REPEATING THE DOSE. _{Page 2 of 2}

Dear Maheeru, there were no 'racial overtones' in my comment, as they were not directed at the Indian race, but Indian Homoeopaths and were merely an expression of an opinion based on my own experience, and that of many others.

...and of course any remark is only slanderous if it is not true.


-Jacob.

Dear Rajiv, thankyou, as an Indian, for your honesty. Only a wise man would not let his own ethinicity cloud his judgement of the truth, and as agreed above, there have indeed been many fine contributions made to classical Homoeopathy by Indian writers.

Best wishes.


-Jacob.

Dear Maheeru,

First of all accept my greetings.I really agree with you that with time and new life circumstances (more stress with greater industrialization, mechanised life, competition as a way of life, pollution, food laden with chemicals, pesticides, new diseases, new miasms (e.g. cancer and AIDS) etc. etc.), there are bound to be changes in homeopathy.But that is life.Change is teh name of the game.But then, we have to ask 'Changing what and to achieve what end?' We need to be careful not to throw the baby with the bathwater.In homeopathy, we can never throw away the Organon and say that it is no longer relevant as the world has changed.What it records and propounds is the law of homeopathy, and other issues like posology, importance of vital force, basis of disease, basis of cure, direction of cure, maintaining causes of disease etc.In the Organon too, there are certain things that may perhaps change with time.Even intuitively, one can understand by realizing that Hanneman himself revised it five times.Who is to say if he lived for another 3o years, he would not have revised it further?

He was experimenting all his life and trying to perfect his system.But as you know, perfection is always an ideal for which we strive, it is perhaps never attainable.But we have to constantly improve, and for that experimentation, sharing the results of those experiments with the world, exposing these experiments to the most stringent scientific methods, and above all demonstrating the efficacy of these methods in the clinic is what is always required and welcome.Indian homeopaths have certainly contributed a lot in this direction and so have others.In fact, a homeopath should not be conscious of his nationality too much.The human system remains the same all over the world and every human responds to homeopathic remedies.A law has no exception.

Of course, if sequential homeopathy can cure some supposedly incurable disease, it becomes a part of our arsenal.What is teh harm in that?Nothing.I will cite the example of Burnett, a great homeopath, who combined his knowledge of organotherapy with classical homeopathy to perform hundreds of miracles in hopeless cases.But, then Burnett's contribution became a part of our literature.Our understanding improved.Organopathy is very much a part of homeopathy today.Isn't it?

Similarly, whenever a new improvement comes, like what Rajan Sankaran is doing today, if it demonstrates its efficacy in the clinic over along period of time across countries and cultures, then obviously it becomes another glorious chapter in the history of homeopathy.

I personally like to experiment a lot and do not believe in orthodoxy.But at the same time, one cannot weaken the foundation of a building if one wishes to add more glorious and beautiful storeys to it.I hope you will agree with me.

Rajiv

Dear Maheeru, of course it is not SOLELY Indian Homoeopaths who are to blame for such deviations, and I did not assert this was the case, but it is certainly Indian Homoeopaths who have made such deviations more acceptable. NO other country in the world has adopted Homoeopathy in the same way India has, and as such it is only logical that Indian Homoeopaths have had the most to say on the subject, by way of the written word, and most of this DOES deviate from original doctrine. The loudest collective voice which speaks untruth will always be to blame, it is the nature of things...


-Jacob.

One other thing I negelected to comment on...

Personally, as a classical Homoeopath, I do not believe in the use of Tissue salts or sarcodes, and in my opinion, in the MAJORITY of cases, such things are resorted to only by those who cannot achieve results by sticking to original doctrine, BUT, such things will always be needed for those whom full cure by classical methods is not possible (which occurs for a variety of reasons, and is actually becoming more common with each suceeding generation), and in such circumstances I will myself make the patient as comfortable as I possibly can, but this is the ONLY circumstance such things should be used, and not simply for want of understanding of classical methods, which is why they are prescribed in the majority of cases today.

Also, such modern nosodes as Candida and Influenza etc do NOT go against classical Homoeopathy at all, they are as much part of miasmatic theory as Psora Tuberculosis, Syphilis and Sycosis to those who understand the true nature of such things.

Oh...and on a general note, I see our 'learned brother' above, has again 'skillfully' avoided confirming an early comment he made...


-Jacob.

Dear Jacob and Rajiv

I'm not for changing the basic philosophy. I merely pointed out the inaccuracies I found in earlier posts that went on to support classical(which is a grey area and means differnt for different people) but went overboard.

Its a bit inconsistency to state tissue salts are not classical and to include it for beneficial effects. I m not against tissue salts and I use these things wholeheartedly. But what about those who dont use tissue salts? Those puritanicals will blame people who support tissue salts for being pseudo homeopaths.

Some strictly trained homeopaths not even include nosodes in their prescribing terming its non-homeopathic because they are not scientific and not well proven(Infact the main rubric of tuberculinum: desires to travel places was proved in 2 year old child which may have exhibited its childish behaviour). Currently I dont have the reference. They term people using nosodes pseudo homeopaths.

Rajiv blames Kent for not being Hahnemanian; Jacob blames Boericke for not being classical. Its highly inconsistent because they slightly interpreted the philosophy in their own. Will you also blame Clarke for prescribing pencillinum for syphilis and urged homeopaths to take cognisance of allopathic sophisticated methods wherever required. You keep analysing like this and Jacob and Rajiv will become pseudo classical and will loose authority to speak on what is classical? what is not?

There may be differences in repertorizing? Kent places mental symptoms secondary while most other take mentals as primary. Also his philosophy says miasms are reasons of sins? Then how will you explain pathetic souls suffering from Muscular dystrophy? What do we say who is classical here? who is not?

