what does the word ‘ayurveda’ literelly mean ? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. what does the word ‘ayurveda’ literelly mean ?

Answer: science of life

Reply

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->what does the word ‘ayurveda’ literelly mean ?....

QA->To which veda does Ayurveda owe its origin?....

QA->What do the 4 rings in the Audi logo signify ? What does Audi mean and how this name came about ?....

QA->Father of Ayurveda....

QA->Ayurveda is a part of:....

MCQ->Where was the India’s first ‘All India Institute of Ayurveda (AIIA)’ inaugurated on ‘Ayurveda Day’, 17th October 2017?...

MCQ->Pick out thể one word for - a secret arrangement...

MCQ-> Study the following information carefully• and answer the questions given below : Seven friends, namely, M, N, 0, P, Q, R and S, have one essay competition each on seven different days of the same week from Monday to Sunday, but not necessarily in the same order. Each one of them studies in different classes, viz, First, Second, Third, Fourth. Fifth. Sixth and Seventh, but not necessarily in the same order. The one who studies in the First Standard has an essay competition on Saturday. S studies in the Second Standard and has an esay competion on Wednesday. N has the essay competition immediately before Q. N does not have the essay competition on any day after that of S. The one who studies in the Seventh Standard does not have an essay competition on any of the days on or before Friday. The one who studies in the Third Standard has the essay competition immediately after 0. Q does not study in the Fifth Standard. The one who studies in the Sixth standard does not have the essay competition immediately before or after S. R does not have the essay competition on Sunday and does not study in the Third Standard. P does not have the essay competition on any of the days before that of M.In which of the following standards does R study ?
...

MCQ-> If translated into English, most of the ways economists talk among themselves would sound plausible enough to poets, journalists, businesspeople, and other thoughtful though non-economical folk. Like serious talk anywhere — among boat desingers and baseball fans, say — the talk is hard to follow when one has not made a habit of listening to it for a while. The culture of the conversation makes the words arcane. But the people in the unfamiliar conversation are not Martians. Underneath it all (the economist’s favourite phrase) conversational habits are similar. Economics uses mathematical models and statistical tests and market arguments, all of which look alien to the literary eye. But looked at closely they are not so alien. They may be seen as figures of speech-metaphors, analogies, and appeals to authority.Figures of speech are not mere frills. They think for us. Someone who thinks of a market as an ‘invisible hand’ and the organization of work as a ‘production function’ and his coefficients as being ‘significant’, as an economist does, is giving the language a lot of responsibility. It seems a good idea to look hard at his language.If the economic conversation were found to depend a lot on its verbal forms, this would not mean that economics would be not a science, or just a matter of opinion, or some sort of confidence game. Good poets, though not scientists, are serious thinkers about symbols; good historians, though not scientists, are serious thinkers about data. Good scientists also use language. What is more (though it remains to be shown) they use the cunning of language, without particularly meaning to. The language used is a social object, and using language is a social act. It requires cunning (or, if you prefer, consideration), attention to the other minds present when one speaks.The paying of attention to one’s audience is called ‘rhetoric’, a word that I later exercise hard. One uses rhetoric, of course, to warn of a fire in a theatre or to arouse the xenophobia of the electorate. This sort of yelling is the vulgar meaning of the word, like the president’s ‘heated rhetoric’ in a press conference or the ‘mere rhetoric’ to which our enemies stoop. Since the Greek flame was lit, though, the word has been used also in a broader and more amiable sense, to mean the study of all the ways of accomplishing things with language: inciting a mob to lynch the accused, to be sure, but also persuading readers of a novel that its characters breathe, or bringing scholars to accept the better argument and reject the worse.The question is whether the scholar- who usually fancies himself an announcer of ‘results’ or a stater of ‘conclusions’ free of rhetoric — speaks rhetorically. Does he try to persuade? It would seem so. Language, I just said, is not a solitary accomplishment. The scholar doesn’t speak into the void, or to himself. He speaks to a community of voices. He desires to be heeded, praised, published, imitated, honoured, en-Nobeled. These are the desires. The devices of language are the means. Rhetoric is the proportioning of means to desires in speech.Rhetoric is an economics of language, the study of how scarce means are allocated to the insatiable desires of people to be heard. It seems on the face of it a reasonable hypothesis that economists are like other people in being talkers, who desire listeners whey they go to the library or the laboratory as much as when they go to the office or the polls. The purpose here is to see if this is true, and to see if it is useful: to study the rhetoric of economic scholarship.The subject is scholarship. It is not the economy, or the adequacy of economic theory as a description of the economy, or even mainly the economist’s role in the economy. The subject is the conversation economists have among themselves, for purposes of persuading each other that the interest elasticity of demand for investment is zero or that the money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve.Unfortunately, though, the conclusions are of more than academic interest. The conversations of classicists or of astronomers rarely affect the lives of other people. Those of economists do so on a large scale. A well known joke describes a May Day parade through Red Square with the usual mass of soldiers, guided missiles, rocket launchers. At last come rank upon rank of people in gray business suits. A bystander asks, “Who are those?” “Aha!” comes the reply, ”those are economists: you have no idea what damage they can do!” Their conversations do it.According to the passage, which of the following is the best set of reasons for which one needs to ‘look hard’ at an economist’s language?A. Economists accomplish a great deal through their language.B. Economics is an opinion-based subject.C. Economics has a great impact on other’s lives.D. Economics is damaging.
...

MCQ->Read the sentences and choose the option that best arranges them in a logical order. 1. Well, it may mean various things; but one very likely thinks first of all that a picture of the object comes before the child’s mind when it hears the word. 2. But what does this mean? 3. I will call it “ostensive teaching of words”. I say that it will form an important part of the training, because it is so with human beings; not because it could not be imagined otherwise. 4. But now, if this does happen - is it the purpose of the word? Yes, it may be the purpose. I can imagine such a use of words (of series of sounds). 5. This ostensive teaching of words can be said to establish an association between the word and the thing....