COMMENTS BY GABY:
I'll try to put this aphorism in my words:
Floating in speculations and theorizing doesn't help at all, the only thing that has to be done is: observe and perceive the changes in the patient. Changes in symptoms of body or soul - that can be observed

- by the patient himself

- by his environment

- by the physician himself.

All these signs together form the shape of the disease, they represent the disease.

*) therefore Hahnemann simply couldn't understand how the doctors of the old school could treat something, with medicines whose effects were widely unknown, something in the interior of the patient, invisible and unknown. He asks: the disease itself, isn't it the entity of the symptoms that we can experience with our senses (see, feel, hear, smell)? For the vital force, which is the cause of the disease , can never be seen by anyone. So we have to rely on our senses that tell us all we have to know about the disease. So, the old school is always searching (in vain) for a prima causa morbi - the real cause of a disease - while it simply shuts its eyes before the plainly visible symptoms.

Examples:
an exact observation is absolutely necessary in homoeopathy. Of course, sometimes the patient can tell us a lot of his symptoms - but: perhaps he doesn't tell everything, perhaps he forgets something, he even may lie about his past and so on.

And in veterinary medicine and in pediatrics we just HAVE to rely on our own observation and what the family, owner or other people involved will tell us.

Let's take a farm with some calves with diarrhea. Even if you know them well, they won't tell you how their tummies feel before/during/after stool and how/when the whole business started!:-)

So, while first watching the animal (without touching, to see how it behaves), you listen to what the farmer says. You then lift the tail , see the remnants of stool (color, consistency) at the hind quarters, get a good breeze of the sour smell, look at the eyes, nose, feel the pulse, check the navel, see how it breathes....and so on. You notice how it reacts to your manipulations (apathetic? vivid? struggling? loudly bleating?) and the general behaviour. The farmer will - hopefully - tell you if its behaviour is normal. The further informations from the farmer concerning the anamnesis ( was there a cold wind? was perhaps some of the feed of the cows mouldy?...) gives you some further info.

Now you put that all together - we will see in other Aphorisms to come that we don't need every single symptoms but look for the special ones, the strange, rare and peculiar - and get a picture of the disease. It's a little bit like describing a flower: remember a description by Mary Conley?

• - resembles a large dark evergreen bush
• - It has glossy leaves with wavy edges which are arranged in pairs
• - on branches that are very slender.
• - Very fragrant small flowers appear in clusters.
• - blooms open their leaf axils in spring and summer
• - are followed by the berries that slowly ripen to a ruby red in colour
• - It can grow up to 20 feet outdoors
• - is successfully grown as a houseplant, only gets up to 4 feet indoors

This description, this picture represents Coffea arabica.

Same with homeopathy: you put together the symptoms of the disease - and get a picture of the disease. And now you look in your memory, in your books, in your repertories for the picture of the remedy that clearly reflects this image.

Seems easy, doesn't it!?

Yeah, but sometimes it's quite difficult to see what lies behind the symptoms, to find those 'accidents' that might have happened. E.g. a boy , 16 years old, had some pimples/pustules on the right side of his face. One could think - well, that's acne, of course. Further investigation revealed: he was working as an apprentice for a carpenter, and for a couple of days carried several mats of mineral wool (or glass fibre) for the roof of a new house up the stairs. On the right shoulder. So, probably tiny remnants of these mats penetrated his skin. A dose of Silica 30C resolved the problem (Silica is nearly a specific for driving foreign bodies out).

Back to the calves: :-) conventional veterinary medicine tries to find the cause, e.g. in the form of bacteria (E. coli etc.) Now if there are a lot of specific bacteria and one would try to fight them - nowadays with relatively well known antibiotics - that still doesn't give a clue to WHY those little buggers multiplied like mad. There has to be a invisible disturbance that allows them to multiply.

We can't see the vital force, we can merely observe its expressions : the symptoms. And that's all we need.
END COMMENTS GABY

COMMENT BY EILEEN:
The 'unprejudiced observor' is a big one as far as I'm concerned (a book could be written on this alone!). Anyone trained in psychology is taught that we see things through our own lens of experience and reality, and the biggest thing we must do is "get out of the way" so that we can CLEARLY hear and observe the patient. A homeopath must do no less. We must always remind ourselves that we are fallible human beings, that we have weaknesses and strengths, a certain background and backdrop of experience. If we PROJECTwhat we don't want to own about ourselves, on to the patient coming for homeopathic treatment, then we are a "prejudiced" observor and we will not see them, their symptoms or hear them clearly, as a result. The bottom line is: we'll choose the wrong remedy for them. Projections are those things (usually our dark underbelly/our "Shadow" ala Jung) about ourselves that we don't want to own or admit to. For example, just ask yourself what you really dislike about people--and you'll find that those are the very things within yourself that you have yet to integrate into your being. Things that are unintegrated are projected out on others (and you also draw that type of person to you as a teacher to teach you to integrate it....). An example of this would be: Let's say I absolutely HATE people who are liars. If I have a patient come in and during the case taking, I catch him in a number of "lies". This will trigger my unintegrated Shadow of myself about liars and lying. I will then, unconscious or even consciously react to this--and it will skew my observation of the patient. I will then put this patient into my "box" of experience and therefore, have become 'prejudice' toward them. I cannot perceive nor 'see' the correct remedy while I'm in this unconscious or even conscious state.

Another example:
You have an intense dislike of Catholics. Maybe in your childhood, you were made fun of by a Catholic kid. Or maybe you lived in a neighbourhood where it was all Catholic, but you were Jewish or Protestant. The people of this neighbourhood were prejudiced against you, calling you names, frowning at you, looking at you oddly because you weren't "one of them." You grew up with this wound in your psyche and you have an innate dislike of Catholics as a result. So, who do you get into your office as a homeopathic patient? A priest! Can you, as the homeopath, set aside your own hurts/wounds/pride, etc., and listen openly and 'without prejudice' what this man has to say? Can you set aside all of this and be clear and open to his words, gestures, needs, and expressions and interpret them CORRECTLY? Or will your dark Shadow side creep in there because you automatically dislikes Catholics and it will 'taint' how you see this priest and his potential remedy

Or, another example:
You are homophobic--a fear of gay or lesbians. If you had one come to your office and you discover their life style, how are you going to deal with this? Are you going to get out of the way of your own belief/religious system and hear what this human being is trying to tell you? Or, will you allow your prejudice to stain what you hear?

Or, another example:
You're caucasian and your client is Afro American. What if you have a color prejudice? Can you set it aside and hear the human being who has come to you? Or will your prejudice regarding a person's skin color also color your judgement as to the remedy they need? Chances are, if you don't get out of the way, you will NOT choose the correct remedy for them.

This may seem harmless about being an 'unprejudiced observor' but it isn't. Particularly homeopaths who dose with high potencies right at the start of a case, such as 200C, 1M, 10M or 50M. There can be danger in this area of upsetting the patient's vital force--sometimes permanently--if we are wrong.

It therefore behoves us to start with a low potency of 30C or less, even if we think we're 'right' about the remedy (and believe me, on a bad day when I'm not owning my own "stuff" it does it dumped on the patient and I do not perceive the patient as I should, and I choose the wrong remedy as a result), we can be very, very wrong. If I give a remedy at 30C, then the likelihood of damage to that patient's vital force is less possible. It is the smart, reasonable thing to do--particularly when the homeopath is to "do no harm", per Aphorism 1.

Can a homeopath be 'unprejudiced' all the time? I don't feel that. At least, from my own experience and my own core honesty. A homeopath has to know WHERE they are prejudice and be honest about it--no matter who much it hurts because who will be hurt if we don't analyse our own selves? The patient. And the first law of the Organon is: do no harm to our patient. And that's exactly what we'll do if we don't  do this kind of plumbing of our own depths and remain honest about our strengths and weaknesses. What I do is this. When I'm having a "bad hair day" and I've got patients to see, I work hard to know where I'm at within myself. It's a 'self-monitoring' I struggle to employ. I try to identify what is not right and why I'm upset or stressed out. Believe me, it takes superhuman efforts at times to get out of my own way so I can place my full, undivided attention to my patient and hear/observe them accurately.

Even on our best days, we still don't see 'right' or with complete lack of prejudice. It is impossible. It is equally ridiculous to try and be perfect because we'll never attain it. I'm sure Hahnemann had bad hair days too--and that's why he was aware of HOW we observe/listen/record/sense our patient. No homeopath gets the 'right' remedy the first time around EVERY time. That is why its smart to go "low" potency, such as a 30C to gently knock on the Vital Force's door within that patient. Nothing is lost. Only gained in such a conservative approach. You protect your patient from yourself, your own short-comings, your own prejudicial view of Life, at times.

