When does medical treatment interfere with nature?
Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.
Question from K.S. Subramanian Prabhu. Discussing organ donation, you mentioned that devotees do not usually like to interfere in the course of nature. The citing of an exceptional example of Shamsundar Prabhu to prove his rule was brilliant.
While I intuitively agree with the healthiness of the sentiment, I am curious how far can I stretch it in practical terms. Something unnatural yesterday has become natural today, like bypass or even assisted breathing. One thought is due unto others that you would like others to do unto you.
If I would seek blood donation in need, I may donate to others too. Is this thinking okay? Another question is when I get sick, how much treatment is appropriate? Whether Ayurveda is more desirable than other systems? Is going under surgery less natural than medication? How much money should I put away for unforeseen economic or health problems? Going by the trends of sophistication and expensive medicines, sky would be the limit. I sometimes feel a sudden death is more desirable than a prolonged one when you agonize over various often expensive options.
How does one deal with self or family in the latter type events? Kalanidhi 2. Answer. The fundamental answer to this kind of practical questions is based on Desh Kalpatra. There will be no standard one answer for everyone.
It will vary. But there are broad principles that we can discuss. What will be constituting interference in nature need not stay the same at all times.
For example, Srinidhar Prabhupada was working to promote Krishna consciousness all over the world. He used airplanes, he used whatever technology was available. He used often the most sophisticated printing presses.
And devotees can use technology for sharing Krishna consciousness. But at the same time when Srinidhar Prabhupada was living, was building farm communities, at that time he clearly said that, for example, he did not even want electricity over there. So there he wanted to demonstrate natural living.
So even electricity, which is considered to be a fundamental necessity in today's society, was considered undesirable by him. Now most farm projects, eco-friendly projects, have not been able to continue without electricity. But the point is that there is a difference in the definition of success for different projects.
And similarly, there is a difference in the definition of success for different individuals, different devotees within the process of Krishna consciousness also. So we can't standardize things regarding what is natural, unnatural. Generally speaking, there are broad principles where nature is violated or exploited, where, for example, now even using vehicles causes pollution.
But using vehicles is unavoidable in today's society, so we use it. But at the same time, where there is direct violence, so it's not that while driving a car we are causing direct violence to anyone. But for example, when there is animal slaughter or when there is abortion, there is direct violence with the, in one sense, with the intention of, with the clear awareness that the violence is there.
So that is something which is definitely not desirable. But within these limits, when there is some indirectly disharmonious activity, and then there is directly disharmonious activity, there is a wide range. Technology was used even in Vedic times.
Surgery is mentioned by Sushruta in Ayurveda also. Surgery is not necessarily unnatural. It's a part of bodily care.
In the past, if people had mystical powers, then mystical, they could use mantras and herbs, mantras especially, to heal wounds. Now, just because there is no knife used over there, does that make the mantra healing not a high technology? Or does it not make mantra healing an intervention in nature's course? It may not be exactly intervention in nature's course, because we are also deriving from the higher powers of nature. When mantras are chanted, some specific higher gods may be invoked, and their healing potency may be accessed.
But either way, Sri Prabhupada explains that in a sense, mystical powers are not much different from technology. He talks about this in Nectar of Devotion introduction, as well as in other places. So therefore, now, what is our attitude towards mystical powers? Mystical powers, if somebody has them, they can use them in devotional service, but one doesn't go out of one's way to acquire mystical powers.
And one certainly doesn't think that the mystical powers themselves are the goal of life, or they are the indication of somebody being divine, God. The same applies, same cautions have to apply when we use technology. We don't make, we don't pursue it too much ourselves.
If it's available, we use it. We don't make it the goal of life. We don't think that technology will create paradise on the earth, that we will become like God, happy forever.
So once we don't have those misconceptions about the power and the position of technology, then we can use it. So yes, certainly, blood donation, in principle, there's nothing against that. Some devotees may have some idea that I may get bad karma.
That is possible, but then there are so many other activities also which we do, which might give us bad karma. Are we able to avoid all those activities? So if one has, as you said, Atmavatsarvabhutishtanakya Pandit says, that we should treat all other living beings like we treat ourselves, like we would like to be treated ourselves. So if we want blood donation, it's only natural that we will also be expected to offer blood donation.
So if some devotees have an inclination and inspiration to give blood donation, then they can surely do that. They don't have to suppress that just because they are devotees. But you also have to know that that itself is not transcendental or spiritual.
It is in the mode of goodness, and it can, like everything else in the world, everything is contaminated with false. So it can affect us negatively, because it might lead to karmic implications. So if one has close relatives, then definitely one should give blood for them.
In other cases, it will depend on time, place, circumstances. Certainly, there is no ban for it. At the same time, there is no exaltation or glorification of it.
So with respect to Ayurvedic treatment, I have answered another question. Prabhupada's approach was to be pragmatic. Use whatever works.
Then with respect to how much treatment to take, I have answered another question about coma, and how long if one is going into coma one should be kept alive. That you can refer to. But in general, it all depends on one's values and purposes.
That means if values and purposes not only in terms of the person who is sick, but also in terms of what the person, if a person stays alive, is capable of doing. As devotees, we know that this life is just one phase in our journey. It may be the last lap.
It may not be the last lap. We don't know. But either way, death is not the fearful termination that materialistic people think it to be.
So if there is a treatment which is going to keep a person alive, but without much prospects of recovery or even effective functioning, then just keep using that treatment for a long, long time may not be of much use. This is, of course, again an individual decision. And if some devotee has the financial resources and wants to stay on for a longer time, then that desire has to be respected.
We cannot infringe into any individual's decision making right, especially with respect to the right to life. But overall, as devotees, we are not attached to life the way those people who think that death is in the end are. And rather than putting all of one's efforts to try to prolong life, it is far better to put one's efforts to try to raise one's consciousness in whatever life we have.
And of course, we can try to prolong life if it can help us in our effort to raise our consciousness. So overall, regarding allocating finances, that's also an individual decision. Just when we talk about tena tyaktena bhunjeetha, one's own quota, the quota for a king will vary from a quota for a Vaishya or for a laborer.
So similarly, what will be a quota will vary depending on individual to individual. And ultimately, we know that in money there is no security. The ultimate security is only in Krishna, in our Krishna consciousness.
But while progressing towards building that security through our steady practice of Krishna consciousness, how much transitional security we want and how much effort we should invest in that, that is an individual decision that we can take based on deshkala patra. Thank you.