Posted by: homeoluv
Why is it that a remedy covering Vithoulkan essence need not have either totality or keynotes or both, of the same remedy?Why do we see such onesided remedy pictures? Has Kent written about such things?
To begin with, if you have read vithoulkas and Kent both carefully, you will find that Vithoulkas has been most inspired by Kent. His work on the essence of medicines is an extension of the work done by Kent in giving a descriptive sketch of the mental and physical profiles of various medicines.
I think that the premise of your question that the symptom similarity is not required for Vithoulkan essence is wrong. You need to understand the level at which people like Vithoulkas and Sankran etc. are working. There remedy pictures are not one-sided but they are just one-side of the picture of a remedy. They have presented a particular part of the whole truth in some of their works. If someone considers it the whole truth, it is his/her fault, not of the author.
Lets go a bit deeper on the evolution of such essences. We say that we prescribe on the basis of individuality of a person. Now this individuality of a person is reflected in both health and disease. In disease, we try to find this individuality of a person through the uniqueness of his/her signs and symptoms. People like Vithoulkas, Sankran and the likes, due to their very vast clinical experience and theoretical knowledge have been able to create a sketch of the indvidualizing characters of people in health which can give an indication for a medicine. Say after seeing hundreds of Lycopodium cases, they are able to identify some psychological traits which are OFTEN (not always) found in a patient needing Lyco. Similarly, after dealing with dozens of acid-phos cases, they find the way in which an acid-phos patient is affected by grief. After thousands of case-takings, these people are able to identify the common aspects in the life of various people needing a particular medicine. The amalgam of theses unique psychological and behavioral traits (in health and disease), with the common aspects of family history and developmental history, and the causative factors have lead to the development of such essences.
We have to understand and appreciate that people who are able to see such essence are working on a higher ground. And the way to reach to that higher ground is through the plane of symptom similarity. No one can ignore that – not even Vithoulkas and Sankran. But to work on that higher plane needs years of clinical experience, vast knowledge, lack of prejudice and humility. If any young student or practitioner tries to work on that plane without geting hold of the symptoms – it would be like committing suicide. Take my word for it, if a person can not identify a Lyco with the signs and symptoms, he will never be able to identify a Lyco with the Vithoulkan essence. Any such effort would be nothing but guess-work. And the person who truly understands the essences, will be able to justify his selection of essence with the signs and symptoms of the remedy. There are no two ways about it.
Just as a footnote I would like to say that Kent has been over-blamed about the use of mental generals and ignoring the pathology. If you read Kents lectures on materia medica carefully you will find that there are lot of examples of pathological disorders and psychological traits. What people miss are the three words he has used at many places as a qualifier – if symptoms agree. The medicine X is a good medicine for Y pathology, IF symptoms agree. Ignatia is good for hysterical women, IF symptoms agree. The sorry point is that the readers often miss the intent of Kent, hidden in these three words!