Hello,
I'd like to quote some paragraphs from the late Dr
M.L.Sehgal. It is absolutely important to know that
his method is completely different from the classical
method and what he says is in his system
(Revolutionized Homoeopathy).
IF YOU PRACTICE CLASSICAL HOMOEOPATHY, PLEASE BE VERY
CAREFUL WITH THESE WORDS.
"Whoever comes to us for training we like to tell him
to learn Belladonna first and all other drugs later.
Why? Because it is my experience that Belladonna is
found to be indicated in more than 40% of cases all
over the globe. For example on my first visit to
London I had an opportunity to see 40 cases, out of
them 23 belonged to Belladonna. Likewise in the
consulting room of one of the most eminent Homoeopaths
in London, I examined 4 cases and out of these 3
belonged to Belladonna. ?
I feel the need to repeat, with a louder voice again
and again about my findings that a medicine like
'Bell' which in classical literature lies condemned as
a remedy which lasts only for 24 hr. has been found
indicated and curative in the majority of cases and
thus nullifying the validity of the above bias. Its
action lasts for more than a year and has been found
effective in Cases of Cancer and other such diseases
which are indiscriminately looked at as having a
miasmic background and requiring a first grade deep
acting remedy."
From: "Rediscovery of Homoeopathy", M.L.Sehgal,
7th Vol., pp. 15-16, 1999.
Sincerely,
Feras
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
Some words from M.L.Sehgal
-
Paul Booyse
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Some words from M.L.Sehgal
Hi Feras,
But - Why? OK from experience, but in what basis does he decide the choice?
Yes I have used Bell in a constitutional way, and Aconite, but the Sx were
there (not the fevers, but some other characteristics) But not 40 %, so
what am I missing?
Regards,
Paul
But - Why? OK from experience, but in what basis does he decide the choice?
Yes I have used Bell in a constitutional way, and Aconite, but the Sx were
there (not the fevers, but some other characteristics) But not 40 %, so
what am I missing?
Regards,
Paul
-
Feras Hakkak
- Posts: 210
- Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2001 10:00 pm
Re: Some words from M.L.Sehgal
Hello Paul,
I'm a classical homoeopath (I try my best to be!). I
have tried to understand revolutionized homoeopathy
but until now I have not been able to. It is very
different. For exapmle, they say that in the first
action of the remedy the patient becomes well and in
the second action becomes aggravated .... It is
different from our views.
I posted the message just to remind that some eminent
homoeopaths have had different views and experiences.
We'd better try to understand their view and use the
correct parts of them (if any) in our work. In this
way we can develop ourselves and be unprejudiced.
Best wishes,
Feras
--- Paul Booyse wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
I'm a classical homoeopath (I try my best to be!). I
have tried to understand revolutionized homoeopathy
but until now I have not been able to. It is very
different. For exapmle, they say that in the first
action of the remedy the patient becomes well and in
the second action becomes aggravated .... It is
different from our views.
I posted the message just to remind that some eminent
homoeopaths have had different views and experiences.
We'd better try to understand their view and use the
correct parts of them (if any) in our work. In this
way we can develop ourselves and be unprejudiced.
Best wishes,
Feras
--- Paul Booyse wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
-
David Little
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2001 11:00 pm
Re: Some words from M.L.Sehgal
At 09:51 AM 8/11/2002 -0700, you wrote:
Dear List,
I am very surprised that the originator of the mind-only school used 40%
Belladonna on his cases? Whenever I people say they use 40% Belladonna or
33% Natrum muriacticum etc. I wonder about how much stereotyping they do?
As an unprejudiced observer I record the causes, objective signs,
coincidental befallments and subjective symptoms of the body and soul that
make up the Gestalt of the diseases (aph 6). All I can say is I am using a
much, much wider range of remedies on my patients because I use
individualization by the *striking, extraordinary, unusual and odd
characteristic symptoms* of aphorism 153. When one judges the
characteristic value of symptoms by degrees of strange, rare and peculiar
one uses a vast array of polychrest and lesser known remedies. I underline
the symptoms with a red pen by in degrees of strange, stranger and
strangest. Such redline symptoms usually carry the simillimum. As I learn
homoeopathy better I seemed to be using more and more remedies not less. I
can not face the day without at least my top 400 remedies.
Sincerely, David Little
I have used belladonna in several cases where it acts very deeply. Nobody
ever told me it only last 24 hours? Nevertheless, I doesn't work all that
well in classic cases based on psora, etc..
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."
Samuel Hahnemann
Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000
Dear List,
I am very surprised that the originator of the mind-only school used 40%
Belladonna on his cases? Whenever I people say they use 40% Belladonna or
33% Natrum muriacticum etc. I wonder about how much stereotyping they do?
