Creating Waves of Awareness
APHORISM 6: § 6 Sixth Edition:
The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.1
1 I know not, therefore, how it was possible for physicians at the sick-bed to allow themselves to suppose that, without most carefully attending to the symptoms and being guided by them in the treatment, they ought to seek and could discover, only in the hidden and unknown interior, what there was to be cured in the disease, arrogantly and ludicrously pretending that they could, without paying much attention to the symptoms, discover the alteration that had occurred in the invisible interior, and set it to rights with (unknown!) medicines, and that such a procedure as this could alone be called radical and rational treatment.
Is not, then, that which is cognizable by the senses in diseases through the phenomena it displays, the disease itself in the eyes of the physician, since he never can see the spiritual being that produces the disease, the vital force? nor is it necessary that he should see it, but only that he should ascertain its morbid actions, in order that he may thereby be enabled to cure the disease. What else will the old school search for in the hidden interior of the organism, as a prima causa morbi, whilst they reject as an object of cure and contemptuously despise the sensible and manifest representation of the disease, the symptoms, that so plainly address themselves to us? What else do they wish to cure in disease but these?
After explaining how to investigate the Fundamental Cause, next Dr Samuel Hahnemann wants to explain what should be the actual approach of the Homoeopathic Physician for the same. He says that the Homoeopathic Physician should be the Unprejudiced Observer and totally unbiased. His memory should be empty so that he should not consider any medicine that may be in his mind until the whole case-taking is finished. Its quite a difficult thing to achieve, because we are reason and memory gifted human beings, but, these gifts create problems. We immediately start comparing the things that come into our minds, because of those gifts. If we are able to achieve the requested criteria to become unprejudiced, we could consider each case as a new one and individualization could be achieved perfectly. If one is able to achieve such a thing, his inner conscience develops to come to a truth.
The homeopath should find out what changes have taken place during the sickness of the patient. He should collect all this information from the patient, attendants and through his careful exact observation, which represents the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.
Hahnemann writes about the "Portrait of the Disease." What does he mean by portrait?
A portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face and its expression predominates. The intent is to display the likeness, personality, and even the mood of the person. For this reason, in photography, a portrait is generally not simply a snapshot, but a composition, an image of a person in a still position. A portrait often shows a person looking directly at the painter or photographer in order to most successfully engage the subject with the viewer. Naturally, if you are able to create a portrait of the disease, it will be easier to find out a similimum for it.
In the foot note, Hahnemann compares this homoeopathic methods with the allopathic system and criticizes their case-taking approach; specifically, the way they look inside the human being to find the Prima Causa Morbi. He further questions how they could possibly understand the cause of the disease without carefully attending to the sick? How, on the basis of common symptoms, can they possibly find out the unknown cause, since the basic cause of the disease is dynamic one?
Allopaths continue to find Material Causes as a Prima Causa Morbi inside the human being and try to remove it with the help of the unknown medicines. They call themselves rational practitioners of the healing arts. Hahnemann used the terminology "Unknown Medicine" because the allopathic drugs were not "proved" on human beings but on the animals. Naturally, their effects on the human being are unknown, again, since they were not proved on humans. Every time they enumerate different reactions which they consider side effects, but actually are the real effects of those medicines, they overlook the symptoms and look for something else. This aspect of the allopaths is criticized by Dr Hahnemann.
The case-taking process should be taken in the manner that Hahnemann teaches even today and that's why allopaths are not able to cure chronic diseases.