New Publication
Homeopathy in Intensive Care
and Emergency Medicine
Homeopathy First Magazine
Best Vitamin C Drink 
Learn More With Caralyn 


Homeopathy World Community

Creating Waves of Awareness


Case 1:
A Case of Corn on a Palm
Case 2:
A Case of Pedunculated Wart on a Finger

In both cases Patient's version was SAME. Version means what patient says about his disease. Both Patient used very similar language in the same tone.
Patient's Version with Doctor:
Patient: Doctor, look at this. I am having this (Corn/ Wart) since long time. Is it curable with Homoeopathy?
Doctor: Why don't you told me regarding this previously? ( As both the patients were under my Homoeopathic treatment since long time for some ailments)
Patient: Doctor, I felt it will be settled by it's own. I have tried some local measures & I felt it will disappear. That's why I never told regarding it to you. Why this appears?

That's all I have considered for Repertorisation.
1. Light, Desire for: As described earlier, Light has multiple meanings in the dictionary & you can use this rubric with respect to all of them.
For e.g. Light means really a light i.e. opposite to darkness. So, if a person doesn’t know regarding anything, he is in dark about the same thing. If he wants to know regarding the same i.e. he wants to throw light up on it, you can consider the same rubric as described in the above case. He was in dark regarding the cause of her illness & he casually asked the question which indicates he wants to throw a light on it. If you are using this rubric, always find it out the casual approach of the patient for asking this question. Even if you don’t answer his question, it doesn’t matter. Here it differs from the rubric Inquisitive in which there is no casual approach & person waits for perfect answer or he needs the complete answer of the question. He goes on asking till he gets satisfied answer. If a person desires light in the same sense of light, you can consider the same rubric. If a person likes comedy movies just to enjoy coming out of the heavy stress, you can use the same rubric. If a person is obese & he wants to reduce his weight, you can consider him same rubric. In the similar manner, you can use not only this rubric but the entire rubrics using proper logic.
2. Delusions, Sheep, Driving: Aconite is the Single Remedy under this rubric. What does it means exactly? It was the question for me since long time. But as I have started learning RH aspect, I got the detailed meaning of such difficult looking rubrics.
Sheep's are such animals which walks looking down behind the first one. They don't have the sense whatever is going around them. They go on walking. The person who takes them just makes only certain voice or noise & these sheeps follow that without looking anywhere. It is not so difficult. In the similar manner, Patient feels that his disease is not so difficult & he can manage it by some simple measures as if he can manage the sheep's. He feel regarding the disease as if the sheeps are walking, his disease is also going on & on. चल रहा है, चलने दो।
In short, Delusion, Sheep, Driving means the Patient feels his disease is like a Sheep & he can manage it by some local means. He takes it so lightly.

In both cases I have prescribed Aconite 30 three doses, followed by placebos & both cases cured completely within 10 days. This happened first time because previously such one sided cases were most difficult task for me to get cured in my practice.
Understanding the meaning of the difficult Rubrics & Perceiving them in Patient's versions always make Homoeopathic Practice easy.

Thank You!

Views: 2419

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Dear Dr Gary & Dr Ravi,
I do agree with your own thoughts that one should not interpret the rubrics. I don't want to contradict your statements.
First, listen me carefully. I am a Homeopath & not a RH practitioner. I am practicing Homeopathy since 19 years with the Hahnemannian method only. Since last 3 years I came across RH aspect which I also find difficult because of my Scientific Mind working behind the reading & observing regarding the same. I was also making the same comment which you have done. But when I was listening again & again regarding the same, I made an attempt to experiment the same with my failure cases where I was stuck due to onesidedness of the cases or due to some other reasons. I have applied the same rubrics which I used to comment because of the feeling of the interpretation & I got the result. Then I started believing on them some what & experimented again & again in my regular cases with positive results. I am not following each & every word taught in the same school but I started thinking on the path to understand the patient's mind & it become very easy to understand the Dynamic Logic & Mind of the patient for me. When I made an attempt to understand the reality, I got the answer. Thereafter, I stopped commenting on any aspect because one cannot blame any thought if he practice Dynamic Science. In dynamics, one plus one can become one & not two as in Physical Science. One cannot deny any dynamic aspect because may be it can be possible at that specific time. If any one says, that Cure happened because of some divine power, you cannot deny because you also deals with the same Dynamic Vital Force & Dynamic Homoeopathy.
I don't want to argue with your statements. But what I want to say is first experiment after thorough understanding the different thoughts & if you feel it is wrong, don't follow. And if you feel satisfied, do follow.
From my point of view Scientific means: When repeated experiments shows the same result again & again, it is called as Scientific. Dynamic Homoeopathic Science is also found on the same path as well as Homoeopathic Proving.
If you find the same results with such aspect, from your point of view it becomes Scientific which is the relative terminology.
I think 'Thoughts' are more potent than the Physical Forces because they have the capacity to alter Human Dynamics because of the presence of Emotional Mind as well as Logic with Human being. Please, try to utilize some new thoughts with open mind. If you get result with them, do follow or deny. There is no compulsion for any one to follow & no one is an Authority in the field of Dynamics.
Sorry, for the explanation. But whatever is the truth present with me, I shared.
Thanks to both of You for your valuable comments because of which I tried to share certain things of Dynamics which I understood.

Dr Prasad...
Dr Prasad

From the outset, regardless of your thoughts pertaining to dynamics, the mind, dual possibilities, there is only ONE Materia Medica and ONE set of provings.

There is no need to interpret, broaden or facilitate the patient or compromise the integrity of the provings to accommodate what you are looking for in the patients words. There ARE ONLY THE PATIENTS SYMPTOMS.

Why are you looking for symptoms that are not there? Why have you placed the mind above symptoms of the disease as expressed? Why have you changed the true meaning of the provings?

Regardless, and I truly mean this, regardless of the efficacy of your methodology or not, It is not based on any scientific protocol or in line with the system as devised by HAhnemann upon which ALL true homoeopathic application of the principle is based.

Do you really believe that Hahnemann would not have used a broader and less rigid symptom interpretation in his day if it was acceptable? He did not use anything other than a careful matching as pertaining to the MM.

I thank you for sharing your observations. Yet cannot find a single homoeopathic scientific reason for adopting a change of approach.

best wishes.

Dear Dr Gary,
Many Thanks.
I want to discuss regarding the Grand Generalization aspect put forward by Dr Boenninghausen. From your point of view, is it also Unscientific? Because, certain modalities which are not shown by a particular part in proved Materia Medica's, we use to apply on the basis of this Generalization. Is it also wrong?
We have the data in Materia Medica shown by certain provers. If number of provers goes on increasing, definitely there will be new additions in the collected symptoms including new modalities, sensations, concomitants. At that time, we have to add that in our Materia Medicas. Same is true for Clinical Symptoms. We use to give importance to them also. Whether they are also Unscientific?
What I feel is Homeopath should be Psoric one to accept all the Idea's, Thoughts & experiment with them for their reality. He should not be Fixed Sycotic one, who is not ready to accept new things because of his Fixed Ideas. Then their is a possibility of evolution in our field. If we are fixed with the concepts put forward by past Homoeopaths only, then their will not be a evolution in our Science. Why Dr Hahnemann never remained fixed with the First Edition of the Organon of Medicine? Why there were Successive New Editions? Because, he was working every time with new concepts & experimenting to come to a truth & use to make change in his own wrong statements made earlier by him based on limited observations. Why don't we should not use the same path of working with new ideas, thoughts & experiment on them? Why is it necessary to depend ONLY on the work done by Past Homoeopaths? Why not to use our Intellect & Logic? Whether we are missing them? If the things are true, they will remain & if not, they will vanish.
Aude Sapere
Thank You very much & Sorry!
Dr Prasad...
Dr Prasad

There is a huge difference in applying analogy to a symptom or characteristic of a remedy to a location or expression of disease than taking a symptom and destroying the exact meaning of it occurrence and pathology. Clinical symptoms also broaden the scope of our understanding.

It can proven from the Materia Medica through our research, that the expressions of discharge from one area are the same as expressions of the same from another. This applies to skin eruptions, blood, modalities and many other aspects of provings.

Your gentle chiding of me using the faulty conception of miasmatic understanding, tells me that you really have not grasped an understanding of the realities of the Chronic diseases as proposed by Hahnemann, and indeed have walked the Kentian path without recourse to the original works. There is no similarity between the approaches. Without such fundamental learning, it is impossible for you to postulate a theory of advancement when you dont know what the base line is.
It is extremely disheartening to see a practitioner of your years experience move from a world of scientific application of the medical practice of homoeopathy and into a world of speculative theoretical twisting of collated medical symptoms as produced by drug action.

No Dr Prasad, there is no rigidity of ideas in my head in sticking dogmatically to a system because Hahnemann says so. I have some differences in understanding of medical application from him. However, I have these differences because I am aware of what he said through study and research and through application of his methodology. I know why some things work and why some dont through his writings, which are free from speculation and free from false insertions. They are his words and his results.

If you are unable to ascertain the patients symptoms as presented, without speculative insertion of psychological interpretive meanings from the accurate medicines of the Materia Medica, then you are no longer practicing the application of Hahnemannian medical therapy, regardless of your protestations to the contrary.

What you are doing is in direct conflict with Hahnemanns instructions for case taking and for case analysis. If the patient wants to tell you he or she is herding sheep, then that is what you expect to hear from them, not a post mortem dissection of the case where you change the symptoms and protocol to suit what can only a best be describes as a non scientific wild guess at a non provable mental state.

NO Dr Prasad, it is me that is sorry, sorry we are having this conversation, sorry the practice of homoeopathy has degenerated to such an un scientific and un medical position in the world. Mostly Im sorry that you will read this and continue thinking that you are correct.

Whether the practice of sensation or speculative changing of rubrics lives or dies, it has no bearing on the correctness of what you are doing. Whether a few patients benefit from it is all negated by the death of just one who deserved to be treated correctly, upon rational treatment lines and without deviation from matching the disease state with a remedy that fits from the Materia Medica.

Instead of thinking what you are doing is progress, why dont you go back and see what the real practice of homoeopathy should be according to Hahnemann. I think you will find there is enough there to keep you busy and progressing as a practitioner.

best wishes

Dear Dr Gary,

Dr Prasad...
Interesting Discussion.

Thanks Dr.Gary.

I here must quote one point of Dr.Prasad " If any one says, that Cure happened because of some divine power, you cannot deny because you also deals with the same Dynamic Vital Force & Dynamic Homoeopathy."

No Sir, homeopathy is not a science of faith/spiritualism or divine power. I strongly object over this statement.
In day to day practice we observe many patients who have not at all any faith in homeopathy but somehow forced to take our drug and become firm believer of this science.
If we will talk like this in today's era, we will be ridiculed by scientist.
One plus one will always be two in Homeopathy too.
Dear Dr Ravi,
Many Thanks!
If you are considering in Homoeopathy, there should be one plus one is equal to two, then you are considering only the material aspect of the human being & not the mental, emotional, logical dynamic one.

Let me explain what actually I want to explain thro' that sentence. When we are dealing with the live human being who is made up of material thing along with dynamic mind & logic along with vital energy, is it possible to tell/ show in a perfect manner that all the persons are going to react in very SIMILAR manner to a Similar Stimulus?

If there is a sudden noise, whether all the people will react in a very similar manner or whether there will be a different reaction depending on the individuality of the human being.
If all are going to show the very similar reaction, we can calculate & say scientifically that for the next time there will be the similar reaction & label that it is scientific. We can measure their force of reaction & can predict the same next time. Is it possible? Does this happens? Is it a reality?

But actual reality is there will be different types of reactions from different individuals depending on their constitutions, miasms, susceptibilities which one cannot count/calculate & expect from another group in future. Now can you label it as unscientific or the reality?

Now, tell me your statistical data of the fixed reaction so that we can say one plus one will be two.

Dear Sir, it will not possible to count dynamic vital force in a human being & label 1+1=2 due to dynamic emotions, mind & vitality. You cannot apply laws of the Physical Material Science to a Dynamic Science. If one starts applying those, there will definitely disputes & controversies. One must understand these aspects of the dynamic science.
Thank You!
Dr Prasad...
It doesnt happen
Dear members of this discussion,
The ultimate healer is the Creator. Our success in healing is through His hands, who empowers us to perform a helping mission and assist others. Through guided wisdom, understanding self and others, knowledge of plants, minerals, animals, and etheric forces [imponderables] enables us to do this work.

Your implication that there is an 'illogical' explanation that 1 + 1 = 1 and not two is the metaphor that their is something happening which we do not fully understand. Just as in a marriage between two persons, there is also a third party, that is G-d, who melds the two together, whether they have been divinely chosen for each other or some other explanation. Thus, the marriage of two separate beings creates one, as in creating a child. In a chemical reaction, we have an example of Calcarea-Sulph or other homeopathic remedies which combine two to form one unique entity or structure.

