What a fantastic story.
The GOLDEN rule of proving is that you STOP as soon as any symptoms are experienced.
That way you go on to experience the range of symptoms without them imprinting on you and taking ages to clear.
Rgds
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Maria Bohle
Sent: 26 July 2013 20:26
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] BFR --> homeopathy
Years ago, when still a student I did a proving on 'Black Cherry Flower Remedy with Eileen Nauman. Who would figure a flower remedy could cause problems? I was too new a person to homeopathy to realize when i was feeling 'great' after a week or more on the remedy and knew it was not a placebo I should have quit there. I did a terrible proving of that substance. All discharges from all orifices turned black cherry colored, nose, eyes, ears, sputum, etc, etc. Got a lump in one breast (imagine me telling the clinic that I was doing a proving and I was fine, and that went for the pap smear that said there were questionable cells) the clinic went ballistic! They kept calling me and sending me registered letters to get checked out in greater detail. Later on was rechecked and all was normal. Legs turned heavy and swollen and very painful. It took more than a year potentizing and succussing the flower remedy making it in higher and higher potencies to remove the imprint, legs can still bother me today - maybe I do need another dose???
Cannot eat black cherries today either, that is the ONLY substance I have an allergy to, if I eat more than one or two of them my legs will get heavy and start to ache.
Provings are fun, but nothing to play with unless you have good supervision.
Maria
Good question!
If BFRs are not homeopathic, then what is to stop someone from making a BFR concoction homeopathic.
Nothing at all! Sometimes there is a "homeopathic correspondence" which is used without being recognized (someone takes something for some other reason -- "because that's what we do"; "because it was there"; "because it looks like me", whatever -- and it cures (to whatever degree) because of that correspondence. In that case we would not call it the practice of homeopathy, though we might later realize that there had been homeopathic correspondence; important additions have been made to homeopathy's materia medica in exactly this way (via "cured symptoms" and "cured cases").
Just because there is this big jump from a flower that one can touch to a BFR does not mean that one could not go farther. In fact, when I made my wife's remedy this morning (I forgot to buy remedy bottles, so I just used a glass of water), I succussed those BFR bottles very vigorously 40 times each before putting two drops in her drink. If that is not potentiating, then please explain to me what is.
Ah, but important to note -- being potentized does not automatically make something "homeopathic"; its relationship to the *case* does that.
By potentizing the BFR you will presumably alter its effects, and would (I assume, based on my experiences with other examples) make it more deeply effective IF it is extremely well suited to her, OR make it less effective if not so well suited.
And if she had a bottle, I would tell her to succuss it 40 times before she took it.
If I have some sulfur, and I grind it up (the 't' word) and put it into solution in water, then I succuss it a bunch of times and then toss 90% and keep 10% and refill the bottle with distilled water, and then succuss it 40 times, how is this any different from a BFR.
? Other than being a mineral not a flower, and being diluted and succussed instead of sun extraction…? Sounds more different than similar, so I guess I am missing something!
The example you gave with the sulphur, your potency would be something vaguely similar to 1X -- very low potency, and I am not sure how different this will be in effect from similarly small dose of plain sulphur. I would be interested to hear your comparison!
Perhaps there is a difference. But, let me surmise here, perhaps the sun method is merely a clever way of getting the flower's vibe or subtle energy out of the flower and into the water. Then it would be merely a matter of going through the potentiating process some more. And BFR merely jumps over the first 6X potentisation iterations.
??? On what basis do you say this?
{I think that there may be more than just jumping over some iterations.}
And if the stock BFR or low potency BFR can help one determine if a remedy was appropriate, then one could go ahead and potentise it farther, just like with homeopathy where if 6C is working but not deep enough, then the doctor will prescribe 30C.
And if the 30c works *less* well than the 6c -- as may well be the case -- one possible reason is that the remedy is suited only in a local and palliative way, not well suited to the overall case. That isn't *always* the reason, but in my experience it is the most likely reason.
I am certainly not as experienced with BFR as some here, but it seems to me that I have seen in myself and others that the problem will come back when the person stops taking the BFR concoction, exactly like what can happen with low potency homeopathic remedies. (What a coincidence!!)
And when we stop eating, we get hungry again. Back to the idea that food is homeopathic too! Actually I am kidding…
The picture is much more complicated…
Shannon
Roger
PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
-
Tanya Marquette
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:00 pm
Re: PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
I listened to Jeremy Scherr’s talk yesterday which was on
his Dynamis program and his history of provings. One thing
he seemed to be saying is that you keep upping the potency of
the provings in order to bring out the deepest, and most spiritual
aspects of the remedy.
So this is not the same as take the remedy till symptoms apprear,
but exhaust a potency and then go up the scale and keep proving.
Did anyone else tune into that talk? Did you hear him say that too?
t
From: finrod@finrod.co.uk
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 6:24 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Minutus] PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
What a fantastic story.
The GOLDEN rule of proving is that you STOP as soon as any symptoms are experienced.
That way you go on to experience the range of symptoms without them imprinting on you and taking ages to clear.
Rgds
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Maria Bohle
Sent: 26 July 2013 20:26
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] BFR --> homeopathy
Years ago, when still a student I did a proving on 'Black Cherry Flower Remedy with Eileen Nauman. Who would figure a flower remedy could cause problems? I was too new a person to homeopathy to realize when i was feeling 'great' after a week or more on the remedy and knew it was not a placebo I should have quit there. I did a terrible proving of that substance. All discharges from all orifices turned black cherry colored, nose, eyes, ears, sputum, etc, etc. Got a lump in one breast (imagine me telling the clinic that I was doing a proving and I was fine, and that went for the pap smear that said there were questionable cells) the clinic went ballistic! They kept calling me and sending me registered letters to get checked out in greater detail. Later on was rechecked and all was normal. Legs turned heavy and swollen and very painful. It took more than a year potentizing and succussing the flower remedy making it in higher and higher potencies to remove the imprint, legs can still bother me today - maybe I do need another dose???
Cannot eat black cherries today either, that is the ONLY substance I have an allergy to, if I eat more than one or two of them my legs will get heavy and start to ache.
Provings are fun, but nothing to play with unless you have good supervision.
Maria
Good question!
If BFRs are not homeopathic, then what is to stop someone from making a BFR concoction homeopathic.
Nothing at all! Sometimes there is a "homeopathic correspondence" which is used without being recognized (someone takes something for some other reason -- "because that's what we do"; "because it was there"; "because it looks like me", whatever -- and it cures (to whatever degree) because of that correspondence. In that case we would not call it the practice of homeopathy, though we might later realize that there had been homeopathic correspondence; important additions have been made to homeopathy's materia medica in exactly this way (via "cured symptoms" and "cured cases").
Just because there is this big jump from a flower that one can touch to a BFR does not mean that one could not go farther. In fact, when I made my wife's remedy this morning (I forgot to buy remedy bottles, so I just used a glass of water), I succussed those BFR bottles very vigorously 40 times each before putting two drops in her drink. If that is not potentiating, then please explain to me what is.
Ah, but important to note -- being potentized does not automatically make something "homeopathic"; its relationship to the *case* does that.
By potentizing the BFR you will presumably alter its effects, and would (I assume, based on my experiences with other examples) make it more deeply effective IF it is extremely well suited to her, OR make it less effective if not so well suited.
And if she had a bottle, I would tell her to succuss it 40 times before she took it.
If I have some sulfur, and I grind it up (the 't' word) and put it into solution in water, then I succuss it a bunch of times and then toss 90% and keep 10% and refill the bottle with distilled water, and then succuss it 40 times, how is this any different from a BFR.
? Other than being a mineral not a flower, and being diluted and succussed instead of sun extraction…? Sounds more different than similar, so I guess I am missing something!
The example you gave with the sulphur, your potency would be something vaguely similar to 1X -- very low potency, and I am not sure how different this will be in effect from similarly small dose of plain sulphur. I would be interested to hear your comparison!
Perhaps there is a difference. But, let me surmise here, perhaps the sun method is merely a clever way of getting the flower's vibe or subtle energy out of the flower and into the water. Then it would be merely a matter of going through the potentiating process some more. And BFR merely jumps over the first 6X potentisation iterations.
??? On what basis do you say this?
{I think that there may be more than just jumping over some iterations.}
And if the stock BFR or low potency BFR can help one determine if a remedy was appropriate, then one could go ahead and potentise it farther, just like with homeopathy where if 6C is working but not deep enough, then the doctor will prescribe 30C.
And if the 30c works *less* well than the 6c -- as may well be the case -- one possible reason is that the remedy is suited only in a local and palliative way, not well suited to the overall case. That isn't *always* the reason, but in my experience it is the most likely reason.
I am certainly not as experienced with BFR as some here, but it seems to me that I have seen in myself and others that the problem will come back when the person stops taking the BFR concoction, exactly like what can happen with low potency homeopathic remedies. (What a coincidence!!)
And when we stop eating, we get hungry again. Back to the idea that food is homeopathic too! Actually I am kidding…
The picture is much more complicated…
Shannon
Roger
his Dynamis program and his history of provings. One thing
he seemed to be saying is that you keep upping the potency of
the provings in order to bring out the deepest, and most spiritual
aspects of the remedy.
So this is not the same as take the remedy till symptoms apprear,
but exhaust a potency and then go up the scale and keep proving.
Did anyone else tune into that talk? Did you hear him say that too?
t
From: finrod@finrod.co.uk
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 6:24 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Minutus] PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
What a fantastic story.
The GOLDEN rule of proving is that you STOP as soon as any symptoms are experienced.
