|
Post by Admin - Joy Lucas on Jun 14, 2021 7:15:48 GMT
This is just my point of view but having been involved in many Provings and building a project of making sure some substances we use get proved, I.e. proving old remedies, I am of the opinion we don’t need any more new substances for new Provings.
Can anyone say exactly how many remedies we have available to us?
Maybe Rajesh can give us a number from Complete Dynamics, but that number won’t include all the potentised substances (some of them ridiculous) that have been potentised by people themselves or by special request by the pharmacies.
We must have thousands! Do we need them all?
It is my belief that the mind and body breaks down in a limited manner. Yes, many triggers can be the cause but even they can be grouped. Yes, we are all individual, but the body and mind will follow only a small number of disease routes.
If we look at the miasmatic influence of disease and even if we include the full number of miasmatic influences according to Sankaran, this still represents a small number of pathology pathways.
I think we have far too many remedies in our materia medica and repertories. I think we only need a few hundred. I also, as I often do, call frequently for a Provings only materia medica and repertory. Not only would this make our job of healing so much easier it would also highlight how many remedies are yet to have a proving and it would encourage all of us to get on with proving and re-proving remedies. After all, Provings are the fundamental of Homeopathy.
Your thoughts, anyone?
|
|
gordana
Full Member
The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder.
Posts: 128
|
Post by gordana on Jun 14, 2021 11:38:13 GMT
I totally agree. Yes, we certainly currently have between 3.500 and 5.500 remedies. In fact, I would say that if we are serious about homeopathy, we actually do not have that much. Many of them are just recorded in repertories and registered, but they are of little or no use. Recently I accidentally found one very interesting rubric, in CR concretely, and when I wanted to see the sources of the provings, I saw only one source: Lilienthal S. Homoeopathic Therapeutics, Jain. B. (New Delhi), 1890. The symptom is very strange and interesting, so it could be pretty tricky when we have that symptom (absolutely clear, no place for interpretations), to include that rubric in the analysis, especially knowing that we often focus on remedies that cover a rare symptom. I think we need a lot more learning about the old remedies, which have had more provings, but the real ones. Hahnemann as I know worked with a few dozen remedies, if I remember correctly about 80. I'm sure he didn't use them all either.
|
|