Hi Shirley,

I also recently attended a class with Sankaran where he discussed the idea of making a kind of "periodic table" of plant remedies...I thought it was fascinating and extremely intelligent, based on an understanding of the particular similarities and differences of different plant family remedies.

I think people get lost on this idea or denounce it because they fail to realize that Sankaran's focus is not to "fit" people into these boxes, but really to organize what we know of the materia medica in such a way that it corresponds to what we know about pathology and case analysis--in other words, how do you make our knowledge of miasm theory, case observations, and case analysis techniques WORK when we look at the materia medica? It's about making the vast body of materia medica into a much more efficiently accessible to us as prescribers.

To give an example of this, I will tell you about the way he used a group of plant remedies to illustrate this:

Okay, he chose two plants from the same botanical family--the Mango (mango i.), and the Marking Nut (Anacardium). One other plant he mentioned, which is related slightly to this family, was Rhus Tox. Now, all these remedies have the same skin symptoms, with a few tiny variations--and the case discussed was on in which the patient was the child of an alcoholic parent who was quite abusive; she then became quite an adventuress with drug use herself--for a period she described as "half of her life, as if it could be split right down the middle"...and the main complaint was a fleeting, recurrent swelling red rash that appeared and disappeared with an alarming frequency and unpredictability. The most alarming thing, to her, about that rash was that her earlobes reddened and swelled on certain attacks.

Now I know these are very sketchy details...however, you can see that all these BIG aspects of the case could apply to any of the three remedies above, all members of the same botanical family. The distinguishing symptom which occurs only in one of these plants and not in the others was the symptom of the swelling, reddening earlobes...which was only produced by the Mango remedy.

That remedy cured dramatically.

Certainly, the other two remedies were similar enough to have brought about some effect, as they also featured the same symptoms--but the Mango symptoms were just that much more similar to the case.

When you graph this out on a chart which graduates the differences in a way which takes into account the miasms (is the case more psoric? more sycotic? more syphilitic? Which of the plants most closely resembles these miasmatic states AND features the same symptoms, to varying--distinguishing degrees?) then it becomes that much easier to pick an excellent remedy for your patient.

Sankaran said very clearly his intention was to create a much more sound, predictable, reliable, and efficient method of organizing our materia medica in this way in order to lessen the possibility of prescribing inaccurately with this "table".

I understood this as a means of understanding the materia medica even more clearly in the context of their botanical families--in much the same way Scholten is elucidating the properties of the mineral remedies in the periodic table.

As I see it, ALL cases are mixed miasmatically anyway--the trick is to determine which one is exerting the greatest influence. For this, Sankaran can't help you--no one can! You just have to observe and take the case yourself.

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

My dear Dr. Leela,

This is a separate issue/title. I don’t want to continue our discussion here. If you have some query than ask me in diarrhea title. It is against the etiquettes to discuss that point here. However I have given the answer in diarrhea issue separately. :razz:

__________________
<b>Dr. M Iqbal (Classical Homeopath)<br />Iqbal Poly Clinic, Main Market, Kharian<br />Phone Clinic: 05771-511337, Residence: 05771-533737 </b>

Hi Hans,

Since Divina has not come on, I thought I'd expand on at least 2 of your questions to her.
At the moment I'm not aware where to obtain the proving of MAngo, but if I do, I will email you privately about it. Also I could not be able to answer about the case that was cured dramatically with Mango. (So now I'm relying on your openness, and going beyond my ego and slander )

Let me illustrate the method that Sankaran is in the process of developing. IT has basically 2 dimensions.
1. Case taking focus, and analysis of sympotms and patient expressions.
2. Understanding more deeply remedies based on their kindgdoms of origin - plant, mineral or animal. Taking this one step furthur, presently with the plant kingdom, understanding similarities and differences between remedies from the same botanical family and from different botanical families.

In comparison - Scholton's work is almost parallel, in understaiding similariries between remedies of the same series of the periodic table and for the same period (column). Scholtons development of ideas though is much more advanced thatn Sankarans development at present, though both need a lot of clinical evaluation.