As an unprejudiced observer I record the causes, objective signs,
coincidental befallments and subjective symptoms of the body and soul that
make up the Gestalt of the diseases (aph 6). All I can say is I am using a
much, much wider range of remedies on my patients because I use
individualization by the *striking, extraordinary, unusual and odd
characteristic symptoms* of aphorism 153. When one judges the
characteristic value of symptoms by degrees of strange, rare and peculiar
one uses a vast array of polychrest and lesser known remedies. I underline
the symptoms with a red pen by in degrees of strange, stranger and
strangest. Such redline symptoms usually carry the simillimum. As I learn
homoeopathy better I seemed to be using more and more remedies not less. I
can not face the day without at least my top 400 remedies.
Sincerely, David Little
I have used belladonna in several cases where it acts very deeply. Nobody
ever told me it only last 24 hours? Nevertheless, I doesn't work all that
well in classic cases based on psora, etc..
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."
Samuel Hahnemann
Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000
-
Piet Guijt
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:00 pm
Re: Some words from M.L.Sehgal
Feras wrote:
"I'd like to quote some paragraphs from the late Dr
M.L.Sehgal. It is absolutely important to know that
his method is completely different from the classical
method and what he says is in his system
(Revolutionized Homoeopathy)."
"IF YOU PRACTICE CLASSICAL HOMOEOPATHY, PLEASE BE VERY
CAREFUL WITH THESE WORDS."
Hello Feras,
I studied the work of Dr Sehgal very deeply, because when there is someone who claim good resuls, I'm always curious it has something new to offer I can integrate in my knowledge and practice.
And it indeed Sehgal gives the impression it is a different kind of simillimum.
But my conclusion is, it is certainly NOT.
The techniques are very good and usefull, but basicly they are not new, why do you think it is also called 'Rediscovery of Homeopathy'?
Sehgal refers to Kent, Paschero etc.
Sehgal's remedy reactions are not exclusive for his system, they are part of Hering's Rules, we don't always see it the way he describes it, even with a correct remedy it is not a MUST that things must be 'pushed out' with a aggravatation.
Sehgal's practicing is different from the practice of prescribing on the 'characteristics of the person', not his personal disease, or keynote prescribing as falsly done by some in the name of 'Classical Homoeopathy'.
Sehgal prescription is on the CHANGED STATE, and this is exact what Hahnemann, Kent etc also did.
Sehgal rejection of physical symptoms, is also to absolute. Of cource when Pathology is included equal in a repertorization it is wrong. When the state changes, the Pathology can stay more or less the same, but the physical Characteristic features (representing the vital force), will certainly be different and representing the correct remedy also.
I understand Sehgal's reaction to the practice of the kind Homoeopathy, he saw in his surroundings and here he was very right.
I respect him very much and am very grateful for what he has done, I regret it very much he has left us, but sorry to say he was a bit obsessed with Belladonna.
I use his techniques (and these are really pearls), but take the liberty to reject some aspects/ explanations by him.
I hope this was clear enough to make you withdraw the statement: "It is absolutely important to know that
his method is completely different from the classical method"
Kind regards, Piet
P.S. Did you manage to get the E-mail of Yogesh, maybe you can send it to me privately?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"I'd like to quote some paragraphs from the late Dr
M.L.Sehgal. It is absolutely important to know that
his method is completely different from the classical
method and what he says is in his system
(Revolutionized Homoeopathy)."
"IF YOU PRACTICE CLASSICAL HOMOEOPATHY, PLEASE BE VERY
CAREFUL WITH THESE WORDS."
Hello Feras,
I studied the work of Dr Sehgal very deeply, because when there is someone who claim good resuls, I'm always curious it has something new to offer I can integrate in my knowledge and practice.
And it indeed Sehgal gives the impression it is a different kind of simillimum.
But my conclusion is, it is certainly NOT.
The techniques are very good and usefull, but basicly they are not new, why do you think it is also called 'Rediscovery of Homeopathy'?
Sehgal refers to Kent, Paschero etc.
Sehgal's remedy reactions are not exclusive for his system, they are part of Hering's Rules, we don't always see it the way he describes it, even with a correct remedy it is not a MUST that things must be 'pushed out' with a aggravatation.
Sehgal's practicing is different from the practice of prescribing on the 'characteristics of the person', not his personal disease, or keynote prescribing as falsly done by some in the name of 'Classical Homoeopathy'.
Sehgal prescription is on the CHANGED STATE, and this is exact what Hahnemann, Kent etc also did.
Sehgal rejection of physical symptoms, is also to absolute. Of cource when Pathology is included equal in a repertorization it is wrong. When the state changes, the Pathology can stay more or less the same, but the physical Characteristic features (representing the vital force), will certainly be different and representing the correct remedy also.
I understand Sehgal's reaction to the practice of the kind Homoeopathy, he saw in his surroundings and here he was very right.
I respect him very much and am very grateful for what he has done, I regret it very much he has left us, but sorry to say he was a bit obsessed with Belladonna.
