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 without Medicine - 8)

What is not “Medicine”? 

(Excerpts from book “Cure without Medicine”)

1. If we want to 'define' what medicine is and what not, then we will have to define the word 'Medicine', which is a rather tricky and difficult task.

When someone does not consume butter as a food, butter becomes medicine. When iodine is applied to a finger that bleeds, iodine is a medicine. Apply that same iodine to a normal finger, it ceases to be a medicine. By itself, a mixture or solution, or any substance can have no medical properties definable as a medicine, the use there of alone determines, whether it is a medicine or not.

It follows then that, if you use anything without the motive of cure of some disease then that substance is a normal one and not medicine. They are not medicine in the true sense of the term.

2.  One can boldly, assertively welcome medical treatment rendered as a 'first aid' measure by a doctor. One can consume medicine during the transition period that will eventually lead and is meant to lead a fuller understanding of the concept (given in this book). Such realized seeker can take medicine after some determined period of suffering. In that case, the patients over-belief (total reliance) in medicine as a lasting solution is absent and to that extent he is relieved of further addition to his already existing agony.

Both doctors and patients, knowing the limitations of medicine may certainly use medicine, since the new realization will render medicine less harmful and more useful. It is adding 'peace' to 'prescription'.

3.  A rough list of 'what is not medicine' was once prepared (By S.V.) It is reproduced in the book with all its drawbacks and then follows an analysis.

          (Refer the details on pages 113 to 115 of the Book)

4.   Basis of Analysis

The fundamentals behind the above list and analysis is as follows:

In disease foreign aid is not invited. What can be done is – (i) to take action to resort to the mobilization of one's internal strength; (ii) true understanding (realization) of the cause of disease; (iii) Internal adjustment of one's choice from the options available following the concept of recipropathy.

History teaches us that if any nation that takes military aid for resisting internal troubles, then that nation is destined to be doomed. Similarly, an individual should not 'import' a foreign body in an unnatural way to eradicate the internal troubles (of his body). Such foreign bodies may give temporary relief, but then they will permanently rule your body. The best way is to depend (to the extent possible) on internal individual strength and try to further strengthen it. Alternatively add (i) prescription (of medicine) + (ii) peace of mind, and (iii) vow for benevolence as reaction.

5. Yet, after all is said and done, foregoing analysis is not perfect. Absolutely anything that is consumed with the motive of curing of disease, without 'paying for' the real cause behind the disease amounts to resorting to medicine.

6. Again and again, we stress:- Do use your medicine (even) all your life, but add peace and understanding to your treatment.

7. Just by positive will power you can get cured. Just by repeatedly uttering 'Day by day, in every way, I am getting better and better' without doing anything is of no use at all.

Can 'will-power' compensate for past wrongs? 

The very conception is absurd. Will-power can 'suppress' the disease in its logical sequence. But no will-power in the world can prevent the delayed eruption of the disease.

8.   General phrases useful for daily repetition (like prayers)

The following sums up in convenient text form the significant teaching summary of this Book. There are general phrases useful for repetition purpose every day.

          "I am born out of my own evils and so are all my ailments. There exists no short-cut of relief from them. The only way lies in the full realization and full acceptance of this truth and through this realization slowly arriving at fuller truth. To the extent, I have genuinely understood this, I am being cured everyday".

In the above paragraph, the first sentence can be uttered as "for reasons, I do not know, Nature gave me a body that inherited these ailments".

9. Experience with a large number of patients has proved that the pain never recurred and certainly there was instantaneous stoppage of pain.

10. We have already said that all this is a theoretical discussion and in practice medicine just may be started under the doctor's advice right from the first stage, once principle is understood.

Summary – Concept of medicine is not totally barred. In fact, any medical treatment can be strengthened by adding the gist of our recommendations. At psychic level six phrases are given to meet the pain points.

Some Case Histories

Out of several cases treated personally by S.V., he has mentioned a few cases in this Chapter (starting from page 119 of book). In each case (which can be seen from the Book) S.V. has participated to some extent in bringing about the desired result, even by accepting self-pain.

He says – In none of the cases (mentioned in the Book), did we advise to discontinuation of the medicine or medical treatment (In support the recipropathy methods were used).

During my practice, I have utilized hundreds of variations in approach in conveying the new process to people. I have cured eighty percent of those who have approached to me. But my conviction always was and will continue to be that these intermediate variations were altogether UN-important. The genuine working was brought about by the real tenets of Recipropathy. In 20% cures, where patients were not relieved of organic pain, most of them could face their agony with a new understanding and a new boldness.

Case Studies 

Following cases are discussed (The details can be seen in Book, Chapter 15)

1.   A rich businessman – age 49 – Diverse complaints – major problem Insomnia – cured

2.   Upper middle class gentleman – Age 46, T.B. and Benign Tumor – Cured

3.   A rich family young girl – Age 19 – Hysteria, Irregular Menstruation – cured

4.   An administrator of India – Great renowned person – Acute Pain in stomach – cured

5.   A child of eighteen months – Headache – cured

6.   A businessman (middle age?) – Paralysis – cured.

Questions & Answers.

Question 1: You are propounding a correct theory. But I simply shudder at the idea of speaking all truth. Should I go even to my enemy and say the truth? What will a well-wisher of mine feel if I go and admit to him that I had committed a theft?

I had answered this question in some other context.  The question presupposes that your enemy does not know the truth. Search and you will find the same to be the cause of his being your enemy. Remove the cause and he remains no more your enemy. The other half of your question deals with your friend to whom you have to admit your theft.  This reveals the extent of faithlessness in your so-called friendship. Any way if you go and tell him the truth- you will no doubt have to suffer in the initial stage. But after the first pangs are over you will have full sympathy from others. However much your friend may abuse you openly, at the end he will always respect you for your courage. Because he should be convinced in his mind that he should not have been able to admit heroically his mistakes to others and in that respect he is inferior to you. The question is whether you want long suffering in your mind from within, or you aim to clear off the dirt around you at some initial disadvantage, followed by lots of satisfaction.

Question 2: Do you not think that instead of leading an emotionless life, it would be far preferable to have "small" emotions and get happiness?

I have time and again insisted that it is wrong to assert that life without emotions is not enjoyable: that it becomes inert and insipid. The trouble in getting along with "small" emotions is a mirage. When it comes to putting this so-called principled attitude into practice the individual concerned is never satisfied with a "small" measure. As he goes ahead his measure of "small", "reasonable". etc., goes up either with a leap and a bound or by slow degrees. The net consequence of "small" indulgences is the increase in greed. Never to be forgotten is the principle: All actions must have reactions equal and opposite. The Laws of Nature are too true lo be untrue.

Question 3: What is the fun in leading a detached life at all?

Nobody obstructs you from leading an attached life. The trouble is that grief will follow you as long as you crave for happiness. Light and shade are inseparable Year after year, or if you like life after life, this will continue till you feel exhausted.

Alternatively, accept the principle. Practice 6.25% of it to start with. Continue your doctor's advice. Miraculous results will surely materialize ultimately.

(To be continued .. )

Vijay R. Joshi

DISEASE - CURE (Death of Disease - 8)

Purpose of Pain and Disease

(Excerpts from the book – Death of Disease)

1.  What is the purpose of disease and especially the pain which is most of the times associated with the disease? Before the 'treatment' of the disease is to be discussed, we should definitely consider this 'purpose' aspect also.

The study of nature of pain is essential for throwing more light on purpose of disease.

A man loses his feet in accident. He loses his weight during the attack of fever, and his tooth when decayed. But besides all this why nature also adds pain? What is the role of this accompanied pain?

2. Mechanism of Pain

The nerved scattered widely throughout the body finally end into the central nervous system. The pain impulses more along special tracts within the spinal cord to arrive to their destination in brain part called thalami. Then the pain sensation is relayed to the sensory area of cerebral cortex and from that place the pain messages become more conscious.

The complicated system of distribution of pain impulse is neatly to be understood through knowing the fact that whole body has a unit nature. If a finger suffers, then the restlessness results, for the whole body and not the hand alone. If there is a toothache, other parts of the body also become restless. The pain focuses the entire attention of the person when it pricks.

Of course, reaction to the same amount of pain may differ from person to person.  It may be difference in sensibility of nerves conveying pain or the difference may be due to degree of control exercised over the thalamus by cerebral cortex.

There may be any other explanation what so ever, the fact remains that PAIN VARIES FROM INDIVIDUAL TO INDIVIDUAL.

3. Patient

Pain, subject to personal variation, is the prime factor which converts the whole man into a 'patient' subject to pestering pain.

4.  Prima facie purpose of pain 

The prima facie purpose of pain looks to be that of warning the patient. If the disease overpowers without pain, a large number of human lives would be lost.

Pain plays the role of a preliminary warning for alerting the patient. A second purpose of extremely annoying pain is to punish the person for his wrong.

Illustration - If you overeat, it may result in diarrhea. If you under eat, it may develop anemia.  (Both also depending upon many other factors).

Mostly in such cases the result can be co-related to cause. Since cause and effect is absolute law of nature, all diseases must be the result of related causes or defaults you have committed, though you may not directly be able to link one with the other.

Pain and disease both teach us

The book quotes Keats and Dr. Walker, who say in different words that we learn something from pain and disease. But 'We' means what? Which component of the body learns? Physical components have nothing to learn by themselves. Obviously, mind has to learn. Material things do not possess sensory qualities.

5. Controlling or balancing emotions

Thus most scientifically we arrive at the conclusion that training the mind in disease alone is legitimate procedure. 'Emotions' is the visible expression of mind. That is why training the mind amounts to training i.e. controlling or balancing emotions.

6. Nature's Purpose 

Every individual is created by nature to see how it reacts, given a particular combination of emotions. Without further analysis (which is beyond the scope of this book), we venture to guess that this august experiment of Nature tends to shaping the men towards perfection. We dare not and cannot dispute Nature. We need understand her laws to enable us to adjust our lives accordingly.

We envisage pain as necessary to teach our mind through its visible expression, emotions. We have already admitted that a direct link between a disease and a particular emotion out wits (confuses) our understanding for the simple reason that it depends upon ratio of that emotion to other emotions, which separate his personality from others.

7. Conclusion

The same disease arrives from different causes. This fact fumbles doctors and their reasons struggle helplessly. The knowledge of the fact that 'disease' and 'emotions' have causal relationship and that conditioning to emotions can yield desired results, yield us happiness.

The emotion should be neutralized, consequently, irrespective of its classification the ailment will meet its solace.

(To be continued)

Vijay R. Joshi.

DISEASE - CURE ( Death of Disease - 7)

Emotions and the Individual

(Excerpts from Chapter 15 of the book Death of Disease)

1. To recapitulate the conclusions of the previous chapters (i.e. discussion so far in the book Death of Disease).

1.1         Medical practitioners know that their respective pathies give no answer with regards to fundamental problem of disease, nutrition, protection. Masters of medicine admit it. Evidence endorses it.

1.2         In practice, the practitioners treat all ailments and proceed to cure all diseases. May be they really lack knowledge of disease in its proper perspective, may be they ignore it for personal benefit, or may be the dominance of ego leads them to act as they do.

1.3         Every pathy contains partial truth to a more or less degree. Yet the claim of perfection and infallibly in respect of any pathy is obviously unsustainable.

1.4         Disease cannot be cured unless 'mind' is properly treated. All present media of treatment, including psychotherapy, commit the common mistake of 'standardizing' their way of analysis of treatment. We must isolate The H.C.F. (Highest Common Factor) of cause and cure the disease.

 (H.C.F. is 'mind related'. Man may change, basic emotions are the same)

1.5         Joint consideration of body and mind alone leads to correct diagnosis. But mind controls body. Even the doctors subscribe to the view that ninety percent of diseases originate from mind (Psycho-somatic disorders)

1.6         However, debatable the nature of mind, for our purpose by concentrating on 'Visible Expression of Mind', we reach a sufficient good starting point. Visible expression of mind are 'emotions' primarily six.

1.7         Emotions reign supreme, not for a moment can we remain conscious without emotions.

1.8         If consciousness evolves primarily from emotions, our problem reduces to more simple level. Soldier for his 'patriotism' emotion throw his life in war. Saint Peter sacrificed himself for faith (other examples in Indian Context are - Sambhaji, Shikh Guru). Thus, the brave don't care of ' body' but value emotions. This is true for a coward also. He flies to save himself from some imminent danger, his individuality bursts with emotions of fear and therein he ignores his body. Often the heart of such person stops and they kill themselves.

Apparently, a height of paradox of life, that this coward so attached to his body, obviously kills the body itself by emotion.

2  A superficial analysis would lead to conclusion that each one kills himself with diametrically opposite emotions. Man remains under the sway of emotions till a breath of life remains and he considers his bodily existence altogether inferior.

3. For a human race the outer appearance of body may change from race to race, location to location in terms of color, weight, height, face, etc. but the same emotional trend will be discovered within all prevailing human beings (The mix may vary but basic emotions are the same). This is the H.C.F.

4. We carry a wrong notion that education basically changes emotional set up. Even time fails to teach human race in that sense. The driving emotion of a speculator (in share market) today is the same - greed - as that of his predecessor who joined the Alaska Gold root in 1880.

Technical knowledge apart, space travel of today differs emotionally in no way from Columbus who fought his way with unimaginable zeal to America.

5. Emotions are primary instincts whether the individual is a child, or century old, a weakling or a champion; poor or rich; a primitive or a modern man. Ignorant and rich behave as they do, because of identical craving of sex, ego, greed, anger, affection and envy.

Wherein then lie individual differences?

Emphatically in the difference of proportion of emotions, the nature of constituents remains the same.

6. It is easier to treat and cure a man through his emotions than through his physique.

Medicine are many and they will continue to come in many numbers as the disease change in nature. The history of modern medicines reveal that with all the progress in terms of body - treating - medicines, the diseases are not controlled, nor human life is made comfortable we can't wait for centuries for the body cure. Till the ideal modern medicine comes (which has not come so far), we should attempt to treat emotions, the primary cause of disease.

If disease is to be treated at individual level, and if emotions have been proved to be a part and parcel of even conscious person leading him to disease, we better treat emotions. Certainly, it is better to treat a disease by catching at its root.

7. Dr. Alexis Carrel says - "Disease is a personal event. It consists of the individual himself. There are as many different disease as patients".

We endorse this wholeheartedly. Each individual will differ from the others. This is due to variation of wide extent of ratio or combination of various emotions which prevail each moment he is conscious. This play of emotion with each individual at each moment of conscious life is an unalterable fact.

To quote Dr. Carrel again - "Death is the price he (man) has to pay for his birth and his personality". The 'personality' undoubtedly manifests itself through emotions.

Humanity has to learn to conquer emotions for eliminating disease.

(To be continued…)

Vijay R. Joshi.

DISEASE CURE (Death Of Disease - 1)

Excerpts from book:  Death of Disease

I (Swami Vijnananand - S.V.-) hasten to assure my readers that:

- My arguments will be careful, accurate and strictly logical. If, after that, the logical presentation results in some entirely new findings, then, the world has necessarily to make room for it.

- Not the disease, but the patient should be treated.

- Survival of civilization must ultimately depend not on advance of science but on spread of morality.

- I have no quarrel with Doctors. However, truth must be unreservedly faced. It is for the reader to decide whether to live in chaos or leave it for better health in a New Way.

Interesting Riddle of Food

Admittedly many human ailments spring from an insufficient attention to nourishment. Scientists insist on intake of flawlessly correct diet. Yet they don't formulate any criteria for checking this correctness.

Dr. Anthony Barnett, Lecturer in Zoology in Glasgow University

"It must be admitted that standard vary (what should be the intake in forms of calories or vitamins for health) and that there is even now no final agreement on the necessary amount of certain essentials. We know that nobody can do without vitamin C, for instance, but we cannot lay down precisely, with reasonable certainty, the minimum any person or even any class of persons, must have it (vitamin C), in order to avoid all ill effects. "One difficulty is that individuals almost certainly vary genetically in their vitamin needs. Tooth decay is unquestionably influenced by diet, but one child may have excellent teeth, another on the same diet may have extensive decay.

As far recommendations of proper diet for health is concerned, such simple problem also confuses the scientists. (In scientific recommendations). The twists and turns are many. All mere generalization and no medical expert has been able to offer correct guidance (on diet). Goodness, nourishing qualities, taste and other factors differ with every individual and render the doctor's teaching mere theoretical nonsense.

Doctor's Dilemma: The doctors are not aware of the limitations of their knowledge.

Three main obstacles stand in the way of doctors to understand the new conception of disease and its cure. Their 'Knowledge' takes the first rank, their 'ego' second and third comes their 'need of self-preservation'.

1.  Bernard Shaw compared Registered Medical Practitioners with a commoner who challenges to a cat to keep clean while simultaneously throwing a bucket of mud on it.

Einstein remarked about himself – 'The secret is, I know how little I know of this vast Universe'.

The doctors are not aware of the limitations of their knowledge.

I (S.V.) have myself defended medical knowledge on the ground of its possessing scientific qualities, as medical authorities show clearly readiness to analyze their own results and discard them if found useless. Yet in practice (at the level of normal medical practitioners in society) such scientific attitude seems very much watered down (weakened).

A Nobel Prize winner shows keen awareness that modern medicine is unable to cope up squarely with all ills right from simple cold. He knows well, for instance, that the primary problem of finding a cure for cold demands the solution of diverse problems. This is because colds are due to various microbes. Research on cold has been hampered by the fact that common laboratory animals are immune from attacks of cold, except perhaps the expensive chimpanzees.

A famous book 'Patients and Doctors' (Page 76) rightly indicates that all that the medical man does when he stimulates the action of complementary organs is to render assistance to her (Nature).

Three main obstacles stand in the way of doctors to understand the new conception of disease and its cure. Their 'Knowledge' takes the first rank, their 'ego' second and third comes their 'need of self-preservation'.

a)  The medical practitioners seem incapable of thinking in terms other than those taught in the curriculum. Doctor feels content with the knowledge gained during a few years in a limited field and he believes in its perfection and presses others to count upon it.

b) The second dilemma is ego, which results from the natural corollary of his first dilemma, 'Knowledge'.

c) The third dilemma is the sense of self-preservation. If he agrees with and puts into practice the contents of the quotes of Einstein, Holmes, Paget or Carrel, he deprives himself of his bread.

I (S.V.) feel that, medical practitioners are neither better nor worse than other members of the society, in which they live. Their defects are noticed prominently by others because they happen to be educated (and also belonging to a conventionally respected profession).

Disease Unknown

That section of the medical world, which show clearly interest in the science of medicine shows full consciousness of the shortcomings of modern medicine.

I (S.V.) honor medical science to some extent because of their frank admission. The difficulty still remains that these frank admissions continue isolated, being found only at the top level. They never permeate to the lower ranks.

Vijay R. Joshi.