DISEASE - CURE (Cure Your Self - 9)

Practical Guidance to Patient 

(Excerpts from book “Cure Yourself”, author Swami Vijnananand, S.V.)

In the last article, we probed into what a patient is obliged to theoretically conceive in his quest for new medicine.

It is time that for practical guidance of the patient a crude plan may be chalked out.

Partially cure-mystery has been solved. We have previously raised the veil for certain and laid bare the root cause of disease. The ailment is personal revelation of action-reaction phenomenon between individual mind and matter - that is body. In the tussle, 'emotion' toils as a courier, both ways.

Earlier volumes have spoken of the first jerk marshaled from the mind's end. Inevitably, it is for the mind to impede action through emotions. In other words, mind must comprehend that there is no go but to neutralize or to inactivate the emotions. At this turn too, the situation is not fully under control. Assuming one is able to effectively arrest the onslaught of recurring emotions, by no means curbing the effects of the past precipitants remains within one's own reach. For disentanglement of this situation, a procedure by which emotions may be slowly neutralized is imperatively to be traced.

A minute study of the correlation between emotions and body will be an advance in the rightful direction.

Emotions are approximately six: Sex, anger, greed, ego, enmity, and affection. Some experts are inclined to add fear to the list, though to my mind fear a subsidiary emotion. Anyway, the number of primary emotions does not exceed seven without any dispute.

Emotions are ventilated only through sense-organs of the body. So the natural approach to the solution is to counter act the cravings of these sense-organs, in each individuality. As an indication that we are proceeding on the right lines, it is significant to note that to match with the number of emotions, expressions of sense-organs also command approximately the same number of selective alternatives. For instance, eyes can distinguish primarily six to seven colors; tongue has six tastes; smell, touch and sound, follow the same suit.

For the assistance of the readers, below are reproduced reflections of each sense-organ.

1.  Eye: Human vision distinguishes seven colors of which two are more or less shades. Numerous theories exist that go to explain color vision. Without going to technical particulars let us take seven distinctions for our purpose to be: White and black as apparent classifications and additionally five colors from 'Trichromatic' theory of color vision: Red, yellow, green, blue and violet.

2.  Skin (Touch): Approximately seven kinds of cutaneous reception are distinguished: Hot, cold, vibratory, itching, soft, pressing and pain, the last being considered as an exceptional reception. For Recipropathy, it is an accumulated reception.

3.  Tongue (Taste): 'Test book of Physiology' mentions four tastes (sour, salty, bitter, and sweet) as major besides thermal, tactile and pain stimulation. But it would not be wrong to divide taste sensations, for our purposes, into seven major groups: Sour, Salty, bitter, sweet, Alum-like, pungent and metallic.

4.  Ear (Sound): The classification in ear-reception proves a hard job. Indian music is based on seven major tunes and so might other schools of music be on appropriate foundation. Instead of distinction in terms of musical notes one can rely on measure of intensity of various sounds on scale of decibels. For instance, you can easily communicate the order in which you dislike the following: faint whisper at a distance of 1.5 m., ticking of a watch, quite conversation, busy street, shout, fortissimo of a big orchestra and, lastly, thunder. Each respectively produces following intensity of sound in decibels: 10, 20,40,70,80,100,120.

Incidentally, high sound may evoke a sensation which is similar to pain. Beyond a certain limit the sound is not audible to human ear at all. Yet within the range of audibility lie personal likes and dislikes and we can distinguish and divide the range as per individual convenience.

5.  Nose (Olfaction): Here again we come across seven classifications. Below is the data characterizing the acuity of olfaction in man: Ethylic ether, chloroform, ethyl acetate, pyridine, butyric acid, propyl mercaptan and artificial musk.

As in other cases, the acuity of olfaction with regard to same odoriferous substance greatly varies in different people. It also varies to a surprising proportion in same person, as the conditions change.

Despite all diversities, one curious thing is established. As emotions can be grouped into six or seven, so do selective properties of each sense-organ range up to seven. Innumerable shades inter-located in between these seven main characters of emotion give birth to vast multitude of individualists. Nevertheless hailing this 'individuality' as guide, we should not be prevented from linking up emotions with relative capacities of the sense-organs.

Evidently, the immediate step is to interrogate the patient to fill up the following table:

Gradation of dislike :	1	2	3	4	5	6
An emotion you caress
Smell you do not like
Sound-range you abhor
Color you dislike
Taste you detest
Touch you shun
General habitual aversions if any …..

What remains is exceedingly unambiguous. The indisposed, fully persuaded and convinced of the code laid down in 'Cure without Medicine' Chapter Thirteen, may quickly put his finger on a starting point suitable to him. Over and above, hints in the appendix may assist the patient in the preliminary transition.

Take a hypothetical case of a patient whose table records his first-rate dislikes of smell, sound, color, taste, touch to be respectively musk, shout, violet, bitter and cold. The sufferer should pick up representative articles of these dislikes as curative agents.

Recently an invalid called on me with the same maximum range of dislikes. I suggested to him, to use musk agarbatti and soap, advised a walk near railway shunting station, handed over an emblem of violet color to keep on his writing table, gave bitter herbal powders for oral intake and recommended a cold bath. It was also hinted that a soothing alleviation shall be his reward, the moment he begins to 'enjoy' the course suggested. To my astonishment he laboriously attempted the feat till on the twentieth day, and to his surprise, he was cured of his agony ten hours later.

More Questions Answered

Readers and patients who intelligently believe in our premise persistently raise questions, though following the code of conduct, insinuated. A few typical posers are reproduced.

Question 1: Is Nature Cruel?

You propose a peaceful, just, true, life. How will it fit in the unjust and cruel Nature? Does not Nature manifest cruelty?

You perhaps mean Nature you are able to conceive or interpret. Many a time, such interpretation is too subjective to be true. When you blame a lion for slaying your goat and stamp its nature with cruelty, it is a subjective, one-sided aspect. Do you mean professing that the lion should live on grass? Strangely, when human constitution allows intake of vegetable, the man eats goats and blames the lion, even acknowledging that lions by nature cannot feed themselves on grass. And are not vegetables alive and tenacious of living? As a famous physician says, "Like every other form of life on this earth, man must eat life and must in turn be eaten by it." Dr. Karl Menninger has elaborately illustrated in "Man against Himself" how we sow seeds of strokes we receive. Accidents too are no exception to this phenomenon, though apparently you imagine it improbable. Accidents and cruelty are conceptions of ours. The conceptions exist since the link - causative factors - is lost sight of.

Question 2: Use of Medicine, Prayers etc.

Recipropathy too prescribes some prayers, substitutes, some form of medicine too, and allows operations. Then what is the difference between other schools and this one?

The prescription is suggested in different form and perspective. A determined, intelligent patient prefers to attend our full seminar and eschew formalities. For others, a check-up whether causality allows them a cure by coincidence is worth trying. Ultimately all have to peremptorily perceive laws by which a real lasting cure is effected. Moreover, after attending the seminar, accepting all our premises, rarely though, even a firm-minded patient needs some breathing time. He wants time to change himself. During the transition period, thoroughly grasping that other way out does not exist, he adapts himself to external disciplines enumerated in our tenets, in addition to limiting himself to theoretical acceptance.

Question 3: Value of Research

Is there no use of research in medicine according to you?

My opinion loses its significance when the questioner like you harbors a partial, though negligible, faith in medicine. I therefore quote Dr. Carrol, one of the greatest medical authority of this century. He emphasizes, "Disease is a personal event. There are as many different diseases as patients." Earlier he has said, "Moreover, the number of their possible combinations is infinite. No task is more difficult than to analyze constitution of a given individual. The complexity of mental personality being extreme, and the psychological tests insufficient, it is impossible to classify individuals accurately. They can, however, be divided into categories according to their intellectual, affective, moral, aesthetic, and religious characteristics, to the combinations of these characteristics, and to their relations with the various types of physiological activities. There are also some obvious relations between psychological and morphological types. The physical aspect of an individual is an indication of the constitution of these tissues, humors, and mind. Between the more definite types there are many intermediate ones. The possible classifications are almost innumerable. They are, consequently, of little value."

Question 4: Laws of Motion and Medicine

In "Cure without Medicine" you have disproved modern medicine on the basis of laws of motion. But does the medicine imply motion?

Whatever result medicine produces is born out of its action, whereas action decidedly implies motion. In any text book of pharmacology - say by Prof. Dilling - exhaustive details of 'actions' brought about by the drugs may be referred to. This action of medicine is mentioned also in Dr. Hahnemann's 'Organon'.

Question 5: Action, Disease and Money - Debt

Why should we presume that allopathic medicine becomes part of our body? Can we hypothesize that the medicine is thrown out along with stools, urine and other such agencies?

The proposition is elaborately discussed in 'Cure without Medicine', Chapter Nine, Point Seven. True action due to medicine accelerates molecular motion in the metabolism and some unhealthy waste is thrown out of body, but this is only a partial process you are describing. For whatever is worth, I reproduce a simile. Say I owe 2000 chips to Mr. A. To pay it off, I draw another 5000 from Mr. B and square up accounts with Mr. A. I can well boast that I am 'cured' of Mr. A.  Visualize for yourself whether I am genuinely freed from my obligation, affliction, adversity and distress.

Question 6: Food as Medicine

Food also 'acts' on our body as do medicine. Why should it be not termed as medicine?

Forgive me for repeating my rejoinder to a similar question. Undoubtedly there is much that is subjective in the concept of medicine: When someone does not consume butter as a food, butter becomes a medicine. When iodine is applied to a finger that is hurt, iodine is a medicine. Apply the same medicine to a normal finger and it ceases to be a medicine. By itself a solution can have no medical properties definable as a medicine; the use thereof alone determines whether it is medicine or not.

