Minutus

anyone want to read and discuss?

MISC: Crisis in Classical and Contemporary Thought -- David Little

http://www.hpathy.com/papersnew/little-crisis.asp
Hpathy Ezine - June, 2007
Crisis in Classical and Contemporary Thought

-- David Little
Page 1, 2 -

WHAT IS CLASSICAL HOMOEOPATHY?

I have been asked by my colleague, Dr. Manish
Bhatia, to comment on the subject of traditional
and modern methods in Homoeopathy. First of all,
it is important to establish what is meant by
classical and modern methods. To do this one
should refer to the dictionary definitions of the
terms classical or traditional methods. The true
meaning of the word “classical” refers to a well
established tradition with a recognized style or
form or a set of procedures that follow a well
known traditional pattern. Classical also refers
to the period when a tradition of excellence was
established such as ancient Greece or Rome. The
term, “classic” is a closely related word which
means something made of or belonging to the
highest quality or a tradition that is
established as the best. It also means something
that is neat and elegant, especially a
traditional style that will last irrespective of
fashion and fads. The term, modern, means
something that belongs to the present or recent
times rather than being old or ancient.
Non-classical or non-traditional refers to a
system that is contemporary and has no roots in a
time tested tradition recognized for its excellence.

Keeping in mind the above definitions it would
become apparent that the term “classical
Homoeopathy” should refer to the philosophy and
praxis founded in the “classics” of the
homoeopathic healing art. These classics begin
with the Organon of the Healing Arts, The Chronic
Diseases, and the Lesser Writings of Samuel
Hahnemann. All of the methodologies that
originate in these works certainly qualify as
being “classical” in the true sense of the word.
At the same time, the term classical refers to
the period of great renaissance when our
revolutionary art of healing was developed. This
was the time of Samuel Hahnemann, Baron von
Boenninghausen, Constantine Hering, G.H.G Jahr
and the first generation. It is these individuals
who developed the philosophy, recorded the first
provings, wrote the first materia medicas,
constructed the first repertories, and did the
earliest experiments with potentized medicines.

Every established classical system is associated
with certain maxims that express its core values.
The four cardinal aphorisms of traditional
Homoeopathy are Similars Cure Similars, the
single remedy, the minimum dose and the
application of the potentized remedy. These
cardinal principles are then applied a number of
ways that can be tailored to suit a wide variety
of clinical situations. The principle of similar
remedies was recognized by Hippocrates (c. 560
B.C.) showing that this method dates back to the
classical age of Greece. He used a minimal amount
of one medicine at a time, although his grandsons
introduced “Hippocratic mixtures”. Nevertheless,
the application of similar remedies was somewhat
dangerous, e.g. the use of crude Helleborus in
convulsions. Paracelsus (1493-1541) used single
remedies by similars transmuted by alchemy but
the inherent toxicity of many remedies remained.
It was the perfecting of the potentized remedy by
Samuel Hahnemann that opened up the use of
similar medicines to general medical practice.

The use of the single remedy has been interpreted
by some modern homoeopaths to mean that only one
remedy should be used throughout a complete
treatment. This, however, was not Hahnemann’s
original intention as the single remedy refers to
the administration of one, single uncompounded
medicine at a time. This distinguishes
Homoeopathy from systems that use mixtures common
to polypharmacy. The minimal dose has been
interpreted by some modern homoeopaths to refer
to the small amount of the original substance
found in a potentized remedy. This, however, was
not Hahnemann’s original intention as the minimal
dose refers the small amount of medicine
contained in the homoeopathic pills. This
distinguishes Homoeopathy from systems that use
large amounts of medicine as a dose. The
potentized remedy is the final key that opened
the door of the materia medica to any substance
found in the mineral, plant, and animal world.
This distinguishes Homoeopathy from systems that
use crude doses and chemical medicines. These
cardinal principles make up a system of checks
and balances that makes Homoeopathy a safe and
effective healing art. Any school of practice
that stays true to these cardinal principles has
based their practice on classical Homoeopathy.

Hahnemann was of the opinion that the gathering
of information about medicinal substances should
be based on symptoms brought out in living
persons. For this reason, he based his materia
medica on the records of medicinal actions
observed in patients in traditional medical
works, over doses and poisonings, provings on
healthy volunteers, and symptoms brought out in
patients under treatment. All of these methods
are mentioned in the aphorisms of the Organon.
Each of these methods has one thing in common.
They are all based on symptoms brought out in
living persons rather than analysis through
secondary means such as chemistry, taste, color,
or the doctrine of signatures, etc. This is the
most ethical and accurate method of “animal testing”.

In my study of Hahnemann’s public writings,
personal letters and clinical casebooks, I have
been able to document the methods used by the
Founder on his patients. Certainly, the
techniques that the Founder presented in his
writings and used in the clinic must be
considered “classical” in the true sense of the
word. This includes a wide spectrum of medicinal
applications such as the use of acute remedies;
acute intercurrents; acute genus epidemicus
remedies; chronic Gestalt remedies; chronic
intercurrents; chronic anti-miasmatic genus
remedies; and prophylactic medicines. Hahnemann’s
clinical praxis included the use of a single
remedy where one medicine was used for longer
periods; the alternation of two remedies; tandem
remedies where a single dose or few doses of one
remedy was placed before a series of another
remedy; intercurrents where one remedy was placed
between the administration of another remedy;
trios in which three remedies were rotated; and a
series of remedies in a sequence spread out over
time. All of these methods must be considered
“classical” because they originate in the true
classics of Homoeopathy, i.e. the written works
and clinical methods of Samuel Hahnemann. This
opens the applications of remedies far beyond
what some consider “classical Homoeopathy”.

Today, some parties seem to have a rather narrow
definition of “classical Homoeopathy” that is
often associated with the term the
“constitutional remedy”. This term is defined by
some as the “one remedy for all situations” and
others as the “one remedy for life’. Is this
method truly classical in the true sense of the
word or is it a modern concept? The term,
constitutional remedy, was introduced by James
Tyler Kent in the late 19th and early 20th
century. Kent applied this term in a specific way
which has nothing to do with many of its
contemporary usages. For example, under the
remedy, Baryta Carbonica in Lectures on Materia Medica Kent wrote:

“Bar-c. is an interesting study, because it
is fully proved and a constitutional remedy. Such
remedies are always more interesting than the
short-acting, superficial ones. They take hold in
deep-seated, longer lasting, miasmatic troubles.”

Kent’s term, the constitutional remedy, was used
to make a distinction between the remedial powers
of the chronic remedies that had anti-miasmic
properties and shorter acting acute remedies.
This concept is in complete harmony with
Hahnemann’s original teachings on acute and chronic medicines.

It is important to point out that Kent’s term,
constitutional remedy, has nothing to do with the
idea of one remedy that treats both the acute and
chronic conditions of the patient. Kent did not
believe that one should use constitutional
remedies in acute disorders where a crisis
produced an active acute layer that suppressed
chronic conditions. This teaching originates in
what Hahnemann wrote in aphorism 38 of the
Organon and other passages. In his Lectures on
Homeopathic Philosophy, page 206, Kent states:

This illustrates the doctrine of not prescribing
for an acute and chronic trouble together. Never
prescribe for any two conditions, unless they be
complicated. Only chronic diseases can be
complicated with each other. The acute is never
complicated with the chronic; the acute
suppresses the chronic and they never become complex.”

