Classical Homoeopathy

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Colleagues

There have been many debates and discussions about the concept of Classical Homoeopathy. I don't wish to get involved in historic matters, but in a pragmatic way to find out what are its principles and how it may be applied.

I would like to take this opportunity to present MY understanding of classical homoeopathy (mainly based on teachings of Sheilagh Creasy):

The modern Classical Homoeopath understands and applies the following concepts:
1. The role of Vital Force

2. Susceptibility

3. Miasms

}
THESE FIRST 3 DEFINE THE INDIVIDUAL.

4. Prescription based on Symptom similarity

5. Dilution & Potentisation

6. Knowledge of remedies through their PROVING.

7. Prescription of a SINGLE remedy and waiting for a reaction.

8. Herring's Laws of cure

That is to say, the symptoms will move in the following manner:

· From more vital organs to lesser organs

· Generally from inside out (taking the least harmful and shortest route)

· Generally from head towards the toes
In applying the above, the modern Classical Homoeopath:

v Studies and re-studies the Organon, Chronic Diseases and books by Kent, Boger, Farrington, Herring and others in depth and keeps homoeopathic principles in the foreground of mind.

v Maintains / improves the standards of Homoeopathy, always questioning what is read or heard and asking without hesitation.

v Does not engage or enter into futile transcendental speculations.

v Whilst trying to recognise his or her prejudices, strives to be an unprejudiced observer, concerning both the patient and the remedy.

v Understands miasms and their effects.

v Is humbled by working with the enormous power of the Vital Force and potentised remedies.

v In acute and chronic cases, takes the whole case and while prioritising on the important symptoms, prescribes on the totality of presenting symptoms covering mental, emotional, general, rare and peculiar symptoms and modalities that often lead to the Similimum.

v REPERTORISES every time, even when a known remedy case appears to be presenting.

v In selecting a remedy, uses every tool available including the advice of colleagues.

v If in doubt, does not prescribe but rechecks notes or retakes the case on another day.

v Uses only one remedy at a time, never repeating until the results and the reaction of the Vital Force have been observed. (Of course in acute cases one may have to prescribe every few minutes - again based upon the reactions of the vital force and presenting symptoms.)

v Does not use unproven remedies.

v Selects the potency of the remedy with great care.

v Follows Hahnemann's instructions faithfully, resorting to a different technique only as a last resort.

=======

I would appreciate your comments regarding the above.

Regards & Good healing

Soroush
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Rosemary Hyde]

Dear Soroush.

Thank you for your beautifully expressed summary of the classical
homeopathic credo -- nicely done. Having studied under people also taught
by Sheilagh Creasey (Nicola Henriques and Cara Landry), I'm well acquainted
with their essence and practice, and I try to follow them as well as
possible. On the other hand, occasionally I read or learn of work that
doesn't follow the whole set of precepts to the letter, yet which seems well
researched and effective. It seems as though we ought to be able to
accommodate new learning that is steeped in the precepts of Hahnemann and
the other founders. For instance, when I have to deal with a patient who
suffers from a cancerous affliction, I find myself drawn to follow the
approach that Dr. Ramakrishnan elaborated so beautifully in the book he
co-authored with Catherine Coulter. It's not totally classical in a purist
sense because of the repeated alternation of remedies. Yet it is
essentially classical, and is founded on some of the work of earlier
recognized homeopathic geniuses. I know that the context for your
declaration was the issue of specific remedies for chronic diseases, and I
concur wholeheartedly with your position in those cases -- analyze the
patient's case. But I also think you raise an important fundamental issue
that is worth discussing, that of how to respect and follow the precepts of
classical homeopathy while also participating in a living, evolving
science -- how to reconcile opposing tensions between received truth and
experience-based innovation. That tension often expresses itself clearly in
the discussions this group carries on. But we don't address it directly,
and it might be interesting to do so. Rosemary C. Hyde

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Rosemary

Thank you for your comments.

I would whole-heartedly agree that Homoeopathy is a dynamic science and
therefore by definition is an evolving one. Hn was an experimenter and
therefore it is valid to experiment if the demand calls for it.

However, I think one has to be FULLY aware of what Hn and others have done
before one tries to re-invent the wheel.
May be I am biased, but it seems to me that a lot of homoeopath colleagues
have not really read nor understood the Organon and other writings by Hn and
other master. These must be read in chronological order otherwise one can
become confused as the master changed his mind as a result of his findings.