To continue with Sankaran:
In the first dimension, he concentrates on understanding the chief complaint from the depth of pathology as well as expression of the sensation of the patient, as he explains to you how limiting his problem is to him. This information gives an idea of the miasmatic presentation of the patient used for the purpose of being able to reach a remedy in the progression of miasmatic development within a plant family.
Once he does this, he reaches the mental picture (which is Sankaran's forte), he finds that the same theme with mismatic stage and pathology exists as in teh chief complaint ie. the limiting factor in this expression, is also present in the mental sphere.
NOW THIS IS AN ART, and if one is able to recongnize this, one can apply it. Or there is going to be misapplication and disaster, as there has been before.

In the second dimension, he understands and analyses what are the common manifestations of proving sympotms of remedies physically and emotionally, in the SAME botanical family.
EG: HE found that a common basic theme exists with remedies in the Injury group drugs of family COMPOSITAE which are ARnica, Calendula, Chamomilla, CIna, Eupatoreum PErf, taraxicum, Snecio, ABrotanum, BEllis Per, Echinacia.

Common to all their sensations are: Injury, feeling hurt and insulted, shocked at situations, fear to be touched, hurt, approached. This could be called a common theme. This can be observed both in the mental sphere and physical injury site.

Understanding the depth of this injury both physically and pathologically, and understading the mental reaction in the provings of these remedies, he was able to classify the entire family into a gradually developing miasmatic progression, starting from what he terms as Acute Miasm -&gt; psora -&gt;which includes typhoid -&gt; malaria - depending on the type of reaction, Ringworm -&gt; a predevelopment to sychosis, Sycosis -&gt; Tubercular -&gt; cancer -&gt; leprous and finally Syphillis.
The additional "new" miasmatic names are based on a furthur distinguishing/subcalssification of disease expression mentally and physically and is explained in detail in one of his earlier books.

So now we have a history of a patient, adn we wonder whether this patient needs a plant, mineral or remedy of anmial origin. HE had given earlier, broad distinguishing characteristics of these. BUT to my mind, these are inadequate and lead to a lot of misinterpretation and wrong remedy selection. OFten its a total disaster.

So, what do we do? Well, we still repertorize the old fashioned way! with Boger Boenninghausan or Kent, whichever suits oneself or the patient! NO BOXES!

Seriously, This is a tough method from where it is at the moment. We are just not equipped at the moment to understand remedies from this standpoint, neither to analyse case histories with this in mind. BUT we can understand it in retrospect, cases that have done well (esp plant kingdom) interpreting things using this tool and discover how brilliant it is.

The only remedy I've been able to prescribe so far, with an understanding of this method is Staphysagria. I understood the patients miasmatic expression to be Cancer, adn the sensitivity to be plant like, and the major sensation to of morbidly sensitive to things, Esily excited, a lot of anger, grief or shock. Great sensitivity to pain which was stitiching and stinging in character. The family that had these sensations was Ranunculacae. And acc to his classification on the grid, the pathology of Staph fits the Cancer miasm. So the remedy was Staph. Of course if one repertorized the old fashioned way, one may still ahve some to Staph!

But Shakaran described and showed video cases of remedies like Asarum, Cinamon, Inula, Capsicum, which would have been really difficult to recognize or prescribe traditionally. All these cases were on treatment for a long time and given many remedies that did not help.
The hallmark of this method is to prescribe less used remedies in unresponsive cases, if they require a plant remedy, using this tool.

So Hans - no BOXES. Just keen observation and case taking, sound reasoning, deduction and intelligent application of a method. Anything less than that - disaster. It will be exciting to see this method completely evolve.

Well Ok Hans, I don't know if I've helped or created more confusion in your mind.
Please - I've sat wriitng this down for 1 hour. I simply cannot spend this much time again on a post. I hope you won't have too many questions. IF you do, please just wait for his book to come out. Its being released sometime soon. But you'll have to read a few prelimnary ones first to get a gist of this one.
Good night.
doctorleela

[ 31. August 2002, 19:15: Message edited by: doctorleela ]

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Thanks Dr. Leela
i am fierce buisy at the moment but intend to come back to it later on.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

Dear Drleela
As promised, I had a read on the information particularily on Sankaran’s ideas, as you perceived them.
You wrote:
&gt;&gt; Understanding more deeply remedies&lt;&lt;
&gt;&gt; the depth of pathology&lt;&lt;

I have difficulties to relate to the word ‘’Deeply, depth’’ in the context of remedies, pathology. In my common use, the depth can be measured in: cm , Meters. Is it, that the depth of pathology measures in cm form the surface inwards? Maybe, you can elaborate on the meaning of this?

You wrote:
‘’the progression of miasmatic development within a plant family.’’

You have me puzzled with this.
Miasms are according to the definition diseases, which are transmitted from individual to individual, and run their course in a fairly static way. An example of an acute miasm would be: measles, whoopingcough, chickenpox.
How can miasm develop within a plantfamily?
In my treatment of plants with homeopathic remedies, I have found out, that if there is miasmatic disease affecting, it always affects all the varieties of the same family. Say, the brassicas—if I have a problem with white spots, the cabbages, cauliflowers, and brussel sprouts get it, and usually all need the same remedy.
I have not seen any progression from one sort to another.

You wrote:
&gt;&gt; Once he does this, he reaches the mental picture (which is Sankaran's forte), he finds that the same theme with mismatic stage and pathology exists as in teh chief complaint ie. the limiting factor in this expression, is also present in the mental sphere.&lt;&lt;

does this mean: If he does not do this, he does not reach the mental picture?
What then, if the remedy which is necessary is an imponderable—and he is stuck deciding the progression within a plant family?

You wrote:
&gt;&gt;NOW THIS IS AN ART, and if one is able to recongnize this, one can apply it. Or there is going to be misapplication and disaster, as there has been before.&lt;&lt;
IMO:
&gt;&gt;This is a so-called system, arrived by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses concerning the inner nature of plants, and their abilities to cure.
In homeopathy the selection of the curative remedy is done by symptom similitude and not by any analogies arrived by speculations. &lt;&lt;

You wrote:
&gt;&gt; HE found that a common basic theme exists with remedies in the Injury group drugs of family COMPOSITAE which are ARnica, Calendula, Chamomilla, CIna, Eupatoreum PErf, taraxicum, Snecio, ABrotanum, BEllis Per, Echinacia.&lt;&lt;

The group of remedies useful after injuries has been found as follows:
Arn, Bor, Bry, Calc, Canth, Carb-v, Cham, Chin, Cic, Con, Creos, Croc, Dulc, Euphr, Hep, Hyosc, iod, Kali, Lach, Laur, Lyc, Mgs, Merc, Mez, Nat-c, nat-m, Nitr- ac, N-vom, Par, Phos, Ph-ac, Plat, Plumb, Puls, Rhus-t, Ruta, samb, Sec-c, Seneg, sil, Staph, sulph, Sulph-ac, Verat, Zinc.

This group of remedies useful in accidents contains by far more remedies, as the botanical group of Compositeae, and it would be wrong to solely focus on them when a remedy is needed after injury.
Of course I can find a common theme in remedies grouped under a rubric. It is exactly this symptom they have in common.
You will also find, that every remedy has in the proving produced some sort of a headache, stomach-upset, sleep-disturbance, change in appetite, etc.

You continue:
&gt;&gt; Common to all their sensations are: Injury, feeling hurt and insulted, shocked at situations, fear to be touched, hurt, approached. This could be called a common theme. This can be observed both in the mental sphere and physical injury site.

Here I went to compare this ,,fear to be touched’’ in the original provings, and marked out with a + which remedies have brought it out. I can’t say about Eupatorium per.,snecio, abrotanium, Ecchinacea, as I don’t have the provings.

ARnica, Calendula, Chamomilla, CIna, Eupatoreum PErf, taraxicum, Snecio, ABrotanum, BEllis Per, Echinacia

The result speaks for itself. None of the rest of the remedies in this group has a ‘’fear to be touched’’

You wrote:
&gt;&gt; So, what do we do? Well, we still repertorize the old fashioned way! with Boger Boenninghausan or Kent, whichever suits oneself or the patient! NO BOXES!&lt;&lt;

IMO it is a big difference in reliability between Kent and BB2, and from BB2 to BB1 and from BB1 to Sra, Srn and TT.
Not to talk about the most recent developments in the Sythetis, Murphies etc.

