Background: The philosophy of medicine has undergone a profound paradigm shift over millennia. In ancient India, health was conceptualized through a holistic framework where the mind (Manas), body (Sharira), and spirit (Atman) were viewed as an indivisible continuum. Conversely, Western modern medicine historically embraced Cartesian dualism rigidly separating physical pathology from psychological states before evolving toward a reductionist biomedical model. Objective: This paper aims to explore the historical trajectory of mind-body integration in medicine, tracing its origins in Vedic literature and classical Ayurveda, tracking its decline during the rise of materialist Western science, and analyzing its modern resurgence. Methodology: A comparative and historical literature review was conducted, analyzing foundational ancient texts (such as the Atharvaveda, Charaka Samhita, and Sushruta Samhita) alongside contemporary peer-reviewed research in psychosomatic medicine, psychoneuroimmunology (PNI), and neuroplasticity. Results/Findings: The investigation reveals that ancient concepts, such as Prakriti (mind-body typologies) and Pragya-paradha (intellectual errors causing disease), strongly anticipate modern discoveries in epigenetics and stress-induced systemic inflammation. Modern scientific validations of Pranayama and meditation demonstrate quantifiable alterations in the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal (HPA) axis and brain morphology, bridging the empirical gap between ancient intuition and modern laboratory science. Conclusion: The study concludes that contemporary healthcare is progressively moving away from absolute reductionism toward a neo-holistic paradigm. True advancement in global healthcare relies on an integrative model that synthesizes the acute diagnostic and technological brilliance of Western medicine with the preventative, sustainable, and mind-centric wisdom of the Vedic era.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rakesh Chandola (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: