DEFINITIONS OF HOMOEOPATHY
Vera Resnick IHM DHom Med (Lic)
Much has been written on definitions of homoeopathy. B K Sarkar, in the following text taken from Essays on Homoeopathy, published by Hahnemann Publishing Co. in 1968, seems to be speaking about the same issues that trouble us in 2011. Probably also relating to the same issues that troubled Hahnemann in his day.
Sarkar wrote:
“Lately a controversy is going on amidst the Indian Homoeopathic practitioners about the scope and definition of Homoeopathy and Homoeopathic physician. I have discussed these topics threadbare in some of my essays.
Though definition is a logical process necessary for exactitude of knowledge about a subject, very often it is either arbitrary or one-sided, not covering the whole sphere of thought and existence; and very often this attempt at definition leads to futile wordy duels in which neither party wins unquestionably.The scope of medicine or a physician is so vast and complicated that their definition must be wide enough to allow space for all points of views.
I think, I voice the consensus of opinion when I say that Homoeopathy, in the first place, means a method—a method of scientific study and therapeutic practice; in the second place, it means the facts discovered by the method; in the third place, it signifies the theories that have been propounded to explain and correlate these facts.
What I have endeavoured to emphasise through many of my essays is that Homoeopathy is not a theory, it involves no dogmatic faith but it is a statement of facts, a generalisation from experience valid within the bounds of our sense-bound mentality, that is, a medicine of experience and not of speculation; it is a simple rule of practice applied to a particular sphere of medicine, the treatment of the sick by drugs and for that matter of other physical agents.”
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
admin
Vera Resnick IHM DHom Med (Lic)
DEFINITIONS OF HOMOEOPATHY
Vera Resnick IHM DHom Med (Lic)
Much has been written on definitions of homoeopathy. B K Sarkar, in the following text taken from Essays on Homoeopathy, published by Hahnemann Publishing Co. in 1968, seems to be speaking about the same issues that trouble us in 2011. Probably also relating to the same issues that troubled Hahnemann in his day.
Sarkar wrote:
“Lately a controversy is going on amidst the Indian Homoeopathic practitioners about the scope and definition of Homoeopathy and Homoeopathic physician. I have discussed these topics threadbare in some of my essays.
Though definition is a logical process necessary for exactitude of knowledge about a subject, very often it is either arbitrary or one-sided, not covering the whole sphere of thought and existence; and very often this attempt at definition leads to futile wordy duels in which neither party wins unquestionably.The scope of medicine or a physician is so vast and complicated that their definition must be wide enough to allow space for all points of views.
I think, I voice the consensus of opinion when I say that Homoeopathy, in the first place, means a method—a method of scientific study and therapeutic practice; in the second place, it means the facts discovered by the method; in the third place, it signifies the theories that have been propounded to explain and correlate these facts.
What I have endeavoured to emphasise through many of my essays is that Homoeopathy is not a theory, it involves no dogmatic faith but it is a statement of facts, a generalisation from experience valid within the bounds of our sense-bound mentality, that is, a medicine of experience and not of speculation; it is a simple rule of practice applied to a particular sphere of medicine, the treatment of the sick by drugs and for that matter of other physical agents.”
Share this:
Like this:
Related