There are also times when a homeopath, simply because of who they are, cannot perceive a patient clearly. In my own practice, that is about 25% of the time. I just cannot get out of my own way to SEE/PERCEIVE that patient clearly. As a result, I don't get the 'right' remedy. I have my own law regarding this--if I can't get the correct remedy after 3 attempts, I send the patient on to another homeopath, who hopefully, will see the patient far more clearly and unprejudicially than I did. I feel a homeopath owes this to their patient. They shouldn't keep casting around for the remedy and using the patient as a guinea pig. We homeopaths need to own our own short-comings and humanness and acknowledge that we don't have the answer for this patient (as much as we'd like to--it's not from lacking of wanting or trying...) to not allow our EGO to get in the way and just keep dosing this poor patient time and time again without success.

Another part of this is spending enough time with the patient to get to that core wound or root cause of what has caused her/his Vital Force to go out of balance. It takes patience and time to sort through all the symptoms to get to the core issue(s) that has originally upset the person's Vital Force and caused it to go out of harmony or balance (and symptoms are the result of this occurring). It may take an hour; maybe two or three hours. The homeopath must be willing to take the time necessary to observe/perceive/see into the patient to get to this deep level of knowing--for it is there that we will know the correct remedy.

COMMENTS BY DEBRA:
The only thing that I would 'argue' here, (respectfully, of course) is that I believe, as Paracelsus did, that the vital force is not completely enclosed in man, but radiates around him. :-) It is his aura, his essence, the intrinsic part of him.

Some see the vital force as an internal immune system, and I'm sure that is part of it. However, there is also valid "proof" (at least to me) that the aura is also very important. I believe that this is one reason why paper remedies are so effective for some folks. Maybe they do not work on the 'internal' but rather the 'external'. That is, the energy specific to the paper remedy may be 'soaked up' by the aura and used to facilitate healing.

If we think about this, there is nothing physical about a paper remedy (except the paper). Somehow, though they work, maybe not all the time, but often enough to prove to me that there is something there. Since nothing is taken internally with a paper remedy, I deduce that they work within our external energy field, or aura.

Now, if it is your choice to believe in auras, and also that the aura is the vital force, then there are many among us who can see the vital force.

You may have noticed that there are many homeopaths (especially on Athena!) that seem pretty right-brained. That's because many of us are. Samuel Hahnemann was a scientist, first, but he was also a pretty existential thinker, too, if you really read what he said. He talked a lot about 'dynamic' or invisible causes of dis-ease, as you will learn as we delve further into our Organon study.

As a child, growing us in foster homes, I saw people, especially grownups, as 'colours'. Red people were angry, green and gold and blue people were good, and black people were very nasty, and best to be avoided, at all costs. This was how I determined who I should trust, and who I shouldn't...depending on what colour they were.

I never questioned this, just accepted it as fact in the way that children do. Today, things aren't so simple. I can sometimes see auras, if the circumstances are right. But, because as adults, we spend little time in an alpha state, it requires a lot more work.

Children are in a natural alpha state all of the time, therefore, more accepting of these things.

Often, I can 'see' the correct remedy for an individual. When this happens, it is always right. However, I never just go with the remedy that I see until I have repertorised to be sure. I can't explain how this works, but it does. The vital force, life force, or whatever you choose to term it is an intrinsic energy. It may be invisible to some, and visible to others. It may be enclosed within us, and radiate around us.

Does this mean that we should all just throw away or repertories, forget about the symptoms and use our intuitive powers? No, of course not.

Symptoms are very important. They are what we use to determine the simillimum in your case. But, I believe that many of us (myself, for one) use other methods that we don't talk about much, when taking a case. We are energy healers and as such, are in tune with other energy manifestations, as well. I also believe that many folks do this aura reading without even realising it consciously.

COMMENTS BY EILEEN:
I'd like to 'second' what Debra has said above,without repeating it. I see auras, too. I also 'feel' them, and I know a lot of good homeopaths and aspiring ones 'feel' them too. Hopefully, they allow this 'voice' to be part of their observation of the patient. It can only help, not hurt.

Seeing an aura is something I'm sure Hahnemann saw too, but was circumspect about NOT saying anything because of the day and age he lived in. He's pussy-footed around a lot about the "vital force" and from a strict metaphysical perspective it IS our aura, and our aura is part of our energy system of chakras, auric fields and does involve our physical body, our mental and emotional perceptions as well. Nothing is ever disconnected from one another; everything is connected. Many would like to divorce metaphysics from homeopathy--but it is impossible to do this. Fortunately, we have enough homeopaths who are metaphysicians already who understand this basic phenomena and are able to utilise it fully in homeopathic case-taking.

