1. Is it true that the Classical approach does not necessarily only mean giving 1 remedy at a time but you can also alternate on 2 remedies and that's still classical? Alternations aren't likely as common but I've heard that it's one of the classical approaches.
(*not speaking of combination remedies which is more than 1 remedy at 'one' time which is not classical).
2. When you alternate b/t 2 remedies, is it that one is primarily the constitutional one and the other is to complete the person all the time?

3. And is it that the other one is a lower potency all the time, not high, or can it both be high, if the case had the mentals and physicals involved?
4. And since there are remedies known not to go well over the other, does that apply to alternations as well, where certain remedies will contradict each other that have to be considered? Or will it be ok as long as it completes the picture...
5. Lastly, if you have to wait a month for a single remedy to give it enough time to see the results, then how long would you give the alternated (other) remedy, a month as well or couple of days? and also, does it matter what interval, for example, do you take it ie. a day proceeding the 1st remedy or any time after that remedy?

Sorry, I would like to confirm that it's all classical as it often takes long for my homeopath to reply. Thx!

of things.

You have to understand that my views are personal and many will disagree .

It is generally accepted that only ONE remedy at a time should be used.

However there are old traditional alterations that have stood the test of time.

One such is the alternation of Sul and Nux vom

Sometimes it is required to use Merc and Silica one after the other and in this case it is normal to use Hep Sul in beween , but with intervals between.

The antidotal relationship of remedies can be of use.

Hello,

Homeopathy must work on a very subtle level of recognition considering the potencies we use. The work of a homeopath is to make changes on the dynamic level, that level being the core vitality of the individual. I believe it is for this reason that for the most part 1 remedy at a time is the best choice. Other medicinial action only creates another subtle change in states that the system has to tune into and therefor the trail made harder to find of the one medicine that is bieng given that is appropriate in that it serves the law of similiars; ie it is similiar to the symptoms of the derangement of the vital state. Mind you if niether medicine is a good fit considering the law of similiars it becomes easier to not harm an action that works on such a deep level as dynamic change to a mistunened vitality. A well chosen remedy will resonate so well with the core state as to shake the disturbance at hand away from its damaging affects on life. But the less resonant the substance is the more you would have to give the substance and he more you can give other |dynamic" substances and the less the system would be confused.

joe

Thanks passkey and Joseph Dubroff.

You've really impressed me, Jacob! All 5 questions?!!
Thanks a million! lol

And by mitigating circumstances, you mean the situations where the patient is in a lot of pain and it's urgent or is going to die or what?

I don't see it as my homeopath's style. He started using only 1 remedy and now he's probably still being classical given your explanation that there are 'exceptions' although that was not said in the "phosphorus" thread when it was stated that there aren't ANY exceptions and that it's never classical).
In addition, I also asked like in that thread to explain the reason of another remedy for what wasn't covered when there's more than 1 complaint and he told me about dis-similar diseases but I don't understand because any rule can be made valid, does it really make sense for the good is the confusion and no one that responded to the thread validated it to any extent or be aware of it even though I was told it was in the Organon.

Finally I get an acknowledgment of what my homeopath said! Well thanks Jacob for the confirmation, and it's clearer to me now of what you explained of the dis-similar diseases, do you recall which aphorism it's in?

And why would you consider it more classical in succession rather than in 'alternation'? and also to clarify that in succession you mean together at the same time instead of later, which is alternation. Thx!

It's ok, I don't need to know where exactly it is right now. I already have 2 homeopaths who are in agreement! However, I did read the 5th and 6th Organon versions up to 10 or 20 aphorisms and they are the same but some difference in wording so it was kind of a waste of time. Oh well.