|
Dear reader,
Recently we raised a question to gather opinions of homoeopaths as to know what
did `classical homoeopathy' mean to them. The answers, only some of which were
published in the last issue of Homoeopathy Times, those and the rest made us
scratch our heads compelling us to ask ourselves what it really meant !
Some God-fearing people, who also want to be conscientious in their homoeopathic
practice, have somehow developed the concept that sticking to one remedy alone
is classical homoeopathy. With due respect to their sincerity, we often see them
sticking to the first remedy (prescription) given so rigidly that they do
nothing except administering placebo, when the patient under treatment is down
with any acute condition calling genuinely for immediate attention and
medication. However, they do not mind their patients resorting help of
allopathic medicine for that condition instead of homoeopathy, merely out of the
fear that lest they deviate from being called as `classical homoeopaths...
Another group of classical homoeopaths believe that using any nosode or an
intercurrent (so called) remedy, during the course of treatment, may spoil their
image of the label `classical', hence they keep away from such anti-miasmatics,
though apparently indicated. They also feel that the nosodes should only be used
as constitutional remedies, in classical homoeopathy. Yes, some classical
practitioners have a daring to admit that they do see a need to use an
intercurrent remedy although they are classical practitioners, fearing in the
back of the mind by doing so they might distort the definition of classical
homoeopathy. The younger classical enthusiastics ( the students) feel that the
use of any small remedy, irrespective of its name and origin (e.g. Arundo to
Zingiber) can be used as a constitutional remedy by the classical prescriber, no
matter whether it falls into `so- called' classification of acute or chronic
remedies. They also enjoy saying that all the remedies are equally deep acting
if the (mentals and) totality match. This understanding is a part of their
understanding of classical homoeopathy.
Some innocent homoeopathic neonates are often more sincere than the senior
prescribers and more serious in believing that the classical homoeopathy is the
practice based on selecting the remedy that covers the centre or the core of the
individual and that which can best be ascertained by careful study of the dreams
and delusions the patient has. Nothing more is classical homoeopathy.
Another classic group of homoeopaths firmly believe in the real dynamic
disturbance and they feel that the classical homoeopathy should essentially
ignore the pathology in the given case, as pathology is merely the outcome of
the dynamic disturbance, it deserves to be omitted in the case totality. For
such classical homoeopaths believing in dynamis, the `pathological prescribers'
(as they sarcastically like to call) are tiny, ignorant, materialist creatures.
A true classical prescriber is one, for them, who completely ignores the stupid
pathology in the case. Another section of the classics know that it is the
infrequent repetition, one or two doses in two to six months, make the
homoeopath classical. One who repeats a remedy more often (say, three to four
times daily for days together) are criminals and not classical.
I have seen some classical teachers strictly not allowing their patients to take
allopathic medicines such as paracetamol or anti-inflammatory drugs while
treating pyrexia or pain which is not responding, it goes against the classical
practice, according to them. But, they do take antibiotics and such stuff when
they themselves suffer from Enteric fever or Pneumonia ! One of such teachers
whom I saw searching for a chemist shop when he had acute abdominal colic, on
his way to auditorium, where he was going to be the key-speaker to talk on
classical homoeopathy...You can see hypocrisy flourishing under the shadow of
classical homoeopathy.
The definition of a classical homoeopath has some more qualifications as
understood by some, such as : taking the case always in great detail, for 1-3
hours ( till the patient runs away )/ always digging deep into the mind of the
patient (till it bleeds)/ to give an exhausting questionnaire to the patient to
be filled up and submitted ( a good time-pass for the neurotics)/ to dissect the
dreams of the patient to see how fantastically, like a Hindi movie, the story in
the dream can be fitted into the real life. ( Recently, in one late night party,
my hostess, who happened to be a patient of a dream-type homoeopath; told me :
You know, now a days my homoeopath insists so much on me to note down the dreams
that, although I never used to dream earlier, now I dream daily of my homoeopath
asking me in a dream to talk about my dream... No jokes, it was a real narration
of a patient. )
One school of thought on classical approach is that the constitutional remedy of
the person remains the same throughout his life, no matter what problem he has.
