4. Medical advancement

How far has medicine advanced?

In medieval times, doctors were as they are today – pompous adherants to theoretical medicine and bunglers in its practise. What was needed and sorely lacking was honesty about the state of knowledge regarding the patient and his problem. If a patient died under the ministrations, the disease was balmed for his demise. This is today not a single iota different from 5 to 600 years ago. It is in effect an admittance of incompetence and inability. The admittance of incurable disease falls in the same category of ignorance and incompetence.
There is however a way, in which the physician can live up to his high and only mission – to cure the sick. There is the need to listen to the patient, since he is an expert on his own suffering – he knows exactly what is wrong, what makes it better or worse and all other little details, necessary for the doctor to know to enable a proper prescription. The physician must be well-versed in his remedial means, so that he can expertly prescribe – he must know his medicines as his best friends; trustworthy and certain. Thus the meeting between doctor and patients becomes a meeting of experts.

These are the qualities that a doctor needs, according to Paracelsus. He did not use the same words, but his intentions were like that. In his time, mathematicians wasted their time and talents on fruitless combinations of letters that would give the key. He who found it would be the master of all secrets, for it would confer on him the power ‘to make appear what had been occult, or hidden’ and ‘bring to perfection what is imperfect’. He would instantly know all the harmonies of the universe and thus follow his destiny.
By his process he would influence Nature through his consciousness and Nature would be doing what she always does best, in an optimum manner. Knowledge ended in universal Love, just as the Veda teaches. Paracelsus used a similar testimony as Trithemius. He postulated that the lover of Nature will obtain her secrets and receive the power to use her forces.

Therefore, the logical conclusion that the application of this principle brings about, is the rejection of Galenius. He stated that contrario contraris, or contrary cures contrary. They applied cold to get rid of heat and vice versa; moist was used to drive our dry humours and when one had frostbite, they stuck your feet close to the fire or in very warm water. This is still the case today – burn victims are put in cold baths, which keeps the heat inside and can cause hypothermia, especially when much of the skin is burned.
Folk doctors knew that when you burn yourself with an iron, the same iron will take the burn away. No blacksmith or baker is ever the victim of a burn. Every experienced cook knows that putting the burn close to the flame for a few seconds or by running warm water over it the burn will not develop a blister and the pain will be gone in ten to thirty seconds. They knew that like cures like. This famous maxim, this law of nature, was revived by Samuel Hahnemann in 1790, who is the founder of the homoeopathic school.

With good reason, we count Hippocrates and Paracelsus among our spiritual and methodical ancestors since they advocated that poison, when given in appropriately small doses will be the cure for a disease that resembles the action of that poison. The oldest reference to the Law of Similars, which Hahnemann traced back as far as Hippocrates, who derived the idea from the Arab physicians, who in turn took it from Vedic India, is found in the Bhagavat Purana, which was written 5.000 years ago. There it literally says, amayā yas ca bhūtanam yayate yena suvrata tad eva hy āmayām dravyām na punāti cikītsitām. ‘Oh good soul, does not a thing, when applied therapeutically, cure a disease which was caused by that very same thing?”
This is the only logical conclusion anyone can arrive at in the treatment of disease. We come now to another important part in the treatment of people, which I feel should be given the utmost attention, since it often neglected in the treatment of disease, even among the homoeopathic fraternity. This is the absolute necessity of the administration of the single remedy. Paracelsus also stressed the use of what he called specifics.

In order to fully appreciate the concept of the single remedy, it is useful to understand the following analogy. When a person, animal or plant is sick, it is comparable to being locked into a room. The tumblers in the lock represent the different symptoms, the totality of which needs treatment, if the lock is to be opened. At the same time there is only one key that will open the lock, although many different ones can be inserted, without being able to turn the lock. Therefore, there is only one remedy that will fit all the tumblers and open the lock so that the patient can be set free of his symptoms.

Paracelsus also worked along those lines in his parlance; gift meant potion or poison, medicine or an aphrodisiac. As he said, poison is in everything and nothing is without it. It depends on the dose whether it is poison or medicine.

There are some that think Hippocrates and Paracelsus have nothing much in common with Hahnemann, but these are the ones that neither understand what homoeopathy is about, nor about the fact that it was common knowledge in antiquity – and in further recesses of time than they can imagine.