When Kent spoke of a “Calcarea Constitution” in
his Lectures on Materia Medica his definition has
nothing to with a particular genotype such as the
classical Greek temperaments, the choleric,
phlegmatic, sanguine and melancholic types.
Although references to classical Greek
temperaments were used by first generation
homoeopaths like Hahnemann, Hering and Jahr, Kent
did not approve of such titles. Kent made it
clear that a “Calcarea case is to be known by the
symptoms” not a constitutional mind-body type.
The idea that there is one remedy for every
patient for life is another modern idea that
originated in the last 20 years. How many of us
can show documented cases where the patient has
been given the same remedy from the cradle to the
grave over a period of 75 years? Nevertheless,
the idea of using the deepest acting remedy over
long periods in a number of different potencies
is not new. One should always use as few remedies
as possible not as many remedies as one can.

If one reviews all the relevant material it
becomes apparent that many so-called “classical
methods” are actually quite modern yet they are
inspired by traditional methods. The fact that
these evolutes did not originate with Hahnemann
or Kent does not mean that they are invalid
solely for this reason. We have to be open to the
evolution of our art as long as the innovations
include the cardinal checks and balances that
make our system safe and effective. I have seen
patients who reflected the same basic state of a
particular remedy for many years. It is as if
this one remedy suits them so well that it covers
the deepest levels of their constitution and
temperament. These cases, however, are usually
fairly straightforward and not overly complicated
by several divergent causes, layers of dissimilar
symptoms, and complex chronic miasms.

In my experience the myriad of differing clinical
situations varies far too much to be pigeonholed
into one therapeutic absolute. For example, a
chronic Pulsatilla patient may develop acute-like
symptoms such as a bland discharge from the ears
with very changeable pains. This acute-like
crisis may be only an intensification of the
similar symptoms of the chronic Pulsatilla state
in that particular patient. Therefore, the
acute-like symptoms are not strong enough to
suspend the chronic state creating a true acute
crisis. If the crisis becomes so severe there is
the appearance of new dissimilar symptoms like
convulsions with a cold body and a hot head, the
patient may need an acute remedy like Helleborus,
which is an acute complement of Pulsatilla. These
are clinical situations that demand a
differential diagnosis not absolutist theories
like the one remedy for the acute and chronic
state regardless of the symptoms, time and circumstances.

In some advanced chronic states with organic
pathology the chronic remedy may be counter
indicated because it can cause prolonged,
unfruitful aggravations that increase pathology
and weaken the patient. Therefore, the idea that
the acute and chronic remedy may be the same is
applicable in some conditions but it should not
be regarded as a supreme truth that is valid in
all patients at all times. There are patients in
whom organic pathology becomes so advanced over
the years that what was once their constitutional
remedy is now counter indicated. This is why Kent
said in his Lectures on Materia Medica under Kali Carbonica;

“Do not give that constitutional medicine that
should have been administered to these patients
twenty years ago, because there is not reaction
enough in the life of the patient to turn him
into order, and he will be destroyed. It seems
paradoxical to say it, but to cure him is to kill
him. The vital action that is necessary to
restore him to health would practically tear his framework to pieces.”

When I studied the treatment of tuberculosis in
1980 with Dr. Isaac in Kerala, India there was a
doctor at the hospital that believed in the
exclusive use of “constitutional remedies”
regardless of the nature of the symptoms or
pathology. He ignored the warnings that such
methods can be dangerous in serious pathological
cases with compromised vital organs. He gave an
advanced TB patient Lycopodium and the patient
went into crisis, hemorrhaged and died. This is a
perfect example of when NOT to give that
constitutional remedy that a patient needed 20
years ago! Seriously ill patients often need to
be treated carefully in layers with more
superficially acting remedies until the organic
pathology is reduced and they gain vitality. This
layered treatment sometimes makes it possible to
give them the constitutional remedy they may have
needed 20 years ago to complete the cure.
Therefore, one has to understand when it is
appropriate to give deep acting chronic remedies
and when it is best to treat the patient in
layers stage by stage until they regain some
semblance of health. Those that teach the one
constitutional remedy for all situations for life
should take into account these clinical realities.

A QUESTION OF BALANCE

There are some practitioners who are
ultra-classical and some practitioners who are
ultra-modern. On the one hand, some wish to
return to what they perceive as the Golden Age of
Homoeopathy and only use methods from the 1800s.
They see themselves as the only persons doing
pure Homoeopathy and speak as if they profess the
sole true doctrine. On the other hand, there are
those who scoff at anything old and only believe
in new methods developed by current teachers.
These persons feel that the traditional materia
medica is outdated and they depend mostly on
modern essences. Some proudly declare they don’t
even need to use a repertory! It has been said
that reading the Organon is like studying the
aeronautical drawings of the Wright brothers’
plane in an age when we have already gone to the
moon! Obviously, there must be a middle view that
transcends these extremes and represents a point
of balance that harmonizes classical and contemporary thought.

Einstein introduced the principles of nuclear
physics and the theory of relativity at a time
when going to the moon seemed almost impossible
but the truths he elucidated helped make it
achievable. Equations like E=mc2 are just as
valid today as they were at the beginning of the
20th century. Hahnemann is the Einstein of
Medicine in that the truths he postulated in the
first half of 19th century are just as valid
today as they were in his day. This is because
both Einstein and Hahnemann uncovered universal
principles that are part of the laws of Nature
and introduced a new paradigm in their fields.
Nevertheless, every generation must apply these
universal truths to their respective fields and
bring them up to date for their times. In this
way the applications of timeless principles evolve.

Hahnemann is the Alpha of Homoeopathy not the
Omega. If one studies Hahnemann’s German and
French casebooks one sees Homoeopathy as an
infant growing into maturity. In most of his
casebooks he only used around 60 remedies and he
rarely went outside his top 100 medicines. His
repertories were limited to his handwritten
Symptomlexicon, Jahr’s Repertory and
Boenninghausen’s Repertory of Antipsoric Remedies
and Repertory of Non Antipsoric Remedies. Most
of the published information was limited to the
125 remedies found in the Materia Medica Pura and
the Chronic Diseases. The Founder points the way
to the Medicine of the Future but many are
looking at his finger instead of where he is
pointing. This is why Hering wrote the following in 1845.

It is the duty of all of us to go further in the
theory and practice of Homœopathy than Hahnemann
has done. We ought to seek the truth which is
before us and forsake the errors of the past. But
woe unto him who, on that account, should
personally attack the author of our doctrine; he
would burthen himself with infamy. Hahnemann was
a great savant, inquirer, and discoverer; he was
as true a man, without falsity, candid and open
as a child, and inspired with pure benevolence
and with a holy zeal for science.

The Chronic Diseases; S. Hahnemann (Hering’s
Preface to the 1845 American edition translated by Hempel), page 9.

It is the responsibility of all to help in
advancing the science of Homoeopathy in harmony
with the universal principles on which it is
founded. Homoeopathy is no longer Homoeopathy if
the cardinal principles are removed any more than
nuclear physics is still nuclear physics if
Einstein’s equations are ignored. Energy and mass
will be convertible as long as this universe
exists just as Similars Cure Similars, the single
remedy, the minimal dose and the potentized
medicine are the key to homoeopathic healing. How
these principles will be put into practice should
evolve with every new generation of practitioners.

