COMMENTS BY EILEEN:
Aphorisms 1 though 71 are about the Principles of Cure. This is the "theory" part of the Organon. Aphorisms 71-291 (in 6th edition) are the practical, how-to-do-it part of using homeopathy, taking a case and making a remedy, etc.

To carry this a little further, Aphorism 5-18 are about the knowledge of diseases.

Aphorisms 19-27 are about the knowledge of medicines.

Aphorisms 28-70 covers the knowledge of how to choose and administer the remedy and Aph. 70 contains the summary.

COMMENTS BY EILEEN:
EXAMPLE: In today's modern environment with the use of over-the-counter drugs and prescription drugs, there may be a return to health in the sense that the symptoms go away. However, they cannot cure. And it is questionable whether the return to health is really true because inevitably, when one takes a drug (OTC or prescription) the same symptoms will more than likely return at some point in the future. All that has been done here is to suppress the symptoms. That is not a genuine return to health. That is not cure. This is a huge area of division philosophically between allopathic (drug) medicine is practice and how homeopathy is practiced.

Homeopathy can promise health AND cure, without suppression of the symptoms. As we go through the Organon, there is much to look at and perceive and understand in the homeopathic way of looking at disease and health. I cannot cover it all here, but we will, step-by-step, in time. Homeopathy is one of the few medical 'tools' that I know of that can CURE, rather than suppress one's symptoms. There certainly is miracles and other alternative medicine 'tools' at our disposal that may also give health and cure. For now, we are only going to talk and focus on homeopathy.

COMMENTS BY PAUL:
his preface contains the same theme -

"In order to give a general notion of the treatment of diseases pursued by the old school of medicine (allopathy) it may be observed that it presupposes the existence sometimes of excess of blood (plethora - which is never present), sometimes of morbid matters and acridities; hence it taps off the life's blood and exerts itself either to clear away the imaginary disease-matter or to conduct it elsewhere (by emetics, purgatives, sialogogues, diaphoretic, diuretics, drawing plasters, setons, issues, etc.), in the vain belief that the disease will thereby be weakened and materially eradicated; in place of which the patient's sufferings are thereby increased, and by such and other painful appliances the forces and nutritious juices indispensable to the curative process are abstracted from the organism."

Here Sam is saying that all these fancy theories lead to a therapy which further undermines the vital force of the patient. (Hence the activation of latent Psora which promotes chronic disease.)

COMMENT BY PAUL:

Paracelsus did the same thing - bless his soul.

EILEEN'S COMMENT:
It appears to me that Hahnemann is getting on his pulpit and pounding it with passion about what a physician should and should not do or be here.

My favorite is:
1. Don't talk medicalese to your patient, explain everything in simple, straight-forward, understandable terms so you, the patient, is empowered by the knowledge of what's going on with your health or lack of it. Too many doctors lapse into their medicalese short-hand and unless the patient has the guts to stop 'em and say: explain it simply to me, the patient is dis-empowered by this approach.

2. He is also chiding academia, the scientists, the theoretician types to stop being up in their heads and DO something practical insofar as healing the sick and creating health AND cure.

3. He also has disdain for their arrogance, their pettiness, their ego that is out of control and ultimately the dis-empowerment of the patient, who gets lost in this process.

4. He is also saying that all physicians should devote themselves to CURE--and of course, from Hahnemann's viewpoint, he has the tool with which to cure and this is no small suggestion that they (the physicians) move over to his brand of medicine (homeopathy) and practice it because they will get health and cure in their patient.

COMMENT BY PAUL:
Yes, the pompous learned scholars are getting a roasting.

COMMENTS BY GABY ROTTLER AND GERMAN VERSION FROM 6TH ORGANON:
SOURCE: Organon der Heilkunst, 6. Auflage

---------------------------------

Aph.1
Des Arztes hoechster und einziger Beruf ist, kranke Menschen gesund zu machen, was man Heilen nennt (1).

Footnote 1:

Nicht aber (womit so viele Aerzte bisher Kraefte und Zeit ruhmsuechtig verschwendeten) das Zusammenspinnen leerer Einfaelle und Hypothesen über das innere Wesen des Lebensvorgangs und der Krankheitsentstehungen im unsichtbaren Innern zu sogenannten Systemen, oder die unzaehligen Erklaerungsversuche über die Erscheinungen in Krankheiten und die, ihnen stets verborgen gebliebene, naechste Ursache derselben u.s.w. in unverstaendliche Worte und einen Schwulst abstracter Redensarten gehuellt, welche gelehrt klingen sollen, um den Unwissenden in Erstaunen zu setzen, waehrend die kranke Welt vergebens nach Huelfe seufzte. Solcher gelehrter Schwaermereien (man nennt es theoretische Arzneikunst und hat sogar eigne Professuren dazu) haben wir nun gerade genug, und es wird hohe Zeit, dass, was sich Arzt nennt, endlich einmal aufhoere, die armen Menschen mit Geschwaetze zu taeuschen, und dagegen nun anfange zu handeln, das ist, wirklich zu helfen und zu heilen.

-----------------------------------

COMMENT:
"The physician's highest calling, his only calling, is to make sick people healthy-to heal, as it is termed."

The translation 'calling' is not totally correct. Profession would come closer. Hahnemann was - in my opinion - an absolute scientific researcher. He simply said: it is the doctor's job to cure sick people.

COMMENT BY GABY:
...the inner nature of the vital process... [Singular!]

..and their proximate cause which has always stayed hidden from them.

Nor does it consist of holding forth in unintelligible words or abstract and pompous expressions in an effort to appear learned so as to astonish the ignorant, while the world in sickness cries in vain for help.

Surely by now we have had enough of these pretentious fantasies called theoretical medicine, for which university chairs have even been established, and it is time for those calling themselves physicians to stop deceiving poor human beings by their talk and to start acting instead, that is, really helping and healing.

COMMENT GABY:
Hahnemann even says:...deceiving poor human beings by their prattle....!

COMMENTS BY SUBSCRIBERS ON ATHENA LIST:
Hi Carol,
COMMENTS BY GABY ROTTLER AND GERMAN VERSION FROM 6TH ORGANON: [...]

...the inner nature of the vital process... [Singular!]

Congratulations Athena Organon Team, for taking the plunge into this central, historical text! :-)

My attention goes to the little phrase above and Gaby's comments. That THE VITAL PROCESS is SINGULAR, it's one life-process, and needs to be seen by us as such, underlying various manifestations. We're always looking to get a fix on the vital process as a whole. The vital force (VF) and its process is our primary orientation point in "doing" homeopathy, also for many other life-activities.

Therapists also talk about being "in your [life-]process." They may use various therapeutic processes, but it is one life process we are addressing. That one life process includes all of us, even the therapist and the homeopath. But that is possibly a larger framework than H. intended in the context above

Perhaps we will follow this little word through the Organon - though it may be difficult to 're-find' it in the different translations. In Aph. 12 (which will be presented in July) we find again this 'VITAL PROCESS' -Lebens-Vorgang in German:

Aph. 12
.....Hinwiederum bedingt aber auch das Verschwinden aller Krankheits-Auesserungen, das ist, aller vom gesunden Lebens-Vorgange abweichenden, merkbaren Veraenderungen mittels Heilung, eben so gewiss die Wiederherstellung der Integritaet des Lebens-Princips und setzt folglich die Wiederkehr der Gesundheit des ganzen Organism nothwendig voraus.....
§ 12 Sixth Edition

....consequently, also, the disappearance under treatment of all the morbid phenomena and of all the morbid alterations that differ from the healthy vital operations [healthy vital process , GR] certainly affects and necessarily implies the restoration of the integrity of the vital force and, therefore, the recovered health of the whole organism...

But - as this Aph. will be part of _my_ homework during the next weeks - I still need to look deeper into the translations of the sentences of this Aphorism.

Best wishes,
Gaby

FROM EILEEN NAUMAN:
Hi Carol
I'm sure Gaby and maybe the rest of the Organonmaniacs will answer this too--but here's my particular take on what you've noted:

you said:
My attention goes to the little phrase above and Gaby's comments. That THE VITAL PROCESS is SINGULAR, it's one life-process, and needs to be seen by us as such, underlying various manifestations. We're always looking to get a fix on the vital process as a whole. The vital force (VF) and its process is our primary orientation point in "doing" homeopathy, also for many other life-activities.

Therapists also talk about being "in your [life-]process." They may use various therapeutic processes, but it is one life process we are addressing. That one life process includes all of us, even the therapist and the homeopath. But that is possibly a larger framework than H. intended in the context above

I agree that when we homeopaths start talking about the Vital Force, our patient's eyes glaze over real fast. And as a matter of fact, if you ask 10 homeopaths what the VF is--you're gonna get 10 different answers or spins or variations on it--depending upon their experience/beliefs/background.

We (the Organon gang) have been wrestling with this very thing in another way with Aph 6 (due out May 25th), in a different, yet similar way. So I might as well jump in here with an 11th definition :-)

From a strict metaphysical viewpoint, I feel the VF is singular. To me, that means all the auric fields, the chakras (energy systems), the physical body, the spirit and the spark of soul, comprise our VF. And you cannot disconnecte, disassociate or parcel out any of this. We are all 'connected' on every level; therefore, 'singular'. AT least, that's my 'take on it.'

And, I'll step into this even deeper and tell you quite frankly that there's a whole lotta homeopaths out there who really wish I'd quit bringing in the metaphysical part of this, but the VF is not solely physicality. Hahnemann called it "spirit." Well, what's spirit, if it isn't the 'rest' of the above? Many homeopath's get real edgy and move away from me real fast on this one because they want so badly to have homeopathy accepted by 'science and medicine' -- and to do that--you can't be dragging in the the things I believe/know to exist. I'm not the only homeopath who believes this. Maybe the nomenclature is different, but 'spirit' is 'spirit'--it is non-physical.

It is through this explanation, my lens on life, that I feel I understand what Hahnemann meant--but this is where it gets murky and gets into 'opinions'. I'm simply offering my opinon :-).

This oughta open up a can of worms :-)

Warmly, Eileen

FROM DEBRA LEROY:
Hi Eileen, Gaby and Carol,
Well, I might as well take the plunge here, too. I think that Eileen has hit the nail on the head. The vital force/process is a singular entity...it is the intrinsic part of us. It is the intangible parts, that make up the sum total, that Hahnemann was explaining, I think.

I think that to really get a grasp on the scope of this may require folks being able to believe that the spirit or essence of who/what we are can live independently of our physical being, if it chooses to do so. We evolved or were given/made into (depending on your spiritual beliefs) physical bodies for this life. But, we all begin and end as a vital force/spirit/essence.

Actually, not only Hahnemann, but Paracelsus said it before Hahnemann and Hippocrates talked about it before both of them. In fact, many of the great healers have known/observed this. Some of them talked about it, some didn't.

And, everything is interconnected with everything else, universally speaking.

But, this may be hard for folks to believe in our day, when the traditional medical community has taken us and broken us into pieces, which are not connected. Therefore, we are to go to a psychiatrist, when we are emotionally distressed, an optometrist, when we have a problem with our eyes. We have ears, nose and throat, Cadiology, Oncology, (and the list goes on and on) Specialists that, often times, do not look at us as a whole being, but rather as a "piece" of a human being. I think that if Hahnemann were alive today, he would surely be giving us a tongue lashing for allowing this to happen. :-)

Warmest regards,
Debra

FROM GABY ROTTLER:
Hi Eileen, Debra, Carol,
Debra, your wrote:

"Well, I might as well take the plunge here, too. I think that Eileen has hit the nail on the head. The vital force/process is a singular entity...it is the intrinsic part of us. It is the intangible parts, that make up the sum total, that Hahnemann was explaining, I think."

I'd like to elaborate on that more explicitly - but a lot of time pressure (and I will be off from Friday to Sunday, so there's not much time left) - only permits me to make some short remarks:

Vital force - vital process : they mean different things in my opinion.

In the introduction to the 6th ed. of the Organon Hahnemann writes:

He talks about the Lebenskraft, which can be translated as vital force, vital power, power of life

" No! that exquisite power innate in the human being, designed to direct in the most perfect manner the operations of like while it is in health, [designed to direct life in the most perfect manner while it (the human being) - is in health,...GR] equally present in all parts of the organism, in the fibres of sensibility as well as in those of irritability, the unwearying spring of all the normal functions of the body, was not created for the purpose of affording itself aid in diseases, not for the purpose of exercising a healing art worthy of imitation. "

So that wonderful force we all are borne with ( the vital force) will direct our life in the most perfect manner - provided that the human being is in health. The vital force was simply not created to cure itself.

He goes on:

"No! the true healing art is that reflective work, the attribute of the higher powers of human intellect, of unfettered judgment and of reason selecting and determining on principle in order to effect an alteration in the instinctive, irrational and unintelligent, but energetic automatic vital force,...."

Here we have exactly the descriptions for the vital force (my translation being a little bit different)

instinctive

without reason/ intellect

without conscience, i.e. without being aware of itself

but automatically energetic vital force

"when it has been diverted by disease into abnormal action, and by means of a similar affection developed by a homoeopathically chosen remedy, to excite in it a medicinal disease somewhat greater in degree, so that the natural morbid affection can no longer act upon the vital force, which thus, freed from the natural disease, has now only the similar, somewhat stronger, medicinal morbid affection to contend with, against which it now directs its whole energy and which it soon overpowers, whereby the vital force is liberated and enabled to return to the normal standard of health and to its proper function, "the maintenance of the life and health of the organism, " without having suffered, during this change, any painful or debilitating attacks. Homoeopathy teaches us how to effect this."

Well, this is going to be tougher than I thought! :-)

So that's how Hahnemann himself describes the Lebenskraft, the vital force. We'll see still more descriptions of the vital force, the vital principle, the Dynamis in Aph.9 - 13.

Now, let's go to the vital process, we talked about in the first Aph.

Aph.1, footnote:

"It is not to weave so-called systems from fancy ideas and hypotheses about the inner nature of the vital processes [...the inner nature of the vital process... [Singular!]GR] and the origin of diseases in the invisible interior of the organism (on which so many fame seeking physicians have wasted their powers and time)."

Perhaps I should give some more possibilities to translate the word

Lebensvorgang:

- process of life, life-process

process - meaning: a series of actions, of natural developments that

produce gradual change

To make it short:

... to look for the inner nature of the vital process...

is just the easy question : Why are we alive? What makes us live?

As Eileen said, 10 homoeopaths - you'll get 10 different opinions about the vital force (if you don't quote me: I'm convinced you probably get even more, let's say about 13 - 15 opinions from them! ). ;-) (and probably about the vital process another dozen).

I love all our discussions - that's what the diversity of Athena is about!

Warmly,
Gaby

FROM HEATHER:

Hi Eileen, Carol and all,

I am not a homeopath, but extremely compelled towards this form of healing. And hoping to start studying it in earnest soon...that is, time to do a course.

For near on four years you could have seen me trundling over to Lane Cove here in Sydney Australia to Dr Ernst L. Godfrey, an MD and practising Homeopath for sixty years. He had a wonderful reputation for healing those who were unable to get results from the Medical Profession, especially children's ill health which would normally be brushed off as "Oh! he/she'll grow out of it". Or the attitude for adults that the "normal" human state is acceptance of vague but enduring symptoms which become, over time, debilitating. No doubt an attitude fueled by the fear of hypochondia. I love how homeopaths take note of all the little symptoms, that others would gloss over or avoid.

At 10:20 PM 5/05/98
Eileen said....
From a strict metaphysical viewpoint, I feel the VF is singular. To me, that means all the auric fields, the chakras (energy systems), the physical body, the spirit and the spark of soul, comprise our VF. And you cannot disconnecte, disassociate or parcel out any of this. We are all 'connected' on every level; therefore, 'singular'. AT least, that's my 'take on it.' And, I'll step into this even deeper and tell you quite frankly that there's a whole lotta homeopaths out there who really wish I'd quit bringing in the metaphysical part of this, but the VF is not solely physicality. Hahnemann called it "spirit." Well, what's spirit, if it isn't the 'rest' of the above? Many homeopath's get real edgy and move away from me real fast on this one because they want so badly to have homeopathy accepted by 'science and medicine' -- and to do that--you can't be dragging in the the things I believe/know to exist. I'm not the only homeopath who believes this. Maybe the nomenclature is different, but 'spirit' is 'spirit'--it is non-physical.

Even though spirit is non-physical, the majority of people do recognize that a person has a great vitality and a high spiritedness. They cannot grasp nor want to think about where it comes from. Personally I love to think about Vital Forces, Spirit etc. etc., but most people are very fearful of such words....they are not interested in pursuing metaphysical concepts, they don't like science fiction movies like Star Wars. I think they tend to flip out a bit thinking about deeper spiritual things...very locked into mundane and practical level of things. And often it is purely for survival reasons they do this, and finding a way to do well on the earthly plane which they stick to, no matter what.

A recent experience I have had.....I am lining up to do some landscape design drawings for the 2000 Olympics site with a group of local women. One of these women, I was very good friends with in my first year of University. She, a Virgo, has pursued a very materialistic and pragmatic lifestyle. I have had a lot of ill health from early childhood on, so my major struggle and goal for most of my life has been good health. I walked into the meeting in her wonderfully big new house, her first remark "Oh! you are so healthy". Her face looks very worn and from my observation could do with a good detox regime and some hormone balancing. Physically her body looks fit as she swims a lot and I could take a leaf out of her book as far as tightening my body up. But the simple thing is, she recogizes my good health, and it is something she would like to have too. Would I like her lovely house? yes sure, but I know that was her long struggle....and mine has been my health.....and all I have is my good health which I know is a treasure.....a treasure I have so tragically lost during my life.

One thing I have found in life, as we grow older, or at any time really, most people do look up to a healthy vital person, someone who has plenty of spirit.

The hardest thing when one is focused and devoted to their calling is to get past the technical bit with ordinary people, and use lay terms that they will understand and find acceptable. This is nothing new, I know. I have this problem with my Astrology, how much can I say, how much technical stuff will the person take before turning away. Yet I find it a great challenge to put what I know into easy to understand, ordinary language. We can very easily get isolated in this world, as we walk along our pathways.

I like how you say that spirit is the spark of the soul, Eileen. I often think that the soul is not too happy being here....or my soul has felt this way. Maybe when it finds some purpose to its reason for being here, it shows as the spark or spirit. Interesting!

FROM DEVI BENSON:
Hi All,
In reference to "vital-force": Is that how a "constitutional" remedy is given. In other words, is the homeopath taking in the consideration of what one person's vital force is to find the appropriate "constitutional" remedy for the person? Thank you.

devi

FROM EILEEN NAUMAN:

Hi Devi
you asked:

In reference to "vital-force": Is that how a "constitutional" remedy is given. In other words, is the homeopath taking in the consideration of what one person's vital force is to find the appropriate "constitutional" remedy for the person?

Gaby Rottler has provided us some more wonderful info on the Vital Force and it should be looked at closely.

A constitutional remedy takes into acount the VF. The VF, when out of balance, will show symptoms--sometimes on many levels, i.e., spiritual, mental, emotional and physical, or sometimes just on one or two of these types of expression.

Where ever the symptoms, and on what plane of expression, the homeopath is trained to discern all of these things. And based upon the "totality of symptoms" we then choose certain rubrics (symptoms of the patient) and from them, we find (hopefully) a single remedy that most closely approximates or parallels the bulk of your symptoms. That done, then the constituional remedy is given to you--one time, and we wait to see how/if it engages your VF to start helping you toward a point of health once again.

Warmly,
Eileen

FROM LORI RITCHIE:
Hi Eileen, Carol, all,

About Aphorism 1:
Carol replies:

My attention goes to the little phrase above and Gaby's comments. That THE VITAL PROCESS is SINGULAR, it's one life-process, and needs to be seen by us as such, underlying various manifestations.

Eileen agrees:
From a strict metaphysical viewpoint, I feel the VF is singular.

I see the VF as being singular too.

Eileen adds:
And, I'll step into this even deeper . . . Hahnemann called it "spirit." Well, what's spirit, if it isn't the 'rest' of the above? Many homeopath's get real edgy and move away from me real fast on this one because they want so badly to have homeopathy accepted by 'science and medicine' -- and to do that--you can't be dragging in the the things I believe/know to exist. . . .

The science world has been stumped by this phenomenon that we call VF. They acknowledge somewhat that it exists but do not readily admit to it. Bodies have been weighed at the moment of death and a minute drop in weigh has been noticed yet science still hedges at calling it "real" because it is "unseen". Without VF a body is without life--no other way to put it. How the VF is wrapped up by the personality is another part of the whole along with the inherited health of the physical body and we have to see it all together to get the constitutional view.

Can the vital force be stronger or weaker from individual to individual? I think so. And if so, then it must also play an important part in a person's overall physical health and therefore be an aspect that contributes to their constitutional picture. Hahnemann made a lot of observations and I think that this is one he felt was an important issue concerning an individual's health. If the vital force is low the health is low--right? The same being for the other way around? What do you think

Lorie

FROM EILEEN NAUMAN:
Hi Lorie
you asked:

Can the vital force be stronger or weaker from individual to individual?

Yes, it can be. That is one of the things a homeopath must do is ascertain the strength of the VF. The weaker it is; the lower the potency. The stronger it is, the higher the potency. Another way it is looked at is the INTENSITY of the symptoms. The more intense, the higher the potency. The less intense, lower potency.

