the elements of homoeopathy

Encyclopaedia Homeopathica 1

Copyright 2000, Archibel S.A.

SANKARAN P., The Elements of Homoeopathy (skp9) SANKARAN P.

American institute of homoeopathy 1011 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pa., 1907

Office of the Journal ELIZABETH WRIGHT HUBBARD, m.d. Sept. 28, 1965

108 East 86th Street

New York, NY. 10028

212-4-0686

To whom it may concern:

It has been my privilege at two world homoeopathic congresses to meet and to hear

Dr. P. Sankaran of Bombay, India. He also came to the post-graduate summer school of the American Foundation for

Homoeopathy held at the State Teachers Training College in Millersville, Pennsylvania, as a student. We, the teachers,

soon found that we could learn from him, so brillant and well-informed was he. As a teacher he has not only rare humor

but a sense of timing and repetition which make working under him a pure delight. He had a group of 28 doctors eager to

learn homoeopathic Materia Medica spellbound.

The congress at which I first meet him was the triennal one of the International Homoeopathic League, which was held this

year in London and attended by Vice-Presidents from sixteen coutries and delegates from five continents.

The International Congress in Philadelphia, which he later attended, and at which he taught, was under the auspices of the

American Institute of Homoeopathy, founded 121 years ago - two years before the A.M. A. - and the New York State

Homoeopathic Medical Society (115 years old), the Pan-American Homoeopathic Congress, in its 36th year, the Southern

Homoeopathic Medical Association, 80 years old, all joining in the centennial of the Pennsylvania State Homoeopathic

Medical Society. The congress banquet speaker was Dr. James Z. Appel, President of the A.M. A.

His knowledge and personality are such that we wish Dr. Sankaran could and will remain in the United States to teach

Homoeopathy.

Dr. Elizabeth Wright Hubbard, M.D. , New York

Foreword Dr. Rajan Sankaran asked me to write a foreword to the late Dr. P. Sankaran's collected writings which are published in two

volumes entitled "The Elements of Homoeopathy".

I was glad and felt honoured in accepting this assignment because Dr. Sankaran was not only a close friend and valued

colleague of mine but also one of the greatest homoeopathic physicians and teachers produced by India. During his

life-time, I asked him why he was writing his experiences, etc., in so many small booklets instead of publishing the whole

material in two or three large volumes as it is easier for us to locate references and keep track of his contributions.

With his usual smile, he argued that with his periodical small publications, he was able to make his writings faster and

make it easier for students and young physicians to buy them.

Dr. Rajan Sankaran has fulfilled my desire by publishing all his books in two large volumes, thus making our access to the

study of the material relatively easier. The profession must thank Rajan for undertaking this task. He has, of course,

given his own reasons for re-publishing his father's writings in these two volumes.

While writing the foreword, I go down memory lanes and seem to relive the great moments, sitting together with Sankaran

and discussing the development of homoeopathic medicine in India, our reseach problems and educational activities and

other problems.

We often met whenever there was any seminar or homoeopathic conference. He was a most welcome figure on such

occasions, as he charmed the audience by his contributions and papers on specific subjects. His talks were always

punctuated with humour and wit. On those occasions, the subjects presented by him were always illustrated with

practical case-records and that is why his talks were so convincing and popular. Most of his papers have been included in



these volumes.

On going through these volumes, one wonders how he could touch upon and write very authentic and authoritative articles on

practically every aspect of Homoeoepathic medicine, whether it is provings, teaching techniques or Materia Medica, or

ingenious ways of working out cases on different repertories; or homoeopathic philosophy or homoeopathic pathology or

homoeopathic pharmacy. His views and methods of teaching Materia Medica are very interesting. He said that

homoeopathic Materia Medica is very cumbersome - it is a dull study. Our drugs are living, vital personalities and should

be presented as such to students, not only in classroom, but also at the bedside and outdoors.

One cannot help being fascinated by his "Random Notes on some Remedies". Having a very large practice, he had a vast

collection of case-records and from these records, he has given us glimpses of unknown facts of some of the remedies.

