DISEASE - CURE (Cure Without Medicine -1)

Book: Cure without Medicine
 

In the blogs “Disease – Cure”, we are reviewing the views expressed by Swami Vijnananand (S. V.) on the “Cure of Human Disease”.

He has dealt the vital aspect of disease cure emphasizing the role of mind in a unique way. Besides others the books given below cover these views.

Death of Disease.

Cure without Medicine.

Cure Yourself.

Having covered “Death of Disease” so far, we shall now see the details covered in the book “Cure without Medicine”.

A. Preamble 

1)    Truth – The importance of truth has been emphasized by Christ. In the 20^th Century, Mahatma Gandhi was the greatest advocate, representative of Truth. All religions in the world have given highest esteem to the (practice of) Truth. The book tries to explain clearly in scientific terms the value of Truth par excellence.The book covers in larger context both Health and Happiness.

2) Limitations of words

The conclusions in this book are most difficult to digest, even for ‘thinkers’. Moreover, through sufficient description/notification is given for the points postulated, it is difficult however to claim that conclusions reached are elaborately interpreted in every detail. After all words have limitation.

3) Reconsideration of our ‘Articles of faith’

Five-fold reasons are as follows which make it necessary to reconsider the prevailing faith in order to agree to the arguments put forward in this book.

3.1) If well founded positive in-contestable inferences are not proving otherwise, body mind duality need be taken for granted. (Body and Mind are separate).

3.2) This is true at least when we examine the claims of the modern medicine (allopathy).

3.3) We have to believe that effect of mind theoretically is governed by the laws of physics-mechanics.

3.4) On the consideration of above points, hypothesis be studied in the field of medicine. Then one will see it to be peremptory. (leaving no opportunity for denial).

3.5) The link between real morality and health is incontestable (obvious).

The casual readers may find (primarily) the arguments in this book as absurd but if he goes into the details with full attention he will realize differently. Casual comments will not lead us to our objectives.

It is a casual arguments often made that – Morality, Equality, True prayer, Truth are all good and commendable virtues but they are Utopian Ideals (Ideas of perfection but impossible to practice in day to day life). We all know that laudable objectives are not so much attainable.

4. Important initial comment

Cure without drug is theoretically possible, practically not quite so easily. At any rate, it is far from practicable for those engaged in the routine hazards of life, striving for  living in a hard world.

5. Introspection for improvement.

Begin from a Simple Clue. Continue your present medicine or treatment and just add most modern psycho based ‘one dot a day’ method for your perpetual (long term) good.

Constant and strict vigilance has to be maintained by an individual by means of impartial self- introspection on daily basis. Manashakti Research Center (M.R.C.) recommends a psycho-graph to be filled up by every seeker every day to monitor the day to day self-behavior. The chart is reproduced above. "In morning or while going to bed, at some fixed time in a day, reflect your day's experience and assess whether it was predominantly in which of the following four categories.

         (1) Fear.          (2)Rage.        (3) Courage,  (4) Peace/Balance

The category may be fixed according to the most outstanding overall experience you may have during the day.  It reveals your inner overall condition of the mind during the day and provides feed- back for correction useful for your future life in terms of the "Mind-Body state”.

Far from the narrow interpretation, each mind state includes a wider variety. For instance, Fear includes family discord, misunderstanding, fear of conflicts, laziness. Rage includes monetary, executive or business worries and forgetfulness. Courage includes labor for good of others, or courage in calamities. Balance includes donation for others cause or peace (in disturbing moments). The dotted graph when enlarged, tells its wave story. The dots are joined monthly to prepare your own monthly psycho-graph. This is the broad indication of the person's behavior pattern as well as a tool for introspection to bring about the improvement in the desired direction. The journey from the state of fear/rage to courage/peace is rewarding experience out of honest introspection".

Graph :- Enlarge one dot a day (simplest method for introspection)

In morning or while going to bed, at some fixed time in a day, reflect your day's experience and assess whether it was predominantly in which of the following four categories.

–      Fear.

–      Rage. 

–      Courage, 

–      Peace/Balance

The category may be fixed according to the most outstanding overall experience you may have during the day. The Oscar Vogt method here undergoes a comprehensive, clear change. It reveals also your inner depths and forestalls the necessities of your future life in terms of the "Mind-Body state”.

B Yoga Method without its Dangers 

Yoga/Meditation: It is really a sorry state of affairs that except in a few research institutes, yoga is over commercialized and its stress on psycho-ethical standards is underestimated or often overlooked.

Yogic postures are taught and learn to regain or strengthen broadly the body abilities (organs/systems functioning of the body). Once the body functions are improved, then the idea is normally to have more enjoyment. But if one goes it details, it will be revealed that originally yogic Asanas were, by and large, the means to overcome stupid craving of the mind and flesh (mind and body i.e. physical pleasure and mental pleasures). Patanjali begins with the phrase ‘Control of Mind’ ….

