APARC, Stanford University; 2009. p. 251-65; and many others.