Dear Friends,
It has been more than a year since we started an open dialogue
through this e-journal, to discuss the various controversial questions
in homeopathy and different methods of practice, on an open platform.
Over the last one year, we have discussed various facets of homeopathy
with the likes of Grant Bentley, Luc de Schepper, George Vithoulkas,
Ulrich Welte, Rajan Sankaran, Jeremy Sherr, Jan Scholten, David
Little, Isaac Golden, Rudi Verspoor, Peter Chappell, A.U. Ramakrishnan,
Alize Timmerman, Beth Rotondo, Nancy Herrick, Peter Gregory, Urvi
Chauhan, Miranda Castro, Dietmar Payrhuber and many others. Hpathy
is thankful to everyone who has participated in this open exchange
of information and experiences.
Discussion with all these stalwarts and sharing of information
has enriched us all. We have been able to present different, sometimes
even contradictory views on one platform. Homeopaths from across
the world have shared their thoughts, views and cases, without bothering
about the school of thought that they belong to. Something like
this has never happened to the homeopathic community before. The
effort has been appreciated from every quarter.
Still, the editor in me is sad today! When we started the dialogue,
some friends warned that we were planning to walk on slippery grounds.
I said – “Never mind! Controversies are bound to happen but
we’ll manage. There is nothing to lose”. We never expected
the task to be easy and keeping a neutral balance between all these
myriad ideas, thoughts, schools, discoveries, the fight between
the old and new – has not been easy either. Time and again, I have
been criticized for promoting non-classical homeopathy or for taking
sides. People have at times even questioned my integrity, knowledge
and capability to do what we had been trying to do – to bring together
information about all the schools and thoughts related to homeopathy
at one central place and to initiate an open dialogue between opposing
thoughts. Month after month, in an effort to heal, in an effort
to bring together people from opposing schools – I have not just
witnessed, but at times, have been dragged into personal feuds and
animosities. But I am an optimist by heart and I have always felt
that the positive in this, is much more than the negative. And we
have carried on!
People think that as an editor, I am a judge. I have to judge what
is right homeopathy and what is wrong and then I have to publish
only that which is ‘right’ homeopathy. But I personally do not see
myself as a judge. I see Hpathy as a facilitator of information.
The judgment about what is true and what is false, what is right
and what is wrong, lies with the community.
The editor in me is sad, not just because I have seen the differences
in our community from very close quarters, but also because I see
little ‘dialogue’ or effort to find some uniformity in our methods
of practice. While people are now willing to share information through
Hpathy, I still see a lot of reservation in engaging in a one-to-one
or an open dialogue about specific practices. Homeopathy today
is like the conventional medicine of Hahnemann’s time. Anyone
can come up with any interpretation of our history, any new idea,
hypothesis or theory, any method of practice and there is no critical
scrutiny by the community. And if you are a big shot, nobody even
thinks about questioning your new ‘discoveries’. People either follow
those ideas or they do not. Everybody is happy in his/her own cocoon.
We are a very passive community. There is no central authority to
check the validity of numerous claims made by different people.
There is no central effort to resolve the timeless questions that
haunt homeopathy.
People say that homeopathy is an art. And in the name of art,
they become free to do anything. People forget that even art has
got specific techniques. You do not become an artist by holding
a brush. You have to learn to sketch and learn different standard
painting styles before you bring your own individuality. The basics
are common for all – even in art. But not in homeopathy! You can
take the case the way you like, you can interpret any symptom they
way you like, you can prescribe any medicine that suits your whim,
fancy or school of thought! Isn’t it sad?
As an individual, I am not against the variety. What appalls me
is that there is no effort for verification, validation
and integration of different thoughts and new ideas.
So the sad editor has vent his woes, now it’s time for the sad
practitioner in me. As an individual, I am exposed to nearly every
thought, every school and every method of practice that is present
in homeopathy. I have never followed any specific school of thought
and at times I wonder, if I had just chosen to follow someone –
Vithoulkas, Sankaran, Scholten, Sherr, Masi, Vijaykar, Dhawle, Ramakrishnan
– anyone – would life have been so much easier? You would
not need to make your own judgments, you could just follow someone
else’s ideas.
If I leave it here, I am going to get many emails telling me to
just follow Hahnemann. In fact, he is the only one I have tried
to follow constantly. But Hahnemann left a science incomplete in
many ways, many questions remain unanswered. And in an effort to
find answers, I have wandered far and wide – and have reached nowhere!
I am still at the crossroads – undecided whether to believe in the
miasms of Hahnemann that look like bacteria at one time and predisposition
to disease at the other, or to understand them as the three miasms
of Vijaykar and his cellular defense hypothesis, or the three fundamental
miasms and their understanding with facial analysis, or my own effort
to understand them through epigenetics, or Sankarans miasms that
he defines as patient’s reactions, or just join the camp that does
not believe in miasms at all! I am still trying to find the most
optimum way to take the case – the totality of Hahnemann, the therapeutic
approach, the tripod of Hering, the miasmatic approach, the layers
approach, the levels of Sankaran, the kingdom first approach, Jung’s
analytic approach, or do I just cook my own potpourri. I have not
read Hahnemann’s German case books and I am still undecided whether
to believe Little’s version of our history, or that of Verspoor’s.
I am still tying to find what is the valid place of biochemic medicines,
mother tinctures and complexes in homeopathy. I am still trying
to understand why some homeopaths claim a success rate of 90% and
some are modest enough to claim just a 10% success rate. I am still
trying to find out why some people are able to present consistent
miraculous cures of specific disease like Psoriasis, Vitiligo and
Cancer, while the rest of the community keeps having a difficult
time in treating such conditions.
There are many more questions about vital force, drug provings,
interpretation of symptoms, relative value of symptoms, our limitations
etc. The list of questions seems unending. As an individual I have
experienced and used many methods, but I have failed to give it
a cohesive structure. If you close your eyes, and keep practicing
what works best for you, there is peace and harmony all around.
But if you dare to raise the rug, the dirt and dust unsettles you.
My journey continues – as an individual with my patients and as
an editor with all of you. I am not sure where this journey will
take me. There is only one wish that within this life time, I will
be able to see the common thread in this chaos, find the answers
to all those questions, be able to cure most of my patients – with
certainty!
If you have found any answers in your journey, share them with
me at [email protected]
Yours in Homeopathy,
— Chief Editor —
Homeopathy for Everyone
