|
All of us Bombay Students of homeopathy
(and over the last decade, all over India as well), know Dr. Parinaz Humranwala as a dedicated, vivacious, ever smiling teacher
giving us lively lectures at various seminars. Following one of
these, last year, I saw her book, “Temperament Types – A Study”
that contributed in a practical way in case analysis. It presents
a very useful tool for students and practitioners to master.
Her first task is to clarify our understanding
of the fine lines of difference between the definitions of diathesis,
constitution, nature, personality, temperament, etc to help us get
a better idea of what is the focus when we analyze the temperament
of a patient.
For example she says our temperaments
take form according to our genetic material. The temperament is
the “real me”. How is the temperament different from the personality?
The personality is the dress one puts over oneself, the outer shell,
the façade that is seen on the outside. Temperament is not behaviour.
It is our inborn, God given nature.
She also introduces in depth, Hahnemann’s
use of temperaments and constitutional portraits in his description
of Pulsatilla in Materia Medica
Pura. In Hahnemann’s system, the natural temperament and constitution
was the basis used to study the mistuned states of the vital force.
Now given the details of Pulsatilla and other remedies available
in the MMP, constitutional portraits and temperamental counter-indications
could be used as a FILTER for remedy selection. Modern homoeopathy
seems to have forgotten this tool. Similarly we have forgotten the
tool of Hahnemann’s miasmatic perceptions.
In her review of literature, she acknowledges
the contributions of Knerr, Clarke, Hering, etc., for classifying
remedies into various temperaments, and has studied David Little's
writings from among contemporary authors. Her experience suggests
that there are five basic temperament types into which remedies
could be grouped: Sanguine, Choleric; Melancholic; Phlegmatic; Nervous.
Perceiving them and their combinations makes not only the study
and understanding of Materia Medica much easier, but case analysis and prognosis as well.
Helping develop a homoeopaths’ perception in this regard is her
major contribution to homoeopathic research.
Dr. Parinaz
explains that for each polychrest there
are temperament types and their combinations. In our case taking
too, we need to identify the temperament of the patient. A remedy
which covers the ‘numerical totality’ of the case but does not agree
with the temperament of the patient is less likely to produce a
desirable result. In our repertorial list
we need to select a remedy that is also in agreement with the temperament
of the patient.
She goes on to give us a graphic and
lucid understanding of each basic temperament, brought together
from various sources, especially from Reverend Conrad Hock’s book
Four Temperaments. Next she shows us how Materia
Medica could be understood from the perspective
of temperaments through her study of the Natrum
Group in detail. She has described the temperaments of quite a few
other remedies offering a pivotal understanding of their mental
state.
Integrating all this information for
practical application in cases, she reminds us that both individuals
and remedies may be a combination of two or more temperaments; one
predominant over the others. For example, Lac Caninum
is Melancholic2, Nervous2, Phlegmatic2; Palladium is Sanguine3,
Choleric2. To conclude, she adds cases from her practice to illustrate
how an analysis of the basic temperament its combinations during case taking narrows down the choice
of remedies as a filter. Here
is a case of malignancy cured, in the clinical section.
I found this is an interesting and worthwhile
study to pursue that allows every homoeopath get a deeper grasp
of the Materia Medica as well as a deeper
understanding of the patient’s mental state and physical disease.
Of course many more remedies need to be included into the reportorial
rubrics and classification of temperamental types. But, does the
proving information collected today take into account this aspect
as Hahnemann did when he compiled his provings? In addition, do
our cases documented today provide information of patient’s temperament
types? This could be considered a lacuna in information made available
for future use and needs to be remedied.
With all the cutting edge ideas developing
in the field of homoeopathy today, let us not lose sight of the
valuable tools handed down to us not only from our own Masters,
but from that of medical and philosophical analysis down the ages,
starting with Hippocrates. Let each homeopath find that balance
of perception in one’s practice that allows us best to serve our
suffering fellowmen. Dr. Parinaz has offered
us her refined development of an old tool and we look forward to
her further elaborating it, fine-tuning it with added clinical application.
|