In our times we have extensive computerized
repertories and materia medicas with around 500
well proven remedies and another 500 on which we
have at least some dependable information. We can
search 100s of volumes in a few seconds and
analyze symptoms from a number of vantage points.
Homoeopathy has entered the age of information
technology and the WWW, which allows homoeopaths
to network worldwide in an instant. Homoeopathy
has grown greatly since Hahnemann’s time and he
would be amazed by our technology. Nevertheless,
the vision of the healing arts found in the 4th,
5th and 6th Organon is still more advanced than
any modern textbook. In fact, today’s modern
homoeopaths are only using a certain percentage
of the Founder’s original paradigm in the clinic.
Now is time to recover all the lost teachings of
Samuel Hahnemann and bring them up to date.

SYSTEMS VERSUS SYMPTOMS

There is much discussion about the three kingdoms
of nature in contemporary Homoeopathy. Who was
the first homoeopath to speak in terms of the
mineral, plant and animal worlds? The answer is
Samuel Hahnemann in The Chronic Diseases.

As a rule it was developed from their pure
symptoms, that most of the earths, alkalis and
acids, as well as the neutral salts composed of
them, together with several of the metals, cannot
be dispensed with in curing the almost
innumerable symptoms of Psora. The similarity in
nature of the leading antipsoric, sulphur, to
phosphorus and other combustible substances from
the vegetable and mineral kingdoms led to the use
of the latter, and some animal substances
naturally followed them by analogy, in agreement with experience.

The Chronic Diseases Their Peculiar Nature and
Their Homœopathic Cure; S. Hahnemann (Theoretical
Part), The Medicines, page 244.

In the above quote Hahnemann discusses the
elements of the periodic table and explains how
it is possible to use “analogy in agreement with
experience” to uncover related properties in the
plant and animal remedies. This established a
system in which the symptoms of the remedies of
the three kingdoms and their families can be
compared. This method was taken up by Professor
E. A. Farrington M.D. in his lectures at
Hahnemann Medical College, which was founded by Hering.

“We are now ready to begin our study of the
various drugs composing the Homoeopathic Materia
Medica. For this purpose I have arranged the
remedies in three grand divisions, according to
the kingdom of nature from which they are derived.”

A Clinical Materia Medica, E. A. Farrington, Lecture I. page 14.

Hering so was impressed with Farrington’s
knowledge of remedies that he said, “When I am
gone Farrington must finish my materia medica”.
It has been noted from an early period that each
of the three kingdoms has its characteristic
symptoms. In his lectures Dr. Farrington offers
insights into the remedies of the animal world
including the theme of “violence and intensity”. The great teacher wrote:

You will find, too, that these animal poisons are
apt to affect the mind, especially the emotions.
They arouse the lowest qualities in human nature,
and produce a condition which is truly shocking.
Some of them arouse the filthiest lust, the most
intense anger, and passions of a kindred nature.

A Clinical Materia Medica, E. A. Farrington,
Lecture I1, Animal Kingdom, page 25.

In Homoeopathy and Minerals Jan Scholten develops
a series of themes for the elements of the
periodic table that use the method of group
analysis in a creative manner. For example, Jan’s
essences for the Magnesium group are Pacifism;
Aggression; Fear of loss; and Pain. His essences
for the Muriaticums are Self pity; Care and
Nurturing; Mother; Attention; and Self-awareness.
By combining the essences found in Magnesium with
Muriaticum, Jan has postulated the following
essential themes of Magnesium Muriaticum:
Aggression leads to the loss of care from the
mother; aggression is necessary to forcefully ask
for care. Other combinations might include
aggression to get attention or any combination of
the main components. These themes are based on a
synthesis of the characteristics found in the two
elements that lead to a more developed picture of the composite remedy.

In Homoeopathy and the Elements Scholten further
expands on his method by introducing a series of
themes related to the evolution of the 7
horizontal periods and 18 vertical groups of the
periodic table. By using this method of group
analysis and the synthetic approach he has
assigned certain symptoms to proven and unproven
remedies. For a more complete understanding of
Jan’s methods please refer to the original publications.

The use of the synthetic prescription is not new
to Homoeopathy. For example, Dr. Clarke said,
“Bar-i. has been used empirically, especially in
cases of glandular enlargement and new growths,
on indications suggested by its two elements”.
Clarke was showing that if one has a decent
understanding of Baryta and Iodium it may be
possible to prescribe the remedy, Baryta Iodata.
Hering offered a similar opinion about the use of
remedies like Calcarea Arsenicosa. Other hints
are found scattered throughout out homoeopathic
literature. Nevertheless, some have questioned
the very origins of this method. Where did the
idea of synthetic prescribing originate?

The earliest recorded experiment of a synthetic
prescription was in 1843 when Samuel Hahnemann
gave Robert Everest (Casebook DF-14, page 13)
Cinnabaris (Red Sulfide of Mercury) based on the
combined symptoms of Mercury and Sulphur found in
two rubrics in Boenninghausen’s repertory. This
is a clear example of keeping one’s eyes open for
the possible combination of elements while
analyzing the symptoms of the patient in our
reference works. This means that the synthetic
method has been with Homœopathy since the beginning!

Dr. Rajan Sankaran is well known for his
contributions to Homoeopathy which includes the
central disturbance, core delusions,
compensation, dream interpretation, etc. His more
recent offerings include Insight into Plants,
Volumes I and II and The Vital Sensation. His
latest works introduce a new approach to the
patient’s main complaint that focuses on the
“vital sensation”, which is present in the
symptoms of the body as well as the mind. Through
the generalization of each plant family he
presents what he believes to be the important
sensations found throughout the entire family. At
the same time, he notes which miasm is the most
similar to each species found in the family in
accordance with his sequence of ten miasms
running from the acute to the syphilitic.

On this basis Sankaran has developed a grid of
botanical medicines that is similar to the system
Scholten developed for the mineral remedies. This
schematic presents the vital sensations of the
families and the miasms of each individual plant
in a manner that is easy for cross reference. By
matching the vital sensation with the
corresponding miasm one may locate a plant remedy
for the patient. Dr. Sankaran is now applying his
new method of case taking to the mineral, plant and animal kingdom.

The methods of Scholten and Sankaran are
considered by many to be the cutting edge of
contemporary Homoeopathy. Nevertheless, is the
new “systems approach” being used by some in such
a one sided manner that it is overturning the
cardinal principles of our healing art? Are
unproven remedies being used in a way that lacks
the consistency of the classical standard? Has
the inductive reasoning of the Organon been
replaced by methods that are based mostly on
speculation? Hahnemann felt that the study of the
natural kingdoms could provide hints about the
potential use of homoeopathic remedies but he
opined that provings and symptoms brought out on
patients under treatment were essential to the
method. In Essays on a New Principle Hahnemann wrote.

I am far from denying, however, the many
important hints the natural system may afford to
the philosophical student of the materia medica
and to him who feels it his duty to discover new
medicinal agents; but these hints can only help
to confirm and serve as a commentary to facts
already known, or in the case of untried plants
they may give rise to hypothetical conjectures,
which are, however, far from approaching even to probability.

The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann; S.
Hahnemann (Dudgeon Edition), Essay on a New
Principle for ascertaining the Curative Powers of Drugs, page 257.

Drs. Scholten and Sankaran are very experienced
classical homoeopaths but their experimental
methods are being taken up by students and
practitioners new to the art. This method is
being used by persons that have not yet mastered
the traditional methods in a reasonable manner.
They do not understand how to use the repertory
or materia medica properly. They depend mostly on
flow charts of essences rather than rubrics of
our reference works. Others think they have found
a short cut to the “highest method” and don’t
really need to use the repertory. Some of these
persons cannot even recognize a simple Calcarea
or Arsenicum case standing right in front of them
yet they are trying to use unproven and lesser
known remedies by a simple two dimensional grid on paper.

Many practitioners do not have the background to
understand when these experimental methods are
leading in the wrong direction. In some cases the
use of these new methods has become a fad or
fashion, which is the antithesis of the term
“classical”. When the use of the systems approach
is supported by the classic methods of the
repertory and materia medica the outcome may add
very valuable insights. When these new methods
replace the traditional techniques they lack the
stability and consistency of the classical
practice. The truth is that a well constructed
systems approach is based on the generalizations
of the symptoms approach and is not a separate
system. The symptom and system approach should be
used together in a balanced and practical fashion.

THE GESTALT OF THE DISEASE

Homœopathy is based on a Gestalt philosophy in
which the whole is more than the sum of its
parts. This holistic awareness is at the root of
the philosophy that makes up the background for
Samuel Hahnemann’s world view. For example, it is
impossible to locate an object in space with just
one vector. It takes at least three vectors to
easily pinpoint an object’s position. That is why
Hering said that we have to have at least three
good characteristic symptoms to find a remedy.
This idea is at the base of Hering’s famous “three legged stool”.

Is there any phenomenon in nature where one
essential part is more important than the
whole? Doesn’t an atom have electrons, neutrons
and protons as well as quarks? Aren’t the
elements of the periodic table made up of atoms
and molecules in different combinations? Is an
electron more important than a proton or neutron?
Isn’t the universe based on gravity, weak nuclear
forces, strong nuclear forces and
electromagnetism as well as time and space? Is
gravity more important than electromagnetism or
strong nuclear forces more important than weak
nuclear forces? Is time more important than space?

Aren’t plants made up of several compounds not
one essential substance? Can the properties of
any one compound act totally independent of the
other compounds? Isn’t it apparent that nature is
based on interdependent synergies that work
together to make a whole, not on one “essential
unit” that one can call absolute? The Newtonian
idea that there is a permanent atom at the base
of all energy is totally obsolete! Modern physics
is a Gestalt science not a reductionist model in
which one factor is held supreme. There are
essential qualities that come together to make up
a phenomenon but there is no one factor that is greater than the whole.

One cannot “see” the transcendental Esse (Gr.
Wesen) but one can become aware of its activities
through its Gestalt-pattern, which manifests as a
total field of phenomena. In the same way, the
totality of the signs, befallments and symptoms
are the “outwardly reflected image of the inner
Wesen of the disease, that is, of the suffering
of the life force”. Hahnemann made this clear in
the Organon and The Chronic Diseases. This is why
Hahnemann said that one symptom is no more the
disease state than one foot makes a human being.
No one essence, theme or sensation can express
all the potential variations of the whole all of
the time under every circumstance. It is merely
one facet that may be important at the moment but
there are always other facets that are equally
important at other times. This is true whether
one is treating a particular patient or studying
the essential nature of any given group or species.

It has become a cliché to say things like “In
Homœopathy it doesn’t matter why - one only needs
to know what”. Is this really true? Knowledge of
causation and observation of synchronicity and
circumstance doesn’t matter? Can the single
question, “What? What? What?” really replace the
six other essential questions: Who? Where? Why?
What with? What mode? When? Hahnemann taught that
the basis of case taking is causa, miasms, signs,
befallments and symptoms of the body and soul
with their attending circumstances. He was the
first to use locations, sensations, modifications
and concomitants as a guide to selecting
remedies. Then Boenninghausen pointed out that a
complete symptom is composed of these four
segments because they make up one complete facet
of the disease. Can a complete symptom be made
out of a main complaint alone? Can a complete
case be made out of a sensation alone? Can a
complete case be made without a modality? Can a
complete case be made without any concomitants? I
think we know what Hahnemann and Boenninghausen would say about this!

Hahnemann taught that the emotional state is so
important that it “often tips the scales in the
selection of the homœopathic remedy.” This
statement does not say the emotional state
“always” tips the scales in the selection of the
remedy. Turning “often” into the word “always” is
a mistake made by the mind-only school. A mental
symptom may tip the balance but it still does not
make up the whole case. There are no absolutes in
our relative world. An unusual “sensation as if”
can be just as important as any mental symptom
and an unusual mental symptom can be just as
important as any sensation. A change in the
psyche, sensations or functions according to time
and circumstances can all be equally important. I
personally was never of the opinion that a
striking, unusual characteristic symptom of the
body was inferior to a striking, unusual
characteristic symptom of the mind. I judge the
characteristic value of a symptom by its
striking, extraordinary, unusual and odd
qualities not by whether it originated in the
body, on the vital plane or in the psyche.

When consciousness shifts energy shifts. When
energy shifts then consciousness shifts. This is
the nature of the Unconscious, which is the realm
of dynamic archetypes. This is the level of
non-linear synchronisms which have a deeper
symbolic meaning. This is the plane that connects
the name “Pulsatilla” with the mythological
“tears of Venus” in a manner that one cannot
logically explain! At the same time, the habitat
and growth factors of the “Windflower” also
provides clues about the remedy. This archetypal
awareness is the great gift of the late, great
Dr. Whitmont, who was a Jungian psychiatrist and
classical homoeopath. In the final analysis
linear causation and non-linear synchronisms are
also complementary opposites that make up a whole
which is more than the sum of its parts. All of
this material is equally valuable depending on the time and circumstances.

Reductionism moves in the opposite direction of
the Gestalt philosophy on which Hahnemannian
Homœopathy is based. Some persons are so fixed on
reducing cases to one mental essence, delusion,
sensation and miasm with their keynotes and flow
charts that they miss the forest for the trees.
They are trying to prematurely narrow the
symptoms before opening them up with the
repertory and materia medica. They look only at
two vectors (the horizontal and vertical) on a
two dimensional grid without balancing this view
with the “depth vector” provided by the repertory
and materia medica. Patients, diseases and
remedies are multi-dimensional phenomena that
cannot be reduced to two dimensions on paper.

Those that think the repertory is only a
“numerical system” do not understand how to use
the repertory properly. No well trained homœopath
goes by the numbers! A well trained homœopath
builds images by uniting combinations of symptom
segments that reflect the greater disease Gestalt
until it produces a hologram with height, width
and depth. The truth is that the repertory is the
best medium for artistically combining individual
symptom segments in such a manner that the
collection is a multi-dimensional mirror image of the portrait of the disease.

