Is Vedic apara-vidya a better painkiller than modern knowledge?

Anwser Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
previous Acharyas.
Thank you. So, when we talk about the painkiller being taken, now, the Vedic aparadharma is maybe conducive to bhakti, whereas the modern technology may be not conducive to bhakti and that’s why different devotees may feel that this can be adopted or this should not be adopted. So, how do we, what else, how do we understand this? Let’s start with specifics and then we can move to broad principles.
So, for example, within the Vedic body of knowledge, there is Ayurveda, which is a, which is for treating the body. Now, Ayurveda is all material, material substances interacting with other material substances. Okay, this substance is deficient in your body, put this substance, that balance will be restored.
So, it’s material. There’s understanding that, that we should pray to God and this knowledge may have come from some higher sources, but the functioning itself is material. And if you look at the Ayurvedic history, there have been, just like we have scientific history with different, different scientists proposing different ideas.
So, there are different Ayurvedic doctors, Ayurvedic experts who had different ideas of how Ayurveda is to be done. Even healthy debates also over there. So, now, today if we are sick, now should, as devotees, we take Ayurvedic treatment necessarily or can we take allopathic treatment also? Now, Prabhupada preferred Ayurvedic, but he did not insist on Ayurvedic.
He himself took allopathic when it was necessary. So, the point is that Ayurvedic treatment, it works effectively. At the same time, Ayurveda also requires a sattvic way of living.
It’s not just about taking a medicine. It’s about reorienting one’s own life. And for many of us, adopting that way of life may be difficult or even impossible.
So, for acute diseases, allopathy may be necessary. Somebody has got a serious infection, even Ayurvedic doctors may tell you, first you take this, take this antibiotic, cure this, then you can strengthen your body afterwards with Ayurveda. So, the point is that this is something which has to be individually negotiated.
This cannot be mandated by anyone. So, just as the relationship between when to take Ayurveda or when to take allopathy, that is something which is up to individual discretion based on one’s own intelligence and maybe some guidance. So, functioning in this world is similar.
So, yes, we could say Ayurveda, if I take, then it increases my faith in the Vedas and by that I can become more attracted to Vedic knowledge. It’s possible, but it’s not essential. Because if you look at Ayurveda also, there’s a whole list in Ayurveda of non-vegetarian medicines.
And if you consider Ayurvedic medication, a significant part of it involves meat. So, it is not that all Ayurvedic doctors or all Ayurvedic patients were following the regulative principle of meat eating, no meat eating. There are, it is a material body of knowledge and for many diseases non-vegetarian alternate medicines were mandated.
Now, for some of those, a large portion of those, vegetarian alternatives are given, but some there are no alternatives. So, the point is that there is nothing inherently transcendental about the practice of Ayurveda. The purpose can be transcendental, but the practice itself is not transcendental.
So, there can be people who were taking non-veg as a part of Ayurvedic practice, recommending it and taking it. So, it’s not inherently spiritual. It is spiritualizable, but that way allopathy is also spiritualizable, in the sense that it can be used for a spiritual purpose.
So, the problem comes when we, Siddhartha Prabhu writes in one of his articles that, that there is often in the field of science, non-scientific extrapolation of scientific data. There is scientific data, but it is extrapolated beyond its jurisdiction. That means that, okay, science can tell me how things function over here, right now.
But from that, when some scientists start saying that how the universe came about or whether God exists or not, this is completely non-scientific extrapolation of scientific data. Now, some atheists may do it or sometimes we may also do it in an unwitting way. Then I start thinking, this phone, it works so well.
I just press one, a few buttons. I can talk with anyone, any part of the world. If this phone works so well and this phone has been made by scientists and scientists say everything came from a Big Bang, how can they be wrong? But the two say, the phone is working and everything coming from a Big Bang, these are two very different categories.
Although both may be considered scientific, but they are very different levels of science. So, if we ourselves don’t make that mistake, we don’t extrapolate the credibility of science derived from working in one area to other areas of science, then we won’t fall into any misconception. So, that way, some devotees may recommend or even insist on Ayurveda and maybe based on their experiences, they may have had problems with allopathy and Ayurveda has helped them.
So, that is fine. But for some other devotees, Ayurveda just takes too much time, it’s not working for them. They may take allopathy and that works for them.
So, this way, just as I gave the example Ayurveda and allopathy, it is something which is left to the individual. Now, if we are following a particular spiritual guide, a spiritual leader, if they have a particular vision, we can try to understand their vision and we can, if possible, harmonize with that purpose. But that’s not essential.
So, for example, there are some devotees who think we should live away from the cities. We should live very close to nature, harmoniously with nature. That is good.
But is it essential? Some of us may feel it is essential and that feeling is perfectly valid. But for some of us, if say we have lived in cities with all the city comforts and then we go to a village where, or a rural setting where there is no electricity, where there is no internet, we feel like a nightmare. I met one sanyasi, he was telling me that a sanyasi needs only two things.
He needs prasad and Wi-Fi. So, even those who renounce the world, they need the technological gadgets. So, what happens is, it is very difficult to live without these things.
So, for those who can live without it, it is wonderful. But those who can’t, we don’t have to mandate it. Bhakti doesn’t have to be made more difficult than it needs to be.
It needs to be difficult in the sense that we have to give up sense gratification, we have to direct our heart towards Krishna. The process of purification requires effort. But if somebody has lived in the city throughout their life, they are told, oh you have to go and live in a village.
That is not essential for practicing bhakti. If somebody is already fed up with living in a city and they want to go to a village, they welcome it and it is good to facilitate them. So, to tell them you have to live in a city, that may be making life difficult for them, unnecessarily difficult for them.
So, the point of this whole discussion, of this class was that we needn’t make the practice of bhakti more difficult than what it needs to be for people. On my website, people ask questions. So, one devotee scientist asked this question.
He says that, you know, I am a scientist, I am a researcher and I see devotees criticize science so much. But he says, I can’t I have a healthy respect for my profession while I am practicing bhakti? So, then I showed a conversation of Prabhupada to him, where Prabhupada says, you know, we are not against the knowing spirit of science. We are not against the exploring spirit of science.
We are against the atheism. Now, science is not inherently atheistic. It may be extrapolated to atheism.
So, if somebody is doing scientific research, let them do that. They can do that. But if they start thinking, by this we have proven God doesn’t exist, that’s wrong.
We have issues with that. So, if we understand the jurisdiction properly, what I am doing for what purpose, then conflict can be minimized and bhakti doesn’t have to be made more difficult than it needs to be. So, for somebody who has lived always studying science, teaching science, researching science, living science practically, if then we tell them you have to reject all science totally to practice bhakti, that’s not necessary.
What has to be rejected is the idea that science can give us absolute knowledge. That idea is rejected. And anybody who has seriously studied science, they know.
There is a famous scientist who said that the more I study science, the less I trust scientific theories. There is John Wheeler who said, there are so many cosmological theories that come up. John Wheeler is a physicist.
So, he said, one of his students came to him. Sir, there are so many theories, this theory, that theory. How do I keep track of all these theories? He says, don’t worry.
He says, cosmological theories are like a, they are like a bus. Like a bus, if you miss one, another one is soon coming. So, that’s why no need to aggravate the conflict.
Does that answer your question?