However, I've seen very intense physical symptoms (the case I'm thinking about was a 5 year old boy covered head to toe with 'eczema'). His symptoms were very intense. Yet, I gave him a very low potency because in skin ailments, high potency, such as a 200C, 1M, or even a 30C, can cause such horrendous aggravation and an explosion of skin responses, that the patient is many times more miserable than before taking the remedy.

So, I do not necessarily agree with this intensity means higher potency. In the mental realm, an intense symptom can usually be treated with high potency, but again, this is not always so, either.

The VF, if fragile, can be harmed by the wrong potency; sometimes, forever. VF strength is determined by the person's age, what they've eaten/drank all their life, vaccinations, air/water pollution, type of childhood they had (abuse vs. a 'normal' childhood as an example). The factors in this are many. A VF is considered stronger if the symptoms play out on the physical level or plane of expression rather than on the emotional (which is considered weakening) or the mental (worse weakening) or on the spiritual (the weakest indicator for the VF). It is thought that a 'strong' VF will, if given the choice, will push symptoms out to the physical symptom level.

So, a person with skin problems has a stronger VF than a person who gets depression, as an example. But that is just one of many parts to the determination of the 'recipe' to determine the strength/weakness of the VF in the individual. Life style plays an important part. Where a person lives also factors in. How many vaccinations have they had? These things either strengthen or weaken the VF (except in the case of vaccines and they always weaken the VF).

And, of course, const. homeo. tx will strengthen your VF to its optimum--and it may always remain weaker than someone elses but with treatment, it can be brought back into balance. And that means you are free of your symptoms--no matter what plane of expression you had previous to const. tx.

Hope this helps!

FROM JOYCE LAIDLAW:
Aph 1: "The physician's highest calling, his only calling, is to make sick people healthy-to heal, as it is termed.,'"

FROM JOYCE LAIDLAW:
I am going to add to the discussion of this aphorism by culling ideas presented by Andre Saine, ND, DHANP in his excellent video course on "Homoeopathic Philosophy" (which he teaches at the NCH summer school), and adding some of my own thoughts. Going back to the classical definitions will help in understanding the mindset from which Hahnemann wrote, as many words do not mean the same thing as they do in our culture  today.

Let's start with a definition of the word "physician". Three of our modern English words: physician, physics, physical derive from the same Greek root "physis" which means "nature". A physician, in the classical sense, is one who knows the principles and laws of nature, and their application to the human being. One such priniciple found in nature is "similia similiba curantur"; the foundation of homoeopathy; "like cures like". This priniciple can be found all the way back in ancient Indian Sanskrit texts. Hahnemann found a way to apply it to his patients.

Physicians in Hahnemann's time (like Hering), unlike the physicians of today, were fully trained in the natural sciences (the study of nature) such as zoology, botany, geology, etc., so that the interrelationship with, and the natural environment was understood. Medicine at that time was part of Natural Science; up until 200 years ago. (Dr. Constantine Hering, the homoeopath who brought homoeopathy to North America, was shipwrecked on his way to Surinam to study the flora/fauna as a natural scientist even though he was a physician).

The mission of the physician is to:

1) cure the sick

2) promote health (to educate and guide someone to live a life conducive to good health).

A physician needs to learn how to help a patient recover his/her health in an optimal way. Not everyone is able to come to optimal health. Also, health is not a static state once "reached". It is an ongoing process that could change at any time.

The 2nd point above (to promote health) is missing in this aphorism, but Hahnemann would have had no problem with our adding it, as he was a hygienist. He wrote a 2 volume book called the Science of Health around 1790, and was one of the only physicians of his time that taught people how to live. These teachings are interspersed throughout his writings and cases.

We are always in dynamic interrelationship with our environment; social, physical, etc, and need to learn/be taught/be helped to maintain balance within that ever-changing environment. A "doctor" (from the Latin doceo/doctum = to teach) was traditionally awarded (doctorate) when one had a level of knowledge that allowed them to teach. Likewise, a physician is a doctor when he has assimilated in his own life, and can therefore teach a patient how to live a life conducive to good health. This is not inate and includes things like how to play, work, eat, exercise, relate to kids, parents, others, how to think, what to do with feelings, how to deal with perverted/self-destructive instincts, love, etc. [Reminds me of Gandhi who wouldn't tell a child to stop eating sugar until he could do so himself]

From Webster, the word "heal" comes from old English "haelen" which is derived from "hal" which means whole or sound. "To make hale, sound, or whole; to cure of a disease or wound and restore to health; to reconcile,   as a breach or difference; to purify or cleanse."

Healing is a process of life. It is not the doctor or treatment that heals; it is the living organism that heals. The physician needs to know how to trigger this process, determine what is an obstacle or encouragment to this process, and how it functions. The latter isn't always obvious, and it doesn't always happen at the same level all the time. ie for someone with a tumour, the disappearance of the tumour on the physical level is the healing for one person; for another healing a deep spiritual conflict/feeling great well-being, even though this is followed by death, may be the healing.

In the next post: what is "health"? Boy, this is a loaded aphorism!

MORE FROM JOYCE:
HAHNEMANN'S COMMENTS:
I decided to see what Hahnemann had to say in his own words regarding these issues. In "The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann", a book collection by Dudgeon of journal articles and writings by SH, there are 4 excellent essays which further expound on what Hahnemann was referring to in this footnote.

I/Dr. Saine found he was trying to get 3 points across repeatedly with numerous examples.

1) We should not use metaphysical and physical theories to explain the foundations of life processes whose imbalance we desire to heal. The vital force operates under laws we cannot perceive.

2) Our ability to sense and observe is limited by our senses; our ability to perceive and understand is also limited. We need to be humble when we try to explain life.

3) The physician should confine himself to the a posteriori principles: to learn to observe nature as it is and to base the prescription on the fruit of that observation. Provings are facts and can be reproduced. We aren't to imagine what medicines are for, we must discover their use through provings and experiments.

The first point above is discussed more in two extracts from his lesser writings:

From [SHM-pg 617-618]: "What life is can only be known empirically from its phenomena and manifestations, but no conception of it can be formed by any metaphysical speculations a priori; what life is, in its actual essential nature, can never be ascertained nor even guessed at, by mortals."

To the explanation of human life, as also its two-fold conditions, health and disease, the principles by which we explain other phenomena are quite inapplicable. With nought in the world can we compare it save with itself alone; neither with a piece of clockwork nor with an hydraulic machine, nor with chemical processess, nor with decompositions and recompositions of gases, not yet with a galvanic battery, in short with nothing destitute of life. Human life is in no respect regulated by purely physical laws, which only obtain among inorganic substances. The material substances of which the human organism is composed no longer follow, in this vital combination, the laws to which material substances in the inanimate condition are subject; THEY ARE REGULATED BY THE LAWS PECULIAR TO VITALITY ALONE, THEY ARE THEMSELVES ANIMATED JUST AS THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS ANIMATED [caps mine JL]. Here a fundamental power reigns omnipotent, which suspends all the tendency of the component parts of the body to obey the laws of gravitation, of momentum, of the vis inertiaoe, of fermentation, of putrefaction, &c., and brings them under the wonderful laws of life alone,--in other words, maintains them in the condition of sensitivity and activity necessary to the preservation of the living whole, a condition almost spiritually dynamic. (and he goes on about dynamic derangements)

[comments JL] The material processes we can observe are directly under the influence of these unobservable laws of vitality. The material processes are an effect of changes in the vitality; they are not the cause themselves.

From [SSM: pg488-491]: "But though all the component parts of the human frame are to be found in other parts of nature, they act together in their organic union, to the full development of life, and the discharge of the other functions of man, in so peculiar and anomalous a manner (which can only be defined by the term vitality), that this peculiar (vital) relation of the parts to one another and the external world, cannot be judged of or explained by any other rule than that which itslef supplies: therefore, by none of the known laws of mechanics, statics, or chemistry. All those theories, to which age after age has given birth, when brought in contact with simple experience, and tried by an impartial test, have ever been found to be far-fetched and unfounded.

[comment JL]: it is enough to observe the effects of gravity without having to know why gravity works in order to make informed decisions in life.

Yet, in spite of the uniform disappointment of these innumerable attempts, the physiologists and pathologists would still return to the old leaven; not because they saw any likelihood of these hypotheses leading to useful discoveries in the art of healing, but because THEY PLACED THE ESSENCE OF THE MEDICAL ART , AND THEIR OWN CHIEF PRIDE, IN EXPLAINING MUCH EVEN OF THE INEXPLICABLE. They imagined it impossible to treat scientifically the abnormal states of the human body (diseases), without possessing a tangible idea of the fundamental laws of the normal and abnormal conditions of the human frame.

......He might well lose himself in the interminable labyrinth of abstract speculations on the ego and the non-ego, on the essences of the soul, &c., which extravagant self-conceit has in all ages wrung from the racked brains of hosts of sophists; but no advantage that will reward his pains will he draw from these transcendental subtleties. The wise teacher is aware of this; he spares himself this fruitless trouble, and, in aiming at as wide an acquaintance as possible with his subject-matter, confines himself to the A POSTERIORI, TO THAT WHICH THE MIND'S OWN ACTS HAVE REVEALED CONCERNING ITSELF, TO EMPIRICAL PSYCHOLOGY.

[comment JL]: Patient says I have strong grief come on every night at 8pm with a big ball in my throat. We do not speculate that he is dealing with abandonment or throat chakra issues.

Nor are they at all more assisted by metaphysical, mystical, and supernatural speculations, which idle and self-sufficient visionaries have devised respecting the inner absolute essential nature of the animal organism; respecting life, irritability, sensibility and reproduction, and the essential nature of the mind"

And he goes on further to discuss astrology and other arts where deductive methods are misused (pg 490). Rants and raves around "a priori" reasoning can be found throughout these writings.

Reminds me of Swami Arundhati's (a kundalini master's) comments to me: Joyce, don't stuff too many concepts in your head; they are all going to have to come out before you are truly to know God!

FROM LORI:
Paul wrote:

The symptoms that present are always the best possible expression of the vital force in its attempt to keep the disease confined to the safest area for the organism. We know from Hering's "law" that there is a hierarchical order to symptoms and that suppression or healing can be verified by observing closely. When the VF is weakened, the next manifestation of the disease cannot (usually) be at the same level. The disease occurs on deeper levels and so we have a case of suppression of illness.

Is the implication then, that with a major progressive illness such as MS, or Parkinsons, that before onset the person would have experienced years of precursor symptoms that were repeatedly supressed by medications?

For instance, my sister has MS. Five years before her onset, she seemed to go from one cold to the next, one bronchitus to the next, winter flu after flu, and even odd and undiagnosable skin eruptions--for which she used antibiotics, and cough-cold medicines, and steroid creams. Her overall health was far from robust, but looking back it seems as if her symptoms were of the type that many overworked mothers take for granted in today's society. And certainly countless of us live through such health ruts and come out the other end without MS, or chronic fatigue syndrome or whatever else.

Guess what I am asking is this: is there a generalizable homeopathic viewpoint on the nature of such full-blown diseases? Are they considered supression manifest? Latent psora from a weakened vital force? Or is it a matter of case history taking in order to come up with as many different explanations as there are patients? AND finally, I wonder if homeopathy is anymore equipped to "cure" an illness as entrenched as MS than it would be to stop a heart attack in its tracks?

MORE FROM JOYCE:
I goofed--I didn't include Gaby Rottler's comments on Aph. 2.

I'm glad you included her, Eileen!! I am really appreciating everyone's comments, and Gaby, especially your translations from the German. Although I speak/read German to some degree (and expanding my vocabulary through this medium), Hahnemann can be a little rough!

Eileen's comments:
Hahnemann's ideal that we should all strive to do, as homeopaths, is to get our patient back to health gently....

Hahnemann, at this point in the Organon, has not used the term "homeopath". He has only used the term "Arzt" which translates as physician/doctor. And in my post on Aph 1, I pursued the meaning of this term. I feel that a homeopath is a physician with another wonderful tool in his treasure chest, but that his job as physician goes beyond prescribing homeopathic remedies.....to get out patient back to health gently. Perhaps this is where some of the "heilkunst"/broader concepts might dovetail. So hopefully we aren't just homeopaths, but homeopathic physicians (of course legally we probably can't say that...... as physician = MD in so many places....).

From the aphorism: in the least harmful way

This would include any procedure we would use to help us discern and monitor symptomatology and pathology, and in the process of healing itself. For example, the use of xrays sometimes are very necessary to get a handle on things, but there is a point where they may be damaging to the patient. And especially invasive techniques which themselves may throw the body further out of balance/cause toxicity need to be evaluated in light of their overall benefit. Sometimes a difficult test can bring much needed reassurance to the patient, cause balancing in a postive direction. Not always black and white. Sometimes fasting is necessary to clear toxin; for some it is a very imbalancing procedure. To have to follow a rigid diet could be easy for some patients and extremely stressful for others. This healing is a difficult balancing act!

Continuing within aphorism 2:

according to clearly comprehensible principles.

The translation of the Organon book title is: Organon of the Medical Art. At this point, I feel Hahnemann could be speaking about medicine and healing in a very general and classical sense, and not about the principles of homeopathy specifically. The history of medicine fascinates me, and I was glad that Andre Saine speaks about this within his "Philosophy of Homeopathy" course. He teaches that the 5 basic principles of Classical Medicine (which can be found in the writings of Hippocrates) are those upon which homeopathy itself are founded. These classical principles include:

1) Prevention

2) Primum Non Nocere: Physician First Do No Harm

3) Tolle Causam: Remove the (primary) cause of disease

4) Vix Medicatrix Nature (it is the process of life itself that heals; the healing power of nature)

5) Wholism

Gaby translated for us and commented:
I find it interesting that Hahnemann uses the term OR. Sometimes it can be impossible to restore health permanently - because the vital force of a patient is too weak, or because an organ as already suffered permanent damage that can't be extinguished. THEN, the aim can only be to remove the disease, and even if the patient cannot return to a total state of health he will get as much effect from the homoeopathic cure as can be achieved.

Thank you again for your meticulousness in the details.....which make a big difference! I agree with what you have written here.

I am very grateful to all of the individuals who have helped homeopathic philosophy become so alive for a student like me. Many thanks to all of you who share in this discussion and enliven it even more!

FROM LORI--ANOTHER QUESTION FOR APH.1:
Hi Lori
you asked:
Does this mean by implication those who claim an existence of "never been sick a day in my life," yet are having panic attacks, mania or depression (my mother comes to mind) are not so healthy in the big picture?

That's correct. If it has moved into the mental (which includes emotions) then its considered a 'weaker' VF because a good, strong VF would 'hold' it on the physical playing field, so to speak.

Those who claim to 'never be sick' may indeed have a robust VF. I've seen 'em. If they have 'mental/emotional/spiritual' symptoms, then, they are consided not healthy by a homeopathy. What comes into play here is susceptibility to things--such as food, drink, air pollution, drugs used/vaccination, etc--if a person's VF is not susceptible to these things, then it will be healthy except for the "knocks" we take from Life in general--which can also knock it out of balance, too.

COMMENT FROM STEVE ALBIN:
Gaby wrote:
" No! that exquisite power innate in the human being, designed to direct in the most perfect manner the operations of like while it is in health, [designed to direct life in the most perfect manner while it (the human being) - is in health,...GR] equally present in all parts of the organism, in the fibres of sensibility as well as in those of irritability, the unwearying spring of all the normal functions of the body, was not created for the purpose of affording itself aid in diseases, not for the purpose of exercising a healing art worthy of imitation. "

So that wonderful force we all are borne with ( the vital force) will  direct our life in the most perfect manner - provided that the human being is in health. The vital force was simply not created to cure itself."

The above quotes really caught my eye because I've always struggled with this idea. I've tended to think of the vital force as having two tendencies: to maintain homeostasis (stay where it is) and to heal (return to a state of greater health). But Hahnemann is saying that the vital force hasn't the ability to cure itself once it gets sick. I guess what he is saying is that healing won't occur without the effect of some outside agent such as a homeopathic remedy. This I agree with. But if the vital force reigns supreme in the way the body functions it still seems to me that it must also correct the problem (heal) once it has been stimulated in a certain way by a remedy etc.  I think that my confusion is also wound around the idea of what a disease is. Hahnemann writes about diseases as things but he also writes that a disease is not an entity but rather a disruption of the vital force. So a remedy has an effect on the vital force not the disease. If this is so then the remedy can't do anything but somehow stimulate the vital force to correct its less than perfect way of functioning. To me this is a curative reaction of the vital force. Comments? Half of me feels that I may be just battling a semantic windmill but the other half wonders what Hahnemann really meant.

Steve Albin

COMMENT FROM GABY:
Hi Steve,

Wow this discussion is wonderful! I'm just catching up on the stuff from a week ago. The above quotes really caught my eye because I've always struggled with this idea. I've tended to think of the vital force as having two tendencies: to maintain homeostasis (stay where it is) and to heal (return to a state of greater health). But Hahnemann is saying that the vital force hasn't the ability to cure itself once it gets sick.

That is exactly what he said.

Here another quote from an introduction (have to check the source of the translation - and sorry, didn't have the time to check every word for correct translation ! ):

" But more, this irrational vital force receives into our body, without hesitation, the greatest plagues of our terrestrial existence, the spark that kindles the countless diseases beneath which tortured mankind has groaned for hundreds and thousands of years, the chronic miasms psora, syphilis, sycosis_not one of which can it diminish in the slightest degree, far less expel single-handed from the organism; on the contrary, it allows them to rankle therein, until, often after a long life of misery, death at last closes the eyes of the sufferer."

And he adds in the footnote:

" In the ordinary school of medicine, the efforts made by nature for the relief of the organism in diseases where no medicine was given, were regarded as models of treatment worthy of imitation. But this was a great error. The pitiable and highly imperfect efforts of the vital force to relieve itself in acute diseases is a spectacle that should excite our compassion, and command the aid of all the powers of our rational mind, to terminate the self-inflicted torture by a real cure. "

I guess what he is saying is that healing won't occur without the effect of some outside agent such as a homeopathic remedy. This I agree with. But if the vital force reigns supreme in the way the body functions it still seems to me that it must also correct the problem (heal) once it has been stimulated in a certain way by a remedy etc. I think that my confusion is also wound around the idea of what a disease is. Hahnemann writes about diseases as things but he also writes that a disease is not an entity but rather a disruption of the vital force. So a remedy has an effect on the vital force not the disease. If this is so then the remedy can't do anything but somehow stimulate the vital force to correct its less than perfect way of functioning. To me this is a curative reaction of the vital force. Comments? Half of me feels that I may be just battling a semantic windmill but the other half wonders what Hahnemann really meant.

He said that the vital force had no effectful tools in her hand to cure a disease, be it acute or not. In the introduction he takes several pages to describe the normal actions of the vital force when attacked by a disease - and that the physician should NOT try to imitate them.

He says,

"In such an important affair as that of healing, which demands so much intelligence, reflection and judgment, how could the old school, which arrogates to itself the title of rational, choose as its best instructor, as its guide to be blindly followed, the unintelligent vital force, inconsiderately copy its indirect and revolutionary operations in diseases, imagining these to be the non plus ultra, the best conceivable, when that greatest gift of God, reflective reason and unfettered judgment, was given us to enable us infinitely to surpass it in salutary help to suffering humanity?"

So we are called upon to use our brains, our reflections, our knowledge, our intellect to HELP the vital force overcome a disease - by means of well selected homoeopathic remedy.

The vital force is the life-keeping-force, that's the only aim. Concerning health: we should use our brains ("greatest gift of God") to keep or restore health.

Best wishes, - and thanks for the good questions!
Gaby

COMMENTS FROM DEBRA:
Hi Steve,
You wrote,

<snip> (heal) once it has been stimulated in a certain way by a remedy etc. I think that my confusion is also wound around the idea of what a disease is. Hahnemann writes about diseases as things but he also writes that a disease is not an entity but rather a disruption of the vital force. So a remedy has an effect on the vital force not the disease. If this is so then the remedy can't do anything but somehow stimulate the vital force to correct its less than perfect way of functioning. To me this is a curative reaction of the vital force. Comments? Half of me feels that I may be just battling a semantic windmill but the other half wonders what Hahnemann really meant.

I think that disease, a la Hahnemann, is quite simply, a collection of symptoms that are communicated to us from the vital force via the physical being...which is why we look for a remedy matching the totality of the presenting symptoms. Accordingly, if a remedy can't affect a cure, either the chosen remedy is wrong, or the correct one is unknown (unproven).

So perhaps the vf, in its infinite wisdom, 'knows' which remedy will tune it to the correct resonance, and thus a very specific set of symptoms is presented. It is up to us to determine 'what' the vf wants and needs.

In Hahnemann's world, the vf is in tune, and a cure affected only when all symptoms have been removed. And, later on in the Organon, he says that an internal change needs to happen, too. So, I think you're right...it's the old chicken and the egg problem, with a twist.

In my opinion, there is a connection between the two, but it is in the vf where disease (symptoms) begins and ends.

COMMENT BY LORI:
Debra wrote:

So perhaps the vf, in its infinite wisdom, 'knows' which remedy will tune it to the correct resonance, and thus a very specific set of symptoms is presented. It is up to us to determine 'what' the vf wants and needs.

