As an attempt to highlight the basic ‘grey’ area of the present-day philosophy that leads it to gross misinterpretation related to the science and its application, I propose here the mechanism of both – the transformation of substance into the homoeopathic dose as also the response of the (unhealthy) organism to that.
Conceiving a theory and confirming it to the satisfaction of all disciplines are two sides of a coin. Organon is but a confirmation of that – one finds early evidence in the fifth aphorism, which contradicts the maiden one of its class.
‘Do justice without respect of persons’is an old saying. Thus, to discuss the philosophy of homoeopathy one must critically examine Organon – without being overwhelmed by sentiments. Having done that, one realises that Hahnemann himself was lacking in measuring the depth of his own philosophy. Aphorism number twenty-six is a classical example. Organon is replete with such evidence, and this happens to be a serious lacuna.
This has resulted in a confusion of how ‘similia’ should precisely be defined? It is the host of each one of such presumption and supposition that has led to a wrong conclusion. The ‘researchers’ thus confused add insult to injury. The situation is akin to an episode wherein six blind men try to perceive a pachyderm and come to their own conclusions, as recorded by Vishnu Sharma in one of his fables.
Despite pressing all into service, the earlier attempts to interpret the mechanism of a Hahnemannian dose have ended in smoke. I am more than tempted to cite from one of such papers. It is from British Homoeopathic Journal (BHJ) and is titled ‘Dual effects of a homoeopathic mineral complex on carrageenan-induced oedema in rats’.α1
Whereas the ‘Abstract’ reads, “…this indicated that the therapeutic action of this MC is not due to conventional anti-inflammatory effect but due to activation of endogenous regulatory mechanisms, a phenomenon which may be regarded as a simple application of the ‘similia rule’…”; the following excerpts from the ‘Discussion’ are interesting:
“…This fact may appear in contrast with the similia law, where the drug cures in the diseased person the same symptoms that it causes in the healthy person…” (Page 104),
“…Our data do not provide definite proof regarding the mechanism(s) of the dual action of MC…” (Page 104),
“…Whatever the mechanism(s) may be…” (Page 105),
“…Our data should be regarded neither as a proof of the clinical efficacy of this MC, nor as a clarification of the drug action mechanism of homoeopathic drugs…” (Page 105).
The above and their likes prove to be abortive because such fixed ideas, which are not in conformity with the fundamentals of homoeopathy, factually eclipse them. Beginning with the highest claims of attempting to explain one or the other unexplained, subtle aspect of the science, these efforts end in adding insult to injury. Without being denounced for spinning a long yarn, one can safely draw as follows regarding authors of all such voluminous deductions:
(a) That, they are impressed by the results of homoeopathic medication but lack the commitment to its philosophy. For, (i) probably most of them belong to the different schools, and (ii) They hanker after appreciation for a glittering medal that they intend to show off and yet apprehend being outcast;
(b) That, they are strongly guided by the prejudice that reads, ‘the minimum quantity of a medicinal substance one prescribes; the more curative is the outcome.’ They could neither feel nor overcome the darkness behind this prejudice;
(c) That, because it suits them, they have not noticed the skeleton in the cupboard. The initial as also the delayed responses of provers have invariably been (mis)interpreted as the primary and the secondary actions of the proven substance respectively.
One wonders if the aetiology to the faux pas rests with organon itself. Thus says Jyoti Prakash:
A student at the HahnemannianSchool finds the maiden direct reference to an attenuated material dose in the sixty-first aphorism in his organon. To all intents and purposes, it is the logical outcome of the philosopher’s strong arguments against the contemporary massive dosing of medicinal substances. For this reason, one readily subscribes to his concept of the minutest doses propagated there in reckoning without the danger of being misled through all of its blind bargains.
Be that as it may, with the growing volumes, the clutch of the prejudice gains strength gradually in the masterpiece:
“…If it (perfectly selected homoeopathic medicine) is highly dynamized, dissolved in water and given in proper small dose…” (§ 246, as rewritten in the sixth edition),
“…According to the new dynamization method, taught herewith with the use of the lowest degrees…” (Foot note to § 246, as rewritten in the sixth edition);
“…The solution of the medicinal globule (and it is rarely necessary to use more than one globule) of a thoroughly dynamized medicine in a large quantity of water can be obviated by making a solution in only 7-8 tablespoonfuls of water and after thorough succussion of the vial take from it one tablespoonful and put it in a glass of water (containing about 7 to 8 spoonfuls), this stirred thoroughly and then give a dose to the patient…” (Foot note to § 247, as rewritten in the sixth edition);
“…If only a small vial say a dram of dilute alcohol is used in the treatment, in which is contained and dissolved through succussion one globule of the medicine which is to be used by olfaction…” (§ 248, as rewritten in the sixth edition);
“…Here the question arises, what is this most suitable degree of minuteness for sure and gentle remedial effect; …to solve this problem is, as may easily be conceived, not the work of theoretical speculation; not by fine-spun reasoning, not by spacious sophistry can we expect to obtain the solution of this problem…Pure experiment, careful observation, and accurate experience can alone determine this…” (§ 278, as rewritten in the sixth edition).
Hahnemann’s minute dose has since been wrongly interpreted as simple physical minimisation of the medicinal substance. Such is the impact of these tips that ‘scientific’ researchers/journals do not feel hesitant in drawing the conclusion which reads, “In a homoeopathic dose, the ‘physical’ traces of the original medicinal substance (solute) are simply reduced to irrelevance!” ((Jose-Leonel Torres: Stochastic resonance and the homoeopathic effect; BRITISH HOMOEOPATHIC JOURNAL; July 1996, Vol 85, page 137.))
Or else, as prestigious a journal as BHJ proudly endorses ‘originality’ to a deduction therein in one of its paper that reads: “…Another problem of the interpretation of these results is represented by the complex mixture of several minerals, utilised at different potencies, which composes the drug we have utilised in this study. Clearly this is a major obstacle for the identification of the active chemical principle(s), because it is practically impossible to carry on studies of individual components and using a sufficient number of animals. On the other hand, this is not a problem restricted to homoeopathic complexes, involving also plants, animal extracts and venoms, which are composed by a number of active principles, often, but not always acting in a synergistic way…” ((S Bertani Et al: BRITISH HOMOEOPATHIC JOURNAL; July 1999, Vol 88 No 3, page 105; Stockton Press; Hampshire, UK.))
Beyond any shade of doubt, the true understanding of the spirit behind Hahnemann’s Materia Medica Pura and the treasure therein, offers the following:
(a) Proving is fundamental;
(b) Number of provers is the strength; and
(c) Where does the question of interpreting active ‘chemical’ principle(s) arise — thanks to Avogadro?
Active principle in whatsoever form has no relevance — neither in isolation nor in combination. For, it is the absolute physiological identity that matters to organism.
One wonders if either of the learned authors of the aforesaid paper or the likeminded ones have for once, cared to look for Hahnemann or Nash in this aspect. Thus says Nash: “…Alternationalists and combinationalists will here begin to sit up and ‘take notice’. I cannot see much difference here between them and the polypharmacists of the old school…” He goes on adding: “…And especially is that true of all combinations not proved in combination…” ((Expanded Works of Nash: Compiled by P Sivraman, First edition (pp xvi), B. Jain Publishers Pvt Ltd; New Delhi, India.))
For, one notes that the bold admissions of the likes: “…This is contrary to the homoeopathic evidence…” ((Jose-Leonel Torres: Stochastic resonance and the homoeopathic effect; BRITISH HOMOEOPATHIC JOURNAL; July 1996, Vol 85, page 137.)) follow hand in hand instead. It is interesting here to note that the variety of such subtle admissions is a compulsive analogue to such ‘revealing’ conclusions (as were drawn in the paper under discussion here above) about homoeopathy and reading them hardly surprises one who is not committed to the philosopher in Hahnemann.
While the above are open cases of dire misinterpretation of the science of homoeopathy – as plain as a pikestaff, one wonders if there is bona fide scope to enquire whether Hahnemann himself was a bit short of measuring the depth of yet to be developed philosophy of his own? This is equally true of both of the scientific aspects of New School of Medicine – the drug strength as also the drug action.
However, a compulsive note of caution will not be a digression here:
To the hahnemannian science these two terms may not carry their conventional force. For, the drug strength in homoeopathy is far beyond physical scales ((Jyoti Prakash: Is homoeopathy an addition or a substitute for conventional treatment?; SHARING NOTES; Vol 1 No 1, pp 5-6; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.)), ((Jyoti Prakash: Let it precipitate; SHARING NOTES; Vol 1 No 2-3, page 3; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.)) and the drug action does not grant the usual active role to the drug in application.
Thus says Jyoti Prakash: “…A mode of treatment that accepts an active role of medicinal substance ceases to be homoeopathy…” ((Jyoti Prakash: homoeopathy, molecular strain theory, mythology & quantum theory; www.rediscoverhomoeopathy.com; Philosophy; March 03, 2003.))
To an inspired homoeopath the authority of E B Nash would never be questionable. The reason is simple and straight as he says: “…The drug capable of curing misapplied may kill instead of curing…” ((EXPANDED WORKS OF NASH: Compiled by P Sivraman; First edition, page xvii; B. Jain Publishers Pvt Ltd; New Delhi, India.))
However to me here, his modest remark nearly a century after the publication of the first edition of organon, is worth its weight in gold: “…We do not know the modus operandi of drugs in curing diseases…” ((EXPANDED WORKS OF NASH: Compiled by P Sivraman; First edition, page xvii; B. Jain Publishers Pvt Ltd; New Delhi, India.)) Especially because, to do away with a shade of doubt Nash reaffirms his faith in the fundamental of the philosophy: “…The proof of the pudding lies in its eating and the proof of the truth of the homoeopathic system of therapeutics lies in its application to the cure of the sick…” ((EXPANDED WORKS OF NASH: Compiled by P Sivraman; First edition, page xiv; B. Jain Publishers Pvt Ltd; New Delhi, India.))
No one has any right, whatsoever, to question Hahnemann’s desire to cure without any considerable disturbance as expressed by him in his organon (§ 154). For this noble cause he enjoys every legal, moral as also ethical right to: (a) employ the excessively minute dose requisite for the homoeopathic use (§ 155), and (b) give in proper, small, gradually higher doses (§ 161, as rewritten in the sixth edition) if they deliver the goods.
Nash says: “…If I might presume to give a definition of the minimum dose, I might say, it is the dose, crude or dynamized, capable of affecting the patient curatively, without unnecessary aggravation.” He further adds: “…I used to tell my classes in the college that he who confined himself to either the high or low preparations of the remedies crippled himself from doing the best possible for his patients…” ((EXPANDED WORKS OF NASH: Compiled by P Sivraman; First edition, pp xvii-xviii; B. Jain Publishers Pvt Ltd; New Delhi, India.))
Hahnemann’s dream concept of affecting cure by the minimal possible dose of an unbelievably diluted (?) medicinal substance has its firm footing in the fundamentals of science. It matters little whether or not Hahnemann speaks of that in its true perspective or the scientists endorse it. A student of Hahnemannian science enjoys the right to enquire whether or not these ‘scientists’ really have access to every single aspect of knowledge that is fundamental to science. The queries regarding Hahnemann’s perspective can simply be met with a thorough scanning of organon.
With a very careful scanning of the building blocks of organon – the aphorisms, one finds that the reformer-philosopher was entrapped into a vicious circle. It therefore became compulsive for him to justify the three imaginary supports to his brain-child – the new school of medicine. These could be identified as: (a) The artificial disease; (b) The suffering vital force and (c) The minimum dose. On the face of it, there should have been no hue and cry at that provided norms were observed and recourse was taken to a definite and a final commitment on that score. Unfortunately that did never happen!
Interestingly, there happens to be another vague term – ‘the symptoms of a medicine that are not homoeopathic to a case’. Thus says Hahnemann: “…The patient, growing hourly better, feels almost nothing of them at all, because the excessively minute dose requisite for homoeopathic use is much too weak to produce the other symptoms of the medicine that are not homoeopathic to the case, in those parts of the body that are free from disease…” (Organon; § 154). Though on the face of it, this has bearings upon Hahnemann’s concept of minimum dose, one wonders if the conclusions could be drawn the other way about!
A scholar of the new school naturally, possesses a blind faith in the science and system of homoeopathy. This in turn makes it obligatory to believe that a true similimum in the homoeopathic dose affects cure without any considerable disturbance. Given that, an inquisitive mind finds it impossible to subscribe to the aforesaid explanation. For, that seems to be impracticable.
That every single substance is capable of generating the variety of morbid effects in different healthy individuals is a universally accepted phenomenon related to homoeopathic philosophy. This demonstrates beyond any doubt that the discretion rests with the organism, not the substance.α2 That is how the constitutions are defined in homoeopathy. Moreover, for the purpose of homoeopathic proving, a proven substance is never ‘weak’ or ‘strong’.
The therapeutic information generated by such homoeopathic proving is ascribed as the response of the prover to that substance.
This is a rule. That is how a remedy is characterized as homoeopathic to the given ‘constitution’ and is but fundamental to homoeopathy – Similia similibus curentur!
Moreover, in a given case, the homoeopathic remedy (The true homoeopathic medicine) prescribed in equally true homoeopathic potency simply cures. It can never produce but one symptom of its own that is not homoeopathic to the case. This is another rule – the derivative of the aforesaid.
No explanation to the homoeopathic drug action of a dynamized remedial dose could be sought on a different axis. An understanding of that in conformity with the principle of ‘similia’ has ever since been wanting. En règle; de jure!
One of the organon’s ‘missing links’ that I have been talking since long ((Jyoti Prakash: Towards completing the Organon; SHARING NOTES; Vol 1 No 1, pp 3-5; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.)) should be searched for at this point – ‘do justice to the philosophy, without being overwhelmed by sentiment.’
Neither a homoeopathic dose is ‘strong’ nor is it ‘weak’. It has simply to be homoeopathic – similia similibus curentur. Whenever a homoeopathic (?) medicinal dose is wasted, the reason should not be searched for in the matter. Instead, it should invariably be probed in the body. Though the two are complimentary, the substance has a reason whereas the organism possesses an explanation. That aggravation following a medicinal dose and cure without any considerable disturbance are no exceptions, is the point in case.
Thus Hahnemann’s suppositions of artificial disease and suffering vital force as well as their testimony in Organon are grossly wide off the mark. As a matter of fact, the two are but the compulsive outcome of the inherent conflicts in between (a) the strength of similia theory – the fundamental of the philosophy and (b) the evasive explanations there of. Both of them keep one reminding of the dire need to underline and ratify the flaws in the philosophy.
Vital force never suffers a disease. ((Jyoti Prakash: Artificial disease : Hahnemann’s innocence, SHARING NOTES; Vol 1 No 2-3, page 3; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.)) As also, a homoeopathic remedy in no way implants an artificial disease in an unhealthy body during the cure process. ((Jyoti Prakash: Artificial disease: Hahnemann’s innocence; SHARING NOTES; Vol 1 No 2-3, page 3; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.))
In his organon, Hahnemann speaks of yet another definitive word – ‘antitype’. Thus, one finds:
“… Among the lists of symptoms of many medicines it will not be difficult to find one from whose disease element an antitype of curative artificial disease…” (§ 152); and
“…If the antitype constructed from the list of symptoms of the most suitable medicine contain those peculiar, uncommon, singular and distinguishing (characteristic) symptoms, which are to be met with in the disease to be cured…” (§ 154).
The above are the only references to the term in question and for obvious reason that does not seem to be in harmony with incorruptible and irreversible similia theory. Prior to these, there is but one passing remark in organon that carries an almost identical message. It holds: “…Or develops in its stead an opposite state…” (§ 131). However, in a different context – the proving of a substance; it remains untenable for the same reason. The lone ‘justification’ to this (probably) rests with Hahnemann’s personal obligation of searching out some justification to his trapping into the vicious circle and the marked evasiveness thereupon, as mentioned earlier.
It is the similitude in the prescription that affects the cure. To the similia theory, the foundation is comprised of the similitude in both, the potency as well as the inherent power of the remedial substance to implant atypical physical disorder into the economy of a (healthy) body that the homoeopaths desire to cure in their clinics.
