– DR. S. HARIMANN, http://healerofhumanity.blogspot.in/
“Science is verified or verifiable knowledge produced by conception of percepts, induction of deducts. For scientific imagination, conceptuation from perception, not many percepts are needed.” (Dr. James Krauss M.D.)
Realization of the fact of ‘Similia’
“Science is verified or verifiable knowledge produced by conception of percepts, induction of deducts. For scientific imagination, conceptuation from perception, not many percepts are needed.” (Dr. James Krauss M.D.)
Realization of the fact of ‘Similia’
A Natural law is ever
existent since the planet earth came into existence. At different ages, in different spans of time,
in the history of medicine[1], it was
acknowledged with different names and terms. For example: in ancient times in India,
it was known as ‘samh samam samyati’; Hippocrates called it ‘physis’
whilst Paracelsus called it ‘signa naturæ’ (‘doctrine of signature’)
etc.. In the same way, God gifted Dr. Hahnemann also recognized it as ‘similia’.
He acknowledged the fact that substances that are capable of producing certain
alterations in the health of human beings can also remove the same after their
employment when of course they appear as a part of natural disease process. He
successfully treated sickened population of that time under this tenet. He also
observed the fact, during the course of natural disease process, the
manifestations of sufferer of disease get elevated and become more prominent or
aggravated to a greater extent, when they treated with the cruder form of
corresponding substance under this tenet. Therefore, with a unique dynamization
plan, he started attenuating substances and tried to make them more acceptable
to the weaker and sickened population. He coined this kind of medication as ‘Homœopathy’
in 1807AD. Herein sufferer of the disease is treated with the attenuated but
hyper-activate corresponding substances.
existent since the planet earth came into existence. At different ages, in different spans of time,
in the history of medicine[1], it was
acknowledged with different names and terms. For example: in ancient times in India,
it was known as ‘samh samam samyati’; Hippocrates called it ‘physis’
whilst Paracelsus called it ‘signa naturæ’ (‘doctrine of signature’)
etc.. In the same way, God gifted Dr. Hahnemann also recognized it as ‘similia’.
He acknowledged the fact that substances that are capable of producing certain
alterations in the health of human beings can also remove the same after their
employment when of course they appear as a part of natural disease process. He
successfully treated sickened population of that time under this tenet. He also
observed the fact, during the course of natural disease process, the
manifestations of sufferer of disease get elevated and become more prominent or
aggravated to a greater extent, when they treated with the cruder form of
corresponding substance under this tenet. Therefore, with a unique dynamization
plan, he started attenuating substances and tried to make them more acceptable
to the weaker and sickened population. He coined this kind of medication as ‘Homœopathy’
in 1807AD. Herein sufferer of the disease is treated with the attenuated but
hyper-activate corresponding substances.
[1] History of medicine at a glance:
|
A
|
PRIMITIVE
|
5,000 BC
|
|
B
|
INDIAN
|
5,000
BC (Vedic era) |
|
C
|
EGYPTIAN
|
3,000-2,500 BC
|
|
D
|
CHINESE
|
2,700 BC
|
|
E
|
MESOPOTAMIAN
|
2,100 BC
|
|
F
|
GREEK
|
1,200 BC
|
|
G
|
ROMAN
|
500 AD
|
|
H
|
MIDDLE AGE
|
500-1500 AD
|
|
I
|
RENNAISANCE
|
1,453-1,600 AD
|
|
J
|
BAROQUE PERIOD
|
1,700- 1,800 AD
|
|
K
|
MODERN
|
1,900 AD
|
|
L
|
BIOTECHNOLOGY &
GENETICS |
1,950 AD & onwards
|
In the ‘Organon of medicine’, at several places, he claimed that, only
he discovered[1]
this Natural law of cure; however, it is not true at all. He contradicted also his own claim and described in his words[2]
that such a mode of medication was also present in the past. But, indeed, it’s very true that, it
turned out to be much more evident and clearer than ever before when he explicated
the fact in his own way. He recognized ‘similia’
as underlying cause of the amelioration in manifestations of disease or cure. Even
if Dr. Hahnemann was not the pioneer discoverer of this Natural law, who
discovered this ages known law of cure; however, it became more evident when he
explained the facts with evidences. As well, it has become much more effective
than ever before after the addition of a unique dynamization plan into
preparation procedure of those medicines that have to be used under this law to
eliminate expressions of the diseases and minimum possible dose concept. For
this reason only, it has become much more popular than ever before and the
medicines, which are used to eliminate expressions of the diseases under this
law, have turned much more effective.
he discovered[1]
this Natural law of cure; however, it is not true at all. He contradicted also his own claim and described in his words[2]
that such a mode of medication was also present in the past. But, indeed, it’s very true that, it
turned out to be much more evident and clearer than ever before when he explicated
the fact in his own way. He recognized ‘similia’
as underlying cause of the amelioration in manifestations of disease or cure. Even
if Dr. Hahnemann was not the pioneer discoverer of this Natural law, who
discovered this ages known law of cure; however, it became more evident when he
explained the facts with evidences. As well, it has become much more effective
than ever before after the addition of a unique dynamization plan into
preparation procedure of those medicines that have to be used under this law to
eliminate expressions of the diseases and minimum possible dose concept. For
this reason only, it has become much more popular than ever before and the
medicines, which are used to eliminate expressions of the diseases under this
law, have turned much more effective.
As regards his claim to discover ‘similia’, although he accepted reality later-on at
several place in his own writings;
however, in the light of history of medicine, I am going to offer you some
historical evidences[3] for
your own perusal. You have seen that, he
[1] Dr. Hahnemann wrote in
the introduction of 6th edition of ‘Organon’ on the page 80-81 that: “By observation, reflection and experience, I discovered that, contrary to the old
allopathic method, the true, the proper, the best mode, of treatment is
contained in the maxim: To cure mildly, rapidly, certainly, and permanently,
choose, in every case of disease, a medicine which can itself produce an
affection similar (dmoion pathos) to
that sought to be cured!” Furthermore he added that: “Hitherto no one
has ever taught this homoeopathic mode of cure, no one has carried it out in practice. But if the truth is only to
be found in this method, as I can prove it to be, we might expect that, even
though it remained unperceived for thousands of years, distinct traces of it
would yet be discovered in every age.”
the introduction of 6th edition of ‘Organon’ on the page 80-81 that: “By observation, reflection and experience, I discovered that, contrary to the old
allopathic method, the true, the proper, the best mode, of treatment is
contained in the maxim: To cure mildly, rapidly, certainly, and permanently,
choose, in every case of disease, a medicine which can itself produce an
affection similar (dmoion pathos) to
that sought to be cured!” Furthermore he added that: “Hitherto no one
has ever taught this homoeopathic mode of cure, no one has carried it out in practice. But if the truth is only to
be found in this method, as I can prove it to be, we might expect that, even
though it remained unperceived for thousands of years, distinct traces of it
would yet be discovered in every age.”
[2] Dr. Hahnemann accepted
the fact in following words that: “There
have occasionally been physicians who vaguely surmised that medicines cure
analogous morbid states by the power they possess of producing analogous morbid
symptoms”. He clearly
inscribed at one place that: “I do not bring forward
the following passages from authors who had a presentiment of homoeopathy as
proofs in support of this doctrine, which is firmly established by its own
intrinsic merits, but in order to avoid the imputation of having suppressed
these foreshadowing’s with the view of claiming for myself the priority of the
idea”. Furthermore references can be had in the introductory part of the
‘Organon’ from pages 84 onwards.
the fact in following words that: “There
have occasionally been physicians who vaguely surmised that medicines cure
analogous morbid states by the power they possess of producing analogous morbid
symptoms”. He clearly
inscribed at one place that: “I do not bring forward
the following passages from authors who had a presentiment of homoeopathy as
proofs in support of this doctrine, which is firmly established by its own
intrinsic merits, but in order to avoid the imputation of having suppressed
these foreshadowing’s with the view of claiming for myself the priority of the
idea”. Furthermore references can be had in the introductory part of the
‘Organon’ from pages 84 onwards.
[3] Historical
evidences: The
underlying principle that operates Homeopathy or roots thereof can be traced
back to the dated even before Jesus Christ (see also exclusive details in the chapter
‘HOMŒOPATHY or IMMUNAÑOPATHY’
in the same text). In the pre-scientific era, the sickened population of every
country was dependent onto the persons who were having some specific
intuitions. For example: the healers, shamans, witchdoctors and so on as well
as the persons who were supposed to have endowed with, particularly, divine or
natural powers. But, some other persons were also existent there at that time,
who were endowed with intellect and thought that they could cure diseases by
‘resemblances’ between the medicinal substances and diseases. They might be
grown under various medical cultures. It’s not only since the time of
Hahnemann, but even before his era, a similar mode of medication is still
prevailing in India. Ever since the Vedic era (5,000 BC), it is
utilized in the treatment of corresponding sickened individuals very
successfully. In the annals of
medicine, especially, in the ancient Indian medicine, anyone may find this principle as maxim of this healing art.
Therefore, probably, it
might have appeared very first time in
India. In ‘Ayurveda’, which is a branch of ‘ATHERAVEDA’, a one of the oldest
ever testaments, the law of similarity might be appeared very first time as
maxim. In this mode of medication, the Natural law of similarity has been described
as ‘Samah Samam Samyati’; which means, like cures like, that is, (similia similibus curenter and not the similia similibus curanter).
Since then often corresponding medicines
are very successfully utilized in India and practiced under the tenet of
similarity. In fact several
documentary evidences and testimonies from pre-Hahnemannian era have revealed
the fact that such a principle was very well known to our ‘RISHIES’ and it was
well established here in India. Since
the testimonies come from pre-Hahnemannian era, therefore, there is no room of doubt regarding its (law of
similarity) knowledge to the persons existing before the time of Hahnemann. There are numerous evidentiary
proofs available in the oldest ever
recognized literature of medicine, which contain great range of the medicines
with their fullest account in itself. They can be cited here with their fullest detail; however, in a
while, in next NB. I shall offer you one of them from ‘CHARK SANHITA’ (pjd
lafgrk) for your
consideration. It would be capable enough of revealing the fact as I have
mentioned above.
