How to learn Homeopathy? Some suggested books.

REAL CURE. GENTLE CURE.
I am here not talking about the basic philosophy of Homeopathy. (For the basics, an excellent book would be, A Brief Study Course in Homeopathy by Elizabeth WRIGHT-HUBBARD

Here I am talking about how to master the subject. The only way is to know the remedies well. As well as you know your family and friends. The only way to do that is reading. Hard work. Reading as many books you can. Learning Homeopathy means an incessant study of the materia medica and the repertory alternately. That is the only way.

As far repertories are concerned, Robin Murphy is essential. Homeopathic Medical Repertory, or the more recent Homeopathic Clinical Repertory are the books you need. The best thing about the Murphy repertory is that it is organised alphabetically and not like Kent's repertory (mind, vertigo, head etc).

About the materia medicas. Beginners, start with Nash's Leaders in Homeopathic Therapeutics. His writing style is gripping and even beginners will find it interesting. For heaven's sakes, don't start with Hahnemann's Materia Medica Pura or his Chronic Diseases. You will get lost and may be it will mean curtains for any chance of a love affair between you and Homeopathy. Start with Nash.

Then go in for Rajan Sankaran's Soul of Remedies or Catherine COULTER's Portraits of Homeopathic Medicine. This might be frowned upon by many. I suggesting these books for beginners because they make Materia Medica interesting. For those taking baby steps in homeopathy, this is important.

Then go in for Kent. His Lectures on Homeopathic Materia Medica is a classic. Read it well. Even when you practice, that book will keep giving you vital hints. Kent draws vivid and exhaustive images of the remedies. So does Farrington. His Clinical Materia Medica gives you deep insights into remedy pictures.

Margaret L. Tyler's Homeopathic Drug Pictures is recommended by many. But I did not like it. It does not have many important remedies. Reading Tyler did not give me remedy pictures, like Nash, Kent or Farrington gives.

Why is homeopathy derided?

REAL CURE. GENTLE CURE.
Just check out the news on the web about homeopathy. Chances are nine out of ten times the report will be adverse. Things like "homeopathy is nothing more than placebo", "homeopathy does not stand up to scientific scrutiny" or more uncharitably, Homeopathy is bull shit!".

I do not understand one thing. The masters of homeopathy never said homeopathy was pure science. Homeopathy is science and art. It is both. It is philosophy. Then why is it being judged on the yardstick of pure science? I would advise the adherents of allopathy to stop attacking. They don't know the abc of homeopathy. Have they read the basic books on homeopathy. No!

Homeopathy was a rage in the United States in the nineteenth century. More and more homeopathic hospitals were being built. The brightest minds were opting for homeopathy as an career. Kent, Von Lippe and H. C. Allen were national figures. The decline of homeopathy began in that country because the homeopathy case-taking (if properly done) takes a long time. A homeopathic physician at best see ten to fifteen patients every day. Allopathy scored over it as a allopathy physician takes at most ten to fifteen minutes per patient. So he can see more patients and earn more money. The general public too was attracted by the quickness. It is another point that allopathy most of the time palliates or suppresses a disease, which emerges in a new form in another part of the body. In contrast homeopathy cures. Most people don't understand this. The homeopathy has no millionaire doctors and multi-billion dollar drug firms to educate the public and publicize it.

The very fact that despite all this it survives today and is increasingly thriving is proof of its utility. It is said when the best doctors give up on a case that the patient goes to a homeopathic doctor as a last desperate attempt to be cured. Homeopathy never fails them. For chronic diseases, there is no other system of medicine but homeopathy.

In India, the government has a separate department of homeopathy and actively encourages its spread. The country's homeopathic colleges give forth thousands of homeopaths every year. Are they all fools. Would all this happen if homeopathy was nothing but placebo? Remember that the Indian culture is one of the oldest in the world. If Indians have embraced homeopathy as its own, there must be much more in it than what some allopathic physicians with narrow intellect and closed mind say it is.

The great Germans Hahnemann (founder of homeopathy) and Count Boeninghausen, great American homeopaths Adolph Lippe, Constantine Hering, Kent, H. C. Allen, English homeopath Clarke. All great homeopaths of the nineteenth century. Were they all quacks? Those who belittle homeopathy; have they heard of them? Have they read their works? I would advise them to do so before they say a word about homeopathy.

The present masters of homeopathy. Flemish Kockelenberg, Dockx, Greek Vithoulkas, American Roger Morrison, Canadian Andre Saine, Dutch Van Zandvoort and Jan Scholten, Indian genius homeopath Rajan Sankaran. Are they all fools? Or quacks? Or tricksters? Mere peddlers of placebo?

Think again ladies and gentlemen, who pass adverse comments on homeopathy. You have a lot to learn.

Related
-- WHO speaks against Homoeopathy: Is it justified?
-- Lovers of Homoeopathy: Now is the time to act
-- WHO advice against Homoeopathy: Another attempt to deride ...
-- IGNORAMUSES AND VESTED INTERESTS IN BRITAIN: STAY OFF HOMOEOPATHY

How to choose the right potency in Homeopathy?

REAL CURE. GENTLE CURE.
The potency problem is the one which remains unsolved this day. I mean there is disagreement amongst the different masters of Homeopathy on the issue. Some like Dr. Kent and Dr. Nash were unabashed high potency preachers. On the other hand British homeopaths like Dr. J H Clarke voted for the lower potencies. (I HAVE THE HIGHEST REGARD FOR Dr. Clarke. His works are a treat to read).

My advice is keep a open mind. Decide after observing the case. If the totality of the case matches well with the characteristics of the patient, even high potencies will do good work. But be careful that the patient can take the high potency. If there is continuous aggravation (especially of the mental condition of the patient) antidote it or give the same remedy in low potency. Remember, lower potency of a remedy will antidote the high potency of the same remedy. I recollect I had given Carcinosinum 1 M to a patient. There was frightening aggravation. Now know this well, Carc. has no antidote. I gave Carc. 30 and everything was fine.

Remember, after giving the remedy, monitor the mental state of the patient. If the patient feels better, you have nothing to worry, even if the pathology is worsening. The cure process is under way.

If you are a novice in Homeopathy, start with 6C or 30C. Go after the 200, 1 M and 10 M only after you have read extensively. Ignorance is not bliss in Homeopathy. Read books. Then read more books, is my advise. Don't be lazy. There is no place for laziness in Homeopathy. Use your head. Be original. Always remember what Hahnemann, Boeninghausen, Hering, Kent, Von Lippe, Boger, Nash, Clarke, Bhanja, Grimmer say. They were greats. They knew what they were talking about. Be sceptical about everybody else. But what those greats said; take it as gospel. You will not regret it.

Essential Reading for potency

1. Select Your Dose and Potency by Dr. P.S. RAWAT

2. Introduction to Homeopathic Prescribing by S.M. GUNAVANTE (Lesson 7 - Selection of Potency and Repetition of Dose)

3. The Elements of Homoeopathy (Ch. 16 - The Potency Problem) by P Sankaran.

Some vital hints for Homeopathic prescribing

REAL CURE. GENTLE CURE.

• Common symptoms become characteristic ( which are used for prescribing) if they are 1. very intense or 2. group unexpectedly or peculiarly with other common symptoms

• HIERARCHY - Modalities (most imortant), sensation (less important) and then location (least important)

• HIERARCHY OF MODALITIES- 1. Causation, 2. Aggravation and 3. Amelioration

• HIERARCHY OF CAUSATION- 1. Mental 2. Physical (diathesis, suppressions)

• HIERARCHY OF AGGRAVATION- 1. Emotional 2. General and 3. Particular

• Common mentals are useless unless they are very intense or accompanied with modalities

• Concomitants of mental symptoms are extremely important

• Common symptoms become characteristic when they are 1. Very intense 2. Have modalities 3. associate themselves together peculiarly (Example-clean tongue with nausea) 4. Group together (ex. vomiting and diarrhoea)

• HIERARCHY OF SYMPTOMS ACCORDING TO DR. P. SANKARAN- 1. Mental characteristics, 2. General characteristics, 3. Particular characteristics 4. mentals common 5. Generals common 6. Particulars common (least important)

• KEYNOTES are characteristic symptoms which unmistakably point to a small group of remedies. Single keynote is of no use in prescribing. Atleast three keynotes are needed (Hering's three-legged stool)

• BOENINGHAUSEN'S GENERALISATION- when a sensation or modality is experienced in two or more locations; this can be safely generalised

• PHYSICAL GENERALS- 1. AGGRAVATIONS 2. AMELIORATIONS 3. SENSATIONS 4. Food (Aggravation and cravings) 4. Sleep & dreams 5. Sex (Desire, masturbation,menses) 6. Pathological generals (See Boger's General Analysis and "Sensations and complaints" chapter in Boger-Boeninghausen Repertory)

• TOTALITY OF SYMPTOMS is not totality of all symptoms but is the totality of characteristic symptoms

• CAUSATION is the most important. Causation forms the core of the picture of illness in a patient. If you get the causation in a case, you have hit bullseye. (There are about 5 pages of 'ailments from' in Synthesis Repertory in the mind chapter. They give the mental causation. Priceless stuff.)