To put it briefly, one must become a master of the Homoeopathy before one
can become a leading light. In the history of mankind, we have seem many a
'leading light' who have gone astray and Homoeopathy is no exception - we
must therefore avoid whims and fancies that have no basis other than self
glorification - we must choose our leading lights with great care.

I have had a VERY brief look at Dr. Ramakrishnan's book and could not find a
logic to it. I have asked many others the same question and have not
received a positive answer. Homoeopathy is an Art and also a Science. The
Science of it demands logic. Therefore, if I am to use a series of remedies,
I must know one what basis these remedies should follow one another or why
and when they should be repeated. If you have found the logical key in Dr.
Ramakrishnan's book, pls share it with us.

I hope we have more inputs on the issues raised.
Soroush

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Peter

I agree with Piet, but so as all those who read this post can take an active
part, please define your understanding of Classical Homoeopathy and state
clearly what specifically in Coulter's and Andre Saine's writings are you
referring to and what is Neo-Kentian?

Regards
Soroush

[Phosphor]

what specifically in Coulter's and Andre Saine's writings are you

Coulter = Neo-Kentian: idea of fixed constitution, the 'Phosphorus
personality.'
Bring into the analysis the fixed characteristics and temperament of the
person [non-pathological traits] as well as manifesting symptoms. Bailey's
"Homeopathic Psychology" is the fruit of this trend beginning with Tyler.
Diseases don't really exist, we treat the person not the disease.

Saine = he argues his view is true Hahnemmanian, which has been hijacked by
the above idea. We do treat diseases, but we treat them as they appear in
the patient, with any non pathologically-related symptoms being a special
pointer for their unique manifestation. We don't treat the character of the
patient, this is beyond homeoapthy and belongs to psychology or religion.

Andrew

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Andrew

I am afraid before I answer you in depth, I have more questions:

What is the 'fixed' constitution of phos? or Sulph or any other Rx? How can
it be fixed?
What do you mean by Character of the patient?
When is character divorced from disease?
Rgds
Soroush

[Phosphor]

:
can

re Coulter
re Coulter
when it is not pathological.

Andrew

[shukribn]

In a message dated 1/8/02 6:06:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
phosphor@hotkey.net.au writes:
I think Kent believed in pathology (diseases ) as well, but knew very well as
did Hahnemann, that we have diseased people rather than diseases as a
separate entity from the person, as allopaths do. even localized diseases
such as an organ cancer is generated by the vital force that occupy the
whole body, and although the bulk of the symptoms of a person with such
localized disease, might be exhibited in that locality, yet the fitting
remedy might be known by a symptom(s) that is not related to that disease or
locality in any manner. so what Kent have done is that he payed much more
attention to the mentals and generals in such cases, missing in them the
specific remedy for that stage, while Saine says that all presenting symptoms
no matter how minor they might look, and if they are rare, peculiar or
characteristic they gain a higher importance for consideration toward finding
the simillimum mainly in those localized diseases.

>

Not even Kent said that ( I believe), and if he did, he always meant that we
treat the diseased person, not a person without a disease. But Kent
refrained from talking about diseases per se, because despite that the person
comes in with a named pathology or more, what is reported are Symptoms on all
levels, some related to the pathology, some are not in any-way.

>

Saine ( I believe) pay great attention to those 'pathologically-related '
symptoms if they are characteristic, rare, or peculiar.



Neither Kent , Kent payed more attention to these generals, mentals or
otherwise, succeeding in cases where the pathology is yet constitutional,
failing with those advanced pathologies where the disease has localized,
mainly cancer and the likes. And there are exceptions here.

And yes, I believe that Kent himself knew that the non pathological character
of the patient cannot be treated, so while Kent took a character sign of a
patient such as being: always Irritable, as a Guiding symptom toward
finding the Simillimum, Saine on the other hand, takes being : always
Irritable, as a confirming symptoms. But that does not make this character
sign as a must be, because for Saine the totality of the presenting
characteristic symptoms comes first.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

I do not think your answers are informative - pls try again giving it more
time and effort

[Phosphor]

Hi Suroush. It's not a difficult question. I'm willing to believe you are
not widely read in the homeopathic literature, but i think you will be aware
of the writings of both Andre Saine and Catherine Coulter. Are you able to
comment on the respective merits or otherwise of their standpoints?

Andrew
How
site
digest.
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations
regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any
document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this
website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out
of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site
or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential,
incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever
caused.
subject of 'Digest' to ashahrdar@yahoo.com to receive a single daily digest.