Their doctrine of like to like was based on thinking that there is nothing in heaven that is not in man. This is non-different from the homoeopathic approach, which says that the mentality in the plant much match the mentality in man. The plants are equally governed by the stars as man and all else on this planet, regardless anyone’s denial. As above, so below is true for all creatures and from the harmony occasioned by the right remedy, this correspondence is only further borne out.

Please comment.


kaviraj said...

My friend and god-brother Vaikunthanath Prabhu is a homeopathic doctor who has cured people, animals (especially cows) and plants. His article is very interesting.

He starts his article describing the line of what he is going to follow:

“We shall first investigate the prevalent idea in medicine about disease causes. It should be clear from the start that we do not necessarily agree with their ideas about the origin of diseases. They are based on a concept that is 150 years old and already so geriatric that it fails to account for many diseases. We refer here of course to the Gospel of Pasteur; that great plagiarist of the 19th Century.”

The Ayurveda and acupuncture systems as well do not believe in blaming viruses.

My friend has strong points of view like most Vaisnavas like me:

“The so-called enlightened view of that time sought to establish man’s supremacy over his destiny, rather than succumbing to the Church, the clergy or God. Instead man should be so devilishly clever that he could do away with religious influence and once and for all establish his own power over nature. Pasteur seemed to have achieved this in one stroke of genius and hence he is revered to this very day. We face therefore a formidable task. We have to unsaddle a man and a theory that have been firmly in place as the main explanation of all human suffering.

A man so formidable that his theory has held sway for so long will be difficult to defeat, it seems. Nonetheless, we shall attempt to show that his theory is but a theory and one that is moreover not supported by the facts in the field. While the germ-theory seems to hold great merit, we must question its foundation, its logic, and above all its usefulness in explaining disease.”

In regard to the cholesterol issue I think that there must done an independent study about it instead of blindly believing in the drug industry who we all know only think about profits, and with a such mentality money takes priority over the health of people.

Doctors are like Brahmans (the head of society, the thinkers) but the ones at the pharmaceutical industry are vaisyas (profit seekers). Unfortunately, doctors trust thieves by thinking that their goals are sound. And also, unfortunately in our present society, universities are producing “machines” without morals instead of brahamans whose life is of dedication and study.

Shivananda Swami said in “Pranayama, the science of life”, (a book that I read in 1971), that one should eat enough as to fill only half the stomach, to drink enough to fill another 25% of the stomach and to allow air to fill another 25% for a good digestion. Srila Prabhupada said that when one expels air through the mouth when eating is a sign that the stomach is satisfied. And the Bhagavad Gita says to eat enough just to survive, because either too much or too little food can affect the health.

We should look at the poor in many parts of the world, they eat small portions and work hard, unlike in rich countries where a society of production and consumption has become the “normal” way of life. The Bedouins work under extreme heat and only drink at the most a litre or a litre and a half of water a day.

The advice given by the “experts” from the rich countries in regard to food and drink intake makes me suspicious that after all it may not be good advice. Because after all those experts have been groomed by a materialistic education whose only aim is to exploit and to suffer the reactions of their so-called “enjoyment”.

With these observations I wonder if we have become complacent about our eating and sleeping habits in the sense that they are making us “eat the pill”.

kaviraj said...

Great to see you red it with interest. It is simply necessary to awaken the public about being hoodwinked into supposed ignorance about their own state of health. How did the frigging doctor think the man found his way to the waiting room? Just so, as to have a social chat?
Or more like a lottery - see if I have won something.
Guaranteed jackpot - each time!
'Yes man, you have some heavy tumour in your whatever."
"We will have to put you on chemo, radio-therapy, or at worst, cut you open.
If you are going down the street and a guy comes to you with a knife - what does he want? Your wallet.
If a guy in a hospital comes to you with a knife, he also wants your wallet.
The thief is really more honest thsan the doctor, who uses an excuse to cut you up.
Sixty percent of operations are not necessary - hence the long waiting lists. They are performed because the students must learn how to cut up.
Meanwhile, they use stand-over tactics to make you accept their guesses as certainty.
"If you don't take this operation, chemo or radio-therapy, you will die!"
You will die anyway, so what's the worry?