COMMENTS BY PAUL:
Gaby has summed this Aphorism up nicely:

The unprejudiced observer - well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience - be his powers of penetration ever so great,

**********
THE UNPREJUDICED OBSERVER -- as Eileen reminds us - very easy to say yet not always adhered to. If we look at it from two perspectives, there is firstly the gross prejudice which we may be part of our emotional make-up. As human beings we may have unresolved feelings of difference towards race, sect or sex. How many times would a feminist homoeopath not want to prescribe certain remedies to male patients if she allowed prejudice. How many cases of prejudice would there be between Arab and Jewish practitioners and patients unless prejudices were put aside. Or Christian and Muslim? I have faith that this type of prejudice is thrown out the window by the person who genuinely loves homoeopathy and wants to be involved in healing. Homoeopathy transcends borders !!

Kent (6th lecture - on Homoeopathic Philosophy) expands on this. The doctors he said, would claim that the person has a liver disorder, or that the liver is affecting the stomach etc. All useless speculation leading to bias. Then remedies were prescribed according to "liver" or "stomach". Kent states that unprejudiced human beings are hard to come by. (We are all so fixed in our politics and religion, fixed in our ideas on medicine, and because of his prejudice he cannot reason. He will begin to tell you what he thinks, what his opinion is, as if that matters.) Then he goes on "Only when we take on authority do we lay aside prejudice. The Organon is the authority". We need to lay aside our personal theories or those we have heard from "learned professors" ("Stomach ulcers are caused by a bacteria - so we must give an anti-biotic").

This leads to the second type of prejudice is more subtle and is perhaps more in line with what Hahnemann was thinking. As we unfold the case, listening to the patient, hearing observations from those around and noting for ourselves, we must take care not to interpret with prejudice. A patient expresses a fear of the dark. I have a fear of burglars breaking in at night and interpret this fear according to my perceptions. So I use "Fear of robbers". But in reality if I had let her continue, she would have said that this has been since she was a child and she was told scary stories by her older cousin. Now she is obsessed with the supernatural and in fact she has "Fear of ghosts". So we must allow ours patients to continue talking. If we rush the patient they may leave something hanging in the air and then move on to something else. We should not jump in and say "Yes I know what you mean".

Rajan Sankaran gave a video case where the patient came in and immediately said "I do not want to be video-taped. If that is part of the deal then I do not want a consultation". Now instead of leaving it at that and assuming "shyness" or "delusion she is ugly" or some other fancy "theory" (as Hahnemann puts it), he did the most sensible thing. He said "OK, I will agree not to video-tape you if you answer me one question, and may we leave the sound on while keeping the camera away from you." To this she agreed and so he asked her: "The only question I have is - why do you not want to be video-taped?"

She then proceeded to give her reasons, thereby unfolding her whole defence with hardly a question from Sankaran and the whole case unfolded from there. She revealed her inner state as one of fearing that she would reveal some information about herself which could be used against her in the future. This was all a delusion of course. He prescribed Hyoscyamus with wonderful results. (At the second consultation, after 10 days from taking the dose, she actually started leaning forward so that she was in front of the camera and at one point asked if the camera should not be angled more towards her !!)

So the second prejudice is when we assume we understand the facts. When we think we are on top of the case. When a patient makes a statement such as "I fear snakes", we must ask "Why?". (In South Africa a fear of snakes is a cultural thing and I find it strong in 90% of the African population. Does this mean they all fit into the tiny group of 13 to 18 remedies? Are they mostly all Lachesis? No way.

Interestingly prejudice implies bias or partiality, with judgement for or against. This would imply a bias on the level of the moral character or moral situation, or another level of circumstance. I think Hahnemann was once again showing us the importance he placed of the inner state and especially how it is expressed through the mental and emotional level. We could hardly be biased for or against a symptom such as " I have a pain in my head" unless we think "Ah been drinking too much again" or something on that line.

Normally we can see the essence of the remedy running right through the totality of symptoms. When I have a symptom or expression that doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the case, I always try to explore that further.

"Did I understand you correctly". or

"Could you explain your wanting to be alone again to me please, Why is this so?"

" You said you hate closed places. Any reason in particular?"

This is especially the case when we get patients to fill out questionnaires before the consultation.

