Minutus

§ 15 Sixth Edition

The affection of the morbidly deranged, spirit-like dynamis (vital force) that animates our body in the invisible interior, and the totality of the outwardly cognizable symptoms produced by it in the organism and representing the existing malady, constitute a whole; they are one and the same. The organism is indeed the material instrument of the life, but it is not conceivable without the animation imparted to it by the instinctively perceiving and regulating dynamis, just as the vital force is not conceivable without the organism, consequently the two together constitute a unity, although in thought our mind separates this unity into two distinct conceptions for the sake of easy comprehension.
Regards

Soroush
Treat others as you would wish to be treated.

> § 15 Sixth Edition

====++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here, Hahnemann mentions three realities.

1. Mind - as the perceiver
2. The body - as the domain
3. The vital force - as the animator

The eighteenth century Europe knew little or nothing about 'vital force' before Hahnemann. The rational science was the 'in thing' and industrial revolution was in progress. The mood then was 'seeing is believing'

Hahnemann's theory, though superficially correct, lacks depth. He says that the mind perceives the body and vital force as separate. This theory is inadequate. let us see how.

At the bottom most level of human existence lie the human body. The body is acted upon by the senses. Senses are higher in hierarchy than the body since the body cannot know of the senses but the senses know of the body and act on them.

In the same way, senses are inferior than the mind. Mind knows about both body and senses and bosses over them.

Similarly, the intellect is the boss of the mind and by default the senses and the body.

The spirit or soul is the total boss who owns all the four of intellect, mind, senses and body.

For example, We say, my intellect, my mind, my senses and my body. The 'me' is the real you, the spirit. That is why after death, no one calls the body by the name of its owner. It is simply 'his' body.

So the spirit is the person or what Hahnemann calls as 'vital principle' in the organon.

Then what is the vital force ?

Vital force is one aspect of the Spirit that animates the intellect , mind, senses and body respectively.

1. Vital force is conditional to life. Upon death it ceases to be. The soul or vital principle is eternal . It does not die. Vital principle is capable of no sensation.
2. Vital force infuses vital energy into the organism.
3. Sickness means disturbance of vital force in its complete domain- from body, senses, mind and to intellect. This further means that, sickness must be manifest in all these areas. Hahnemann has proved this conclusively by bringing out physical, mental and rational disturbances in provings.

Body- Mind- Vital force ----- the relationship

After we dealt wih the hierarchy, we would like to know further where the mind and vital force are located with respect to the body. We know that mind and VF are subtle and cannot be seen by eyes but can only be perceived.

The Indian philosophical schools describe the total human body as containing five sheaths.

the order from the lowest gross to the subtlest being
1. The physical body- gross body of flesh, bone and fat
2. The vital body- The astral one where vitalism operates and where the occult chakras operate
3. The body constituted by mind- the flow of thoughts
4. The body constituted by intellect- discrimination, being aware etc happens here
5. The blissful body- Self realization happens here

Conclusion

So, from all the above, the real perceiver is the Self or the spirit only. Not the mind. The mind, is an instrument with the Spirit. The spirit activates the mind with the vital force.

reference from the Bhagavad Gita

indriyaani paranyahu: indriyebhya: param mana: |
manasastu paraa buddhiryO, buddhe para thastu sa: ||

(the senses are greater (than the body). The mind is greater than the senses. The intellect is greater than the mind. The Person(or the Self) is greater than the intellect.)

Venkat

I understand what Hahnemann has written here and as many of you know I am strict Hahnemannian

But when it comes to things such as organisms that he talks about, I'm not sure that he knew enough about that aspect at that time in history and I suggest that the exposure may be to an energy or some such thing.................. I have questioned the whole thing of bacteria causing a disease for quite some time now and not sure that even today we understand it, much less in Hahnemann's time. And today we have lots of propaganda fed to us all of our lives to keep us in fear and sell drugs and vaccines.

Again,
who was the first person to 'get' smallpox?
who did they 'get' it from?

who was the first person to 'get' any of these so-called infectious diseases and who did they get it from, if they were the first (and there had to be a first one)
Sheri

At 12:06 AM 7/27/2009, you wrote:
------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm & http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases Reality
Next classes start July 29 & 30

But this is precisely what Hahnemann was saying - that it was being transmitted by a conceptual force (in § 11), call it energy if you wish. The microbes exist but the dependency is on susceptibility. Do we need to know anymore than that. Of course the allopaths push their principles to encourage drug medication etc along with the fear but I still reckon H knew what he was talking about.

Apparently Ramses V has been documented as the first case, whoever became infected before that is irrelevant as it is down to susceptibility.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

Dear Joy
But since smallpox has been 'eradicated' - how is it that no one else gets smallpox, although the susceptibility remains - as was the case of the lady who accidentally was infected in the lab a few years ago!
Do you see what I mean?
If she had not accidentally exposed herself to the smallpox micro organism, would she have been infected by it - although the micro organism had been in a sealed container near to her? As long as nothing got out of the container, she would have been safe.
Now we come to another area.
Can we fight micro-organisms?
Noting that they have been on the Earth for much greater time span that we have, and have evolved to survive all comers, I think we are on a loser if we are to fight them. The development of resistance to antibiotics in less than 90 years is a testimony to that.
So our only secret to survival is to reduce our Susceptibilty. We cannot win the fight long term.
Rgds
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joy Lucas
Sent: 27 July 2009 19:28
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Aph 15 - Organon 6
But this is precisely what Hahnemann was saying - that it was being transmitted by a conceptual force (in § 11), call it energy if you wish. The microbes exist but the dependency is on susceptibility. Do we need to know anymore than that. Of course the allopaths push their principles to encourage drug medication etc along with the fear but I still reckon H knew what he was talking about.

Apparently Ramses V has been documented as the first case, whoever became infected before that is irrelevant as it is down to susceptibility.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

At 11:28 AM 7/27/2009, you wrote:
Force or energy is more believable and yes, certainly, susceptibility. But it had to start someone where with someone (with so-called infectious diseases).
But who exposed him? If you 'get' it by being exposed to someone then who did the first person get it from?
Sheri
------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm & http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases Reality
Next classes start July 29 & 30

At 11:46 AM 7/27/2009, you wrote:
that is the problem with the allopathic system that has even seeped in above. War metaphors.

Yes it is about susceptibility - that is the most important of all.

If we didn't have so many making so much money off the war-view - germs, bacteria, viruses - we might get the truth

Sheri
________________________________
------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm & http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases Reality
Next classes start July 29 & 30

Eradication is debatable but it depends on the survival of the fittest, if it/they (the naughty microbes) can survive. And then, if it has been suppressed, the hydra headed monster shape shifts into something else. But more importantly the susceptibility is not eradicated until, that is, you receive homeopathic treatment that cures - as Hahnemann said, remove the disease.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

But it doesn't matter who had it first, however interesting that question may be, it is probably unanswerable. It becomes infectious only through susceptibility - put someone with small pox in a room of 1000 people, they won't all get it, although as H said they may have been 'infected in an invisible manner' § 11.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

it does matter if people want to keep saying something is contagious or infectious.
that is all I'm trying to get across.

When you can only catch certain diseases from another person (so they say), then there can't be a first case.

Sheri

At 12:09 PM 7/27/2009, you wrote: