|
Q: After about eighteen years of study, practice and
teaching in the homoeopathic profession, what do you
think about homoeopathy in general ?
A : The homoeopathic profession has taught me different
things at different stages. In the very early years, it
gave me a sense of exuberance on realising that I had
learnt a technique of healing which was a panacea !
Homoeopathy as a science can often give the enthusiastic
novice a feeling that he can change the world, whilst
the more experienced practitioner realises that what he
knows is not enough and accepts his limitations.
Nevertheless, over the years of serious thinking, the
knowledge and experience get consolidated.
Now, there is a clearer understanding. It is now
possible to judge the prognosis of most medical
conditions. It can now be stated emphatically that
allergies are curable and so are most of the acute
infections. It can safely be said that homoeopathy can
cure many of the psychosomatic diseases such as
migraine, eczema, early cases of rheumatoid arthritis,
ulcerative colitis etc. It can now be said that in cases
of psoriatic arthritis, schizophrenia the capacity to
cure is limited.
Homoeopathy is an excellent healing faculty and it has a
terrific potential, provided we apply it for the right
condition at the right time, in a right manner...
Q : How do you visualize the presence of homoeopathy as
a medical system in the next century ?
A : I have always felt that homoeopathy has been
underrated as a medical system. I am terribly upset with
an idea that we often restrict the application of
homoeopathy to the treatment of certain non-treatable
conditions as a 'last chance' therapy. I think,
homoeopathy should not be taken to as a last resort and
we should not be happy treating only some hopeless cases
of neurotics, depressions, terminal cancers and the
like. We should not be unknowingly working just as a
counselors.
My vision of the future homoeopathy is that of a
mainstream medicine. And why not ? Homoeopathy, beyond
doubts, can tackle most kind of infections including
some rare infections resistant to the latest
antibiotics. Homoeopathy cures viral infections for
which the modern medicine is struggling for years. The
simplest example is of the warts. Homoeopathy is capable
of handling acute and well as deep-seated chronic
diseases. There is a hope for auto-immune diseases, for
collagen diseases. This shows the strength and capacity
of our system.
Homoeopathy, as I hope to see in future, will have a
revolutionary face-lift. Homeopathy medicines should be
better understood and evaluated, in the modern light of
immunology and the nuclear physics. There will be a
major breakthrough in this area, one day, I am sure. You
will, than find homoeopathy enjoying its deserving
position.
I must admit at this point that, to achieve the desired
status for homoeopathy, a lot depends on all of us. I
mean, we homoeopaths.
Q : What is your opinion about the new teaching
techniques and methods of case-analysis ?
A : Well, I can only say that any prescribing technique
or method used to analyse the case should be logical and
based on a scientific understanding.
I am of the opinion that if our science has to become
universally acceptable, we should have sound, logical
and simple methods of analysis as far as the prescribing
is concerned.
Q : Rajesh, can you elaborate more on this ? I have read
in your editorials that you are against certain case
analysis techniques, which you find illogical and
inexplicable...
A : Basically, the way I view this issue is that there
are two major processes involved in the homoeopathic
prescription, where one has to be careful. One, the case
analysis; two, the remedy understanding. What has
happened lately is that under the pretext of refreshing
thoughts, some new case analysis methods have been
introduced which are far from being scientific. For
instance, the case analysis based on the theme of dreams
and delusions. I stress that, it is important to
consider the repeatedly seen dreams of the patients, in
the prescribing totality. But, it is ridiculous to make
speculative interpretations of the dreams and delusions,
and base the prescription on such a fantasy. This is
unscientific.
When it comes to interpretation, it tends to become
quite subjective and personal. For instance, every
prescriber can offer a different analysis to every dream
theme, therefore leading eventually to a wide range of
remedy suggestions. This could certainly be harmful.
Secondly, the remedy understanding. Hahnemann,
Boenninghausen, Kent and other masters understood
remedies more or less in black and white. But somehow,
the new trends of incorporating the study of the materia
medica with mythology, symbolism, dream-proving,
story-telling and so on, have introduced a lot of
unproven data, which I am afraid, will take homoeopathy
far from universal acceptance.
Q : How exactly is it that you think that a dream or
delusion based homoeopathic prescription could be
harmful ?
A : My counter question to you is, how do you justify
the scientificity of such an approach in this era ? I
have heard the stories that one prover is administered a
remedy and another person sits in the next room to
'receive' the effect of that remedy, with intent to
'prove' it ! I read a report in an American journal of a
teacher administering a remedy to a patient. The teacher
then declares that not only the patient who was
administered the remedy would get cured, but all others
in the neighborhood who required the same remedy, but
not being administered the remedy, would also get cured
! Isn't it outrageous ? How can the homoeopaths tolerate
this kind of teaching? If we go to the W.H.O. or Prince
Charles, with this kind of development in homoeopathy
they would surely withdraw all their support.