That way you go on to experience the range of symptoms without them imprinting on you and taking ages to clear.
Rgds
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Maria Bohle
Sent: 26 July 2013 20:26
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] BFR --> homeopathy
Years ago, when still a student I did a proving on 'Black Cherry Flower Remedy with Eileen Nauman. Who would figure a flower remedy could cause problems? I was too new a person to homeopathy to realize when i was feeling 'great' after a week or more on the remedy and knew it was not a placebo I should have quit there. I did a terrible proving of that substance. All discharges from all orifices turned black cherry colored, nose, eyes, ears, sputum, etc, etc. Got a lump in one breast (imagine me telling the clinic that I was doing a proving and I was fine, and that went for the pap smear that said there were questionable cells) the clinic went ballistic! They kept calling me and sending me registered letters to get checked out in greater detail. Later on was rechecked and all was normal. Legs turned heavy and swollen and very painful. It took more than a year potentizing and succussing the flower remedy making it in higher and higher potencies to remove the imprint, legs can still bother me today - maybe I do need another dose???
Cannot eat black cherries today either, that is the ONLY substance I have an allergy to, if I eat more than one or two of them my legs will get heavy and start to ache.
Provings are fun, but nothing to play with unless you have good supervision.
Maria
Good question!
If BFRs are not homeopathic, then what is to stop someone from making a BFR concoction homeopathic.
Nothing at all! Sometimes there is a "homeopathic correspondence" which is used without being recognized (someone takes something for some other reason -- "because that's what we do"; "because it was there"; "because it looks like me", whatever -- and it cures (to whatever degree) because of that correspondence. In that case we would not call it the practice of homeopathy, though we might later realize that there had been homeopathic correspondence; important additions have been made to homeopathy's materia medica in exactly this way (via "cured symptoms" and "cured cases").
Just because there is this big jump from a flower that one can touch to a BFR does not mean that one could not go farther. In fact, when I made my wife's remedy this morning (I forgot to buy remedy bottles, so I just used a glass of water), I succussed those BFR bottles very vigorously 40 times each before putting two drops in her drink. If that is not potentiating, then please explain to me what is.
Ah, but important to note -- being potentized does not automatically make something "homeopathic"; its relationship to the *case* does that.
By potentizing the BFR you will presumably alter its effects, and would (I assume, based on my experiences with other examples) make it more deeply effective IF it is extremely well suited to her, OR make it less effective if not so well suited.
And if she had a bottle, I would tell her to succuss it 40 times before she took it.
If I have some sulfur, and I grind it up (the 't' word) and put it into solution in water, then I succuss it a bunch of times and then toss 90% and keep 10% and refill the bottle with distilled water, and then succuss it 40 times, how is this any different from a BFR.
? Other than being a mineral not a flower, and being diluted and succussed instead of sun extraction…? Sounds more different than similar, so I guess I am missing something!
The example you gave with the sulphur, your potency would be something vaguely similar to 1X -- very low potency, and I am not sure how different this will be in effect from similarly small dose of plain sulphur. I would be interested to hear your comparison!
Perhaps there is a difference. But, let me surmise here, perhaps the sun method is merely a clever way of getting the flower's vibe or subtle energy out of the flower and into the water. Then it would be merely a matter of going through the potentiating process some more. And BFR merely jumps over the first 6X potentisation iterations.
??? On what basis do you say this?
{I think that there may be more than just jumping over some iterations.}
And if the stock BFR or low potency BFR can help one determine if a remedy was appropriate, then one could go ahead and potentise it farther, just like with homeopathy where if 6C is working but not deep enough, then the doctor will prescribe 30C.
And if the 30c works *less* well than the 6c -- as may well be the case -- one possible reason is that the remedy is suited only in a local and palliative way, not well suited to the overall case. That isn't *always* the reason, but in my experience it is the most likely reason.
I am certainly not as experienced with BFR as some here, but it seems to me that I have seen in myself and others that the problem will come back when the person stops taking the BFR concoction, exactly like what can happen with low potency homeopathic remedies. (What a coincidence!!)
And when we stop eating, we get hungry again. Back to the idea that food is homeopathic too! Actually I am kidding…
The picture is much more complicated…
Shannon
Roger
Re: PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
i don't know how old that recording was
but i've participated one of his provings
and it was performed randomized 2blind
one potency per prover
and that's how he taught us to do provings
will
but i've participated one of his provings
and it was performed randomized 2blind
one potency per prover
and that's how he taught us to do provings
will
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
But this is not what Hahnemann teaches.
He collated the provings of Arsenicum and I want to see someone else bring a 'new' symptom for it.
He covered them all. So upping the potency is probably not necessary and runs the risk of deep problems for the prover.
The other provings I have read, different people take different potencies - again it is double blind so that the 'provers' do not know what is happening.
