DISEASE - CURE- EPILOGUE (Cure Your Self - 10)

The Real and Perfect Cure 

All that precedes this chapter - which rounds up our discussions from various angles - goes to prove:

We are nothing short of most ignoble cowards, cowards to the core, if on disease inflicting punishment on us, we still plead 'Not guilty'. The general tenor of the talk of almost all patients runs on these lines: "Personally I am completely innocent. I have indeed done nothing at all. The bacteria are responsible for the disease I am suffering from - and it is the doctor's responsibility to cure me."

But a moment's reflection on the part of any patient who offers this fine piece of logic and incidentally tries to exonerate himself from a personal guilt, will immediately convince him of the amazing potential capacity he possesses for self-deception. It is one thing if a weak-willed individual were to say:

"Yes, it is true I understand and appreciate the teachings of Recipropathy. I accept them, persuaded as I am of their intrinsic value and truth. But imbibing the principles to the extent of being able to put them into immediate practice is far too difficult for me. It is a goal I wish to reach. But, then, it can be done, so far as I am concerned, a bit slowly. Please give me time. Nevertheless, I shall march towards the goal slowly, and I shall start right away - today." 

This is quite understandable and one can even sympathize with a poor patient of this type. But it is an altogether different thing when one does not accept the truth of the contentions of laws of Nature.

In one sense science and philosophy meet here. 

The primary medical inquiry, by any test, is - or at any rate should be - to know the root cause of pain or of disease.

Huxley has pin-pointed these ideas by the most adequate choice from the teachings of Buddhist philosophy. "The elements which make up man produce a capacity for pain. The cause of pain is the craving for individual life. Deliverance from craving does away with pain. The way of deliverance is the Eightfold Path."

If one suffers from a disease, and still wants to explain away things, to find out unwarrantable excuses and insist that the cause of the disease lies outside him, then, let us face facts and put the thing bluntly: it is his funeral in every sense.

Einstein says: "The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained to liberation from the self." Einstein has also conceded that "the grand aim of science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deductions from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms."

Yet Recipropathy hardly chooses to take advantage of the liberty Einstein has permitted it to take. For in considering the means and ends of effecting a cure, Recipropathy proves its hypothesis that there specifically exists a causal link between emotion and disease. And if there are some difficulties in actually observing the intermediate phenomena between emotion and disease that constitutes a limitation from which science itself suffers.

As it stands today, medical science labors under the handicap of a number of gaps. As has been convincingly brought out, Homeopathy and Allopathy are based on principles directly contradictory to each other. One is founded on principle of similarities, the other on the principle of opposites. Yet no government has thought of rejecting either of them. No government has reflected, nay even thought, about this glaring contradiction. To allow equal and legitimate status to two completely contradictory systems simultaneously is on par with establishing two governments in one state, one of bourgeois capitalists and the other which swears by the communist creed, and allowing people to abide by laws they feel like obeying. No government has ever thought that when two principles stand poles apart - indeed, are diagonally opposite - one alone must be true and that to give recognition to both of them is allowing people to die at least because of one of them. It is certainly high time that governments and people see through the great absurd contradiction.

In another volume of this series "New Way" it has already been argued how all schools of medicine have failed to deliver and are unable to deliver goods.

As adequately brought out on page 84 of Death of Disease, it will take centuries to discover all drugs. Neither the writer nor the readers will be alive to corroborate this promise on the part of present day medical science. As Pisavzhevsky observes, "Every discovery raises new problems." Besides, as matters stand today, theoretically it sounds absurd that science will one day discover drugs for all diseases. For there can possibly be only four categories of medical experts.

(1) Those who believe in God. Of this category, one has to say this. If an expert believes in God, he must find out the probable reason which made God inflict that agony. Then straight way it leads him to our own conclusion.

(2) Those who swear by the Marxist dogma. Now if the expert is a Marxist, then he must concede, as did Engels, that man can never master Nature. Hence no hope exists of knowledge of Nature nor of discovering cures. In this case, too, causality and laws of science lead us to the conclusion which we have set forth. (Other aspects of the problem which touch both Marxist philosophy and Recipropathy are discussed elsewhere separately).

(3) The third category is made up of non-Marxist experts. As an expert in a branch of science, he necessarily has to accept causality. If one relies on law of probability or principles of indeterminacy, one meets a comprehensive answer in our other title 'Science gives Cause'. For the purpose of this work, these laws are no obstructions in as much as, in Chapter ten we have established causal relation at least for purpose of disease-cure. In the meantime medical experts will do well to read the excellent expositions by Dr. Anthony Fidler, M.D., in Whither Medicine as to how medical experts are bound to causality because of their own tenets. The learned doctor himself suggests 'probability medicine', which we improve upon. For our present purpose Dr. Fidler's argument is sound enough to clarify how the 'causal laws' are unreservedly accepted by present medical leaders. Dr. Howard W. Huggard, M.D., the well-known medical authority admits that "in body nearly every action involves reaction." Why the word 'nearly' is unexplained, is inexplicable. In any case, then, our premises in Chapters 7, 8, 9 are firmly established - unless the doctor disproves the concept of causality.

(4) The fourth is a group difficult to be labeled as experts, but they do form a group. Members, if any, in this group believe in chaos. This group merits ignoring - for they obviously can claim no authority on behalf of medical science which firmly claims prevalence of order and existence of laws.

How does it all add up? By no logic, arguments, and school of thought can Recipropathy be radically challenged. From immemorial days, Recipropathy is the torch of truth held high and kept burning. That the truth embodied in present day Recipropathy marched under a different banner does not alter the basic conclusion of the science of Recipropathy being ancient wisdom as well as knowledge. For what is there in a name? America certainly existed before western colonizer christened the continent. All torch-bearers of truth and causality were Recipropaths - under a different name, or no name at all except servants of God and seekers of salvation.

The philosophy of Recipropathy is a philosophy of life and therefore all-pervading. 

Hence it is applicable to the field of human disease. There is extant no school as such for teaching of Recipropathy for Truth is not to be taught. For a group or all of Recipropaths there is neither a Guru nor hierarchy of office bearers. Could anyone tolerate the idea of Truth being at the mercy of red-tape administration? The flame of light that guided the world from eternity inspired me to speak the Truth. This will help it to echo from soul to soul and inspire the lighting of more flames.

Not that I am unconscious of the possibility, in spite of all the efforts on my part to clarify every issue involved, that some would never-the-less label it a mere philosophy. For such readers, just a reminder.

Please forget not that throughout the evolutionary period of knowledge, the historical past, philosophy has been invariably ahead of science. It was a philosopher, Descartes - the famous author of Discourse on Method, who propounded 'indestructibility of motion', a concept accepted later by science. It is worth-while recalling Engels' comment on this: "So here again the philosopher has been confirmed by the natural scientist after 200 years." Very few discoveries have been arrived at as the consequence of strict premeditated experimentation and objective observation. Max Planck, the founder of twentieth century physics, has remarked: "The pure rationalist has no place here."

We have certainly not transgressed, in any manner whatsoever, the limit allowed by Planck. Recipropathy provides an excellent frame-work. Details can be allowably replaced or altered by medical science. But let no one lose sight of the results, positive results brought about by Recipropathy. Experience, again and again, shows that Recipropathy is the only method which relieves the patient of his disease in the real sense. It radically, scientifically drives home the fact that health protection lies in supposing that desire for ease is disease, while real cure is the process of disease. The revelation takes away all pangs of organic pain and disorders like a miracle. 

Any patient who wishes to gain this experience will find our doors always open to his inquiry.

(Excerpts from Cure Yourself, Author - Swami Vijnananand, concluded.)

Vijay R. Joshi.