constitutional remedy - a few thoughts

[J.VENKATASUBRAMANIAN]

Hello everyone,

This text was posted by me in a message elsewhere but did not elicit
response . I now repeat this anew below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The debate mentioned over treat the patient or treat the disease can
be slightly modified thus. The person in disease ( rather the vital
force in disarray) and the personality of the undiseased person. The
second one is being vociferously put forward by the school of
predictive homeopathy headed by Praful Vijayakar Of Mumbai, India.
But aphorism 153 of Organon talks about the picture of disease in
very certain terms and the same sentence pattern is repeated in other
aphorisms. Hahnemann's injunctions aboutcollecting details of the
past and present details has perhaps led to this cropping of
different schools. Hahnemann just wanted to confirm the disease to
the artificial disease of the remedy in the suscptible individual
which was later stretched out to confirm to swedenbourg's idea of
medicine for the patient and not disease. This fact struck me when I
was reading the material at www.boger-boenninghausen.com of Dr
Weitbrecht. This is an interesting site and Dr Weitbrecht has studied
the original German manuscripts of Boenninghaussen and has been
following his methods with reportedly good success. The much touted
mental angle being the first to be considered as per the Kentian
analysis is taking a severe beating in his analysis and mentals are
for a conforming picture unless they dominate the physicals.

For those who have read 'Roberts' principles..' the constitutional
remedy is just selected according to the susceptibility of the
individuals and the mentals acting as the signboards. Suddenly I
started respecting Nash whose work I never regarded much earlier
because of his less emphasis on mentals. When I read nash again there
was the mental picture which had its place where it belonged.

Though not closing the mind on new thinking, the completely
contradictory nature of today's theories with that of Hahneman should
make one doubly cautious in putting them into practice.

I will give an example. The fastidiousness of Arsenicum. This is
being stretched to accommodate all the tidy persons in its ambit! One
materia medica author ( Ms Anima Chakraborty) describes this sudden
neatness as morbid fastidiousness. This confirms to the Hahnemannian
dictum of the disease picture. Only here the remedy has its curative
action.

This issue has lot of relevance as physicians are lured away with
promises of miracle cures with new theories at the expense of
thousands of dollars (in the form of seminars) and time ( that of
patient's too). Hahnemann's methods are direct and specific and
involves no speculation.

Please continue this chain of thought.

J.Venkatasubramanian