• Boeninghausen considers aggravations as being more important than ameliorations during prescribing

• CHARACTERISTIC PARTICULARS come last in importance. They help in prescribing in acute diseases when the acute disease throws the chronic picture of disease into the background. They are useful in finding acute remedies.

• BOENINGHAUSEN'S FUNDAS- 1. Generalize on a large scale 2. Prime importance of modalies 3. Concomitants are very important 4 Physical generals are important 5. Mentals are used to differentiate

• KENT'S APPROACH 1. Mentals are most important 2. Generalization on a limited scale 3. Then come the Physical generals 4. Characteristic particulars help to differentiate during prescribing

• BOGER'S APPROACH It is mostly the Boeninghausen's method. Boger's contribution is Pathological generals

• Remember that all chronic cases have miasms involved. Such cases need miasmatic prescribing. What are miasms? We will discuss that in a later article. In fact because of the concept of miasms, Homeopathy is a much superior system of medicine as compared to Allopathy and other systems.

• Unlike in allopathy diagnosis is useless while prescribing Homeopathically. Clinical systems as they are called are totally useless. In Murphy's repertory ther are about 100 remedies under tuberculosis. How do you decide which to pick? Get my point? Moreover, if the mentals and physicals fit, even if that remedy is not given under tuberculosis, it will cure and cure pronto.

How to find the right Homeopathic remedy?

REAL CURE. GENTLE CURE.
Please allow me to apologise here if sometimes you find it difficult to comprehend what I am talking about. There are two reasons for that. Firstly I make no pretence of being a teacher. I am just sharing with you all that I know about Homeopathy. Please read my articles carefully and also start reading books on the subject. Things will begin to become clearer.

Secondly Homeopathy is a difficult subject. Remember what I said at the outset? Homeopathy is like a beautiful and good woman who is difficult to woo. But the silver lining is that once you fall in love, hard work and commitment to learning Homeopathy will come easily and by itself. It is like falling in love.

How do we go about finding the right remedy for a patient? There are many ways of prescribing. The following book will be of help.

Principles of Prescribing by K.N.MATHUR

Most authors will say for beginners, painstaking repertorising is the only way. But to me this has seemed to be clerical drudgery. Homeopathy is not about memorising and slogging. It is an art. "Dare to be wise"- is the universal motto.

I finally found refuge in Kent. He says while prescribing, only the mentals and the generals are of consequence. Mentals means we try to draw the picture of the state of mind of the diseased patient. Generals are whether he likes warmth or called, is he always thirsty or that he prefers to drink only a little water. Things like that.

In other words, we have to draw the picture of the disease (I do not mean allopathic diagnosis here). And then try and find a remedy with a matching picture. You give the remedy and presto! The disease disappears!

Modern Indian Homeopaths like Rajan Sankaran claim that the mentals are all important. If they fit, just go ahead and prescribe. I have found mentals are the most important. But the generals also should fit, to be on the safer side.

Homeopathic remedies are like humans. They have their own likes and dislikes, their peculiarities. Know them well. Read the Keynotes of the Homeopathic remedies well. The next time you see a sick person you will find one of them lurking inside him. Give him that remedy and you will cure. Definitely.

Homeopathy drugs and Homeopathy masters

REAL CURE. GENTLE CURE.
Now you may ask, what is the difference between allopathic and Homeopathy drugs. Well, the former are crude substances. Homeopathy remedies have 'spiritual' energy. Examine a pellet of arsenic album 30C under a microscope. You will no trace of arsenic.

Then how does it act? The matter of arsenic album may not be there, but its spirit is there. This is the reason that allopathic school of medicine does not recognize Homeopathy and looks down on it with disdain. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Every time a well selected remedy is administered, it acts promptly. No one has been able to explain why Homeopathic drugs act, but they act like a dream.

One has to believe in spirituality to believe in Homeopathy. That is the reason why India has taken to Homeopathy. It vibes well with its belief in the concept of AATMA.

In fact India is the citadel and powerhouse that has not only kept Homeopathy alive, but it is also flourishing. A few years back it was gasping for survival in the United States, but lately it is becoming increasingly popular there again. This is happening because people are getting disillusioned by the failure of allopathy in curing many diseases, especially chronic diseases. Also the side effect of allopathic drugs has left people searching for alternatives. Homeopathy has been the king of alternative therapy.

It might sound strange, but in the 19th century, Homeopathy had flourished in the US. It had thrown up some of the masters of Homeopathy, whose contribution is priceless. Hering, Kent, Lippe, Nash, Farringdon and Grimmer's books are still and will remain essential reading in Homeopathy.