COMMENT BY PAUL
As we have already mentioned, the symptoms in total are the result of the derangement of the vital force by the internal disease state. If we throw an object into a pond the object thrown (internal disease state) exerts a force on the water (vital force) which will respond by dissipating the energy in a particular pattern of waves (symptoms). This pattern is also dependant on the current state of the water - muddy water, polluted water etc.(state of health or attunement of the vital force) at that moment, plus any other interference such as logs (scars; dead tissue; steel pins; pacemakers etc.)

Let me give a quick example of the inner disease and how it expressed itself in totality. A woman came in recently with excruciating pain in the face, right side maxillo sinus. She had this now for 4 years. All tests by top specialists revealed nothing. They had even run out of theories !! The pain caused her to cry at times.

I asked her what made it worse. She said that opening her mouth made it worse. I asked her about company and people being around her (Her grandson was running around us). She said company was fine but not if they were talking to much. (She obviously wasn't going into long explanations). So I asked her what bothered her about the people talking (noise etc.?) No, she said the noise was OK. But if they spoke to her she had to answer. And then she had pain - because her mouth had to move when she talked !!

Ah I thought - now we are getting somewhere. So proudly I asked her "thirsty at all?" (Hoping for a YES)

"I don't drink very much she said. I have been drinking water a bit more now because I think it might be good for me".

So now I was puzzled. Not really aggravated by people and noise. She did not seem immensely irritable. I was of course thinking before this of Bryonia. But she said company was not a problem except if having to talk (one can expect this from a pain and there are many remedies worse with movement). She also wasn't thirsty.

SO - I asked her WHY she wasn't thirsty.

"It is such a problem to get up and move to get the water. This pain takes over your life and just wants you to be still".

"If someone brought you water - are you actually thirsty?"

"Yes, but I have to ask them and that causes pain".

So now it was clear. The whole inner essence was "Aggravation by motion". Not only of the jaw in talking, but even the body (".. wants you to be still"). Any movement. Sankaran gives an example of this in his book - his colleague Dr. Shah treated a thyroid case with the same remedy, and when this aggravation by any motion is so clear and strong, then only Bryonia fits the case.

4 days later she was 80% relieved after a few doses of Bryonia 30 (5th organon method - coming up later - Aph 270). her constipation was also much better. She will be coming in for a follow-up.

Now had I not kept asking "WHY?" we would have had "OK with company" and "not thirsty" and excluded Bryonia from the case. I would have been biased against Bryonia and that would have been prejudice. I would not have seen the expression of the inner state.

(Eileen and Debra I would be glad to hear more on your experiences with aura and simillimum)

COMMENT BY EILEEN:
Perhaps we need to take Hahnemann's statement and enlarge it to a more macrocosmic angle? Perhaps he meant that none of us know the soul's purpose; that is to say, why it is here in a body on Earth. However, people who are intuitive/clairvoyant can certainly see or perceive the auric energy around the person in whom the soul has invested the spirit/personality that it needs this lifetime to do what s/he came in to try and do or accomplish. I believe Sam was talking about the macrocosm--but that is my personal opinion. My other personal bias is that he did, indeed, 'see' or 'sense' auras or he wouldn't have come up with this "Vital Force" definition.

I don't believe Sam is saying we can't read an aura. What we can't read is the soul's purpose. By 'reading' the aura, we can get a foothold on the core of the imbalance in the Vital Force (an amalgam of physical/mental/emotional/spiritual content which automatically includes the aura and its many fields and the chakras or what is known as our 'energy system').

In reading an aura I have found that on bad days, I don't get much or see much at all (when I'm in a personal state of unbalance within myself, or my focus is not as laser-like as it should be). On a good day, I can see a lot; but never 'everything.' I may sense/feel a color. If I put myself into another state of consciousness, I can see the colours and where the blocks are. Or, I can run my hand through a person's auric fields, sense the hot and cold places, feel the 'texture' of the energy at those places and be able to ascertain information as well.

And then, there are those people I can't read at all because of the imperfection of myself. And there are times when I'm 'blocked' from seeing/perceiving something in another person. People who are intuitive or clairvoyant aren't always "on". Because we wrestle with our own weaknesses and lack of whatever, we aren't going to do this reading of an aura a hundred percent of the time. There are days I'm too tired to shift into that mode, or I'm too distracted or whatever energy I have, must be utilised for case taking because that's all there is and there isn't enough left over for these other, extracurricular activities.

COMMENT BY DEBRA
The aura does not give up symptoms in the way that the physical body does, however. It may show you colours...the colours may be murky, dark, faded, or brilliant. It may just be energy that you feel...coldness, or heat. There may be 'holes' or 'rips' in the aura. Or, sometimes, other weird stuff happens.

One time, as I was interviewing a woman, all I could see was this little stuffed pig, hovering around her, wearing a tee shirt that said 'sweet 16'. Now, usually, I don't second-guess myself, but this time even I thought that I was losing it. The woman kept insisting that she had NO symptoms, other than sporadic gastro-enteritis. Everything else was peachy, as far as she was concerned. She was not depressed, did not have insomnia, loved her job, everything was great.

Finally, I could stand it no longer, so I asked her about this little stuffed pig. Her jaw dropped open and she began to sob. After she had composed herself, she explained the pig's significance.

Three years earlier, her daughter had died in an auto accident and this little pig had been the one thing that she insisted be buried with her daughter. She had saw a psychic, and knew her daughter was happy, at peace, and was always with her. However, the woman regretted having buried the pig with her daughter and missed it terribly. It held fond memories of her daughter's birthday party, given only several days prior to her death. In essence, the poor woman was grieving the loss of this little stuffed pig.

Had this aural-expression not have happened, I don't know whether I would have EVER come up with grief remedies. Probably not. There was certainly no way to tell this was the problem from the physical presentation of symptoms.

I don't believe she ever would have told me that she missed her daughter's pig, had I not broached the subject first..

I hope this makes things clearer...(as mud, right??)

COMMENT BY PAUL
The medicines were unknown in the sense that if a laxative is given to "clean out the bowels" then only that laxative action is known. Yet if we take a remedy and do a proving, we find it working on all areas of the body (and mind). So in that sense homoeopathy makes a remedy known. Herbalism etc only focuses on the tip of the ice-berg.

COMMENT BY PAUL
Good question, Sam.

PAUL'S COMMENT TO KAREN:
Hi Karen,
You said:
"Prejudice is more indsidious than we often think. Racial and religious biases are more readily set aside than, say, fat or the particular set of someone's jaw, which we don't usually label as prejudice. It is similarly difficult to avoid "hidden" cultural assumptions that we are not aware of like Paul's example of the fear of snakes not necessarily indicating lachesis. "

________________

As Kent indicated and I agree there is no such thing as the ultimate unprejudiced observer. That is unless we take precautions to avoid prejudice. This means that at the end of the day we must learn to listen to our patients. It is too easy to just run through the case taking, How is your stomach, head, bladder, sex life etc etc etc. Usually the master homeopaths have found from experience that the patient reveals little gems to us which hold vital information and unless we are observant and listening, we might miss them. We should strive never to assume. Eternally Sherlock Holmes but not elementary my dear Watson. We may have prejudice but we can remove this by correct methods of case listening (taking) and by rechecking our assessment and interpretation of symptoms.

The writings of people such as Sankaran reveal that if we allow our patients, they will tell us the crux of their problem. We can take information they give us and delve deeper and deeper until ther can be no more asking "Why?" or "Explain further". Eventually we come to the inner state. By using confirmatory questions we can also check our final remedy, so we can use mechanisms to tie everything together.

Then again you said:
"But the unprejudiced person does not exist, although as healers we try to get our baggage out of the way. This means when I get an insight that a patient needs a particular herb (my treatment modality) which the symptoms alone might not indicate, I have to distinguish between whether my unconscious mind is coming from some subtle prejudice on how the person ought to be or intuiting a subtle connection."

___________________

This is a separate issue - when intuition or insight comes into play. It should always be confirmed by the methods of homeopathy. I can get a gut feeling that a certain remedy is indicated, and especially in this day and age when we are rushed, we might be tempted to take the short cut and call it "Divine inspiration" and go with that hunch. Now for certain people they may have mastered this as a technique, but for me I will use such hunches to explore the case further. At this stage it is very important not to ask leading questions (from prejudice towards a certain remedy). I was guilty of that in the Bryonia case by asking if she was thirsty. I was rushed at the time but I nearly lost it there. It is so easy to force a round peg into a square hole, especially when the patient is not certain but wants to please you and when you ask "Headache worse at night", they nod in agreement.

Hahnemann is quite specific on this point, that we should not have any preconceived ideas about a remedy at the time of case taking.

The suggestions for case taking happen around Aph 83 onward.

¤ 83
This individualizing examination of a case of disease, for which I shall only give in this place general directions, of which the practitioner will bear in mind only what is applicable for each individual case, demands of the physician nothing but freedom from prejudice and sound senses, attention in observing and fidelity in tracing the picture of the disease.

¤ 84
The patient details the history of his sufferings; those about him tell what they heard him complain of, how he has behaved and what they have noticed in him; the physician sees, hears, and remarks by his other senses what there is of an altered or unusual character about him. He writes down accurately all that the patient and his friends have told him in the very expressions used by them. Keeping silence himself he allows them to say all they have to say, and refrains from interrupting them1 unless they wander off to other matters. The physician advises them at the beginning of the examination to speak slowly, in order that he may take down in writing the important parts of what the speakers say.

1 Every interruption breaks the train of thought of the narrators, and all they would have said at first does not again occur to them in precisely the same manner after that.
etc etc.

and a good one:-

¤ 87
And thus the physician obtains more precise information respecting each particular detail, but without ever framing his questions so as to suggest the answer to the patient1, so that he shall only have to answer yes or no; else he will be misled to answer in the affirmative or negative something untrue, half true, or not strictly correct, either from indolence or in order to please his interrogator, from which a false picture of the disease and an unsuitable mode of treatment must result.

1 For instance the physician should not ask, Was not this or that circumstance present? He should never be guilty of making such suggestions, which tend to seduce the patient into giving a false answer and a false account of his symptoms.

_____________________

And again you said:
"But sometimes those "prejudices" have validity because they are based upon experience. I remember hearing my grandparents making what sounded to me in the 60's like outrageous generalizations about cultural practices of people of various ethnic groups, while simultaneously realizing that my grandparents had more experience with those people than I did and had drawn those generalizations out of their experience. I now believe that my grandparents would have been able to understand that generalizations do not necessarily apply to individuals. But while I had learned to use rationality to argue around my own prejudices years ago, I now find myself going back to honoring those nonrational feelings because they have proven to give me insight into treating other people. So I may be more vulnerable to subtle prejudice, but at least I'm using both sides of my brain to look at the situation. It's a tricky thing. "

"So, in the example of the priest showing up to the Jewish homeopath who had been taunted by Catholics as a child, it is legitimate to investigate whether the cultural moralism that may be used by his coreligionists as a way of dividing the world into "us vs. them" is a factor in his personality, but it is not legitimate to assume that it is. And address the isue explicitly with him- saying "I'm not certain whether I am allowing a bad childhood experience with Catholic kids to bias me, but I get the impression from you that..." And if you think it really is biasing you, say so, apologize and don't charge for the session."

_________________

This is the more explicit idea of prejudice e.g. taking the case of a murderer or rapist or someone of opposite belief systems to yourself.  There is still no place for it in the art of Homeopathic case taking or any form of medicine and healing, even allopathic medicine. This is moralistic or social prejudice, as opposed to the prejudice implied by Hahnemann where we make assumptions about the disease state.

Nobody said homeopaths don't need to grow spiritually. We are all in the same boat. We are all human.

Regards,
Paul

COMMENT BY JILL:
COMMENT BY PAUL
As we have already mentioned, the symptoms in total are the result of the derangement of the vital force by the internal disease state. If we throw an object into a pond the object thrown (internal disease state) exerts a force on the water (vital force) which will respond by dissipating the energy in a particular pattern of waves (symptoms). This pattern is also dependant on the current state of the water - muddy water, polluted water etc.(state of health or attunement of the vital force) at that moment, plus any other interference such as logs (scars; dead tissue; steel pins; pacemakers etc.)

I am having trouble down-loading so this may double up with other responses.

I see this slightly differently to Paul. I have understood that the derangement occurs first in the vital force. This exerts pressure on the physical which then produces symptoms to express it's dis-ease.

The symptoms are the only thing to see but to me H. is berating people looking for physical causes simply because the Cause is in the vital force and ipso facto can never be seen. Heart disease might be caused by clogged arteries but what caused the arteries to be clogged?....some kind of derrangement in the vital force which led to the susceptibility.

I think Paul's example fits this model too. The grief didn't cause the structural or functional change which led to the pain. It impacted on the vital force whose derangement was expressed in the physical symptoms. The change in the face didn't cause the grief or the derangement in the vital force.

Thanks to the people giving their time and energy for this. It is very useful to have something to bounce your own (mis)perceptions off.