Rgds
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of tamarque
Sent: 29 July 2013 12:37
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
I listened to Jeremy Scherr’s talk yesterday which was on
his Dynamis program and his history of provings. One thing
he seemed to be saying is that you keep upping the potency of
the provings in order to bring out the deepest, and most spiritual
aspects of the remedy.
So this is not the same as take the remedy till symptoms apprear,
but exhaust a potency and then go up the scale and keep proving.
Did anyone else tune into that talk? Did you hear him say that too?
t
From: finrod@finrod.co.uk
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 6:24 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Minutus] PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
What a fantastic story.
The GOLDEN rule of proving is that you STOP as soon as any symptoms are experienced.
That way you go on to experience the range of symptoms without them imprinting on you and taking ages to clear.
Rgds
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Maria Bohle
Sent: 26 July 2013 20:26
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] BFR --> homeopathy
Years ago, when still a student I did a proving on 'Black Cherry Flower Remedy with Eileen Nauman. Who would figure a flower remedy could cause problems? I was too new a person to homeopathy to realize when i was feeling 'great' after a week or more on the remedy and knew it was not a placebo I should have quit there. I did a terrible proving of that substance. All discharges from all orifices turned black cherry colored, nose, eyes, ears, sputum, etc, etc. Got a lump in one breast (imagine me telling the clinic that I was doing a proving and I was fine, and that went for the pap smear that said there were questionable cells) the clinic went ballistic! They kept calling me and sending me registered letters to get checked out in greater detail. Later on was rechecked and all was normal. Legs turned heavy and swollen and very painful. It took more than a year potentizing and succussing the flower remedy making it in higher and higher potencies to remove the imprint, legs can still bother me today - maybe I do need another dose???
Cannot eat black cherries today either, that is the ONLY substance I have an allergy to, if I eat more than one or two of them my legs will get heavy and start to ache.
Provings are fun, but nothing to play with unless you have good supervision.
Maria
Good question!
If BFRs are not homeopathic, then what is to stop someone from making a BFR concoction homeopathic.
Nothing at all! Sometimes there is a "homeopathic correspondence" which is used without being recognized (someone takes something for some other reason -- "because that's what we do"; "because it was there"; "because it looks like me", whatever -- and it cures (to whatever degree) because of that correspondence. In that case we would not call it the practice of homeopathy, though we might later realize that there had been homeopathic correspondence; important additions have been made to homeopathy's materia medica in exactly this way (via "cured symptoms" and "cured cases").
Just because there is this big jump from a flower that one can touch to a BFR does not mean that one could not go farther. In fact, when I made my wife's remedy this morning (I forgot to buy remedy bottles, so I just used a glass of water), I succussed those BFR bottles very vigorously 40 times each before putting two drops in her drink. If that is not potentiating, then please explain to me what is.
Ah, but important to note -- being potentized does not automatically make something "homeopathic"; its relationship to the *case* does that.
By potentizing the BFR you will presumably alter its effects, and would (I assume, based on my experiences with other examples) make it more deeply effective IF it is extremely well suited to her, OR make it less effective if not so well suited.
And if she had a bottle, I would tell her to succuss it 40 times before she took it.
If I have some sulfur, and I grind it up (the 't' word) and put it into solution in water, then I succuss it a bunch of times and then toss 90% and keep 10% and refill the bottle with distilled water, and then succuss it 40 times, how is this any different from a BFR.
? Other than being a mineral not a flower, and being diluted and succussed instead of sun extraction…? Sounds more different than similar, so I guess I am missing something!
The example you gave with the sulphur, your potency would be something vaguely similar to 1X -- very low potency, and I am not sure how different this will be in effect from similarly small dose of plain sulphur. I would be interested to hear your comparison!
Perhaps there is a difference. But, let me surmise here, perhaps the sun method is merely a clever way of getting the flower's vibe or subtle energy out of the flower and into the water. Then it would be merely a matter of going through the potentiating process some more. And BFR merely jumps over the first 6X potentisation iterations.
??? On what basis do you say this?
{I think that there may be more than just jumping over some iterations.}
And if the stock BFR or low potency BFR can help one determine if a remedy was appropriate, then one could go ahead and potentise it farther, just like with homeopathy where if 6C is working but not deep enough, then the doctor will prescribe 30C.
And if the 30c works *less* well than the 6c -- as may well be the case -- one possible reason is that the remedy is suited only in a local and palliative way, not well suited to the overall case. That isn't *always* the reason, but in my experience it is the most likely reason.
I am certainly not as experienced with BFR as some here, but it seems to me that I have seen in myself and others that the problem will come back when the person stops taking the BFR concoction, exactly like what can happen with low potency homeopathic remedies. (What a coincidence!!)
And when we stop eating, we get hungry again. Back to the idea that food is homeopathic too! Actually I am kidding…
The picture is much more complicated…
Shannon
Roger
He collated the provings of Arsenicum and I want to see someone else bring a 'new' symptom for it.
