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.
