A cure or a catalyst?

[Mary-anne Black]

Hi Joy et al,

It is my perspective that the remedy itself doesn't heal or cure. That
it is merely a catalyst that stimulates the body's own natural healing
forces.
The body seems to have a natural intelligence which is indirectly evident by
the way that is able to maintain homeostatis in the organism; And this,
despite the myriad of daily influences (material and/or energetic)that would
otherwise push the human organism off balance.
And I'm not speaking of just of the immune system here. Because as Dana
Ullman writes in his Consumer's Guide to Homoeopathy, there are various
diseases that are related to an over stimulation of the imune system like
Rheumatism. And homoeopathy works in these cases as well. So it can't just
be about stimulating the immune system.
I think that evidence for the organism curing itself could perhaps be
found in the fact that as long as cure is progressing, no more remedy is
needed. This is in contrast to conventional medicine where often stronger
and stronger doses of the medicine are needed because of their opposing
(opposite effects).
And in fact, Hahnemann himself wrote "It is the organism free from disease
that restores the defective strength. Strength can not be materially poured
in by a decoction of anything. Be it medicine or wine or anything" (At this
moment I don't know exactly where I got this quote, it's in some notes of
mine).
Now I realize that H. was writing this more as an argument against using
large doses as compared to the infinitesmal homeopathic doses. However,
reading between the lines, he is suggesting a power beyond that of any
remedy. Or so it appears to me. Because he doesn't say that the homoeopathic
remedy is curing, but rather the "organism free from disease", that
restores. What do ya'll think?
Thanks Joy for your offering your perspective, it offered me the opportunity
to explore my own and become clearer in the process.

Namaste,
Mary-anne B.

[Hugh Harrison]

Dear Mary-anne B,

I was intrigued by your email, and when I read it, I realised that your
view concurs with mine. I think our role as homeopaths, or any other healing
profession, is that of catalyst for self-healing by the patient. I certainly
understand Hahnemann to mean the healing effect of energy, which itself
resonates with the healing energy of the patient and thereby unfolds a
mysterious self-healing spiral. Certainly, as a cranio-sacral practitioner,
I am aware that all I am doing sometimes is holding a sacred space for my
client while they heal. Thanks for the discussion, and I hope it continues.

Warm regards,

Hugh Harrison
RSHom, RCST

[Joy Lucas]

Dear Mary-anne, thanks for this. A mere missed word 'helps'(to cure
regardless). This is what should have been written. Catalyst is good but I
don't think it is a question between one or the other. Cure is the ultimate
aim. Sorry about the confusion but my post was in response to questions
about drug taking whilst taking Homeopathic remedies. Best wishes, Joy
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx