List of true Hahnemanian Homeopaths

try again

can't get it to load the hyperlink page. Copy and paste the url and then you get his page.

Well I believe a good 40% of my prescriptions likely lie outside that small group of 300.  I cannot see that increasing one's knowledge of medicines to a larger number is lazy - quite the opposite. In fact accuracy should increase with a larger selection of known remedies (knowledge of medicinal powers).  

Originally posted by Brisbanehomoeopath You can stick to the basics (follow the philosophy) and still expand your knowledge of materia medica.

Completely agree and would like to put on record that I constantly strive to do that myself. But I am against giving any remedy without proper proving symptoms handy.

"but the traditional case taking method does not allow for the practitioners to consider it."

David, I beg to differ.

I have often enough found less well-known remedies, by simple repertorising, am familiar with the points you make about groups - in fact, i am iin the process of constructing a MM along the lines of similarity in groups.
Thus one has a pivot in the root and stem, which is a single essential element - Helium, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Cuprum, Silicon. The Five elements of the Ancients: Ether, Air Water, Fire, Earth. These are the pivots of the materia medica. Essential and not derived.
Everything is built of a combination of these Forces, which is what remedies are. They connect with everything else, because what one does to one part, one does to all the parts. Symptom similarity can be expressed in different ways, but must always proceed from the essential.
Like a tree with different branches and leaves, flowers and fruits, plus visiting bees and birds are analogous to how nature has arranged everything simple and easy according to essence and function.

After all, it is by the Law of Similars we find both the remedy and its relationships according to that Law, to learn to differentiate between different states of the same emotion - Sankaran's "sensation" - and the same mentality - Sankaran's "delusion". That is unnecessarily complicating simple matters.
Complication is moreover a sign of ignorance. The truth has a particular quality - it is simple and easy, because the truth is both for all and the same for all - the simpleminded must be able to understand and put it into practise.

A delusion is a mental state and a sensation is an emotional state.

Hahnemann spoke of essentials and Sankaran speaks of derivatives. A sensation is derived from an emotional state and a delusion is derived from a mental state. Shankaran reduces all mental states to delusions. and all emotions to sensations
 I say that such is a sensational delusion by itself.
As in the financial market these derivatives have no solid backing and are but bubbles of derived hot air. As in the financial markets, the dealing in these derivatives will end in collapse under their own weight.

When one invents one's own interpretation of simple essentials to diversified derivatives one has etirely missed the boat and is swimming around the harbour.

There is no longer any room for unprejudiced observation, when one goes in there to find proof for a preconceived idea about the Kingdom, Order or Family of plant, element, animal, whichever one chooses, and looks for clues in such a direction.

One must go in there with the idea that one knows nothing untill all the symptoms have been noted and at least 3 keynotes truly stand out - better 5 or possibly more. Then one has at one's proposal a host of remedies that have been well-proven but little used and thus not well-know and those that are neither well-know nor well-proven.
There one has the works of Scholten and Sankaran and so on, but one wonders how and why they have decided that the old provings have no relevance and are never mentioned.
That is a shortsighted approach and the derivatives market proves to have less backing at every step.  Investment in them appears to be a very risky business.
Many or at least most of the new remedies have not undergone any provings and dreams of the remedy under the pillow are interpreted as being caused by the remedy and thus a "proving".
I say Get Real!
Those derivatives are losing their value at every step we make with them. More it resembles the financial bubble which collapsed last year.
On such flimsy speculation remedies are prescribed with a frightening lack of real data on which the choice is founded. Just like in the financial markets we are told that such is real value. We say it is not worht the paper it was written on - it is a fiat currency. On the promise of explaining things based on Kingdoms Orders and Families, we are fobbed off with speculative dealings, just as in the finacial markets.
Too often one sees Top Hit Remedies as well as Most Favoured Kingdoms, First Families and almost Religious Orders. They seem to be dealing the best. One must be a special card-carrying member of this exclusive derivatives club. I predict it will end like Enron.

Only when the homoeopath has a solid foundation in the Organon and the Chronic Diseases is the Sankaran method a possible help in the finding of the similimum and that only in a limited manner and in appropriate cases.

Regards,
Kaviraj.

Dear Members

to whom it may be concen, I can be contacted  through the members panel.

As much as it is tempting to class remedies in categories, and then reduce the work of selection by first identifying the class the patient is in, this method is allopathic procedure.

Let me play a bit with that --
Say -- you may be wrong about the class your patient is in, and by that miss the proper remedy,
Say -- you are right and your group of remedies is incomplete, and by that you miss the proper remedy,
Say -- you discard the whole classifications and take the case as it is repertorize the individual symptoms and by that arrive at a group of remedies which you further compare in the MMp, and if none suits go back to the case again, avoiding unnecesary sources of mistakes --

Which would be your choice?

well, mine is clear -- as anyone can guess -- cure by symptom similitude.

And I prefer to avoid unnecesary sources of mistakes.

Of course, there is always the lucky hit, the coincidently homeopathic remedy, but can we rely on this?

And another thing:
Can we take it for granted, that the now expressed emotional state of the patient is part of the disease symptom picture?

I don't think so --, as it may well be the patients nature to express him/herself and has nothing to do with the disease now present.

Sankaran has a very solid foundation in Organon and Chronic Diseases. He insists that all practitioners that use his method also have this foundation before attempting to prescribe this way.

get real!

there is nothing ahhnemannian about it. If it were he would use hahnemann's terms. He does not so it has nothing to do with it.

Thus a case is not taken on the basis of some psychological abstraction, but on the reality of a sequence of symptoms. These symptoms follow a development with a definitive speed, direction, intensity, duration and period, as a quintessential picture of reality.

You have to be scientific and classical you are to take a case as we are taught by Hahnemann.
Many are just trying to get as many symptoms as they can, but that must follow a pattern. You are groping in the dark otherwise. You must organise your questioning, because it has to have a purpose - which is to find the totality.

There is a direction in the development of disease, so you must first find the primary symptom with which the disease started. That is ethiology. So after that, which direction did the disease take - what is the sequence of the symptoms, with what speed, which intensity, for how long and with what pattern of repetiton. That leads you to discovery of the totality of symptoms and like this we must organise MM, and according to those lines. That is living Materia Medica.

Then you reassess on the basis of total symptom reality and not any preconceived idea that this must be that Kingdom, this Order or that Family of plants, animal or element, because nature does not work like that. Belladonna lives in a northern desolate landscape like refuse heaps, where few people come. Solanum mammosum lives in the dense jungle of rainforest and a wet, warm climate. Tropical, as opposed to the north, where it is on the fresh side of temperate, so where is the relationship? They have completely different symptoms and maybe a few keynotes in common. Some are rather close like Bell and Stram, but differ very much in their mental states.

That is because of habitat and they are more closely local uses of remedies. Everything must be viewed as a whole. The patient lives in the same habitat as the remedies that shall serve him in his disease. Think globally, but act locally. There are the local specifics for the local disease.
Every case follows the natural development of disease and you follow it till the present state. Then you KNOW what is the totality and you learn it at the sickbed.

Everyone should study the concept again and again. Put it into practise and you will get a true understanding of disease and totality and offers the true manner in which diseases manifest.

In regards to local means for local diseases you say:
"It is not, however ,a Hahnemannian concept."

I suggest you finally study the Organon. I mean really study, not just read to justify yourself and Sankaran. Because it is completely.

5.        In every case of disease the particulars of the exiting cause of an acute disease are of importance. In chronic cases, the most significant points in the history enable the physician to discover its fundamental cause. Fundamental causes are generally due to a chronic miasma. In these investigations the following points need due consideration:
•    Physical constitution.
•    The character, both moral and intellectual.
•    Occupation – the work he does.
•    Environment – the place and situation.
•    The way of life and habits.
•    Social and domestic relation.
•    Age and sex.

Those bold points are all based on the direct environment and many of the remedies Hahnemann found are based on nothing but the direct environment. Plumbum, Cuprum, Ferrum, Mercury, and their salts and acids, Sepia, Graphites, Causticum, just to name but a few are all the direct result of observations of the direct environment and could not be more local than that. So go back to the basic textbooks...edited...
 
I find you also overlook all the points i make and seek to look only for justifications of the prejudice of Kingdoms, Orders and Families.

Nature does not work that way - as i explained extensively.
You still look for your prejudiced spychological abstraction, which you carefully have avoided to adress. Because it is thus - i have bought the books and have read them meanwhile - that derived ideas take the place of simple essentials - mentals and emotionals.

Hahnemann spoke of essentials and Sankaran speaks of derivatives. A sensation is derived from an emotional state and a delusion is derived from a mental state. Shankaran reduces all mental states to delusions and all emotions to sensations.
I say that such is a sensational delusion by itself. There are many states of mind that are not delusions just as there are many emotions that are not sensations.

So you fall again short of the Hahnemannian ideals. No justification put forward is gong to remove the fact that it is not Hahnemannian but Shankaranian - evident from the terminology alone. So why not just be entirely honest and say you don't care about Hahnemann? Your "refutation" only proves my point.

Regards,
Kaviraj.

Don't kid yourself - or anyone else for that matter and certainly not me - that it has anything to do with Hahnemann.

Regards,
Kaviraj.

Simply saying it does not, is not an argument but simply an assertion of your opinion. This is fine as we already know that our opinions differ on this point.

It has nothing to do with my opinion, but with yours. Don't project your opinion onto others.
In homoeopathy there is no place for opinions - it is a science. Science has no place for opinion and homoeopathy is not in need of it. Nor has it any need for new concepts - hahnemann's have served us perfectly well for the last 200+ years. and again you have avoided the psychological abstraction found in the sensation method, by mentioning a list of symptoms that supposedly covers it - i beg to differ. And since this discussion is as usual going nowhere because you are convinced of your own opinion, i shall close my remarks with again saying that opinions have nothing to do with the science of homoeopathy.

Regards,
Kaviraj.

PS

I give you at least regards, you could take a lesson from that too.

I do in fact learn a lot from our discussions. It forces me to be very clear about why this method can be integrated with traditional homoeopathy, when I teach it to students. So this is always valuable for me.

In answer to the original question?

In other words, who practices by the 6th ed. of the Organon?

 

Robin Murphy

David Little

Luc De Schepper

 

and their many students and graduates.