Login   |  Users Online: 113 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Search Article 
  
Advanced search 
   Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Subscribe | Contacts


 
  Table of Contents  
CLINICAL RESEARCH
Year : 2011  |  Volume : 32  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 546-549  

Application of Satkaryavada based on theory of Karya-Karana Vada


1 Lecturer, Department of Basic Principles, Uttaranchal Ayurvedic College, Rajpur, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
2 Professor and Head, Department of Basic Principles, Institute for Post Graduate Teaching and Research in Ayurveda, Gujarat Ayurved University, Jamnagar, Gujarat, India

Date of Web Publication14-May-2012

Correspondence Address:
Akansha Anupam
Lecturer, Department of Basic Principles, Uttaranchal Ayurvedic College, 17, Old Mussorie Road, Dehradun, Uttaranchal
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0974-8520.96131

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Cikitsa in Ayurveda is based on Karya-Karana Siddhanta. Satkaryavada is an independent view of Samkhyas regarding Karya-Karana. According to this principle, the Karya is present in Karana in subtle form before its manifestation. All the Karyas are possible only by the Sat Karana (existent cause). On this ground a hypothesis has been formulated and applied. The hypothesis was that since Karana is present in a drug it will perform the Karma. The clinical study was planned to study the Anulomana Karma of Haritaki in patients of Anaha. The drug was used in 38 patients. These were divided into two groups. In group "A" 26 patients were provided with haritaki tablet, while in group "B" 12 patients were provided with placebo tablets. In group "A" 7.69% of patients got complete relief, followed by 38.46% patients who got marked relief; 42.31% of patients got moderate relief, while 11.54% patients got mild relief. Group A showed highly significant results in comparison to group B.

Keywords: Anaha, Anulomana, Haritaki, Satkaryavada


How to cite this article:
Anupam A, Dwivedi R R. Application of Satkaryavada based on theory of Karya-Karana Vada. AYU 2011;32:546-9

How to cite this URL:
Anupam A, Dwivedi R R. Application of Satkaryavada based on theory of Karya-Karana Vada. AYU [serial online] 2011 [cited 2020 Oct 25];32:546-9. Available from: https://www.ayujournal.org/text.asp?2011/32/4/546/96131


   Introduction Top


Darsana Sastra and Ayurveda are contemporary to each other.The concepts Karana (cause) described in both are similar to some extent, but due to differences in Prayojana (aim), these are advocated in different way. Darsana thought begin from the origin of this universe, and of Ayurveda also. Universe is nothing but modification of Guna (attributes). The modification is of Karana (cause) into Karya (effect). Anything in and off this world is produced by some cause. Every cause has an effect, and this effect may be a cause for another effect. Right from Sristi to evolvement of human being to Rogotpatti at each and every event, Karya Karana Siddhanta (cause and effect theory) can be found and explained.

Regarding the Karya-Karana Vada, Samkhya philosophy presents its view in form of Satkaryavada. Satkaryavada is based on five syllogisms. [1] This theory believes that only Sat Karana (existent cause) can produce Karya. In other words it could be said that Karya remains present in Karana in unmanifested form. [2]

The main aim of Ayurveda is Dhatu Samya, and this is called as Karya also. [3] To produce this Karya, six Karanas are mentioned in Caraka Samhita. [4] These six Karanas are Samanya, Visesa, Dravya, Guna, Karma, and Samavaya. These Karana are divided into two on the basis of existence [5] -Sattasiddha (actual existence) and Bhattisiddha (virtual existence). Sattasiddha are which have a really existing influence. Bhatisiddha are the objects that are more intellectual than real.

Out of the six Karanas, Dravya, Guna, and Karma are Sattasiddha. They are Sat Karana, while the other three Samanya, Visesa, Samavaya are Bhatisiddha, which means these Karanas are not existing with their individual existence but their existence is seen to be with Sat Karana.

Although, Samanya and Visesa are the basics of Cikitsa in Ayurveda, they cannot act without the base Dravya, Guna, and Karma which are Sat (existent) Karanas. Hence, one can conclude that the Cikitsa (treatment) in Ayurveda is done only by Sat Karana.

Out of the three Sat Karana, Cikitsa is mainly based on Guna. Although the Dravya is said to be principal, it cannot exist without Guna and Karma. As the Dravya is such a cause in which other two causes Guna and Karma always remain with Nitya Sambandha[6] (permanent relationship), that is, never separated from the Dravya. This Guna stays in unmanifested State in Dravya, and becomes manifested when combines with body. Satkaryavada also states the same "Karya remains present in Karana before manifestation."

The drug Haritaki has the potency to perform the action of Anulomana [7] as per classics, this was practically evaluated. Based on the above fundamental that always a Sat Karana is required to produce a Karya, a hypothesis has been primed with the following objective:

Aims and objectives

  1. To evaluate the Anulomana effect of Haritaki in the patients of Anaha.
  2. To assess the comparative effect of Haritaki and placebo.



   Materials and Methods Top


Criteria for selection

For the study of Anaha, patients were selected from O.P.D and I.P.D of basic principles department, I.P.G.T and R.A, Jamnagar.

  • Patients having age between 30 and 70 years.
  • Patients having the symptoms of Anaha as per classics. [8]
  • Patients having complaints of unsatisfactory motion.
  • Patients having complaints of bowel not getting completely evacuated.
  • Patients having complaints of not passing flatus (Apana vayu).
Exclusion criteria

  • Patients having age less than 30 years and more than 70 years.
  • Patients with other systemic disease like Krmi, Grahani, and Atisara.
  • Patients in which Haritaki is contraindicated. [9]
Routine hematological, stool, and urine investigations were carried out to rule out underlying pathology, for exclusion.

Registered patients were grouped into two

  • Group A: Haritaki Tablet was administered at a dose of 3 g/b.i.d (500 mg tablet ×6) for 10 days with Usna jala in Apana Kala, before meals.
  • Group B: Placebo (tablets of wheat flour) 3 g/b.i.d (500 mg tablet ×6) for 10 days with Usna jala in Apana Kala, before meals.
Study protocol and statistical tests

During the study randomized sampling method was followed for selection of patients.

Paired "t" test was applied for the assessment of symptoms, before and after treatment, while unpaired "t" test was applied for the comparison of results between both groups.

Criteria for assessment

Improvement in associated symptoms was assessed by scoring and gradation pattern.


   Results Top


A total of 42 patients were registered in this study, out of which 30 patients were in group "A" and 12 in group "B." All the patients in group B completed the course, while 26 patients completed the course in group A, and the rest four discontinued.

In chief complaints:

Group A: Maximum 84.21% relief was observed in complaint of irregular Mala Pravriti (defecation), followed by 78.95% relief found in the complaint of solid consistency; 68.42% relief was observed in complaint of difficulty in Pravahana and duration of defecation; 57.14% relief was seen in the complaint of Sula (pain) during the time of defecation; and 58.33% and 54.17% relief was seen in complaints of unsatisfactory motion and less stool quantity as per diet, respectively.

Group B: Placebo drug showed that maximum 75% relief was observed in complaints of unsatisfactory motion, followed by 61.53% relief in complaint of difficulty in Pravahana, 50% relief in complaint of odor, 40% relief in the complaints of irregular Mala Pravriti and solid consistency; 33.33% and 14.28% relief in complaints of duration of defecation and less stool quantity as per diet, respectively [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Relief in chief complaints in both the groups

Click here to view


In the complaints of unsatisfactory motion, group B shows 75% relief, while group A shows 54.17% relief. The treatment group A is only showing better results than group B, but average is always affected by higher values. In Group A, 19 patients had the complaint, out of which 12 patients got relief, while in group B 6 patients had the complaint, out of which 4 patients got relief.

Associated complaints: Amaja Anaha

Group A: Maximum 61.54% relief was observed in complaint of Amasaya Gaurava (heaviness in abdomen) followed by 58.52% relief found in the complaints of Amasaya Sula (pain in abdomen); 42.86% and 42% relief was observed in complaints of Trisnadhikya (excessive thirst) and Sirovidaha (heaviness in head), respectively 35.29%% relief was seen in the complaint of Udgara Vighatana; and 28.57% relief was seen in complaints of Pratisyaya.

Group B: Placebo drug showed maximum 60% relief in complaint of Udgara Vighatana followed by 57.14% relief found in the complaint of Amasaya Sula; 33.33% relief was seen in complaint of Sirovidaha, 28.57% relief was seen in the complaints of Amasaya gaurava, 11.11% and 0% relief was observed in complaint of Trisnadhikya and Pratisyaya, respectively [Figure 2].
Figure 2: Relief in associated complaints in both the groups

Click here to view


Purisaja Anaha

Group A: Maximum 90.91% relief was observed in complaints of Mala Vibandha, followed by 25% relief found in the complaints of Katisula and Pristhasula each; 20% and 14.29% relief was observed in the complaints of Katistambha and Prusthastambha.

Group B: Placebo drug showed maximum 62.50% relief was observed in complaint of Mala Vibandha, followed by 50% relief found in the complaint of Katisula [Figure 3].
Figure 3: Relief in associated complaints in both the groups

Click here to view


Total effect of therapy

Group A: 11.54% patients had mild improvement, while 42.31% patients had moderate improvement. In 7.69% patients, complete remission was seen, and 38.46% patients had marked improvement.

Group B: In 50% patient, no changes were observed, while 16.67% of patients had mild improvement; 8.33% patient had moderate improvement, while 25% patient had marked improvement [Figure 4].
Figure 4: Over all effect of the treatment

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


The principles of Darsana are accepted in Ayurveda, but altered according to its aim. One such principle given by the Samkhya is Satkaryavada which is in respect to Karya Karana Vada. This theory is accepted as it is in Ayurveda and applied in various aspects dealt in the texts.

Satkaryavada is applied massively in the field of Cikitsa. For the purpose of Cikitsa always a drug is required, which is the Karana. This Karana adopted should always be a Sat Karana, i.e., existent Karana. Satkaryavada is based on five syllogisms. Each of them fulfills the present hypothesis which states "since, the Karana is present in Haritaki so it will perform the action of Anulomana, the placebo does not have the Karana present so it will not perform the function."

Satkaryavada in Anulomana effect of Haritaki in patients of Anaha

  • Karana-Haritaki
  • Karya-Anulomana
  • Karya Yoni-Anaha
Asat Akaranat [1] -This factor denotes the presence of Karana. Sat Karana should be present to produce Sat Karya. Here, Karana Haritaki is present to produce Anulomana.

Upadana Grahanat[1] -This Hetu depicts selection of causative material for producing effect. Whenever Anulomana Karma is desired, Haritaki is opted.

Sarvasambhavabhavat[1] -This Hetu states that everything cannot be produced from everything and everywhere. Haritaki performs certain functions not all.

Saktasya Sakya Karanat[1] -This Hetu states that potent cause can only produce effect. Haritaki has the potency to perform the action of Anulomana.

Karana Bhavaccha[1] -This Hetu states that Karya have the same properties as of Karana.

In the clinical study the results were in accordance with the hypothesis. Group A, i.e. Haritaki tablet showed highly significant (P<.001) results in all symptoms, while group B showed insignificant results.

Group A, Haritaki tablet shows highly significant results (P<.001) in comparison to group B (placebo) in relief of chief complaints.

Group A shows highly significant (P<.001) results in Amaja Anaha, in comparison to Group B.

Probable mode of action of Haritaki

In Amaja Anaha: Haritaki is Prthvi+Akasa+Vayu Mahabhuta dominant. Akasa Mahabhuta creates pores in Ama, and due to Usna Virya Pacana of Ama occurs. Usna Jala used as Anupana, also has Dipana, Pacana properties which is supporting in the action. After the Ama Pacana, the Avarana of Vayu is removed, and it moves in its normal direction.

Haritaki is having Sara Guna [10] which leads to Mala Prerana and the Parthiva dominancy propels to Adho marga.

In Purisaja Anaha: Haritaki and Usna Jala (hot water) together decreases the Ruksata (roughness) and increase the bulk in intestine, and due to increased bulk, peristaltic movements are increased leading to normal defecation.

The Sara Guna of Haritaki leads to Prerana of Mala, and Usna Jala increases the Mrduta of Srotasa due to oozing. All these factors together lead to normal defecation.


   Conclusions Top


  1. Ayurveda has accepted the concepts of Darsana, but altered it in accordance with aim.
  2. Cikitsa in Ayurveda is based on Karya-Karana.
  3. The drug Haritaki is capable of performing the action of Anulomana.

   Acknowledgment Top


Authors are thankful to Director Prof. M.S. Baghel, and Dean, Prof. H. M. Chandola for providing all facilities in the work.

 
   References Top

1.Vidyasudhakara In: H Sharma, ed, Gauda pada, 9, Poona: Oriental book agency;1933 p. 10.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Gajanana Sastri musalgaonkar, translator, Samkhya tattva Kaumudi-"tatva prakashika", 9, 5 th ed, Varanasi: Chowkhmbha Sanskrit samsthana; 1992. p. 94.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Chakrapanidutta. Charaka Samhita, Sutra Sthana 1/53, revised ed, Varanasi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthan; 2008. p. 13  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Chakrapanidutta Charaka Samhita, Sutra Sthana, 1/29, revised ed, Varanasi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthan; 2008. p. 7.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Kanada, Vaishesika Darshana- e-book, Maharshi University of Management, vedic literature collection Available from http//www.mum.edu/vedicreserve/darshanas/vaisheshika Last accessed on 03 March 2011.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Chakrapanidutta. Charaka Samhita, Sutra Sthana, 1/59, revised ed, Varanasi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthan; 2008. p. 14.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Adhamalla. Sarangdhar Samhita, Purva Khanda, 4/3, 4 th ed,  Varanasi: Chaukhamba Orientalia; 2000. p. 35.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Jadavji T. Sushruta samhita, Uttara Sthana, 56/20-21, revised ed, Varanasi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthan; 2007. p. 783.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Jadavji T. Charaka samhita, Cikitsa Sthana, 1/1/35, 5 nd ed, Varanasi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthan; 2008. p. 378.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Pandit Hari Sadasiva Sastri Paradakara Bhisagacarya; editor, Astanga Hrdaya, sutra sthana; Annaswaroop vigyana Adhyaya; 6/143-144; Reprint; Varanasi: Chaukhamba Orientalia; 2000. p. 117.  Back to cited text no. 10
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusions
   Acknowledgment
    References
    Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2762    
    Printed96    
    Emailed4    
    PDF Downloaded542    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal