A cure or a catalyst?
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2002 7:37 pm
Hi Joy et al,
It is my perspective that the remedy itself doesn't heal or cure. That
it is merely a catalyst that stimulates the body's own natural healing
forces.
The body seems to have a natural intelligence which is indirectly evident by
the way that is able to maintain homeostatis in the organism; And this,
despite the myriad of daily influences (material and/or energetic)that would
otherwise push the human organism off balance.
And I'm not speaking of just of the immune system here. Because as Dana
Ullman writes in his Consumer's Guide to Homoeopathy, there are various
diseases that are related to an over stimulation of the imune system like
Rheumatism. And homoeopathy works in these cases as well. So it can't just
be about stimulating the immune system.
I think that evidence for the organism curing itself could perhaps be
found in the fact that as long as cure is progressing, no more remedy is
needed. This is in contrast to conventional medicine where often stronger
and stronger doses of the medicine are needed because of their opposing
(opposite effects).
And in fact, Hahnemann himself wrote "It is the organism free from disease
that restores the defective strength. Strength can not be materially poured
in by a decoction of anything. Be it medicine or wine or anything" (At this
moment I don't know exactly where I got this quote, it's in some notes of
mine).
Now I realize that H. was writing this more as an argument against using
large doses as compared to the infinitesmal homeopathic doses. However,
reading between the lines, he is suggesting a power beyond that of any
remedy. Or so it appears to me. Because he doesn't say that the homoeopathic
remedy is curing, but rather the "organism free from disease", that
restores. What do ya'll think?
Thanks Joy for your offering your perspective, it offered me the opportunity
to explore my own and become clearer in the process.
Namaste,
Mary-anne B.
It is my perspective that the remedy itself doesn't heal or cure. That
it is merely a catalyst that stimulates the body's own natural healing
forces.
The body seems to have a natural intelligence which is indirectly evident by
the way that is able to maintain homeostatis in the organism; And this,
despite the myriad of daily influences (material and/or energetic)that would
otherwise push the human organism off balance.
And I'm not speaking of just of the immune system here. Because as Dana
Ullman writes in his Consumer's Guide to Homoeopathy, there are various
diseases that are related to an over stimulation of the imune system like
Rheumatism. And homoeopathy works in these cases as well. So it can't just
be about stimulating the immune system.
I think that evidence for the organism curing itself could perhaps be
found in the fact that as long as cure is progressing, no more remedy is
needed. This is in contrast to conventional medicine where often stronger
and stronger doses of the medicine are needed because of their opposing
(opposite effects).
And in fact, Hahnemann himself wrote "It is the organism free from disease
that restores the defective strength. Strength can not be materially poured
in by a decoction of anything. Be it medicine or wine or anything" (At this
moment I don't know exactly where I got this quote, it's in some notes of
mine).
Now I realize that H. was writing this more as an argument against using
large doses as compared to the infinitesmal homeopathic doses. However,
reading between the lines, he is suggesting a power beyond that of any
remedy. Or so it appears to me. Because he doesn't say that the homoeopathic
remedy is curing, but rather the "organism free from disease", that
restores. What do ya'll think?
Thanks Joy for your offering your perspective, it offered me the opportunity
to explore my own and become clearer in the process.
Namaste,
Mary-anne B.