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

CAUSALITY, FREE WILL CONVERSATION

CONCEPTS SIMPLIFIED (Purpose - 4)

For three centuries stretched between Newton and Heisenberg, causality ruled scientific thought in full glory, scientific method as synonymous with it. Curiously though, during this long span of time opponents of causality were never defeated (vanquished) completely. There is no reason why now in their turn, believers of causality should not hold their fort in the present period of so-called suspense, after the advent of Heisenberg-era.

For the benefit of a layman an imaginary discussion between a causal law believer and free will believer is reproduced below.

Free-will is not synonymous with the ‘principle of indeterminacy’ in scientific terminology though the latter is supposed to have scientifically allowed existence of free will. As Eddington says, commenting on situation in science after 1927, "Science withdraws its moral opposition to free will".

CONVERSATION

Free Will Believer: I feel allured to shoot one of the white featured birds on the top of the tree. It looks as if an inspiration, a result of 'free-will' that I enjoy.

Causal Law Believer: From where comes free will? Has it no source?

F.W.B.: I do not know. We all are in dark about the first cause.

C.L.B.: That is so. There is no opposition from any quarter, worth mention for 'first cause' being taken for granted. We are at present concerned about your immediate origin of free-will that induces will to kill.

F.W.B.: -Possibly, in the present case, I am pressed to touch the target to test my capacity of shooting accurately. However, others may do it with entirely different intentions, say, for eating it.

C.L.B.: Let us pursue your case as given. Your intense desire at aiming at the bird springs from a cause Mind. Eventually your individual mind turns out to be a specific cause of the proposed shooting.

F.W.B.: Do you insist that I shall shoot?

C, L.B.: Yes, as based on your own statement (averment).

F.W.B.: Then I don’t shoot to put you in the wrong.

C.L.B.: Be that so. I will hold that your ‘individual mind' were not to shoot in the next few moments. Have I not made myself explicit beforehand, admitting that my assertion is based on your own declaration?

F.W.B.: Your stand seems to be soapy. You change as it suits your purpose.

.

C.L.B.: Yes, because you yourself change. I believe in causal relation, but I do not claim predictability of each event. If I had known all the components of your mind from its existence, in all its details the prediction was possible. But such knowledge in all details remains beyond human comprehension. That does not mean uncertain nature of action. I moot a question. Why hanker (restless desire) after shooting?

F.W.B.: To kill the nice little bird for shooting practice. .

C.L.B.: So you endorse a relation between your action and the desired result. Thus, if your present freak of will causes to produce a correlated ‘effect', logically you present 'will to kill' in its role as an effect up with a 'cause' in the unknown past.

 

F.W.B.: But supposing I shoot at the top of the tree, I wonder whether the specific bird chosen as a target in my mind can get a correct hit or otherwise.

C.L.B.: Very true. That can be understood, given, as I said all the authentic record of your personality, in its true perspective. In the absence of the relevant account, "causality" as a logical mode of Nature's operations, need be only course of deductions.

F.W.B.: Do you vote against individuals, possessing free-will at all?

C. L. B.: They have free will. Each one has a free will to understand causal laws, according to one's own individual way.

F.W.B.: If causality has created my individuality, has it no omnipotence (God like infinite power) to dictate me, instead of leaving things to my free will?

C.L.B.: Causality has not created you. Nature has created you or not obstructed your creation. But as we all rightly hold, we can never fathom into the depths of Nature directly, nevertheless, nature of Nature can be apprised of, through the inklings (indication or hint) she gives on her own. Causality is merely a "process of Nature", a primary manifestation which assists us to build a coherent picture of objective reality.

F.W.B.: This assumption absolves me from any charge of cruelty, in the event I successfully hit at my target, it is indeed the bird that invites death.

C. L. B.: It must be presumed that the bird has invited death. In process of evolution, death has played a part of heightening (increasing) the value of organism. Death, at most of the stages, has been paid as a price of a given development. In the opinion of Dr. Walker, every sensation of pain makes the concerned organism wiser. If that is so, approach of death; that we often suppose / consider inflict piercing torture; ought to be taken to shelve out still higher knowledge. Well. This need be made clear in great details, as it is expounded (stated in details) in "New Way'' series. For the present, we can but suppose the bird itself to have caused its own death, through you. Rather the bird also was the ‘party to the event’, that is how I would like to put it, since my statement must be objective.

As for the charge of cruelty against you, that again would vary according to observers. A sportsman, would applaud for the fine shooting, a member of 'animal-protection committee' will report to a police, an over-passionate pseudo philosopher will- tend to accuse you of barbarism and a science lover like me would just keep quiet. All happenings, actions and reactions, have bearing upon respective causes and those causes develop growing complexity as we attempt to trace it back step by step. In the ultimate analysis, it all presents a perplexing picture. The more we hanker after 'remote causes’ there universal causality becomes our unmistakable guide.

F.W.B.: But you have already declared inability of setting back to first cause. Eventually, we become helpless spectators to a predetermined course of events. Ultimately you seem to suggest that whatever be the first cause, rational man at this level of understanding gives up all his action and struggle. This looks an utterly pessimistic picture. End of the world, virtually.

C.L.B.: Remember, that there was no man on this earth a million years back and it is likely that there will be no man on this globe in distant future, says science. I recommend you to go through the literature on evolution, geology and thermodynamics. Ignoring these theoretical postulates, your anxiety that causality shall demolish prospects of true enjoyment and useful action are far from having valid foundation, in the immediate future.

