Contradiction in Homoeopathic phillosophy , no clear conception , confusions with more and more intu

Dr

If we see the law of therapeutics Ref Aph 26 organon of medicine , “A weaker dynamic affection is permanently extinguished in the living organism by a stronger one , if the later ( whilst differing in kind) is very similar to the former in its manifestations.”

All homoeopaths are very much aware to this law, because it is the base of homoeopathic treatment. Hahnemann after a long observations and experimentations prepared this law. And it is use as an universal law of Homoeopathy. Though it is a hypothesis and because of well proved on thousands of sick individuals it has become a law .Here the part is important what I think is (Whilst differing in kind). It means what ?

1. Is it of same in origin? Then it follows Isopathy. ‘Iso’ means same and ‘pathos’ means suffering, was founded by W. Lux a vetenary surgeon in Leipzig.

If we study both the 5th & 6th edition of Organon of Medicine Aph 56, Hahnemann clearly wanted to differ the origin, similar means it should differ in origin. It is not the same in origin. Some body may give a view that differing means by potentisation the medicine we can differing the characteristics of medicine .If we studies the F/N of Aph 56 in fifth and sixth edition where Hahnemann clearly and specifically said ‘to use a human morbific matter ( a psorin taken from the itch in man) as a remedy for the same human itch or for evils arisen there from is-? Nothing can result from this but trouble and aggravation of the disease’.

Now the great question arise? In his book ‘The chronic diseases’ Hahnemann said in both venereal miasms described the origin . After suppression the two diseases form Gonorrhoea and syphilis, cause the Sycosis and the syphilitic miasm. We frequently use two prominent drug to the sick individual i.e Medorrhinum and the syphilinum. when the disease is transformed in to different form (latent , secondary etc.) even genetically transfered to the next generations who suffers with different disease pattern due to the said miasm.

Therefore application of medorhinum or syphilinum does not contradict the therapeutics law of nature ? It is not (different in kind) , Is’nt it a isopathic mode of treatment. Contradict the words what said by Hahnemann in organon of medicine .

How it has become different in origin, while we treat medo or syphilinum to treat the respect miasm.

Therefore we have to take a decision whether the conception of theory of chronic disease should have any validity? Or the basic law of homoeopathy is incorrect? Or is there any misconception or wrong ideas while assuming the miasms? Or the ideas of assuming the origin of sycotic or syphilitic miasm is a confusion and not true? Or the Isopathic mode of treatment is a correct mode of treatment ? Or problem is lying some where?

Should we follow Hahnemann blindly about the origin or chronic miasm.

When I asked the same question to the contemporary stalwarts of homoeopathy, they gave me some contradictory speculative answers.

A scientific head of an organization said me with the help of potentisation we are changing or making the medicinal substance a different kind. But is it a valid answer ? Ignorance creates more confusions.

Very well we can prove that this is incorrect with the help of modern physics.

When an electron moves from one orbit to a closer one, its energy decreases. To conserve energy, it emits a photon with energy, E=E2-E1. Same way when an electron moving from n=3 to n=4 it must absorb a photon whose energy is E=E4-E3. These emission and absorption energies produce a unique set of frequencies, a spectrum for each type of atom, a unique fingure print. If we see the different spectra of hydrogen H,or mercury Hg, and neon Ne. clearly the spectrum of each element is quite different.

Therefore with help of potentisation we can’t change the characteristics of medicinal properties of a medicine it is innate in nature. The properties of matter as particles or as wave are same, only thing one is more less or more dynamic, the amplitude is varied.Hahnemann also said in the Aph 26 that differ in kind that the origin is different and with some examples he tried to explain that and practically while homoepathic treatment we see the same rule is followed.

Therefore what is left to us . we have to change the concept of the chronic diseases theory as when I study the homoeopathy with help of physics physics I found it is very easy if we change the concept of the chronic disease to some more change . whereas the treatment part or the practical part we can keep in same what we follow in homoeopathy . Only if we change the concept of the evolution of the chronic disease we can solve so many unresolved part of homoeopathy .

#particlewavedualityprinciple #trituration #potentisation #succussion