ON PSEUDO-CLASSICAL HOMOEOPATHY

by Dr. Rajesh Shah

(Editorial, Homoeopathy TImes, 1995,II)

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.  

 
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 enthusiastic (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 recognized, 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 realizing 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...