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

GOD RECONSIDERED - 2

Rational concept by Swami Vijnananand

The need of evolving a God concept rationally acceptable was felt in the Templeton conversation as seen in earlier articles. In this article we see that a comprehensive vision on the similar manner penned by Swami Vijnananand in his book published in 1962.

Here are some excerpts from the first two chapters of his book “God Reconsidered”.

Eight Questions asked, theists to answer: To fence around the circumstances the earnest fold of devotees must put aside their orthodox, rude gestures and should study the points on which God is attacked. The chief amongst them presuming He exists, merely for the sake of argument is:

    God is deceptive.

    He is partial.

    He is mystic.

    He supports cruelty.

    He encourages lawlessness.

    He is egoistic.

    He employs double dealing.

    He disfavors rationalism.

The list can be extended considerably. However the gist of disapproval or condemnation of the disbelief, skepticism or doubts is covered in these 8 points. Again these unfavorable comments or criticism can be reworded.

(2) Right of agnostics to demand answer.

Agnostics have a right to insist for answer. By virtue of being victims of a long sufferings for centuries at the hands of God-believers they have acquired this privilege. Hundreds of rebellion against God sacrificed broke on the wheel, as if, Walter Malone’s axiom in their heart, “An honest man cannot surrender an honest doubt”.

(3) Task of God believers easy if they deal with it in 3 ways.

Obviously the ego of God believers and revengeful attitude of the agnostics confront the efforts of reconciliation. Unless one keeps his mind balanced, impartial, open, alert, honest, straight forward, even a simple approach to a formidable question looks improbable. Both sides have suffered insults so they are dogmatic, having their own inflexible convictions ingrained in them. The task calls for Herculean efforts, none the less, it is achievable at the cost of sustained efforts. The problem can be attacked from three fronts to ensure success.

3A) First term-of the truce, pending final verdict is to nurture a belief in the intrinsic earnestness of the atheists.

3B) Onus to prove the gaps in the creed of the non-believers rests on the theist. The materialist should be logically led to the conclusion that his own pillar-stone of philosophy is as shaky as that of God’s missionary. That is to a certain extent a negative proof, though by no means it is lacking of any purpose, intention.

3C). Therefore, what could bring home a perpetual reconciliation is fundamental endorsement to the concepts.

(4) Primary need to admit gap:

To begin, has the believer himself ascertained true nature of God? If not, it looks imperative for him to honestly say.so. Next case for analysis by the enthusiastic devotee is disparities in various revelations. It is the theist’s own burden to furnish convincing reasons for such, fragrant diversities, instead of wasting energy in insisting on excelling supremacy of his own pious faith. And does the notion of each religious follower, that his creed is a chosen one among all, stand to a dependable test?

(5) Sufferings of Religious leaders-a lesson:

Glance over the life sketches of all the religious leaders. As chosen men of the Almighty, were they spared of agony and despair? What could be the purpose of God in throwing his trusted messengers on Pins and needles, though temporarily? Does the Divinity aim at verification of his prophet’s tenacity?  And then "does it not curtail God of His limitless capacity to know everything?

Followers of all faiths are faced with such obscure perplexities as all major sects are studied one after another.

(6) Suffering of followers disproves extrajudicial grace, prayer etc. In addition to leaders themselves, the fold of followers-some of the most ardent amongst them; tell a similarly sorry tale.

Illustrations from Hinduism, Shintoism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism etc. are provided in the book and the conclusion says:

There is nothing obscure in torch-bearers of God being in peril, when-a rigorous law is presumed. None could appreciate God to plead, "Oh men, I punish you for every wrong; but I shall pardon myself or my flatterer for the open follies."

(7) Non-believers, un-tortured:

On the background of a parade of pious, persecuted spiritualists, comparatively rewarded lives of host of mundane materialists manifest marked contrast. Quite obviously, materialists too have to counteract defeat, disease and death. The question at issue is: do they suffer on account of their atheism? A negative answer comes back. The declared skeptic individual, far from being victimized by God or Nature, is found basking in the sunshine. It appears then that Nature's code of granting gratification is governed by other rules than a lay God believer imagines.

(Many such illustrations from different part of the world are provided to substantiate this point).

Indeed, one wonders why believers fight shy to accept a lawful God in preference to a kind God. Further investigations pronounce the flagrant truth without a stint of vagueness how half-hearted, pious beggars have spoild the name of Good God.

The theist rejoins the non-believer, (Answers to the questions above).

A few tentative, probable answers to the eight charges leveled against the Supreme Being are attempted as below, leaving an overall reply to be spread over the entire course of the treatise.

1. Is God deceptive?

That God has deceived pro-pounders of various religions by presenting Himself differently is inherently on unsound reasoning.

The concept of God implanted in those who believe Him in a certain singularly immutable form takes its root from prophets or Messiahs on whom they rely. It was, perhaps, not the issue of understanding the highest truth (which of course each one of them did perceive and promote), but it was the level of listeners' ability.

A professor of mathematics realizes the gaps in Euclidean Geometry but withholds revealing them to the lower class. The instructor of physics already is acquainted with modifications in Newtonian mechanics nevertheless he abstains from introducing them to juniors. On similar grounds, expositors of religions had tenable reasons to reserve the highest knowledge from the commoners at that level of grasp. The God- sent assured themselves that at an advanced stage, either the new Messiah would come or that the craving creatures could learn their own lessons and thrust forward.

2. Is God partial, as He created inequalities?

Disciples of God are shrouded in ignorance about 'Why' of the Universe and God, as much as Scientists are, though both continue to offer explanations. Consequently, there is no substantial ground for scientists to scorn at the credulity of the believer. And to come to the point at issue, science concedes that no particle of matter is exactly like the other, in as much as every particle occupies different space (and of course, time).

'Reason why' of it is beyond the comprehension of scientists. They should allow the same latitude to the other side.

3. Is God mystic?

An agnostic commands a willing support from a rationalist in his defiance of obscure mystics of various schools but, to call God Himself a mystic is incorrect. He is not more mystic than the 'hero' of the ultra-materialists who is declared so; ‘matter’ in its last analysis assumes character of a wave. The teams of researchers are yet far from the knowledge about the fundamental nature of the so-called matter. As for matter itself, intentionally it does not cloak itself in mystery; God also does not. Both hypotheses mark out our own limitations.

4. Does God support cruelty?

It is true that a scientist avoid wordings such as as 'kind' or 'cruel' Nature. Nature is neutral. God shares no other description, but when these adjectives were employed, as point above explains, it was easier for the masses, common people to conceive of God in that way. That theme awaits amends and if a dogmatist is unwilling to adjust, he could be safely ignored.

5. Does God encourage lawlessness?

In no system of society including Marxists; criminals are absent. Injustice prevails at the higher levels, though as an exception. No sane and responsible critic, however, assails the institution of 'Government' itself and as a whole, in favor of anarchy. The code of conduct is framed. Its violation is and should be punished. Creator sponsoring lawlessness then amounts to abuse of terms.

6. Is God Egoistic?

Answer goes with '4' above.

7. Does God employ double dealing?

This leads to a controversy on reconciliation between causation and free-will. In a democratic set up, do we not curtail individual liberty on acceptance of causal code promulgated by the State? Is there any fundamental contradiction between the exercise of law and liberty that gives encouragement to a citizen to lift up self? The more balance between the two is struck, the better. (The simile is to be taken in a limited sense.)

Appendix of this work to a modest degree, Appendix A of 'Purpose of the Universe' to a great extent and 'Science and Philosophy', yet another title of this series, particularly its Appendix, touch this problem in all its perspective. (Swami Vijnananand (S.V.) has dealt in details on aspect such as Causality, Free Will, Entropy, Death, Rebirth, Happiness, Disease, Nature’s Rules and Human Life etc. in his other books under the series of “New Way Philosophy”).

8. Does God disfavor rationalism?

A rationalist accepts religion, not because of any dogma; but because it can be reconciled with the spirit or essence of science. Therefore, in case an assertion in religious doctrine supporting reason stands refuted in some other or in the same text, it is for the dogmatic to explain the odd situation. It is not the responsibility of an open-minded who shares belief in religions only because of (and to the limit of) their rational character. No entity other than God should be responsible for having equipped man with reason, his most enviable tool, which places him above the animal world, Science comprehends narrow scope of human intellect; yet puts it to service, it being the best available contrivance (plan, design, device) having potentialities to develop itself. And, argues science, its ignorance is no knowledge of the benighted (un-enlightened, intellectually ignorant). Bigoted (intolerant) spokesmen of religious creeds invite serious setback to human lot deprived of use of intellect - as the whole of chapter three (of this book) reiterates.

Has God Ego, Because His Devotees Pray Him?

(l) Is prayer to God to get what we need?

Points 6, 7, 8 above and conclusion of chapter nine of the book under discussion conclusively disclaim wishful prayers from God's domain.

(2) Should we pray so that we should remember Him?

The Almighty would appreciate the whole of your life turned into a Prayer. Instead, the devotees reserve days for committing sins and minutes for prayer, in the hope that the latter will cancel the former. A hollow mockery of prayer indeed! Prayer assumes some meaning only when the devotee approaches God after doing his duty as a formality. It is self-assurance of being conscious of the divine code. In any case, mechanical prayer is devaluation of essence of prayer.

(3) Prayer only after due discharge of obligation.

Prayer and duty as its price are linked up and indeed prayer becomes thanksgiving for intrinsic justice in causal laws. The seeker, at highly elevated level of his progress himself ceases to Pray for worldly benefits. In any case, no prophet has ever unconditionally prescribed a mechanical prayer.

Kindness of God, Implicit!

Beyond all questions, God is gracious; but it does not extend beyond the range of equitable regulations, He has laid down. "Every cause shall bear an appropriate effect, no more, no less" pronounces He. And for the benefit of an elevated paragon He adds, "When bewildered of or tired of 'effects', produce no cause itself."

What a candid piece of advice! The excelling beauty of it is: after the preliminary hint, he interferes no more. He dominates no way like a despot. His rules have crowned each man as his own master. There lies His infinite benevolent character and nowhere else does it exist, nor is it necessary.

The headings of the other chapters of the book are:

Chapter 3    Gaps in Religion.

Chapter 4    Purpose and Partiality.

Chapter 5    No cruelty and ego. Absolute Kindness.

Chapter 6    Causality and Existence beyond life.

Chapter 7    Is cycle of existence valid?

Chapter 8    Neutrality, Truth, Knowledge, Causality.

Chapter 9    Science and God, Conclusions.

Appendix A   God believer answers Non-believer.

Appendix B   Follow five ways to God or redeem yourself from the curse of knowledge.

Vijay R. Joshi.