His "Random Notes on some Remedies" testifies to his keen observation and meticulous record-keeping. He was always

like a hunter, in search of a remedy's special action and its unknown clinical applications. For example, he talked of the

action of Calc. Ars. in diseases of kidney and Syphilinum in "crying babies".

His intense involvement in the field of Homoeopathy could be explained only on the facts that his conversion to

Homoeopathy took place when he, being an allopathic and ayurvedic physician, could not cure himself of an obstinate

sickness and was induced to try homoeopathic medicine, which ultimately relieved him of his troubles. He practically came

to the conclusion that you cannot imbibe the true spirit of Homoeopathy unless you have suffered and been cured by

homoeopathic remedy, especially when other treatments have failed. I, too, have undergone that experience personally.

He has given his story of his conversion to Homoeopathy in one of these volumes.

One of the subjects that he wrote about was the evaluation of symptoms, and his contribution here should be very useful to

both students as well as practitioners. As I have already said, all his statements on a particular subject are

demonstrated by convincing case-records from his clinical practice.

In this connection, he has brought out an exhaustive paper on cross-references. In the evaluation and comparison of

symptoms, especially in the references to mental symptoms, Sankaran was the first one in India to write about this

subject. Boger had done it earlier but Sankaran realised that for proper selection of the rubrics for repertorial analysis,

it is very imperative that we do not miss the right expression or at times even to combine two rubrics to avoid the

likelihood of elimination of the indicated remedy. In this context, he has laid great emphasis on the role of Causation. At

times, this take the first place in the Evaluation, in spite of a number of other mental aberrations. He has cited some

cases to illustrate

his points.

From his writings, it is quite apparent that his clinical approach to Homoeopathic Medicine was very objective and

scientific, and was not swayed by emotions. He was very correct in saying that emotion generally tends to cloud reason.

He did not believe in fanatical adherence to some of Hahnemannian's writings. Regarding vital force, miasm and

drug-disease, Hahnemann had given some postulation which could not be accepted as scientific or gospel truth. He did not

mince matters when he found that certain sayings or theories advanced even by the so-called authorities did not convince

him.

In his vein, he exploded the adherence to some dietary restrictions when prescribing homoeopathic medicines. He has

brought these things beautifully and convincingly in these writings. We find the same things when we read his comments

on the Relationship of remedies. As a great thinker and observer, he has not hesitated in giving his own explanation,

although he has quoted various authorities, whenever he felt that their contributions were relevant and useful. His

unprejudiced and objective approach in the clinical evaluation of the action of homoeopathic remedies is borne out by his

statements that symptomatic improvement may not be accompanied by a simultaneous improvement in the pathological

picture. He cited cases of gall-bladder stones where X-ray pictures may continue to show abnormalities.

One wonders how in his comparatively short span of life he could have done so much. He did not spare himself in his

continued occupation with his teaching and writing in spite of a very large practice in a town like Bombay. On top of this,

he actively participated in the periodic seminars, conferences - both national and international - and activities of the

all-India professional organisations. He did not, however, waste his time in petty politics of some associations. Possibly

because of these activities, he was able to leave behind such a rich heritage. I am quite sure everyone of us would like to

add these volumes to our library.

He spared no effort in collecting relevant data regarding the work done by Reseach workers in homoeopathic medicine.

Actually, the account given by him in the chapter on research is a short updated history of Research in Homoeopathy,

whether it is about the micro-doses of Homoeopathy or provings of new remedies or clinical research or efforts made by

some in the detection of the indicated remedies other than symptom-similarity. He has referred to the work done by

Abraham, Dr. Boyd and others.

He dares to write the limitations of homoeopathic medicine and also the unpleasant side of difficulties in its practice. He



had a wonderful knack of calling a spade a spade, but with a charming smile which would soften the hostile reaction of any

of his listeners.

Dr. Jugal Kishore

B. Sc., D.M. S., M.D. (Hom.)

President Asian Homoeopathic Medical League

Dr. P. Sankaran

A brief biography Dr. P. Sankaran was born on the 15th November 1922 in Madras, India. His father shifted to Bombay when he was 3 or 4

years old. He began his schooling here, but before he could complete it, his father died, leaving the family in a poor

financial condition. The family of ten siblings was separated and were sent to various places to be supported by

relatives. He went to Madras to stay with his paternal uncle Dr. Sharma, an Ayurvedic practitioner. Here he was put in a

college where both Ayurveda and Allopathy were taught, and qualified with a Licenciate in Indian Medicine (LIM). After

working in a few jobs, he somehow managed to start his own practice in the early 1950's, and was practising allopathy

predominantly. Within 2-3 years of starting his practice, he fell sick and was not relieved by the best allopathic

treatment of the day, but was cured of his ailment by a homoeopath (described in "My Conversion to Homoeopathy").

This removed his scepticism and he became an ardent learner. In 1955-56, he got the opportunity to go to London,

where he studied in the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital under famous teachers like Sir John Weir, Margery M.

Blackie, Alva Benjamin, Foubister and others. It must be mentioned that the dominant emphasis in the Royal Hospital

was on the Kentian method, with emphasis on the repertory and mind symptoms, etc. During this time, he also met

Elizabeth Wright Hubbard, who invited him to New York. He came back to Bombay and re-started his practice with

added vigour. As his practice grew in the Bombay suburb of Santa Cruz, he also started teaching in the Homoeopathic

College and became Honorary Physician at the Govt. Homoeopathic Hospital. He married in 1959 and had a son in 1960.

He founded and edited the Journal of Homoeopathic Medicine, which was later amalgamated into the Indian Journal of

Homoeopathic Medicine, of which he remained the editor till the end. In 1965, he went to New York to study under Dr.

E. Wright Hubbard. She was much impressed by him and asked him to be a teacher (instead of a student) in the course.

After hearing his first lecture on Lachesis, Dr. Hubbard wrote, "Dr. Sankaran's talk was so captivating with his

knowledge of zoology, botany, psychology and homoeopathy, and with such a fine sense of humour that "The Sankarans"

would be competition for "The Beatles", if only there were four of them!" He obtained a diploma in Homoeopathic

Therapeutics from there.

In India, he was one of the main persons responsible for the propagation of the Repertory. At that time, the dominant

school of practice was that of the Calcutta Homoeopaths, with an emphasis on the Materia Medica to the near exclusion

of the repertory. One of the first works he authored was the Card Repertory, which was a refinement of Boger's Card

Repertory. Not finding a publisher, he started his own Publishing Company, and later on went on to write and publish 36

small booklets. He was one of the leading figures in the profession and was responsible for the organisation of many

meetings, symposia and conferences which were purely scientific and non-political. Here he was much supported by his

close friends who included Dr. J.N. Kanjilal (Calcutta), Dr. S.P. Koppikar (Madras), Dr. Sarabhai Kapadia (Bombay) and

Dr. Jugal Kishore (Delhi). He was closely associated with Dr. L.D. Dhawale and Dr. S.R. Phatak, both great admirers of

Boger. He was a member of the first Central Council of Homoeopathy which was instrumental in formulating standards

and guidelines for homoeopathic colleges. He was one of the instructors in the Teachers' Orientation course where he

taught the repertory to teachers of homoeopathic colleges.

He presented papers in various international conferences. He was known for his warmth, his sense of humour, skill in

communication, diplomacy, sincerity and a remarkable

open-mindedness. He investigated diverse areas of science trying to improve and advance Homoeopathy. He worked on

Kirlian Photography, Bowel Nosodes, Boyd's Emmanometer, did provings, experimented with the repetition of remedies

etc. Beside Homoeopathy, he was interested in such varied things as Travelling, Psychology, Photography, and was

learning the musical instrument, Veena.

He practised in two places in Bombay, visiting each on alternate days. His practice was extremely busy, and he kept up his

hectic schedule of practice, teaching, editing, organising etc., till the very end. His health gave way. In 1978, cancer in

the second stage was diagnosed. He lived for 6 months after the diagnosis during which time, in between his pains, he

managed to complete three of his booklets and write the last one, "The Selection of the Similimum and Management of



the Patient".

Dr. P. Sankaran passed away on 20th January 1979 in Bombay.