If this part of yoga (i.e. control of mind) is overlooked then there is no justice to the practice. Many experiments on occasions have given warnings against the ill-practice of yoga. The widely sold ‘miracles’ of yoga should be properly and thoroughly examined before accepting such measures for own use. It is highly necessary that yogic postures may be placed in the ‘psychic’ frame of reference. One cannot say with authority that for this particular ailment of the body, this particular asana shall be effective (Thus, only bodily complains, without understanding the psychic role of the person cannot be cured by practice of particular course of asanas).

It is not justifiable to commercialize yoga and particularly Hatha Yoga. Unfortunately, it is lucrative to sell Hatha Yoga to the unwary (not cautious and watchful) people and it certainly brings quick financial returns. But all this is at the cost of the ‘YOGA SPIRIT’ itself. Earnest researchers in the field of yoga are still available for the earnest seekers of the truth.

The great Patanjali, the father of real psycho-based system of yoga, had already advanced this view point. ‘Mind-discipline by Yama-Niyamas’ provide the clue to this. Practicing of ‘Yama-Niyama’ amounts to pain-acceptance, on the face of it.

C. Pain for relief – The Guiding Principle

The concept of causality accepted by science, says that if you create motion for pleasure, the result will be displeasure and that is why if you want to come out of disease, then one has to give-up some ease. This concept is applicable to all the pathies.  Do not all schools of Medicine believe ‘Pain’ to be a process of cure? What is the main principle of cure? The guiding principle is achieving relief is the acceptance of discomfort. All pathies have accepted this vital truth – an apparent paradox.

Allopathy – Treatment involves UN-palatable medicine, painful injections, diet restrictions, occasional operations, Possibility of painful reaction of drugs, vaccination (for prevention).

Homeopathy – Aggravation of symptoms before cure.

Acupuncture – Needles are inserted.

Moxibustion (Burning of skin for cure, Chinese method of cure) – Body is subjected to heat.

Naturopathy/Hydropathy – Dieting, fasting, avoidance of harmful intake, exercising, bathing, mind coat.

Ayurveda – Diet restrictions, rest, prayers

Yoga method – Diet discipline (Yama, Niyama)

(All the details can be seen from Table on page 18 on the book).

Pain to Pleasure – Throughout the life

The theory of such concurrent pain-acceptance appears applicable not only to ‘cure’ but to all walks of life. It is a law common to all and at every place. The ancient sages underwent ‘Tapa’ which meant penance which in the end bestowed strength and comfort to them. Think of a leader of any religion in support of the infallibility (absolute trust-worthiness) of this law. There never lived a single exception that could escape from the working of this law.

From Shuka, Rama, Krishna down to Guru Nanak – all had to cross hurdles and accept all horrors of this law. Moses, Christ, Mohammad had to track the same thorny path. Curiously enough, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and their people have never spared themselves from toll for their material improvement.

For a man or to a nation, pain acceptance can only lead to sunny days. Sleep or meal can be best enjoyed after toil and hunger respectively. The code – axiom ‘Pain to Pleasure’ pervades all life. Happiness or cure cannot be separated from basic scientific life line of physics (action is equal to reaction).

D. Answer to question –What causes disease?

1.   All schools concerned have to find answer to this question according to conscience by proper and thorough investigation. This would enable to find the disclosure (real answer) which will be of the first rank.

2. We cannot prove the ‘cause’ and its connection with the disease. We can only indicate the relationship (between psyche and soma) appears to be there. Such apparent relationship occurs in repeated although numerically few instances.

That is why on strict scientific rationale should be the real approach. It should have bearing on Causal Laws. Since there is disease (reaction) there has to be some cause (action). Only to this limits Recipropathy should be acceptable to the followers of any pathy who honor the concept of causality (The basic law of science).

(to be continued )

Vijay R. Joshi.

God, Belief, Science.

God, Belief, Science.

From eons there is a continue debate between God believers and atheists. Some believe God, some not. Since the advent of ‘Science’ some people have accepted it as their God and rejected the conventional God. What about the stand of scientists, who have attained very high rank; by their performance, in the world of science? Here too we find that some believe God, some believe Science and some respect and believe both. Anyway, God or no God, belief is unavoidable. Let us try to understand the views on this.

How a Scientist can believe God?

I am a serious scientist who seriously believes in God. But to many more people, I am someone just like them. A scientist can believe in God because such belief is not a scientific matter. By contrast, religious statements are not necessarily falsifiable.

Why do I believe in God?

As a physicist, I look at nature from a particular perspective. I see an orderly, beautiful universe in which nearly all physical phenomena can be understood from a few simple mathematical equations. I see a universe that, had it been constructed slightly differently, would never have given birth to stars and planets, let alone bacteria and people. And there is no good scientific reason for why the universe should not have been different. I believe in God because I can feel God’s presence in my life, because I can see the evidence of God’s goodness in the world, because I believe in Love and because I believe that God is Love.

Does this belief make me a better person or a better physicist than others?

I know plenty of atheists who are both better people and better scientists than I. (however) I do think that this belief makes me better than I would be if I did not believe.

Am I (theist) free of doubts about God?

Hardly. Questions about the presence of evil in the world, the suffering of innocent children, the variety of religious thought, and other imponderables often leave me wondering if I have it right, and always leave me conscious of my ignorance. Nevertheless, I do believe, more because of science than in spite of it, but ultimately just because I believe. As the author of Hebrews put it: “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Being atheist how do you recognize belief?

Despite the fact that I’m an atheist, I recognize that belief offers something that science does not.

Why along eons the religious belief remains relevant?

It might be argued that religious belief remains relevant because of the comfort it can provide.  But this one doesn’t do much for me. Solace; is not benign when reality proves the solace to have been misplaced, nor are beliefs that reduce anxiety when the belief system is so often what generated the anxiety in the first place.

So why is belief still relevant?                                                                
To this I’d offer a very a-scientific answer. It is for the ecstasy. I mean those instances where you’re suffused with gratitude for life and experience and the chance to do good where every neuron is flooded with the momentness of feeling the breeze on its cellular cheek.              A scientist or a  consumer of science may feel ecstatic about a finding—that it will cure a disease, save a species, or is just stunningly beautiful—but science, as an explanatory system, is not very good at producing ecstasy. By contrast, the potential for ecstasy is deeply intertwined with religiosity, where the mere possibility of belief and faith in the absence of proof is where it can be an ecstatic, moving truth.

Does scientific attitude require any faith?                                              

Science itself employs a kind of faith, a faith all scientists share, whether they are religious in the conventional sense or not. Science is built upon a faith that the world is understandable, and that there is logic to reality that the human mind can explore and comprehend. It also holds, as an article of scientific faith that such exploration is worth the trouble, because knowledge is always to be preferred to ignorance.

Is there a genuine place for faith in the world of science?

Indeed there is. Far from standing in conflict with it, the hypothesis of God validates not only our faith in science, but our sheer delight at the gifts of knowledge, love, and life.

Is the belief in God a delusion?

We do not abandon science because our human efforts to approach the great truths of nature are occasionally hampered by error, greed, dishonesty, and even fraud. Why then should we declare faith a “delusion” because belief in God is subject to exactly the same failings? Albert Einstein once wrote that “the eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility.” Today, even as science moves ahead, that mystery remains.

Did science make belief in God obsolete?

It depends. The answer turns on whether one emphasizes belief or God. Science does not make belief in God obsolete, but it may make obsolete the reality of God, depending on how far we are able to push the science.

On the question of belief in God, the answer is clearly no. Surveys conducted in 1916 and again in 1997 found that 40 percent of American scientists said they believe in God, so obviously the practice of science does not make belief in God obsolete for this sizable group. Neither does it make absolute for the hundreds of millions of practicing Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and members of other faiths, who both believe in God and fully embrace science.

Of course, reality does not bend to the psychology of belief. Millions of people believe in astrology, ghosts, angels, ESP, and all manner of paranormal phenomena, but that does not make them real.

Has faith has any relevance in our scientific age?                                             
In the end you have no answer to why science works, why the physical logic of natural law makes life possible, or why the human mind is able to explore and understand nature. And I agree that there is no scientific answer to such questions. That is precisely the point of faith–to order and rationalize our encounters with the world around us. Faith is human, and therefore imperfect. But faith expresses, however poorly, a reality that includes the scientific experience in every sense, and therefore

 

Here is my honest problem with your position, the same problem that drove me from believer to nonbeliever: if God is, in your words, "without form, immeasurable" and exists "in a dimension that cannot be quantified or depicted by science," how do you know God exists? How can I–or anyone else for that matter–know God exists?  As corporeal beings who form beliefs about the world based on percepts (from our senses) and concepts (from our minds), how can we possibly know a being who by definition lies outside of both our percepts and our concepts?

Indeed, it is not possible to prove that God exists; we cannot be sure, and people of faith do doubt. Such doubt is not restricted to my own tradition. Paul Tillich, a Protestant theologian, asserted that the basis of true faith is doubt.

So I have one final question for you: why believe in God at all? Why not just be an agnostic?

Why believe? I have no rational answer. This is the cognitive dissonance that people like me live with, and with which we often struggle.

Atheists assert God does not exist. How do they know?

It is a matter of assumption, just like blind faith. That blind faith is what drives people to fly planes into the World Trade Center or to launch Inquisitions.

CONCLUSION: Atheist or theist; objection is not to the rational belief in God or Religion, but to the extremists’ superstitious attitude on both sides, which has potential to harm.

‘This stimulating conversation has moved from the question of whether science has made belief in God obsolete to the question of whether, on balance, society would be better off with or without religious faith’.

“If only religious believers throughout the world were as thoughtful, open-minded, ecumenical, and tolerant then, indeed, we could imagine no 9/11, no 7/7 bombings in London, no suicide terrorists, or abortion clinic bombers.”

“We want people of religious faith and without religious faith to act with genuine concern for the well-being of others. In the end, I think we should agree with Charles Darwin that in matters of faith all of us must make our own decisions”.

This is an abridged summary of the essays and debate on 'Does science make belief in God absolute?' with respect to 'Belief'.

Source: A series of conversations among leading scientists and scholars about the "Big Questions." John Templeton Foundation. (http://www.templeton.org/belief/)

Vijay R. Joshi.