Another similar but immature idea popular under the roof of classical
homoeopathy is that there can be only one possible remedy which is the remedy (
the similimum) for the patient at a given time, and nothing else under the sun
could help... Likewise many teachers have conveniently glorified their fantasies
and theories in the name of classical homoeopathy. Unfortunately, we have no
universal homoeopathic body ( like W.H.O.) to put forth some guidelines on such
basic issues.
Some workers under the banner of classical homoeopathy started believing and
teaching that the childhood mental state and the history is the most important
for determining the remedy that the patient needs at any given phase of his
life. Some adventurous homoeopaths went even further to ascertain the pre-birth
mental state of the patient. Homoeopathy, as one european colleague whispered
into my ears little sarcastically, has become more spiritual than in the times
of Hahnemann.
Another trend strongly suggests to see the remedy of the patient by comparing
her with the drug substance. Hahnemann, as you know, called it doctrine of
signature, and the wise man as he was, condemned this concept himself, so that
people in future do not liberally speculate on this basis. It, of course, sounds
quite interesting to say, for instance, the Pulsatilla plant moves easily with
wind, so it is yielding...So many other plants, which also have credit of
bending with ease like a Pulsatilla plant, but they are not yielding, I am
afraid to say. The symbolic analogy has its own place, but it is unfair to talk
about it to the students without warning them about the involved risk of fixity.
If this concept is applicable enough to consider it classical, then a medicine
prepared out of Banana should be a great aphrodisiac...
The idea of body language and gestures suggesting the remedy was brought which
intrigue students making them fixed. For instance: a Natrum-mur individuals do
not lean forward while talking to the homoeopath, while the Phosphorus does. It
is incorrect and misleading. We have witnessed the reverse of it on numerous
occasions. This is one of the many examples, of course.
The concept of classical homoeopathy is great, undoubtedly. The editor of this
news-letter is also proud to be called as a teacher in classical homoeopathy.
The university level education in homoeopathy, in India, to the best of my
knowledge, does not use the term `classical' anywhere in the syllabus. This
unique phrase is coined and used by various homoeopaths in the later part of the
century, who practice, think and understand its essential meaning differently,
in accordance with their knowledge, depth, background, prejudice and fixity.
It matters very little to all of us (i.e. the classical practitioners), how we
define the terminology. It does matter a lot to all those who have yet to be
(classical ) homoeopathic practitioners.
Many of our colleagues who practice good homoeopathy, but may not be practicing
the way it is understood by other classical homoeopaths; they feel outcast, at
times ! And their remarkably cured cases and work are not being shared with the
world of our classical homoeopaths. Whose loss, any way ?
While introducing themselves, some teachers have introduced their partially
tested ideas as a part of classical homoeopathy. This has amply confused the
young generation. Several newer themes and ideas imposed in the name of
classical homoeopathy, such as the concepts related with images or the core of
the remedies, central themes of the remedies, misunderstood concepts of essence,
dream- proving, story-telling, music, etc. have brought in plenty of fixity and
in inhibitions in the wider application of our materia medica. Such centre based
approach towards the understanding of the materia medica , as I have clearly
recognised, has taken away the flexibility in the application of the Similia
principle. I am confident that the time will come once again when the narrowing
of our vision will be broadened when we will open our eyes and try to understand
homoeopathy all afresh.
Little less then a decade and half ago, when I started my homoeopathic
schooling, around that period I came across to hear about Classical homoeopathy.
I thought, it must be synonymous with Hahnemannian homoeopathy then I was
studying. But, now I have started realising that the today's so called classical
homoeopathy is drifting away from the Hahnemannian homoeopathy...
Some readers may complain for re-stating this message after discussing it in the
previous issue. I feel that the repetition of another dose at the interval of 4
months is allowed by all types of classical prescribers ! The Kentian rule is
that you repeat till it starts acting...
-Dr.Rajesh Shah
-Dr.Rupal Shah
Editors: Homoeopathy Times
|
