Hahnemannian homeopathy VS. combos TOO LONG ;(
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 11:07 pm
I have attended one of his seminars- and read his books...Books are
better than the seminars. He was very upset with some of the questions
people asked and felt insulted in the seminar. I came back with a
not very positive feeling. Of course my views might be prejudiced
about what I have heard about his father ( not very many good things)...
Like you say there are times when his method might be of use. ( I have
not come across much need till now - but does not mean I will not)-
As Joy put it if it is not broken why fix it? I do not think the MM,
repertory and case taking methodology as found in Organon and the
likes of Hering and others followed was broken and in need of fixing.
When there is no problem, why the solution?
Of course I believe that there is more than one simillimum for a case-
if you see a problem ( Patient's situation) as a lock - then solutions
are like keys. There are multiple ways you can open a lock- there is
the one right key ( the exact simillimum) but there are hair pins that
would do the trick and some other keys that would work for this lock.
That is the reason masters were able to treat so many cases with just
100- 200 remedies. Also there are so many successful alternative
treatment modalities. In our enthusiasm for homeopathy we should not
forget that it is the vital force that is curing and we are just
helping. This help to the vital force can come from a single medicine
or combination or Ayurveda or chiropractics or urine therapy - who
knows... so I have to think if learning a Rajan approach or Zaren
approach is really worthwhile when my regular traditional approach and
200 medicines are enough to help the vital force. knowing these 200
well and having good case taking skills as per Organon, can do more
wonders than following any of the current masters.
But I am sure that you have a different take on that and that is ok.
Regarding sensations - yeah I think he himself is changing his
methodology to reflect those of the masters still calling it by
different things. Sometimes you feel there is an unnecessary
complication about this whole thing.
Of course my gripe has been always the way Vithoulkas and Rajan et al.
took the system away from its medical emphasis. In a way this was good
- at least brought in a lot of interested people from various fields-
in another way it is making me wonder about the relevance of it...
I was hoping that we will see a day when homeopathy takes on the
vilest viral diseases and conquer them and by and by we will achieve
the true pinnacle we deserve...
But not when we have people questioning the existence of viruses,
infection and criticizing allopathy and making it as if being an
allopathically trained doctor is a draw back. Certainly this is not
what Hahnemann had in mind.
We are throwing away lots of valuable research by this attitude; we
are throwing away any possibility of reconciliation with allopaths by
moving away from a medical model ( such reconciliation is vital for us
to survive; we cannot eradicate allopathy- better learn how to live
with them and cooperate and on what terms). And it is certainly
frustrating to see that the gurus, who have so much persuasive power,
squandering this in just some distracting discoveries based on pet
theories instead of focusing on getting a good working medical model
for our system so that we can enjoy the benefits of modern research...
instead of doing a 100 seminar provings if even one proving is done
where all the measurable biochemic parameters are measured and some of
the mental status exams done before, during and after the proving that
might be more valuable.
Until we learn to tackle acutes and infections well, we will always be
camping in the fringes and never get to the thick of the action. How
long do we plan on just hanging our shingle as "Health consultant"?
When will we get our act together so that one can diagnose and refer
our cases and earn the respect of our peers on equal terms as
qualified medical scientists and not as butterfly- and-chakra chasers?
If we think that is going to happen if we concentrate on getting
dream provings done - we are just pipe-dreaming.
-- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Booyse" wrote:
wonder.
people
in a
( in
helped in
cases
competent
but when
proficient in the
better than the seminars. He was very upset with some of the questions
people asked and felt insulted in the seminar. I came back with a
not very positive feeling. Of course my views might be prejudiced
about what I have heard about his father ( not very many good things)...
Like you say there are times when his method might be of use. ( I have
not come across much need till now - but does not mean I will not)-
As Joy put it if it is not broken why fix it? I do not think the MM,
repertory and case taking methodology as found in Organon and the
likes of Hering and others followed was broken and in need of fixing.
When there is no problem, why the solution?
Of course I believe that there is more than one simillimum for a case-
if you see a problem ( Patient's situation) as a lock - then solutions
are like keys. There are multiple ways you can open a lock- there is
the one right key ( the exact simillimum) but there are hair pins that
would do the trick and some other keys that would work for this lock.
That is the reason masters were able to treat so many cases with just
100- 200 remedies. Also there are so many successful alternative
treatment modalities. In our enthusiasm for homeopathy we should not
forget that it is the vital force that is curing and we are just
helping. This help to the vital force can come from a single medicine
or combination or Ayurveda or chiropractics or urine therapy - who
knows... so I have to think if learning a Rajan approach or Zaren
approach is really worthwhile when my regular traditional approach and
200 medicines are enough to help the vital force. knowing these 200
well and having good case taking skills as per Organon, can do more
wonders than following any of the current masters.
But I am sure that you have a different take on that and that is ok.
Regarding sensations - yeah I think he himself is changing his
methodology to reflect those of the masters still calling it by
different things. Sometimes you feel there is an unnecessary
complication about this whole thing.
Of course my gripe has been always the way Vithoulkas and Rajan et al.
took the system away from its medical emphasis. In a way this was good
- at least brought in a lot of interested people from various fields-
in another way it is making me wonder about the relevance of it...
I was hoping that we will see a day when homeopathy takes on the
vilest viral diseases and conquer them and by and by we will achieve
the true pinnacle we deserve...
But not when we have people questioning the existence of viruses,
infection and criticizing allopathy and making it as if being an
allopathically trained doctor is a draw back. Certainly this is not
what Hahnemann had in mind.
We are throwing away lots of valuable research by this attitude; we
are throwing away any possibility of reconciliation with allopaths by
moving away from a medical model ( such reconciliation is vital for us
to survive; we cannot eradicate allopathy- better learn how to live
with them and cooperate and on what terms). And it is certainly
frustrating to see that the gurus, who have so much persuasive power,
squandering this in just some distracting discoveries based on pet
theories instead of focusing on getting a good working medical model
for our system so that we can enjoy the benefits of modern research...
instead of doing a 100 seminar provings if even one proving is done
where all the measurable biochemic parameters are measured and some of
the mental status exams done before, during and after the proving that
might be more valuable.
Until we learn to tackle acutes and infections well, we will always be
camping in the fringes and never get to the thick of the action. How
long do we plan on just hanging our shingle as "Health consultant"?
When will we get our act together so that one can diagnose and refer
our cases and earn the respect of our peers on equal terms as
qualified medical scientists and not as butterfly- and-chakra chasers?
If we think that is going to happen if we concentrate on getting
dream provings done - we are just pipe-dreaming.
-- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Booyse" wrote:
wonder.
people
in a
( in
helped in
cases
competent
but when
proficient in the