Medicine and Mind in 21ST Century (Part 2)

Swami Vijnananand vision.

In series of Blogs under “Disease Cure”, we saw in details the relation of Health with Emotions directly and Mind indirectly. The theory of ‘Recipropathy’ is also explained in details. The advice of Swami Vijnananand to “add peace to the prescription” is seen to be acceptable as per the latest findings in the field of human health. Swamiji often mentioned while he put forward his analysis fifty and odd years earlier, that “I am telling the facts which shall be appreciated in 21^st century”.

While the mental stress related reasons have assumed major base for the ill-health and as depression has become the second largest disease of 21^st century, thinkers in the field are required to go into the details of remedies and peruse the policy makers to evolve suitable policies for implementation.

In the first part we reviewed latest research in this field. We shall see some more developments in the field of health in light of the information provided under the articles in this series.

From the book: Mind over Medicine: Foreword By - Kris Carr New York Times best-selling author. (Author – Lissa Rankin, published 2013)

As technology and science continue to make remarkable advances, we have so much at our fingertips, advantages our ancestors never had. And yet, it’s common to experience heightened stress and anxiety. We feel separate, afraid, and alone. These feelings and more lead to tangible physical changes in the body. Contrary to what we previously believed, our genes are not fixed. The study of epigenetics proves that our genes are actually fluid, flexible, and highly influenced by our environment. External life- style triggers like nutrition, environment, exercise, positive or negative thoughts, and emotions literally affect your DNA.

About gratitude and appreciation, or belittlement and abuse? Change your thoughts, change your behaviors. Change your behaviors, change your biochemistry. As Lissa explains, our minds can make us sick and they can make us well. Our feelings and beliefs impact our every cell. She explains, using some of the latest scientific research.

Excerpts from book: 

“The peer-reviewed medical literature, where I sought scientific proof that you can heal yourself in journals like the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association”. Is there scientific data to support the seemingly miraculous stories of self-healing that float around?

There’s proof that you can radically alter your body’s physiology just by changing your mind. There’s also proof that you can make yourself sick when your mind thinks unhealthy thoughts. And it’s not just mental. It’s physiological. How does it happen? Un- healthy thoughts and feelings translate into disease and healthy thoughts and feelings help the body repair itself. One positive shift in your mental attitude can make you live ten years longer, one work habit can increase your risk of dying, and that a pleasurable activity you probably never linked to a healthy life can dramatically reduce your risk of heart disease, stroke, and breast cancer. These are just a few of the scientifically verifiable facts shared in this book.

(FOR MORE DETAILS SEE VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcai0i2tJt0)

Other findings in the latest research substantiate role of Mind in Health.

1 Happiness and Satisfaction Might Lead To Better Health.

2 Patients' perceptions of illness make a difference.

3 Sincerity Can Improve Our Health.

4 Mind with Purpose Preserves Brain Health.

5 Health-care providers are prescribing nontraditional medicine: Use of mind-body therapies on the rise.

6 From Bruce Lipton May 2015 Newsletter. On Medical profession and death.

1 Happiness and Satisfaction Might Lead To Better Health

Date: September 2, 2008. Source: Center for the Advancement of Health

It's the opposite of a vicious cycle: Healthy people might be happier, and a new study shows that people who are happy and satisfied with their lives might be healthier.

“Everything else being equal, if you are happy and satisfied with your life now, you are more likely to be healthy in the future. Importantly, our results are independent of several factors that impact on health, such as smoking, physical activity, alcohol consumption and age,” said lead author Mohammad Siahpush, Ph.D. Siahpush is a professor of health promotion at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

“We found strong evidence that both happiness and life satisfaction have an effect on our indicators of health,” Siahpush said.

Paul Hershberger, Ph.D., a professor at the Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine in Dayton, Ohio, said he found it interesting that the researchers were able to isolate happiness and life satisfaction out of all of the other factors that can influence future health. Hershberger was unaffiliated with the study.

Story Source: The above post is reprinted from materials provided by Center for the Advancement of Health.

2 Patients' perceptions of illness make a differenceJanuary 27, 2012, Association for Psychological Science

Whenever we fall ill, there are many different factors that come together to influence the course of our illness. Additional medical conditions, stress levels, and social support all have an impact on our health and well-being, especially when we are ill. But a new report suggests that what you think about your illness matters just as much, if not more, in determining your health outcomes.

In the February issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, Keith Petrie, of the University of Auckland, and John Weinman, of the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College, review the existing literature on patients' perceptions of illness. The authors find that people's illness perceptions bear a direct relationship to several important health outcomes, including their level of functioning and ability, utilization of health care, adherence to treatment plans laid out by health care professionals, and even overall mortality.

In fact, some research suggests that how a person views his illness may play a bigger role in determining his health outcomes than the actual severity of his disease.

The bottom line, says Petrie, is that "patients' perceptions of their illness guide their decisions about health."

3 Sincerity Can Improve Our Health. The Templeton Report, September 30, 2014

Telling the truth is good for your health, and conversely, lying can undermine it, studies in the science of honesty suggest. The work has been conducted by Anita Kelly and Lijuan Wang, professors at the University of Notre Dame, and is funded by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation.

Reporting to the American Psychological Association, Kelly showed that a “sincerity group,” who told fewer lies over five weeks, described having fewer physical health complaints, such as sore throats, headaches, and nausea, than a control group. “Because the only difference between the two groups was the sincerity instructions, we can conclude that these instructions actually caused the health benefit,” Kelly writes in Psychology Today.

The research also implies that there seems to be an element of training oneself to be more honest. Those who take part in the studies report that there is no longer a need to exaggerate when describing their daily accomplishments. They may also sense they do not need to make excuses. “Being sincere is a process and you will get there with practice,” Kelly says. “And when you do, you will see that you are becoming more humble, more open to learning, and less sensitive to rejection.”

4 Mind with Purpose Preserves Brain Health, The power of purpose

To study the connection between purpose in life defined as having goals and objectives that give life meaning and direction, and brain health during aging researchers collected information on psychological well-being from 951 dementia-free older people. After seven years of annual tests, researchers found that compared with people who expressed no sense of purpose in life, participants who had a sense of purpose were:

• 52% less likely to develop Alzheimer disease
• 2 1/2 times more likely to remain free of dementia
• 29% less likely to develop mild cognitive impairment, a diagnosis given to people whose brain function is below normal for age, but does not interfere with daily functioning

Purpose in life remained the most important predictor of healthy brain aging even after taking into account other things that affect brain health, such as gender, education level, depression, chronic medical conditions, and social network.

5 Health-care providers are prescribing nontraditional medicine: Use of mind-body therapies on the rise

May 11, 2011, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Prior research suggests that mind-body therapies, while used by millions of patients, is still on the fringe of mainstream medical care in America. New research suggests that attitudes are changing.

More than a third of Americans use some form of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and that number continues to rise attributed mostly to increases in the use of mind-body therapies (MBT) like yoga, meditation and deep breathing exercises.

In a study from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and Harvard Medical School, researchers found that one in 30 Americans using MBT has been referred by a medical provider.

"There's good evidence to support using mind-body therapies clinically," said lead author Aditi Nerurkar, MD, Integrative Medicine Fellow, Harvard Medical School and BIDMC. "Still, we didn't expect to see provider referral rates that were quite so high." The results of the study appear in the May 9 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Nerurkar and her colleagues collected information from more than 23,000 U.S. households from the 2007 National Health Interview Survey. They found that nearly 3 percent (representing more than 6.3 million Americans) used MBT due to provider referral and that these Americans were sicker and used the health care system more than people who self-referred for MBT.

"What we learned suggests that providers are referring their patients for mind-body therapies as a last resort once conventional therapeutic options have failed. It makes us wonder whether referring patients for these therapies earlier in the treatment process could lead to less use of the health care system, and possibly, better outcomes for these patients," said Nerurkar.

6 From Bruce Lipton May 2015 Newsletter. Medical profession and death

Firstly, taking the truths of the medical profession as being equivalent to the “Word of God” is patently inappropriate considering that even the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article condemning the medical profession as the third leading cause of death in the U.S. (Barbara Starfield, JAMA. 2000;284(4):483-485,  Read article. While this conclusion was based on what the author described as “conservative estimates,” a more recent assessment using actual statistics completely contradicts that conclusion, for it reveals that conventional medicine is actually the leading cause of death in the States. (Gary Null et al, Death By Medicine 2003, Read article.

Conclusion:

We observe from above several latest findings that due role of mind has to be given importance in the disease cure. That is what Swami Vijnananand has emphasized in his visionary writing way back in 1960s. While concluding we may say:

-         We located emotion as an immediate cause of disease in scientific terms.

-         What is the way out to avoid this abuse of emotions?

-         Obviously a non-emotional state of mind.

-         Which in simple words, mean a ‘truth-patterned’ behavior.

Recipropathy proves its hypothesis that there specifically exists a causal link between emotion and disease. And if there are some difficulties in actually observing the intermediate phenomena between emotion and disease that constitutes a limitation from which science itself suffers.

“Recipropathy provides an excellent frame-work. Details can be allowably replaced or altered by medical science. But let no one lose sight of the aspects, positive aspects brought about by Recipropathy. Experience, again and again, shows that Recipropathy is the only method which relieves the patient of his disease in the real sense. It radically, scientifically drives home the fact that health protection lies in supposing that desire for ease is disease, while real cure is the process of disease.”

(This blog concludes the series on Dis-Ease – Cure.)

Vijay R. Joshi.

.

DISEASE - CURE- EPILOGUE (Cure Your Self - 10)

The Real and Perfect Cure 

All that precedes this chapter - which rounds up our discussions from various angles - goes to prove:

We are nothing short of most ignoble cowards, cowards to the core, if on disease inflicting punishment on us, we still plead 'Not guilty'. The general tenor of the talk of almost all patients runs on these lines: "Personally I am completely innocent. I have indeed done nothing at all. The bacteria are responsible for the disease I am suffering from - and it is the doctor's responsibility to cure me."

But a moment's reflection on the part of any patient who offers this fine piece of logic and incidentally tries to exonerate himself from a personal guilt, will immediately convince him of the amazing potential capacity he possesses for self-deception. It is one thing if a weak-willed individual were to say:

"Yes, it is true I understand and appreciate the teachings of Recipropathy. I accept them, persuaded as I am of their intrinsic value and truth. But imbibing the principles to the extent of being able to put them into immediate practice is far too difficult for me. It is a goal I wish to reach. But, then, it can be done, so far as I am concerned, a bit slowly. Please give me time. Nevertheless, I shall march towards the goal slowly, and I shall start right away - today." 

This is quite understandable and one can even sympathize with a poor patient of this type. But it is an altogether different thing when one does not accept the truth of the contentions of laws of Nature.

In one sense science and philosophy meet here. 

The primary medical inquiry, by any test, is - or at any rate should be - to know the root cause of pain or of disease.

Huxley has pin-pointed these ideas by the most adequate choice from the teachings of Buddhist philosophy. "The elements which make up man produce a capacity for pain. The cause of pain is the craving for individual life. Deliverance from craving does away with pain. The way of deliverance is the Eightfold Path."

If one suffers from a disease, and still wants to explain away things, to find out unwarrantable excuses and insist that the cause of the disease lies outside him, then, let us face facts and put the thing bluntly: it is his funeral in every sense.

Einstein says: "The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained to liberation from the self." Einstein has also conceded that "the grand aim of science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deductions from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms."

Yet Recipropathy hardly chooses to take advantage of the liberty Einstein has permitted it to take. For in considering the means and ends of effecting a cure, Recipropathy proves its hypothesis that there specifically exists a causal link between emotion and disease. And if there are some difficulties in actually observing the intermediate phenomena between emotion and disease that constitutes a limitation from which science itself suffers.

As it stands today, medical science labors under the handicap of a number of gaps. As has been convincingly brought out, Homeopathy and Allopathy are based on principles directly contradictory to each other. One is founded on principle of similarities, the other on the principle of opposites. Yet no government has thought of rejecting either of them. No government has reflected, nay even thought, about this glaring contradiction. To allow equal and legitimate status to two completely contradictory systems simultaneously is on par with establishing two governments in one state, one of bourgeois capitalists and the other which swears by the communist creed, and allowing people to abide by laws they feel like obeying. No government has ever thought that when two principles stand poles apart - indeed, are diagonally opposite - one alone must be true and that to give recognition to both of them is allowing people to die at least because of one of them. It is certainly high time that governments and people see through the great absurd contradiction.