Editor's introduction I have been teaching Homoeopathy in India and abroad since 1986. It is my experience that students of Homoeopathy, from

the very beginning, get drawn to some particular kind of homoeopathic practice as taught by various charismatic

teachers. Of these teachers, each has his or her own individual style of Homoeopathy. I can be considered guilty of the

same; each of us wants to teach what interests him and appeals to his mind. Being an art, Homoeopathy has various

aspects to it: just as there are various schools of painting, so are there different schools of Homoeopathy. Earlier, I had

assumed that students had the same solid background of Homoeopathy that I had, through learning it in a systematic

way as I myself was taught by my father. But over the years, as I taught several students in different countries, I

found that students got diverted too early into specific schools of thought, and did not have their basics clear. Except

for a few searching students, most opted for shortcuts and were not even aware of the works of past masters. Most

students are unaware of the kind and extent of experiments and research done so far. Worse, I find a surprising lack of

the most basic knowledge of the repertory, and such fine works as those of Boger seem almost unknown. All these things

are the very ground on which I stand, base my understanding and construct my ideas. Lacking such firm ground, a student

is easily swayed and is lost in confusion.

When my father started his practice, there were mainly two schools of homoeopathic practice - the Keynote (Calcutta) and

the Kentian (London). There was no theory of essences, of delusions, of dreams, of group provings or intuition, nor deep

psychological theories about remedies and patients. Homoeopathy was simple, basic, based on symptoms found in patients

and in remedies. At least, so it appeared. But behind this simplicity, there was a deep understanding of philosophy and

the nature of remedies, an understanding developed through careful study and patient application of the law of similars.

Every problem such as potency, repetition or repertory was grappled within clinical practice. My father did not believe in

mere authority - he believed in experience and experiment. For each of these subjects, he studied long and hard, and

from various sources, experimented and tried to find answers. And he had a vast practice to see the results for himself.

The beauty of my father's work is that he distilled the various works of great masters in the light of his own experience

and made it easily available to students and practitioners. The books he wrote represent his search, his study, his

experiment and his experience.

On going through the various chapters of this book and the cases mentioned therein, the reader may find some parts

controversial.

1. Use of Nosodes: The use of nosode as an intercurrent remedy has been recommended by many homoeopaths, past and

present. In his experience, my father found that a case with a family history of Tuberculosis or Cancer benefitted by

initiating the treatment with the corresponding nosode, viz. Tub. or Carcinosin. He found that the indicated remedyseemed to work better after the nosode. This practice may not be fully agreed to by Purists who believe that the

patient needs only the indicated remedy and none else. I am of this view too, presently. However, this subject needs

more discussion and experimentation. The reader will also note that in some cases, where the indicated remedy seemed

to stop working, a nosode of a past disease (e.g. Morbillinum) was given and the indicated remedy repeated again witheffect. The idea was to remove the block created by the past disease by giving the corresponding nosode. This idea, too,

needs further study and experiment. For purposes of this book, these observations must be taken as the experience of

my father, and not as a rule.

2. Repetition of remedies: In many cases, it will be seen that the remedy has been repeated despite amelioration. Here, Ican say that my father was influenced by D.M. Borland and Maganlal Desai, both of whom repeated high potencies

frequently, the former especially in acute cases like pneumonia and the latter in chronic cases like active tuberculosis,

gangrene and coma. Dr. Maganlal Desai practised in Bombay and Gujarat. He reported astounding success in some severe

conditions where he repeated high potencies frequently e.g. Tub CM QDS for several months. His experienceencouraged my father to experiment with frequent repetition of high potencies, with some good results in some cases.

Again, this must be taken as one man's experience and not as a rule. The subject of repetition is a difficult one, and

students either thoughtlessly follow the diktat of some teacher or look around helplessly for guidance. To repeat or not

to repeat - that is the question, and the answers proposed by various homoeopaths are mentioned (in the chapter on

repetition) for us to weigh and judge for ourselves. There are many teachers in Homoeopathy who insist that repeating a

dose while the patient is improving invariably spoils the case. The experience of my father in several thousand cases will

at least disprove this notion. I hope this experience will initiate a discussion as to the logic of and conditions for

repetition.



Dr. J.N. Kanjilal, one of my father's closest friends believed religiously in a single dose - "wait and watch", whereas his

other close friend, Dr. Sarabhai Kapadia would repeat at least two to three times a day as a rule in every case, often for

months.

The results and experience of these two stalwarts can be had from their books:

Writings on Homoeopathy, Vol. I and II - J.N. Kanjilal Homoeopathic Reminiscences - S. Kapadia Also useful will be the book "Coma" by Maganlal Desai. 3. Repertorization: It may seem in some of the cases given in the book that the prescription was based solely on

repertorisation, by a method of elimination. In many such cases, there is hardly any reference to the Materia Medica.

Here, the reader must be aware that the remedy selected on the basis of the repertory was not prescribed solely on

that basis but on a sound knowledge of the Materia Medica. I know that my father read the Materia Medica from cover

to cover, especially Kent's Materia Medica and Boger's Synoptic Key. He carefully studied several others such as Clark's

Dictionary of Materia Medica, the works of Ernest and Harvey Farrington, Nash's leaders, etc. These books are often

ignored by the present day student, who read interpretations and commentaries instead. With his knowledge of the

Materia Medica, my father could see immediately whether the remedy indicated by the repertory did indeed fit the

character of the case, and he always insisted on such correspondence during his lectures. The reader must study these

cases and note the choice of rubrics and their evaluation, giving importance to the causation, sensations, the general

modalities, the mind and the characteristic particulars. His manner of repertorization was influenced by Boger and his

most ardent follower, Dr. S.R. Phatak - who was my father's mentor and guide. Boger's Synoptic Key is a masterpiece

condensing the whole remedy into a few words, thus bringing out its very essence. My father once taught me from this

book. Teaching me Sepia, he pointed to its first word "Draggy". He told me that the word in this sense didn't exist in theEnglish language but was coined by Boger to denote the feeling of Sepia, which is a dragging down: everything drags down- the face, the stomach, the uterus and the mood. The patient's energy itself is dragged down, making her weary, and

the disease too is dragged out, becoming chronic, going on and on. Thus one word is used by Boger in his special way to

express the whole of the remedy. In practice, the rubric selected must express this central symptom or feature of the

patient best and most completely. Giving an example, my father said that if a person is worse after a later night out, we

must see if it is (1) Loss of sleep, or (2) Alcohol, or (3) The excitement of company, or (4) Some other factor; or a

combination of one or more of the above.

One must examine the whole case and then choose the most appropriate rubric. After that, one has to refer to all possible

repertories to study the symptom. Once again, he emphasized that the repertory was only an index to the Materia

Medica. This part of taking the remedy for study to the Materia Medica may not have been emphasized in all cases

because my father was mainly teaching the repertory and assumed a good knowledge of the Materia Medica. For the

present day student, I wouldn't make this assumption.

4. Drug Provings: There is a chapter on provings conducted by my father. These include substances like Diamond (Adamas)and Sea Water (Aqua marina). Even though these provings were conscientiously performed, one can see a relative paucityof symptoms obtained, as also an absence of a good mental picture that can make the remedy more understandable. In my

experience, provings conducted with individual provers and strict controls do not produce the kind of effect they did in

Hahnemann's time, for some reason. I have found that Group Provings help to accentuate the drug effect and bring out

clear and usable pictures of these drugs.

5. Materia Medica: "Random Notes" was the only attempt by my father to write something on the Materia Medica. It was

not intended to be a definitive Materia Medica but merely describes some of his experiences and ideas, and give a

glimpse of the way he viewed the Materia Medica. In this, he may have been influenced by William Guttman, the

American homoeopath, who was his friend, and whose book "Homoeopathy" contains some remarkably poetic descriptions

of remedies.

In all, this book covers a vast area of Homoeopathy - from its History to Research, from Pharmacy to Philosophy, from Case

Taking to Repertory, from Provings to Potency.

They reveal the secret of my father's success as a homoeopath and a physician. He never kept any knowledge hidden. All

that he knew, he tried to communicate. Together these books have formed for me his legacy, have given me a bird's eye

view of the entire subject. These books were very popular in the 1960's and 1970's. In the 80's, my attention was

diverted and I was developing and communicating my own ideas. It is only recently, as I continue to teach more and more,

that I realised that the fundamentals of Homoeopathy need to be taught first - even to senior students - without which

all these new ideas serve only to distract and divert. My father's books are a relatively easy way to grasp the elements,

the fundamentals of Homoeopathy. I thought it a good idea to collect his writings and arrange them in proper order, to

remove articles that are repeated in various places, and to edit and publish them in the form of a book.



The main work of making this book has been done patiently and accurately by

Dr. A.V. S. Prasad. The typing has been done by Mr. Antony. To them, both the reader and myself owe a debt of

gratitude.

Rajan Sankaran

Introduction

My conversion to homoeopathy Behind almost every conversion to Homoeopathy lies an anecdote - usually a very interesting one and I may be permitted to

add my contribution to this.

I studied allopathic and Indian Medicine in my college and started practising after graduating in 1943. My results were good

and bad, all that a beginner could expect. And I had almost settled down to a professional routine.

However, around the year 1945, I started developing a feeling of fatigue in the evenings associated with a feeling of

internal warmth. Gradually these sensations increased and there actually developed an evening rise of temperature, upto

99 oF. As a member of the medical profession, all kinds of pathological and radiological investigations as well as the

expert advice of eminent colleagues were easily available to me. Accordingly, the blood, stools, urine, etc., were

examined, and radiographs were taken but the disease could not be diagnosed. All the time, the temperature continued

to rise, regularly upto 100 oF or more in the evenings. There was also weakness associated with a loss of weight. I had

lost about two 28 pounds in a month. It was clinically suspected to be malaria and I was given quinacrine. Nothing

happened except that my body became yellow. Some hidden focus of infection was suspected and I was given sulpha

drugs but these had to be discontinued because they produced severe vertigo. I also took liver extract without any

improvement. It was then suspected to be amoebiasis and I took some emetine with temporary benefit. Ultimately it was

suspected that it might be a case of incipient tuberculosis and I was advised change of air, as there were then no

specific drugs for the condition.

The whole series of investigations and treatment were merely a source of disappointment to me. They only helped to

discourage me more and more. So, as I looked around in desperation, I thought of Homoeopathy. I had no knowledge of

Homoeopathy and I had no faith in it; my impression of Homoeopathy was that it was some sort of a medical fad. Yet,

such "fads" were sometimes known to do the trick where the highly developed modern sciences had failed. So I decided

to consult a homoeopath, particularly as there was a well qualified allopathic physician who had somehow become a

convert to Homoeopathy.

The physician asked me to write out my symptoms and bring them to him. I did so and presented the list to him. He did not

examined me thoroughly physically nor did he go deeply into my various investigation reports. But he merely read my

notes, asked me one or two questions, then referred to a book and prescribed a drug. While I was disappointed to see

that this physician did not examine me thoroughly, I was annoyed that he looked into his book and prescribed, as though

my case and my medicine were recorded in print! Further he asked me to take only one dose of the medicine he

prescribed for me. When I enquired how often I should repeat the doses, he advised me to take only one dose and wait

for 15 days. How could one dose of medicine act for 15 days... Surely this was stretching one's credulity too far.

However, notwithstanding this series of shocks, I decided to experiment. I went to a homoeopathic pharmacy and ordered a

dose of the medicine in 30th potency as directed by the physician. I expected that since this dose was to act for a

fortnight, it must be a very powerful and, therefore, a very expensive drug. But to my utter surprise, the chemist

charged me only one anna (one penny) for the dose, with the result that even the little faith I had completely

evaporated. But, strange to say, within three days of taking this dose, I found such a tremendous beneficent effect that

cannot be described in mere words. The feeling of fatigue and fever disappeared. I regained all the original energy that

I had lost during my illness. I actually felt as if someone had removed from my body all my old and useless blood and

replaced it by fresh blood. I quickly regained the weight I had lost and was able to take up all my original activities with

redoubled vigour. I felt very well for at least six months after which I think the dose of medicine had to be repeated.

That a single dose of medicine costing so little could give me such tremendous relief for six months, whereas the most

expensive medicines prescribed after lots of investigations had failed miserably was a great surprise that I could not

surmount for a very long time.

