Truly Homoeopathic
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 11:57 am
This discussion is going nicely - I love it.
If we look at aph 3 we read: As part of what a person requires to be come a
homoeopath Hahnemann states:
"....... if he clearly perceives what is curative in medicines, that is to
say, in each individual medicine (knowledge of medical powers), ..."
In this perception, we have to understand and DIFFERENTIATE between the
primary and secondary powers of the materials we use.
So the idea is that we have to find what is curative in each medicine.
This we do MAINLY by proving.
In our repertories, elements have been allowed in based on the curative
powers of the remedy prescribed and not previously experienced during
provings.
For example -
A remedy is prescribed for a patient.
The patient then reports that he is very well and that for example his
athlete's foot - which he had not reported has also cleared up.
We look in the MM and the remedy is not listed under athlete's foot.
[By the way what is the rubric for Athlete's foot?]
If we are sure that the case has not been suppressed, then it would be fair
to add this remedy under Athlete's foot.
However, this inclusion needs to be done with great care because if
incorrect info is added, its rectification later is a very difficult task.
For this reason, some of the more suspicious colleagues refuse to work with
modern repertories. (But then there are errors in Kent's too)
A great deal of herbal remedies work contrary to the symptom so that
information should not be directly included in homoeopathy. That is to say
their REACTION is known. At the same time, some are perhaps unknowingly
prescribed based on their homoeopathic properties - eg the Peruvian bark
against malaria.
What we need to know is the ACTION of the substance on the healthy! We can
then use that with certainty as a tool to find the Similimum.
Rgds
Soroush
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
If we look at aph 3 we read: As part of what a person requires to be come a
homoeopath Hahnemann states:
"....... if he clearly perceives what is curative in medicines, that is to
say, in each individual medicine (knowledge of medical powers), ..."
In this perception, we have to understand and DIFFERENTIATE between the
primary and secondary powers of the materials we use.
So the idea is that we have to find what is curative in each medicine.
This we do MAINLY by proving.
In our repertories, elements have been allowed in based on the curative
powers of the remedy prescribed and not previously experienced during
provings.
For example -
A remedy is prescribed for a patient.
The patient then reports that he is very well and that for example his
athlete's foot - which he had not reported has also cleared up.
We look in the MM and the remedy is not listed under athlete's foot.
[By the way what is the rubric for Athlete's foot?]
If we are sure that the case has not been suppressed, then it would be fair
to add this remedy under Athlete's foot.
However, this inclusion needs to be done with great care because if
incorrect info is added, its rectification later is a very difficult task.
For this reason, some of the more suspicious colleagues refuse to work with
modern repertories. (But then there are errors in Kent's too)
A great deal of herbal remedies work contrary to the symptom so that
information should not be directly included in homoeopathy. That is to say
their REACTION is known. At the same time, some are perhaps unknowingly
prescribed based on their homoeopathic properties - eg the Peruvian bark
against malaria.
What we need to know is the ACTION of the substance on the healthy! We can
then use that with certainty as a tool to find the Similimum.
Rgds
Soroush
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]