evidences: The
underlying principle that operates Homeopathy or roots thereof can be traced
back to the dated even before Jesus Christ (see also exclusive details in the chapter
‘HOMŒOPATHY or IMMUNAÑOPATHY’
in the same text). In the pre-scientific era, the sickened population of every
country was dependent onto the persons who were having some specific
intuitions. For example: the healers, shamans, witchdoctors and so on as well
as the persons who were supposed to have endowed with, particularly, divine or
natural powers. But, some other persons were also existent there at that time,
who were endowed with intellect and thought that they could cure diseases by
‘resemblances’ between the medicinal substances and diseases. They might be
grown under various medical cultures. It’s not only since the time of
Hahnemann, but even before his era, a similar mode of medication is still
prevailing in India. Ever since the Vedic era (5,000 BC), it is
utilized in the treatment of corresponding sickened individuals very
successfully. In the annals of
medicine, especially, in the ancient Indian medicine, anyone may find this principle as maxim of this healing art.
Therefore, probably, it
might have appeared very first time in
India. In ‘Ayurveda’, which is a branch of ‘ATHERAVEDA’, a one of the oldest
ever testaments, the law of similarity might be appeared very first time as
maxim. In this mode of medication, the Natural law of similarity has been described
as ‘Samah Samam Samyati’; which means, like cures like, that is, (similia similibus curenter and not the similia similibus curanter).
Since then often corresponding medicines
are very successfully utilized in India and practiced under the tenet of
similarity. In fact several
documentary evidences and testimonies from pre-Hahnemannian era have revealed
the fact that such a principle was very well known to our ‘RISHIES’ and it was
well established here in India. Since
the testimonies come from pre-Hahnemannian era, therefore, there is no room of doubt regarding its (law of
similarity) knowledge to the persons existing before the time of Hahnemann. There are numerous evidentiary
proofs available in the oldest ever
recognized literature of medicine, which contain great range of the medicines
with their fullest account in itself. They can be cited here with their fullest detail; however, in a
while, in next NB. I shall offer you one of them from ‘CHARK SANHITA’ (pjd
lafgrk) for your
consideration. It would be capable enough of revealing the fact as I have
mentioned above.
——————————————————————————————-
himself had accepted reality of its
existence before him as well as its knowledge to some ancestors. In this way,
he quitted his mistaken claim of being pioneer of it. But my revelation shall
not only clarify realities and occurrences that actually have come true in the
medical field, but it also offer you the clues regarding its knowledge and
employment of this law by our ancestors even before the time of Hahnemann. Actually
such kind of mistakes or mistaken claims often come into existence due to lack
of
existence before him as well as its knowledge to some ancestors. In this way,
he quitted his mistaken claim of being pioneer of it. But my revelation shall
not only clarify realities and occurrences that actually have come true in the
medical field, but it also offer you the clues regarding its knowledge and
employment of this law by our ancestors even before the time of Hahnemann. Actually
such kind of mistakes or mistaken claims often come into existence due to lack
of
—————————————————————————
Several
other examples of the treatment of diseases using ‘like with like’ can also
traced back in the history of medicine. Such kind of treatment can be found in
papyrus of Ebers (1500 BC); when ear diseases were treated with ear extracts;
headache with fish heads and blindness with eyes of pigs. To attempt to treat
diseases by employing those substances that were capable of causing same was
the one of most common method in empirical medicine. In the primitive medicines,
the treatment of the effects of snake poisoning by repeatedly inoculating
materials that were extracted from the venom appertaining to the snakes was
very common. As a preventive to the smallpox infection, the Chinese used to
wore clothes that were worn by a smallpox victim in full suppuration phase and
inhale the dried smallpox pustules after storing them for 1 year. The Pliny
claimed saliva of a rabid dog can afford protection against the rabies
(Hydrophobia). Dioskurides of Anazarbo used to recommend hydrophobia patients
to eat the liver of that dog who bit them. Similarly, Aetius of Antioch
recommend ingestion of the meat of that viper, which has just bitten to victim.
In the 17th century, an Irishman, Robert Fludd, cured the victims of
consumption by using the dilutions of their own sputum after a suitable
preparation.
other examples of the treatment of diseases using ‘like with like’ can also
traced back in the history of medicine. Such kind of treatment can be found in
papyrus of Ebers (1500 BC); when ear diseases were treated with ear extracts;
headache with fish heads and blindness with eyes of pigs. To attempt to treat
diseases by employing those substances that were capable of causing same was
the one of most common method in empirical medicine. In the primitive medicines,
the treatment of the effects of snake poisoning by repeatedly inoculating
materials that were extracted from the venom appertaining to the snakes was
very common. As a preventive to the smallpox infection, the Chinese used to
wore clothes that were worn by a smallpox victim in full suppuration phase and
inhale the dried smallpox pustules after storing them for 1 year. The Pliny
claimed saliva of a rabid dog can afford protection against the rabies
(Hydrophobia). Dioskurides of Anazarbo used to recommend hydrophobia patients
to eat the liver of that dog who bit them. Similarly, Aetius of Antioch
recommend ingestion of the meat of that viper, which has just bitten to victim.
In the 17th century, an Irishman, Robert Fludd, cured the victims of
consumption by using the dilutions of their own sputum after a suitable
preparation.
In the annals of medicine we find that the
Hippocrates said that: “a disease develops by
means of its like and is cured by means of the use of its like. What causes
urinary tenesmus in health, cures it in disease. The cough is caused and cured
by means of the same agent, as in the case of urinary tenesmus. The fever
causing development of inflammation will be caused and cured by the same
agent.”
(Source: Littre’s Oeuvres Completes d’Hippocrates,
VI, 334, Paris, 1839; cited on the p. 9, in the “Boyd
LJ. A Study of the Simile in Medicine.
Philadelphia: Boericke and Tafel, 1936). He recognized the
both, ‘similarity’ as well as ‘opposition’. It can be said that, therefore, the
Hippocratic doctrine was also saturated with concept of Natural healing that
comprises the ‘law of similarity’. He considered the many physiopathological
phenomena, as ‘defensive’ mechanism of the Nature; such as: fever,
skin eruptions and others. He also said that: “the
Nature is a healer of diseases, to which he called ‘physis’. It is an expression of life and not a special energy,
that is, unconscious and similar to the instinct. It dominates the
physiological and mechanical processes and combats diseases; which must be
assisted by the physician. As a fundamental rule of therapy, ‘nature is the
primary physician and first duty of the medicine is ‘to do no harm’, should be
considered abstract of medicinal practice.” Schroder also
presented very similar idea like Hahnemann. For example: “The fact that the leaves of Hepatica triloba resemble to the
liver.” (Source:
Littre’s Oeuvres Completes d’Hippocrates, VI, 334, Paris, 1839; cited on the p.
16, in the “Boyd LJ. A Study of the Simile in Medicine. Philadelphia: Boericke and
Tafel, 1936). One of the very close predecessors of Hahnemann was Von Stoerck (1731–1803). He published in the
year 1760s AD a series of works on the treatment of diseases with poisons
according to law of similarity. He gave a very identical statement like Hahnemann,
which is highly noteworthy here as well. He said that: “If
stramonium causes illness in someone who is sound in mind by inducing mental
confusion, why should we not try to establish whether it can give mental health
to someone who is confused or whose senses are altered by disease?” (Source:
Stoerck A. Libellus quo demonstratur: stramonium,
hyosciamus, aconitum, non solum tuto posse exibire usu interno hominibus, verum et ea esse remedia in multis morbis
maxime salutifera. Vienna: Trattner, 1761). “If it cures someone affected by spasms, why should we not
investigate whether it causes the spasms?” (Source:
‘A Study of
the Simile in Medicine’; p. 19; Boyd LJ.; Philadelphia: Boericke and Tafel, 1936).
Hippocrates said that: “a disease develops by
means of its like and is cured by means of the use of its like. What causes
urinary tenesmus in health, cures it in disease. The cough is caused and cured
by means of the same agent, as in the case of urinary tenesmus. The fever
causing development of inflammation will be caused and cured by the same
agent.”
(Source: Littre’s Oeuvres Completes d’Hippocrates,
VI, 334, Paris, 1839; cited on the p. 9, in the “Boyd
LJ. A Study of the Simile in Medicine.
Philadelphia: Boericke and Tafel, 1936). He recognized the
both, ‘similarity’ as well as ‘opposition’. It can be said that, therefore, the
Hippocratic doctrine was also saturated with concept of Natural healing that
comprises the ‘law of similarity’. He considered the many physiopathological
phenomena, as ‘defensive’ mechanism of the Nature; such as: fever,
skin eruptions and others. He also said that: “the
Nature is a healer of diseases, to which he called ‘physis’. It is an expression of life and not a special energy,
that is, unconscious and similar to the instinct. It dominates the
physiological and mechanical processes and combats diseases; which must be
assisted by the physician. As a fundamental rule of therapy, ‘nature is the
primary physician and first duty of the medicine is ‘to do no harm’, should be
considered abstract of medicinal practice.” Schroder also
presented very similar idea like Hahnemann. For example: “The fact that the leaves of Hepatica triloba resemble to the
liver.” (Source:
Littre’s Oeuvres Completes d’Hippocrates, VI, 334, Paris, 1839; cited on the p.
16, in the “Boyd LJ. A Study of the Simile in Medicine. Philadelphia: Boericke and
Tafel, 1936). One of the very close predecessors of Hahnemann was Von Stoerck (1731–1803). He published in the
year 1760s AD a series of works on the treatment of diseases with poisons
according to law of similarity. He gave a very identical statement like Hahnemann,
which is highly noteworthy here as well. He said that: “If
stramonium causes illness in someone who is sound in mind by inducing mental
confusion, why should we not try to establish whether it can give mental health
to someone who is confused or whose senses are altered by disease?” (Source:
Stoerck A. Libellus quo demonstratur: stramonium,
hyosciamus, aconitum, non solum tuto posse exibire usu interno hominibus, verum et ea esse remedia in multis morbis
maxime salutifera. Vienna: Trattner, 1761). “If it cures someone affected by spasms, why should we not
investigate whether it causes the spasms?” (Source:
‘A Study of
the Simile in Medicine’; p. 19; Boyd LJ.; Philadelphia: Boericke and Tafel, 1936).
knowledge[1].
