Minutus

Shannon

Hi Shannon,
My disillusion with this is the excessive use of
generals without
any thought on 'what has to be cured'.(the lesional of
Eizayaga).

But treatment of chronic diseases is best done with
the Hahneannian
method of the 'present totality'(present layer). Give
a remedy for it
then see what changes.Take the now present totality.
Then treat.
On and on.This is what is the MTEK method of SK
Bannerjee.

Strangely, if you reread the above, you will see that
the
totality is always a changing-relative one and never
absolute or
unchangeable. Like An obstinate child becoming tender.
Looking this
way one of my permanent puzzles seem to have been
somewhat
solved. I learned to hunt for what has to he cured and
what
accompanies it and what miasm it represents. You will
definitely
benefit from an Rx that comes out this was than the
Grand
Constitutional where the hits and misses abound.

I read only a small article by Will Taylor on
Eizayaga. Would love
to read more.
Would love this thread to continue.

Regards
Venkat

________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Mobile: Download the latest polyphonic ringtones.
Go to http://in.mobile.yahoo.com

Hi Venkat,

on 1/8/04 1:27 AM, J.VENKATA SUBRAMANIAN at apexpreci2000@yahoo.co.in wrote:
Who do you feel is prescribing without looking at "what has to be cured"? I
thought this was always the starting point, am I wrong???
According to my understanding, if the "totality is always a
changing-relative one", then you are taking too small a totality. Recall
that my definition included "the largest reliable totality that I can
perceive". "Totality" is a relative term -- you can have smaller totalities
(e.g. the totality of a local injury) or larger totalities (e.g. a lifetime
pattern -- which sometimes will be easily seen, tho not always). If someone
prescribes on "changing moods", they are doing only acute or situational
prescribing (at best) and have little hope of effecting any sort of deep
change, wouldn't you agree?

If you cast too large a totality (by lumping together symptoms that do not
properly belong together), you will either not find a remedy to fit them, or
will "squash" them into a remedy that does not really suit. (Also, you're
probably being too caught up in "effects" and not seeing what is running the
case, the more causative level?)
You shouldn't be repping "obstinate" or "affectionate" out-of-context.
Before including the rubric, you need to cast a wider net to see whether the
child is obstinate in *many* situations and areas, or only in specific ones
(in which case you might use something other than "obstinate"), etc. Unless
you're treating acutely anyway.
This sounds perfect to me. And the "what has to be cured" might be a
physical thing, or might be a "delusion" or etc., correct? In my
experience, identifying the right "what needs to be cured" can be the tricky
part... And knowing which of the "what accompanies it" should be eliminated
as "common symptoms", and which should be rated high as "individualizing".
At least, those are things I seem to have trouble with.
As you see it, what is the process of looking for the "Grand
Constitutional"?
Me too on both counts!
The subject of "which totality" is one that I am finding very, um,
thought-provoking.

Thanks for the thoughts!
Shannon

Dear Shannon,
You asked: As you see it, what is the process of
looking for the "Grand
Constitutional"?
This is the method being put forward by Dr Praful
Vijaykar
where the generals alone decide the remedy. The
particulars-
the locations-sensation and modalities are used up for

determining the miasm (here also generals are
considered).
One remedy for the totality of Generals and the mixed
miasmatic trait.

Try as I could, I could not succeed with this method.
May be
my shortcoming.

But my success rate zoomed once I concentrated on the
disease-
the' what has to be cured'. Here too, I was careful on
repetitions
lest I aid suppression. Boenninghausen method was the
sure shot
one to zero in on Rx that have the 'characteristis'.
Plus the
usual hunt for the peculiars.

Then the generals were considered. If a particular
agg/amel
was confirming with the man's general agg/amels, this
led me
into surer ground. Then the miasmatic nature of each
prescribing
sx was analysed (using standard works,of
Hn,Roberts,bannerjee,
choudury etc).

Now the Rx which comes out after all these processes
is the
LAYER REMEDY.If the pt had an itch , then coryza, then
diarrhea,
then knee pain, now glandular trouble, the
prescription
is only for glands.( with all the above formalities).

If the present layer is off, then the next layer must
show. Here, I have heard and in atleast one case have
seen,
the next layers showing and going off. I do not know
to explain it. But the vital force is strong enough
now
to throw of all underneath once it is stimulated.
************************************************************
your other question of a small totality within
totality
can be well explained as a layer of many layers. In
the
above case you cannot prescribe for the long past itch
when what you see is tonsilitis. If the patient was
intolrant then to cold and intolerant to heat now,
will
you not agree that the totality is changed ?

If kent had given his hierarchy of Symptoms and
emphasized
on the personalities, I have not seen this personality
oriented
prescription seriously practiced by him. At least his
cases show
that much. In the case of an invalid woman, when the
woman's
husband dies, he gives ignatia'to help her get over'.
**************************************
You also wrote:
"This sounds perfect to me. And the "what has to be
cured" might be a
physical thing, or might be a "delusion" or etc.,
correct? In my
experience, identifying the right "what needs to be
cured" can be the
tricky part...

What needs to be cured, as I understand, is the
ailment or the disease
for which the person comes to the doc.One ore more
completed symptoms
with loc-sens-mod we may get.The ailment can be
anything from to cold to
hysteria. We can safely say all abnormalities can be
taken as to be cured.
But all those predominant ones. Not the 'perceived'
one.
***************************************************************
You also wrote:
"And knowing which of the "what accompanies it" should
be
eliminated
as "common symptoms", and which should be rated high
as
"individualizing".
At least, those are things I seem to have trouble
with." :----
Identifying what is common and uncommon is what would
set apart
the ordinary doc to the intelligent. I have been told
that
knowledge of disease is vital here. Vomiting is common
to typhoid.
But intolerance of clothes is not. This is an easy
comparison.
But closer individualisation can be possible with some
comparative
mat medicas ( esp RH GROSS) eg he sys acon acts on
internal organs
whereas apis on external ones. This was a stunner to
me. Like wise
it goes on and on. Lilienthal will do great service
here: if you
go with the name of disease, and if you have a symptom
outside the
disease (or even if you are yet to see it) he will
point it out
and you can come out with one or two sure ones for
comparison.

This sums up the distance travelled by me in
Homeopathy.

Thanks for your questions, also await your further
dissection of the above.

Regards
Venkat

________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Mobile: Download the latest polyphonic ringtones.
Go to http://in.mobile.yahoo.com