I use his techniques (and these are really pearls), but take the liberty to reject some aspects/ explanations by him.
I hope this was clear enough to make you withdraw the statement: "It is absolutely important to know that
his method is completely different from the classical method"
Kind regards, Piet
P.S. Did you manage to get the E-mail of Yogesh, maybe you can send it to me privately?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-
David Little
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2001 11:00 pm
Re: Some words from M.L.Sehgal
At 02:39 PM 8/13/2002 +0200, you wrote:
Dear Piet,
I have to agree with you. Sehgal may only use the mental symptoms but
he still uses the similar cures similars, the single remedy, the minimal
dose and the potentized remedy. I also agree that one can gain insights
from his works without taking on the whole ROH paradigm. His explanations
are formed so that they seem vastly different from so-called classical
Homoeopathy but they don't make all that much sense anyway. His concept of
classical homoeopathy is certainly not what I was taught even in the
beginning. I was, however, very surprised to hear that he taught that 40%
of cases world wide are Belladonna and the out of 40 cases he gave 23 that
same remedy! When I carefully assess the mental symptoms I find more
options not less? This does not sound like strict individualization to me.
Hahnemann was very much against the use of "favorite remedies". Telling
people to look for 40% Belladonna cases is not exactly the unprejudiced
observer I am familiar with. I was disappointed to find out what he gave in
the clinic. I was thinking of more remedies and smaller remedies not less
remedies and a polychrest at that!
On the second point. We were never taught that Belladonna duration is
24 hours. If you read the symptoms of Belladonna it has many serious deep
complaints and is listed as a cancer remedy in some works. If the essential
redline characteristic symptoms of a case point to Belladonna it will
usually act on those symptoms.I have not seen Belladonna bring back old
suppressed sycotic discharges and the like but I have seen it act deeply in
non acute diseases. As to bias, well, how about 40% Belladonna?
Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."
Samuel Hahnemann
Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000
Dear Piet,
I have to agree with you. Sehgal may only use the mental symptoms but
he still uses the similar cures similars, the single remedy, the minimal
dose and the potentized remedy. I also agree that one can gain insights
from his works without taking on the whole ROH paradigm. His explanations
are formed so that they seem vastly different from so-called classical
Homoeopathy but they don't make all that much sense anyway. His concept of
classical homoeopathy is certainly not what I was taught even in the
beginning. I was, however, very surprised to hear that he taught that 40%
of cases world wide are Belladonna and the out of 40 cases he gave 23 that
same remedy! When I carefully assess the mental symptoms I find more
options not less? This does not sound like strict individualization to me.
Hahnemann was very much against the use of "favorite remedies". Telling
people to look for 40% Belladonna cases is not exactly the unprejudiced
observer I am familiar with. I was disappointed to find out what he gave in
the clinic. I was thinking of more remedies and smaller remedies not less
remedies and a polychrest at that!
On the second point. We were never taught that Belladonna duration is
24 hours. If you read the symptoms of Belladonna it has many serious deep
complaints and is listed as a cancer remedy in some works. If the essential
redline characteristic symptoms of a case point to Belladonna it will
usually act on those symptoms.I have not seen Belladonna bring back old
suppressed sycotic discharges and the like but I have seen it act deeply in
non acute diseases. As to bias, well, how about 40% Belladonna?
Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."
Samuel Hahnemann
Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000
-
Feras Hakkak
- Posts: 210
- Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2001 10:00 pm
Re: Some words from M.L.Sehgal
--- Piet Guijt wrote:
Dear Piet,
When I wrote the message, I wanted to stress that
Sehgal's system is different, so I used the phrase
"completely different". Students might be confused if
we do not stress that.
I know that there are some common aspects, but there
are different ones too. He doesn't believe in miasms.
He doesn't believe in categorizing the ailments into
acutes and chronics. He doesn't use physical symptoms.
He interprets the rubrics.... So when I say he is
completely different I'm not so wrong.
"Rediscovery of Homoeopathy" is the name of Sehgal's
books. It's not my interpretation of his system.
Regarding Yogesh's email address: Nobody has replied
yet. If I find that I will email it to you.
Best wishes,
Feras
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
Dear Piet,
When I wrote the message, I wanted to stress that
Sehgal's system is different, so I used the phrase
"completely different". Students might be confused if
we do not stress that.
I know that there are some common aspects, but there
are different ones too. He doesn't believe in miasms.
He doesn't believe in categorizing the ailments into
acutes and chronics. He doesn't use physical symptoms.
He interprets the rubrics.... So when I say he is
completely different I'm not so wrong.
"Rediscovery of Homoeopathy" is the name of Sehgal's
books. It's not my interpretation of his system.
Regarding Yogesh's email address: Nobody has replied
yet. If I find that I will email it to you.
Best wishes,
Feras
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com