This sounds as if the vf presumes the discovery and application of homeopathy as a healing tool--that physcial symptoms are custom made FOR THE PURPOSE OF directing the person to the right homepathic substance, which will then restore balance to the VF. I am sure I am misinterpreting this, as human illness obviously predates homeopathic treatment.

I would imagine the vf is not a remote intelligence dispensing symptom clues for homeopathic remedies, but a holistic weave of our mental, emotional, spirtual and physicical energies that is sending out distress signals when illness appears. My personal view of illness is that there has been a shortcircuit in our energetic body. Just as we go to a fuse box to replace a fuse, or flip the circuit switch back on, we use healing tools such as homeopathy, soul retrieval, Reiki, nutrition etc to reactivate the shorted energetic circuit that is causing presentation of symptoms.

So I guess I am saying my view is the same as Hahnemans. The vital force, or energetic body, is indeed where disease stops and starts. But in todays very toxic real world, I think we are being pressed as humans to have SUPERMAN and WOMAN vital forces, the kind that Yogi's demonstrate by eatng rat poison without a hitch.

Lori

COMMENT FROM STEVE:
Gaby Rottler wrote:

"In such an important affair as that of healing, which demands so much intelligence, reflection and judgment, how could the old school, which arrogates to itself the title of rational, choose as its best instructor, as its guide to be blindly followed, the unintelligent vital force, inconsiderately copy its indirect and revolutionary operations in diseases, imagining these to be the non plus ultra, the best conceivable, when that greatest gift of God, reflective reason and unfettered judgment, was given us to enable us infinitely to surpass it in salutary help to suffering humanity?"

Thanks Gaby. This quote pretty much sums it up. The vital force really doesn't have much rational intelligence, does it? But I'd say that it does have a wonderful reactive, karmic-like intelligence.
Steve

COMMENT FROM PAUL:
Hi Everyone,

Firstly thank you Steve, Joyce and everyone else who are making contributions to this topic. Concerning the vital force, we firstly note that Hahnemann says it is not important to be able to know how it creates symptoms.

Aph 12 footnote:

How the vital force causes the organism to display morbid phenomena, that is, how it produces disease, it would be of no practical utility to the physician to know, and will forever remain concealed from him; only what it is necessary for him to know of the disease and what is fully sufficient for enabling him to cure it, has the Lord of life revealed to his senses

So he is saying that all he needs to know is what is revealed to his senses and this is sufficient for enabling him to cure. However we would not be human if we did not need to know more. This search for knowledge and understanding should not cloud our mind or lead to "fancy theories" to detract us from enabling a cure for our patient.

I think it is important that we search for the answers to improve our understanding of humanity and our cosmic evolution, and judging by the discussion I see there are other people "searching" as well.

I will try to give a view of the vital force as I understand it and I realise there may be differeing views. It is drawn from my readings over the years and my assimilation of various sources, mainly anthroposophy, scripture and of course homoeopathy. Here is my two cents worth.

If we consider Man in relation to the realms of nature, then we see that there are 4 "kingdoms".

Firstly there is the mineral realm. Here there is no "life". There is a pseudo-growth in terms of crystal formation. The laws of this level are physico-chemical.

Secondly we have the plant realm, where we find the mineral element. Now it is arranged in form and structure which is not just crystalline and physico-chemical dependant but in fact imbued with a "life". There is a complex growth and interaction with the forces of nature. At the point of plant "death" the mineral part is again goverened purely by physico-chemical forces and we have a decay and a return to "dust". The plant has thus a mineral and energy level (as seen with Kirlian photography) and we can call this an etheric level.

Thirdly there is the animal realm. It too has a mineral element. It has an etheric level in that the atoms are held together in form and dynamic flow. It also has a third component which is a level of feeling. an animal can feel pain, comfort, discomfort, hunger and security. There are  lenses which help the animal to take in sensory impressions. So if it is hungry it will seek food, if hot it will seek shade or water to cool and quench, and so on.

Animals are born with instincts. A weaver knows how to build a nest, a beaver knows how to build a dam, a young wildebeest will be up and running straight after birth as this is important for survival. By and large the animals are uniquely suited to their particular environment. A polar bear will survive best in icy waters and land we find them in. A lion will not survive in Alaska. The level of feeling shows that the animals have a soul level. With insight we see that this is  a group soul. All ants know how to build ant nests, but they are built the same way, there is no creative expansion of the idea to build "high rises" and "condo's", time shares and hotels. Beavers don't build nests and weavers don't build dams.

On a fourth level we find man, who has mineral, etheric and soul components. In addition we see something else. Man has an individuality, a spirit which gives him a relationship not only in the earthly world but also in the spiritual world. Man can interact with earth and heaven. This component is the human ego and is the consciousness of the individuals spirit. Through this component he can show wisdom. Instead of being born with instincts he (or she) must learn to walk, to run , to build a dam or build a house. Thus instinct gives way to creativity and now he can build a dam or house to suit the purpose. No more confined to one environment he can truly "fill the earth" (Genesis). The conquest of fire meant the ability to withstand cold. He can thus adapt to any area. The mind now also plays a role in philosophy, and wisdom. Ideally given the task of ruling the earth, (and failing dismally).

Now the first and second levels (physical and etheric) are anabolic. Feed a plant and it grows and grows. The third and fourth (soul and spirit) are catabolic and contribute to digestion, form and shape. An increase in soul feelings that are "painful" such as an emotional upset can cause a destruction of cells such as a stomach ulcer.

The aim of the etheric level is to maintain the integrity and balance of the mineral components. This is the "plant life" level where we see a step up from purely chemical interaction. With EAV machines and other devices it is possible to pick up a disturbance in this field, so we find a disturbance in the liver long before pathology tests reveal abnormalities. How often don't we find someone who says "So and so told me my kidneys are weak, but the doctors can find nothing wrong".

The third level is our level of feeling, our soul level and if it were left to fend for itself we would be subject to all the effects and sufferings. We would be subject to satisfying our cravings without anythought of consequence. Consider any feeling, for example hunger. If we were hungry we would need to satisfy that hunger straight away or else constantly feel hungry. If in pain we would feel that pain untill the source of the pain went away. If it is dark and we could not see where we are we can be open to the nightmares of a vivid imagination. What actually happens is that we possess the fourth level, which is our ego-conciousness. Through this we can master the soul forces. So if we are hungry, we can say "OK its another hour until supper", or " Food is in short-supply, so I will eat only some food now and leave some for the next day" or "I am overweight and need to lose weight to improve my health and well-being, so I will not give in to my craving for sweets, and instead I will eat an apple" - WILL POWER.  That is the key to fourth level, it is the will. So an animal is hungry and kills another animal, - can we condemn it as barabaric? No, it is merely following its instinctive nature to hunt and kill for food. As a human if we are hungry (or threatened) and we kill another human can we justify that? No - that would be giving in to our animal instinct (soul level) and for that we find a moral judgement. Our higher consciousness says "Thy shalt not kill". Scripture talks of "Animalistic men lacking in spirituality".

Now some people, for religious reasons are uneasy when hearing about these different "levels" or "forces". Rest assured that scripture (Old Testament), clearly states that we have both soul (nephesh) and spirit (pneuma). There is clear distinction between the two. It is also clear that the animals have soul too.

If the lights go out at night and we experience fear, we could through our individuality, correctly place our selves in the understanding of the situation. "I am experiencing fear because it is dark, but the house is secure and no one can come in. I am safe."

