This term has appeared in quite a few threads lately, so I wondered what does everybody mean when they say "classical homeopathy", and whether there are a universal definition (will give mine later . . .)

__________________
Christiaan van Schalkwyk<br />Registered Homeopath (RSA) (M.Tech.Hom (Natal))

To me there are four basic principles to 'classical' prescibing.
1. The similimum
2. The totality
3. A single remedy
4. Based on provings
To manage the case, a fifth principle needs to be incorporated, that of Herings Law of Cure.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

Does peter chappell's AIDS remedy come under this category.

Blue Man - Peter Chappell's treatment is not classical homeopathy.

Homeoman - Christiaan asked what we mean by classical homeopathy, not whether we think it is the best approach. As far as I can discern, tissue salts are not classical homeopathy, unless they are prescribed homeopathically. You think they are superior to classical homeopathy and I think they are not.

If a combination of substances is mixed together and then potentised and then is put through a proving, the combination is no longer a combination remedy, but a single remedy on which we can prescribe.

There are some problems with the provings, but it is a necessary step in homeopathy. It gives us basics upon which to prescribe.

Once it is proved, it is a single remedy. There has been a lot of controversy regarding what SH meant by minimum dose, but regardless of what he meant, classical homeopaths use what they consider to be the minimum dose.

[ 24. January 2003, 23:31: Message edited by: sreischman ]

__________________
Shirley Reischman

With the effort of non-classical lover from pakistan the final verdict has come... Peter Chappell's treatment is not classical homeopathy. (Shirley)

[ 25. January 2003, 02:12: Message edited by: Arshad Sheikh Homeopath ]

__________________
Homeopath

When we say Classical, it should be understood to mean: according to the 6th ed. of The Organon by
Samuel Hahnemann.

Snoopy

SH gave us a philosophy. How we apply that is the art. The case analysis is the art. Much of what we consider to be 'new' is really already in the Organon. Herings law can be deduced from the Organon. Layers can be deduced from the Organon. Even essence prescribing and prescribing based on the pathology. There's plenty of room for innovation. But the term 'classical' is a definition. The definition isn't going to change. We just need to acknowledge that not everything people call homeopathy is classical or even homeopathy. It doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but it does make it not homeopathy.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

As long as we remember the definition of classical - which was what started this post.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

Shirley

I like your definition !, but as Homeoman stated I would like to add minimum dose.

Just asking (and stirring the pot, probably), if we consider the 6th ed. the end all (and I'm not arguing that), should we not all then prescribe LM potencies? I mean, XH and CH was devised by Hahnemann early in his life, so they can be excused, but what about the Korsakovian potencies (Which I don't use, but this is a personal choice (they are too "unscientific" and "unreproducable" for me)), and those prepared by radiowaves, electromagnetism, and all these new impulse goodies (which I HATE !) (not being proved either, when I think about it) ?

__________________
Christiaan van Schalkwyk<br />Registered Homeopath (RSA) (M.Tech.Hom (Natal))

Was Hahnemann a Classical Homeopath? To make it more simple: Did Classical Homeopathy exist during the days of Hahnemann and his immediate followers?

__________________
Abdullah<br />I know too little