DISEASE CURE (Death of Disease - 4)

Certain Fundamental Definition (Individual, Disease and Cure)

(Excerpts from book: Death of Disease. Author Swami Vijnananand).

1.  In order to look attractive and impressive, an individual takes minute care for garments. But very strangely such care is very strangely totally forgotten in the far more important matter that of health.

The primary task is arriving at the definitions of –

 a)      An Individual

 b)      A Disease (which an individual wants to get   rid of)

 c)      Cure

The book discusses these definitions from important sources and arrives at the following.

Definitions

An Individual – is characterized by five features –

 a)      Every individual stands out distinct from others and distinguishable from all other human beings.

 b)      As an individual, he forms a complete whole. So long he is alive, he is further indivisible.

 c)      His mind and body are inseparably correlated, till he is alive (which factor dominates is a separate issue, which will be considered later).

 d)      Certain physical features may be common between two individuals. But mental factors must have some difference.

 e)      Mind is not visible. However, emotions are expressions of mind and to that extent mind is expressed to others.

Disease – Is a condition of mind where one has lost ease because of any abnormality in mind or body or in both.

Cure – Absence of condition of disease as described above will amount to cure.

Condition of Mind

ｷ                 In disease definition the starting point is 'Condition of Mind'. It needs some explanation.

ｷ                 What is to be stressed is that – unless the mind is taking cognizance, the physical condition of disease assumes a secondary role.

Illustration

(I) suppose there is a big black spot on the left thigh of a person. It will be ignored if it is painless. If the same spot is on the nose, he would lose all his ease. He will rush to consult a doctor and take the recommended treatment. This is because here 'no pain but ego of the person' is involved. He would even invite use of plastic surgery, which is not short of a condition of disease in ordinary sense. This illustration reveals how a painless condition also forces a condition of disease.

(ii) Broken leg is a condition of disease. But after the wound gets healed, whether or not to call the nervousness that continues to exist a condition of disease, remains an individual equation. An ordinary person will develop an inferiority complex, while a king like Taimurlang will intensify his oppression with doubled revengefulness. It is in this light the words 'Condition of Mind' in this definition are relevant and significant.

Conception of Disease

1.  Mere emphasis on 'loosing ease' may not clearly explain our point. The definition made above, includes amongst others the following categories of 'diseases':

       

 i)    Accidents

 ii)   Casualties of War

 iii)  Sufferers in Cold War

 iv) Criminals or prisoners of Jail

 v)   Victims of atomic radiations

 vi) People staying in foreign lands (unlawfully) away from native places

 vii) Individuals inflamed by concepts of race superiority

 viii)   Individuals inflamed by feeling of religious superiority

 ix)  Very high birth rate

 x)   Very low birth rate

The above list can be easily lengthened.

2. The book gives adequate explanation why these groups define sufficient conditions for disease.

3. Some scientists tend to the view that some of the above categories are better classified under the heading 'State of mental uneasiness' rather than as 'sick'. But except group No.4 (Criminals/Prisoners) and 10 (Very low birth rate), any of the above groups will be equivalent to any grave miser-causing disease.

In modern medicine, the conviction has gained ground that very often in the case of a sufferer from greater shock, his minor shock/pain/disease is absorbed. Scrutiny properly carried out indicates that most of the above groups as being victim to disease, though one may differ as to the degree.

Location of Disease

1.  To a question – where the disease is located, the answer normally given is 'body'. We are conditioned to believe so far over a prolonged period. The reasons for the disease normally given are: (a) Bacteria (Infectious disease); and (b) Constitution (of body)

2. Infectious disease – If the origin of infection is bacteria was a true notion, then there appears no valid reason why large number of people remain unaffected in epidemics. (Because every person is subjected to the bacteria say air-born-virus, but everybody does not get effected by it) so besides the 'bacteria' there has to be some other reason.

3. Constitution – If it is assumed that these with sound/healthy constitution are not affected by the disease and disease affects only the weaklings, then we don't find so in practice. Many healthy person (constitutionally strong/stout) catch up disease and succumb to it. And many weak (looking) person remain healthy for a long life.

4.  Thus by a different path, we arrive at the same conclusion that cause of disease neither lies in the bacteria, nor in the constitutional factor. It apparently looks more or less an individual equation and it’s inter relation between constitution and bacteria.

According to many, including some respected doctors, disease on body surface forms merely a visible expression of the afflicted mind (injured mind). The force of mind that plays a role during the state of disease (and also cure process) makes itself (mind) clearly revealed in many instances.

        Faith cure

        Magic cure

        Psychological cure

So-called scientific medical practitioners of today, also held indirectly that patient gets cured because of his faith (and will power also). The 'faith-cure' seen from age old times also endorses a view that mind must be the fundamental basis of disease as well as cure.

5 What constitutes Mind?

Is it merely the function of the brain? Are the limitations of the brain are created by mind? Mind according to us is the energy that persists in our life.

Explanation – A still born (dead on birth) child apparently possesses same features, physique and constitution as a living child. What then is lacking? Certainly the energy!

Though eyelids, ins are present, they remain unmoved. The brightness of iris imparted to it by that energy is absent. (So the difference between a still born and the living child is energy).

6. None dare deny that a mere mechanical body or brain cannot produce life. A super model of computer if compared with brain becomes less than preliminary model.

7. We therefore conclude

7.1 Brain does not solely represent mind. It practically reflects mind as all parts of the body.

7.2 Brain might depend upon matter that builds body as a whole. But that body depends on individual life-giving energy. This energy is the same as mind. The reason is simple that the purpose of mind and energy (in present context, understood as today) remains identical i.e. to shape the individual.

7.3 If mind was a function of brain, all intelligent persons would have been strong minded or healthy. This is not so in actual observation.

7.4 Mind shapes body, consequently the brain. Mind keeps it healthy (brain-body) till the purpose of particular life comes to an end.

7.5 Only the equivalence of mind and life-energy explains satisfactorily the causation or elimination of disease. Doctors also agree this in case of about 90% of the diseases.

7.6 When body of a man, which lives for fifty years, starts decaying and decomposing, then doctor can prevent the damage for say 50 hours. Not beyond (a certain limit). Then who protected the man for fifty years from the occasional diseases?

The energy of mind kept the decay away for fifty years. When the Nature puts aside the charter of energy, the end cannot be avoided.

7.7 The brain dependent mind is a mechanical view and not justified.

7.8 Mind is undeniably considered an essential absolute and distinct from the body. This view is held by many thinkers as well as scientists. However, both the components (mind and brain) continue an indistinguishable whole (one) throughout the life.

If the view that mind or thought springs from the functioning of the brain were true, scientists would have rushed to set right brain instead of mind.

'Mind' can be called by different names (mental faculties, consciousness, thoughts, etc.) but we are using the word 'mind' as it is commonly understandable.

 8.      The mind stands supreme. Mind causes life as well as death. Hence, a great medical authority wondered whether the shock of Napoleon victory at Austerlitz killed Pitt rather than any disease (We also see how a blowing mental agony totally ruins a healthy person overnight).

(To be continued)

Vijay R. Joshi

SPEED OF LIGHT, A CLUE TO DEFINE MIND (W.M.M. - 6)

Excerpts from book: WHAT MIND MEANS (Author Swami Vijnananand, Manashakti publication).

Measurement of mind is too frequently considered to be an idle enquiry by a section of scientists. This is not because it lacks significant support from the learned but perhaps because the controversy has dragged on for centuries. An explanation of mind, howsoever workable, shall be gladly welcomed appreciably by thinkers and leaders of science alike. This book aims at interpreting psyche in understandable terms, keeping away logomachy (arguments about words). Mind is interpreted in two diagonally opposite ways by two schools of philosophers, standing poles apart.

