We Are Here for the Medicine

A Statement from Yoga Veda | October 22, 2026

For more than a decade, Yoga Veda has existed for one purpose: to preserve, teach, and make the wisdom of Ayurveda accessible to those who sincerely wish to learn.

We began this work because we believed that the medicine mattered, that the knowledge deserved to be preserved, and that more people should have the opportunity to study it. We believed then, as we do now, that education is a form of service, that knowledge is something to be shared rather than guarded, and that the relationship between a school and its students is something more meaningful than a commercial transaction.

Yoga Veda is a mission-driven organization. Our commitment to accessibility has shaped the way we teach, the programs we have created, the resources we have developed, and the decisions we have made over the years. We have continually sought ways to make education more flexible, affordable, and available to people who might otherwise never have the opportunity to study Ayurveda.

Our students are not our bread and butter. They are the reason we exist.

They are the people for whom the classrooms were created, the lessons recorded, the teachers brought together, and the educational resources developed. Financial sustainability makes that work possible, but it is not the purpose of the work. Our purpose is education. Our purpose is service. Our purpose is Ayurveda.

And after years of teaching, adapting, making difficult decisions, and witnessing the changes taking place in the wider culture, we believe there is something important that needs to be said—not only on behalf of our institution, but in solidarity with the countless teachers, schools, founders, and mission-driven organizations navigating similar circumstances.

We do not have to participate in a culture of public humiliation simply because that culture has become normalized.

We do not have to turn every disagreement into a public spectacle, defend every unpopular decision before an online audience, or submit our institutional judgment to whoever can generate the greatest amount of outrage. We do not have to confuse intimidation with accountability, or cruelty with courage.

And neither does anyone else.

When Hostility Becomes a Culture

Something has changed in the way our society handles disagreement.

Public criticism has always existed, and it has often served an essential purpose. The ability to challenge institutions, question authority, expose wrongdoing, and demand accountability is fundamental to a healthy society. We support those rights without reservation.

But there is a difference between holding someone accountable and organizing around their humiliation.

We are increasingly witnessing a culture in which disagreements become personal battles, grievances become public campaigns, and complicated human circumstances are reduced to simple narratives of victims and villains. Social media allows accusations to travel faster than evidence, outrage to gather momentum before facts can be examined, and groups to form around shared anger rather than shared understanding.

This is often described as cancel culture. The term may be debated, but the behaviors we reject are not difficult to recognize: harassment, intimidation, public shaming, deliberate misrepresentation, personal attacks, and demands for punishment without fair consideration of the circumstances.

What concerns us most is the way these behaviors can be presented as moral virtue. Hostility becomes advocacy. Humiliation becomes accountability. Collective anger becomes evidence. And the greater the public reaction, the more certain participants may become that their interpretation must be correct.

Yet none of these things follows.

Cruelty does not become compassion because it is expressed collectively. Harassment does not become justice because its participants believe their cause is righteous. And hatred does not become truth simply because it is repeated.

We believe this deserves to be named clearly, particularly by those of us who teach traditions grounded in truthfulness, non-harming, compassion, and self-inquiry.

Because if those principles mean anything, they must mean something when we are angry.

The Responsibility to Discern

In the philosophical traditions associated with Ayurveda and yoga, Viveka—discernment—holds profound importance. It is the cultivated ability to distinguish what is true from what merely appears to be true, to recognize the limits of our knowledge, and to examine experience without immediately surrendering to assumption or emotion.

Alongside Satya, truthfulness, discernment asks us to approach the world with intellectual humility. It invites us to ask questions, examine evidence, recognize uncertainty, and remain willing to revise our understanding.

These are not abstract philosophical ideals. They are practical disciplines, especially relevant to the world we inhabit today.

Human beings naturally seek belonging. When something makes us angry, we often seek others who share that anger. Their agreement reassures us, their validation strengthens our certainty, and their shared interpretation begins to feel increasingly unquestionable. Over time, disagreement within the group can feel like disloyalty, while criticism of the group's conclusions can be interpreted as hostility.

Psychology describes related processes through concepts such as confirmation bias, social identity, and group polarization. These are ordinary features of human thinking, and none of us is immune to them.

But understanding them should make us more careful, not more certain.

Agreement is not evidence. Repetition is not verification. Popularity is not truth. And collective conviction is not necessarily collective wisdom.