Regards,
Jill

COMMENT BY PAUL TO JILL:
Hi Jill,
Perhaps if you can clarify, it seems we are in agreement. Inner disease state causing disturbance of vital force leading to symptoms and then perhaps physical changes.

Of course this is referring to chronic disease. Stick a knife in your hand and you won't have to look far for a cause for your pain.

Regards,
Paul

COMMENT BY JILL TO PAUL:
Perhaps if you can clarify, it seems we are in agreement. Inner disease state causing disturbance of vital force leading to symptoms and then perhaps physical changes
Of course this is referring to chronic disease. Stick a knife in your hand and you won't have to look far for a cause for your pain.

Regards,
Paul

Hello Paul,
I think this is actually where we're differing. I see derangement starting in the vital force then leading to inner disease which gives rise to visible symptoms.

E.g. A significant proportion of the population co-exists quite happily with meningitis causing bacteria in their noses. Most of the time it does not affect them but occasionally something alters the terrain so that the bacteria then leads on to an illness. The bacteria is not the total cause of disease because it can reside benignly in us. The problem comes when the vital force becomes out of balance and the terrain alters so that the bacteria can flourish or our susceptibility increases

So, I understand that the first thing that happens is in the vital force. That weakens us so that disease states happen to express this dis-ease. Germs, bacteria etc cannot harm the vital force but harm to the vital force requires that a disease occurs to express the harm.

Likewise the correct remedy works on the vital force which becomes again balanced and attuned so that the disease and it's symptoms are no longer necessary to express dis-ease because there is none and so there is cure. If you just put a lid on the symptoms as in allopathy the symptoms may be gone and the disease may appear to be gone but the origional dis-ease or imbalance in the vital force remains and either forces it's way out the same way but more violently or chooses another path more dangerous to the organism.

Phew! Hope this explains my particular (peculiar?) understanding :-)

Regards,
Jill

COMMENTS BY JOYCE:
Hi Jill, you wrote:
E.g. A significant proportion of the population co-exists quite happily with meningitis causing bacteria in their noses. Most of the time it does not affect them but occasionally something alters the terrain so that the bacteria then leads on to an illness. The bacteria is not the total cause of disease because it can reside benignly in us. The problem comes when the vital force becomes out of balance and the terrain alters so that the bacteria can flourish or our susceptibility increases

So, I understand that the first thing that happens is in the vital force. That weakens us so that disease states happen to express this dis-ease. Germs, bacteria etc cannot harm the vital force but harm to the vital force requires that a disease occurs to express the harm.

Thought I'd throw in my perception/understanding from my studies, using your example to illustrate.

Our vital force is constantly in a balancing act responding to its environment. We require a certain range/level of sensitivity = susceptibility to influences in order to respond/stay healthy (ie to feel the effects of cold so we put on extra clothing). In a healthy person, this range/band is quite wide. When these susceptibilities become abnormal; it becomes much more difficult for our vital force to keep its homeostasis/balance (ie a little draft and the next thing is pneumonia).

We are either born with or develop during our lifetime certain personal susceptibilities. A. Saine has noticed in his practice that some of the inherited sensitivities have a fixed component to them (cannot be altered) and some parts may be functional (a peculiar aspect that can be altered). For the latter he gave an example of both a mother and daughter having dreams of spiders whenever they ate watermelon. This symptom disappeared for both of them with homeopathic treatment. It was a peculiar inherited sensitivity they were both abnormally susceptible to. Another interesting example was of a case of a boy with muscular dystrophy. Dystrophen has 62 sequences of protein in its genetic coding. If part of this protein sequence is missing or duplicated, there is a dysfunction in the production of dystrophen leading to a state of MD. This boy was missing much of the protein sequence, yet his MD healed. His susceptibility was of a different nature than to the missing of this protein sequence.

There are also susceptibilities to certain organisms as a species (ie humans are not susceptible to, say, dog fleas)/subspecies (certain cultures are not susceptible to certain organisms).

Why one person in a roomful of meningitis bacteria comes down with symptoms of meningitis and the other doesn't, is because of the abnormal susceptibilility/sensitivity to this bacteria in the former. The untunement of the vital force = the expression of this abnormal susceptibility through the totality of the symptom picture. The symptoms are an expression of the vital force trying to come back into a state of normal susceptibility. The untunement is the disease. It is this abnormal sensitivity/susceptibility which homeopathy can either cure or alleviate (if it isn't a fixed inherited sensitivity).

Warm regards,
Joyce