I took a class from Sankaran and he is developing a grid with all the possibly miasms going down the side and all the possible families going across the top. His first step is to identify what makes each of the categories unique and then classify each of the remedies as to which boxes (could be multiple) it belongs in. By doing this, he thinks that if we can identify which box each patient belongs in, we then will have a limited number of remedies to choose from. He did say that this schematic may not fit all patients.

Scholton seems to be doing a similar process with the periodic table as Sankaran is doing with families of remedies.

Vega Rosenberg has developed something he calls Vega Boxes. I don't have a clue what they are. However, his point of view is that all disease is basically a spititual problem and if you can identify the spiritual problem (maybe similar to Sankaran core delusion?) you can cure the patient. He is claiming 99% cure rates.

Rudi Vespoor does sequential therapy. There is an interesting debate between Rudi and David Little at http://www.lyghtforce.com/Homeopathy...ue3/voice.html . I'm now dealing with the consequences of sequential therapy in one of my young clients and it's not pretty.

Bailey has taken his clinical experience and written psycological descriptions of the remedies he most commonly uses in his practice. This isn't a new theory, but his book seems to be controversial, so I added him to my list.

I think Ramakrishnan could also be added, since his plussing method, set schedule of dosing and the alternation of two remedies takes it out of the box of pure Hahnemannian homeopathy.

Ideas are hypotheses until they are proven. They then become theories. So I probably should have used the word hypotheses instead of theory, although the developers of several of these methodologies are sure they have proven their case.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

Hi Shirley,
I think the problem with the word 'theory' when used in the homeopathic context is that it is considered as an idea - proven or otherwise - that does not follow the original tenets of homeopathy according to the Organon.

I think Sequential Therapy is definitely in this league ('Theory'), but I would hesitate to club Sankaran or Scholton into this. Bailey too, from what I understand from your explanation as their's are just different ways of understanding the Materia Medica and prescribing the SIMILIMUM.

ABout Radhakrishnan, I think its important to note that he deals with terminally ill patients. His method of appraoch, as I view it, is consitutional treatment assisted by specific prescriptions based on localised symptom similarity.
I don't think I'm capable of making either philosophical judgements or moral judgelents on him in this situation, as he does claim to help a good percentage of terminally ill cancer patients.
ALso I think specific prescriptions as acute prescriptions have their place alongside consitutional treatment especially in these serious terminal cases.
Personally I would not like to judge though, whether this is philosophically sound in the alternation or repetition that he uses as my experience is not adequate to do so.

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Dear Shirley
Thanks for letting us in on Sankaran’s newest idea.
How does a multy-miasmatic case feature in this grid?
How about, if the person does behave like a plant and an animal at the same time?

Dear Drleela
I think we are doing wrong, if we put people into boxes, saying: Sankaran is this and Scholten that. I think these individuals deserve, that each of their ideas is looked at seriously. I don’t agree, only because one idea is not within the principals of homeopathy, to judge the person bringing them up as a NON-homeopath.

You seem to be firm in Scholten’s and Sankaran’s newest ideas.
Could you fill us in, in which way these gentlemen differ in their view of the Materia Medica and of the similimum? It would be also interesting how you define: ‘’constitutional treatment’’.
This term is not defined in Hahnemann’s homeopathy, yet you seem to use it quite frequently.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

Vega has an audio tape for sale at http://www.minimum.com/p7/engine/book.asp?n=198935#
Does anyone know anything else about Vega? Certainly interesting.

Hans, Sankaran said that not all people would fit neatly into these categories, but if you have someone who's current state overlaps, you could look at remedies belonging to both sets. He meant for this to be a tool that would help lead to a remedy, not the only way to reach a remedy. It's more likely that a person would show multiple family traits. If a person were mineral, it would not fit into the families that he was working on. He was starting with plant families and then was going to the animal families.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

Well sadi Divina, I couldn't have put it better.

HAns, I wish you would take on a better tone. Rather than tying to challenge ideas, try to first look at the merit of them. You act like you and only you know everything that is right! And this is an observation I've noticed consistently with you.

I think Divina has partly answered your question so I'll save some needless arguing with you at least. Thank goodness for that!

ALso as soon as I feel so inclined, I'll find the Organon Aphorisms that explain what I mean by "constitutional" treatment, the term that you seem to abhor (for reasons that completely flummox me) and you refer to like something the dog brought in.

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

"Let someone come forward and present exactly those ideas, and then lets have a look at them, let practitioners come forward and present their experiences, let us look where they come to stand in the context of homeopathy. Let us stay away from the polarity: Homeopathy=good, everything else=bad."

"I think we are doing wrong, if we put people into boxes, saying: Sankaran is this and Scholten that. I think these individuals deserve, that each of their ideas is looked at seriously. I don’t agree, only because one idea is not within the principals of homeopathy, to judge the person bringing them up as a NON-homeopath."

HAns (to be fair to you), You leave me a bit confused with the above statements. Who is "we"? who is "judging"? who is not "looking at these individual's ideas seriously"? who is maintianing the "polarities" that you mention above?

On one had it seems like you're really ready to open your mind to something different, and on the other you seem to ATTACK us regularly for being non - Hahnemanian. To me it sounds like a contradiction of sorts.

Anyway to change the topic, I've got one question for a change that I know you'll have a good answer.
What do you do with a patient who turns out to be presently "constitutionally" Merc. That means (!!) that the similimum that we've reached taking into account all the peculiarities has led us to Merc. And the patient has had Merc fillings in her bad teeth almost from childhood. NOw a couple of doses of Merc 30 aggravates for more than a month?

YOu may tell me privately if you like.
Regards,
doctorleela

[ 28. August 2002, 06:56: Message edited by: doctorleela ]

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Drleela
It is helpful to read my posts before passing on untimely remarks about my personality. Slander does not replace factualities, but only shows the big EGO being in the way of the slanderer, preventing to see the truth. For facts: see above.
With your merc case: see par.: 5/7 Org.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

Hallo divina
Do you have a proving of Mango? Where can I get a copy?
You wrote:
‘’ Okay, he chose two plants from the same botanical family--the Mango (mango i.), and the Marking Nut (Anacardium).

On what grounds did he dismiss all the other remedies suitable?
Wouldn’t the locality, combined with the sensation be the indication for the curative remedy?

You wrote:
‘’ Sankaran's focus is not to "fit" people into these boxes’’

are you sure? To me it appears as exactly this categorizing procedure, by which a patient is in a first step put into a box, here the plantbox, and then in the sub-box of a botanical family, and then a remedy is selected within the box. But I might be mistaken—

You wrote:
>> That remedy cured dramatically.<<
Did he tell the course, exactly what, and in which way? Could you pass this information on?

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

Hans, YOu're talking about EGO? And slander?

Anyway - we'll hope to continue with fruitful discussion!

Thank you for the para ref. (but I was looking for a more specific response from you, including clinical experience - I've considered aspects of 5/7 already)

These aphorisms are part of what I would define as the "consitutional" picture of the patient in disease. To this also add para 83 to 90, 95, 96.
doctorleela

Forgot to add 210-213

[ 29. August 2002, 15:47: Message edited by: doctorleela ]

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com