So there is a need for the fourth level to gain mastery over the third level. There is a connection between the two and a need for balance. The balance of the soul and ego levels have an effect on the etheric level.

Health can seen as the condition of the etheric level. This is the vital force or vital principle In perfect health the tissues are healthy and the functions are healthy (Refer to Aph 9 when we do it). The health can be disturbed by imbalances from the soul and ego levels. This nett result from the soul and ego show the inner disturbance. The effects of soul and ego show up in disturbances of the etheric. (The inner disturbance shows as a derangement of the vital force). The vital force is referred to as "unintelligent" (Footnote to Aph 22 etc.) so we can see that it is not the higher Ego level.

Thus the inner imbalance has deranged the etheric/vital force and now we can see why Hahnemann states that, among other things the moral and intellectual character of the individual, his occupation, his mode of living and habits, his social and domestic relations etc (Aph 5) should be taken into consideration. These are a reflection of his desire (soul craving) and spirit ego (will).

When we have cravings, fears, desires and aversions, especially not appropriate to a situation, then we find that our health suffers. Now a homoeopathically selected remedy will act on the etheric level but also on the soul and ego levels. That is why we find a proving revealing effects on physical, emotional and intellectual higher levels. Interestingly, the hierarchy of symptoms also places the symptoms in this order. A food craving may take preference over a skin eczema. A delusion may take preference over "worse in cold weather". (All else being equal and assuming the lower symptoms are not "strange rare or peculiar).

Now when we administer the correct simillimum, it has the power to cure the disease because of its similarity. Notably, this choice is based on several factors (similar to the totality of symptoms) and we find that the remedy does not only match the pathology, but also carries with it the similar effects on the soul (feelings or emotions) and will and understanding. A person has a delusion that they are superior to other people (inflated ego). Through this inner state, there is a derangement on the vital force (etheric) and pathology can result. Based on the totality of symptoms a remedy such as Platina may be selected which would heal the pathology, but also carry with it the message of "superiority" as a delusion. Thus the higher principles are shown that this is a delusion  and the result is a form of "psychotherapy" where the message is delivered and understood. With no further delusion of superiority, there is no further effect on the etheric and so the pathology is no longer necessary. The remedy heals the pathology by being a stronger dynamic affection, and is shortlived in its action. (Aph 26 etc.) So the result is health on the physico-etheric level as well as a change in the inner disturbance.

This whole process can occur through other means as well. The person could have come to a clearer understanding of the inner state and this has been the subject of much that is written about the healing power of illness. If we have a tendency to low-blood sugar (reactive hypoglycaemia) and crave sweets, we must master our craving for sweets to overcome the illness.  This mastery of the craving (soul desire) is achieved by the will (ego).  So we have learnt to not eat sweets and in so doing strengthened our will.  In reality this is much harder to achieve because in so doing we may have gone into a state of self-denial of the craving instead of mastering the craving. We may also find that any loss of will power in the future opens us up to the ill-effects of sugar again.

Well, enough for now. Once again, thank you to all the people joining in on this topic.

Regards,
Paul

COMMENT BY CAROL:

I hear Hahnemann saying to keep it simple, stay focused on basics, but not to restrict ourselves to the 5 senses in our observations. The Repertory has a section for Mind, which is considered _central_ to the case, that can only be grasped with faculties beyond the 5 senses, though there may be outer signs of mental states as well (not always). The observer,  whether patient or homoepath, is CONSCIOUSNESS. Even 5-sense impressions  need to be registered and interpreted into language by consciousness.

Consciousness is primary.

COMMENT BY PAUL:
Hi Carol,

As regards conciousness, that is the conciousness I am referring to in my posting as being the 4th level. Our ego-consciousness enables us to display wisdom. In the patient a derangement in the ego has resulted in a disease state and we must use our ego-consciousness to put the pieces of the puzzle together again. The vital force, both the patients and ours, has no intelligence. That is where the true healing must take place - the correct posture of the ego organization in the body. resulting in a correct balance of the soul forces and the resulting healthy dynamics of the etheric forces.

I don't see consciousness as being another sense, but see it as wisdom, the "I" principle that enables us to understand the information gained through the senses.

I quoted Hahnemann because I think the sensory impressions are important to the understanding of the case. Now that does not mean limiting ourselves to using 5 senses. If we have developed an accurate use of our sixth sense and that gives us a better understanding of the inner essence of the case, then we must make use of that. For some persons this 6th sense can be the observations on a non-physical level or the intuitive connection with something integral. Debra will give an example which highlights the first instance when she presents Aph 6.

Furthermore, we make use of other information to help us. The situation of the patient, the imprinting (conditioning of life), the typology, all play a role. This is all information we gain through our senses (or in your case perhaps also through astrology) and can help us understand the patient.

Some senses are more important than others. Some people may only have 4 senses (e.g. a blind person). We often find that in such an instance other senses are heightened. So hearing is more acute (and also listening), touch is more sensitive etc. Such a person may pick up underlying anxiety in a voice that might be hidden to the average "5 sense" person. They can then explore this anxiety further. The end result is that through the senses, we receive the impression of the persons derangement. Hahnemann never used the term "5 senses", but he was trying to impress on homoeopaths that we must use the sensory  information and not speculative theories at the expense of the symptoms (which was rife in his day and still occurs today). Now in our discussions we are trying to understand the vital force better. This will not help us find the simillimum better, except by understanding more clearly that the symptoms are an expression of the inner disturbance.

As an Astrologer, you may have access to other information which guides you further and helps you to be more accurate in your prescription. Debra's example will show how her insight helped the case. Now your astrological assessment is sound because of your experience. Imagine if someone came up with a "fancy theory" in Astrology which they used to select the remedy.  That would be the same type of thing Hahnemann was referring to. I have heard homeopaths saying "She likes wearing green - she must be a Thuja" etc. when the case clearly pointed to something else. What might have helped is if they asked the question "why do you like wearing green?".  Then the patient would have revealed more about herself that could have been useful. Hahnemann presented the system for the average physician intent on healing and stated (Footnote to Aph 6)

"Is not, then, that which is cognizable by the senses in diseases through the phenomena it displays, the disease itself in the eyes of the physician, since he never can see the spiritual being that produces the disease, the vital force? nor is it necessary that he should see it, but only that he should ascertain its morbid actions, in order that he may thereby be enabled to cure the disease. What else will the old school search for in the hidden interior of the organism, as a prima causa morbi, whilst they reject as an object of cure and contemptuously despise the sensible and manifest representation of the disease, the symptoms, that so plainly address themselves to us? What else do they wish to cure in disease but these?"

.....................

Regarding the mentals being central to the case, that is often true, but there are examples of cases where the simillimum was determined by the physicals alone or the modalities, simply because these were the striking presentation by the vital force of the inner disturbance. We must first get the totality of symptoms, then we can grade them according to hierarchy and according to their uniqueness. A strange rare and peculiar physical may carry more weight than a mental symptom.

The discussion of the vital force really only helps us as curious individuals to understand the dynamics better and hopefully helps our understanding of spirituality and have reverence for the grand plan of divine wisdom. Even if we do not see the vital force, we can still, the average human being, work out the simillimum by matching the presenting symptoms to the relative remedy.

regards,
Paul