He covered them all. So upping the potency is probably not necessary and runs the risk of deep problems for the prover.
The other provings I have read, different people take different potencies - again it is double blind so that the 'provers' do not know what is happening.
Rgds
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of tamarque
Sent: 29 July 2013 12:37
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
I listened to Jeremy Scherr’s talk yesterday which was on
his Dynamis program and his history of provings. One thing
he seemed to be saying is that you keep upping the potency of
the provings in order to bring out the deepest, and most spiritual
aspects of the remedy.
So this is not the same as take the remedy till symptoms apprear,
but exhaust a potency and then go up the scale and keep proving.
Did anyone else tune into that talk? Did you hear him say that too?
t
From: finrod@finrod.co.uk
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 6:24 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Minutus] PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
What a fantastic story.
The GOLDEN rule of proving is that you STOP as soon as any symptoms are experienced.
That way you go on to experience the range of symptoms without them imprinting on you and taking ages to clear.
Rgds
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Maria Bohle
Sent: 26 July 2013 20:26
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] BFR --> homeopathy
Years ago, when still a student I did a proving on 'Black Cherry Flower Remedy with Eileen Nauman. Who would figure a flower remedy could cause problems? I was too new a person to homeopathy to realize when i was feeling 'great' after a week or more on the remedy and knew it was not a placebo I should have quit there. I did a terrible proving of that substance. All discharges from all orifices turned black cherry colored, nose, eyes, ears, sputum, etc, etc. Got a lump in one breast (imagine me telling the clinic that I was doing a proving and I was fine, and that went for the pap smear that said there were questionable cells) the clinic went ballistic! They kept calling me and sending me registered letters to get checked out in greater detail. Later on was rechecked and all was normal. Legs turned heavy and swollen and very painful. It took more than a year potentizing and succussing the flower remedy making it in higher and higher potencies to remove the imprint, legs can still bother me today - maybe I do need another dose???
Cannot eat black cherries today either, that is the ONLY substance I have an allergy to, if I eat more than one or two of them my legs will get heavy and start to ache.
Provings are fun, but nothing to play with unless you have good supervision.
Maria
Good question!
If BFRs are not homeopathic, then what is to stop someone from making a BFR concoction homeopathic.
Nothing at all! Sometimes there is a "homeopathic correspondence" which is used without being recognized (someone takes something for some other reason -- "because that's what we do"; "because it was there"; "because it looks like me", whatever -- and it cures (to whatever degree) because of that correspondence. In that case we would not call it the practice of homeopathy, though we might later realize that there had been homeopathic correspondence; important additions have been made to homeopathy's materia medica in exactly this way (via "cured symptoms" and "cured cases").
Just because there is this big jump from a flower that one can touch to a BFR does not mean that one could not go farther. In fact, when I made my wife's remedy this morning (I forgot to buy remedy bottles, so I just used a glass of water), I succussed those BFR bottles very vigorously 40 times each before putting two drops in her drink. If that is not potentiating, then please explain to me what is.
Ah, but important to note -- being potentized does not automatically make something "homeopathic"; its relationship to the *case* does that.
By potentizing the BFR you will presumably alter its effects, and would (I assume, based on my experiences with other examples) make it more deeply effective IF it is extremely well suited to her, OR make it less effective if not so well suited.
And if she had a bottle, I would tell her to succuss it 40 times before she took it.
If I have some sulfur, and I grind it up (the 't' word) and put it into solution in water, then I succuss it a bunch of times and then toss 90% and keep 10% and refill the bottle with distilled water, and then succuss it 40 times, how is this any different from a BFR.
? Other than being a mineral not a flower, and being diluted and succussed instead of sun extraction…? Sounds more different than similar, so I guess I am missing something!
The example you gave with the sulphur, your potency would be something vaguely similar to 1X -- very low potency, and I am not sure how different this will be in effect from similarly small dose of plain sulphur. I would be interested to hear your comparison!
Perhaps there is a difference. But, let me surmise here, perhaps the sun method is merely a clever way of getting the flower's vibe or subtle energy out of the flower and into the water. Then it would be merely a matter of going through the potentiating process some more. And BFR merely jumps over the first 6X potentisation iterations.
??? On what basis do you say this?
{I think that there may be more than just jumping over some iterations.}
And if the stock BFR or low potency BFR can help one determine if a remedy was appropriate, then one could go ahead and potentise it farther, just like with homeopathy where if 6C is working but not deep enough, then the doctor will prescribe 30C.
And if the 30c works *less* well than the 6c -- as may well be the case -- one possible reason is that the remedy is suited only in a local and palliative way, not well suited to the overall case. That isn't *always* the reason, but in my experience it is the most likely reason.
I am certainly not as experienced with BFR as some here, but it seems to me that I have seen in myself and others that the problem will come back when the person stops taking the BFR concoction, exactly like what can happen with low potency homeopathic remedies. (What a coincidence!!)
