Background Contemporary Ayurvedic education has introduced several reforms aimed at fostering critical thinking, including exposure to research methodology, biostatistics, and other domains of modern scientific inquiry. However, critical engagement with the classical texts themselves often remains limited. These texts are frequently approached as unquestionable axioms, requiring only validation through the application of modern research methodologies, rather than being subjected to rigorous internal critique, contextual interpretation, and epistemological examination. Purpose To conceptualize a proto-mentorship model inspired by the Mukha-Mukha (face-to-face learning) Sampradaya that supports critical thinking development in Ayurveda education. Methods This study uses a narrative conceptual analysis approach. Classical Ayurvedic sources have been examined with relevant contemporary literature to conduct a thematic synthesis on critical thinking and mentorship based on a traditional pedagogical framework. Conceptual Synthesis: The Shadvidhavyakhya and the Purva Paksha Uttara Paksha format is developed as the basis for developing a four-phase proto-mentorship model to encourage students to raise queries in an in-person, intimate setting facilitating deeper and critical understanding of the classical texts. Conclusion Ayurvedic instructional pedagogy is carefully crafted to foster scientific reasoning and reflective learning in students. This approach bestows the dual role of a mentor-facilitator to the teacher. The Mukha-Mukha sampradaya-inspired proto-mentorship model intends to combine the elements of critical thinking and mentorship. Notwithstanding the hierarchical constraints expected in a teacher-student relationship, it is proposed to offer an opportunity for the learner community to question, reflect and learn outside the norms of a modern-day classroom, pending empirical validation of these claims
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nair et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: