Posted by: homeoluv
Is it true that the remedy covering mentals and Generals will cure the pathology eventhough it does not cover the pathlogy as per the repertory? Are their exceptions? How can a remedy cure something which it cannot produce?It is true that provings were not pushed so far as to produce tissue degeneration.But can we assume that, the provers would have suffered such pathologies if pushed that far? Afterall we can only conjecture that way.Given a choice between an organ remedy and the remedy covering mentals and generals without covering pathlogy as per repertory, which should be chosen and why?
Before I answer this one I must say that all your questions are of such good level that I can not answer many of them on the run. I need to form my sentences to answer them properly and that is why they are taking all the more time to get answered. Very few students (if u r a student!) are able to throw such questions on their gurus. Lot of your questions need lengthy debates and extensive lectures to fully understand all the related aspects. May be we cant sit together someday or arrange a seminar. I really appreciate the level of your queries and enjoy answering them.
So back to this one. Before we delve into the reasons for choosing a particular type of remedy, we must understand how the organ affinities and pathologies came into our repertories and materia medica. Let me explain this by an example. Many medicines like apis, nat-mur, aur-mur-nat are known for their action in cystic swellings, esp where serous membranes are involved. So how did anyone came to know of such affinity of these medicines? Through clinical experience, which was based on remedy selection through symptom similarity. Suppose a woman comes to me with symptoms of apis and a pathology of ovarian cyst. I prescribe on the basis of totality of signs and symptoms and the cyst also disappears. If in a couple of more such cases I find that when I prescribe Apis on totality, the accompanying pathology of ovarian cyst also disappears, I will make a deduction that Apis has affinity for such pathology. This does not mean I will prescribe Apis in every case of Ovarian cyst but this information can help me narrow down my search for the similimum in many cases – especially if I have a relatively large group of medicines with such known tissue affinity.
Apart from this, knowledge about many of our organ-remedies has come throuh traditional and herbal knowledge and from other schools of medicine.
Now the question – can a remedy cure what it did not produce in provings? Yes! very often. The reason for this is that signs and symptoms are just a way of identifying the medicine. The action of medicine is not directed against those symptoms. Instead, the medicine just tries to increase the vitality of the person so that the body can reverse the process of disease. Whether our medicine will be able to cure a pathology or not does not depends on the medicine – it depends on the body’s ability to heal itself when assisted properly through homeopathy medicines.
Next – Can we produce pathologies by pushing the provings that far? Yes and no! If the proving is done using crude material doses, it can create pathologies due to toxic effects. But such pathology may not be true reflection of what pathologies that medicine will be able to cure when potentised. I personally believe that in most cases where provings are done using potentised source, it will be very difficult to produce pathologies. We can create symptoms-complexes which resemble those produced by various pathologies but creating a pathology would be rare – very rare. And that rarity will also occur only when the vital force of the prover is relatively weak and the artificial state created by the proving takes complete hold of the vitality of that person. This will happen if the medicine used for proving further weakens the vitality. Then the resulting pathology can result due to the deranged primary vital force or due to the mixed state created by the deranged vital force and the artificial state created by proving. I think the resulting effect will vary from prover to prover and generalizations regarding pathology through provings will prove difficult – if provings are carried to that extent ever!
Last – what should be given preference – a medicine covering generals or a medicine which covers pathology? I will give the highest preference to a medicine which covers both, then to a medicine which covers the generals and then to the medicine which covers only the pathology. The reason is very obvious. We ultimately treat on the basis of similarity of the state of a person and a medicine which covers the patient more completely is always a better choice to start your work. In cases of pathological disorders, One should not limit to the group of medicines which have been known to give results in such cases. Such groups are born out of clinical experience of many homeopaths and your experience can increase that group. Such a group is a mean to find the similmum not the end.