A person may be sincerely hurt and still misunderstand part of what happened. An institution may have legitimate reasons for an unpopular decision and still owe an explanation or remedy through appropriate channels. A group may offer genuine support while also reinforcing an incomplete interpretation of events.

These possibilities can coexist.

Discernment requires us to make room for that complexity.

We encourage our students to practice this discipline in every area of life, including when evaluating claims about our own institution. Do not believe something simply because it has been repeated. Do not reject something simply because it is uncomfortable. Do not assume that a compelling personal account contains every relevant fact, or that an institution's silence establishes wrongdoing. Equally, do not assume that an institution's explanation automatically establishes innocence.

Ask what can be verified. Consider what remains uncertain. Listen with compassion. Think independently.

The purpose of education is not to tell people what to believe. It is to help them develop the knowledge and judgment to think for themselves.

The Values We Teach Must Be the Values We Practice

Ayurveda is not simply a body of knowledge concerning herbs, diet, physiology, or traditional approaches to health. It exists within a broader intellectual and philosophical heritage that asks us to consider how we live, how we relate to others, and how we conduct ourselves.

Among the principles we seek to embody are Satya, truthfulness; Ahimsa, non-harming; Seva, selfless service; and Viveka, discernment.

These are not merely beautiful Sanskrit words to memorize for an examination. They are principles to practice, especially when we are disappointed, angry, or confronted with something we believe is unfair.

Indeed, those may be the moments when the teachings matter most.

It is easy to speak about kindness when everyone agrees with us. It is easy to practice compassion when we feel respected. It is easy to value truthfulness when the truth supports our preferred interpretation of events.

The deeper practice begins when these things become difficult.

How do we behave when we do not get what we want? How do we speak about someone who has disappointed us? What happens to our commitment to non-harming when we are angry? Do we become more curious about the truth, or more determined to prove ourselves right? Do we seek resolution, or do we seek an audience?

These questions deserve serious reflection.

There is a contradiction worth examining when individuals who study traditions emphasizing compassion and non-harming engage in conduct intended to humiliate, intimidate, or injure others. There is a contradiction when truthfulness is invoked while uncertainty is ignored, when compassion is demanded for oneself but withheld from others, or when a community organized around healing becomes a place where hostility is celebrated.

We do not raise these contradictions because we believe ourselves morally superior. We raise them because principles must apply to everyone, including us.

We do not claim to embody these teachings perfectly. We have made mistakes, encountered difficult circumstances, and faced decisions for which there were no universally satisfying outcomes.

But we believe these principles must guide how we conduct ourselves, how we respond to criticism, and how we establish boundaries.

The values of Ayurveda cannot remain confined to the classroom. They must be reflected in how we treat one another.

When Values No Longer Align

Over the years, Yoga Veda has made difficult decisions to end educational relationships when individuals' conduct was no longer compatible with the values and standards of our community.

Those decisions were not always popular. We did not expect them to be.

What has been particularly revealing is what has sometimes followed.

We have witnessed public hostility, personal attacks, and efforts to turn private institutional disagreements into campaigns of condemnation. These are precisely the behaviors our community standards are intended to prevent.

When an educational relationship ends because of conduct incompatible with our values, and that same conduct subsequently appears in public, it reinforces the importance of having those standards in the first place.

We believe this is a distinction worth understanding.

A school committed to kindness must be willing to address cruelty. A school committed to truthfulness must be willing to examine misrepresentation. A school committed to respectful dialogue must be willing to establish boundaries when dialogue becomes harassment. And a school committed to non-harming cannot reasonably be expected to tolerate conduct that undermines the safety and dignity of its learning community.

This does not mean disagreement is misconduct. It does not mean criticism is harassment, or that anyone who leaves a school forfeits the right to discuss their experience. It does not mean institutional decisions are beyond review.

It means that standards concern conduct, not whether someone agrees with us.

Our boundaries were never intended to punish disagreement. They exist to protect the kind of educational community we are committed to maintaining.

Every school has a responsibility to provide the instruction and services it has promised, communicate academic requirements, treat people fairly, and address legitimate concerns. Students also have responsibilities to participate in their education, complete required work, respect reasonable policies, and contribute to an environment in which learning can take place.

Sometimes educational relationships end. Sometimes people leave voluntarily. Sometimes institutions must make difficult decisions concerning conduct or participation. Those decisions must remain consistent with applicable agreements, policies, and legal obligations, and subject to appropriate review.