But they create confusion in the mind of disciples. After all, with such an
obvious statement, the whole obscurity concerning pioneer discoverer of this
law of similarity must be come to an end.
The whole story is accessible to anyone in the history of medicine.
But they create confusion in the mind of disciples. After all, with such an
obvious statement, the whole obscurity concerning pioneer discoverer of this
law of similarity must be come to an end.
The whole story is accessible to anyone in the history of medicine.
A similar mode of medication is extant in India even before the
time of Hahnemann. It is often intended to treat countrymen and sickened
population of the other countries also.
In Ayurveda, it is known as ‘SAM
CHIKITSA’ (in Sanskrit language)
in India. In ‘CHARK
SANHITA’ (pjd lafgrk), which is a text related to medication and medicines used in Ayurveda, we find a similar preparation procedure like Homœopathy. For
example: preparation procedure of Aurum Metalicum[2]
as well as many more other medicines too.
time of Hahnemann. It is often intended to treat countrymen and sickened
population of the other countries also.
In Ayurveda, it is known as ‘SAM
CHIKITSA’ (in Sanskrit language)
in India. In ‘CHARK
SANHITA’ (pjd lafgrk), which is a text related to medication and medicines used in Ayurveda, we find a similar preparation procedure like Homœopathy. For
example: preparation procedure of Aurum Metalicum[2]
as well as many more other medicines too.
[1] Only because of lack of information media at that time (in 17th-18th
century), Dr. Hahnemann might have mentioned above statement. At that
time, for the information or news transactions, mostly horse riders, pigeons
and even birds were utilized as messengers or main communicating tools. Firstly
their capability or scope of use was very limited. Secondly, they only employed
when it was felt very necessary and also if it is considered that the target is
certainly within the reach of them as well as well known to the messenger; so
to speak, limited to the only territorial limits or maximum from one region to
another. Then how a German or
French citizen or physician could come to know that same mode of medication is
existent anywhere else or it is in actual practice in the most remote and deep
forestry regions of the India? That’s why like above as well as in many other
places the similar statements might have appeared in his inscriptions.
century), Dr. Hahnemann might have mentioned above statement. At that
time, for the information or news transactions, mostly horse riders, pigeons
and even birds were utilized as messengers or main communicating tools. Firstly
their capability or scope of use was very limited. Secondly, they only employed
when it was felt very necessary and also if it is considered that the target is
certainly within the reach of them as well as well known to the messenger; so
to speak, limited to the only territorial limits or maximum from one region to
another. Then how a German or
French citizen or physician could come to know that same mode of medication is
existent anywhere else or it is in actual practice in the most remote and deep
forestry regions of the India? That’s why like above as well as in many other
places the similar statements might have appeared in his inscriptions.
[2] Like preparation
procedure of medicines adopted in Homœopathy, a very similar preparation
procedure we find in ‘CHARK SANHITA’ (pjd
lafgrk). It is described
in ‘CHARK SANHITA’ (pjd lafgrk) for Aurum Metalicum that:
procedure of medicines adopted in Homœopathy, a very similar preparation
procedure we find in ‘CHARK SANHITA’ (pjd
lafgrk). It is described
in ‘CHARK SANHITA’ (pjd lafgrk) for Aurum Metalicum that:
AA viR;tuu{khj
;skx%AA
;skx%AA
e.MyStZkr:iL; lqrIrSLrRi;% J`re~A
fl/na iqaloua o`”;a lflrk?k`rekf{kde~AA
:I;k;Lrkezlhlkuke;eso i`FkfXof/k%AA
;g ikB gSA blds vuqlkj fry ds leku eksVs lqo.kZ ds i=ksa dks fu/Zkwe
vaxkjksa ij yky djds nw/k esa cq>kosaA bl izdkj djrs djrs tc nw/k DofFkr gks
tk; rks mlesa [kkaM ?kh vkSj e/kq feykdj ihuk pkfg,A ;fn iwoZ fo/kku ds vuqlkj
cukuk gks rks FkksMh lh [kkaM ds lkFk odksZa dks vPNh rjg ihlsaA tc lqo.kZ dh ped u fn[kkbZ ns rc mls nw/k
esa Mky dj dk
vaxkjksa ij yky djds nw/k esa cq>kosaA bl izdkj djrs djrs tc nw/k DofFkr gks
tk; rks mlesa [kkaM ?kh vkSj e/kq feykdj ihuk pkfg,A ;fn iwoZ fo/kku ds vuqlkj
cukuk gks rks FkksMh lh [kkaM ds lkFk odksZa dks vPNh rjg ihlsaA tc lqo.kZ dh ped u fn[kkbZ ns rc mls nw/k
esa Mky dj dk
pjd lafgrk] ist 42] mRrjksHkkx%
5th Edition 1954
Indeed, then emerging side effects or
aggravations, which inevitably follow the employment of crude medicinal
substances, perhaps might be neglected and/or overlooked considering the
exceptional benefits or reviving merits or restorative gains from this method.
Or, perhaps, it might be occurred due to rather little complicated GC of the existing
population of that time and/or greater tolerance they may have. Other
possibility concerning this negligent act may be due to rather little
appearance of evolutionary phenomenon, the
absence of scientific parameters concerning values of health, which were developed
later on and recently emerged.
aggravations, which inevitably follow the employment of crude medicinal
substances, perhaps might be neglected and/or overlooked considering the
exceptional benefits or reviving merits or restorative gains from this method.
