The Medicine Garden - ORGANON STUDY: Aphorism 2 by Eileen Nauman, DHM (UK)

With comments by Debra LeRoy, Gaby Rottler and Paul Booyse interspersed throughout.

SOURCES:

1. 6th Organon of Medicine by Samuel Hahnemann/Kunzli translation

2. Organon of the Medical Art by Wenda Brewster O'Reilly

3. A Complete Course on Clinical Homeopathy by A. Jayasuriya.

"The highest ideal of therapy is to restore health rapidly, gently, permanently; to remove and destroy the whole disease in the shortest, surest, least harmful way, according to clearly comprehensible principles."

COMMENTS: Hahnemann's ideal that we should all strive to do, as homeopaths, is to get our patient back to health gently (potency has a lot to do with this--go too high in potency and you can cause severe aggravations (symptoms worsen) which causes the patient horrible discomfort and suffering, and permanently (that means no return of symptoms vs. suppression of symptoms by using drugs, which means the symptoms will eventually come back or be driven deeper into the person and return months or years later as a worse set of symptoms than before or a different, more serious dis-ease).

PAUL'S COMMENT:
Depending how well the remedy matches - I had a perfect Graphites on Saturday with presenting crack and 3 "pimples" in the genital area. Had all the symptoms and I mean all of Graph - even Delusion she has a heart disease. Indecisive etc to the extreme. Despite the local condition I gave one dose of 10M. The lesions started clearing nicely over the weekend and on the Monday morning she awoke for the first time in her life feeling optimistic and without anxiety - energy levels dramatically improved. Now normally I would not get such a classic case and would be tempted to go lower potency as split dose.

Sometimes the remedies seem indicated but don't fit on all levels. This may be a case where the true simillimum is an unknown remedy. Then a high potency may seem indicated and yet be incorrect with aggravation. I sometimes wonder if this is not perhaps the reason why Lachesis is notorious for aggravations. We see fear of snakes and bruising and few "keynotes" and off we go with Lachesis. We need to prove so many more snake remedies (or study the proven ones better).

EILEEN'S CONTINUING COMMENT:
And then, there is the use of herbs--which, especially the purgative types, may not be 'gentle' at all; but very hard and harsh on the body and person. That is not to say that all herbs are dangerous or wrong. I'm simply using purgatives as an example. Or, blistering agents, is anothe example of a rough way to 'heal'--with a lot of pain. Any herb, indeed, any medicinal substance--and this includes homeopathy--can be dangerous if not used correctly.

He goes on to say that we must remove and destroy the whole disease or set of symptoms. We must do this in the shortest, surest and least harmful way. I think the last three words ought to be underlined. Blood letting was in vogue back in Hahnemann's day and he saw patients die from this process. That is not 'least harmful'--that is very harmful.

And there is another twist in this blood letting tool or venesection, used back then. It was found if you lost a couple pints of blood that whatever symptoms or disease you had before that, went away. The body as an organism was more focused on surviving the blood letting (dying from bleeding out) and so, somehow, the disease symptoms went away. That was why blood letting was so popular. It took symptoms away for awhile -- and it killed, too if the physician didn't know how much blood to release. How much blood loss was too much? Hahnemann disdained this type of approach. He felt it was barbaric. There was a better way that he observed through the years: homeopathy. We must always keep in mind that during his day and age, the practice of medicine was very different from what we know today.

And, along that theme, cleanliness wasn't exactly 'big' back then. Baths weren't done daily. Soap? Not too many had it to use. Hahnemann deduced through observation, and this is in some of his later aphorisms, about such things as cleanliness, etc., will be covered.

Hahnemann goes on to say: "according to clearly comprehensible principles." Of course, he's saying that what he's observed, insofar as homeopathy, he believes he's got the answer. To him, homeopathy is a clear, comprehensive principle or system that can be used, unlike the other medical practices of his day.

PAUL'S COMMENT:
Once again, the treatments such as blood letting were intended to weaken the disease (which was viewed as the prominent symptoms - but often not the totatilty of symptoms). Instead it weakened the vital force. Remember that the symptoms are signs of the vital force in action. By weakening the VF, the symptoms subsided, but the disease was not eradicated because the disease was not touched at its cause but at its expression. When we choose a remedy based on the totality of symptoms, we are not treating those symptoms per se, we are using the symptoms as markers to indentify the simillimum, or remedy working similarly to that expression of VF. The power of the remedy is that because of its match it enhances the action of the VF and so concludes what the VF started out to do.

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.

GABY'S COMMENTS:
APHORISM 2
"The highest ideal of therapy is to restore health rapidly, gently,
permanently; to remove and destroy the whole disease in the shortest,
surest, least harmful way, according to clearly comprehensible principles."

And then, there is the use of herbs--which, especially the purgative types, may not be 'gentle' at all; but very hard and harsh on the body and person. That is not to say that all herbs are dangerous or wrong. I'm simply using purgatives as an example. Any herb, indeed, any medicinal substance--and this includes homeopathy--can be dangerous if not used correctly.

And there is another twist in this blood letting tool used back then. It was found if you lost a couple pints of blood that whatever symptoms or disease you had before that, went away. The body as an organism was more focused on surviving the blood letting (dying from bleeding out) and so, somehow, the disease symptoms went away. That was why blood letting was so popular. It took symptoms away for awhile -- and it killed, too if the physician didn't know how much blood to release. How much blood loss was too much? Hahnemann disdained this type of approach. He felt it was barbaric. There was a better way that he observed through the years: homeopathy. We must always keep in mind that during his day and age, the practice of medicine was very different from what we know today.

COMMENTS GABY ROTTLER:

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

Aph.2
Das hoechste Ideal der Heilung ist schnelle, sanfte, dauerhafte Wiederherstellung der Gesundheit, oder Hebung und Vernichtung der Krankheit in ihrem ganzen Umfange auf dem kuerzesten, zuverlaessigsten, unnachtheiligsten Wege, nach deutlich einzusehenden Gruenden.

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

"The highest ideal of therapy is to restore health rapidly, gently,
permanently; to remove and destroy the whole disease in the shortest,
surest, least harmful way, according to clearly comprehensible principles."

Translation GR:
"The highest ideal of cure is to restore health rapidly, gently, permanently; Or to ...[Hebung] and destroy the whole disease in the shortest, surest, least harmful way, according to clearly comprehensible principles.";

Either we can restore health - that's the highest aim of cure. OR the disease has to be destroyed.

The term 'Hebung' is a little bit difficult for me to interprete. In todays words it could be translated with : to lift the whole disease, but I tend to see it in another way: 'Hebung' could be seen as 'to correct a mistake'. In this context 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.

QUESTIONS FROM ATHENIANS;
Hi Lori,
Thanks for your question. The first thing I would say is that there are no generalizations - no hard and fast rules which say "if you suppress illness A you will get the following illness B".

In your sisters instance there is a combination of suppression from treatment over the years and secondly susceptibility according to her constitution and miasmatic disposition. What we can say in an individual case such as hers is that due to susceptibility there is a tendency towards certain conditions. An observation like this is really an educated guess. In a particular miasmatic individual we may see that there can be a tendency towards the nerve system or growths auto-immune disorders etc, but which illness it will take, (even we say cancer - which cancer?) is not observable by the average good homoeopath.

Nutritionists will say "if you eat too much fat, salt etc you will get heart disease or cancer or ......" and as a generalization they may be correct, and then Aunt Martha smokes 30 a day, eats bacon and eggs for breakfast and at the age of 90 goes dancing on friday nights. Thats because average susceptibility will lead to the complications of bad diet, but in her case her constitution could deal with all that. The emotional state is very important as stress plays a big role.

Now in the susceptible person (e.g. to nervous system disorders) any suppression of the expression of the vital force (symptoms) at any stage in the persons life (whether from common cold to eczema or to more serious conditions) increases to likelihood and speeds up the development of the more serious pathology - in her case MS. In another person, perhaps chronic flu syndrome, in another person perhaps depression. Along the way, yes the particular illnesses would be early expressions of what could possibly come. A classic example is the theory that shingles is an adult manifestation of the chicken pox virus from childhood which has lain dormant in the nerve system for years. What are doctors saying if not that the person had the virus and it was suppressesed instead of removed and then resurfaced years later. Our view as homoeopaths is that the correct treatment of chickenpox will remove the tendency to shingles later on because the virus will not migrate to the nerve system and resurface later.

As to the possibility of cure, this depends very much on the strength of the vital force, the nature of the inner disturbance and the removal of aggravating circumstances. One must also consider the state of pathology. If a person has had an illness with a lot of permanent tissue damage, then a "next best possible solution" may result. for example if a person has gangerene, then perhaps with treatment they only lose the toe instead of the whole foot. BUT there is also a healing of the inner disturbance. So perhaps they also have a better quality of life than before. They are calmer, sleep better and have better social interaction. More importantly, had they not had (successful) treatment, after losing the foot, the disturbance would have carried on and more serious pathology would possibily have resulted , perhaps a heart attack or kidney failure etc.

So really the aim is to stop the downard spiral which happens not only from day 1 of birth but even in utero and miasmatically even in previous generations. By treating an individual, you are treating the generations of offspring that person would produce. Healthy parents, healthy babies.

Hope this answers at least part of your questions,
best Regards,
Paul

COMMENT FROM GABY:
Hi Joyce,

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 concept 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....).

I agree with you. Perhaps the latin word 'medicus' comes nearest.

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.

It's not quite 'Medical Art'. Heilkunst means Art of Curing, Healing art. Medical - that's the tools, Curing - that's the aim.

Joyce, I'm very grateful for your contributions to the Aphorisms. The more people get involved - the better we can see where a single word or the interpretation of a single word can change a meaning - that's why I like these discussions so much: expands the horizon. :-)

APHORISM 5 IS NEXT!

Back to the beginning...

SAMUEL HAHNEMANN'S ORGANON

ORGANON STUDY: