This is an excerpt from Mr.Modi's book, Accurate Homeopathy.

" Let us see what the threatening implications are, when we include unchanged symptoms of the mental nature, thermal state, cravings and aversions and the likes into the prescriptive totality. Let us take the example of cravings and aversions. Generally, in routine cases, cravings and aversions are sorted out and a remedy is given which covers it. According to Aphorism 6, we are presuming that it is a changed symptom. Now, since changed symptoms are diseased symtoms, we are asserting that the patient is ill from birth.

Therfore the patient can be brought to health only when the craving and aversions goes away or modifies. In most of the cases (90% of them) no appreciable difference occurs even after receiving constitutional treatment. So, the conclusion that could be reached is that the patient was diseased, is diseased, will be diseased. Is this not a dangerous conclusion? Generally in most cases, the physical generals do not change from its original position (i.e, start of treatment), but the complaints of patients become better. So, the other dangerous probability is, we are pushing the expression out of sight i.e. suppressing. Since physical generals and mental disposition of the patient, like fear, irritability and weeping hardly alter in most patients. (If we accept that the practice of including unchanged mental and general symtoms in the totality, is correct.)

The pink statement within brackets is mine.

5.4 ESSENCE

It can be safely assumed that those symptoms, which show no alteration either in mind or body, should not be taken for prescription. They are health symptoms, and don't merit any attention for prescriptions. In fact to address them as ssymptoms is wrong, they are present even when the patient is healthy.

If the profession thinks that Hannemann had asked us to incorporate mental and physical make up in the 'Totality of Symptoms', we are putting words in Hannemann's mouth."

I couldn't have put it across better. This is exactly, the way I perceive, what is not to be included in totality.Do supporters of Modern gurus like Rajan Sankaran, care to tear this apart in a logical way?

Murthy

HI Murthy, You probably don't have a clear idea of Rajan Sankaran and his teachings. "Normal" Physical generals or emotional symptoms are NOT the BASIS of prescriptions and it is a misapplication when this is done. I know this is what many people have done though, and made a mess of case analysis. Perceiving teh "DELUSION" is what forms the basis of his previous teaching, and truly percieving this with an unprejudiced mind is an art not many people can easily do.
Secondly it is the ICR of Dhawle that concentrates more on the general mental and physical makeup to be part of the totality.

What everyone (incuding myself at one point) missed which was probably not clearly conveyed, is that what is ALWAYS and first taken into account in these totalities for remedy choice are the deviated characteritic symptoms. the physical and mental generals simply become the support or confirmatory symptoms when differentiating between remedies.

Eg: One would not give Lycopodium to a hot patient. One would not give LAchesis to a clearly chilly patient. IF the choice was between these two remedies, this would be a differentiating physical general

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

You are right Dr.Leela.

I didn't go through as yet, through the philosophy of RajanSankaran, Vijayakar, etc. I am yet to understand the basics thoroughly, and perhaps, it takes little more time.

Thanks for your comments. I will study them carefully, and come back.

Murthy

Totality-what is not to be included!!

Beneficial suppressions-- changed immunities/defence mechanisms, resistences, body changes to surrive in changed environments & modern lifestyles etc. Probably, anything added to us for good/surrvival in changed environment & lifestyle since indicated Adam & Eve's make ups.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

Hi Murthy,
I was thinking over again and decided to asnwer your quesion form Modi's point of view. A lot of teaching is actually based on KEnts idea of finding the "constitutional remedy". I remember one of my professors telling me - you know we're giving you all these guidelines, but no one ever taught us all this, we just had to find out for ourselves.
So I think this whole lack of understanding re: what is important in the "prescribing totality" was a lack of clarity as to what Kent was refering to as characteristic.

We choose symptoms for analysis based on a given guideline (usually Kentian). But ultimately, each of us has to develop a sense of what is characteristic in that group of symptoms that needs to be included in the totality for choosing the remedy. OFten, a symptom deviated from normal is one sure characteristic, and yet, it not necessarily is so always.
Its the concomittant and clear modlatities that may be more important in many cases. IF there is a paucity of sympotms, the physical and emotional generals can be very reliable - just how Vijaykar uses them.

relying on emotional generals requires a deep perception of the emotional state from teh homeoapth otherwise often we're only pigeon-holing these symptom expressions leading to wrong prescriptions.

dr. leela

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com