Prima facie (primarily) to prove the non-spiritual or worldly nature or character of mind on scientific principles is very shaky and difficult task. Notwithstanding the indirect and rare lacuna (missing part in logical argument) of mind, it can be established in clear and comprehensive term. The task indeed is suitable with the set beliefs or principles of a rational person.

An unprejudiced, detached thinking blended with allowable imagination should be implemented in our quest (search) for the unknown.

The laws of physics hold out no promise to un-riddle (solve) the whole mystery surrounding the psyche. Matter (smallest fundamental particles) itself has eluded physicists and also their most powerful electronic microscopes and the like instruments. Of course this cannot be a reason why science/physics should not be continued to be exploited to have glimpses into the unknown (i.e. science still can be used to a greater extent in trying to understand the psyche, non-matter). As it is foolish (absurd) to attempt to insert round peg in a square hold, it is wrong to attempt to satisfy the growing human choice of consequential reasoning by keeping away science.  Idealists are likely to face a miserable failure because of their very hard disregard to the rationale. Limitations of reason accelerate their nonreligious (undue) respect for science, which they consider as sorties (quick raids by force). They are reluctant to employ methods of physics even for an approach to the deepening enigma (ever growing riddle) of mind.

Expression ‘failure of science’ is virtually (almost) a misnomer (inappropriate name). Indeed, intrinsically (within itself) science predominantly implies (means) observation and inference thereof. Therefore, science in capsized (upturned, upset) situation, simply speaks of –Omission of our observation capacity or Impotency (incapability to conceive) of our power of synthesis at a given moment.

In this aspect, logical imagination based scientific attitude provides us a broad hint. We may note here that scientists tend to encourage logical imagination. The logical imagination is used more particularly when the observation confuses the understanding of the description (observation is not sufficient to make correct description). Physics is the pillar stone of science. At some threshold (limit), physics declares its incompetency (inability) to observe obviously evident matter and this provides a positive proof for existence of non-matter.

1.  Materialists – They have been commitment to the dogma that the entire macrocosm (universe) derives its basic constituents from matter in various shaped and shades.

 2. Spiritualists – They have a total opposite stand. They have their firm belief in the dogma that matter is not a truth (illusion) and what essentially true is mind, the spirit.

 3. Scientists – They stand divided on the issue.  Many of them stand divided in their own mind and the rest adapt to an indifferent attitude.

Physics strongly lends its constructive support to establish this non-matter which is known as ‘mind’ in common terms. To use a simile, it is nothing short of a senseless statement to emphasize that science can establish the existence of light but not of darkness. Once science reaches clearly last limit of light but perceives something beyond it, then the cool affirmation that ‘non-light’ is established in terms of science is true statement which cannot be challenged.

However, such a situation does not issue license to idealists to put forward the theory of variety of minds based on the dreamy, imaginative thinking. Chapter two and five give arguments which forbid such excess in name of science.

Mystic idealists have always put forward their favorite theory of multiplicity of mind, soul or such non-material entities. The inner pure mind is considered as idol by spiritualist. If we are called upon to suppose that such a divine purity in us remains impotent and renders itself powerless before the odd occurrence of emotional burst, then it all speaks ill of the pure inner mind, soul, etc.

For mechanical materialists everything is matter. For spiritualists everything is non-matter. The only disadvantage to the later (spiritualists) is that they attempt further classification in the field of already what is admittedly unknown. If every smallest entity of this universe is either wholly matter or non-matter, then gentlemen, friends and foes meet, since in any case such campaign ends in substitution of noun with the same connotation and these terminates the polemic. If both are serious about the dual they cannot go on with negative definitions respectively of matter and mind.