How can someone be lead to a small group of remedies, under which one most likely will find the one most suitable to the case at hand, if the choice falls onto a repertory which is full of mistakes. No matter how artistic you are, it will be a long road to the remedy, as you have to read up several remedies in vain.
IMO: Very sloppy attitude to a process, which determines the future of our patients.

&gt;&gt; I understood the patients miasmatic expression to be Cancer,&lt;&lt;
Is this patient diagnosed of having cancer? What has cancer to do with Staph?
Since then is cancer a miasm? Where is the evidence of contagion?
IMO: You are boxing here patients in a very negative way. As a homeopath you are supposed to treat diseases and not to class patients.

You wrote:
&gt;&gt;The only remedy I've been able to prescribe so far, with an understanding of this method is Staphysagria. I understood the patients miasmatic expression to be Cancer, adn the sensitivity to be plant like, and sensitivity to be plant like Esily excited, a lot of anger, grief or shock. Great sensitivity to pain which was stitiching and stinging in character. The family that had these sensations was Ranunculacae. And acc to his classification on the grid, the pathology of Staph fits the Cancer miasm. So the remedy was Staph. Of course if one repertorized the old fashioned way, one may still ahve some to Staph!&lt;&lt;

Lets recap:
The symptoms which you prescribed on were:
--Miasmatic,
--Expression cancer,
--sensitivity to be plant like
--Esily excited, grief or shock
--Great sensitivity to pain
--stitiching and stinging in character

Out of 6 elements, 3 are your own interpretations, your own phatasies you select the remedy on. IMO: the patient would not have liked to hear you views.

&gt;&gt; The family that had these sensations was Ranunculacae.&lt;&lt;

Here we have the box.
If we take away your personal interpretations, and repertorize what is there, then a lot of remedies have the combination of above, and they are from all kingdoms.

&gt;&gt; Of course if one repertorized the old fashioned way, one may still ahve some to Staph!&lt;&lt;

There are a good few other remedies, which have the same combinations.

It is and remains the proving of the remedy, which provides the indications of its curativeness and nothing else. It does not matter from which kingdom, group, box it comes. Prescriptions based on the opinion of the practitioner, on theories, analogies don’t form part of homeopathy, and furthermore only bias the unprejudiced observer in his task to obtain a true picture of the disease to be cured.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

Hello Hans,

I think I will resist from answering your specific queries as they don't encompass the entirety and depth of what I have explained, and its really difficult to go furthur than I already have.

You're opinion as always remains unchanged, to what you accept as right and homeopathy. So going beyond that is no point really.

From your point of view, I understand your criticism, that's all I can say.
It stems from you basic rejection of Kent and those who follow the Kentian approach and understanding in variouis forms.

Just one thing, which you've got a totally skewed idea from what i meant above. The understanding/observation of the "depth" of action of a remedy (or patterns of action of remedies whitin a family in progression) depends on the proving symptoms available in the materia medica followed by clinical evaluation. Knowing that a remedy like Droscera can cure whooping cough is from the proving sympotms and then seeing it work clinically; and whooping cough sympotms can be percieved as one of the miasmatic expressions and this helps understand the depth of action of this remedy.

BEyond this, I don't think I have the energy to talk with you. LEts just say, you stick to your personal understanding as it seems to suit you so well. I won't go on for the sake of arguement. ITs tiring.

Regards,
Dr. leela

Just came back to add, I sincerely don't have the energy for this at the moment. I don't feel I have to defend Sankaran or Kent or myself as results ultimately speak for themselves.
Please don't take this in offense.

[ 03. September 2002, 09:52: Message edited by: doctorleela ]

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

HEllo Hans,
I have recieved a private mesage from some one who thinks I have a very erroneous opinion of your responses and personality.

Since I have not met you personally, I may stand corrected in the opinion I have formed from your past responses. I think I always respected from the beginning your knowlege of the Organon adn vorious writings, and have mentioned them often in various posts.

I think if there is something we're going to disagree on, let it be so. BUt I really as mentioned before find it difficult to argue on these points. IT requires too much energy. Suffice to say I'm sure you have a point.

Maybe we just use different language!
Regards,
doctorleela

[ 03. September 2002, 16:50: Message edited by: doctorleela ]

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com