EDITORIAL:1994-Third Issue:
ON PSEUDO-CLASSICAL HOMOEOPATHY
by
-Dr.Rajesh Shah and Dr.Rupal Shah
Editorial: 1/1994: Back to Basics, Down to Earth
Goto Main Page
While introducing themselves, some teachers have introduced their
partially tested ideas as a part of classical homoeopathy. This
has amply confused the young generation. Several newer themes and
ideas imposed in the name of classical homoeopathy, such as the
concepts related with images or the core of the remedies, central
themes of the remedies, misunderstood concepts of essence, dream-
proving, story-telling, music, etc. have brought in plenty of
fixity and in inhibitions in the wider application of our materia
medica.
Dear reader,
Recently we raised a question to gather opinions of homoeopaths
as to know what did `classical homoeopathy' mean to them. The
answers, only some of which were published in the last issue of
Homoeopathy Times, those and the rest made us scratch our heads compelling us to
ask ourselves what it really meant !
Some God-fearing people, who also want to be conscientious in
their homoeopathic practice, have somehow developed the concept
that sticking to one remedy alone is classical homoeopathy. With
due respect to their sincerity, we often see them sticking to the
first remedy (prescription) given so rigidly that they do nothing
except administering placebo, when the patient under treatment is
down with any acute condition calling genuinely for immediate
attention and medication. However, they do not mind their
patients resorting help of allopathic medicine for that condition
instead of homoeopathy, merely out of the fear that lest they
deviate from being called as `classical homoeopaths...
Another group of classical homoeopaths believe that using any
nosode or an intercurrent (so called) remedy, during the course
of treatment, may spoil their image of the label `classical',
hence they keep away from such anti-miasmatics, though apparently
indicated. They also feel that the nosodes should only be used as
constitutional remedies, in classical homoeopathy. Yes, some
classical practitioners have a daring to admit that they do see a
need to use an intercurrent remedy although they are classical
practitioners, fearing in the back of the mind by doing so they
might distort the definition of classical homoeopathy.
The younger classical enthusiastics ( the students) feel that the
use of any small remedy, irrespective of its name and origin
(e.g. Arundo to Zingiber) can be used as a constitutional remedy
by the classical prescriber, no matter whether it falls into `so-
called' classification of acute or chronic remedies. They also
enjoy saying that all the remedies are equally deep acting if the
(mentals and) totality match. This understanding is a part of
their understanding of classical homoeopathy.
Some innocent homoeopathic neonates are often more sincere than
the senior prescribers and more serious in believing that the
classical homoeopathy is the practice based on selecting the
remedy that covers the centre or the core of the individual and
that which can best be ascertained by careful study of the dreams
and delusions the patient has. Nothing more is classical
homoeopathy.
Another classic group of homoeopaths firmly believe in the real
dynamic disturbance and they feel that the classical homoeopathy
should essentially ignore the pathology in the given case, as
pathology is merely the outcome of the dynamic disturbance, it
deserves to be omitted in the case totality. For such classical
homoeopaths believing in dynamis, the `pathological prescribers'
(as they sarcastically like to call) are tiny, ignorant,
materialist creatures. A true classical prescriber is one, for
them, who completely ignores the stupid pathology in the case.
Another section of the classics know that it is the infrequent
repetition, one or two doses in two to six months, make the
homoeopath classical. One who repeats a remedy more often (say,
three to four times daily for days together) are criminals and
not classical.
I have seen some classical teachers strictly not allowing their
patients to take allopathic medicines such as paracetamol or
anti-inflammatory drugs while treating pyrexia or pain which is
not responding, it goes against the classical practice, according
to them. But, they do take antibiotics and such stuff when they
themselves suffer from Enteric fever or Pneumonia ! One of such
teachers whom I saw searching for a chemist shop when he had
acute abdominal colic, on his way to auditorium, where he was
going to be the key-speaker to talk on classical
homoeopathy...You can see hypocrisy flourishing under the shadow
of classical homoeopathy.
The definition of a classical homoeopath has some more
qualifications as understood by some, such as : taking the case
always in great detail, for 1-3 hours ( till the patient runs
away )/ always digging deep into the mind of the patient (till it
bleeds)/ to give an exhausting questionnaire to the patient to be
filled up and submitted ( a good time-pass for the neurotics)/ to
dissect the dreams of the patient to see how fantastically, like
a Hindi movie, the story in the dream can be fitted into the real
life. ( Recently, in one late night party, my hostess, who
happened to be a patient of a dream-type homoeopath; told me :
You know, now a days my homoeopath insists so much on me to note
down the dreams that, although I never used to dream earlier, now
I dream daily of my homoeopath asking me in a dream to talk about
my dream... No jokes, it was a real narration of a patient. )
One school of thought on classical approach is that the
constitutional remedy of the person remains the same throughout
his life, no matter what problem he has. Another similar but
immature idea popular under the roof of classical homoeopathy
is that there can be only one possible remedy which is the
remedy ( the similimum) for the patient at a given time, and
nothing else under the sun could help... Likewise many teachers
have conveniently glorified their fantasies and theories in the
name of classical homoeopathy. Unfortunately, we have no
universal homoeopathic body ( like W.H.O.) to put forth some
guidelines on such basic issues.
Some workers under the banner of classical homoeopathy started
believing and teaching that the childhood mental state and the
history is the most important for determining the remedy that the
patient needs at any given phase of his life. Some adventurous
homoeopaths went even further to ascertain the pre-birth mental
state of the patient. Homoeopathy, as one european colleague
whispered into my ears little sarcastically, has become more
spiritual than in the times of Hahnemann.
Another trend strongly suggests to see the remedy of the patient
by comparing her with the drug substance. Hahnemann, as you know,
called it doctrine of signature, and the wise man as he was,
condemned this concept himself, so that people in future do not
liberally speculate on this basis. It, of course, sounds quite
interesting to say, for instance, the Pulsatilla plant moves
easily with wind, so it is yielding...So many other plants, which
also have credit of bending with ease like a Pulsatilla plant, but
they are not yielding, I am afraid to say. The symbolic analogy
has its own place, but it is unfair to talk about it to the
students without warning them about the involved risk of fixity.
If this concept is applicable enough to consider it classical,
then a medicine prepared out of Banana should be a great
aphrodisiac...
The idea of body language and gestures suggesting the remedy was
brought which intrigue students making them fixed. For
instance: a Natrum-mur individuals do not lean forward while
talking to the homoeopath, while the Phosphorus does. It is
incorrect and misleading. We have witnessed the reverse of it on
numerous occasions. This is one of the many examples, of course.
The concept of classical homoeopathy is great, undoubtedly. The
editor of this news-letter is also proud to be called as a
teacher in classical homoeopathy. The university level education
in homoeopathy, in India, to the best of my knowledge, does not
use the term `classical' anywhere in the syllabus. This unique
phrase is coined and used by various homoeopaths in the later
part of the century, who practice, think and understand its
essential meaning differently, in accordance with their
knowledge, depth, background, prejudice and fixity.
It matters very little to all of us (i.e. the classical
practitioners), how we define the terminology. It does matter a
lot to all those who have yet to be (classical ) homoeopathic
practitioners.
Many of our colleagues who practice good homoeopathy, but may not
be practicing the way it is understood by other classical
homoeopaths; they feel outcast, at times ! And their remarkably
cured cases and work are not being shared with the world of our
classical homoeopaths. Whose loss, any way ?
While introducing themselves, some teachers have introduced their
partially tested ideas as a part of classical homoeopathy. This
has amply confused the young generation. Several newer themes and
ideas imposed in the name of classical homoeopathy, such as the
concepts related with images or the core of the remedies, central
themes of the remedies, misunderstood concepts of essence, dream-
proving, story-telling, music, etc. have brought in plenty of
fixity and in inhibitions in the wider application of our materia
medica. Such centre based approach towards the understanding of
the materia medica , as I have clearly recognised, has taken away
the flexibility in the application of the Similia principle. I am
confident that the time will come once again when the narrowing
of our vision will be broadened when we will open our eyes and
try to understand homoeopathy all afresh.
Little less then a decade and half ago, when I started my
homoeopathic schooling, around that period I came across to hear
about Classical homoeopathy. I thought, it must be synonymous
with Hahnemannian homoeopathy then I was studying. But, now I
have started realising that the today's so called classical
homoeopathy is drifting away from the Hahnemannian homoeopathy...
Some readers may complain for re-stating this message after
discussing it in the previous issue. I feel that the repetition
of another dose at the interval of 4 months is allowed by all
types of classical prescribers ! The Kentian rule is that you
repeat till it starts acting...
-Dr.Rajesh Shah
-Dr.Rupal Shah
Editors: Homoeopathy Times
Netreaders may send their response, which may be published for discussion:
Write to: rajesh@indiaspace.com
Editorial: 1/1994: Back to Basics, Down to Earth
The front page
The Homoeopathy Information Cell on Internet
Clinical Training Course in Classical Homoeopathy
Homoeopathy Times
My Experiences with Ferrum Metallicum