Its one thing to cross check the reckless prescriptions prescribed over here and making them to adhere proper methods and its another thing to blanket ban all others who slightly differ from own ideology as pseudo homeopaths.

Hi Pankaj

60 books, and you feel it is a great treasure. : (

I own 150 books, and another 300 are there in my software.

So, at last you agree you have no references as such.

Coming to the question of insults, who started all this?

It all started with your 'He He he' comment.

Do you expect me to lie low when you start insulting me and comment on my lack of confidence and feeling of inadequacy?

What do you know about me to make such personal comments?

Look back, and see who started all this.

Anyway, it is good for the patients here at ABC.

I am going to dissect most of the prescriptions, provided time permits.

Try to defend your prescriptions, if you can.

Murthy

Dear Maheeru,

'Rajiv blames Kent for not being Hahnemannian'.It is not a blame.Let me explain again.

Kent was one of the greatest homeopaths who ever lived.Period.No doubts about that.But it is a historical fact that the 5th edition of Organon was available in his life time.For a long time before he died.But, he never tried to test or record the results of his tests with the remedy dissolved in water repeated more frequently (based on necessity of course) as compared to the dry dose method of 4th edition Organon and before.This failure on his part coupled with his fame and stature as the greatest homeopath of his time, and his voluminous writings insured that Homeopathy was stuck at the level of the 4th Edition Organon.

So, Kent was Hahnemannian, but Hahnemann of the 4th edition Organon.Not the Hahneman of the 5th and 6th editions.The 6th edition was published way after his death.So, we cannot blame him for not using the LM potencies.But, it is a historical fact that Kent disregarded the teachings of 5th edition of Organon w.r.t. posology.It is one of the sad reasons for Homeopathy's subsequent decline after Kent's death in US.

I hope, now i have made myself much more clear.

Rajiv

Dear Maheeru.

The term 'Classical' is not a grey area at all, nor is it open to interpretation. All the information one needs to understand and practice the true, classical way, is within the pages of the Organon 6 and Hahnemann's other works. Differences of opinion only arise from those who have failed to understand these works, and therefore failed to understand how CERTAIN other authors have developed these principles further, WITHIN the basic classical framework.

'Its a bit inconsistency to state tissue salts are not classical and to include it for beneficial effects.'
RE: Tissue salts, why is this an inconsistency? Are tissue salts prescribed upon the totality of symptoms, one at a time, and in single dose until the reaction of the patient is ascertained? They are not.

'Those puritanicals will blame people who support tissue salts for being pseudo homeopaths.'
Which they are, and for the reasons given above. Tissue salt therapy is NOT Homoeopathy, Potentized substances are used, but the similarity ends there.

'Some strictly trained homeopaths not even include nosodes in their prescribing terming its non-homeopathic'
Then these people also have not understood the basic principles, and therefore have failed to understand their use as a further progression of original theory. Lack of understanding of Homoeopathy does most DEFINITELY not stop at non-classical Homoeopaths.

'Rajiv blames Kent for not being Hahnemanian; Jacob blames Boericke for not being classical.'
Boericke was not classical, for the reasons I have stated elsewhere. Conversely, Kent of course was NOT strictly Hahnemannian, but he WAS classical, because he further developed the subject based only on the founding principles. Again, it boils down to understanding these basic principles, and thus being able to discern between what is a PROGRESSION of classical doctrine, and what is detraction.

Kent said mental symptoms were only secondary symptoms? not as explained at the begining of the repertory I have! And of course, his dogmatic 'religeous beliefs' were his ony real fault, but even these brought a new element to Homoeopathy, and one which I myself have very much taken on board and incorporated in my own forthcoming work (although without the religeous dogma). AGAIN it boils down to properley understanding the original text, and being able to discern what is of value and what is not, and whether certain assertions of others require 'fine tunning' as it were, in line with original doctrine.

I myself follow no ONE Homoeopath blindly, not even Hahnemann, I only accept that which I KNOW to be true through my own experiences, but I have found almost everything asserted by Hahnemann to be so.

The reason this whole debate began, which I am quite aware I initiated (or at least this round!), appears to have become lost in petty argument and the introduction of other subjects, so to get it back on track:
I have absolutely NO problem with Homoeopaths who eperiment with their own methods and modes of prescribing in order to further the Knowledge base of true Homoeopathy, as long as this is within the basic framework of Homoeopathic doctrine. What I DO have issue with, is those who are blatantly disregarding ALL of the most very basic of principles, and still claim to be practicing Homoeopathy, which they are not.

The basic principles of true Homoeopathy, as laid down by Hahnemann, are:

1/. Only ONE remedy at a time based on TOTALITY, and this does NOT just mean at a particular time of day, week or month, it means throughout the entire treatment with a specific remedy, which may go on for some time.
2/. Non repetition of dose until the reaction of the patient has been properley ascertained.
3/. Increase potency/reapply the remedy ONLY once curative reaction from a previous potency/dose has ceased.
4/. Only change this ONE, SINGLE remedy once the original complaint is no longer helped by the initial prescription, and/or when symptoms have changed.

THESE are the four basic principles of TRUE Homoeopathy, which therefore form the BASIS of classical Homoeopathy (which is this, and a lot more besides), and NONE of these principles are being applied by the majority on this forum.

THAT is the issue, not whether this person is classical or that person isn't, the above are the very essence of ALL Homoeopathic prescribing, and if these principles are not being adhered to, then one is NOT practicing true Homoeopathy, it's that simple.


-Jacob.

Dear Jacob

My points have been misunderstood.