Minutus

From Aph 3
"- if, finally, he knows the OBSTACLES to recovery in each case and is aware
how to remove them, so that the restoration may be permanent, then he
understands how to treat judiciously and rationally, and he is a true
practitioner of the healing art."

Rgds
Soroush

Dear Dr Leela,
Do you think there is something new for me in your explanations from this
traditional angle?
I know al this stuff, there are written many books from this angle.
But somehow these blocks, are blocking an effective and clear way of
prescribing. I refer to the dynamic blocks only)
This is fuzzy Homeopathy, when the "well selected remedy fails" bla bla.
This really shows the lack in knowledge for a better and more reliable
approach.
From a practical point of view, I have no objection to use this approach,
because this is not an black or white issue, but to think this is the best
we can do is killing Homeopathy.

You really have no clue what the Central Disturbance is about, and when you
have no clear perception what is, you will miss the point and will miss this
reference in your perception, what disease is.

This comes first from Hahneman, but is mainly the practical rediscovery of
Dr. M.L. Seghal

I will not explain the whole concept, please read his books, and after that
Sankaran's "Spirit of Homeopathy" which follows the discovery by DR. Sehgal.

Sehgal noted that the present disease causes a CHANGE in the attitude toward
life, routines, habits, toward the chief presenting complaints etc.
He says "Through various moods , emotions and gestures every disturbance in
the body finds expression. This implies that the present mental state is the
true representative of whatever order or disorder is going on in the body
and it can serve as an accurate dial to recognize the mental expressions to
find out the real simillimum"

Do we really have to now all causative influences that caused the present
state for a correct prescription,? it is impossible to know them all.
But on focussing on the present posture of the vital force, we know the
synergetic pattern, which is the most effective response to fight the
current manifesting accumulated disease by the patient.

This is only one angle to come to a correct prescription

Dr. SK. Banerjea in his book "Miasmatic prescribing"
Gives us similar directives for the selection of the effective medicine, in
case of Physical, Emotional and Iatrogenic Suppression.
It is SK. Banerjea experience, which come from a long family tradition, that
the best way to open these cases is from the miasmatic viewpoint.

He gives those directives to come to the correct prescription:
1) Miasmatic totality
2) Totality of symptoms
3) Essence (should include gestures, postures, behaviours etc)
4) Keynote PQRS acc APH 153 and 209

The remedy must encompass the surface miasm as well as the totality of
symptoms.
For your information this is the remedy for the Central Disturbance arrived
from another angle.
Do you notice how Banerjea includes the Miasmatic totality (your
peripheral!), Totality of symptoms, Essence (!), PQRS,? Why because they all
originate from the present disturbance of the vital force!
And it doesn't matter whether this is the current phase of a larger chronic
disease, or an acute situation, this principle stays the same, the vital
force is our guide, which shows the most effective way out of the current
situation.

Ok, Another source, to show you that this is not a whim from my side (or how
did you put it simplicity and a googly?)

Mario Boiadjiev "Systematic approach"

"It is important for us to understand what the patient fights in his life,
what he cannot accept, what makes him feel insecure or plainly bad, and how
compensates this.
To be able to identify the simillimum for a patient according to his current
state, it is of primary importance to distinguish his characteristics from
his symptoms.
A major mistake today's homeopathic practice is to prescribe a remedy on the
basis of the patients characteristics that are confused with the patients
symptoms. In many cases they look for all sorts of characteristics, no
matter if they are related or not to the patients complaints. When they are
not related to the patients presenting complaints, they may prove misleading
in identification of the simillimum"

You see the Simillimum based on the individuality and symptoms of the
patient, that are not related, that is non-similar to the current disease,
is not the Simillimum at all.

Lets forget the complex diseases, please read these books first if you
really want to look from another angle as well.

This is all I want to say on this subject, I hope this is an eye-opener for
many.

Kind regards, Piet

Dear Piet,

If I may ask you again ... do you think it is something new for me to
understand your point of view?
It Isn't though I maust admist I have not fully analysed Dr. Sehgal's
approach, we were given various seminars on it in the early 1990's. I
will take your advise and lookmthrough it in more detail, mainly also
because Feras Hakkak with whom I had a chat with much earlier
reccomended it with humility (see in the July article)!

May I ask you also - do you think it wise to expose a student to "new
approaches" which you ALREADY have a good knowledge of, as you state,
before they have had a good gounding in the traditional methods and
philosophy? It is the cause of a lot of confusion in homeopathy
today. Without a firm grounding in tradition homeopathy becomes a
guess it, try it approach of analysing essences, disturbances and
synergentic patterns that a simple neophyte homeopath has to achieve
when thay have not even mastered the basics yet. How irresponsible!
All this results in this very statement quoted by you of Mario
Boiadjiev "Systematic approach",

"A major mistake today's homeopathic practice is to prescribe a
remedy on the basis of the patients characteristics that are confused
with the patients symptoms."

So then there are steps towards reaching the very high and advanced
level of (energy) thinking that you have achieved, so new and so
superior to us all! (Ooh, i couldn't resist that!)

WHile the rest of us grovel through tradition and the old methods,
assimilating them for the future, I will also be working on your post
below to bring out the "new" and "more reliable" thinking in future
articles on Miasms. Thanks for the ideas for future articles!
From the ones you mentioned, SK BAnnerjee, I have not worked on,
Sehgal only partly. Rajan Sankaran's already incoporated into
practice for the last (hmmm) 15 years or so. MArio Boiadjiev
unfortunately I haven't heard of - maybe you can give me some
reference to his books.

Just to clarify (my academic answer to your "TOXINS" questions) - I
did not suggest that we have to "know" all the casues. I suggested
that with expereince we can indentify where is the possible block, at
least on what level, but precriptions are always based on the
characteritic symptoms presenting - whatever the case. Read Aphorism
5-7 - or is that too traditional? (Ooh, couldn't resist that one as
well)

And then after all the wonderful methods and approaches you have
assimilated and achieved in your practice, I'd be happy to have a
case or two submitted by you for our ezine that express your
understanding as well as evidence of miasmatic cure in practical
terms. That of course would be the final proof of the pudding!
Thanks for finally answering all my inital questions in the post
below, it gives me a better idea of why you said what you did in
previous posts. MAybe you finally found the time? Your googly's were
from another angle of thinking - why whould it gel with
the "traditional" angle I expressed?

My responses to whatever you brought up in the post below will be in
future articles of the ezine.
Warm regards,
dr. leela
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Piet Guijt wrote:
from this
bla.
reliable
approach,
the best
when you
miss this
rediscovery of
after that
DR. Sehgal.
attitude toward
disturbance in
state is the
the body
expressions to
present
all.
the
the
medicine, in
tradition, that
of
arrived
they all
chronic
vital
current
side (or how
his life,
and how
his current
characteristics from
remedy on the
patients
no
they are
misleading
the
disease,
you
opener for
Namens
why
have
is
just
and
dynamic.
treatments
it
present
changed,
this
careful
deficiency or
decided
behaviour.
the
completely
block.
force.