The task on our hand at the moment is to hunt out a commonly acceptable description of mind not subjected to denial/dispute by two representative hostile groups

It takes a time of about 8 minutes for travelling the sun rays from sun to earth. But my look to the Sun and correlated thoughts do not require eight minutes to reach to the Sun. In fact, they may not take time – not even one-eighth of a micro-second. This obviously leads to unavoidable conclusion.

It will be seen that Eddington leaves his notion of ‘mind-stuff’ very indefinite. It is pertinent to note that authority like Heisenberg too endorses mind beyond laws of physics and deductively (it is) non-matter.

Heisenberg in certain terms places psychology that peeps in mind, beyond the scope of physics. Physics deals with matter and once the claim of physics over psychology is abrogated then in Heisenberg’s opinion, mind must pass into non-material realm (region).

We see no prospects of affording ourselves to count upon the modern psychologists for an unambiguous clue to mind.

Freud defines mind and takes himself in the direction of mystic verbiage (mysterious style of expressing the same thing in different words) in the same breath, he says: “consciousness appears to us as positively the characteristic that defines mental life. We regard psychology as the study of content of consciousness. This even appears so evident that any contradiction of it seems obvious nonsense to us. Yet it is impossible to avoid this contradiction or to accept the identity between the conscious and psychic. The psycho-analytical definition of mind is that it comprises processes of the nature of (i) feeling, (ii) thinking, and (iii) wishing. It maintains that there are such things as unconscious thinking and unconscious wishing. But in doing so, at the outset, psycho-analysis has lost the right of the sympathy of the scientifically minded and self- restraining people and has become suspicious of being a fantastic cult occupied with dark and mysteries which cannot be understood”.

Both spiritualists and Marxists (materialists) insist that what remains imperceptible (unrecognizable) to them matches respectively with mind and ‘highest’ or ‘finest’ form of matter. That is the crux of the problem. It looks strange that both show confidence in their notion. At the same time, both of them go with the stream that the remaining entity is unknown in all its details and perhaps unknowable.

Einstein has insisted that our notion (general understanding) about the physical world will never be final. Lenin has also endorsed that Nature is infinite. To dig out (excavate) the secrets of Nature and being overpowered by her un-understandable vast kingdom to give it a name either as ‘matter’ or ‘mind’ finally turns out to be a subjective notion (concept) about the ‘unknown’.

As Lincoln Barnett puts it, “matter and energy are interchangeable. If matter sheds its mass and travels with the speed of light, we call it radiation or energy. And conversely, if energy congeals (contracts into fluid) and becomes inert, and we can ascertain it as a mass, we call it matter. Up till now science could only note their transitory properties and relations as they touched the perceptions of earthbound man. But since 16^th July 1945, man has been able to transform one into the other. For on that night of Alamogordo, New Mexico man for the first time transformed a substantial quantity of matter into the light, heat, sound and motion which we call energy. Yet the fundamental mystery remains. The whole march of science towards the unification of concepts such as follows still leads to the unknown”.

The reduction of all matter to elements and then to a few types of particles

The reduction of forces to the single concept of energy and then

The reduction of matter and energy to a single basic quantity

(From wiki: Reductionism is a philosophical position which holds that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents)

Evidently both the spiritualists and the Marxists (materialists) irksomely (annoyingly/irritatingly) count upon their conjectures (guess or speculation) in admitted unknowable and unknown. There is no reason for the detached scientist to go out of way and justify anyone. While one uses aggressive language with the aid of some scientific phrases and the other clearly and humbly admits his limitations. There awaits very complicated confusion still. On one hand the spiritualists or, to be precise, many amongst them adopt a belief in mind and also in matter as separate, real entity. And yet others insist on Trinity, (soul, mind and matter) or such other terms. The materialists on the other hand will not reconcile en bloc to the term ‘material universe’ without suitable modification as (because), Mechanical materialist would hasten to supplement the expression by the words “with a motion externally supplied” while the Marxists would insist on describing the matter having ‘inherent motion’.

