Dear Hans

Here is the definition of "characteristic" in the dictionary:
1. A prominent aspect of something
2. A distinguishing quality

Regarding CHARACTERISTIC in homeopathy, I read an article by G.V. Keller who explains it in an excellent manner, inline with the above mentioned definition, you can ask Albert for it or if you want I will be glad to provide you its copy.

I have read your article also and as per my understanding, yes, what you have mentioned for Ars is a characteristic symptom and when found in a patient, will guide you towards Ars.

Whereas your assumption that Numerological and combinability make a symptom CHARACTERISTIC seems incorrect to me.

Once you have read the Keller article, we can discuss further.

__________________
Don't take life too seriously, it aint permanent.

You said "Authority: An expert whose views are taken as definitive, someone who has displayed successful prescribing equivalent to the old masters."

Mathur fulfils criteria which you mentioned above.... That was the right way to teach you... I asked a question and you replied... Now you have understood what I mean to say. A very simple method of teaching you.

__________________
<b>All the best<br />Khokhar<br />(CAM Expert)</b>

You said "Criteria of measurement: Old masters e.g. Hahnemann, Boenn, Lippe, Herring. (Somehow the other, I am not impressed with what I have read so far of Kent and have deliberately not included him in the list of masters.) "

Your criteria of measurement as an authority is wrong. Now the question is

From where they got education
From where they got diploma
who were there teacher
how did they come to their conclusion (essays which they wrote)

When you will think about these answers you will understand the criteria...

Bye the way Hahnemann, Boenn, Lippe, Herring were not homeopathic doctor.. They were not BHMS qualified. This has been said so many times by many members. They experimented and got observations and mentioned them in their essays / classical work... That is the criteria..

__________________
<b>All the best<br />Khokhar<br />(CAM Expert)</b>

Dear fitness

G.v. Keller/ tuebingen, published a good few articles over the last decades. I would like to have a read of the one you refer to. Keller might not confirm my findings for various reasons.
One might be, that he has had the tendnecy to give prominence to kents ''homeopathy'',another one might be, that his article is dated pre 2001.
There has been a lot of discussion on the subject of characteristicness in general as well as in the particular circumstance of remedies.
the definition of characteristicness in the context of homeopathy might be disagreeable to you from your current understanding, but without this definition any repertory from Boenninghausen on would not make any sense in the context of par.: 153/ 154 and 164/ 165.
Uwe Plate in his work:
Hahnemanns Arbeitsweisse mit dem symptomen-lexikon
shows how Hahnemann used the characteristics much tohis adventage and how he--following the instructions of the Organon established what is characteristic for each remedy and what not.
With the permission of the Author, the translation of a late Hahnemann-case follows:
DF 5: Fremiere

Entry from Melanie: Mr. Fremiere, 28 years
27th July – Every year once swollen tonsils [ last time 18 months ago], then he has fever with heat, without thirst, no shivers – during swallowing painful pressure – actual swelling – tongue white – a year ago the right tonsil was punctuated with a scalpel – his mother had this disease – this time around swelling of the right tonsil – the disease always affects this side.
Hahnemann: Bad taste in mouth,, No appetite, yet hunger, need to eat.
Bell R. now and in an hour, sac.-lac. In 6 spoons every 4 hours.

Hahnemann (Melanie?) gives Bell by olfaction and sac-lac to take at home. He(she) possibly is afraid of a homeopathic aggravation and therefore gives the smallest dose, I.E. olfaction of one globule.

Melanie:
28th July – after Bell the pain in the throat has increased, for 2 hours – better in the evening: Small attacks of heat [ lasting 10 minutes] with sweating – Night, very restless, sometimes woken by pains in head, Stitches, also stitches in the gums - this morning great amelioration, swallowing with greater ease – swelling in throat is less, but still strong enough to be felt – pressure-pain – the stitches are gone.
Hahnemann:
Bell C24 now tinctura sulph 1 globule C 30 in 15, 2 spirit vini, from that one teaspoon once a day in the evening over 7 days.

After a homeopathic aggravation the throat problems have eased, but temporarily stitches in the gums have appeared, which can be attributed to Belladonna. The swelling regressed. Now the question arises: how did Hahnemann arrive at Belladonna?
It cannot come from the Symptomenlexikon, because if one ‘’repertorises’’ with that book, Bell is eliminated. Maybe he worked with Boenninghausen’s or Jahr’s repertory?
Both works are mentioned in the Organon in a footnote to par.: 153 (cited here)

Jahr’s Handbook states:
· Pressing pain in tonsils: Bell
· Inflammation of tonsils: Bell, Canth, Ign, Nat-s, Plum, sep
· Ulcerations of tonsils: Amm, Bar, Bell, Calc, Hep, Ign, Lyc, Natr-s, Nic, Ran-s, Sep, Stann, Sulph, thuj

Jahr about the characteristic symptoms of Bell:

Cramps in the throat, with difficult painful, impossible swallowing, whereby every swallowed liquid reappears through the nose. – Feeling of constriction in throat.
Stinging and pressing in throat, and in tonsils, during swallowing and talking….Inflammation, swelling and festering of tonsils.

The patient returns next day [without appointment?] and complaints of a strong increase of the complaints.

Melanie:
29th July – after inhaling Bell for the second time he felt the left tonsil kicking up – he had brood and had great difficulties swallowing and 5 minutes later he felt crawling at the tonsils and headache – worsening of his condition, he never suffered like this before – this morning the head is less painful, but the throat is in the same condition – this morning ability to swallow milk - Salivation continuous, slimy.
Hahnemann:
No more crawling in the throat.
Merc C24 R and sac-lac.

Insert here Par.; 161 Org.

He never had suffered like that before after smelling the Bell again. Then he felt the tonsils and is generally very slimy. Belladonna was a bad choice, otherwise this worsening would not have happened. Hahnemann decides on the olfaction of Merc. because of the sliminess and continues with sac-lac.

Jahr remarks on Merc.:

Throat and hard palate inflammation, especially with stinging pains [ also in tonsils and submaxilar glands], during empty swallowing … pussy tonsils .. Saliva bad smelling, also in feverish attacks…

Hahnemann:
1st August – on the 29th he felt worse, because of the stitches in the left ear. Still a lot of salivation, always slimy, the right tonsil is still painful during swallowing, tongue completely white. No stool for the past 5 days, yesterday evening a little bit, yesterday eveing a bit of a temperature, heart without sweat, Acon R now, then Caust from tomorrow morning on: one globule C30 in 15 teaspoons, 1 KL Spiritus Vini, from that 1 KL in 12 teaspoons to be taken each morning.

This entry is from Hahnemann, it seams, that he took over this case himself at this stage. The complaints died not improve, and the stinging in the left ear is still there. Other than that the patient had a temperature without sweat. Hahnemann applies a dose of Aconite in olfaction because of the temperature and continues with Causticum next day.

Hahnemann:
2nd August.- This morning a bit better with the pain in the ear, but he does not swallow better, still salivation, and the whole front of the throat is very sensitive to touch. Had no temperature yesterday evening. Only slept for 3 and a half hours last night. Has taken in till 8 this morning each half an hour.

The fever went, the complaints got hardly any better. The swallowing is still painful, and the salivation is still there. Hahnemann must have had great faith in his remedy selection. The patient took Causticum every half an hour! There was no homeopathic aggravation despite, so Hahnemann continued with Causticum.

Hahnemann:
3rd Aug. –much improved, talks without hindrance, eats without problems, slept well, on the side of the throat he hardly feels anything, The neck is still a bit stiff when turning the head.
Take 3 times on KL Caust and come back after 4 days.

The success is clear.

Melanie:
8th Aug. – he is completely well – without pains, still impediment in the throat – once or twice small stitches in the ear, but very little – constipated.
Hahnemann:
Take Tinct. Sulph evenings 1 KL. [KL = tablespoon]

Whoever has studied one-sided pressing pains in the Symptomenlexikon will find in his notices the following remedies:

Pressing right: ( see one-sided):
Agn, (Bar-c), Bism, Bry, Caust, Clem, Colch, con, Dros, Hell, Hyosc, Iod, Kali-c, Lyc, Ran-b, Ruta, Teucr, Zinc.

Belladonna has characteristic (on different locations) no rightsided pressing ( statistically significant right more than left). But ‘’Pressing right’’ is the decisive Symptom at the first consultation, Hahnemann actually underlined it. Belladonna has just as much pressing right-sided than left-sided, therefore Bell is left aside in the study of the Materia Medica Pura. By the study of the MMP it becomes evident, that Bell cannot be the simile.