‘Similia similibus curentur’ is ascribed to pure philosophy – the lesson that the philosopher learnt and in turn, taught to his pupils. Whereas the concept of ‘most minute dose’ is the outcome of what the master prescriber of his time experienced.
An unbiased reading of what I have already written and what is due here reveals the truth that the latter is related more to the application of the philosophy into the practice and justifies oneself, than the philosophy itself. A wide gap in between the two, to the extent of obvious contradiction, should never have been ignored. For, at times a remote possibility comes true.
Hahnemann was never tired of criticising ‘contraria contrariis’, the prevailing rule of medicinal prescribing of his era. This mode of practice of the old school of medicine delegates such unlimited authority to a medicinal substance that instead of affecting cure, it causes harm to the organism. The reason rests in the fact that availing such unwarranted authority, the substance always tends to overrule the body indiscriminately.
‘Similia similibus curentur’ is the brain-child of that criticism. Thus Nash’s assumptions of Hahnemann’s view point: “…The dynamic (spirit like) force of the disease is met by a like force residing in the drug and conquered…” ((EXPANDED WORKS OF NASH: Compiled by P Sivraman; First edition, page xv; B. Jain Publishers Pvt Ltd; New Delhi, India.)) should precisely be viewed in this context. This approach rejects any possibility of a ‘drug action’ that overpowers the organism, be that hypothetical. For, here it is the body that decides the course of action. It is the body alone that reacts. In the homoeopathic system of cure as a rule, the substance holds no initiative, whatsoever.
I am more than tempted to repeat here, what I have already said earlier – While discussing it one must do justice to the philosophy, without respect of persons. Yet, this repetition should not be underlined as an insult to the philosopher of the similia theory. However, without mincing words it implies that the contradiction that prevails in organon – the sole of Hahnemann’s philosophy – has provoked confusion. This in turn resulted in questioning the definition of similia – the backbone of his theory. It remains a serious drawback to the understanding of the new science.
The whole situation is akin to an episode wherein six blind men try to perceive a pachyderm and come to their own conclusions, as recorded by Vishnu Sharma in one of his fables. Another paper from BHJ is the classical representative of this approach, which could safely be underlined as the ‘root-cause’ to all such prejudices that dominate such scientific works related to homoeopathy. The title reads: similitude in modern pharmacology. ((M Z Teixeira: Similitude in modern pharmacology; BRITISH HOMOEOPATHIC JOURNAL; July 1999, Vol 88 No 3, pp 112-20; Stockton Press; Hampshire, UK.)) Whereas to offer the true perspective of my viewpoint I quote the abstract of the paper in question, to further the same cause, some of its fragments are underlined here:
The paper is aimed at researching similitude. Says the author: “…We should also focus on researching similitude, in order to approximate homoeopathy to the modern scientific model…” (page 112) and the author has used voluminous data on the rebound effects of variety of modern pharmaceutical agents to prove his point.
On number of occasions he refers Hahnemann; obviously to identify his presumptions with the fundamental of latter’s philosophy. He claims to “Update this (Hahnemann’s) work” (page 113) and to achieve that he quotes and misquotes him more than once – only to derive erroneous ‘scientific’ conclusions in the light of his own prejudices. A casual reading of what he has written tells the tale. One who has perceived the philosophy of similia and has faith in that, fully understands all this.
‘The secondary reaction’ of the organism in response to a pharmaceutical agent is termed as the ‘rebound effect’ in modern pharmacology.
To a medical system that fancies to achieve cure, true to it’s worth, this ‘physiological phenomenon’ is the focal area. This is precisely the point that led to the foundation of the HahnemannianSchool. Unfortunately, an improper explanation to ‘similia similibus curentur’ has led to erroneous suppositions and conclusions. The above is only one of them.
