Minutus

Dear all,
I hate getting into arguments, but I hear we should be treating diseases instead of patients and that is what Hahnemann said. I just realized how right you all are and I have wasted years of my precious life practicing and teaching the wrong type of Homoeopahy.
I would be the first to follow these fantastic principles. Now if someone would be kind enough to give me the specific remedy for the following diseases I will be indebted to him/her for life
Diabetes
Arthritis
Hypertension
Asthma
etc etc.
If you can not give me the specific remedy for these day to day diseases then your philosophy is not worth much,
bst regards
elham
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

it does seem to not only bear repeating, but require
repeating again ........... and again .....

treating diseases instead of patients .............Now if
someone would be kind enough to give me the specific remedy
for the following diseases I will be indebted to him/her for
life
to day diseases then your philosophy is not worth much,

Assuming my reading between your lines to be correct and
interpreting your
question as of rhetoric nature to make the opposite point
... ) ...

..and from previous other poster referred to in my previous
reply
stated in the phrase
allopathic description of a

I take the liberty to re-post:

Very true ....
not the *allopathic* description of the symptom-picture, but
the symptom-picture of *this individual case of *disease* as
perceived in regards alterations in sensations and functions
of the
VF -
but not more, either !

an extension,

most certainly - and not even only 'as an extension' -
mental/emotional alterations can and mostly do come
along with diseases - and thus become part of the 'totality'
of the disease to be considered for similarity -
made very clear (as we all know and are aware) in other
paragraphs by Hahnemann -

To just say
' treat the person, not the disease'
or
' treat the disease, not the person'

continues to be chronically either misunderstood, or
interpreted in only one way ....

It would be more precise (albeit elaborate) to write:
" We do treat the person... and not the disease....
in the sense that symptoms manifesting in
all areas/aspects/the whole person/VF are to be
considered for similarity,

and we do not treat the disease...- *name* -

but we very much so treat the 'disease' in the
sense of it being the influence causing the alterations,
and being what is to be cured,
and we do not treat the person, ... in the sense of
'treating' characteristics of the personality/'constitution'
in general health "

added summary this time:

- treat 'disease' as in disease-*names* is *Not* what
Hahnemann taught -
and, as I read it, no-one here on the list claims that,
either -

treat the 'disease' as in *this individual symptom-picture*
of the
disease in *this individual person's case*
that *Is* what Hahnemann taught -

Yes, we treat the 'disease' in the person, it is the disease
symptoms
as expressed in *this individual* that guide to the remedy,
and it is the disease-'wesen'/dynamis that is 'annihilated'
with the
proper similar remedy -
we do not treat the 'disease-name' as listed in a medical
text-book -

As usual, most posters seem to be intending to say
quite similar ideas .... but we gotta be clear in our
homoeopathic-technical language if we want to do any
fruitful discussions, instead of going around in
never-ending circles ...
otherwise we end up always only trying to explain what we
are trying to say, and never get to getting the message
across
.... (

my golly -

still best wishes
peter