|
Q: After about eighteen years of study,
practice and teaching in the homoeopathic profession, what
do you think about homoeopathy in general ?
A : The homoeopathic profession has taught me different
things at different stages. In the very early years, it
gave me a sense of exuberance on realising that I had
learnt a technique of healing which was a panacea !
Homoeopathy as a science can often give the enthusiastic
novice a feeling that he can change the world, whilst the
more experienced practitioner realises that what he knows
is not enough and accepts his limitations. Nevertheless,
over the years of serious thinking, the knowledge and
experience get consolidated.
Now, there is a clearer understanding. It is now possible
to judge the prognosis of most medical conditions. It can
now be stated emphatically that allergies are curable and
so are most of the acute infections. It can safely be said
that homoeopathy can cure many of the psychosomatic
diseases such as migraine, eczema, early cases of
rheumatoid arthritis, ulcerative colitis etc. It can now
be said that in cases of psoriatic arthritis,
schizophrenia the capacity to cure is limited.
Homoeopathy is an excellent healing faculty and it has a
terrific potential, provided we apply it for the right
condition at the right time, in a right manner...
Q : How do you visualize the presence of homoeopathy as a
medical system in the next century ?
A : I have always felt that homoeopathy has been
underrated as a medical system. I am terribly upset with
an idea that we often restrict the application of
homoeopathy to the treatment of certain non-treatable
conditions as a 'last chance' therapy. I think,
homoeopathy should not be taken to as a last resort and we
should not be happy treating only some hopeless cases of
neurotics, depressions, terminal cancers and the like. We
should not be unknowingly working just as a counselors.
My vision of the future homoeopathy is that of a
mainstream medicine. And why not ? Homoeopathy, beyond
doubts, can tackle most kind of infections including some
rare infections resistant to the latest antibiotics.
Homoeopathy cures viral infections for which the modern
medicine is struggling for years. The simplest example is
of the warts. Homoeopathy is capable of handling acute and
well as deep-seated chronic diseases. There is a hope for
auto-immune diseases, for collagen diseases. This shows
the strength and capacity of our system.
Homoeopathy, as I hope to see in future, will have a
revolutionary face-lift. Homeopathy medicines should be
better understood and evaluated, in the modern light of
immunology and the nuclear physics. There will be a major
breakthrough in this area, one day, I am sure. You will,
than find homoeopathy enjoying its deserving position.
I must admit at this point that, to achieve the desired
status for homoeopathy, a lot depends on all of us. I
mean, we homoeopaths.
Q : What is your opinion about the new teaching techniques
and methods of case-analysis ?
A : Well, I can only say that any prescribing technique or
method used to analyse the case should be logical and
based on a scientific understanding.
I am of the opinion that if our science has to become
universally acceptable, we should have sound, logical and
simple methods of analysis as far as the prescribing is
concerned.
Q : Rajesh, can you elaborate more on this ? I have read
in your editorials that you are against certain case
analysis techniques, which you find illogical and
inexplicable...
A : Basically, the way I view this issue is that there are
two major processes involved in the homoeopathic
prescription, where one has to be careful. One, the case
analysis; two, the remedy understanding. What has happened
lately is that under the pretext of refreshing thoughts,
some new case analysis methods have been introduced which
are far from being scientific. For instance, the case
analysis based on the theme of dreams and delusions. I
stress that, it is important to consider the repeatedly
seen dreams of the patients, in the prescribing totality.
But, it is ridiculous to make speculative interpretations
of the dreams and delusions, and base the prescription on
such a fantasy. This is unscientific.
When it comes to interpretation, it tends to become quite
subjective and personal. For instance, every prescriber
can offer a different analysis to every dream theme,
therefore leading eventually to a wide range of remedy
suggestions. This could certainly be harmful.
Secondly, the remedy understanding. Hahnemann,
Boenninghausen, Kent and other masters understood remedies
more or less in black and white. But somehow, the new
trends of incorporating the study of the materia medica
with mythology, symbolism, dream-proving, story-telling
and so on, have introduced a lot of unproven data, which I
am afraid, will take homoeopathy far from universal
acceptance.
Q : How exactly is it that you think that a dream or
delusion based homoeopathic prescription could be harmful
?
A : My counter question to you is, how do you justify the
scientificity of such an approach in this era ? I have
heard the stories that one prover is administered a remedy
and another person sits in the next room to 'receive' the
effect of that remedy, with intent to 'prove' it ! I read
a report in an American journal of a teacher administering
a remedy to a patient. The teacher then declares that not
only the patient who was administered the remedy would get
cured, but all others in the neighborhood who required the
same remedy, but not being administered the remedy, would
also get cured ! Isn't it outrageous ? How can the
homoeopaths tolerate this kind of teaching? If we go to
the W.H.O. or Prince Charles, with this kind of
development in homoeopathy they would surely withdraw all
their support.