Or, perhaps, it might be occurred due to rather little complicated GC of the existing
population of that time and/or greater tolerance they may have. Other
possibility concerning this negligent act may be due to rather little
appearance of evolutionary phenomenon, the
absence of scientific parameters concerning values of health, which were developed
later on and recently emerged.
He was a great posologist with peerless capabilities of observation.
Therefore, he observed the things deeply and explicated occurrences of life
proficiently — the dimensions of eternal truth. He imparted his percepts to
his colleagues, indeed, which was
obscure or unknown to the practitioners of ‘Sam Chikitsa’; for which he is really creditable. The account of posological
development is nothing but the hidden story of up-gradation of a preexisting
medicinal science; namely, ‘Sam
Chikitsa’. Even if ‘Sam
Chikitsa’ or ‘similia’ is
extant since ages; however, incorporation of new posological aspects therein
i.e. minimum possible dose concept, definitively attributable to Hahnemann.
Actually, his dissatisfactory trait,
whereupon he capably turned a preexisting medicinal science into ‘Homœopathy’,
is really creditable for such developments. The ‘CHARK SANHITA’ (pjd
lafgrk) is an oldest ever
recognized testament in medicine. Together with fullest account of medicinal properties,
it contains a huge range of medicinal substances within itself. Now, it would
have been also became evident that, all editions of ‘Organon’, from first to
last, were successively evolved and gradually however developed as per need of
the occasions.
Therefore, he observed the things deeply and explicated occurrences of life
proficiently — the dimensions of eternal truth. He imparted his percepts to
his colleagues, indeed, which was
obscure or unknown to the practitioners of ‘Sam Chikitsa’; for which he is really creditable. The account of posological
development is nothing but the hidden story of up-gradation of a preexisting
medicinal science; namely, ‘Sam
Chikitsa’. Even if ‘Sam
Chikitsa’ or ‘similia’ is
extant since ages; however, incorporation of new posological aspects therein
i.e. minimum possible dose concept, definitively attributable to Hahnemann.
Actually, his dissatisfactory trait,
whereupon he capably turned a preexisting medicinal science into ‘Homœopathy’,
is really creditable for such developments. The ‘CHARK SANHITA’ (pjd
lafgrk) is an oldest ever
recognized testament in medicine. Together with fullest account of medicinal properties,
it contains a huge range of medicinal substances within itself. Now, it would
have been also became evident that, all editions of ‘Organon’, from first to
last, were successively evolved and gradually however developed as per need of
the occasions.
On the above mentioned concrete basis, anyone can now conclude that the
Hahnemann was not the pioneer discoverer of this Natural law of similarity or ‘Similia’
in his terms.
Nevertheless, for ‘Homœopathy’, indeed one can say that it’s a latest ever evolutionary
version of the earlier preexisting ancient mode of medication i.e. ‘Sam Chikitsa’. The Homœopathy
revolutionized the face of entire medication. Therefore, since its inception, it is extensively used globally so far.
Actually, it’s nothing but the evolutionary phenomenon that manifested
via Hahnemann. His peculiarly evolved genetic constitution and its occupier
psoric trait (?) conferred upon him dissatisfactory
trait, keen observant nature as
well as better adaptation mechanism. All conjointly together
facilitated him to update and upgrade circumstances. It’s the only
little demonstration of the blessings of Nature — the evolutionary phenomenon
— the developmental process, which is integral part of it and still ongoing.
Hahnemann was not the pioneer discoverer of this Natural law of similarity or ‘Similia’
in his terms.
Nevertheless, for ‘Homœopathy’, indeed one can say that it’s a latest ever evolutionary
version of the earlier preexisting ancient mode of medication i.e. ‘Sam Chikitsa’. The Homœopathy
revolutionized the face of entire medication. Therefore, since its inception, it is extensively used globally so far.
Actually, it’s nothing but the evolutionary phenomenon that manifested
via Hahnemann. His peculiarly evolved genetic constitution and its occupier
psoric trait (?) conferred upon him dissatisfactory
trait, keen observant nature as
well as better adaptation mechanism. All conjointly together
facilitated him to update and upgrade circumstances. It’s the only
little demonstration of the blessings of Nature — the evolutionary phenomenon
— the developmental process, which is integral part of it and still ongoing.
History of ‘similia’:
After the acknowledgment of working principle of
Nature by Hahnemann[1],
to which called ‘similia’, and elucidation
thereof by him, this ages known law of cure
[1] Once upon a time, when Dr. Hahnemann was
actually struggling for his livelihood, during the translation of a chapter on
Cinchona, the supreme energy (The God) brightened up his brain and elucidated the things. The Natural law of similarity, to
which he called ‘similia’, in such a way permeated in his brain per se, he become enable
to give birth to a new approach of medication. Incidentally, then executed that Cinchona bark experiment (1790) ultimately became the first famous tool for the new
approach of the revivification of health in all diseases. After that
occurrence, he never looked back. He started more and more experimentations
with several new known and other unknown substances and materials with a new hope.