Question 7: Equal and opposite, a contradiction

In 'Cure without Medicine' you assailed homeopaths, protesting that ice cannot be eliminated by another piece of ice. Now you say my dislike is my medicine. Is it not a contradiction?

Discussion enumerating this issue appears in point '4B' of Chapter 11 in the present work. Indeed, the problem demands a comprehensive analysis at the philosophical level. Nevertheless, from one angle the inquiry can be adequately put to scrutiny at this stage. In 'Cure without Medicine' we were checking whether each school remains consistently logical to its own preaching or not. Moreover, when Recipropathy prescribes 'ice' as an interim medicine it is not based on principle of similarity but specifically for the reason that 'ice' serves as a measure of 'equal and opposite' of the initiating cause. Ice serves as your cure, it being your 'dislike', equal and opposite of your 'like' which conceals its understandable description. The crux of the issue can be scanned from yet another point having discriminative bearing. In practice, a homeopath recommends not the actual ice, but its empirical potency. Consequently, discomfort that the slice of ice evokes due to patients dislike for it, is absent. The patient stands clear away from discerning the origin of his smarts, gripes, sores, cramps, stitches and pangs. On account of this, results in homeopathy are random and temporary. In case the medicine is inevitable, its intake must synchronize with true understanding about cause and cure of disease. An unvarnished truth and insight into factual situation brings about a world of difference in the psychology of the patient. It reduces overall evil effects.

Question 8: Awe of Science

Recipropathy respects science, but science itself is changing. Instead, why should a religion that sticks up to constant truth not be taught?

An adherent of science is not sorry that it is constantly changing. The change is initiated by better knowledge, which is highly adored human prerogative. In contrast, immutability and constancy in religion rests on faith. Not that faith has no place, but diversity of religion is a factor that renders the solution to construct a universal faith-platform, improbable. None objects - individually you - to rely on religions. Every religion endorses 'Truth'. True religion and true science should synchronize at one point, since ultimate truth is indivisibly one. Recipropathy suggests you to be normal, detached. I wholeheartedly greet that respect for science is on the ascent but have no awe for that too. In the words of Madam Curie, "While it is proper that we should honor great achievements and appreciate the romance of science, it is unfortunate, and indeed damaging to science, when we forget that scientists are in fact human beings. If we can think of them in life-size and as normal biological specimens, and not as disembodied brains, we can see their achievements in their real perspective; awe-struck reverence of the Scientific Mind is as irrational and, indeed, as superstitious, as the awesome fear that the pagan Dyaks have of Jabu, the Spirit of the Mountain."

Question 9: Can 'Mind' change tissues?

Can our mind build or change tissues in body? Can an antibody be created without antigen? I think it is improbable and so with all its defects why should medicine be not accepted?

In issue No.118 (published some time in November 1959) of 'Soviet Union' under the heading 'Injection against Burn', following news piece is chronicled on page 52, "At the sixth international Blood Transfusion Conference held in the United States Nikolai Fyodorov, a Soviet scientist, astonished experts with his report on burn therapy. The pathological condition of people suffering from serious burns is so critical that medicine is often powerless to help them. Experiments conducted by Soviet doctors have shown that in such cases alien proteins with poisonous properties are formed in the blood and tissues, and that the organism reacts against this by producing antibodies.

One day a young man was brought to the Moscow Institute of Blood Transfusion with three quarters of his body affected by burns incurred in a fire. Hope for his recovery was nil. Instead of an ordinary blood transfusion, however, the patient was given an injection of blood taken from a man who had recently recovered from burn injuries. The result was an immediate improvement in the patient's condition. In hundreds of subsequent cases this kind of injection has had same splendid effect. The woman in the photograph had 50 per cent of her body covered with third and fourth degree burns. Now she is quite well." The report speaks for itself.

Question 10: Should we take medicine?

You do not object medicine being consumed occasionally, is it not? How do you distinguish whether your patient is using medicine as per your principle?

Your inquiry gives rise to a number of supplementary questions. It meets an all-embracing reply, in 'Cure without Medicine', Chapter 11, Chapter 12 of this work and in answer to Question Two above. On an overall understanding being reached, one may need medicine in the transition period. Then it is not the same devastating medicine in the usual sense. Admittedly, laws of motion are not repealed, but after true understanding the gravity is mitigated. Whether a patient is taking medicine under a pretext of 'Transition period' is not an issue into which I can probe. If at all, the patient outwits himself, I remain unconcerned.

Question 11: What is Recipropathy?

What is Recipropathy? What does the name imply?

The name is coined to keep away from words having obtained fore judged connotations. It is based on the observation that we earn just reciprocally for all our actions, without exception.

(To be continued)


Vijay R. Joshi

DISEASE - CURE (Cure Your Self - 8)

Medicine: A New Meaning !

(Excerpts from book “Cure Yourself”, author Swami Vijnananand, S.V.)

Under the pressure of anomalous exigencies Recipropathy approves or rather ignores having recourse to medicine. Contingencies in which so-called medicine can be accepted as a first aid, is detailed elsewhere. Here we may analyze its principles slightly in a different perspective.

1.  Recipropathy assumes that my "disease" is "exact measure of my wish for ease". Hence, in eradicating a malady at a given moment, modus operandi beneficial is to apportion or scatter disease in other suitable organs of body. No type of infirmity can be got rid of, unconditionally.

1A)  Make out an overall picture: We have six emotions, craving for ease. What are the external instruments for satisfaction of these cravings?

Five sense-organs of ours: Eyes, tongue, skin, ears, nose, which respectively see (colors), taste, touch, hear (sound), smell.

Emotions number about six, while each of the sense-organs distinguishes equal number of varieties or grades. Colors are about six, six are main taste varieties, and so on. In between the six major emotions as well as expressions, uncountable shades and grades are manifested.

1B)  On the strength of these fundamental observations we can construe that each emotion is linked to all the sense-organs as its visible or expressible counterpart. In other words, at the assumption of life every emotional personality collects such "matter" suitable to its ends. Consequently, when "greed" about food, say of sweet variety, is incorporated in my emotional personality, I construct my tongue with the help of "matter", that conveys sweet sensation more readily. In short, the emotion of greed in terms of sense-organ, may, in hypothetical case, choose to like sweet for taste, yellow for color, low pitch for sound, smooth touch and a mild scent. Intermingling six emotions with each of likes and dislikes expressed by respective sense organ, a total set of likes and dislikes (which we call expression of a given personality) comes into existence. Consequently, if I detest a certain color, taste, smell, touch and sound, the set of these dislikes certainly represents a significant facet of my inner personality.

1C)  This set or list both of my acceptances and aversions, likes and dislikes is a measure of my disturbed emotions. If I can slowly adjust myself and win over these weak points of mine, assuredly the safest prophylactic (preventive) method is being implemented. In the process of winning the sense-organs, mastering my dis-approbations (disapproval), my mind is purified in due course and purpose of "disease" is defeated.  One way traffic between emotion and sense-organ must be counteracted by nullifying the emotions, effecting purification of inner personality.

1D) There can be shown a link in our logic in a hypothetically isolated case. Why am I infuriated with anger? Because, a green color pen which I do not like has been purchased for me. Obviously, green color in a given case becomes an observable measure of my rage. It can be defeated only by persuading myself to fancy the green color.

1E) we hesitate to learn this correlation till the onset of diseases. We are obliged to learn it when disease invades the body. Cure in real sense can hardly be affected by what is palatable, but by what is not. Rebelling tastes of medicines and punches of injections substantiate the premise.

1F)  in practice you would ask me, how much quantity of salt need be consumed to get cured, if salt is not palatable to a given constitution. I would leave it to that individuality. Cure code will be: Go to a point each day beyond normal till 'you' feel uneasy. Continue the practice till you experience that salt is not your enemy. Incidentally, remember that problem of salt i.e. taste is not an isolated enigma. It is in conjunction with taste, smell, sound etc. For instance, a good dish is less enjoyable when served on a dining table surrounded by an aggressive, un-agreeable odor. In conclusion, "Cure" in a given case may be conventionally restricted to salt. It however must be unmistakably remembered that salt is only one of your remedies.

2.   An inquisitive reader may intervene, "I do not like salt as salt upsets my system. Why should I not suppose that it is but a chemical action?" Let us chase out explanation of this "chemical action" to its rational end.

My body-bricks may have enough salt, in the first place. So I reject it. Or, my ingredients cannot tolerate salt.

Both 'A' and 'B' have the true ring. But the moment the question of 'toleration' comes in, it ceases to be purely a chemical action. The 'mind' indispensably ushers in the argument.

2A)  White does not tolerate black spot. But white and black produce a nice picture. Truly, there is no antipathy between white and black. It is our misconception that a black spot may spoil a clean white. A pot of salt-water may refuse to dissolve more salt, saturation point being reached. Still, ignoring the saturation point you may add more salt to the pot, no question of the bowl 'liking' the salt will ever crop up.

2B) It is a different story when the salt has to deal with mind instead of an earthen jug, jar or pot. Curiously enough, when it comes to 'mind', 'liking' and quantity consumable have no relation to each other. A wealthy owner of a flower garden may not reject either more of flowers or more of money.

2C) This is exactly where 'mind' steps in. One 'mind' may accept 'more' roses, another mind may not. A greedy capitalist may or may not set aside a fortune. A sex-dominated man married to a beautiful wife may or may not be faithful to her.