The voluminous data on the ‘rebound effects’ cited in the aforesaid ‘research’ paper is but a shade of the classical works of the quality of Allen’s encyclopaedia of pure materia medica, Hahnemann’s materia medica pura or Hering’s guiding symptoms of our materia medica, which offer reason to a homoeopathic dose. To state this one does not necessarily need to hold the authority of an elite in Dunham, Kent, Lippe, Nash or Tyler. However, to derive from the philosophy that the “…Cure occurs through the secondary effect of the organism…” (Page 113) is hardly far from the trust to a broken reed. As also to conclude retrospectively – that one has succeeded in proposing “…Evidence of the truth of homoeopathic experimental observations…” (page 117) – one simply needs is being brave as the author under discussion.
However, I must admit here that each of such gross misinterpretation earns a new lease of life from the organon itself. To prove its point, the paper under discussion speaks of aphorism sixty-three and sixty-four of the same. This makes it mandatory to discuss them here:
First come first served – it starts with the statement: “…Every agent that acts upon the vitality…causes a certain alteration in the health of the individual for a longer or a shorter period.”
Let me put a question here: Can any one with all his senses under control, afford to contradict these excerpts?
Definitely not! As a matter of fact, what Hahnemann conveys here is – At this point of ‘sudden’ development the organism remains at ‘receiving’ end. At this early stage, its status is that of a target. That, this is what Hahnemann terms as ‘primary action’ remains the fact.
Further, says Hahnemann: “…Although a product of the medicinal and vital powers conjointly, it is principally due to the former power.” So no questions about that, again! Yet, the truth remains that to this development the organism possesses an inherent resistance and the reason to this opposition rests with the science of evolution. ((Jyoti Prakash: The theory of evolution; www.rediscoverhomoeopathy.com; Philosophy; May 15, 2002.)) Thus says Jyoti Prakash:
(a) “…Homoeopathy works on the premise of evolution…” and “…The understanding of homoeopathic drug-dynamization and drug-action offers the proper tools to uncover the secret of evolution…” ((Jyoti Prakash: Towards completing the Organon; Sharing Notes; Vol 1 No 1, page 5; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.))
(b) “…The first life inherited a sense of maintaining the identity of self and a choice to adopt in given circumstances. Beyond form and quality…” and “…These two qualities – contrary but in classic equilibrium – provided sufficient ground for the two most vital aspects of life: survival and diversity…” ((Jyoti Prakash: Artificial disease : Hahnemann’s innocence; SHARING NOTES; Vol 1 No 2-3, page 8; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.))
(c) “…An understanding of the process of evolution holds the key…” ((Jyoti Prakash: homoeopathy, molecular strain theory, mythology & quantum theory; www.rediscoverhomoeopathy.com; Philosophy; March 03, 2003.)) and “…A true understanding of this would lead to clear understanding of the philosophy that governs homoeopathic system of medicine…” ((Jyoti Prakash: Homoeopathy, Molecular strain theory, Mythology & Quantum theory, www.rediscoverhomoeopathy.com; Philosophy; March 03, 2003.))
At this stage, it would be quite interesting to note Hahnemann’s viewpoint that reads: “…This resistant action is a property, is indeed an automatic action of our life-preserving power, which goes by the name of secondary action or counteraction…” (§ 63).
Does this not sweep off every shade that leads to a misunderstanding of what Hahnemann refers to as ‘secondary action’ in the first place?
Unfortunately, for two reasons the answer remains in negative! They are:
(a) Instead of using the definitive terms ‘primary development’ or ‘the action of the agent’ (These expressions classically convey what Hahnemann ought to have looked for), he opted to use as vague a term as ‘primary action’ that made it almost obligatory for him to opt another from the same class – ‘secondary action’;
(b) The latter should ideally have been defined either as ‘reaction of the organism’ or as ‘secondary development’.
Hahnemann ought to have done that for clarity. Then only he would have found himself beyond the vicious circle that made it obligatory to use terms like ‘seems’ and ‘appears’ in the following aphorism.
A pupil faithful to the philosopher has a dream that never came true – Hahnemann coming out of the trap and announcing: ‘the secondary action or counteraction here is but proprietary to such law of nature that deals with the (relatively prolonged) interaction of (healthy) body with the (uncorrupted) substance’. This would have resolved the more fundamental confusion related to ‘primary action’ – in terms with homoeopathy.