The repertory is designed to allow one to collect
facets of a greater Gestalt-pattern as
represented by the characteristic symptoms and
assemble them in combinations that may have never
been seen before and that may never be seen
again. That is the beauty of the open system view
of the repertory that no “system based method”
can replace! The repertory has the potential to
combine symptom segments in an inconceivable
number of combinations that represent the
potential of the remedy even if that exact
combination is not found in the materia medica.
Once a unique picture has been constructed one
reviews the materia medica to see which remedy
has the potential to remove these symptoms. This
is what Boenninghausen discovered when he
developed the Therapeutic Pocket Book. Since that
time the repertory is no longer just a simple
index to the symptoms found in the materia
medica. The repertory is an open tool that allows
for maximum customization of an almost infinite
variety of symptom segments allowing the most
precise individualization. Although the repertory
is not easy to learn, once it has been mastered
it will provide information not found in any
essence based system with their flow charts.

All cases present themselves in a unique manner
and they require a customized case taking method.
Some patients present clear causative rubrics
related to a never-well-since syndrome found
under a particular group of remedies. Some
patients present clear constitutional portraits
of remedies found in the materia medica and its
commentaries. Some patients demonstrate clear
redline, keynote characteristics found almost
word for word in our materia medica. Some
patients offer clear mental symptoms that lead to
a well chosen remedy. Some patients present a
main complaint that carries characteristic
particularizations with sensations and modalities
found only in a few remedies. Some patients
present non-logical concomitant symptoms that
have little to do with the main complaint that
lead directly to the curative remedy. Some
patients present pieces and fragments of symptoms
that must be collected to make up complete
symptoms leading to the remedy. Some patients may
present a grand sensation that runs through all
their symptoms that can be confirmed by the
concomitant symptoms. Some cases may fit the
symptoms method while others might suit the
systems method better. Some are best solved with
a combination of these methods. In all of these
cases the essential nature of the totality of the
symptoms offers the confirmatory signs necessary
to prescribe a simillimum consistently. No one
case taking method, no one mental symptom and no
one sensation can stand in isolation from the
total field of the symptoms represented by the Gestalt of the disease.

I support the study of the symptoms of the
mineral, plant and animal families and their
individual remedies. I was inspired to review
remedy families by Hahnemann, E. A. Farrington,
H. Farrington, E. Whitmont and M. L. Dhawale
early in my career. I also appreciate the
material on this subject offered by modern
researchers like Dr. Scholten and Dr. Sankaran.
Nevertheless, when I review the “essences”
offered in the group studies I always see other
equally valid threads that are not included. Our
remedies are too multi-dimensional to be reduced
to one simple essence that represents the whole
potential of the medicine at al times under all circumstances.

I base my family studies on generalizing the
similar symptoms of a family and cross
referencing the differential symptoms and miasms
found in particular remedies. Then I enhance this
data by analogy in accordance with experience,
which may include archetypes, mythologems, the
source of the remedy, habitat, etc. I always
review the symptoms of a family from a number of
different angles so I gain an understanding of
its multifaceted nature to avoid reductionism
that may lead to stereotyping. I call on everyone
who is interested in the genus method to study
remedy families carefully and review the symptoms
for themselves rather than rely on any one
individual for all their information. In this
way, the field of symptoms will be expanded by a
group of peers and those rubrics which are
confirmed by many can be taken as true characteristics.

TERMINOLOGY

Another area of discussion is the validity of
using terms like the “constitutional
symptoms”. There are some who believe that these
terms were introduced by James Kent and have
nothing to do with the teachings of Samuel
Hahnemann and the first generation. This,
however, is not the case. The door to studying
the constitutional attendant symptoms was opened
by the Founder in The Chronic Diseases. When
speaking of gonorrhea caused by an acute miasm Hahnemann said:

They yield either to a dose of one drop of fresh
parsley juice, when this is indicated by a
frequent urgency to urinate, or a small dose of
Cannabis, of Cantharides, or the Copaiva balm
according to their different constitution and the
other ailments attending to it.

The Chronic Diseases (Theoretical Part), page 150, B Jain Publishing.

In this quote Hahnemann speaks of prescribing
remedies by the symptoms in accordance with the
variations of different constitutions and their
concomitant ailments. G.H.G. Jahr, a close
student and confidant of Samuel Hahnemann,
expanded on these views in The Doctrines and
Principles of the Entire Theoretical and
Practical Homœopathic Art of Healing published in
Stuttgart in 1857. My attention was drawn to this
work by the English-German translator Gaby
Rottler of Germany. She has written a wonderful
article called Constitution and Chronic Diseases
- The Value of Constitutional Symptoms as seen by
G. H. G. Jahr. In Gaby’s review she points out
that Jahr was the first to elaborate on the use
of the term constitutional symptoms in detail and
explain their role in Homœopathy. In aphorism 108 of this work Jahr wrote:

Ҥ108. In chronic diseases the constitutional
additional symptoms provide the characteristic
indications for the choice of the remedy.

Jahr spoke in terms of the pathognomic symptoms
of the disease and the constitutional
concomitants of the individual. The pathognomic
symptoms represent the nature of the disease
state while the constitutional symptoms represent
the reactions of the patient. Jahr suggests in
aphorism 106 that the remedy should be selected
by the “essential or pathognomic signs” of the
disease and the non-pathognomic characteristics
of the “individual constitution of the sick
individual or by other accidental conditions”.
These symptoms are not caused by the disease per
se as they are adaptations of the individual to his or her condition.

For example, ten persons my have “arthritis” with
joint pains but one patient is < in summer and
one patient is < in winter; one patient feels
cold while another feels hot; one patient feels
angry and resentful and another feels sad and
apathetic, etc. This is why ten arthritis
patients might need ten different remedies. Jahr
suggests that the best remedy will contain the
“most essential constitutional symptoms of the
patient” (Jahr §108). He went so far as to say
that the “symptoms determining the choice is not
to be searched for in the pathognomic signs of
the local ailment”. The determining rubrics are
the “essential constitutional symptoms” which
exist beyond the range of the pathognomic symptoms of the disease.

Some persons say that Homoeopathy treats the
patient not the disease while others say that
Homoeopathy treats the disease not the patient.
It has been said that aphorism 153 of the Organon
states that one does not treat the symptoms
common to the disease - they treat the strange,
rare and peculiar symptoms of the patient. What
Hahnemann actually says is that one prescribes on
the “more striking, exceptional, unusual and odd
(characteristic) signs and symptoms of the
disease case” not those indeterminate symptoms
“seen with almost every disease’. This means that
the symptoms common to ALL diseases (pain,
weaknesses, discomfort, etc.) are not as
important as the characteristic symptoms of THE
disease case under study. There is no reference to the patient per se.

James Kent is frequently blamed for speaking in
terms of the patient not the disease but where
did this idea really originate? The eyewitness
account of the poet Legouve offers a glimpse into
the teachings of Hahnemann in Paris. These
personal testimonies help us to understand what
it was like to actually be with Samuel Hahnemann.
He taught his colleagues that the names of
disease are only relative while the essential
nature of the totality of the symptoms is the
true Gestalt of the disease. In this letter the
well known poet quotes Hahnemann in the following manner.

At another time I heard him [Samuel Hahnemann]
make use of this expression, which sounds so
strange if taken in a literal sense, but which is
so profound if properly understood. ‘There are no
such things as diseases; there are only patients’.

The Life and Letters of Dr. Samuel Hahnemann; T. L. Bradford, page 413.

The first to speak in terms of the patient not
the disease was Samuel Hahnemann! This insight
was passed down through every generation of
homoeopaths and will continue to be passed on in
the future. The orthodox school studies the
features common to the disease while ignoring the
individuality of the patient. The homoeopathic
tradition reminds us that the individuality of
each patient is very important. Jahr stated that
the pathognomic symptoms of the disease are
essential but the constitutional symptoms of the
patient are more important symptoms in finding a
remedy. Even Mr. Legouve understood that
Hahnemann’s statement was not to be taken
literally but in a metaphorical sense that offers
insight into the patient as an individual. There
is no disease without the patient and there is no
patient without the disease. Therefore, the
homoeopath speaks of the patient AND their
disease from different perspectives depending on the situation.

HOW HOMOEOPATHIC REMEDIES WORK

It has become popular in some circles to say that
the vital force plays no role in homoeopathic
healing. They object to the idea that the remedy
stimulates the vital force in any way. In other
circles little emphasis is given to the role of
the remedy and most credit is given to the vital
force. These one-sided concepts, however, have no
basis in Hahnemann’s explanation of how
homoeopathic remedies work. Samuel makes it clear
that healing occurs through the interplay of the
primary action of the similar remedy and the
secondary, curative action of the vital force. In
the Preface of the 6th Organon the Founder
emphasizes the importance of the secondary action
of the vital force in the healing process. He
also states that the stronger the vital force the
quicker and more certain the healing process
takes place. Therefore, he tells us not to do
anything that would compromise the vital force and vitality.

Homeopathy is aware that a cure can only succeed
through the counter-action of the life force
against the correctly chosen medicine. The
stronger the life force that still prevails in
the patient, the more certain and faster the cure that takes place.

Samuel Hahnemann, confirmed Paris, 184-.

Organon of the Medical Art; S. Hahnemann (OReilly
6th Edition), Preface, page 4.

In a similar vein Hahnemann wrote in a Letter To
My True Disciples that the homoeopathic cure is
effected through the reserves of life force
present in the human organism. In this quote he
clearly states that the remedy “stimulates” the
vital force into “this helpful activity”.

Homœopathy alone knows and teaches that the cure
is to be effected only by means of the entire
reserve force still present in the system, and
stimulated to this helpful activity by the
accurately chosen homœopathic remedy administered in a suitable dose.

Samuel Hahnemann, His Life & Work; R. Haehl, Volume II, page 279.

The interaction of the similar remedy and the
vital force is further elucidated in the
Introduction of the 5th and 6th Organon. In these
works the Founder wrote a detailed explanation of
the homeopathic cure in seven italicized points.

1. True medical art is that cogitative
pursuit which devolves upon the higher human
spirit, free deliberation, and the selecting
intellect, which decides according to well-founded reasons.
2. It does so in order to differently tune
the instinctual (intellect- and
awareness-lacking) automatic and energic life
force when the life force has been mistuned,
through disease, to abnormal activity.
3. It differently tunes the life force by
means of an affection similar to that of the
disease, engendered by a medicine that has been homeopathically selected.
4. By means of this medicine, the life force
is rendered medicinally sick to such a degree (in
fact to a somewhat higher degree) that the
natural affection can no longer work on the life force
5. In this way, the life force becomes rid of
the natural disease, remaining occupied solely
with the so similar, somewhat stronger medicinal
disease-affection against which the life force
now directs its whole energy and which it soon overcomes.
6. The life force thereby becomes free and
able again to return to the norm of health and to
its actual intended purpose: that of enlivening
and sustaining the healthy organism.
7. It can do this without having suffered
painful or debilitating attacks by this transformation.

Organon of the Medical Art; S. Hahnemann
(OReilly 6th Edition), Introduction, page 37-38.
In homoeopathic healing the stronger
temporary remedial disease replaces the sensation
of the natural disease in the vital force. This
is the role of the primary action of a
homoeopathic remedy elucidated in point 4. Then
Hahnemann states that "the life force now directs
its whole energy" against the medicinal disease
"which it soon overcomes”. This is the role of
the secondary, curative action of the vital force
elucidated in point 5. This healing process takes
place without the loss of humors and sacrifices
of tissue associated with crisis. Hahnemann
further expands on the nature of primary and
secondary actions in the main aphorisms of the Organon. Vide aphorism 64.

As seen from the following examples, during the
initial action of the artificial disease potences
(medicines) upon our healthy body, our life force
appears to comport itself only conceptively
(receptively, passively as it were) and appears
as if it were forced to allow the impressions of
the artificial potence impinging from without to
occur in itself, thereby modifying its condition.

The life force than appears to rally in one of two ways.

1. Where there is such a one, the life force
brings forth the exact opposite condition-state
(counter-action, after-action) to the impinging
action (initial action) that has been absorbed
into itself. The counter-action is produced in as
great a degree as was the impinging action
(initial action) of the artificial morbific or
medicinal potence on it, proportionate to the life forces own energy.

2. If there is no state in nature exactly
opposite to the initial action, the life force
appears to strive to assert its superiority by
extinguishing the alteration produced in itself
from without (by the medicine), in place of which
it reinstates its norm (after-action, curative-action).

Organon of the Medical Art; S. Hahnemann (OReilly 6th Edition), Aphorism 64.

A chronic miasm lasts a life time as it cannot be
removed by the vital force. A homoeopathic remedy
replaces the permanent natural disease with a
stronger but temporary medicinal disease that the
vital force can extinguish without
difficulty! As the remedy replaces the natural
disease the vital force strives to “assert its
superiority” by removing the mistuning from
“without” while reinstating homeostasis within.
Hahnemann called this process the “secondary, curative action”.

In aphorism 65 Hahnemann reviews the excessive
counter actions of the vital force witnessed when
exposed to non potentized substances (§64, part
1). In aphorism 68 he reviews homoeopathic
healing with small doses of potentized medicines
(§64, point 2). After the primary action of the
remedy has completely replaced the natural
disease only a transient, short-lived medicinal
disease remains. Now the vital force only needs
to use as much counter action as necessary to
remove this fleeting medicinal disease and return
the organism to the full state of health. When
this process is done correctly there are no
excessive counter actions of the vital force as
witnessed with large doses of non-potentized medicines.

In the Preface of the Paris edition of The
Chronic Diseases Hahnemann elucidates the primary
action of the remedy and the secondary action of
the vital force in great detail. This model
explains the role of energy in the process of
cure and clarifies how the secondary, curative
action takes place in stages. This explanation
offers a glimpse of how a medicinal solution
administered in split-doses of gradually
ascending potencies returns the organism to health.

But if we physicians are able to present and
oppose to the instinctive vial force its morbific
enemy, as it were magnified through the action of
the homoeopathic medicines ­ even if it should be
enlarged every time only by a little ­ if in this
way the image of the morbific foe be magnified to
the apprehension of the vital force through
homoeopathic medicines, which, in a delusive
manner, simulate the original disease, we
gradually cause and compel the instinctive vital
force to increase its energy in degrees, and to
increase them more and more, and at last to such
a degree that it becomes far more powerful than the original disease.

The natural disease deranges the vital force in
such a manner that it cannot tell self (the Esse)
from other (the natural disease) and takes part
in damaging the organism. If the healing artist
is able to “present and oppose” the instinctive
vital force with the primary action of the remedy
it will replace the natural disease with a
stronger but temporary medicinal disease. This is
why a patient suffering from a disease
characterized by tightness and cold should be
given a potentized remedy that is characterized
by tightness and cold. In this way the “image”
of the natural disease is “magnified” to the
“apprehension of the vital force” in a “delusive
manner”. The primary action of the remedy is a
form of information transfer that allows the
vital force to perceive the disease as separate
from self. This causes the secondary, curative
action of the vital force to “increase its energy
in degrees” until it “becomes far more powerful than the original disease”.

An increase in vitality is one of the signs that
a remedy is well chosen. In the process the
tightness and cold associated with the disease
state is overcome by the relaxation and warmth of
the healthy organism with restored vitality. Once
the vital force is completely free from the
natural and medicinal disease it returns to
enlivening and sustaining the healthy organism.
When a patient who is tight and cold is given a
relaxing and hot remedy the symptoms will be
momentarily suppressed, but in time, the counter
action of the vital force will produce even more
tightness and cold. If the suppressive medicines
are continued they may cause the mutation of the
symptoms inward to more important organs and
systems. This centripetal movement is in the
opposite direction of the centrifugal movement of
the law of cure. This is the essence of
Hahnemann’s action-reaction model and how the
vital force responds to similar and contrary medicines.

POSOLOGY AND CASE MANAGEMENT

There are those who give a single remedy and wait
and watch until there is a clear relapse of
symptoms and those who repeat the remedy at rapid
intervals all the time. The protagonists of the
first consider what they do to be pure “classical
Homeopathy”, while the second group claims they
are doing what Hahnemann did in his last days.
The truth is that Hahnemann taught the wait and
watch method in the 1st through 4th Organon but
he modified his case posology and case management
procedures in the 5th and 6th editions. From 1833
to 1843 Hahnemann taught that anytime during
treatment there was a perceptibly progressive and
strikingly increasing amelioration the remedy
should not be repeated as long as this state
lasts. In cases where a single dose will only
produce a slow progressive improvement over a
period up to 100 days or more he suggested
repeating the dose at suitable intervals to speed
the cure. To repeat the remedy to speed the cure
Hahnemann recommended that the remedy be prepared
in medicinal solution and given in divided doses.
He called this method the “middle path” as it
stands between the exclusive single dose and the
mechanical repetition of the remedy. So in some
ways both groups are right and both groups are
wrong. It is not a matter of using the single
dose versus the repetition of remedies at
definite intervals. It is a matter of knowing
when it is best to use the single dose and wait
and watch and when to act and observe the
repetition of the remedy to speed the cure. Such
an advanced method requires the ability to make a
differential analysis of the progress of the remedy.

Some persons only use the dry dose and some
persons only use the medicinal solution. In
truth, even in the 6th Organon Hahnemann reviews
the use of the dry dose (§272), oral medicinal
solution (§246) and olfaction (§248). All of
these methods are effective on their own levels.
Although Hahnemann emphasized his preference for
the medicinal solution and split-doses he did not
completely rule out the use of the dry dose. In
my study of the Paris casebooks I have found only
1 case where Hahnemann appears to have given the
patient a dry dose. This shows that even in his
final years he had not completely rejected the
dry dose although he opined the medicinal
solution offers the practitioner many more
options. This is because the liquid dose can be
succussed prior to administration in such a
manner that the patient never receives the exact
same potency twice in a succession. The liquid
dose can also be adjusted in a number of ways
that are not possible with the dry dose. This
does not mean, however, that the dry dose is
invalid in its own paradigm. The techniques of
the 4th, 5th and 6th Organon are all valid on
their own levels and it is best to understand the
methods of all three editions.

Hahnemann’s action-reaction model also has
important ramifications in the areas of posology
and case management. There are some who imagine
that all actions observed after the
administration of the homoeopathic remedy are the
reaction of the vital force. For this reason,
they think “every reaction is a good reaction” as
if one can do no wrong. This modern concept,
however, is not the case. Too much primary action
of the remedy causes unnecessary aggravations
while too much secondary action produces
antagonistic counter actions of the vital force.
The reason for these excessive responses is
usually hypersensitivity and over medication.
Samuel Hahnemann worked his entire career to
overcome these excessive actions and make the
homoeopathic cure as rapid, gentle and permanent
as possible. To practice Homoeopathy in a safe
and effective manner it is important to
understand all the major remedy responses.

There are five major remedy reactions i.e. a
smooth amelioration; a similar aggravation; a
dissimilar aggravation; accessory symptoms; and a
natural healing crisis. A smooth amelioration is
a sign that the dose, potency, remedy and
repetition (if necessary) are harmonious. A
similar aggravation is a sign that the remedy is
correct but the patient has been given too large
a dose, too high a degree of potency or the
remedy has been repeated when it is not needed. A
dissimilar aggravation is the production of new
and troublesome symptoms not appertaining to the
disease under treatment. This is the sign of a
wrong remedy. Accessory symptoms are medicinal
side-actions of the remedy caused by a partial
simillimum. In this case, the patient may improve
in one area but new symptoms appear in other
areas changing the natural symptom pattern. A
similar aggravation, dissimilar aggravations and
accessory symptoms are caused by the primary action of the remedy.

A natural healing crisis is the movement of the
symptoms from within to without, from above to
below and the appearance of old symptoms in
accordance with Hahnemann’s direction of cure
commonly called Hering’s laws. A natural healing
crisis may also be accompanied by an increase in
the action of the organs of elimination producing
a discharge, skin eruptions, sweats, profuse
urination, excessive stool, etc. This type of
eliminatory symptoms should pass quickly and be
followed by an increase of the sense of
well-being and more vitality. If they are more
prolonged and stronger than the original
complaints then this is a form of similar
aggravation due to over medication. A natural
healing crisis is caused by the secondary
curative action of the vital force. Excessive
counter actions of the vital force are
idiosyncratic reactions due to over medication
where the patient seems almost “allergic” to the
remedy and a cacophony of contradictory and confusing symptoms take place.

Every homoeopath should be aware of this
action-reaction phenomena but the truth is that
this area of practice has been overlooked by many
teachers. I am constantly contacted by patients
who experience strong aggravations that last for
months. Many of these patients are told this is a
“good sign” yet many experience new troublesome
symptoms for long periods. Even a similar
aggravation caused by the right remedy but wrong
posology can cause prolonged actions that drain
vitality. If the primary action is too strong for
too long it drains so much vitality that there
will be little or no curative secondary action.
The patient may take on medicinal “proving”
symptoms that last for life if not corrected.
Each of these negative responses demands a
specific case management procedure that produces
a corrective action in a timely fashion. If you
have not been taught about all these responses in
school or by your teachers, then it is time you
learned about them through a study of the
classical literature. It is important to seek out
teachers who understand these clinical realities.

In the Organon Hahnemann taught that the
sensitivity of a patient may vary on a scale from
1 to 1000 (§281). This means that potencies that
will not even affect a number 1 hyposensitive
will cause severe long lasting aggravations in a
number 1000 hypersensitive. At the same time, it
is important to study the predisposition of the
constitution; the nature, stage and magnitude of
the disease; the nature of the remedy; as well as
the state of the vital force and vitality. There
are also other attendant factors such as the age,
sex and environmental influences that may play a
role in potency selection. The totality of these
factors must be taken into consideration when
selecting the delivery system, size of the dose,
the degree of potency, and the repetition of the
remedy. This is the basis of the traditional
method that originated with Hahnemann and has
been enhanced by generations of classical homoeopaths.

Today there are those who are teaching a
hierarchical method of potency selection based on
the level of the symptoms. Potencies like the 6C
are used based on the name of the disease.
Potencies like the 30C are used based on the
facts related to the disease state. Cases that
are on the emotional level receive the 200C while
cases based on delusions receive the 1M. If the
case is based on a vital sensation the patient
receives the 10M. If the case demonstrates the
level of energy the patient receives the 50M,
etc. In this hierarchical analysis the individual
sensitivity of the patient, the nature, stage and
magnitude of the disease, the condition of the
vital force, and the nature of the remedy is not
taken into consideration. This method is being
taught to new students who have little or no
clinical experience with the classical methods of potency selection.

It is a clinical fact that many of the most
hypersensitive patients are those who are
suffering from emotional problems and delusions
of various sorts. They are so sensitive that they
feel emotions too strongly and tend to imagine
all sorts of things! Just because a patient says
“I feel” several times does not necessarily mean
that they need a 200C. Just because the case
includes a characteristic delusion does not
necessarily mean they need a 1M. Even if you
have found a grand sensation that appears to tie
together all the symptoms, this does not
necessarily mean that one must give the 10M. What
if the patient is the 1000 degree hypersensitive,
suffers from advanced pathology in the vital
organs, has an unstable vital force and is very
weak at the same time? Should we still give such
a patient the highest potencies?

I have spoken to many persons that have been
aggravated for months with no improvement by such
methods. This is because the most important
factor in the selection of the potency is the
individual sensitivity of the patient followed by
the nature, stage and magnitude of the disease
and the condition of the vital force, etc. The
hierarchy of the symptoms may be one feature in
assessing the potency but to use such a method in
isolation from the totality of other factors that
affect potency selection is insufficient. Once
again a new method may provide insights but they
should not be used in isolation from the
traditional techniques that broaden the
foundation and make the prescription safe.

BRINGING IT ALL TOGETHER

It has become apparent in this discourse that the
classical Homoeopathy introduced by Samuel
Hahnemann and the first generation represent the
starting point of many techniques that evolved in
later periods. The Founder’s clinical technique
was a system of flexible response that included a
wide number of applications depending on the
cause, symptoms, time and circumstances. The
Founder used single remedies over a longer period
of time, alternations, tandem remedies,
intercurrents and a series of remedies as well as
acute remedies, chronic remedies, anti miasmatic
remedies, and prophylactic medicines whenever
necessary. Therefore, the uses of acute, chronic
and preventative remedies all find their origin
in the work of Samuel Hahnemann. Techniques like
Burnett’s ladder where a series of remedies is
used in complex cases and Kent’s long-term use of
a constitutional (chronic) remedy, all have their
seed in the works of Samuel Hahnemann. The
alternations used by Boenninghausen, and the
chronic intercurrents used by Hering, all find
their roots in the works of Samuel Hahnemann.
Speaking in terms of the three kingdoms, the
elements of the periodic table and using
synthetic prescriptions are all branches of the
works of Samuel Hahnemann. Since all those
following the cardinal principles share the same
family tree, why isn’t there more unity in the homoeopathic community?

Why do those who like to use constitutional
remedies disapprove of those who use acute
remedies? Why do those who use one remedy over a
longer period of time criticize those who use a
sequence of remedies when necessary? Why do those
who use curative remedies disapprove of those who
use preventative remedies? Why do some say
Homoeopathy treats the disease not the patient
and others say Homoeopathy treats the patient not
the disease when the patient and the disease are
a functional unity? Why do some say that the
vital force cures while others say only the
remedy cures when Hahnemann taught that it is the
interplay of the primary action of the remedy and
secondary action of the vital force that heal?
Why do some insist on a one-sided monism while
others proclaim a rigid dualism when there is
unity of purpose in the one and the many? Why do
some always treat the whole patient at once while
others treat everyone in layers when both methods
are useful depending on the time and
circumstances? Why do all these one-sided dichotomies exist?

Why do some say we should use only low potencies
and other say we should use high potencies when
Hahnemann used from low to high potencies
depending on the sensitivity of the patient and
the nature of the disease state? Why do some say
the C potency is the best while others claim the
LM potency is superior when Hahnemann used both
side by side in his last years? Why do some only
use a single dose and others only use a series of
doses when Hahnemann taught the proper time to
use the single dose and the proper time to repeat
the remedy to speed the cure? Why are some using
only old methods and some only using new methods,
when a combination of the two is the best way
forward? Why is it that human beings like to
take a whole truth and break it into two halves
and turn one side against the other?

If one investigates the true “classics” they will
find the source of the best of the new methods.
They will find that these ideas grew into many
schools of practice but they all have their basis
in the classical period of Homoeopathy. Knowledge
of the source has vanished because we have lost
our roots. We have depended too much on second
hand information instead of seeking the true
genesis. We have listened to what popular
teachers opine without thinking for ourselves. We
have taken our knowledge for granted without
asking the proper questions. We have followed
trends and fads while ignoring the time-tested
traditional techniques. Why are so many persons
seeking to change a classical system that they
never really learned in the first place?

It is my heartfelt advice that everyone studies
the Organon, The Chronic Diseases and The Lesser
Writings very closely. At the same time, study
the history of Homoeopathy and all the eyewitness
accounts and letters in publication. Build the
strongest possible foundation in the works of
Hahnemann, Boenninghausen, Hering, Jahr, T.F.
Allen, H.C. Allen, Kent, Boger, Whitmont and
others. Learn how to use the repertory and
materia medica well and study the characteristics
of the most proven remedies daily. Base your
homoeopathic house on the bedrock of the
classical tradition rather than the shifting
sands of fashion, so that when the winds and
rains of clinical realities blow, your practice
will not fall down! If one harmonizes the
classical and contemporary methods one has a
solid basis from which to reach for the sky without losing one’s balance.

I have taken the time to write this rather
lengthy discourse because I really care about
Homoeopathy. I do not consider myself to be an
innovative master or an advanced practitioner. I
am just a well trained homoeopath in the
traditions of Hahnemann and the subsequent
generations. Over the years I have learned more
from my failures than I have from my successes as
I search for the most rapid, gentle and permanent
method of cure. It was my cases that did not go
well that drove me to study the various editions
of the Organon in depth and to dig deeply into
the classical period. In this fertile ground I
found the answers I was looking for, and for over
a quarter century, I have done my best to bring
these methods up to date for our times. It was in
Hahnemann that I found the truths that unified
all the schools of Homoeopathy. This is why I
have written a 6 volume 4000 page textbook called
the Homoeopathic Compendium, which will be in
print in the not too distant future. As I near
the September of my years I look to the next
generation as they are the ones that will carry
the torch of the healing arts forward. In my
heart I know the Medicine of the Future will be
safe in their hands and true classical Homoeopathy will never be lost.

Similia Minimus

Sincerely, David Little

little@simillimum.com

http://www.simillimum.com