2D) Thus and therefore the inference; when the 'human mind' comes into play, alternative '2B' stands valid, which points out that ingredients of my structure cannot tolerate salt irrespective of quantity, because my mind has aversion for salt. When the sun 'strikes' on darkness, none can presume that darkness dislikes the sun. With man, sun-rays may please his constitution or may not. Sun-rays falling on a slice of butter may cause action without question of 'likes'. Obviously, in all the three cases, to avow that night, man or butter dislike sun, having in their ingredients enough of sun, is absurd. The distinction between likes and dislikes assumes significance exclusively when mind is on the scene. We must say that when man dislikes salt his mind has aversion for salt, and so he has fabricated his body-structure with the material that rejects salt, irrespective of quantity of such material used.

3. And for this same reason homeopathy misses the mark again. To neutralize salt or anger in me, how can I put in salt and anger in me, how can I add salt and anger and get the desired result?

4.  For diagnosis of a cause, the faultless option open is to take symptoms as equal and opposite of cause.

How to measure the symptoms and their cause?

4A) The measure of symptoms can doubtlessly be indicated by our sense-organs. Our 'feeling of disease' is sensed strictly at the level of sense-organs. So choose such medicine as is disagreeable to the sense-organs.

4B)  Are we not guilty of a gross contradiction when, refuting homeopathy, we ourselves recommend 'dislike' as a drug? Furthermore, our attentive reader may protest here and say that a patient detests pungent taste but it need not be his medicine since he may also like sweet and the two quit leaving untoward action.

The fallacy crops up in as much as no patient mixes pungent and sweet dishes together before they are consumed. Subjectively for patient, relishing dish produces action. Laws of motion have no concern with the taste of the dish - sweet or pungent - but with the action produced in the subject. View it from the other side. The subject likes the sweet but not the bitter taste. Pleasure of chewing a chocolate and a quinine tab MAY produce same effect in metabolism in terms of pure 'action'.

It is not the case that Recipropathy takes 'dislikes' to task and leaves 'like' scotfree. On the other hand 'likes' are fiercely assaulted by this theory. It is a negative yet more meaningful aspect. The positive way is to win the dislikes. It is a two pronged attack.

Homeopathy fails to take these aspects into consideration. It is inadequate to bear in mind that 'dislike' acts as my remedy. Its full implication is: Removal of dislike may work as elixir, subject to main tenets of Recipropathy, since the dislikes serve as a combined, expressible, though, general measure of the 'equal and opposite' initiating cause in body i.e. emotional personality.

In conclusion, the nearest flawless approach for defeating disease is to win our emotional dislikes, the way they are totally and cumulatively manifested in our modes and habits. At the level of sense-organs, therefore, an action ought to be initiated that conveys unfavorable sensation to mind - mind, where the disease originates, dwells, and develops.

5.  In effect allopathy employs the parallel method. Application of iodine to a cut on the arm is a significant illustration. An already ailing patient is subjected to pain (injection, operation etc.) Bitter doses are administered to patient who has spoilt his stomach by too much of sweets. In sickness doctors serve notice against using emotional properties. Bans, ordinances, restrictions rule. No spicy food. No talk, no listening too. Sex relations remain out of question in serious cases. Apparent similarity between Allopathy and Recipropathy ends at this stage. Allopathy bears no lasting result. One of the basic reasons for this fundamental lack is: modern medicine fails to furnish to patient's logical background of his ailment. At no stage the poor sufferer is helped to realize the correlation between his actions and disease.

6.  Our shrill cry of pain as sequel to pain, in reality, has its origin specifically in accumulated 'action'. We heave a sigh grumbling against headache. More hammering in the part of the brain, more action. Originally was there no action in the cerebrum at all? That was not the plight. Pulsation accelerates owing to accumulated action i.e. stored up action or in other words - potential energy. Quick relief from pangs, is a mirage. The only scientific cure is to produce still more pain to patient in the same or other part of the body. Repudiating this course under the guise of impracticability leaves us to try distribution of disease in other sense-organs and to get acclimatized to it. The latter recourse may be termed as Disease Distribution method. Decidedly, this latter available medium of relief, will not be fit to hold a candle to, nevertheless, its dependability excels any media of redress. To counter frequent headache, overcome your dislike for a color, taste, smell and sound.

Hundreds of patients have experienced a surprising solace. Superficially, an added peril to a patient and a relief therefrom, may be felt a psychological absurdity. This feeling is a fantasy. Science, mathematics and logic entertain no fanciful unsubstantiated imagination. The more a patient accepts discomfort, with reasoning behind it - mark the words 'accepts with reasoning behind it' - the more will he experience a definite, slow, natural amelioration. Many a time the soothing effect is sudden, governed by the principle of 'coincidence cure'.

7.  The process is reversible, subject to adviser's discretion. A Recipropath is at liberty to resume treatment first with 'Disease Distribution' method. Subsequently, the patient may go through the literature or attend the seminar. The exact step in each case depends on the judgement of the authority advising the patient and results follow strictly in obedience to the rules governed by the principles of Recipropathy.

8. Patient plays a pertinent role in selection of color, taste etc. Assert from him the list of his dis-approbations. Prescribe accordingly in addition to what is suggested in the list 'substitute for medicine'.

(To be continued)

Vijay R. Joshi

DISEASE - CURE (Cure Your Self - 7)

 Is Prayer Scientific? 

(Excerpts from book “Cure Yourself”, author Swami Vijnananand, S.V.)

Recipropathy neither encourages nor discourages the institution of prayer. Because, in one sense Recipropathy believes in the power of silence. From the view-point of truth, in meditation there is a lesser risk of positive untruth being uttered. The question can be viewed from two angles:

(A)                     An option can be exercised in favor of leading life of as much "reactions" as possible. Live detached life to your capacity.

(B)                    Try to make mind vacant, call it prayer or use any word of your choice. This option is open only if it is feasible for one to take mind in a state really devoid of emotion. There is nothing unscientific if the pursuer of prayers can visualize the true tenet of prayer. Abusing prayer is as much a dogma as abuse of prayer itself, yet a real prayer leaves no room for abuses of either description. Scientists who stamp action-less state as a mystic affair have more to learn from the fact that at the speed of light, length contracts to zero and clocks stand still. Strictly speaking, an action-less state in its truest sense is equivalent to the maximum speed of any mass conceivable; whether such possibility is feasible or not, is no issue at this point. This observation leads to contradiction; nevertheless, the contradiction is born out of scientific investigation. Till the contradiction is un-riddled by science, we have hardly any privilege to play the fool of prayer-believers. On the background of this premise a Recipropath can suggest the following points for the consideration of a seeker elevating his mind to a comparatively blank, vacant, detached state.

1.   As you set in for concentration, take a pen, note book and a mirror. Spend the first few moments in setting yourself and then look into the mirror. Stare straight in your own eyes.

2.   Speak to yourself. Be conscious of an energy penetrating through. Imagine that you now propose to explain to the origin of that energy, your actions in last 24 hours, as if you are submitting a report of yesterday to yourself. Begin with an interrogation: Can all actions of yours be defended? No white-washing now.

3.   It is a discourse between you and yourself. Promise yourself not to repeat what ills you should have refrained from. If it cannot be set right immediately, ask for time.

4.   Continue the check-up each day.

5.   If not on the first day, after a lapse of a few days following the daily check-up, try to spare a few minutes to close your eyes during the prayer.

6.   Try to visualize energy in yourself beyond your eyes, ears, and every tissue of yourself.

7.   Put up an attempt to forget every entanglement which may try to disturb you at the moment.

8.   If a thought is irresistible, open your eyes and record the gist of though disturbing you in the note book.

9.   Close your eyes again. If another thought disturbs you, repeat the same process. Register it in your note book.

10.                     On pursuing the process for a month, go through the entire record.  Subsequently every day before closing the eyes for the meditation, ask yourself if you cannot live without these thoughts even for a few seconds? You will be ashamed to find that causes interrupting your prayer were too trifling to imagine. The revelation will give your mind more tranquility as you resume the prayer.

11.                     Now, the success awaits you. At least for a few seconds, keeping your mind cool, undisturbed, collected may be achieved.

12.                     Repeat the process day after day. Use the note book as friend, philosopher and guide. It remains a good tutor. Day by day self-recognition will instruct you that each thought disturbing your prayer on previous days can be attributed to one emotion or the other. The record should serve you to understand that the so called engrossing thoughts are too petty to brood over. This finding strengthens your mind and assists you to do away with them during the prayer.

13.                     Another way. At times, at the resumption of prayer overpowering sentiment paralyses you - say embittering anger about one-time comrade.  Try to recollect a good point in the old mate. A note of music, instead of an old friend, may disturb the concentration. Imagine the tune's finest wave identifies with your "mind". The ultimate object of concentration is to realize that incredible speed resembles inertness and resort to a state of "active inactivity".

14.                     The process is languid. It is an uphill task to do away with petty emotions and angularities. Convince yourself that these angularities so dear to you, eat you up.

15.                     Analysis of anger may turn over a new leaf in life. Guess Mr. X and yourself at a cross purpose. You quiver with rage. In the situation, multifarious probabilities are conceivable.

(A)                    Mr. X may be your family member, friend or a well-intentioned relative, who in your eyes has committed a blunder. Obviously, you should ignore the unintentional slip.

(B)                    Mr. X may be, alternatively, your adversary. He wants you to get irritated. Your fury serves his purpose. Your resentment has to be curbed so that you would not assist your own foe.

(C)                    One more salient point. When Mr. X fans your anger, either he is unfair or you are in the wrong. If Mr. X has misbehaved, there is no propriety in yourself heating up and hitting at your own body. On the other hand, in the instance of your being inequitable, thank Mr. X that he struggles to put you on the right path.

16.                     Most often, adherents of Recipropathy experience sudden recovery from ailment. Yet, it is advisable to attribute it to "coincidental cure". Set aside part of your prayer in inflicting pain on yourself under such circumstances in acceptance of your unpunished sins. It is a gallant gesture in right direction. It gives you no license to commit sins during the rest of the day. It merely keeps the conscious awake and alert.

17.                     Wrath is not a solitary example. Every emotion can be dispensed with on proper analysis. An analysis offers a breathing space, infuses confidence and makes your mind vacant or steady. Slowly increase this period of vacuum and state of equilibrium. Infallibly and automatically, ability to work for the whole day in serene, unruffled way multiplies. It is the surprise gift of the prayer.

18.                     The process of inactivating the mind should be slow and natural. To convince ourselves is the most irksome adventure. We hesitate and eschew conceding Truth as a single factor that can redeem us in our worldly life; however, in theory truth is known to us having a supreme second-to-none strength. No purpose is served by declaring a war against ourselves, in a superficial sense. No doubt mind is to be ultimately won. Yet an undue haste bears no fruit. It impairs rather than repairs.

(To be continued)

Vijay R. Joshi.

DISEASE - CURE (Cure Your Self - 6)

 Emotion, Truth, Disease.

(Excerpts from book “Cure Yourself”, author Swami Vijnananand, S.V.)

All unequal members of the human race share equal knowledge of Truth. Allotment of Truth is selfsame. For this purpose truth known to every member of society is replete. A cup of water to the brim need not envy an overflowing tank. Since, even if what is offered to the cup has no room where it can accommodate it.

Why is untruth voted for? A liar necessarily clings to his version for a lap of luxury, for pleasing some emotion or the other.

Try to place this in terms of logic and mathematics:

        In truth there is no emotional outburst.

        Untruths cause emotions.

        Emotions cause disease (unease).

        Therefore, Untruths cause un-ease (disease).

        Therefore, Truth causes ease.

Plenty of instances already furnished, establish relation between emotion and disease. 

One more quote is added only for ready reference. "The effect of emotions on the adrenals is to produce higher blood pressure which favors the development of arteriosclerosis and other diseases of circulatory system. The thyroid is so much affected by mental depression that this emotion is mentioned by scientists as one of the causes of myxoedema. The pituitary body is also affected by emotions. Prof. Pel and others have noted cases of acromegaly after violent emotion. Dr. Sajous has often pointed out this gland as the central organ upon which all strong emotions react. The liver and kidneys are much affected by emotions. Jaundice indicates the disturbance of the former whereas, according to Clifford Albutt, many cases of interstitial nephritis can be traced to mental emotions."

"An objective truth as subjectively known" as probable cause of cure, ranks high and assumes top eminence in the eyes of respectable scientists.

1.   Lister declares, "Next to the promulgation of Truth, the best thing I can conceive that a man can do is the public recantation of an error."

2.   While replying a question reproduced in Part 14 of "Outline of Modern Belief" Sir James Jeans says, "I think it possible that the existence of suffering can be accounted for along the usual ethical lines."

3.   Alexis Carrel, the Nobel-prize winner asserts, "No one can learn to distinguish right from wrong, and beauty from vulgarity by taking a course of lectures. Morality, art, and religion are not taught like grammar, mathematics, and history. To feel and to know are two profoundly different mental states."

Earlier, accentuating the correlation between emotion and ailment, he viewed, "Thus envy, hate, fear, when these sentiments are habitual, are capable of starting organic changes and genuine diseases. Moral suffering profoundly disturbs health. Businessmen who do not know how to fight worry die young. The old clinicians thought that protracted sorrows and constant anxiety prepare the way for the development of cancer. Emotions induce, in especially sensitive individuals, striking modifications of the tissues and humours.

The French expression 'se faire du mauvais sang' is literally true. Thought can generate organic lesions. The instability of modern life, the ceaseless agitation, and the lack of security create states of consciousness which bring about nervous and organic disorders of the stomach and of the intestines, defective nutrition and passage of intestinal microbes into the circulatory apparatus. Colitis and the accompanying infections of the kidneys and of the bladder are the remote results of mental and moral unbalance. Such diseases are almost unknown in social groups where life is simpler and not so agitated, where anxiety is less constant. In a like manner, those who keep the peace of their inner self in the midst of the tumult of the modern city are immune from nervous and organic disorders."

The depressing anxiety of the man is: if he leaves untruth, nothing in life survives. This bewildering anxiety reflects paradox of life, when openly we all talk of sanctity. The celebrated scientist Sir Arthur Eddington apologizes, "One begins to fear that after all our faults have been detected and removed there will not be any of us left." This notion prevails in spite of the fact that, without exception, all principal schools of philosophy and religion preach truth as ne plus ultra value of life, existence of purified soul after death and so on.

If my mind is non-matter, and if nothing can be destroyed from this universe according to the law of conservation of energy, "I" cannot die. Purification of my mind during the life-span with the help of truth enhances my chances of perpetually living in disease-free state.

Disease can touch only the impure mind. The more unsullied it becomes, the more disease-free state do I reach by the pure laws of science, mathematics and logic. There should be no apprehension of the demon of death.

