Minutus

No arguments here - Single remedy prescription is the best and should
be sought for in all situations where possible ( and should be
possible most of the time) but that does not mean people who use
combos etc. should be looked down upon or asked to wear a chastity
belt by people who support equally questionable practices in
homeopathy that parade as neo homeopathy or revolutionized homeopathy etc.

Like it or not - in the real world out there- all kinds of practices
prevail- homeopathy+ biochemistry, homeopathy + flower medicines(bach
flower, california flower etc), homeopathy + EFT, homeopathy +
Naturopathy, homeopathy + mega vitamins, single medicine homeopathy
selected in all dubious ways possible, combo homeopathy in all
flavors,homeopathy + herbalism,homeopathy + magnetotherapy, homeopathy
+ hypnosis, NLP and variants, homeopathy + electro homeopathy etc.
etc. 80% of the posters here follow all of these in one way or other
concurrently whether they admit it or not. It is laughable when
someone condones any of the other combinations but does not accept a
combination of homeopathic medicines themselves.

Even the rest of the 20% ( pure homeo with single medicine) vary
largely in their approach, case taking, dosage, form of dose ( dry,
water etc). There is no one universally adopted approach.

And I have seen all of these work.

Schism has been always part of homeopathy. Followers of Kent and Kent
himself felt top-dogs enough to jump on Boenninghausenian underdogs.
Kent went on the rampage against Richard Hughes as well across the
Atlantic.

Are there not splinters now -even among the Classical Gurus-
Vithoulkas ( the science of homeopathy!!!) criticizing Rajan et al.
for carrying things to an extreme? There are authorities who interpret
Hering's rules of cure - mesoderm, endo derm etc. Andre Saine for one
does not admire a lot of such neo classical masquerades. So who has
the truth and who do you follow? Are these not confusing to the poor
general public and the students of homeopathy?

After all homeopathy is not just giving single medicine- it is
important on what basis, pretext you give it and what are you
addressing here-

The constitution (what is constitution?), miasms (what are miasms-
even this is viewed differently by different authorities ( Even David
Little and Ardavan had different interpretations of what this is)) ,
current symptoms, how the woman wears a saree, chakras, or the animal
or plant or metal that pokes thru the personality to reveal itself to
the discerning? All of these seem to be acceptable to the
chastity-belters.

My suggestion is - keep the list classical or single medicine - but do
not jump on someone who in general is classical - but wants to give
her/his experience of a different variant. Do not look down on his/her
practice. Even if you do not agree to someone's approach there are
civilized ways of saying that instead of using intimidatory comments.

( If we go by methods of Rajan Sankaran et al even Hahnemann's
practice will not be classical enough

Remember this is what is being done to Homeopaths by allopaths. If you
want to be respected, first learn to respect your brothers and
sisters. What we first need is an inclusive mentality, swelling of the
numbers - not infighting, name calling and excluding people based on
Organon ( different editions and in the name of Hahnemann.
Not just charity, even tolerance starts at home.
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "prestonfoell" wrote:

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "hahnemannian2002"
wrote:

Oh and that would exclude your dear self would it - no one has put down Didi's practice
and who would want to anyway (unless you are referring to someone else - you guys are
so vague sometimes) - it was a challenge on combo rx

First we have to laugh at this funny comment but then you could, if you can, explain why
Rajan's methods are not Hahemannian

no one is doing that - a challenge was made on combo rx (not a person) and some are still
waiting to read where Hahnemann instructs us to use them, proved or unproved -
inclusive mentality, from this point of view can't include combo rx. Some of us might want
to discuss this, some of us just want to announce about it. Joy

down Didi's practice
else - you guys are
down Didi's practice
else - you guys are

I do not exclude myself Joy- At one point ( in fact defending your
success with treating gall stones) I embarrassed Dr.Bucur to the
point he left the discussion group. I apologized thru the group and
personal email and he never came back. I did not intend it to happen
and am not proud of doing that. Let us say, I got carried away with
my buffoonery.

Of course everyone in the list knows that you never attack
personalities and are always to the point and subject Joy

( Robyn - another tongue-in-cheek)
if you can, explain why

Please point to me where Hahnemann mentioned about Core Delusions in
any of his writings / case reports....Or where he said about 6 or
more miasms... Or about studying a periodic table to concoct
indications for remedies...Or even spoke about theorizing about the
nature of the disease... Did hahnemann bother to get the Core
Delusion in treating the washerwoman - why she is angry - what is
the delusion that is causing her to be so angry??