At the end of 19th century the study called the photo-electric effect showed that different types of radiation behave as streams of minute particles, known as photons. Each type of radiation is characterized by photons of strictly definite energy. The shorter the wage of electro-magnetic radiation, the more energy do the photons of this radiation possess. Each photon is capable of being absorbed by an atom of matter, in which case it gives up its energy to the atom and one electron of corresponding energy is ejected.

Using this effect as a basis, it was very easy to explain both (i) the photo-electric effect and (ii) the ability of different radiations to ionize gas. Numerous experiments showed that photons, like particle of matter, possess a mass that is computed by dividing the energy of the photon by the square of the speed of light (E=mc² i.e. m=E/c²). It then became possibly in certain sense, to co-relate particle of radiation (photon) and particle of matter. True, there still exists an essential difference between particles of matter and photons.

·         Mind can be in motion.

·         In the ability to sustain restless as a hyena (cruel, untrustworthy and greedy person) in an active life, mind is associated with brain, which in turn links with the entire organism.

·         Mind incorporates and/or possesses, and/or is made up of, and/or is the same as emotions, sensation, thought, knowledge, consciousness.

The cautious though candid description may bring round the dissident groups to chime with it.

Thought (an expression of mind) cannot remain purely and absolutely individual in strict sense of the term when we set the eye upon an object and brood over (look closely, completely, minutely).

To supplement the above, Eddington, Russel and Heisenberg are referred to.

Eddington – Besides the direct knowledge contained in each self-knowing unit, there is inferential knowledge. The inferential knowledge includes our knowledge of the physical world. It is necessary to keep reminding ourselves that all knowledge of our environment from which the world of physics is constructed has entered in the form of messages transmitted along the nerves to the seat of consciousness. Obviously the messages travel in codes, e.g. when message relating to a table are travelling in the nerves, the nerve-disturbance does not in the least resemble either the external table that originate the mental impression or the conception of the table that arise in consciousness. In the central clearing station, the incoming messages are sorted and decoded partly by resulting image-building inherited from the experience of our ancestors, partly by scientific comparison and reasoning. By this very indirect and hypothetical inference all our acquaintance with and our theories of a world outside us have been built up.

Russel – Describes seeing the table – The light waves cause occurrence in our eyes. These caused occurrence in the optic nerve and in turn caused occurrence in the brain. The unbroken chain between the object and brain is undeniable.

Heisenberg – (Book Physics and Philosophy) Quantum theory does not allow completely objective or subjective picture of Nature and our self. Observation itself changes probability function. Heisenberg therefore would not consider a complete dis-union between subject and object in the process of thinking.

Thinking and seeing – Simultaneity

We have seen the difference. But again, none can deny simultaneity between thinking and seeing. Science goes from known to unknown and it is very right to investigate what happens when we see while thinking.

Mind independent of matter

·         Light travels at the speed of 3, 00,000 km/sec.

·         Considering the distance between the Earth and the Sun, the Sun ray we ‘see’ has already travelled about 8 minutes from the Sun, i.e. we see the Sun in eight minutes (8x60=480 sec or approximately 500 sec).

·         But we can ‘think’ of the Sun in a fraction of second, i.e. our thought can reach the Sun in a very short time, i.e. our ‘thought’ travels at the rate of 500 times than the Sun light. Thinking is much faster than seeing.

·         Thought (mind) can travel transcending the limiting speed of matter. (which presently is considered as speed of light)

·         This fact asserts that mind is “non-matter which can transcend the limiting speed of matter which presently is considered as speed of light”.

Matter can’t exceed speed of light, while thoughts (i.e.) can exceed. This is enough to assert that limiting speed of light proves mind independent of matter. This is a historical definition of mind on most rational concept which should be acceptable to all.

(Note: This is an attempt to make reader friendly interpretation of the book “WHAT MIND MEANS” based on my perception. Readers are requested to refer to the original book to cross check their understanding.)

Vijay R. Joshi.