Unfortunately, Hahnemann takes a course the other way about – One is not surprised to read Hahnemann say: “…The so-called homoeopathic aggravation, or rather the primary action of the homoeopathic medicine…” (§ 161). This has put ‘primary action’ at par with ‘aggravation’. In other words, this has resulted in confusing ‘proving of a (medicinal) substance’ to the ‘prescribing of a (homoeopathic) medicinal dose’ of the same. This is only an extended version of aphorism number twenty-six and its derivatives in organon. Hahnemann’s concept underlined therein that homoeopathic remedies affect cure by generating similar artificial diseases, is a complete factual mistake. ((Jyoti Prakash: Artificial disease : Hahnemann’s innocence; SHARING NOTES; Vol 1 No 2-3, page 7; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.)) That remains a grave setback.
However, one cannot undervalue Hahnemann’s conceiving of the science of similitude. For, it adds a new dimension to the art of true cure and remains a great contribution to medical system. For the same reason, one cannot afford to reject his similia theory, which is fundamental to his philosophy. Nevertheless, one cannot blindly endorse his explanation in that respect. For, conceiving a theory and confirming it to the satisfaction of all the disciplines are two sides of a coin.
Hahnemann’s explanation in organon to the most fundamental query – why the similia theory is curative; is certainly not beyond contradiction. ((Jyoti Prakash: Artificial disease: Hahnemann’s innocence; SHARING NOTES; Vol 1 No 2-3, pp 3-8; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.)) This (unfortunate) state of affair leads him to an evasive approach, which in turn, deprives him of the authority of ‘Father of a New Science’ – though he certainly deserves the honour. To overcome the catastrophe, which is rooted all through therein, organon needs to be faded out of all such shadows that drive the philosophy to a ‘fade-in’ situation with the earlier version of therapeutics – the old school of medicine.
With a little alteration in coherence with Hahnemann’s homoeopathic fundamentals, the otherwise masterpiece of medical science – the organon – would be transformed into such completeness that it could explain any homoeopathic query with unbelievable ease. As proposed by the author elsewhere, ((Jyoti Prakash: Towards completing the Organon, SHARING NOTES; Vol 1 No 1, page 5; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.)) one would then be relieved of the compulsion to subscribe to the explanation of ‘primary’ as also ‘secondary’ action inalienable from the similia rule; in total conformity with Hahnemann. Without being (mis)led to any confusion.
It would then be easier to comprehend, how similia works at the given prong.
(1) Homoeopathic dynamization is a two-staged gradual process – physical first, only to be followed by the physiological. The physiological property of the substance in question along with the ‘Bio Prone Media’α3 (BPM) decides whether or not the shades of the mixture of the two are formed in between;
(2) The first stage is primarily aimed at attenuation of the medicinal substance and the objective is achieved through physical subdivision of the substance;
(3) At this stage, BPM browses through the ‘Physiologically Interactive Factors’ (PIF) of the substance. During the process, the BPM identifies itself with the PIF on one hand and ushers them into itself on the other. The process continues till all the physical scales of attenuation are exhausted;
(4) BPM now carries with it, every bit of the information related to the PIF in question;
(5) Beyond this stage, the true dynamization is achieved on the ‘physiological scale’ as a secondary measure. Whereas the earlier stage could be approximated to the process of ‘isolation of chromosomes’ in what is termed as the ‘scientific terminology’, this should be put in terms with ‘chemical decoding of those chromosomes’;
(6) The extent of the ‘physiological dynamization’ varies from substance to substance. For, every substance has its own limitation on the physiological scale, which marks the limit of its homoeopathic dynamization or therapeutically effective dynamization;
(7) When applied, the body that needs a remedy to affect cure, takes ‘hint’ from such a ‘therapeutically effective dynamized’ dose. This process is as good as receiving the data stored in a computer storage device. The dose here is synonymous to the data storage device and the data stored therein to the genetic blueprint of the applied substance — complete to the minute physiological details — carried by that dose. The system that is responsible to maintain normalcy of health represents here the relative software installed in the computer i.e. the organism;
(8) As the push-button reaction, the software ‘reads’ the ‘data’ it receives in the form of a medicinal dose. To the body, this ‘reading’ is a ‘show-down’ of every aspect of their mutual relationship in particular and all the evolutionary phases, the applied substance has gone through, in general. That reminds the body of the harms that the applied substance could cause to it;
(9) ‘Alarmed’, as it should naturally be, the body takes up the necessary course to protect itself from this ‘imaginary’ intruder;
(10) Thus, whenever the ‘Medicinal dose’ is truly similar – physiologically – to that of the ‘Disease’ the body is suffering from; the normalcy of health of that body is restored.α4 Similia similibus curentur!
(24 January 2014)
α1 My earnest attempts to communicate to the authors at the contact E-address (as suggested by BHJ) were in vain.
α2 One wonders if the latest series of stories that claimed success achieved in decoding some of the chromosomes, offered a blind support to this assumption.
α3 The media, capable to fetch, carry and transfer information related to biological identity of matter.
α4 The software analogy when extended further to the systemic disorders due to occasional corruption by some virus interestingly, leads to Hahnemann’s concept of miasms.
[i] Jyoti Prakash: Artificial disease: Hahnemann’s innocence; sharing notes; Vol 1 No 2-3, pp 3-8; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.
[ii] Jose-Leonel Torres: Stochastic resonance and the homoeopathic effect; british homoeopathic journal; July 1996, Vol 85, page 137.
[iii] S Bertani Et al: british homoeopathic journal; July 1999, Vol 88 No 3, page 105; Stockton Press; Hampshire, UK.
[iv] Expanded Works of Nash: Compiled by P Sivraman, First edition (pp xvi), B. Jain Publishers Pvt Ltd; New Delhi, India.
[v] Jose-Leonel Torres: Stochastic resonance and the homoeopathic effect; british homoeopathic journal; July 1996, Vol 85, page 137.
[vi] Jyoti Prakash: Is homoeopathy an addition or a substitute for conventional treatment?; sharing notes; Vol 1 No 1, pp 5-6; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.
[vii] Jyoti Prakash: Let it precipitate; sharing notes; Vol 1 No 2-3, page 3; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.
[ix] expanded works of nash: Compiled by P Sivraman; First edition, page xvii; B. Jain Publishers Pvt Ltd; New Delhi, India.
[x] expanded works of nash: Compiled by P Sivraman; First edition, page xvii; B. Jain Publishers Pvt Ltd; New Delhi, India.
[xi] expanded works of nash: Compiled by P Sivraman; First edition, page xiv; B. Jain Publishers Pvt Ltd; New Delhi, India.
[xii] expanded works of nash: Compiled by P Sivraman; First edition, pp xvii-xviii; B. Jain Publishers Pvt Ltd; New Delhi, India.
[xiii] Jyoti Prakash: Towards completing the Organon; sharing notes; Vol 1 No 1, pp 3-5; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.
[xiv] Jyoti Prakash: Artificial disease : Hahnemann’s innocence, sharing notes; Vol 1 No 2-3, page 3; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.
[xv] Jyoti Prakash: Artificial disease: Hahnemann’s innocence; sharing notes; Vol 1 No 2-3, page 3; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.
[xvi] expanded works of nash: Compiled by P Sivraman; First edition, page xv; B. Jain Publishers Pvt Ltd; New Delhi, India.
[xvii] M Z Teixeira: Similitude in modern pharmacology; british homoeopathic journal; July 1999, Vol 88 No 3, pp 112-20; Stockton Press; Hampshire, UK.
[xix] Jyoti Prakash: Towards completing the Organon; Sharing Notes; Vol 1 No 1, page 5; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.
[xx] Jyoti Prakash: Artificial disease : Hahnemann’s innocence; sharing notes; Vol 1 No 2-3, page 8; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.
[xxiii] Jyoti Prakash: Artificial disease : Hahnemann’s innocence; sharing notes; Vol 1 No 2-3, page 7; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.
[xxiv] Jyoti Prakash: Artificial disease: Hahnemann’s innocence; sharing notes; Vol 1 No 2-3, pp 3-8; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.
[xxv] Jyoti Prakash: Towards completing the Organon, sharing notes; Vol 1 No 1, page 5; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.