He scrutinized precisely well the occurrences and happenings of past and
determined the realistic operations of the substances onto the human beings. During the 1810 AD, his first edition of
‘Organon’ was published. Its name was “Organon der
Rationellen Heilkunde”, which means ‘Organon of the Rational System of
Medicine’, and it was emerged just after fourteen years from his earlier
presentation. Thereafter, in a
sequence, passing through four more editions, in the years 1819,
1824, 1829 and 1833, totally he published five editions till the 1842 AD. The
sixth edition was published during the 1921-22 AD. Since then no up-gradation
or no attempt to update or develop this text, which is said the foundation of
our science of healing, has done so far. Actually as he advanced in his practice of medicine
and attained more knowledge, sequentially he wrote up six editions of ‘Organon’
during the thirty-two years of span of time only (1810-1842 AD).
It needs not to be mention here that, each one of them were more evolved and evaluated than its predecessor. But after his
final departure, more than one-hundred-seventy years have been elapsed so far,
alas, no one of his followers or this superb
healing art and science has ever yet attempted ‘to be dare to be wise’ or revise, improve and/or redress his final
manuscript that was published in the year 1922 AD. If Hahnemann might have been granted for some more years to be subsist,
by God, certainly he might have had produced some more improved and better
editions of this magnificent work.
actually struggling for his livelihood, during the translation of a chapter on
Cinchona, the supreme energy (The God) brightened up his brain and elucidated the things. The Natural law of similarity, to
which he called ‘similia’, in such a way permeated in his brain per se, he become enable
to give birth to a new approach of medication. Incidentally, then executed that Cinchona bark experiment (1790) ultimately became the first famous tool for the new
approach of the revivification of health in all diseases. After that
occurrence, he never looked back. He started more and more experimentations
with several new known and other unknown substances and materials with a new hope.
He scrutinized precisely well the occurrences and happenings of past and
determined the realistic operations of the substances onto the human beings. During the 1810 AD, his first edition of
‘Organon’ was published. Its name was “Organon der
Rationellen Heilkunde”, which means ‘Organon of the Rational System of
Medicine’, and it was emerged just after fourteen years from his earlier
presentation. Thereafter, in a
sequence, passing through four more editions, in the years 1819,
1824, 1829 and 1833, totally he published five editions till the 1842 AD. The
sixth edition was published during the 1921-22 AD. Since then no up-gradation
or no attempt to update or develop this text, which is said the foundation of
our science of healing, has done so far. Actually as he advanced in his practice of medicine
and attained more knowledge, sequentially he wrote up six editions of ‘Organon’
during the thirty-two years of span of time only (1810-1842 AD).
It needs not to be mention here that, each one of them were more evolved and evaluated than its predecessor. But after his
final departure, more than one-hundred-seventy years have been elapsed so far,
alas, no one of his followers or this superb
healing art and science has ever yet attempted ‘to be dare to be wise’ or revise, improve and/or redress his final
manuscript that was published in the year 1922 AD. If Hahnemann might have been granted for some more years to be subsist,
by God, certainly he might have had produced some more improved and better
editions of this magnificent work.
……………………………………………………………..
became much more
popular than ever before. Consequently, several strong opponents aroused against
him and defied and so he had to face the preposterous music of them. Even if Dr. Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland in
the year 1830 AD said that: “I considered it incorrect and unworthy
of science to ridicule or persecute the new doctrine of homeopathy. . .” Furthermore he added that: “I am not in
favor of homeopathy, but of the inclusion of a homeopathic method in
rational medicine. I
would not speak of homeopathic physicians, but of physicians who use the
homeopathic method at the right time and in the right place.” [i] But such statements
demonstrated a dual effect on the medical world. They encouraged Homœopathy a
lot; however, impeded also its growth to a great extent.
popular than ever before. Consequently, several strong opponents aroused against
him and defied and so he had to face the preposterous music of them. Even if Dr. Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland in
the year 1830 AD said that: “I considered it incorrect and unworthy
of science to ridicule or persecute the new doctrine of homeopathy. . .” Furthermore he added that: “I am not in
favor of homeopathy, but of the inclusion of a homeopathic method in
rational medicine. I
would not speak of homeopathic physicians, but of physicians who use the
homeopathic method at the right time and in the right place.” [i] But such statements
demonstrated a dual effect on the medical world. They encouraged Homœopathy a
lot; however, impeded also its growth to a great extent.
At the very inception of
Homoeopathy, i.e. 1810 AD, the Amedeo Avogadro with his hypothesis gave a great
blow to this superb healing science and art. The Avogadro’s hypothesis recognizes
that the ‘one mole of any substance contains 6.02254X10-23 molecular
or atomic units’. Initially, it was not proved; however, later-on it was experimentally
confirmed by the Millikan in 1909 AD. It determines that, there is least
possibility of the presence of even only single molecule or atom of the
original substance or compound within that dilution wherein substance or
compound has diluted beyond 10-24 (in terms of Homœopathy 12c).
Homoeopathy, i.e. 1810 AD, the Amedeo Avogadro with his hypothesis gave a great
blow to this superb healing science and art. The Avogadro’s hypothesis recognizes
that the ‘one mole of any substance contains 6.02254X10-23 molecular
or atomic units’. Initially, it was not proved; however, later-on it was experimentally
confirmed by the Millikan in 1909 AD. It determines that, there is least
possibility of the presence of even only single molecule or atom of the
original substance or compound within that dilution wherein substance or
compound has diluted beyond 10-24 (in terms of Homœopathy 12c).
Dr. Hahnemann never claimed
that the Homœopathy is the only guide to therapy; instead, he often emphasized
or motivated it in following words — ‘the
highest to be pursued’, — that, it’s a primary method to remove
fundamental cause of the disease. He called it as a ‘real way’ or ‘causal therapy’. But, in context of current knowledge of
human creature as well as immunology, I emphasize it to have it in main stream
of medication. In this regards, as has often said that the Homeopaths have actually
failed to scrutinize accepted wisdom of Hahnemann as well as explicate the
theme of Homœopathy; we should not only do this job precisely well but also perfectly
correlate the earlier wisdom of him with the current understanding. For the
every rational physician, since the time of Hahnemann, the knowledge concerning
medical science has greatly increased to many folds; thus, it is immaterial
that, who leads the natural law of cure or principles thereof in the field
medical science or which term should explain this law of cure. But the failure of
up-gradation of this science counts too much, as it’s the only reason behind
failure in obliging the Govt. to include it in the main stream of medication.
Methinks, it might be stumbled upon probably because of the superiority complex
in Homeopaths; as well as, feeling that the any materialistic approach is
incapable of understanding the scientific greatness of this ‘art’.
that the Homœopathy is the only guide to therapy; instead, he often emphasized
or motivated it in following words — ‘the
highest to be pursued’, — that, it’s a primary method to remove
fundamental cause of the disease. He called it as a ‘real way’ or ‘causal therapy’. But, in context of current knowledge of
human creature as well as immunology, I emphasize it to have it in main stream
of medication. In this regards, as has often said that the Homeopaths have actually
failed to scrutinize accepted wisdom of Hahnemann as well as explicate the
theme of Homœopathy; we should not only do this job precisely well but also perfectly
correlate the earlier wisdom of him with the current understanding. For the
every rational physician, since the time of Hahnemann, the knowledge concerning
medical science has greatly increased to many folds; thus, it is immaterial
that, who leads the natural law of cure or principles thereof in the field
medical science or which term should explain this law of cure. But the failure of
up-gradation of this science counts too much, as it’s the only reason behind
failure in obliging the Govt. to include it in the main stream of medication.
Methinks, it might be stumbled upon probably because of the superiority complex
in Homeopaths; as well as, feeling that the any materialistic approach is
incapable of understanding the scientific greatness of this ‘art’.
[i] ‘A Study of the Simile in Medicine’; p. 146; Boyd
LJ; Philadelphia: Boericke and Tafel, 1936; referring from the ‘System
der Prakt. Heilkunde’, (1830); Dr. Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland (1762–1836).
LJ; Philadelphia: Boericke and Tafel, 1936; referring from the ‘System
der Prakt. Heilkunde’, (1830); Dr. Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland (1762–1836).
——————————————————
After the Hahnemann,
the medical science has developed enough to a great extent as never before. But,
the core of Homœopathy or its fundamentals have very little understood so far
or as you might say not at all. The concept and wisdom, which explained in our
earlier literature of Homœopathy as well as other various kinds of allied
alternative systems of medicines, including herbal medicines, are indescribably
confusing. Therefore, unless and until these confusions have acknowledged
completely and/or redressed by the up-gradation of our knowledge at the founts
(at the teaching level), a very little or not at all any progress can be
accomplished in the field of Homœopathy. In context of present scenario, since notions
of Hahnemann and/or other homeopaths do not comply with the current
understanding, this mode of medication is usually considered as unscientific.
Thus, we didn’t find any authentication. Therefore, current scientists, if they are really
lover of truth, rather than disparaging, discouraging or disregarding its
values, must discover an unanimous scientific basis for its applications, which
shall serve as a proof for the appreciation of this science in general.
the medical science has developed enough to a great extent as never before. But,
the core of Homœopathy or its fundamentals have very little understood so far
or as you might say not at all. The concept and wisdom, which explained in our
earlier literature of Homœopathy as well as other various kinds of allied
alternative systems of medicines, including herbal medicines, are indescribably
confusing. Therefore, unless and until these confusions have acknowledged
completely and/or redressed by the up-gradation of our knowledge at the founts
(at the teaching level), a very little or not at all any progress can be
accomplished in the field of Homœopathy. In context of present scenario, since notions
of Hahnemann and/or other homeopaths do not comply with the current
understanding, this mode of medication is usually considered as unscientific.
Thus, we didn’t find any authentication. Therefore, current scientists, if they are really
lover of truth, rather than disparaging, discouraging or disregarding its
values, must discover an unanimous scientific basis for its applications, which
shall serve as a proof for the appreciation of this science in general.
– DR. S. HARIMANN
INDIA
Dear Dr.Harimann,
Your compilation is really great worth of encouraging young scientists in the field of Homeopathy.This is a very useful master piece of work in Homeopathy that every body must read. My request is provide the next generation the way that they can work on practical part of Homeopathy towards materialistic evidence base as per remedy identification and selection of remedy for diseased.