That mankind could actually 'know' the secrets of creation would be less than humble.

Thus, in your homeopathic work, you are taking into consideration the fact that there is more to it than purely material. And, I believe that Hahnemann himself says in the Organon that there is spirit in the practice of homeopathy, too.

No one implies that you must "believe" because that is blind faith. However, that there is such a thing as faith, cannot be denied once the practice of homeopathy demonstrates successful healing.
Incorrect postulation Dr Prasad.

A remedy is given for the ability to cause symptoms. In an individual.
There is no such thing as a group remedy. It is given to an individual for individual exhibition of disease...period. (prophelaxis on another principle)..However the proving remains constant and unchangeable... only the individual patients state fluctuates until we find the match.

Based on this matching, it is more so VITAL to not alter or interpret the meaning of words, and imperative to match actual symptoms precisely without speculation. Based on morbid altered symptoms only, not personality.

The creator has put the principle of Like cures like into his creation, but it is still the honest practitioner that bears the responsibility for the matching if he or she takes on the occupation of health advisor.

Leave Gods works to God. He gave us the principle and he gave us people who did the hardest part of proving the symptoms in times gone by. Lets not damage their work or the ability to heal others with irrational pop psychology and non scientific whimsical mentalizations of interpretive speculation. For without it being a proving as is, its a fallacy and not part of a medical practice.
Aren't we part of G-d's work?

He gave us homoeopathy to help ourselves. Other wise he would do the curing himself. The least the very least we can do is honour the principles and not dilute the application.

We have the responsibilty of applying a medical practice. Lets not make it Gods fault when our failures are because we didnt follow the rules... saying its all in Gods hands and being sloppy does not cut it. Neither does teaching what we dont know or misapplying spiritual beliefs and mixing them in with this therapy.

Kent did that with Swedenborgian interpretation and changed the face of homeopathy away from what it should be. Should we allow Jewish, Moslem or Christian beliefs and practices to modify or influence what we SHOULD be learning and doing before we can truly all agree on what homoeopathy is?

Leave Gods things to God and let us do our part with the knowledge he allowed us have.

What a miasm is, a miasmatic infection, a chronic disease, a one sided disease, what do we treat first, how do we treat, what is pre disposition, what is a genetic disorder, what can be cured etc etc? If you think you know this and only have been taught in college based on Kent then YOU DONT KNOW what Hahnemann taught. YOU DONT KNOW what is in line with modern medical thinking about health and disease. YOU DONT KNOw what HAhnemann meant by Vital Force, YOU DONT KNOW what he meant by dyscrasia and by constitution etc etc....

We need to leave aside our assumptions and beliefs and learn the truth about this law of the universe called homoeopathy and not try to pin it down with our own overlay of religious filters. It exists like gravity, its part of the creation and for all that.. it exists... end of story.... there is no magic in it. Follow the principles and what can be restored will be restored to health if the organism is able to be stimulated. A patient or practitioner does not to need to have a religious viewpoint to accept its benefits. Like gravity, it works and works well until you go against its parameters.. walk off a cliff and gravity will show its immutable boundaries. Mess with wrong potencies, wrong medicines and mismanage the case and homeopathy will show you its boundaries.

We need to get back on track here and discuss the realities of the therapy and be grateful for its existence. I dont need to accept your beliefs as you dont need to accept mine in applying ourselves to the discipline. As we apparently cannot even agree on the basics for practicing homoeopathy then we have absolutely no chance with spirituality.... ever.... and homeopathy has everything written by its founder.. the least read books in any medical discipline.

there is nothing more I can say on the subject of interpretation or speculation. It will continue and the world will suffer for it. Why dont practitioners who alter symptoms just go and prove the remedies again and see if Aconite EVER produces a desire for knowledge or want to herd sheep?

Why do the majority of practitioners sit idly by and allow this to happen? Has this false teaching infiltrated the schools and colleges so far that the practice of our therapy is now almost dead? Actually thinking about it... it was nearly gone before Hahnemann passed away...

There are fewer and fewer practitioners I can recommend with the passing of the years around the world who practice according to the scientific application of the direction in the Organon.

sheesh,,,, is that Gods work? or is it our folly?


HWC Partners


© 2019   Created by Debby Bruck.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...