With development of instruments, now a days a scientist can see beyond the eyesight and can give actual picture of organs, tissues and cells. In previous days mode of communication was not like today, that's why, complete knowledge may not be transferred to us. Some of the facts have been destroyed by different rulers and we do not have complete texts.

Very true but without having sophisticated instruments still they have mentioned skin layers, beej, beejbhaga, beejbhagavayava??...but gross parts have not been mentioned which is to be thought??

Now a days every science is working on evidence based, but I think most of the knowledge of Ayurveda is observational based, that's why may be we are not able incorporate the various things mentioned in ayurveda, specially in Rachna shareer. This is a important question to be raised among ayurveda fraternity.

Some differences are due to available technology and the advancement of knowledge. But the significant differences have to do with the fact that biomedicine is based on a reductionist scientific system whose metric is quantitative and mechanistic, whereas Ayurveda, Chinese medicine, Unani medicine, and Tibetan medicine are based on an ecologically minded scientific system whose metric is qualitative. Biomedicine and traditional medicine are looking at the same biological system from vastly different perspectives. For example, one omission in traditional Asian medicine is a lack of recognition of the endocrine system. However, traditional Asian medical systems can be very effective in treating what biomedicine regards as endocrine system diseases.

To assume the correctness and dominance of one approach over the other is an error that is made in both Asia and in the West. Traditional Asian medicine is evidence-based in that it has centuries of accumulated clinical experience, while biomedicine is in part evidence-based because of the investment of billions of dollars to do a certain kind of laboratory or clinical-based research.

The differences between the systems is best expressed by the Indian philosopher, environmentalist, author and activist Vandana Shiva:

“Science is the expression of human creativity, both individual & collective. Since creativity has diverse expressions, I see science as a pluralistic enterprise that…is not restricted to Modern Western science, but includes knowledge systems of diverse cultures in different periods of history…Indigenous knowledge systems are by & large ecological, while the dominant model of scientific knowledge, characterized by reductionism & fragmentation, is not equipped to take the complexity of interrelationships in nature fully into account. This inadequacy becomes most significant in the domain of life sciences…The recognition of…diverse creativities [in the life sciences] is essential for the conservation of biodiversity as well as…intellectual diversity”

Truly said holistic approach may need overall application of knowledge than the reductionist approach ...may be a cause for only selective and specific description of anatomical terms

Aayurved ka sahi tharaa se ishtemaal kiya jhaaye to hi ye bahut upyogi hai lekin agar galat tharike se use Kiya jhaaye to nhuksaan dhaayak ho sakta hai kyuki iishka use wahi kar sakta hai jo in bhuraayio ko shanyam rakhe kaam kraodh loabh thabi ishka use karna faayede mand hota hai aur wahi saat me yog aur bhi faayede mand hota hai aur ek baat aur sabhi sahi tharika aur time bahut important hai yoga me aur pahle kya ghyaan lene kya tharike alag ishliye wo log bahut important te aaj ke logo ki thulna me

In ayurveda they mentioned skin layers, beej, beejbhaga, beejbhagavayava with the help of Divyadrishti,Dhyan, aatmgyaan. Today we may not believe in , but this is fact.