Minutus

Hi Soroush,
I applaud your energy, willingness and articulateness in responding to some
of the the critics of homeopathy. However, I feel that directing people to
the journals and all the cured cases might be more effective than
recommending they participate in provings. I have participated in a number
of seminar provings, and the response to the proving remedy ranges from
incredible sensitivity, with a few people bringing out many, many symptoms,
to those who feel no difference at all. It is as if the remedy goes right
through them. Once when I was having very strong proving symptoms, feeling
completely "taken over" by the remedy state, I mentioned my experience to a
colleague in my office. He said he felt as dense as a rock or a piece of
wood, and didn't feel the effect of provings or other energy medicine. If
the critics are like this, participating in provings would only confirm
their opinion that homeopathy is mere quackery.

This seems to come back to the point I have been making in recent messages
about people clinging to their common sense conceptions, and being unable to
let them go enough to perceive a reality beyond those conceptions. This
being the case, I wonder if any argument, however cogent and compelling,
will change their minds. I'd rather give my energy to those who are drawn
to homeopathy, and work on the "Hundredth Monkey" effect. Maybe I'm not
being optimistic enough, though. I just hope you don't feel frustrated and
discouraged if you don't convince any of these negative people--they seem to
have a real need to prove homeopathy wrong.

Warm wishes,
Charlotte

Dear Charlotte

I understand your point.

However, my point was to challenge these cowards.

You see, they say there is NOTHING in Hom remedies.

If that is so, then why do they all refuse to take part in the proving. One
said yesterday, because he thought it might harm him. So I went back and
said that in your last mail you said it was just WATER. So how can water
harm you?

Did not hear anything from him!!

And you never know, if they take part in a proper proving it may stimulate
their body and mind. However, I think they would probably be rejected for a
proving as they would probably have too many symptoms.
======
How was a seminar proving done and how close was it to Hn's proving
instructions?
======
Keep on at it and good healing.

Soroush

> I applaud your energy, willingness and articulateness in responding to
some
to

Hi Charlotte, Soroush

On the contrary, I think Soroush scored a *very* valuable point with this
suggestion. This person was unwilling to meet the challenge because *he
wasn't going to take something that could harm him*, so Soroush pointed out
that he couldn't have it both ways. Indeed!!

I've said this before, but I think a lot of these detractors can be as
effectively disarmed by demonstrating to them the emotional, rather than
rational, basis for their opinions as by any number of pieces of evidence in
homeopathy's favour. Since very little of the evidence is completely
unequivocal, those who have an emotional investment in denying homeopathy's
effectiveness will always focus purely on the aspects of each study that
introduce an element of doubt.

We are dealing with a position based on emotion here, not rationality, and
as Soroush so beautifully demonstrated, one primarily informed by FEAR. To
accept that homeopathy is valid necessitates discarding a rigidly
materialistic world view. This scares many people ****less.

Regards
Wendy

Dear Wendy, Shoroush, Charlotte,

I have appreciated a number of points presented to date. But Iwould like to add a piece of perspective of my own. The emotional piece is not simply a fear based one of 'new' ideas. I believe that we are dealing with a 'faith' based problem. We are asking people to give up a conditioning based on pure faith. And we know that rational thinking will not shake core belief systems. The public has been cajoled, patronized and bullied into trusting western science & medicine. I find people frightened of going against such a strong authoritarian system that has the full support of the law behind it. Take the issue of enforced vaccinations. Many people today are questioning the efficacy and safety of them. However, the law states that they must do this to their children. Schools wont allow children in without a record of vaccinations. The public is not only not informed of their right to refuse, but blatently lied to when people raise this point. It takes a very strong-minded person to stand up to such large and powerful institutions. The owner of a health food store in my town says he doesnt like to vaccinate his children but he doesn't want to create 'bad' feelings in the town. So he will sacrifice his children's health for his popularity. Implicit in his position is a concern for the economic health of his business.

So this brings us to the next major point behind this faith-based resistence. Big bucks. I am sure we all know the astronomical amount of income that comes from the use of allopathic pharmaceuticals, administered through the medical profession. There was a major political power struggle at the end of the 19c-beg of the 20c waged by the relatively new allopathic medical societies. And they won.

These are the biggest factors we face in trying to convince people to switch their thinking. I do support using emotional based approaches as well as intellectual information because that is the only way that people will begin to make real changes. The classic examples are the people who come to homeopathy with a sick child or loved one, after trying everything that allopathy has to offer. It is only after finding relief of the problem, visibly demonstrated, that they begin to convert their thinking. I cant begin to count the number of people like this that I met in classes early on in my training.

Perhaps my views are a bit strong for some. I do speak from and American experience and have struggled with the same issues as others have been presenting.

Sincerely,

Tanya

On the question of legal requirement for vaccination, Viera who gave the
talk to us on Vaccination said that in Australia the Schools wont allow
children in without a record of vaccinations. However, the record may show
that the child HAS NOT been vaccinated!!!!!!
All it is, is a record of vaccination - if any.

She said that many read it that the child had to be vaccinated. This was not
true.

It seems to be running against the US constitution and basic freedoms if
someone can force someone else to take medication they do not want (whilst
being of sound mind of course).

Any legal buffs there please??

Soroush