(To be continued)

Vijay R. Joshi,

DISEASE - CURE (Cure Your Self - 5)

Recipropathy's conclusions remain inescapable 

 (Excerpts from book “Cure Yourself”, author Swami Vijnananand, S.V.)

Philosophically too Recipropathy's conclusions remain inescapable.

(A) One that it must be held that all events occur in spite of myself. If I really believe in this alternative, on the one hand I discourage any action being initiated on my own, on the other, I lament not over my malady.

(B)  But once I choose to recognize my own individuality, I must myself assume to the prime cause of my ailment and all external causes including poor bacterium must be taken to play a secondary role.

(C)  When I am the cause of everything that happens to me, law of causation should unsolved my remaining riddle. If I 'act' to cause damage to others, reciprocally in return, I get equal and opposite – that means inward damage. When initiating action is outward, reaction must be inward. (The problem is discussed at a great length in 'Cure without Medicine' in the section under the title 'Mechanics of Emotions'.)

(D) Why do I 'act' to cause peril to others? Because I am prey to the dictates of my emotions. These emotions dissuade me to be partial towards myself or, in other words, emotions compel me to pursue untruth with full knowledge.

(E)   If I choose to adhere to truth and thoroughly perceive the results untruth brings home, this understanding keeps complaint of pain and sickness at arm's length, almost perpetually.

Amidst diverse and multifold variety of the great Nature, Nature herself stands supreme, unified and one entity. Truth is identified with Nature. Mysticism, if any, can be eschewed on recording the deduction, the other way.  Every individual bewailing of a disease is distinct, uncommon from the other. What is common to all beings is knowledge about 'Truth'.

All along, our endeavor has been directed to one supreme end, an end at which we have arrived at after years of devoted study and scrupulously correct experimentation. That end has been to discover the true nature of disease and the radical means to eliminate disease from all ranks.

We think, and a dispassionate, attentive and scientifically minded reader will surely grant us our claim, that we have firmly established the clear and unambiguous inter-connection between emotion and disease. To repeat our proposition, then: Disease is the outcome of emotion and equalization (nullification) of emotion is the only way out.

The practical way, of course, is adherence to truth. Whether the way turns out to be a protracted one or quite short depends on the original span of emotional outbursts.

My (S. V.) firm and thoughtful claim is that Truth can be prescribed as the one and only possible remedy. Personally I have realized that the state of adherence to real truth is the only stage when one's emotions are truly equalized – in fact, nullified. True, it is possible to recall instances when truth was uttered and yet one was extremely excited. Such instances exemplify one's inadequate definition of truth. Real truth evokes no irritation.

A simple case: Mr. X asks Mr. Y: "What is the time." "Ten A.M." replies Mr. Y. The truth is told, there is no emotional upset of any kind. So, no traceable reaction.

But matters are occasionally not simple and straightforward. There is a twist, say in a hypothetical case, where both Mr. X and Mr. Y are attempting for a job. Mr. Y knows that the job is likely to be offered to Mr. X. He is aware that an appointment is given to Mr. Y by the Manager of the firm at 11 a.m. and that is the reason why Mr. Y is asking time. In this complex situation, as Mr. Y replies, "Ten A.M." internally he is burning with envy and anger. Certainly pulse variation is bound to synchronize with the answer.

Conclusion: Not only should one adhere to Truth, but Truth must be told with a perfectly detached mind.

To illustrate with a simple example. Mr. A visits Mr. B's home and is received by Mrs. B. Mrs. B in all good faith tells Mr. A that Mr. B has gone out. After Mr. A has left, to her surprise Mrs. B finds that her husband was at home. Has she then told an untruth? Certainly not. For Mrs. B. the objective absolute truth subjectively known to her was of Mr. B not being at home. In reporting the situation as she conceived it, Mrs. B had no hidden objective before her.

On the other hand, had the situation been one where Mr. B happened to owe some money to Mr. A for the recovery of which Mr. A had called on Mr. B, then the matter takes on an entirely different texture provided that Mrs. B knew of the transaction between the two (but not otherwise). If she knew of the transaction, her pulse-rate would have varied even when telling the truth as she conceived it, the mind not being detached.

To get away from the clutches of this riddle, the best way is to leave the discussion of absolute truth to philosophers. In practice defining truth as "subjective truth as objectively known, expressed with detached mind", serves our purpose.

One adheres to untruth hardly for any principle or philosophy. Profounder of no philosophy or faith including Marxist faith, ever rejected Truth as a laudable code of conduct.

The pressing problem in the situation is more of being enlightened of the real cause of disease than immediately pursuing the path of cure. Once truth is accepted as the means and the end, we can take time to adjust to truth. Conversely, denial of the very way is grossly improper, injurious to us and to none else.

Deduction then, that truth commends respect from all quarters, is undefeatable

(To be continued)

Vijay R. Joshi.