{Spam?} RE: [HealthyIndia] Why holistic healers are against modern medicine.

[Guest guest]

Dear Prabha

Point of view (from

where you see things) of your research will determine what all you want to see.

You can laugh, criticise or adore. All is up to yourself. But as a research

person, you should at least find truth. In tradition, purpose of medicines is curing a disease

and nourish the body. Body is biological construct, and humans and animals are

alike. Animals/ plants obviously cannot get admitted to the MBBS. Main thing

is, that diseases of humans are related to their state of being, and their inability

to reach what they wanted to be. Humans experience every time new mind mines

where they are unable to get over. This means, disease are not physical (only

injury is physical) and this is a reson, ayurveda can help you realize this

deep knowledge of life. If you can have patience to read the article below,

without prejudice and can reflect upon it,

no further explanation would be needed.

Regards

K G Misra

 

 

Yoga and Ayurveda are inseparable

K G Misra

http://bhagwatgita.blogspot.com/2006/01/yoga-and-ayurveda-are-inseparable.html

Swami Ramdeo is

trying to develop spiritual awakening by practice of the Ayurveda. He is not

just treating sick people, it is just a beginning. And aim of Ayurveda is not at

all similar to biology or psychology or mechanical engineering . Ayurveda is

about how should we co-exist in nature and have an understanding of the purpose of our

life. This world is actually not a universe but multiverse, formed just as a

flux or meeting point of souls wandering in their own orbits. Ayurveda is about

this knowledge of the SELF and NATURE.

 

Like Maruti, or Ford or WV, these are automobiles of different make for a

certain purpose. A LIFE is similarly a natural automobile. The driver of car is

SELF (atman / Khuda) and car is NATURE.

 

SELF is unlimited and without

properties, and NATURE is 100%

disciplined and have fixed laws. When the LIFE combines these two (SELF and

NATURE), there is DIS - EASE or discomfort in establishing this connection.

 

To remove this dis comfort or dis-ease, is AYURVEDA. Modern medicines (called

Chikitsa) is injury management or dealing with accidents, and it is in lower

part of the Ayurveda.

 

First step of Ayurveda is JYOTISH

- This is about knowledge of destination (destiny) where driver must take the

automobile. If a person wants to be a scientist and becomes an accountant, his

/her dis - eases are related to JYOTISH because the destination of life was

itself wrong. He / she has desire (destination) in different direction but

his/her needs (livelihood) or compulsions drift him/her away from it. Gandhi,

Einstein are examples of purposeful lives. They have least diseases and lived

without an enemy. All life lines are like magnetic lines that can never cut

each other and when it cuts, reaction (energy) is produced only to maintain a

safe distance.

 

Second step is SWASTHYA - or

so called health; this is about driving skills , and to STAY IN SELF. Swa means

SELF 'Stha' means, TO STAY. The person must be aware of surroundings and proper

life styles - physical and psychological . If driver is unmindful of controls

of natural body and how to keep it fit and stay in balance, he/she is not

'Swasth' (healthy). Restraint of senses (JITENDRIYA), cleanliness (SHAUCH) and

meditation (YOGA) keep the mind-body relation in balance.

 

Third step is CHIKITSA -

this is last step of Ayurved (in English called Medical science). This is about

managing after accident. Medical science is about repairing the material body

which is a dead weight but not careful of SELF and this is reason of Auyrveda

different than Medical science. Chikita or medical treatment or biological

treatment is waste of everything, if driver neither knows the destination nor

driving, and will come back all over again.

 

All living beings have power of healing and this can be used to help one

another. By Chikitsa or medical treatment, one recognizes value in each others

viz., plants, rivers, animals, mountains all into one wholistic form.

 

Fourth step is MRITUY - this

is Samadhi (relieving the body), suicide (distasteful abandonment) by oneself

or other deaths caused by external injury, failure of any body parts and a

natural fatigue failure. It is beyond repair and the atma concedes to abandon

the material body for its unsolvable memory or unsuitable body that can not be

further carried towards destination. It has to replace the vehicle and the

world around it. Bhagwan Shiva is this body of knowledge on transmigration or

replacement process of SELF into another NATURE. Knowledge of death and rebirth

is the final answer. This is most useful medicine because in absence of death,

lives would be like indestructible polythene which is environmental nuisance.

Such life is neither useful to itself nor to others. Driver of vehicle has to

abandon the frail body and find a replacement. He/she takes another form of

life, and it starts all over again in an endless loop. This loop of birth and

death is broken after the detachment.

 

Auyrveda is first JYOTISH, second SWATHYA third CHIKITSA and lastly MRITUY

 

 

-----Original

Message-----

 

On Behalf Of Prabha Krishnan

Tuesday, August 01, 2006 11:10 AM

To:

 

Re: [HealthyIndia] Re:

Why holistic healers are against modern medicine.

 

 

Dear Jagannath, Ravi,

Dr. Acharya, Dr. Rebello, Raman Khanna and others.

 

 

 

 

 

Most interesting

discussion on holistic healing. I am particularly happy because I am attempting

to research this topic of the Self healing the Self. What is being

discussed seems to be the question of agency. Who is doing the

healing? Who is being healed?

 

 

 

 

 

Please read the

attachment.

 

 

 

 

 

I would value any inputs

from you all.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks and regards

 

 

 

 

 

Prabha Krishnan

 

Ravi Ahuja <rgahujamp

wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hello All,

 

 

I wish to address

this mail to Shri Raman Khanna, in response to his mail to Shri Jagannnathji.

 

 

Raman, I

agree with you, in your opening statement, " People are both the problem

and the solution "

 

 

The

question; here is who is the problem and who is the solution?

 

 

You say, that

patients in your cancer ward, is worth having a look at? Why because, the

patients are being or have been treated by the best brains, and yet the live to

suffer and perish?

 

 

You perceive

they came to the hospital, because, they felt it was there that they could find

some hope to live; but go back when you passed the final judgement on them,

that they now have to die with it.

 

 

Tell me,

what does a mother, do when she sees, her child playing with fire?

 

 

Let me put that for

you as well:

 

 

She first

screams,(knee jerk reaction)

 

 

Then yells at the

child for playing so carelessly with the fire, then guess What?

 

 

She curses herself,

for not having taken care of her child

 

 

And then thanks

god, for saving her child, by keeping her alert on his activities.

 

 

Tell me should the

child be thankful to the mother or the god?

 

 

Some may

say, God, Some may say the mother, some may say, God, who came in the form of a

mother, to save him. Some may say, he should not thank anybody, because he was

destined to die then, hence nothing untowards was to befall on him

 

 

So

what’s the relevance of this point - you may ask?

 

 

The same

principle comes in to play here as well.

 

 

At the moment, it

is claimed that practitioners of Modern Medicine - Allopaths are the

Mothers, who are capable of saving the child.

 

 

Nobody else apart

from them can do that!

 

 

This is coupled

with a strong financial lobby, which supports (Read " Funds " ) this

school of thought

 

 

How can you

decry another science, without having applied your mind to it?

 

 

Just the way you

cant study chemistry without going to the lab, Cant study anatomy, without a

dissection, cant understand pathology without having seen microbes, cannot

understand the pathophysiology with out going to the wards,

 

 

In the

similar way, the method to study, understand, decipher, and interprets

Spirituality, you need to study spirituality, without first questioning it?

 

 

You may say,

Why study without a questioning?

 

 

Did you see the

atomic structure of water, when you were first told about it in the class? Did

you not accept it at face value, when your teacher explained it to you. The

same applies to the science of spirituality

 

 

Now,

let’s get to the core facts:

 

 

Tell me what

is your contribution to the recovery of a patient to whom you prescribe an antipyretic

like say Acetaminophen.

 

 

You would

argue; I prescribed the drug, I used my judgment and chose this one amongst

many others!! Thats my skill!!

 

 

OK!!!

But what’s the great deal about it? That’s what you were trained

for?

 

 

You were not

one of those who discovered the molecule of Acetaminophen; you were not the

one, who took the study on himself by consuming it physically, and risking his

kidneys, to study its toxicity?

 

 

Do

you spell out the name of the gentlemen, who invented it, when you prescribe it

to your patients?

 

 

Or do you say, to

your patients: Oh please do not thank me!! I was not the one, who discovered

that drug; convey you’re thanks to the address of the scientist who

created it?

 

 

On the

contrary, you reply, Oh that was a pleasure? As if the patient really wanted a

tablet of the drug from you!

 

 

Then

what’s the great deal in talking of something that you have been trained

to do?

 

 

A student of

spirituality, sees the world from his frame of mind, while you would see it

from your materialistic frame of mind?

 

 

What scientific

right do you have to talk about Karma and relate them to Genes?

 

 

Do you have

any authorative study (Not a group study; but something across various gene

pools - to comment that cancer could be due to Genes?)

 

 

Mere

presence of a mutated gene in a patient may be an indicator of a disease, there

is nothing as yet, to prove, that gene indeed causes cancer

 

 

Infact the

first line of etiology of Cancer, itself, says (and very logically) that

etiology of cancer in unknown

 

 

The genes in

the body may or may not be a cause of Karma, there is nothing to prove or

disprove it

 

 

So how and

why are you trying to decry it?

 

 

Instead of

decrying it, you could have actually asked Jagannathji to prove his point? But

you chose to decry his thoughts, even without giving it a thought in the

scientific manner?

 

 

No theory is

quack theory – unless proved otherwise

 

 

The

incapability of proving ones point – need not necessarily mean that the

point is not worthy of being given its due attention. (Remember Darwin and

Mendel ; I wont delve in to it?)

 

 

Has the

study of modern science created the feeling in you that no other science is

worth its merit?

 

 

You talk of

research, in homeopathy or other science, The research of every other science

takes a back seat, because of the miniscule funds being released to it.

 

 

When your

studies come out to be inconclusive? Nobody questions the efficacy of your

science, whereas, the failures of other science become a cause to their

cessation in the first place.

 

 

It is

expected that therapist of other pathies, come out with a panecea, if they have

to prove their merit, whereas modern medicine has the privilege of staying

inconclusive, and yet decry other pathies!!!

 

 

Each practitioners

right from Spirituality to the Most Advanced Science, see the world

in his own way. None of them, need decry each other, without a proper

justification

 

 

Thanks for

your time and patience

 

 

Best

Regards,

 

 

Ravi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here’s a new

way to find what you're looking for -

Answers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here’s a new

way to find what you're looking for -

Answers