I strongly feel that the time is changing. There is a
lot more awareness and homoeopaths can not be fooled
anymore with such fantasies and theorising.
Homoeopathy, for me is a scientific system and not a
spiritual form of healing.
Q : How can there be speculative materia medica ? Can
you us give some examples?
A : Speculative materia medica is one where the entire
understanding of a remedy is imaginary and not supported
by the drug proving. A well-known example, is of Aurum
metallicum. In brief, as against common belief, Aurum
metallicum is neither industrious, nor conscientious. He
isn't responsible or dictatorial and isn't ameliorated
by music! Aurum is not religious and does not have any
great sense of duty. The commonly held image of Aurum
has originated from fantasy land! Similarly, we have
have a lot of such baseless symptoms existing in the
materia medica. I am strictly against it.
Q : What could be the origin of these speculative
theories according to you?
A : It is difficult to say. I think, some of these ideas
are the stretched out versions of grand generalisation,
which give one a free way to sky high imagination.
Although, I am sure, Boenninghausen must not have ever
imagined that his concept of grand generalisation will
one day get such a fantastic transformation !
Boenninghausen wanted to say that certain modalities may
be generalised to have broader application of the
materia medica. Boger stretched it little further,
Phatak and others supported it in the sixties. Probably,
those in search of new methods to teach old ideas and
for the entertainment of the delegates at seminars with
these so called novel methods did the extreme
distortion.
Q : But, don't you think such analysis and the teaching
is thought provoking and interesting ? Do you think it
helps the student understand remedies better?
A : Yes, I agree that it is interesting to hear such
theories and stories. But are we interested in just
getting entertained or in producing consistent results
in practice ? Do we want to make homoeopathy merely
interesting to study or have an effective practice ?
More and more experienced practitioners are getting
conscious over this issue and are have started showing a
long- term concern.
It may be perhaps very entertaining to hear the cases
where the prescriptions are derived from some vague
symptoms. I was told that a remedy is taken by a prover
sitting in a room and it is also believed to be proved
by another person sitting in another room, but without
taking a dose of the remedy ! He just medicates and
proves the remedy !! I am hearing that based on the
dreams seen by mother during the pregnancy is used to
prescribe a remedy for a 10 years old boy. One of the
latest theories I heard lately was about a case where
the prescription is based on the past life of the
patient ! If you call this stuff interesting, it is
interesting, no doubt, but it is funny and utter
non-sense. Where is the limit ? Where is the rationale ?
An analogy will not be out of place if I say that when
an allopath successfully treats cases of Pneumonitis
with standard antibiotics, he makes no dramatic
theories, he just does his job. It is more important for
us to repeatedly succeed and produce predictable
results.
Q : What about the doctrine of signature ?
A : The
doctrine of signature is good to gather the initial
information about the remedy. But, you do not need to
work hard to find a relation with every feature of the
original source and make a connection with the remedy.
One could say that Graphites is an inert substance and
correspondingly the remedy is dull and docile. But the
same rule does not apply for Lycopodium which is also an
inert substance and similarly for Ferrum. If we had to
make such connections, we would have an interesting
materia medica where a banana remedy should be a great
aphrodisiac and so on ! This is not homoeopathy.
I do not believe in such speculative theorising.
Hahnemann was wise enough to guard against his own
proposed theory of the doctrine of signature.
Q : Let me ask you a frequently asked question, what
does classical homoeopathy mean to you?
A : It is simple. Classical homoeopathy, for me is
nothing but practice based on the fundamental principles
laid down by Hahnemann. A case has to be well taken,
thoughtfully analysed, thoroughly evaluated. The
prescribing totality should cover the mentals, the
generals, the particulars. It should also reflect the
pathology, the miasmatic predisposition.
The totality should reflect the patient as an
individual. The selection of a single remedy, correct
potency selection based on the susceptibility and other
criteria alongwith a long term plan for the case, are
all integral components of classical homoeopathy.
Q: Another similar question is about the constitutional
remedy. What is it according to you, and does the
constitutional remedy remain same all life long ?
A: I think, there should be no controversy about it. The
constitutional remedy is one which the constitution
calls for at any given phase in life. It can not change
frequently, but it can not remain the same life-long. It
should not.
One can compare the constitutional remedy to an
overcoat. The measurement of it would change very slowly
from birth to the age of say, 18 years, after which its
height remains more or less the same but the width might
change, say every 5-10 years. Its consistency, the
thickness and the material might require some change
depending on the weather. If it snows, one might need to
wear gloves and a scarf. This is just an analogy. The
constitutional remedy essentially covers the totality of
the case. The constitutional remedy can not be
determined on the basis of some vague speculative theme.
Our body system or constitution is very intricate and we
understand it little. I do not think that we can fit it
in a box of a single constitutional remedy forever.
|
