I've never had an ayurvedic practitioner discourage allopathic methods when they were necessary. Maybe that's because the one I had here in the Bay Area was an MD and liked to draw the line between what things ayurveda was useful for and when allopathic methods would be more useful. If you break your leg you want to go see an allopathic physician (unless your ayurvedic practitioner is an MD who can treat such injuries). Even Dr. Lad's books have recommedations as to "when to see a doctor." Ayurveda is useful for prevention and and host of ailments that allopathic is not often that good at treating. It is particularly good for rebalancing the system which of course aids in preventing disease and might be useful too along with some allopathic treatments.
That said, I my MD practitioner, though he took the MAPI course for doctors also took Dr. Lad's course so he wasn't purely practicing Maharishi Ayurveda. Jason wrote: > > Barry, has anyone ever filed a lawsuit on TM-org regarding forcible > ayurvedic treatment and discouragement of allopathic treatment. > > ManSlaughter, Criminal negligence etc etc. Maharishi himself would > have died if Chopra's father didn't stablise him and put him on a plane to > London.?? > > --- On Mon, 1/4/10, TurquoiseB <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Police report gives first details of Arizona > sweat lodge deaths > Date: Monday, January 4, 2010, 4:12 AM > > > I feel certain that the "peer-review research" > provides ongoing comfort to Eli Butler, to the > numerous people who committed suicide on TM > residence courses or TTCs, and to the larger > number of people who died rather than seek the > dreaded and low-vibe "Western medical care" for > the ailments that afflicted them. > > Please remember the TM buzzphrase and meme that > preceded any of the "research," and that the > "research" was consciously or subconsciously > intended to "prove" -- "TM is completely, 100% > life-supporting" > > That *had* to be reflected in the "results" of > any "scientific study" done on TM, because > Maharishi had said it, and therefore it *had* > to have been true. > > Thing is, it's not. > > The only difference between James Arthur Ray and > Maharishi is that Ray's PR machine was not as able > to keep such dogma- and faith-caused deaths out of > the papers as well as Maharishi's has. > > > > > > >
