Brilliant Sehgal

[Piet Guijt]

Hello All,

I like to say something about the method of Sehgal, for those who really are
interested to understand it.
First of all, this is about the techniques Dr. Sehgal uses, and not his
objections against 'Classical Homoepathy'.
Those objections of him I can understand, but they have more to do with the
nowadays practice of a lot of homeopaths, and not with the principles as
laid down in the Organon by Hahnemann.
Yes, a lot today's homeopaths prescribe on the basis of the patient's
CHARACTERISTICS which have no relation to his complaints at all, and that
are confused with the patient's SYMPTOMS.
They hunt for the 'Constitutional remedy' as described in the drugpictures,
but forget or don't know to check whether the 'present state of disposition'
corresponds with this remedy.
When this remedy fails, they give the most likely nosode, to clear up the
case, like a lucky shot in the dark.

Sehgal is right this is no scientific approach of homeopathy. Fortunately
there are classical homeopaths that have a better understanding, and for
them Sehgal criticism is totally misplaced.
His limitation on not to use others symptoms than the mentals I don't
support, when they represent the Central disturbance they are reliable.

But lets concentrate on the pearls of his method.
Sehgal's techniques can be integrated in classical homeopathy, they are
really brilliant.
But to be able to use them, one must understand them first.
We must always prescribe on de Central disturbance of the vital force, we do
this by prescribing on the totality of symptoms (§6) and also include the
cause (§5), this leads us to the essence of the present dominating disease
(§7).
The Central disturbance is characterised by a change in the vital force of
the patient. When we are able to detect the peculiarities of that change, we
know the remedy which covers the symptoms and cause.

This is exactly what §212 says:
"The Creator of therapeutic agents has also had particular regard to this
main feature of all diseases, the altered state of the disposition and mind,
for there is no powerful medicinal substance in the world which does not
very notably alter the state of the disposition and mind in the healthy
individual who tests it, and every medicine does so in a different manner."
With the techniques of Sehgal we can measure en determine this 'manner' of
the change.

Those symptoms are not to be confused with the literally pathological
symptoms as found in our materia media's. They are expressions/ emotions
that are taken AS symptoms.
Yes they are no REAL SYMPTOMS, but together they form one real §153 symptom,
as decribed in §210-213.
(This also explains why they can be used imaginary.)
Those persisting predominating signals represent the Central disturbance of
the vital force. They represent the inner cause of the disease, are dynamic
representations of this inner basic delusion.
Rubrics chosen to determine this underlying feeling can be used imaginary,
because those expression in it self are not the most important, they are
taken in a way they truly reflect the underlying feeling which is unique for
every remedy.
This is what Sehgal calls the king-pin symptom.

As I said before this method is not in contradiction with the miasmatic
approach of disease, because the 'persisting predominating symptom' will
also be a reflection of the dominating miasm.
Failure of curing by only symptoms (§6) lead Hahnemann to this approach, but
this is ignored or not understood by a lot of Homeopaths. In fact Sehgal
supports this technique from a different angle. He is a true classical
healer, better than the most of us.

When we are able to detect the present state, and the dominating miasm in
combination with the constitution, we will also understand why we should not
always give the nosode to clear up the case for someone's constitutional
remedy. (that's why there are lists with miasmatic remedies)
Sehgal techniques are not easy to learn, but to know what it is about will
surely help to know what you are looking for in disease.
I'm very gratefull Dr.Sehgal made the effort to share his techniques with
us, they can be integrated with no problem in our Organon tradition, and
contribute to a more reliable practice of Homoeopathy.

Kind regards,

Piet

[Holly Earley]

a couple of questions regarding this method,
you wrote:
With the techniques of Sehgal we can measure en determine this 'manner' of
this referring to the central disturbance, a change in the vital force of
the patient - what is sehgals way to measure this? is it different from
hahnemannian homeopathy (not the pseude classical of characteristic / nosode
prescribing but propery classical?)

also you wrote:
Rubrics chosen to determine this underlying feeling can be used imaginary,

first do you mean can you define imaginary for me please. and then how /why
the rubrics can be looked at this way. the reason you give is vague to me.
i mean the rubrics are the translated symptoms of the prover - so do you
mean that because it is translated into rubric language we can then again
translate to imaginary? or do you go back to the provings and utilise these
symptoms and use imaginary then? and in finding the underlying feeling
unique for every remedy - how is this done: reading he provings, materia
medica , rubrics, meditation on that remedy or group work etc. i am a bit
confused.

i am just trying to truly understand this method as i you brought into
consideration the principles of hahnemann in your last email and i these are
just questions that dont fit into my understanding at the moment. BUT IF
YOU COULD EXPLAIN OR RECOMMEND A BOOK/ARTICLE I COULD REVEIW I COULD
UNDERSTAND FOR MYSELF HOW THIS METHOD FITS INTO MY UNDERSTANDING OF
HOMEOPATHY.

THANKS
peace and smiles
holly
you can send direct to me at holly_earley@hotmail.com if you want
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

[Piet Guijt]

Holly wrote:

nosode

The techniques on how to determine it are new, but in fact it is not
different from Hahnemannian homeopathy.
Hahnemann knew all his remedies by heart, because he did a lot of provings
himself.
He was able to observe and to recognize the state of disposition by
experience.
When your not that experienced and have more remedies at hand than
Hahnemann, but you are a good observer, you can use the repertory with those
techniques to guide you to the correct remedy.

/why
me.
these

Imaginary use means you look at the meaning of the symptom and not the
literlly pathological symptom it self.
I give you an example:
Sulphur has the symptom: DELUSION, thin, he is getting.

A patient can come to you and say: 'Look doctor how thin I'm getting' But
in fact he is fat.
you can select this rubric.

But when a patient says: My condition is not getting better, maybe because
of my age, I strongly think of making arrangements to leave my business"
You can use this rubric again, because it represent the same feeling in
another context.
This is the imaginary use.

Both Sulphur patients have different complaints (pathology) but the same
underlying feeling.
The first has mental pathology and the second not, he is mental 'normal',
but you can use the same rubric.
Pathology has a meaning therefore we can use those and the proving symptoms
to understand what feeling they are expressing.
So called: 'Normal (predominating persisting) expressions' of a patient in
relation with his suffering, also have a meaning, and this is the same
meaning which is also expressed in his pathology. That's the trick, do you
see the difference between pathology and 'normal expression' now?
(Pathology in fact comes from the same expression, but is directed into the
body and not to the surrounding of the patient).
are

This is a very good attitude. You can study the books of Sehgal for the
method of coarse.
But for the link with it to Hahnemannian homeopathy they can't help you.
But what is your understanding of the moment? Does aph. 210-213 fit in? What
about the miasm?
I don't know an article, I had to find out this myself, and my book about it
is in Dutch.

I hope it's now more clear to you,

Kind regards, Piet

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Perhaps a description is that Sehgal's method help translate 'Patient-Speak'
in to the right rubric!

As long as it can be properly justified, I don't have a problem with it!

Soroush