Abstract
Recent discussions on Ayurvedic research almost always end up with a note of discontent about its current methodology and demands for radically different versions. Reinforcement of "classical methods (of the glorious past)" is being envisaged as an alternative. If research is systematic enquiry to bring out truth, its core construct applies to formation of knowledge anywhere in the world, any time, may it be ancient or modern. As a part of debating on the necessity of an alternative, this article tries to check the comparability of 'classical method' (as available from Darsanas and Ayurveda) with 'contemporary method' through examining how much the two systems correspond in relation to the basic construct and terminology of research, under nine domains. The domains include most of the cardinal aspects of research process such as philosophical constructs, research paradigm, basic approaches on reasoning, definition and classification of research, research process based on nature of relationship, planning of interventional research, technical terminology, research reporting and research fallacies. More than sixty technical terms related to classical method are selected and explored for their conformity with contemporary language of research. Meaningful agreement was obtained which suggested that the two systems are comparable. Leaving a space for more systematic, methodical and extensive critical comparison, this review concluded on a suggestion that, one who proposes radical changes in research methodology, may consider the comparability of the two systems, and rethink on an extremist demand for a total reconstruction. Instead, the modus operandi of revising Ayurvedic research may emphasise on prioritizing its preferences and practices.