In another volume of this series "New Way" it has already been argued how all schools of medicine have failed to deliver and are unable to deliver goods.

As adequately brought out on page 84 of Death of Disease, it will take centuries to discover all drugs. Neither the writer nor the readers will be alive to corroborate this promise on the part of present day medical science. As Pisavzhevsky observes, "Every discovery raises new problems." Besides, as matters stand today, theoretically it sounds absurd that science will one day discover drugs for all diseases. For there can possibly be only four categories of medical experts.

(1) Those who believe in God. Of this category, one has to say this. If an expert believes in God, he must find out the probable reason which made God inflict that agony. Then straight way it leads him to our own conclusion.

(2) Those who swear by the Marxist dogma. Now if the expert is a Marxist, then he must concede, as did Engels, that man can never master Nature. Hence no hope exists of knowledge of Nature nor of discovering cures. In this case, too, causality and laws of science lead us to the conclusion which we have set forth. (Other aspects of the problem which touch both Marxist philosophy and Recipropathy are discussed elsewhere separately).

(3) The third category is made up of non-Marxist experts. As an expert in a branch of science, he necessarily has to accept causality. If one relies on law of probability or principles of indeterminacy, one meets a comprehensive answer in our other title 'Science gives Cause'. For the purpose of this work, these laws are no obstructions in as much as, in Chapter ten we have established causal relation at least for purpose of disease-cure. In the meantime medical experts will do well to read the excellent expositions by Dr. Anthony Fidler, M.D., in Whither Medicine as to how medical experts are bound to causality because of their own tenets. The learned doctor himself suggests 'probability medicine', which we improve upon. For our present purpose Dr. Fidler's argument is sound enough to clarify how the 'causal laws' are unreservedly accepted by present medical leaders. Dr. Howard W. Huggard, M.D., the well-known medical authority admits that "in body nearly every action involves reaction." Why the word 'nearly' is unexplained, is inexplicable. In any case, then, our premises in Chapters 7, 8, 9 are firmly established - unless the doctor disproves the concept of causality.

(4) The fourth is a group difficult to be labeled as experts, but they do form a group. Members, if any, in this group believe in chaos. This group merits ignoring - for they obviously can claim no authority on behalf of medical science which firmly claims prevalence of order and existence of laws.

How does it all add up? By no logic, arguments, and school of thought can Recipropathy be radically challenged. From immemorial days, Recipropathy is the torch of truth held high and kept burning. That the truth embodied in present day Recipropathy marched under a different banner does not alter the basic conclusion of the science of Recipropathy being ancient wisdom as well as knowledge. For what is there in a name? America certainly existed before western colonizer christened the continent. All torch-bearers of truth and causality were Recipropaths - under a different name, or no name at all except servants of God and seekers of salvation.

The philosophy of Recipropathy is a philosophy of life and therefore all-pervading. 

Hence it is applicable to the field of human disease. There is extant no school as such for teaching of Recipropathy for Truth is not to be taught. For a group or all of Recipropaths there is neither a Guru nor hierarchy of office bearers. Could anyone tolerate the idea of Truth being at the mercy of red-tape administration? The flame of light that guided the world from eternity inspired me to speak the Truth. This will help it to echo from soul to soul and inspire the lighting of more flames.

Not that I am unconscious of the possibility, in spite of all the efforts on my part to clarify every issue involved, that some would never-the-less label it a mere philosophy. For such readers, just a reminder.

Please forget not that throughout the evolutionary period of knowledge, the historical past, philosophy has been invariably ahead of science. It was a philosopher, Descartes - the famous author of Discourse on Method, who propounded 'indestructibility of motion', a concept accepted later by science. It is worth-while recalling Engels' comment on this: "So here again the philosopher has been confirmed by the natural scientist after 200 years." Very few discoveries have been arrived at as the consequence of strict premeditated experimentation and objective observation. Max Planck, the founder of twentieth century physics, has remarked: "The pure rationalist has no place here."

We have certainly not transgressed, in any manner whatsoever, the limit allowed by Planck. Recipropathy provides an excellent frame-work. Details can be allowably replaced or altered by medical science. But let no one lose sight of the results, positive results brought about by Recipropathy. Experience, again and again, shows that Recipropathy is the only method which relieves the patient of his disease in the real sense. It radically, scientifically drives home the fact that health protection lies in supposing that desire for ease is disease, while real cure is the process of disease. The revelation takes away all pangs of organic pain and disorders like a miracle. 

Any patient who wishes to gain this experience will find our doors always open to his inquiry.

(Excerpts from Cure Yourself, Author - Swami Vijnananand, concluded.)

Vijay R. Joshi.

DISEASE - CURE (Cure Your Self - 7)

 Is Prayer Scientific? 

(Excerpts from book “Cure Yourself”, author Swami Vijnananand, S.V.)

Recipropathy neither encourages nor discourages the institution of prayer. Because, in one sense Recipropathy believes in the power of silence. From the view-point of truth, in meditation there is a lesser risk of positive untruth being uttered. The question can be viewed from two angles:

(A)                     An option can be exercised in favor of leading life of as much "reactions" as possible. Live detached life to your capacity.

(B)                    Try to make mind vacant, call it prayer or use any word of your choice. This option is open only if it is feasible for one to take mind in a state really devoid of emotion. There is nothing unscientific if the pursuer of prayers can visualize the true tenet of prayer. Abusing prayer is as much a dogma as abuse of prayer itself, yet a real prayer leaves no room for abuses of either description. Scientists who stamp action-less state as a mystic affair have more to learn from the fact that at the speed of light, length contracts to zero and clocks stand still. Strictly speaking, an action-less state in its truest sense is equivalent to the maximum speed of any mass conceivable; whether such possibility is feasible or not, is no issue at this point. This observation leads to contradiction; nevertheless, the contradiction is born out of scientific investigation. Till the contradiction is un-riddled by science, we have hardly any privilege to play the fool of prayer-believers. On the background of this premise a Recipropath can suggest the following points for the consideration of a seeker elevating his mind to a comparatively blank, vacant, detached state.

1.   As you set in for concentration, take a pen, note book and a mirror. Spend the first few moments in setting yourself and then look into the mirror. Stare straight in your own eyes.

2.   Speak to yourself. Be conscious of an energy penetrating through. Imagine that you now propose to explain to the origin of that energy, your actions in last 24 hours, as if you are submitting a report of yesterday to yourself. Begin with an interrogation: Can all actions of yours be defended? No white-washing now.

3.   It is a discourse between you and yourself. Promise yourself not to repeat what ills you should have refrained from. If it cannot be set right immediately, ask for time.

4.   Continue the check-up each day.

5.   If not on the first day, after a lapse of a few days following the daily check-up, try to spare a few minutes to close your eyes during the prayer.

6.   Try to visualize energy in yourself beyond your eyes, ears, and every tissue of yourself.

7.   Put up an attempt to forget every entanglement which may try to disturb you at the moment.

8.   If a thought is irresistible, open your eyes and record the gist of though disturbing you in the note book.

9.   Close your eyes again. If another thought disturbs you, repeat the same process. Register it in your note book.

10.                     On pursuing the process for a month, go through the entire record.  Subsequently every day before closing the eyes for the meditation, ask yourself if you cannot live without these thoughts even for a few seconds? You will be ashamed to find that causes interrupting your prayer were too trifling to imagine. The revelation will give your mind more tranquility as you resume the prayer.

11.                     Now, the success awaits you. At least for a few seconds, keeping your mind cool, undisturbed, collected may be achieved.

12.                     Repeat the process day after day. Use the note book as friend, philosopher and guide. It remains a good tutor. Day by day self-recognition will instruct you that each thought disturbing your prayer on previous days can be attributed to one emotion or the other. The record should serve you to understand that the so called engrossing thoughts are too petty to brood over. This finding strengthens your mind and assists you to do away with them during the prayer.

13.                     Another way. At times, at the resumption of prayer overpowering sentiment paralyses you - say embittering anger about one-time comrade.  Try to recollect a good point in the old mate. A note of music, instead of an old friend, may disturb the concentration. Imagine the tune's finest wave identifies with your "mind". The ultimate object of concentration is to realize that incredible speed resembles inertness and resort to a state of "active inactivity".

14.                     The process is languid. It is an uphill task to do away with petty emotions and angularities. Convince yourself that these angularities so dear to you, eat you up.

15.                     Analysis of anger may turn over a new leaf in life. Guess Mr. X and yourself at a cross purpose. You quiver with rage. In the situation, multifarious probabilities are conceivable.

(A)                    Mr. X may be your family member, friend or a well-intentioned relative, who in your eyes has committed a blunder. Obviously, you should ignore the unintentional slip.

(B)                    Mr. X may be, alternatively, your adversary. He wants you to get irritated. Your fury serves his purpose. Your resentment has to be curbed so that you would not assist your own foe.

(C)                    One more salient point. When Mr. X fans your anger, either he is unfair or you are in the wrong. If Mr. X has misbehaved, there is no propriety in yourself heating up and hitting at your own body. On the other hand, in the instance of your being inequitable, thank Mr. X that he struggles to put you on the right path.

16.                     Most often, adherents of Recipropathy experience sudden recovery from ailment. Yet, it is advisable to attribute it to "coincidental cure". Set aside part of your prayer in inflicting pain on yourself under such circumstances in acceptance of your unpunished sins. It is a gallant gesture in right direction. It gives you no license to commit sins during the rest of the day. It merely keeps the conscious awake and alert.

17.                     Wrath is not a solitary example. Every emotion can be dispensed with on proper analysis. An analysis offers a breathing space, infuses confidence and makes your mind vacant or steady. Slowly increase this period of vacuum and state of equilibrium. Infallibly and automatically, ability to work for the whole day in serene, unruffled way multiplies. It is the surprise gift of the prayer.

18.                     The process of inactivating the mind should be slow and natural. To convince ourselves is the most irksome adventure. We hesitate and eschew conceding Truth as a single factor that can redeem us in our worldly life; however, in theory truth is known to us having a supreme second-to-none strength. No purpose is served by declaring a war against ourselves, in a superficial sense. No doubt mind is to be ultimately won. Yet an undue haste bears no fruit. It impairs rather than repairs.

(To be continued)

Vijay R. Joshi.

DISEASE - CURE (Cure Your Self - 5)

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.

DISEASE - CURE (Cure Your Self - 3)

A Mistaken "Cause" of disease and cure. 

(Excerpts from book “Cure Yourself”, author Swami Vijnananand, S.V.)

When inequality itself is the order of the day, a common dose for all sounds a crazy proposition. In other words, when a doctor pushes a needle in your arm, he is himself not sure whether he is inserting disease or cure in the body.

If the effect of such an injection is provocation, the doctors argue that you are allergic to the solution. On the other hand when by chance the antibiotic turns out to be agreeable to your constitution, the physician claims the credit of cure, assigning the magic liquid to be the "cause" of cure. The claim amounts to first-order fallacy in logic. Firstly the doctor hits blindly at you in administering a dose to you. Secondly in the event of success he is the cause and in the event of failure YOU are the cause.

          The ludicrousness (ridiculousness) is more transparent because in the theory the medical science takes shelter of the law of causation. In practice, the practitioners adhere to the law of probability. In fact, the medical school remains faithful to neither.

Without comment at this juncture, we reproduce their own inferences.

1.   First presumption of the medical world is: A large number of ailments originate from an external agency-say bacteria. (Law of causation affirms that same cause must produce same effect. Relevantly, doctors must mean that same bacteria must evolve same effect.)

2.   The second presumption of the medical practitioner is, in such cases his medicine causes cure. (Again, as per law of causation, all occurrences of such disease must be counteracted by the same medicine irrespective of the personality of the patient.)

Strangely enough, none of the good omens of the physicians hold water when matters come to brass tacks.

One of the eminent bacteriologist Dr. John Drew unreservedly concedes, "There is a growing belief among medical men today that the various human disorders grouped under the title of 'rheumatism' are allergic manifestations of specific individual hyper-sensitiveness to certain bacterial allergens. We are not yet sure which species of germ is responsible, but the weight of evidence that has been accumulated up to the present suggests that it is the streptococcus that is responsible for tonsillitis and puerperal fever.

The reader may find it hard to believe that the same germ can cause tonsillitis in one person, puerperal fever in another, a localized skin abscess in another, an allergic state manifested by rheumatic trouble in another, and a rapidly fatal septicemia in another. He will probably find it still harder to believe that the same germ can cause all these different diseases in the same individual at different times".

          The author, as hypothetical illustration, is pleased to set forth the following four alternatives A, B, C, D, which may come into existence when one-say Mr. John, contracts a streptococcal infection of his throat.

A)  In the given hypothetical case, the dose of streptococcus is large, the virulence of the germ is high, and John's resistance is low at the time of his infection.

1.    He develops a severe tonsillitis, in which the invasive power of the streptococcus predominates over its power to form its diffusible product.

(a) He may die from a septicemia.

(b) He may suffer from an extension of the infection to his middle ear, lungs, or other organs of the body.

(c) He may recover (I) completely and acquire an immunity against the toxic fraction of the diffusible product, or (ii) be left in a hypersensitive state.

2.    He develops a severe tonsillitis, in which the toxic power of the streptococcus predominates over its invasive power.

(a) He may die from the damage wrought on his heart or his kidneys by the toxin.

(b) He may recover completely and acquire an immunity to the toxin.

(c) He may recover, but be left in a hypersensitive state, although this is unlikely if there was a large production of the diffusible streptococcal product.

  (B)The dose of the streptococcus is low, its virulence is low and John's resistance is low at the time of his infection.

1.   He develops a moderately severe tonsillitis, in which the invasive power of streptococcus predominates over its toxic power.

(a) He may suffer from a chronic tonsils inflammation, or from an invasion of the adjacent cellular tissues (cellulite), or from abscess formation in the lymphatic glands that drain his tonsils region.

(b) He may recover completely with (I) a degree of acquired resistance, or (ii) with a residual hypersensitive state.

2.   He develops a moderately severe tonsillitis, in which the toxic power of the streptococcus predominates over its invasive power.

(a) He may suffer from a chronic, low-grade toxemia that undermines his general and local resistance.

(b) He may recover completely with a partial immunity to the toxic fraction of the diffusible product.

C)  The dose of streptococcus is large, its virulence high, and John's resistance is high at the time of his infection.

1.                         He develops a sharp attack of tonsillitis, in which the invasive power of the streptococcus predominates over its toxic power.

(a) He may suffer from a temporary disturbance of the function of his heart, or his kidneys, which subsides without any permanent disability.

(b) He may recover completely and acquire a solid immunity to the toxic fraction of the diffusible product.

D)   The dose of streptococcus is small, its virulence low, and John's resistance is high at the time of his infection.

Dr. Anthony Fidler, M.D., doyen of medicine of Warsaw University authority interrogates, "Pathogenic bacteria are the cause of diseases. Why, then, do they not produce disease in 'carriers'? They do not do so, answers medical theory, either because their virulence is diminished or because the resistance of the host's tissues is increased. Thus these bacteria are the cause of disease only under certain circumstances".

The medical world is aware of the plight of two groups of patients suffering from severe cold. One section was administered with so-called medicine and the other was given un-medicated pills. The number of patients as well as the percentage of cures in both groups were the same. England's outstanding virologist and head of the world influenza center, Dr. Andrews, remarks, "Untreated cold will last about seven days, while with careful treatment it can be cured in a week".

Inequality of organisms presents the researcher a hard row to hoe (difficult situation to deal with). The hurdle in the way of the medical practitioner is, therefore, the correctness of quantity of drug at the time of its administration. Elaborate precautions have to be taken in the use of antibiotics, to typify the model, Dr. Robertson, PhD. , and Dr. Jean Dufrenoy, D.Sc., suggest, "Factors that influence antibacterial action are of the greatest importance in laboratory studies and in routine procedures as well as in the clinical treatment of infections.

There are a number of factors which are capable of determining, or at least modifying, the antimicrobial action of antibiotics. The same general factors apply to consideration of the activity of any antibiotic, although the relative importance of a given factor may vary from one antibiotic to the next. These factors are set forth in some detail at this point, since most individuals still think first of penicillin when antibiotics are mentioned. It is important that all the following conditions be taken into consideration in selecting an antibiotic for specific clinical application.

Sensitivity of the Pathogen.

Ideally, to decide which antibiotic, if any, to use, the pathogens should be isolated, in pure culture, from the patient, and, if identical as Gram-positive, should be tested in vitro against penicillin: if penicillin is ineffective in clinically obtainable concentrations, other antibiotics should be tried. Of course, many infections characterized by well-defined clinical symptoms can be identified as being due to penicillin sensitive organisms without resorting to preliminary microbiological tests. Inappropriate or unwarranted use of penicillin, or of any other antibiotic, may not only be useless, but may be harmful, as reported in cases of tuberculosis".

Well, we are confronted with five-fold problems:

A.       We are unable to undergo preliminary tests on every occasion for each patient.

B.        If the dose of penicillin is less than required obviously the result is not secured.

C.        On the other hand, when the dose is more than the subject can tolerate, the damage done exceeds expected cure. Observes Dr. Pratt in case of penicillin, “The dictum ‘if a little is good, more will be better is false”.

    D. Assuming that once in a blue moon, one is able to determine a “no less, no more” dose as Shakespeare’s Portia insisted, it is not all. Because apart from a correct measure penicillin is not acceptable to the constitution of all alike.

          E. That the patient might have safely used penicillin on a number of occasions is no guarantee for him to continue its use perpetually. One does not know at what moment the wonder drug may be annoyed at its former ally.

Penicillin has been widely prescribed for all kinds of minor infections and for conditions in which it is ineffective or not more effective than other drugs. Since it can be brought without prescription, self-medication is common”. But the World Health Organization emphasizes that severe reactions occur only in patients sensitized by previous exposure to the drug. It is known that many of the fatalities that have occurred following the legitimate use of penicillin have been attributable to previous unnecessary medication.

          What is true of penicillin is true of remedies acting in common ailments like malaria.

The same newspaper reports in its morning edition dated 12Th October 1959, warning that drugs used against malaria can result in damage to the eyes is published in the current issue of the Lancet. It is contained in an article written by three London doctors, including Dr. A. Sorsby, Research Professor in Ophthalmology, Royal College of Surgeons. They tell of a 50 years old clerk who was suffering from a condition other than malaria but given a drug used against that disease. Treatment had to be withdrawn when he complained that he was almost blind in the dark and had difficulty in reading. Physical changes in the eyes were noted when they were examined. A 60 years old woman given an anti-malaria drug, also administered because it is effective in other conditions, complained of misty vision and inability to see the whole of words when reading. A 66 years old woman in a similar position reported fog before the eyes. Admitting the difficulty of finding suitable drugs which are also harmless, the writers urge: It appears prudent not to prolong such treatment unnecessarily.

          In essence, what is true of penicillin and anti-malarial drug is true of most of effective medicines.

          The caption of this chapter may be felt a little provocative to sensitive practitioners. I assure them that it is intended merely to draw their attention to the most flabbergasting truth that they at present like to ignore.

When I (author, S.V.) based my theory of cure on moral values, I was induced to investigate how doctors themselves meet their own last day of life. Knowledge of major disease-generating agents should keep them away from disease and death for a longer time than normal. But that is not found to be so. Frequently, the findings are quite reverse and alarming.

The statistics collected by myself, support my hypothesis. Comparative mortality rates as per occupations according to statistics in Britain also strengthen my presumption. Mortality rate in case of textile workers, for instance, who work in less healthy conditions and who cannot afford to pay for highly nutritive food, was 105 while in case of medical practitioners it was 106. Furthermore, it is sometimes noticed that members of the Curers’ community face more physical pangs at the end. Has it any relation to their deviation, may be indirectly, from unadulterated truth? It is the time for them to examine whether one of the factors may be what I am suggesting. For sheer self-protection, the medical practitioners need take cognizance of Recipropathy.

(To be continued..)

Vijay R. Joshi