Moved from thread on study of materia medica.
Two themes that are running parallel:1. Place of newer trends in homeopathy focusing primarily on mental side (symptoms, state, central delusion)
2.Unprejudiced Observation is the essential condition (attitude) defined for physician by the founder. But it seems to have been taken for granted by successive generations of homeopaths that if you are a homeopath you become unprejudiced observer. There has never been a school in homeopathy that facilitates experiential dropping of prejudice. Most of the teachers have exclusively focused on passing concepts and theories.
- Why we need more now when we have enough from masters and stalwarts?
- Is it sensible to leave the obvious (objective physical) in pursuit of conceptual central delusion or essence?
- Are there some protocols and guidelines to prevent whimsical provings and listings being added and confusing the trustworthy repertories from the masters?
Relevant postings from other thread are pasted below.All are welcome to participate.
Jonathan Shore MD had posted this paper Salt of Essence:
Full paper is attached as a world document, at the bottom of this post.
He responded further to Dr Nikhil and Manoj:My primary teacher was George Vithoulkas who I believe it is fair to say was a Kentian - that is in the lineage of Hering and Kent. Thus I have had little exposure to the methods of Boger or Boenninghausen.Dr. Nikhil has written“the concept of central delusion is just one part of the drug..and one way of understanding the remedy...but it seems people are looking it as the only way of understanding the remedy.” Of course this is the problem, not the idea of central delusion, rather the fact of considering that there is only one path to understanding.The way I picture the situation is as if we have a bunch of keys, quite a few keys in fact, and each case is a lock to be opened. Now in the beginning the keyhole may be quite large and we have to go through all the keys, big and small, to see which one fits. After years of practice one begins to recognize the type of lock and finds the suitable key in a
much more rapid fashion.
Reasoning from these principles the necessity of a solid foundation, a well built and coherent structure on top of that and an appreciation of the need for a long and careful study to master a discipline which has the possibility of producing such incredible transformations in people. To put it another way, the price of such possibilities is high and demands a corresponding suffering on the part of the practitioner.Now having said all this there is another principle which I feel is really important - I can make these demands on myself, and on any who volunteer for the process but I have no right and cannot make this demand on anyone else. People are going to do what they do according to their level of understanding and ability.In this time there is so much information, so much data, so much intellectual knowledge that it would appear that this has actually resulted in the problem of attention deficit disorder. All this flood of information is taken as having equal value, that is, there is no
structure, no hierachy which can distinguish which information is more valuable, is closer to the center, or to the truth. Thus people cannot discriminate, either with their minds or their feelings which information has been arrived at through careful and conscientious study, and which has just appeared through happenstance and may or may not be connected to something solid.Now there are many who disagree with my methods of prescribing, who feel they have better answers for the situation and so on. I have no interest in convincing anyone of the error of their ways, of setting them right, of proving that, in fact, my methods are the right ones and so on.What I am interested in is, as I have been doing, in making my views public so that if there is someone else who resonates with this, who has a similar approach, then we can converse and share the facts of our experience.One other point for Dr Nikhil who wrote“ the idea is to find the imprint of the physical sensation or complaint in the mind...”Actually as a vitalist, as one who takes the primacy of the vital force as a guiding principle, I would put it exactly oppositeThe idea is to find the imprint of the mind in the physical sensation or complaint.Thus the establishment of the underlying attitude which informs the decisions, hopes, fears and ultimately the simple, small everyday choices of the individual is to be searched for as the primary goal. The verification that this goal has been reached is to be found in the imprint of these energies on the physical body, that the physical
symptoms correspond to this pattern, form one whole.Of course this is the ideal and one needs to accept and take what one is given, but for me this is the measure, this is what I strive for.I think it might be possible to have further dialogue on this, as long the discrimination between what is theory and what is the experience of our practice is kept clearly in mind.Manoj wrote:
Every great teacher has talked about it but no one actually teaches you to be unprejudiced observer!Of course there is so much that can be said about this. What I have to add here just barely scratches the surface, and at the same time goes to the heart of the matter in relation to the lack of unity inside modern manI do not believe it is possible to be unprejudiced in just one area of one’s perceptions and hold all sorts of prejudices and judgements in other areas of ones life, both outer in relation to others, and inner in relation to oneself. Thus to be without prejudice, to exercise discrimination yet not judge implies a very high level of moral/spiritual development which we may strive for without having much expectation of ever achieving.Another way of looking at the question is that true impartiality might be one indicator of true health. ( health is not to be defined as the absence of certain energies but rather as the presence of energies of a certain quality )
Dr Nikhil Kambli's response:@Jonathan Shore MD" the idea is to find the imprint of the physical sensation or complaint in the mind...”by this i imply to find the pathology and the pathogenesis at the physical level and representation at mentaleg: broncho constriction in asthma at physical level to find the corresponding level of constriction with the onset of complaint either due to physical or mental stress at the level of mind irritation at the level of skin ..to find the corresponding irritation at the level of mind.and to study the pathogenesis through and through here
1. most of the patients come to us with physical complaints and most of them are unaware of what homeopathy is... so they are more definite in describing physical symptom
2.with the diagnosis in hand we can actually find.the pathogenesis of disease again objective and definite.
Thank you Dr Nikhil for your response. Yes, I think it is not so helpful to insist on one direction or the other - whether we look for the mind in the body or the body in the
We have to begin with what we are given. In the end it is the pattern of symptoms, their very coexistence in a single place ( the patient) that is the main unarguable fact.
Even though it does seem obvious, could you please give me a concrete example or two, that is expand on what you have already indicated regarding "“ the idea is to find the imprint of the physical sensation or complaint in the mind...” just so I can be sure that I have understood your thought. Thanks for you willingness to continue these conversations
Manoj responds to Jonathan:
I would like to engage further in the dialogue, in the spirit of mutual inquiry.
I personally resonate with what you say about information explosion and attention deficit disorder. 15 years ago, my inner discontentment brought me to taste and test homeopathy. It was an inner drive for a meaningful process that is more than just arbitrary intellectual interventions of western medicine. Homeopathy tasted just right for a thirsty soul and tested as a far superior approach of health care.
But there were so many contemporary teachers on the scene, and so much information and clamouring that I needed a break to maintain personal sanity. My felt sense was that all the information is not equal.
I was struck by the demand to be unprejudiced that Hahnemann puts before any worthy homeopath. I realized that unless one brings sanity and unity to one's own confused and fragmented life one can not be honest in his healing venture. I think, that since then, I have been an ardent student of this self dynamics.
I understand that if I am not free of judgment and prejudices in other more private areas of life, it is not possible to be unprejudiced while taking a case.
Hahnemann cautions the homeopathic practitioner to be unprejudiced and of sound senses to truthfully portray the deviation in vital force ie totality of disease. If I am not free of my opinions, theories and experiences, then, all i will do is to impose my systems, theories and designs on what is given to us.
I sense your humility in stating that you can make these demands on yourself and on someone who volunteers for the process but not on anyone else. I bow down before your wisdom to leave it to personal discrimination of everyone to choose what feels right. You experience freedom once you make your stance public.
But, I am really wondering why people do what they do, as you are saying that they will do what they do according to their understanding and ability.
Do they exhaust their ability by doing what they do? Or, their ability (potential) remains untapped when they don't question their own ways and beliefs?
I think we need to initiate a different thread as we have strayed quite beyond the bounds of materia medica. Could you come up with a suitable title and paste the relevant material from this one into the new thread and then I can respond there ?