Give a proposal to ten budding youths who earn a specific sum per month, that they should accept an equivalent sum as a pension and sit quiet completely under compulsion. A minority of them will accept it, the majority would choose to act and earn. And those who would prefer an idle income may continue to work for work’s sake because action is taken to be mental oxygen for them. Assuming however two youngsters of the lot appreciate causal laws in its true perspective, the frame of reference changes. Not that the enlightened twin can abruptly stop action; they however shall utilize their action-and enthusiasm in promoting the unimpeachable (above suspicion) laws of causality. Devoid (not possessing) of any craving for material gain, they are hardly bound by their new stride of action. In due course, they may reduce themselves to inaction, which having a potential to inspire others can ever (or never) be termed as inaction.

F.W.B.: This holds out no charm.

C. l. B.: Not the charms, but causal laws are under discussion. Objectivity holds well to a hair, whether it means a treat or a trial for you.

F.W.B.: Causal laws in philosophical sense do concern themselves with pleasure. They strictly pronounce, "Good begets good".

C.L.B.: This no doubt reflects on a state of development at a very high level. Yet, in the last analysis, till 'good' in the maxims speaks of 'good action', the law that unavoidably follows is: 'Action begets reaction'. In the realm of ultimate’s, 'good' and 'bad' carry little sense, but the laws of motion rule supreme as the 'process' of Nature'. From here should science and philosophy go hand in hand.

F.W.B.: If every action is bound by causal laws chances of upward development are negativated (denied).

C.L.B.: In the days of 'relativity', such 'one directional' phenomenon finds no place.

F. W.B.: It reduces to this predicament (unpleasant difficulty): every action of my personality is predetermined, as per causal process and so I should submit to any evil dispensation (exemption from rule) Cool and collected, I should continue with the work on hand- Is this what do you mean?

C. L. B.: Mostly so. Everything is predetermined in a sense every action initiates reaction. Your longing for effect to be -produced by present action renders itself invalid; unless you imbibe belief in your present 'will' having a previous cause. Understanding of this characteristic, absolute phenomenon makes you feel 'action' itself to be redundant. You consequently quell (put an end to) the new action and invite no new reaction.

F. W. B.: But whether I would rest on the oars (cease to make efforts) or not, again depends on my personality. If I am destined to realize what you propound, I will, otherwise not.

C.L.B: This statement itself amounts to encomium (expressing higher praise) of causal laws. Most wonderful part of the situation is: Causal law believer's decision to indefinitely differ action itself involves free will. On the other hand, when a free will believer wishes to cause all his actions by his free will he essentially hails causality in practice, in as much as he expects every action to meet a desired reaction. The outcome is, the free-will follower, as a necessity adheres to causal laws, which causal law believer esteem as a code. In effect, causality excels.

F. W. B. We have no grudge for not obtaining the desired result, because we believe in probability only.

C.L.B.: It certainly does not mean that an abortive attempt evokes no depression in the free will believer. His adjustment with a frustration is much the same “as action of readjustment" of mind, after his cheerfully optimistic hope of probable fortunate stroke terminates without producing result. This action obeys laws of motion and so of causality. About probability I have already explained above as to how probability must be a component of total causality though unknown to us.

F.W.B.: But then, as I have argued if everything is predetermined so is my moment of knowing causality of your conviction. 

C.L.B.: For me, I hold in mind (harbor) a notion that all of us are believers of existence of causality. Some scientists rule out 'causality' because predictability of the events has been beyond the reach of experiments. They indirectly do concede causality to be one of the alternative possibilities. A probability theory cannot discard causality as one of the probabilities to be true law of Nature, if probability seeks to retain spirit of the theory. A probability believer finds it impossible to observe Nature in its totality or to its microscopic details, as he himself admits. But then how are you justified in being dogmatic about the unseen process, particularly in face of the fact that a very reliable section of scientist - never mind esoterically (secretly or confidentially) in your opinion - adheres to causality?

F.W.B.: Assuming I yield an assent to the theory by my free-will just now-and don’t shoot the bird then the bird that I was to kilt, will miss the predetermined event.

C.L.B.: We have already agreed upon the complex mode of Nature's innermost features. There can evolve a number of alternatives,

First: That the bird may have been destined to miss a probable hit.

Second: Process of Nature might have provided the bird with an alternative self- punishment. Third: Even on your accepting causality at the moment, you may open fire, as death of the flying animal by itself carries no special meaning and torture for you after realization.

Fourth: Even after self-realization, certain time for adjustment may be required. So you may choose to go ahead with your hunting, at the present juncture.

Fifth: Other mechanism inherent in nature might bring about adjustments, in keeping with her main Process, though the details of this process are lacking and the lacuna lies in human limitations.

F.W.B.: Without knowing the process and entire design of Nature, why should causality be taken as a faithful guide?

C.L.B.: Because it is inexorable (unalterable) and more logical. Besides, admittedly indeterminacy also involves ignorance of total objectivity. So, at least you should have no objection in embracing causality, on this plea alone.

F.W.B: Well, after this long argument, if I remain dogmatic about free-will, will it not repudiate (the authority of the) causality- since all your labor on me would cause no effect on me?

C.L.B.: Your taking part in the polemic (controversial argument) lends support to causality, in as much as you wish to "effect" change in me by the 'cause' of your argument. So far as the endeavor to convert you is concerned, I had myself admitted that change in you can keep pace with your own personality and not beyond.

Vijay R. Joshi.

Source: Appendix A to the Book "PURPOSE OF THE UNIVERSE'. Author Swami Vijnananand. (December 1961), with minor changes.