But the possibility of public condemnation cannot become the determining factor in every institutional decision.

A school that abandons its standards whenever someone threatens public criticism is not necessarily becoming more compassionate. It may simply be becoming less capable of fulfilling its responsibilities to the wider community.

We believe students deserve a respectful, safe, intellectually serious educational environment. We believe teachers deserve the same.

Kindness includes boundaries. Compassion includes responsibility. And service does not require surrendering independent judgment.

An Invitation to Question

If you encounter a public accusation against Yoga Veda, we do not ask you to dismiss it.

We invite you to examine it.

Ask what happened, what can be verified, and what may be missing. Ask whether the account distinguishes firsthand experience from speculation. Ask whether the criticism concerns an institutional obligation, an academic standard, a disagreement over policy, or someone's personal dissatisfaction. Ask whether the people involved have sought resolution through appropriate channels, and whether the language being used reflects a desire for understanding or an intention to humiliate.

And ask something equally important.

What has been your own experience?

If you are a student, have you been able to learn? Have you encountered teachers who care about the medicine? Have you been treated with respect? Have you had opportunities to ask questions, raise concerns, and pursue your education?

Where your experience has been positive, you need not abandon it because someone else's experience was different. Where your experience has been difficult, you need not deny it because someone else's experience was positive.

Both deserve consideration. Neither automatically invalidates the other, and neither should replace independent judgment.

This is Viveka in practice.

Not unquestioning loyalty to an institution. Not unquestioning agreement with its critics. But the willingness to examine reality without surrendering our judgment to fear, anger, loyalty, or social pressure.

And we invite our critics to undertake the same inquiry.

Does the way we express our concerns reflect the values we claim to hold? Are we seeking understanding, resolution, and appropriate accountability, or have we become invested in the conflict itself? Are we willing to acknowledge evidence that complicates our position? Are we treating other human beings with the dignity we expect for ourselves?

These are not questions designed to silence anyone. They are questions every one of us should be willing to ask.

Including Yoga Veda.

Because truthfulness without self-examination becomes certainty. Compassion without boundaries becomes permissiveness. And discernment without humility becomes judgment.

We can do better than that.

Accountability Is Not Public Punishment

Accountability is necessary. Institutions make mistakes. People make mistakes. Policies sometimes fail, commitments are misunderstood, and obligations are not always fulfilled as intended.

When this happens, concerns deserve to be heard and examined. Appropriate remedies should be provided when warranted. That is accountability.

But accountability is not the same as requiring an institution to participate in a public argument about every private disagreement. It does not require publishing confidential records, inviting strangers to adjudicate contractual disputes through social media, or answering personal attacks with personal attacks.

It does not require an institution to abandon a fair decision merely because that decision is unpopular.

We respect the right of students and former students to share their experiences, seek advice, associate with one another, contact regulators, pursue legal remedies, and express criticism. Those rights are important, and nothing in this statement is intended to discourage their legitimate exercise.

We also believe institutions have the right—and sometimes the responsibility—to respond through appropriate channels, protect confidential information, maintain reasonable standards, and decline invitations to public conflict.

Refusing to participate in public humiliation is not refusing accountability.

It is choosing to address accountability responsibly.

We will not publicly disclose private student correspondence to win an argument. We will not organize our community against former students. We will not ask students to choose sides. We will not answer personal criticism with personal criticism.

We will continue to address legitimate concerns through appropriate channels.

And we will continue teaching.

Purpose Before Profit

There is something else we believe deserves to be said, particularly in a world where education is increasingly discussed in the language of sales, customers, products, and revenue.

A school is not simply a business selling information.

It is a place where knowledge is passed from one generation to another, where students encounter ideas that challenge them, where teachers dedicate their time to preserving and communicating what they know, and where discipline, curiosity, humility, and understanding are cultivated.

Our students are not our bread and butter. They are why we exist.

We need financial resources to support teachers, maintain educational technology, provide services, and honor institutional obligations. We do not deny that reality. A mission-driven organization must still operate responsibly and meet its commitments.

But revenue is not the reason we teach. Profitability is not the measure of our purpose. Popularity is not the measure of our integrity. And universal agreement is not the measure of educational success.

We have worked to make Ayurvedic education accessible because we believe the knowledge matters. We have explored new teaching methods, technologies, and more affordable educational models because we believe people should have meaningful opportunities to learn.

Some decisions have been difficult. Some changes have been unpopular. Some approaches have worked better than others.

We accept that.

We also accept the responsibility to communicate changes honestly, address commitments already made, and learn from our experience.

Educational models may change. Institutions may evolve. The way knowledge is delivered may look very different tomorrow than it did yesterday.

The obligation to act with integrity does not change.

The purpose is greater than any particular institution, platform, or business model.

The purpose is the medicine.

To Every School, Teacher, and Mission-Driven Organization

We know that Yoga Veda is not alone in confronting these questions.

Across education and other mission-driven fields, institutions face difficult decisions, competing expectations, public criticism, and the pressure to respond instantly to allegations circulating online. We cannot know every institution's circumstances, and we would never suggest that all criticism is unjustified.

But we believe there are many educators and community leaders who need to hear something that is rarely said publicly.

You are allowed to have principles.

You are allowed to establish reasonable standards and apply them fairly. You are allowed to make difficult decisions, disagree respectfully with criticism, and protect the privacy of your students, employees, and community.

You are allowed to acknowledge mistakes without accepting allegations that have not been established. You are allowed to participate in legitimate review processes without participating in public humiliation. You are allowed to protect your community from harassment and intimidation.

You are allowed to decline an invitation to argue on social media.

And you are allowed to continue your work.

None of these freedoms places you above accountability. They are entirely compatible with it.

Indeed, an institution that acts according to established principles rather than public pressure may be better equipped to make fair and consistent decisions.

But that requires courage.

The courage to listen without immediately surrendering judgment. The courage to acknowledge genuine mistakes. The courage to maintain appropriate boundaries, tolerate disagreement, and remain silent in a public argument when speaking would compromise privacy, fairness, or dignity.

Not every accusation deserves a public rebuttal. Not every disagreement deserves an audience. Not every provocation deserves a response.

Sometimes the most responsible response is to refuse the spectacle and continue the work.

We hope other schools will feel free to say this, too.

Not as a shield against legitimate complaints. Not as an excuse for institutional failure. But as a declaration that the dignity of education, the privacy of individuals, and the principles of fair process matter more than winning a public confrontation.

We can defend the right to criticize without celebrating cruelty.

We can hold institutions accountable without demanding their humiliation.

We can support people who feel wronged without assuming that every allegation is established fact.

We can disagree without dehumanizing one another.

And we can build communities around something more meaningful than shared resentment.

Our Permanent Position

Yoga Veda will not participate in cancel culture.

We will not engage in public shaming, organize campaigns against our critics, disclose confidential information to win arguments, or retaliate against individuals for exercising their rights. We will not confuse collective outrage with established truth, allow intimidation to determine our academic decisions, or conduct private disputes through social media.

Not today. Not tomorrow. Not ever.

We will continue to welcome respectful questions, constructive criticism, and good-faith disagreement. We will continue to address legitimate concerns through appropriate channels, acknowledge mistakes, honor our obligations, and maintain reasonable standards.

We will continue to encourage students to think independently, question assumptions, seek evidence, and practice discernment. We will continue to protect the dignity and confidentiality of our community.

And we will continue to serve Ayurveda.

We make this declaration not because we expect everyone to agree with it, but because these are the principles by which we choose to operate.

We do not need permission from an online audience to act with integrity. We do not need universal approval to serve a meaningful purpose. And we do not need to participate in public humiliation to demonstrate accountability.

We invite every educational institution to consider what it teaches, what it stands for, and whether its conduct reflects those principles when circumstances become difficult.

We invite every student to consider the same.

Because the measure of our values is not how beautifully we describe them when life is peaceful.

It is how faithfully we practice them when life is not.

For As Long As We Are Able

We will continue serving for as long as we are able.

Not because it is easy. Not because it is always profitable. Not because everyone agrees with us.

But because we believe in the medicine, in our teachers, and in the students who come to learn.

We cannot promise that circumstances will never change, that every program will continue indefinitely, or that our institution will always exist in its present form.

What we can promise is that, for as long as we are able to serve responsibly, we will continue to do so with purpose, integrity, and love for the tradition we are here to preserve.

Our students are not our bread and butter. They are the reason we exist.

Our teachers are not merely service providers. They are the people who carry knowledge forward.

Our institution is not an end in itself. It is a means of serving something greater.

We are here for the medicine.

And for as long as we are able, that is where we will remain.

Yoga Veda

In service to Ayurveda.