I strongly feel that the time is changing. There is a lot
more awareness and homoeopaths can not be fooled anymore
with such fantasies and theorising.
Homoeopathy, for me is a scientific system and not a
spiritual form of healing.
Q : How can there be speculative materia medica ? Can you
us give some examples?
A : Speculative materia medica is one where the entire
understanding of a remedy is imaginary and not supported
by the drug proving. A well-known example, is of Aurum
metallicum. In brief, as against common belief, Aurum
metallicum is neither industrious, nor conscientious. He
isn't responsible or dictatorial and isn't ameliorated by
music! Aurum is not religious and does not have any great
sense of duty. The commonly held image of Aurum has
originated from fantasy land! Similarly, we have have a
lot of such baseless symptoms existing in the materia
medica. I am strictly against it.
Q : What could be the origin of these speculative theories
according to you?
A : It is difficult to say. I think, some of these ideas
are the stretched out versions of grand generalisation,
which give one a free way to sky high imagination.
Although, I am sure, Boenninghausen must not have ever
imagined that his concept of grand generalisation will one
day get such a fantastic transformation ! Boenninghausen
wanted to say that certain modalities may be generalised
to have broader application of the materia medica. Boger
stretched it little further, Phatak and others supported
it in the sixties. Probably, those in search of new
methods to teach old ideas and for the entertainment of
the delegates at seminars with these so called novel
methods did the extreme distortion.
Q : But, don't you think such analysis and the teaching is
thought provoking and interesting ? Do you think it helps
the student understand remedies better?
A : Yes, I agree that it is interesting to hear such
theories and stories. But are we interested in just
getting entertained or in producing consistent results in
practice ? Do we want to make homoeopathy merely
interesting to study or have an effective practice ? More
and more experienced practitioners are getting conscious
over this issue and are have started showing a long- term
concern.
It may be perhaps very entertaining to hear the cases
where the prescriptions are derived from some vague
symptoms. I was told that a remedy is taken by a prover
sitting in a room and it is also believed to be proved by
another person sitting in another room, but without taking
a dose of the remedy ! He just medicates and proves the
remedy !! I am hearing that based on the dreams seen by
mother during the pregnancy is used to prescribe a remedy
for a 10 years old boy. One of the latest theories I heard
lately was about a case where the prescription is based on
the past life of the patient ! If you call this stuff
interesting, it is interesting, no doubt, but it is funny
and utter non-sense. Where is the limit ? Where is the
rationale ?
An analogy will not be out of place if I say that when an
allopath successfully treats cases of Pneumonitis with
standard antibiotics, he makes no dramatic theories, he
just does his job. It is more important for us to
repeatedly succeed and produce predictable results.
Q : What about the doctrine of signature ?
A : The
doctrine of signature is good to gather the initial
information about the remedy. But, you do not need to work
hard to find a relation with every feature of the original
source and make a connection with the remedy. One could
say that Graphites is an inert substance and
correspondingly the remedy is dull and docile. But the
same rule does not apply for Lycopodium which is also an
inert substance and similarly for Ferrum. If we had to
make such connections, we would have an interesting
materia medica where a banana remedy should be a great
aphrodisiac and so on ! This is not homoeopathy.
I do not believe in such speculative theorising. Hahnemann
was wise enough to guard against his own proposed theory
of the doctrine of signature.
Q : Let me ask you a frequently asked question, what does
classical homoeopathy mean to you?
A : It is simple. Classical homoeopathy, for me is nothing
but practice based on the fundamental principles laid down
by Hahnemann. A case has to be well taken, thoughtfully
analysed, thoroughly evaluated. The prescribing totality
should cover the mentals, the generals, the particulars.
It should also reflect the pathology, the miasmatic
predisposition.
The totality should reflect the patient as an individual.
The selection of a single remedy, correct potency
selection based on the susceptibility and other criteria
alongwith a long term plan for the case, are all integral
components of classical homoeopathy.
Q: Another similar question is about the constitutional
remedy. What is it according to you, and does the
constitutional remedy remain same all life long ?
A: I think, there should be no controversy about it. The
constitutional remedy is one which the constitution calls
for at any given phase in life. It can not change
frequently, but it can not remain the same life-long. It
should not.
One can compare the constitutional remedy to an overcoat.
The measurement of it would change very slowly from birth
to the age of say, 18 years, after which its height
remains more or less the same but the width might change,
say every 5-10 years. Its consistency, the thickness and
the material might require some change depending on the
weather. If it snows, one might need to wear gloves and a
scarf. This is just an analogy. The constitutional remedy
essentially covers the totality of the case. The
constitutional remedy can not be determined on the basis
of some vague speculative theme.
Our body system or constitution is very intricate and we
understand it little. I do not think that we can fit it in
a box of a single constitutional remedy forever.
 |
