Rhinoplasty and “Pizza effect”

Most of the readers are unaware that just a few decades ago, Pizza was looked down upon as a food item in Italy, the native place of Pizza. Italian immigrants to America packaged it as a delicacy of Italian cuisine, first to Americans, and then exported it to Italy. Ironically, it is considered as an up market food item in the same very Italy today. This gave rise to the term 'Pizza effect'. The term 'Pizza effect' was coined by late Swami Agehanand Bhaarti. Born as Leopold Fisher in a Christian family, he worked a professor at Syracuse university for thirty years. Gifted with a sharp and analytical mind, he fell in love with the vibrant nature of Hinduism. This term is used to denote the process by which cultural exports are transformed and reimported to their culture of origin, or the way in which a community's self-understanding is influenced by (or imposed by, or imported from) foreign sources.

Let us learn another term; Rhinoplasty. It is the name given to the surgical procedure of reshaping, changing or attaching nose to a patient.

What is the relation between these two terms, belonging to different fields, one to sociology and the other to medical science?

Well, Everything.

Most of our countrymen have been forced to believe that the modern medical science is a gift of Europeans and/or Americans, including plastic surgery. But the facts are just the opposite.

The following is an excerpt from the diary of a British doctor,one Dr. H.Scott, dated 1^st January, 1794.

In a conversation that I had some time ago with Captain Irvine of this presidency who had come to Bombay on some business from Poona where he is stationed, my curiosity was much raised by the account he gave me of a practice that is not uncommon among the Gentoos (Hindus) of putting new noses on people who have had them out cut. He told me that he first came to the knowledge of this from a sepoy who had his nose cut off by Tippoo during the last War (Tipu Sultan was utterly barbaric to all non muslims). In consequence of it he had become an invalid in the Company's pay which he received every month from Captain Irvine. One day he came to Captain Irvine and begged his permission to go for a certain time to some distance that he might get a new nose, for he said that his wife could not bring herself to like him in his present situation. Captain Irvine thought at first that he wished to impose on him, but the man assured him that he was speaking only the truth and that he would shew him one of his friends who some time before had received a new nose. He accordingly brought him and Captain Irvine had reason to believe the story for he saw a nose which altho' not actually so perfect as if it had been formed by nature was yet sufficiently agreeable to the eye. Captain Irvine learned at the same time from Mr. Findlay the Company's surgeon with the Resident that the sepoy had some time before been with him to beg to have a new nose put on but Mr. Findlay had assured him that such a practice was not known among the Europeans. Captain Irvine gave the sepoy leave of absence and in some weeks afterwards he came back to Poonah with a pretty good nose. It was somewhat too roundand uniform but such as would not be taken notice of for being disagreeable. All the gentlemen in the Company's service at Poona were witnesses of this change. When Captain Irvine came to Bombay which was soon after the operation, the sepoy still wore plugs, I believe of cotton, in his new nose. There was a discharge from some slight ulceration within it, nor had the part acquired entirely the natural heat of the body. It appeared otherwise to be well joined and healthy and the man had acquired great security in his late acquisition.

This conclusively proves that the science of Plastic surgery was not known to the European world till the eighteenth century. On the other hand, it was a practice from 'times immemorial' for Hindus.

Further Dr. H.Scott writes:

As I wished much to be further acquainted with this curious subject I wrote to my friend Mr Findlay concerning it and I cannot do better than send you a copy of his own words in answer.

"On the second instant I was favoured with your last letter wherein you express a strong desire of having some facts collected respecting the custom in this country of putting noses on those who have lost them. It affords me pleasure to inform you that we have ascertained in the most satisfactory manner that individuals or rather families of a certain cast of people in Hindostan have from time immemorial been acquainted with and practise the art of putting on noses, and I have ample grounds to believe that the operation is in general successful. I have at this moment before me two Mahrattas pensioners of the Bombay Government, whom I saw on their arrival here from Syringaputtam in may or june 1792 without noses. These two men have now their faces decorated with noses of a natural size and tolerable shape which are firmly united and receive nourishment from the stumps of their original noses. These two facts which have fallen under the observation of all the gentlemen of this Residency as well as my own afford sufficient testimony on this subject; but the following proof may be deemed still more satisfactory.

"Through Sir Charles Mallet's obliging influence Mr Cruso and I were permitted to see the operation performed on the 26 ultimo by a man of the Koomar cast ( a class of Hindoos chiefly employed in making the common earthenware of this country) who, with an old razor borrowed on the occasion, dissected with much composure a portion of the frontal integuments from the pericranium of the patient and grafted it, a new operation to us in surgery, on the stump of the original nose. He there retained it, by a cement without the aid of stitches sticking plaster, or bandages. The patient is at present in good health and high spirits. An adhesion has taken place seemingly in every part; when it is perfected and cuatrized I shall give you a particular history of the operation and subsequent treatment". (Poona 12 December 1793.)

The above is all the information that I have yet procured concerning the restoration of noses. It must be understood only of the soft and not the bony part of the nose; so much of it I suppose as a knife can readily remove; for this has been a common punishment with the despots by whom this country has been ruled. The cement, by which the old and new parts are kept together till they unite, appears to be a desideratum in our surgery. I cannot discover wherefore the skin is not taken from a more ignoble and a less conspicuous part than the forehead. I should suppose that a piece of skin would but ill supply the place of the septum and the other cautilages of the nose, its muscles, membrane & c ; but so far as appearance is concerned, and this must be acknowledged to be a consideration of great moment, it makes an excellent substitute.

Altho' this operation of the Gentoos is supported by the analogy of some well known facts there are people I doubt not who will call in question the truth of this relation. I beg leave to repeat that two of the Company's surgeons Mr Findlay and Mr Cruso both men of eminence in their profession have actually seen the operation performed and the sepoys who are mentioned above are known to all the gentlemen of the Residency at Poona. You are very welcome Sir to make use of my name in any way you may chuse to mention this singular operation for I am perfectly assured of the unquestionable honour as well as of the good sense of those from whom I have received the accounts.

H.Scott

Bombay, Jany 1, 1794.

If any further proof for this age old tradition of advanced surgery of our forefathers, one can read it from the comments of another eminent Briton. He was J. C. CARPVE, F.R.S. Member of Royal College of Surgeons, London. In 1816, he wrote:

This art is practised by the Koomars, a caste of Hindoos. Some religious ceremonies are first performed. Betel and arrack are put into the patient's hands, and he is then laid on his back, his arms stretched along his sides, on the ground, and he is ordered, on no pretence whatever, to use his arms during the operation; and they impress him with this idea, that it cannot be successful unless he complies strictly with this injunction."

On undertaking the first of the two cases to be hereafter narrated, I was induced to make such personal inquiries as were within my reach in this country, concerning the Indian method, I did myself the honour to write to Sir Charles Mallet, who had resided many years in India, and who obligingly confirmed to me the report, that this had been a common operation in India, from time immemorial; adding, that it had always been performed by the caste of potters or brickmakers, and, that though not invariably, it was usually successful. Mr. James Stuart Hall, a gentleman who was many years in India, assured me, that he had seen the operation performed, and that it was of tedious length. From Dr. Barry, of the India service, I learned, that he also had seen the operation; that it occupied an hour and a half, and was performed with an old razor, the edge of which, being continually blunted in dissection was every moment re-set. Tow was introduced to support the nose, but no attempt to form nostrils, by adding a septum, was made. I am obligingly informed by Major Heitland, of the India service, that in India, several years ago, in the time of Hyder Ali, Mr. Lucas, an English surgeon, was, in several instances, successful in the operation, which he copied from the Hindoo practitioners.

Is it not surprising that since the times of the great sages Charak and Sushrut, the 'shalya chikitsa' was preserved by our ancestors for more then two thousand years?

And here we are, just about two centuries later, admiring the Europeans and Americans as the custodians of the sciences.

This is a classic case of Pizza effect. Hope we get rid of it soon.

Direct Experience Vs. Blind faith

Any belief which is not consistent with reason and logic should be discarded at the earliest. Any inference which can not be verified directly at some level of consciousness by experimenting or experience is useless. This is a basic proposition of Sanatan Dharm. This is also the basic proposition of science. The claims by a scientist should be verifiable and repeatable.

Let us understand it this way. All of us have different levels of consciousness. If a statement or teaching of Bhagwad Geeta, Upnishads or Veds does not stand to the test of direct experience when the experimenter has attained the required level of consciousness, then the teaching is superfluous and useless.

Directly opposite to this proposition are the monotheistic creeds. None of them allows its proponents to follow the path of logic and reasoning. They offer a circular argument as proof. The existence of God is to be believed because their prophet is saying (or has said) so and prophet is to be believed because God is saying so (which only prophet can hear).

To understand and appreciate this difference between Sanatan Dharm and prophetic creeds, we will take examples from the texts of the two traditions.

In the present times, the advertising industry has used the principle laid down in Bhagwad Geeta to their advantage. To what extent is the advertising industry using this principle ethically is not the point of debate here.

The verses 62 – 63 of second chapter says:

ध्यायतो विषयान्पुंसः सङ्गस्तेषूपजायते ।

If one keeps on thinking about an object, he/she develops an attraction for it.

सङ्गात्संजायते कामः कामात्क्रोधोऽभिजायते ॥

This attraction leads to a desire of possessing the object. This desire leads to anger/frustration, if not immediately gratified.

क्रोधाद्भवति संमोहः संमोहात्स्मृतिविभ्रमः ।

Once possessed by anger, it leads to obsession. Obsession results in a loss in the sense of right and wrong

स्मृतिभ्रंशाद् बुद्धिनाशो बुद्धिनाशात्प्रणश्यति ॥

Which leads to destruction of intellect. Loss of intellect opens the doors for disaster.

This sequence of thoughts and actions can be observed in any shopping mall or automobile showroom. Since the advertising agencies are not concerned with the last two lines of the shlok, we can ignore that part for our experimental verification of the claims. The results are there for us to see.

Belief in Krishn

Did Lord Krishn exist? If yes, was he an avtaar of Brahm? Was he an extra ordinary human being, and a good motivator?

Whether the answers to these questions is Yes or No is immaterial for the sustenance of Hinduism. The emphasis is not on the person but on the message. No one is going to issue a fatwa or will imprison you for blasphemy even if you outrightly reject Krishn as a fiction. No one is going to ex communicate you or call you a Kaafir. Everyone has a right to have his/her opinion.

Belief in Jesus

Now let us turn to the claims of prophetic creeds. Islam and Christianity, both believe in prophets mentioned in Bible. The Christians claim that Jesus was the 'son of God', not only that, he has been the only son of God. As a result he was a unique person and no other human being can achieve that status. The Muslims are ready to accept Jesus as one of the many prophets but do not grant him the exalted status of 'son of God' which Christians expect. The same is mentioned in their book Quran, supposed to be dictated by Islamic god called Allah to their godman Muhammad.

Let us look at the stand of Muslims regarding Jesus: (Quran: Chapter 19, Verses 88 to 93)

They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!"Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, That they should invoke a son for (Allah) Most Gracious. For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son. Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (Allah) Most Gracious as a servant.

So, according to islamic doctrine, the Christian stand is monstrous. It is not a logic but a mere statement which has to be accepted as it is because Quran says so.

This brings Christianity in direct conflict with Islam because if the church accepts or even tolerates this, whole of the creed crumbles. It loses its self proclaimed sole franchise of God.

Fortunately for the world, the west has undergone a period of rationalism in the last two and a half centuries, which helped it to see through the dogmatic stands of church. The rationalism helped Europeans and Americans outgrow Christianity. Moreover, with advances in historical research and its allied fields like anthropology and archeology, it has been established that there is no proof of Christ being a historical character. Going by the dead sea scrolls, the person called Jesus was almost the direct opposite of what he is portrayed to be by the church.

The concept of 'only son of God' is so alien to the pluralistic Hindu world view that average Hindus fail to understand its significance for the survival of Christian creed. It was Gandhi who was able to articulate the Hindu stance regarding this assertion.

I regard Jesus as a great teacher of humanity, but I do not regard him as the only begotten son of God. That epithet in its material interpretation is quite unacceptable. Metaphorically we are all sons of God, but for each of us there may be different sons of God in a special sense. Thus for me Chaitanya may be the only begotten son of God. God cannot be the exclusive Father and I cannot ascribe exclusive divinity to Jesus. 

 Harijan: June 3, 1937

Here it is pertinent to mention that this comment was based on taking the stand of church at its face value.

Belief in Muhammad

Contrary to a very big question mark on the very existence of Jesus Christ, the historicity of Muhammad is not questioned. Therefore, for the present discussion, we assume that Muhammad was a historical person.

According to Islamic doctrine, the creator of universe is to be addressed as Allah or his other names approved by islamic theology. Calling him by any other name is an unpardonable crime in Islam. Ipso facto, he can not be called Raam, Krishn, Shiv, Durga or Jesus. This Allah has been sending prophets from time to time who act as medium of transmission of message of Allah to humans. Thus, the creator talks to his created beings through proxy and not directly. The last prophet in this list was Muhammad. The message given by Allah to humanity, via Muhammad, is claimed to be recorded in Quran. It is the complete message from which nothing can be removed and to which nothing can be added.

Existence of Allah has to be accepted as Muhammad said so and the status of Muhammad as the final prophet has to be believed because Quran says so.

Since Muhammad had borrowed generously from Bible, therefore Jesus is mentioned in Quran but since Bible predates Muhammad, it is silent on the status of any final prophet. But it has very clear instructions regarding for the question 'how are future prophets to be treated?'

In fact, according to Bible, anyone claiming to be a prophet for other Gods is to be killed. anyone who worships any other God except the Biblical God called Jehova/Yahweh/God/Elohim should be killed. (Bible, Deuteronomy 13, verses 1 – 5)

If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

As a result, Muslims are worshipping 'other God', a category deserving the same treatment as their prophet. (Bible, Deuteronomy 13, verses 6 – 10)

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

Naturally, Christians completely reject Muhammad as a final prophet. They consider him an imposter or a false prophet. It has resulted in the worst blood baths on the planet between the two prophetic creeds for more than a thousand years. The Crusades were a response to the Islamic Jihad. In the post colonial world, a school of thought has changed its line of attack. They have started sending feelers with an aim to convert Muslims to Christianity. In this tussle of market share, they say that we are willing to accept Muhammad as a prophet if you are willing to accept Jesus as 'only son of God'. This trade off is harmful to the Islamic cause as it reduces Muhammad to one of the prophets and not the final prophet, thereby reducing his status of being the final prophet whose word is supposed to overwrite that of all others, including Jesus.

Readers will have to use their discretion to chose between Direct Experience and Blind Faith.