Compared (the previous group) with the rubric swallowing, only Caust and Kali-c are left. Both have the pressing during swallowing on different organs.
Caust in the throat (‘’ lump’’) and beside the right shoulder blade (!)
Kali-c has pressing during swallowing in the sternum and spine. The lump (=Knaeutel) is without swallowing. During swallowing Kali-c creates stinging but no pressing.

Bar-c shows pressing during swallowing only in the area of the throat but nowhere else. Bar-c on the other side has more symptoms with pressing with swallowing than Causticum, but those are not characteristic, because the only press during swallowing in the throat. The pressing during swallowing is for bar-c that non-characteristic like the blue face during coughing of cina, as Jahr states:

Whereas the blue face of cina which concommits the attacks of whooping cough, can never become a characteristic symptom for the selection of cina, and even if this symptom is observed a hundred times more often than all the other symptoms, but never in combination with another symptom, than only with those coughing attacks.

IMO: clear explanation of what is characteristic in remedies.

Never and under no circumstances should the choice of a remedy be trusted in anyway, if one symptom or even a few symptoms are coincidental in the MMp to the disease.

Kali-c has contrary to Caust no lack of appetite with hunger [ no appetite with hunger, need of food] but rather the opposite, another point why caust in this situation is more suitable.

Causticum was the simile from the start and could have been recognized from the first casetaking. Belladonna was a faulty choice. The symptoms created by a badly chosen remedy belong to the patient and likewise to the [faulty] remedy, as well as to the then to be chosen simile. [ See also my article on the remedy-relationships]
The new Symptoms are symptoms of the wrong remedy [in this case Bell] but not characteristic for the very one [Bell]!
If they would be characteristic, then the remedy would cure them!

IMO: very important point! This explains how Boenninghausen, Hahnemann could predict which remedy will follow in the given case. The characteristic symptoms will be cured!!!

Belladonna brought forth after seemingly positive action the salivation, which Hahnemann underlined. This is a characteristic symptom of the Simile [caust] which was brought forth by Belladonna.


Causticum creates characteristic the concommittant complaint: Salivation with the pains ( see appendix: Salivation ). At this stage Causticum should have still be given, but another wrong remedy was given. [Mercurius]. Mercurius does not have: Salivation with pain as a characteristic either.
Mercurius has throat-pain with salivation, but this is not characteristic, because there are not different pains together with the salivation.
Causticum on the other side has toothache, burning of the tongue, and cramps with Salivation.

This case shows, that Bell brought forth the charcteristic symptoms of the simile [Pain during salivation]. Now causticum could have been found even easier. [read here par.: 180 Org.] According to Hahnemann these complaints originate from Belladonna [ similar to a self creation]. Are those ones Symptoms of a proving? Could the symptom: throat –ache with salivation be added to the MMP [nota bene]?

If that would be so the following could happen:
in other cases where instead of Causticum Belladonna would be given wrongly, some kind of a salivation during pain could be created by Belladonna. This would be entered as a alleged proving-symptom under Belladonna, so that in some distant future all sorts of proving symptoms with salivation can be found under Belladonna, which would result in Bell having characteristically the complaint: Pains with salivation, which Bell in fact does not have.
These complaints which are brought forth in the case of disease from a remedy are similar to proving-symptoms but they are not identical.
These are not the symptoms, which arise independently to the already existing symptom-complex [Ie.: They don’t modify the existing disease]. The latter are proving-symptoms, singled out by Hahnemann with ‘’nota bene’’ and added to the MMP.

This case has another important aspect: The fact that Mercurius did NOT cure the salivation with pain. In Jahr’s symptomencodex [My desktop MM, besides MMP, CK] Cured symptoms are listed separately from the proving-symptoms. We find under Mercurius:

Tearing toothache ..in hollow teeth and as far as the cheeks of the suffering side with painful swelling of the cheek or the submaxilar glands.
Salivation during problems with the throat.

Here we find Symptoms at different organs with salivation, but not various kinds of pains with salivation. Both symptoms are no provings symptoms either, but purely experienced in cured cases. Cured clinical symptoms are no remedy indications!
These symptoms are according Hahnemann only useful to give: sometimes a confirmation of the right choice of the remedy selected according its own symptom brought out in the proving, according the similitude to the already established disease-symptoms.
Pure cured symptoms—those ones which did not appear during the proving of the remedy – have to be marked out [like in Jahr’s] if they should be entered to the materia medica .
Insert here par.: 181 and 182 Org.

