homeopathy@homeolist.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
homeopathy-request@homeolist.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
homeopathy-owner@homeolist.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of homeopathy digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: LMs (homeolist@otherhealth.com)
2. Re: LMs (homeolist@otherhealth.com)
3. Re: Sankaran Sensation method (V.T. Yekkirala)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:26:27 +0000
From: homeolist@otherhealth.com
Subject: Re: [H] LMs
To: homeopathy@homeolist.com
Message-ID: <ckurz7000.4pokwb@no-mx.otherhealth.com>
Irene de Villiers;87195 Wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2011, at 10:39 AM, homeolist (AT) otherhealth (DOT) com
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I use LMs in about 80% of my chronic cases. I have been using
> > conventional Kentian C-scale potencies before for many years. What
> > made
> > me give the LMs a serious try was simply that they are Hahnemann's
> > last
> > and latest improvement to the area of potencies,
>
> I would perhaps have been more impressed with LMs if Hahnemann had
> used them consistently after he developed them. But even he was not
> satisfied and went back to using C's and combinations of C's and
> LMs.......per his Paris case books............ though he was a
> typical Sulfur in firmly pushing his LMs in the 6th Organon:-)
>
> Credit to Hahnemann, in my book, goes for *continuing to try* to find
> better and better potency options. He did not have time to find the
> best answer..... what he did achieve is phenomenal - it is hard to
> comprehend the magnitude of this one man's work in a single lifetime.
> But potency never did get resolved... except for the need to be in
> aqueous solution for best effect.
>
> Namaste,
> Irene
> --
> Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
> P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
> 'www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html'
> (http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html) (Veterinary
> Homeopath.)
> "Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
Hi Irene,
I don't believe that regarding potency there is anything to "resolve"
but rather continually improve. And it is here that I would like to
lodge a bit of criticism with the homeopathic community: many people
have opinions about LM potencies without the benefit of personal
experience.
I just simply believe that before venturing beyond Hahnemann's practice
we should at least be able to reproduce his last results accurately and
faithfully. In other words: you can't move beyond something unless
you've "been there and done that".
The only justification for my opinion about LM potencies is my own
experience with them and contrasting that to my own experience with C
potencies. Hahnemann was continually working to make homeopathy a more
and more individualized therapy. LM potencies are a big step in that
direction and offer more individualized control over the posological
regime. So now I not only have to be precise in the selection of the
remedy, I also have to individualize the potency, the potency
progression, the dilution, the dose and the frequency of repetition.
-- Chris.
--
ckurz7000
------------------------------------------------
Chris Kurz
If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
"Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ckurz7000's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=7278
View this thread: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=11481
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 07:55:07 +0000
From: homeolist@otherhealth.com
Subject: Re: [H] LMs
To: homeopathy@homeolist.com
Message-ID: <ckurz7000.4ppgub@no-mx.otherhealth.com>
Shannon Nelson;87199 Wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Have you by any chance read or experimented with the Fibonacci series
> potencies, per Joe Rozencwajg's articles and book? It is fascinating!
>
> Shannon
No, not yet. I am familiar with the Fibonacci numbers in a mathematical
context but not in a homeopathic one. Can you tell me what your
experience is with them?
-- Chris.
--
ckurz7000
------------------------------------------------
Chris Kurz
If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
"Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ckurz7000's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=7278
View this thread: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=11481
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 02:34:04 -0600
From: "V.T. Yekkirala" <vtyekkirala@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [H] Sankaran Sensation method
To: <pb000014@mweb.co.za>, <japala50@yahoo.com>, homeo list
<homeopathy@homeolist.com>
Message-ID: <SNT125-W15633C54A64E249FFB462EA6DD0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear Paul ,
You wrote:
If it is flawed, surely an intelligent argument can be put forward to debunk it.
In respect of Sankaran's Vital Sensation method, homeopaths fall into two
categories; those who just adore it and those who vehemently decry it. The
former subconsciously entertain an iota of doubt that it is flawed and feel the
need to go on voicing their approval of this method, while the later similarly
have a doubt that it may be true afterall and so they too give expression
at the least provocation.
I believe, you and I don't fall into either of these categories and I have no
inclination to continue beyond what I have already expressed in this matter.
case taking is a process of multi-sensorial inputs not necessarily confined to
the visual and auditory cues and if you believe that Sankaran's method is
helping you and your patients, who am I to dislodge this vital tool from your
armamentarium and deprive your patients of the benefit that they are getting.
Since you mentioned " Now, whether this method is acceptable to teach
students, one can easily see it is not appropriate at all. It relies on the inate
gift of that individual...." and I believe many homeopaths are of average
intelligence like me, I felt that I should share my experience on this list, so
that a few, if any on this list of my calibre, do not go about wasting their time
and resources on this method.
Regarding how homeopathic drugs cure, Hahnemann wrote a very apt and precise
explanation and I believe it to be true . I am reproducing it here from his
Chronic Diseases Volume1. (vide Preface to the 4th Edition).
regards,
V.T.Yekkirala.
As I have elsewhere shown, it is undeniable, that our vital force, without the assistance of active remedies of human art, cannot overcome even the slight acute diseases (if it does not succumb to them) and restore some sort of health, without sacrificing a part (often a large part) of the fluid and the solid parts of the organism through a so-called crisis. How our vital force effects this, will ever remain unknown to us; but so much is sure, that this force cannot overcome even these diseases in a direct manner, nor without such sacrifices. The Chronic Diseases, which spring from miasms, cannot be healed unaided, even by such sacrifices, nor can real health be restored by this force alone. But it is just as certain, that even if this force is enabled by the true (homoeopathic) healing art, guided by the human understanding, to overpower and overcome (to cure) not only the quickly transient but also the chronic diseases arising from miasms in a direct manner and without such sacrifices, without loss of body and life, nevertheless, it is always this power, the vital force, which conquers. It is in this case as with the army of a country, which drives the enemy out of the country; this army ought to be called victorious, although it may not have won the victory without foreign auxiliaries. It is the organic vital force of our body which cures natural diseases of every kind directly and without any sacrifices, as soon as it is enabled by means of the correct (homoeopathic) remedies to win the victory. This force would not, indeed, have been able to conquer without this assistance; for our organic vital force, taken alone, is only sufficient to maintain the unimpeded progress of life, so long as man is not morbidly affected by the hostile operation of forces causing disease.
Unassisted, the vital force is no match to these hostile powers; it hardly opposes a force equal to the hostile operation, and this, indeed, with many signs of its own sufferings (which we call morbid symptoms). By its own power, our vital force would never be able to overcome the foe of chronic disease, nor even to conquer transient diseases, without considerable losses inflicted on some parts of the organism, if it remained without external aid, without the assistance of genuine remedies. To give such support is the duty enjoined on the physician's understanding by the Preserver of life.
As I have said above, our vital force hardly opposes an equal opposition to the foe causing the disease, and yet no enemy can be overcome except by a superior force. Only homoeopathic medicine can give the superior; power to the invalidated vital force.
Of itself this vital principle, being only an organic vital force intended to preserve an undisturbed health, opposes only a weak resistance to the invading morbific enemy; as the disease grows and increases, it opposes a greater resistance, but at best, it is only an equal resistance; with weakly patients it is not even equal, but weaker. This force is neither capable, nor destined, nor created for an overpowering resistance, which will do no harm to itself..
But if we physicians are able to present and oppose to this instinctive vital force it morbific enemy, as it were magnified through the action of homoeopathic medicines - even if it should be enlarged every time only by little - if in this way the image of the morbific foe be magnified to the apprehension of the vital principle through homoeopathic medicines, which in a delusive manner simulate the original disease, we gradually cause and compel this instinctive vital force to increase its energies by degrees, and to increase it energies by degrees, and to increase them more and more, and at last to such a degree that it becomes far more powerful than the original disease. The consequence of this is, that the vital force again becomes sovereign in its domain, can again hold and direct the reins of sanitary progress, while the apparent increase of the disease caused by homoeopathic medicines, disappears of itself, as soon as we, seeing the preponderance of the restored vital force, i. e., of the restored health, cease to use these remedies.
The fund or the fundamental essence of this spiritual vital principle, imparted to us men by the infinitely merciful Creator, is incredibly great, if we physicians understand how to maintain its integrity in days of health, by directing men to a healthy mode of living, and how to invoke and augment it in diseases by purely homoeopathic treatment.:
From: pb000014@mweb.co.za
To: vtyekkirala@hotmail.com; japala50@yahoo.com; homeopathy@homeolist.com
Subject: Re: [H] Sankaran Sensation method
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:37:25 +0200
> I have read the method in all the books published by Sankaran so far as also
> attended his seminars. It is the very enchanting video presentations at the seminars
> and the captivating material presented in his books that prompted me to use it
> side by side with the age old traditional hahnemannian method for some time. I concluded
> after thorough study that the theoretical basis on which this entire method is based
> is flawed. But such is the orchestrated hype about this method in US and Europe that
> it is hard to get anything published against this method and prove to be a useless exercise
> that ends up in frustration.
If it is flawed, surely an intelligent argument can be put forward to debunk it.
> Unfortunately we have not evolved benchmarks to judge any method being propagated
> as homeopathy and as a first step we should do it.
There is homeopathy and there is "Hahnemannian homeopathy" and then "Kentian" "Boennighausen" "Vithoulkas" etc. Don't confuse the methods with the principle. The principle of homeopathy is like treats like (plus a few other bits such as minimum dose etc.) the organon explains this very well, so we have a guide or benchmark. The methods can vary from one practitioner to the next. Hahnemann gave us the principle first, and then he said "so this how I do it" which is the explanation of his method. The principle is a fixed law of nature. His method is his discovery on how to achieve the result. This does not preclude anyone choosing a similimum through a different method.
Consider an absurd extreme example (one that if observed would no doubt be rare). If someone could read tea leaves and find with accuracy a remedy that is similimum, that would still result in homeopathic cure. Whether this is a valid method depends on the degree of success (genuinely cured cases). If the person was found to achieve very good results consistently, that would be acceptable FOR THAT PERSON, because they would seem to have a "gift".
Now, whether this method is acceptable to teach students, one can easily see it is not appropriate at all. It relies on the inate gift of that individual.
So we have the principle of homeopathy which is absolute and we have various "methods" which can be judged on their success and their ability to be taught to students. And of course, knowing various methods can be of use, because sometimes in acse it may be solved using one method and in another case a different method gets the end result. Sankaran himself talks about this. He does not exclude other methods.
> The very basis on which Hahnemann founded homeopathy was his discovery :
> 1. that any medicinal substance is capable of inducing a field force to distort the vital
> force of healthy human beings; the nature of distortion presents a recognizable field pattern
> and it is as true as the law of gravity or any other natural laws.
>
> 2. that the same medicine is capable of nullifying any disease force that establishes
> a similar distortion of vital force in a human being.
>
> The SIMILARITY of the disorted picture or pattern of the vital force induced by the
> medicinal substance in a healthy human being and that created by the natural disease
> is essential for curative action to occur.
>
If you have read and understood Sankaran's works you should know that he does use proving and repertory to back up the method he has formulated. What his method does then is to give a framework to extrapolate information about the as yet unexplored remedies. Any such method of extrapolation can be fraught with danger if not based on solid ground, but the genius of his method is that it is based on a very solid foundation of classical and tested knowledge. The classical knowledge is evident in his use and understanding of the great masters before him and the materia medica of known remedies as well his teaching experience over the years. His testing of the method is evident in the many well presented cases he has documented over a considerable time. (unlike some cases presented in the past by so-called classical masters, who would prescribe a remedy based on only a few symptoms observed).
On the contrary, revered masters such as Vithoulkas do not follow the same philosophical path as Hahnemann. Vit teaches that it is the vital force that overcomes the disease, not "that the same medicine is capable of nullifying any disease force that establishes a similar distortion of vital force in a human being." (Which means - the remedy overcomes the disease force). So Vit is by your definition "not classical".
If you study and use the method, your last point :
> If Sankaran can prove that the vital sensation can be induced by a medicinal substance
> in healthy human beings and then prove the correspondences of this artificially
> induced vital sensation to the one present in the cured patient - then and then only it
> qualifies to be a homeopathic method.
Is easily proven.
> I hate to waste any more time discussing this method of madness, an aberration of an
> otherwise super genius whose convoluted thinking process reflects of a major portion
> of his brain cells gone awry....alas...
>
each to his own, your view is that it is madness. Sankaran's method does require study and persistence, as with any skill or learning. All too often I see homeopaths choose a set of symptoms, bang it into a computer repertory and hope that the answer is there. That is a lazy way. If it fails, the excuse is usually "chose the wrong symptoms" or "information is missing".
As for my personal experience, I have managed to solve a number of cases that I know would not have been solved any other way. I do not follow his method blindly, and have made use of other skills gathered over the years, however the more I use his method (i.e. the more I become skilled at it - reqiring time and study), the more I find the case taking method helping to form a framework to get the most useful information.
regards,
Paul
(No - I do not read tea leaves)
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
End of homeopathy Digest, Vol 11, Issue 27
******************************************
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen