Whilst replenishing my energy reserves in the pub after cricket practice the other night a friend bowled me a googly of a question (apologies for non-followers of the sport.)

As a practising buddhist (and very good leg spin bowler) he raised the idea that an individual can only achieve their ultimate fullfilment in life and true enlightenment by experiencing anguish and suffering, learning to accept these and then transcending them. Being nearly Easter this then went on to explore the Christion tradition of suffering, martyrdom etc.

The googly came with the idea that the relief of suffering must therefore hinder the individual in their journey to fullfilment. Hence the taboo of suicide etc. I floundered around for a while with explanations about natural medicine and homoeopathy, how they worked in line with the vital force etc. etc. But I couldn't, and haven't since, come up with a good argument against the initial premise, i.e. that to relieve any individual's suffering is ultimatley contrary to their good as all suffering has a purpose and it is only by seeing that through that the purpose is attained.

I hope this argument isn't too esoteric for the BB. I don't regard it as simply philosophical nonsense as it has made me start to question a great deal about what the purpose of medicine may, or may not, be.

Any ideas/feedback would be gratefully received, especially before the next cricket nets.

Cheers

Dave

compassion for all sentient beings...basis of buddhism.

Hi Dave,
Interesting point. The conflict of religious beliefs with healing.
I trust it is important to be clear about one's own religious beliefs or non-beliefs for that matter. My belief is, that Hahnemann was inspired to bring homeopathy to this world, as other people were inventors, composers etc. and brought the unthinkable into being. If something that was "found" is bringing so much good to people as homeopathy does, I cannot imagine it to be detrimental to one's spiritual development. The Yogis teach that "attachment is suffering" - of course attachment to suffering is suffering too. Relief from suffering and the letting go of the attachment (pro or con) to suffering seems to be the answer. Living in the moment, every moment can free from suffering, even in the midst of pain. The right remedy at the right time (moment) relieves suffering - can that be wrong ?
I feel that I'm rambling on now - just letting my thoughts flow

Claudia

I also think that suffering teaches people, and improves them as people. But I think that illness often comes when people do not learn from their suffering, they become stuck in it, do not evolve past it. Homoeopathy helps them to resolve the situation, it does not simply remove it. This is the big difference between us and Orthodox medicine - they remove suffering, we resolve it. Our patients are better people when the crisis is over, theirs are sicker and emotionally weaker.

I don't believe suffering is an end to itself. It serves a purpose and teaches, but the lesson must be learned, or there would be no point to it. And lessons can be learned when alive, not just at the point of death, or living would have no reason either.

Suffering never really ends. The only true cure is death (we assume). Therefore, we never really cure our patients, just help them continue the journey, more evolved, ready for the next lesson in their lives. I believe that when my patients die, they will move on to something higher than they would have had they never come to homoeopathy.

If illness is allowed to continue unchecked in a person, it often moves into their heart, their mind and finally their spirit. Homoeopathy reverses this. I would find it hard to believe that this is contrary to our purpose on this world, to become stronger more complete beings.

__________________
David Kempson.<br />Dip.Homoeopathic Medicine.<br />Lecturer Australian College of Natural Therapies (Brisbane Campus)<br />Member AHA, AROH, HMA<br />Member Australian Homoeopathic Association. Member#0442.

Hi Dave,

Why is healing, which one may seek out for him/herself, not seen as a means of transcending suffering?

Why is this transcendence "off limits"?

I know healing one's self must be "part of the journey", even in Buddhism. All religions are open to one's own interpretation, it seems.

Divina

__________________
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine

ALL of life is not anguish & suffering, is it?! (tell me it's true! )

Funny you should open a thread on this very topic Dave as I was intending to broach the subject myself. My query is, assuming that a person has already accepted their role in aiding the healing of others; how do homeopaths protect themselves from the general angst that is life & presents itself in the form of sick people on a daily basis?
Presumably this takes place through taking care of oneself, but I would be interested to hear the experiences of homeopaths who have been in practice for many years; do they sometimes become overwhelmed by the magnitude of mankind's problems? Often, never, sometimes? If so, what form does this take & what support do they seek? I'm especialy interested in how the skill of separation from one's clients develops; say if you have a particularly heavy, dreadful case; do people use rituals to keep themselves clear, like I know a homeopath who claps in corners after a client has left the room?

Sorry to be full of questions; I'm at a stage of asking myself(again)weither I've got the stuff for it & am very interested in experiences, well more in the difficult ones, of the 'job'.

I know one person who is studying homeopathy who is concerned constantly about 'playing God' in the form of administering remedies. My answer is that I would quite happily play God if I could get a few of my own problems sorted out first!

On the esoteric level, if suffering is man's nature then so must healing be; as surely as day follows night.

And one for Easter; 'Christ the Redeemer, carrying the cross on his back, symbolizes the human being destined to die on the cross of his own organism.' (Perez on the miasm with morbific regressive organic tendencies.)

Wishing you all a peacful & loving Good Friday.

Louise

To add some more religion to this discussion.....

Ultimately, all religions believe that the higher aim of human existance is to be one with the God, to be free from all sins. And to be free from all sins ..is to be free from all sufferings. So philosophically speaking, a persons sufferings are a measure of his sins(sins could be a mere deviation from nature to any moral or physical sin).
So if we as Homeopaths, try to remove the sufferings of a human being, we r bringing him back to his normal self, from where he can carry on his journey to attin that higher purpose of life, in a better way. I think this brings are efforts to reduce the sufferings of human kind in-tune with what are religions say.

__________________
Dr. B<br /><br /><a href="http://www.doctorbhatia.com" target="_blank">www.DoctorBhatia.com</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.hpathy.com" target="_blank">www.Hpathy.com</a><br />Homeopathy for Everyone

Does the normal self have to pay taxes?

Louise, JVolkman,
I know a healer who plays cards, patience to be specific to gather her concentration.
I use white sage and smudge to dispell "negative" energy. It clears the air, leaves a nice scent and clears the mind too.
I personally believe that meditation is a great tool to learn how to center oneself quickly and still the mind. There are all sorts of books out there on how to do that, but all that is really needed to meditate is a place to sit and become quiet - and a LOT of practise
Claudia

Hi,

Thanks for all the input. I didn't intend to stress the specific religious side as strongly as I seem to have done in the original post.

I think my own thoughts which were sparked by my friend's observation were very close to David's i.e. that suffering is about learning a lesson which in itself helps the individual move on to something higher. I guess I don't have the personal experience of homoeopathy to really fully know this difference between resolving problems and removing them. For example I know of people recently bereaved being given Ignatia by reputable homoeopaths. I can see that if someone gets stuck in their grief and is unable to move on then a remedy is needed, but is giving a remedy to move them through grief more quickly and less painfully a good thing?

I wonder is it possible that some of the 'obstacles to cure' result from people needing to work through their anguish without the leap-frogging benefit of a remedy? I'm thinking of say someone badly abused as a kid. Don't they need to find a way of talking through their experience, their feelings of anger and guilt etc. in order to move on; or is the role of homoeopathy in such a case to aid them to find the voice they need?

Sorry if this post too is full of questions, I guess I'm in a similar mental place to Louise at the moment.

Take care all,

Dave

PS. In my nutritional practice I use meditation to centre myself for patients and to clear an excess of 'stuff' from patients I have seen. I do use sage smudging after some patients and keep a piece of amethyst to absorb their energies, but I feel this is more for the benefit of future patients; some people leave a huge negative feel in the room after them.

On the subject of playing God, I remember one extremely well know homoeopath at a lecture stating that they saw their purpose solely as identifying the remedy that fitted the presenting individual at that time and administering it, they did not accept that they had any responsibility for what effect the remedy had on the person so long as it was correctly prescribed (i.e. suppression and aggravation are the homoeopath's responsibility.) Maybe this is another way of argiuing the same point that what the individual does with the remedy is upto them and their 'karma'?