And when we stop eating, we get hungry again. Back to the idea that food is homeopathic too! Actually I am kidding…
The picture is much more complicated…
Shannon
Roger
-
Tanya Marquette
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:00 pm
Re: PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
This was a live webinar yesterday online.
I know Jeremy’s proving protocol to be as you describe,
but he seemed to be adding something to it in yesterday’s talk.
t
From: yerewan
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 7:54 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
i don't know how old that recording was
but i've participated one of his provings
and it was performed randomized 2blind
one potency per prover
and that's how he taught us to do provings
will
I know Jeremy’s proving protocol to be as you describe,
but he seemed to be adding something to it in yesterday’s talk.
t
From: yerewan
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 7:54 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
i don't know how old that recording was
but i've participated one of his provings
and it was performed randomized 2blind
one potency per prover
and that's how he taught us to do provings
will
-
Tanya Marquette
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:00 pm
Re: PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
If I heard Jeremy correctly, he was talking about the higher the potency
the deeper the response of the remedy. In this way you would get all
the levels of the remedy.
At no point did he reject the idea of a double blind type proving, just
seemed to add the increased potencies. He was very clear on the point
that remedies have some very deep levels that need to be brought out
to fully understand them. I wish there was a copy of the recording for
relistening, but have not found one.
t
From: finrod@finrod.co.uk
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 8:00 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Minutus] PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
But this is not what Hahnemann teaches.
He collated the provings of Arsenicum and I want to see someone else bring a 'new' symptom for it.
He covered them all. So upping the potency is probably not necessary and runs the risk of deep problems for the prover.
The other provings I have read, different people take different potencies - again it is double blind so that the 'provers' do not know what is happening.
Rgds
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of tamarque
Sent: 29 July 2013 12:37
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
I listened to Jeremy Scherr’s talk yesterday which was on
his Dynamis program and his history of provings. One thing
he seemed to be saying is that you keep upping the potency of
the provings in order to bring out the deepest, and most spiritual
aspects of the remedy.
So this is not the same as take the remedy till symptoms apprear,
but exhaust a potency and then go up the scale and keep proving.
Did anyone else tune into that talk? Did you hear him say that too?
t
From: finrod@finrod.co.uk
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 6:24 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Minutus] PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
What a fantastic story.
The GOLDEN rule of proving is that you STOP as soon as any symptoms are experienced.
That way you go on to experience the range of symptoms without them imprinting on you and taking ages to clear.
Rgds
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Maria Bohle
Sent: 26 July 2013 20:26
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] BFR --> homeopathy
Years ago, when still a student I did a proving on 'Black Cherry Flower Remedy with Eileen Nauman. Who would figure a flower remedy could cause problems? I was too new a person to homeopathy to realize when i was feeling 'great' after a week or more on the remedy and knew it was not a placebo I should have quit there. I did a terrible proving of that substance. All discharges from all orifices turned black cherry colored, nose, eyes, ears, sputum, etc, etc. Got a lump in one breast (imagine me telling the clinic that I was doing a proving and I was fine, and that went for the pap smear that said there were questionable cells) the clinic went ballistic! They kept calling me and sending me registered letters to get checked out in greater detail. Later on was rechecked and all was normal. Legs turned heavy and swollen and very painful. It took more than a year potentizing and succussing the flower remedy making it in higher and higher potencies to remove the imprint, legs can still bother me today - maybe I do need another dose???
Cannot eat black cherries today either, that is the ONLY substance I have an allergy to, if I eat more than one or two of them my legs will get heavy and start to ache.
Provings are fun, but nothing to play with unless you have good supervision.
Maria
Good question!
If BFRs are not homeopathic, then what is to stop someone from making a BFR concoction homeopathic.
Nothing at all! Sometimes there is a "homeopathic correspondence" which is used without being recognized (someone takes something for some other reason -- "because that's what we do"; "because it was there"; "because it looks like me", whatever -- and it cures (to whatever degree) because of that correspondence. In that case we would not call it the practice of homeopathy, though we might later realize that there had been homeopathic correspondence; important additions have been made to homeopathy's materia medica in exactly this way (via "cured symptoms" and "cured cases").
Just because there is this big jump from a flower that one can touch to a BFR does not mean that one could not go farther. In fact, when I made my wife's remedy this morning (I forgot to buy remedy bottles, so I just used a glass of water), I succussed those BFR bottles very vigorously 40 times each before putting two drops in her drink. If that is not potentiating, then please explain to me what is.
Ah, but important to note -- being potentized does not automatically make something "homeopathic"; its relationship to the *case* does that.
By potentizing the BFR you will presumably alter its effects, and would (I assume, based on my experiences with other examples) make it more deeply effective IF it is extremely well suited to her, OR make it less effective if not so well suited.