Rajan Sankaran has a case taking form in his web site. Did Hahnemann
ask case taking to be done on a predefined form or to think about
all the important dreams that you have ever heard ( as this case
taking form instructs?) Is case taking not supposed to be what the
patient spontaneously tells without conscious or unconscious guiding?

based on
person)

You say no one is doing exclusion in the name of Hahnemann and read
what you say down below- my position is that there are many
practices that Organon ( even the revered 6th edition) did not
suggest but which get bandied about in Homeopathic conferences and
in this list and which are not challenged in the list as being non-
classical...

and some are still
or unproved -
rx. Some of us might want

None of us can mould ourselves to suit all but this bouncy castle
aspect of this discussion might be fun for you

You got the wrong robin

I would start with Stanza 3
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings

Why not say "all the stanzas?"
And now who is being vague?
I pointed out specific practices of Rajan's group that I find non-
hahnemannian.

Once again I do not say that his method is not good or that it might
not be useful in certain circumstances... only pointing out that
there are all kinds of practices accepted because of who does it and
not necessarily because Organon endorses it.

Also I have seen that all of these people somehow , by the most
creative ways, try to show that their methods are in fact what
Hahnemann wanted homeopathy should evolve into. As Hering put
it 'Everyone milks the homeopathic cow".

Personally I do not think that for all new developments Organon is
always the answer. It is a guiding, best practices document. After
all, even Hahnemann was updating it. The problem is instead of
keeping it as a living breathing document we put it on a pedestal
and made it into a monument and so now that it has become a
historical artifact no one can touch. The best would have been to
set a committee or whatever to constantly update it with input from
good practitioners. If a committee can decide if Pluto is a planet
or not, cannot we decide about even how to practice. The problem is
they had a definition of what a planet is - we do not have one for
what Homeopathy is. So each one comes with his/her own definition (
with each one with a different interpretation of Organon) and bite
each other off.

Homeopathy is a medical science first and only then a philosophy. I
do not accept that theory leads to practice. It is practice and what
happens in the world that informs our theory and framework and then
theory gives guidance for further practice. We are trying to absorb
and explain reality. Not condemn reality because it is not going
according to our theory.

Practice methodology should always evolve with times. It is like the
Constitution. Even Constitutions get amended. Unfortunately many of
the practice methodologists and Gurus preach things that are
fanciful and not even half logical as the Organon is and so we do
not have anything suitable to follow except Organon, more than a
century old.

Lots of gurus are just that - gurus ( and we know how saintly
modern day gurus are). Gurus are more guided by making startling
announcements that might make the paying people sit up and notice
and come for the next conference. Half baked findings make it to
practice and even the repertories. Most of the theory seems
anchored in all kinds of spider webs instead of on good verifiable
practices. We might be the only group that does not follow Evidence
Based Medicine because we have not yet decided whether this is a
medicine at all- or, pseudo-scientific wool gathering, pseudo-
psychology, parapsychology, sociology, astrology or meditation...

As I have heard Calcuttans are wont to say " If you do not have
anything else to do - do homeopathy"
Delusions in
the
Hahnemann
the
guiding?

Stanza 3 was selected most diligently and relevantly for the purpose,
so why to you put this down - we have to perceive what is to be cured,
we have to have knowledge about disease, we have to know our medicines,
we have to know how to select the simillimum, we have to understand
about dose and repetition, then we will be able to understand how to
treat judiciously and rationally - that is what hahnemann said and that
is what we have to learn how to do and we all develop different styles
of reaching those targets. Not vague at all. Rajan does that, Divya
does that, I don't know how Scholten takes his cases but he seems basic
enough? Can't remember who else you mentioned. What is the problem with
Stanza 3?

Who is the 'we'? I don't put the organon on a pedestal, it is just that
it is all we need for homeopathy to be simple and yet profound and
dynamic - why do we need all this other stuff? Why does there need to
be any other interpretation.

I don't think the organon is a theory either, just a bunch of rules and
insights, hints and suggestions (amazing ones) that work for the
practice.

So many people say that Hahnemann would have developed this and that if
he had lived and that homeopathy needs to evolve - the former is
guesswork and the latter is unnecessary - if it isn't broken, why fix
it. It becomes an excuse for an egotistical approach - I did it my way
kind of thing and I don't care if it isn't condoned in the organon.

I don't really understand or appreciate the rest of your post. Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings

Still you are talking in generals without each one of the specific
points and identifying them in the organon..

If you still do not see Joy - and still you think dealing with Core
Delusion and Periodic table is from the Organon- we need not bother
any more...if people are convinced that they are always right or
just pretend that they do not get it so that they can skirt issues-
sure keep on going-

Moreover I am only arguing for including everything not to exclude -
so why bother?

Let us see if there is any final word from Ardavan and till he sends
one, let the status quo and sabre rattling continue...
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Joy Lucas wrote:
purpose,
cured,
medicines,
understand
to
that
styles
Divya
basic
with
that
to
rules and
that if
fix
way
non-
might
and
is
After
from
planet
is
for
definition (
bite
philosophy. I
what
then
absorb
the
of
verifiable
Evidence

you are choosing NOT to see that stanza 3 suffices - we have to learn
to take the case and understand ALL that is required to prescribe the
simillimum - every single homeopath needs to develop their own way of
doing that (and the organon doesn't support combos in that
development) - can't say it any more - it isn't a generalism it is a
fundamental but you can call it whatever you like.

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "hahnemannian2002"
wrote:

Stanza 3 would support anything ( including combos) by itself. In fact
this stanza would even apply for allopathic treatment. Please read it
once again as if you are an allopath and you can still find it that it
works.

You are not replying to my questions specifically. You are just
indulging in general inane replies and crying how one-sided this
discussion it is.
SPECIFIC POINTS:

Do you mean to say that Rajan group practices

1) case taking Hahnemann advised with SPECIFIC steps how it should be
done

2)Medicine preparation with the SPECIFIC steps he advised ( not the
nonsense dream provings, Collective unconscious, Group proving,
Seminar provings etc.)Read about Naja proving in Substance of
Homeopathy if you need to refresh your memory specifically( page 212)

3) Using medicines proven by creating pathogenetic symptoms and not
just clinically verified after designing medicines using a periodic
table ( Hahnemann SPECIFICALLY says that medicines should not be
prepared by such arbitrary ways)

4)Not theorizing about disease and cure and how the medicine works (
theory of core delusion) (Stanza 1 if you please)

5)Read about how Rajan would arrive at symptomatology - page 122 line
27 in the Substance of Homeopathy( I cannot get any more specific than
this) Discussion is about Thallium's materia medica

QUOTE:
"Here we notice that there are no mental symptoms written, but we
think we can derive the idea of mind from these symptoms itself. We
have here the most horrible neuralgic, spasmodic and shooting pains.
It is obvious that these pains are violent and spasmodic indicating
the mind can also be violent and spasmodic (sic). That means it feels
attacked and attacks in return with great violence......( My comments:
because it is used in Locomotor ataxia) Locomotor ataxia indicates a
loss of control and incoordination. In the mind also the person must
have feelings of tremendous incoordination, confusion and unable to
think clearly.... ( and he writes)- this much reminds me of the
situation of a General in the midst of co-ordinating the whole war
effort...In the study of Thallium I have thus shown one can derive the
WHOLE ( sic) ( my emphasis) mental picture from reading the physical
symptoms".
END QUOTE

Show me in all the stanzas of the Organon ( SPECIFICALLY) where
Hahnemann asked to jump from physical symptom to mental symptom. Is
Thallium the only medicine that can produce violent pains? Is Thallium
the only one that can produce paralysis? How does this jump to mental
picture occur? And suddenly we have a whole new materia medica
generated out of thin air with just 2 clincal symptoms - pain and
paralysis- come on Joy -even you cannot make such inductive or
deductive jumps in symptom concoction with all your trying to outclass
Rajan
Is this what you say Hahnemann suggested? Is this the way people new
to homeopathy and students have to learn about the "scientific"
methodology we boast of?

And Prof.Stephen Hawkings ( with his ALS) would be chuffed to see
Rajan's comments what ataxia can do to mind I guess...if the body is
paralyzed the mind also will be - Oh please...
Having said all this:
I am still not saying that Rajan's methods are not effective in
helping out. Only that they are not from Organon. And my argument is
that it does not have to be...If there are places we can use Rajan's
methods there may be areas where we can still use combos...just do not
quote Organon to defend either of these...
-- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Joy Lucas" wrote:

I don't think that--whether "Stanza 3 suffices"-- is what we've been
debating! The broader debate, and the one we started with and keep
coming back to, is whether the list must exclude all mention and all
discussion of any topics not related to non-Hahnemannian homeopathy.
This would be a huge departure from this list's "tradition", and from
the wishes of what appears to me to be the majority of the list
membership.

If we are *not* moving to exclude everything non-Hahnemannian, then
where are we--or I guess I should ask where are you, Joy--moving to
draw the lines--excluding discussions of combos only, or excluding
combos and Sankaran and Scholten, or ??

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