Why did Hahnemann recommend Jahrs Handbook, Ie why did his closest pupil Jahr publish it, if like in this case the simile cannot be found with it? Answer: because it was never intended for it, as Jahr explains in the introduction to it.

Many cases of throat-pain can be cured with typical remedies [ selected on common symptoms], but not all of them. There are complicated cases which one cannot solve this way. Maybe even Hahnemann went down that road in this case, maybe because he chose Belladonna from his memories? Maybe Melanie was working on her own, maybe with repertories and handbooks? Whatever—we cannot explain why the wrong remedies were selected initially. Fact is, that from the time on where Hahnemann’s handwriting was solely found in the case-records, the case took a decisive turn for the better [ a phenomena which is found frequently in the journal], because now causticum was found. Did Hahnemann look for advice in the ‘’Big folios’?

This case is easy and fast to solve with the Symptomenlexikon. The reader may try to solve this case without the help of this Symptomenlexikon. Easy smiling with the lexicon—without one has to study the ten volumes of the MMP. Try with repertorisation? All rubrics applicable only show remedies like Bar-c, Bell, Merc, and another handful of remedies, which are more or less suitable. Does it help to consult Handbooks? In Jahr’s repertory to the handbook Causticum is not listed. In Nash’s leaders he writes for throat-pain on causticum:
The inner throat is affected a lot on causticum. Burning troat-pian not &lt; swallowing. Pain in both sides or seemingly from the chest coming.

Well, every author has his own ideas what is characteristic.
Maybe something can be found in Jahr’s 40 years—He writes:
Commonly I start here, unless there is a high temperature with acon,..and move on to Bell if the tonsils are strongly swollen .. but is there pus forming I will move quickly to Merc, if Bell did not prevent this.—

This case can only be solved by the exact application of the homeopathic rules and principles laid down by Hahnemann in the Organon by the study of the Materia Medica Pura. Without this study there might be many cases cured by the end of the year, but maybe even more not so.

The initial choice of Causticum is difficult and shows the problem of the lack of proving-symptoms. Pressing during swallowing is not easy to spot initially from the two symptoms. But after Bell the salivation which is characteristic for Causticum appeared . At this point the simile could have been found. Now, after causticum has cured the symptom: ‘’pressing during swallowing’’this symptom is confirmed and can be entered into the repertories. If in future another pressing pain during swallowing is in need of treatment, this entry will give the hint, that this symptom-combination was already cured, and the hint, that both symptoms are probably characteristic for Causticum . But these hints are only reliable, if it is a proving-symptom which found confirmation.

IMO: this chapter and the whole book makes very important points on the exact application of the rules and principles. The symptom-lexikon fills a gap, as easily can be shown, for anyone aspiring to work alongside truly hahnemannian principles. This case also shows, that once these rules and principles were applied vigorously, the case took a turn for the better.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

Khokhar

What you mention is not criteria, its experience

The criteria is "successful prescribing" which equals the old masters, that's the biggest test of any prescriber, forget about all theories and college degrees, if a prescriber is repeatedly successful, then we need to learn and follow him.

So coming back to the question, who is Mathur and does he meet the criteria.

Hans,

Thanks for posting a long case detail, helps in understanding the importance of correct prescription but raises that question which you rightly pointed out, why did they prescribe wrong remedy in the start and kept working on it.

__________________
Don't take life too seriously, it aint permanent.

This bit always makes me laugh and says a lot about the 'interpretation' of this case:

See? Told you her fingernails were way toooooo long, Melanie couldn't even keep proper case records. Must've had too many cocktail parties to organize and the numbers where messing with her head, anyhow it's obviously the bitch's fault... a phenomena which is found frequently in the history of every male-dominant process.

Hi Chris-- how many beers?

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

MATHUR, K.N., MD
1906-1977, India
Diabetes Mellitus.
Guide To Organon.
Principles of Prescribing.
Systematic Materia Medica.
Textbook of Pathology

__________________
Sometimes on Earth, you can find something that resembles a little piece of Heaven. And sometimes on Earth, a little piece of Heaven can find you.

Wow, Hans!! A really sexist interpretation of a case--which you don't critically challenge in any way--AND an insulting accusation.

Guess you were the favoured student at charm school, huh?

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

How many beers?
Hans could you please explain exactly what you mean by asking me this question?