And if she had a bottle, I would tell her to succuss it 40 times before she took it.
If I have some sulfur, and I grind it up (the 't' word) and put it into solution in water, then I succuss it a bunch of times and then toss 90% and keep 10% and refill the bottle with distilled water, and then succuss it 40 times, how is this any different from a BFR.
? Other than being a mineral not a flower, and being diluted and succussed instead of sun extraction…? Sounds more different than similar, so I guess I am missing something!
The example you gave with the sulphur, your potency would be something vaguely similar to 1X -- very low potency, and I am not sure how different this will be in effect from similarly small dose of plain sulphur. I would be interested to hear your comparison!
Perhaps there is a difference. But, let me surmise here, perhaps the sun method is merely a clever way of getting the flower's vibe or subtle energy out of the flower and into the water. Then it would be merely a matter of going through the potentiating process some more. And BFR merely jumps over the first 6X potentisation iterations.
??? On what basis do you say this?
{I think that there may be more than just jumping over some iterations.}
And if the stock BFR or low potency BFR can help one determine if a remedy was appropriate, then one could go ahead and potentise it farther, just like with homeopathy where if 6C is working but not deep enough, then the doctor will prescribe 30C.
And if the 30c works *less* well than the 6c -- as may well be the case -- one possible reason is that the remedy is suited only in a local and palliative way, not well suited to the overall case. That isn't *always* the reason, but in my experience it is the most likely reason.
I am certainly not as experienced with BFR as some here, but it seems to me that I have seen in myself and others that the problem will come back when the person stops taking the BFR concoction, exactly like what can happen with low potency homeopathic remedies. (What a coincidence!!)
And when we stop eating, we get hungry again. Back to the idea that food is homeopathic too! Actually I am kidding…
The picture is much more complicated…
Shannon
Roger
the deeper the response of the remedy. In this way you would get all
the levels of the remedy.
At no point did he reject the idea of a double blind type proving, just
seemed to add the increased potencies. He was very clear on the point
that remedies have some very deep levels that need to be brought out
to fully understand them. I wish there was a copy of the recording for
relistening, but have not found one.
t
From: finrod@finrod.co.uk
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 8:00 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Minutus] PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
But this is not what Hahnemann teaches.
He collated the provings of Arsenicum and I want to see someone else bring a 'new' symptom for it.
He covered them all. So upping the potency is probably not necessary and runs the risk of deep problems for the prover.
The other provings I have read, different people take different potencies - again it is double blind so that the 'provers' do not know what is happening.
Rgds
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of tamarque
Sent: 29 July 2013 12:37
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
I listened to Jeremy Scherr’s talk yesterday which was on
his Dynamis program and his history of provings. One thing
he seemed to be saying is that you keep upping the potency of
the provings in order to bring out the deepest, and most spiritual
aspects of the remedy.
So this is not the same as take the remedy till symptoms apprear,
but exhaust a potency and then go up the scale and keep proving.
Did anyone else tune into that talk? Did you hear him say that too?
t
From: finrod@finrod.co.uk
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 6:24 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Minutus] PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
What a fantastic story.
The GOLDEN rule of proving is that you STOP as soon as any symptoms are experienced.
That way you go on to experience the range of symptoms without them imprinting on you and taking ages to clear.
Rgds
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Maria Bohle
Sent: 26 July 2013 20:26
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] BFR --> homeopathy
Years ago, when still a student I did a proving on 'Black Cherry Flower Remedy with Eileen Nauman. Who would figure a flower remedy could cause problems? I was too new a person to homeopathy to realize when i was feeling 'great' after a week or more on the remedy and knew it was not a placebo I should have quit there. I did a terrible proving of that substance. All discharges from all orifices turned black cherry colored, nose, eyes, ears, sputum, etc, etc. Got a lump in one breast (imagine me telling the clinic that I was doing a proving and I was fine, and that went for the pap smear that said there were questionable cells) the clinic went ballistic! They kept calling me and sending me registered letters to get checked out in greater detail. Later on was rechecked and all was normal. Legs turned heavy and swollen and very painful. It took more than a year potentizing and succussing the flower remedy making it in higher and higher potencies to remove the imprint, legs can still bother me today - maybe I do need another dose???
Cannot eat black cherries today either, that is the ONLY substance I have an allergy to, if I eat more than one or two of them my legs will get heavy and start to ache.
Provings are fun, but nothing to play with unless you have good supervision.
Maria
Good question!
If BFRs are not homeopathic, then what is to stop someone from making a BFR concoction homeopathic.
Nothing at all! Sometimes there is a "homeopathic correspondence" which is used without being recognized (someone takes something for some other reason -- "because that's what we do"; "because it was there"; "because it looks like me", whatever -- and it cures (to whatever degree) because of that correspondence. In that case we would not call it the practice of homeopathy, though we might later realize that there had been homeopathic correspondence; important additions have been made to homeopathy's materia medica in exactly this way (via "cured symptoms" and "cured cases").
Just because there is this big jump from a flower that one can touch to a BFR does not mean that one could not go farther. In fact, when I made my wife's remedy this morning (I forgot to buy remedy bottles, so I just used a glass of water), I succussed those BFR bottles very vigorously 40 times each before putting two drops in her drink. If that is not potentiating, then please explain to me what is.
Ah, but important to note -- being potentized does not automatically make something "homeopathic"; its relationship to the *case* does that.
By potentizing the BFR you will presumably alter its effects, and would (I assume, based on my experiences with other examples) make it more deeply effective IF it is extremely well suited to her, OR make it less effective if not so well suited.
And if she had a bottle, I would tell her to succuss it 40 times before she took it.
If I have some sulfur, and I grind it up (the 't' word) and put it into solution in water, then I succuss it a bunch of times and then toss 90% and keep 10% and refill the bottle with distilled water, and then succuss it 40 times, how is this any different from a BFR.
? Other than being a mineral not a flower, and being diluted and succussed instead of sun extraction…? Sounds more different than similar, so I guess I am missing something!
The example you gave with the sulphur, your potency would be something vaguely similar to 1X -- very low potency, and I am not sure how different this will be in effect from similarly small dose of plain sulphur. I would be interested to hear your comparison!
Perhaps there is a difference. But, let me surmise here, perhaps the sun method is merely a clever way of getting the flower's vibe or subtle energy out of the flower and into the water. Then it would be merely a matter of going through the potentiating process some more. And BFR merely jumps over the first 6X potentisation iterations.
??? On what basis do you say this?
{I think that there may be more than just jumping over some iterations.}
And if the stock BFR or low potency BFR can help one determine if a remedy was appropriate, then one could go ahead and potentise it farther, just like with homeopathy where if 6C is working but not deep enough, then the doctor will prescribe 30C.
And if the 30c works *less* well than the 6c -- as may well be the case -- one possible reason is that the remedy is suited only in a local and palliative way, not well suited to the overall case. That isn't *always* the reason, but in my experience it is the most likely reason.
I am certainly not as experienced with BFR as some here, but it seems to me that I have seen in myself and others that the problem will come back when the person stops taking the BFR concoction, exactly like what can happen with low potency homeopathic remedies. (What a coincidence!!)
And when we stop eating, we get hungry again. Back to the idea that food is homeopathic too! Actually I am kidding…
The picture is much more complicated…
Shannon
Roger
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
Could be, but then again, bc of the susceptibility
of the person even with lower potencies one can
get powerful results.
if I'm not too wrong we had potencies 6, 12, 30
and 200 plus placebo and everybody had something.
Or maybe he was just referring to some previous
experiencies where less variety of potencies
possibly had been used.
what ever the case- I agree what you said
w
of the person even with lower potencies one can
get powerful results.
if I'm not too wrong we had potencies 6, 12, 30
and 200 plus placebo and everybody had something.
Or maybe he was just referring to some previous
experiencies where less variety of potencies
possibly had been used.
what ever the case- I agree what you said
w
-
Tanya Marquette
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:00 pm
Re: PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
what I would have liked to ask Jeremy is more info
on the ‘deeper’ proving levels. but he was quite
forceful in saying that they were getting deeper and
deeper into the remedies. I do believe he and his wife
took many of the remedies he has proved himself,
hopefully in a blinded manner, too.
I think he said he had an updated book, or one in the
works, on proving protocols. did you ever read his first
book?
t
From: yerewan
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 10:30 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
Could be, but then again, bc of the susceptibility
of the person even with lower potencies one can
get powerful results.
if I'm not too wrong we had potencies 6, 12, 30
and 200 plus placebo and everybody had something.
Or maybe he was just referring to some previous
experiencies where less variety of potencies
possibly had been used.
what ever the case- I agree what you said
w
on the ‘deeper’ proving levels. but he was quite
forceful in saying that they were getting deeper and
deeper into the remedies. I do believe he and his wife
took many of the remedies he has proved himself,
hopefully in a blinded manner, too.
I think he said he had an updated book, or one in the
works, on proving protocols. did you ever read his first
book?
t
From: yerewan
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 10:30 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
Could be, but then again, bc of the susceptibility
of the person even with lower potencies one can
get powerful results.
if I'm not too wrong we had potencies 6, 12, 30
and 200 plus placebo and everybody had something.
Or maybe he was just referring to some previous
experiencies where less variety of potencies
possibly had been used.
what ever the case- I agree what you said
w
Re: PROVING was BFR --> homeopathy
Of course Jeremy knows what he's proving on
but his wife necessarily not.
But what he doesn't know is the potency either of them is having.
The book. I haven't read it.
will
but his wife necessarily not.
But what he doesn't know is the potency either of them is having.
The book. I haven't read it.
will