Incidentally, I want to mention here my belief that the homoeopath who can appreciate the system most is the person who

has suffered and has been himself benefited by homoeopathic medicine.



This incident filled me with gratitude for the system and stimulated me to study this science which in the past I had always

equated with quackery. During the next two or three years I studied all the books I could get hold of. I read Kent's

Materia Medica and Robert's Principles and Art of Cure and several other books repeatedly. But still I had not the

courage to test Homoeopathy on any patient.

However, an opportunity soon arose for me to see the effect of Homoeopathy objectively. A child of 4 years in our family

had a severe attack of smallpox from which she eventually recovered. But though she recovered, she did not regain her

original health or vigour. On the contrary, she started weakening and emaciating steadily. She became more and more

listless and inactive and soon ceased to stand up or walk. Still later, she failed to sit up too, she could only lie down. She

even stopped speaking; when she wanted anything she would merely roll her eyes. Her condition was most pathetic but

none of the several physicians whom we consulted could do anything because all investigations that had been done failed

to show the presence or nature of any gross disease. However, it was very clear that the child was declining very rapidly

in health and perhaps in another fortnight or a month she would be lost to us.

At this stage, a homoeopathic friend of mine arrived and I consulted him about this child. In this case also, without

thoroughly examining the child but only on hearing the history that the child had been declining since the attack of

smallpox, he prescribed three doses of Variolinum 30, 200, 1000 to be given, one dose daily for three days. In this casetoo, I was rather perturbed that this physician instead of taking very active steps, was merely putting his whole faith in

three little powders of medicine. But again, strange to say, within a week the child's condition was reversed; she started

regaining all her original activity and also grew as chubby as before, and in the course of a month or two became

perfectly normal. In the words of the father of the child, who wrote a letter of thanks which can be considered a

classic, the child regained her original vivacity and vitality and he considered that Homoeopathy had justified its

greatness by this singular success!

So, here again was a case which had completely stumped our allopathic colleagues who, not being able to see gross evidence

of any disease even though the patient was declining and dying, could do nothing whatsoever, whereas Homoeopathy

stepped in with a few doses and set everything right. So this encouraged me to study the subject of Homoeopathy more

vigorously. Very soon, another occasion presented itself.

A close relative of mine was getting recurrent attacks of intermittent high temperature for over three years. These

attacks used to last for two or three weeks at a time. It had been diagnosed as malignant tertian malaria and had

generally responded to quinine. But this time there was a recurrence of the temperature which had lasted for about a

fortnight and in which quinine had no effect whatsoever. At that time, quinine was the only certain antimalarial remedy.

So, the relatives of the patient were very much worried and they telephoned to me. This was on 7th November 1947. I

responded to the call and went and saw the patient. The patient had a temperature of 107.1 oF, a temperature which I

had never encountered so far in my life. Naturally I was extremely upset and in panic I ran to my nearest

Physician-friend. However, this physician was not available and, therefore, I left a word that he should come at once as

soon as he returned to his clinic. Meanwhile, we procured some ice and rubbed it all over the head and body of the

patient, but the temperature came down only by 0.3 oF and stayed at 106.8 oF. As quinine had already been tried without

effect and no other measure was available except to take him to the hospital, I decided to try my Homoeopathy without,

however, any hope that it would help. So, I studied his symptoms in the homoeopathic way and found the following points:

Temperature 106.8 oF; Pulse 112. Even with such high temperature patient was conscious and loquacious and was asking us

why we were all looking so worried as, after all, nothing was wrong with him except for a little fever. He complained of

great bodily soreness. The history was that almost every time he got the (recurrent) temperature, it used to rise very

high but the patient would not feel it much. He was also listless.

Finding the marked disproportion in the pulse-temperature ratio, the tendency to hyperpyrexia, the soreness, the feeling of

well-being in spite of the seriousness of the condition, etc. I decided to try Pyrogen. Since I had not prescribed for asingle case so far, I had no homoeopathic drug at all with me. So, I procured the drug in the 30th potency and

administered one drop. Whereas I myself had very little confidence, the relatives of the patient had no faith at all that

the one drop of medicine was going to do anything, particularly, as his aunt remarked, "It was not sufficient even to go

down his throat." However, as we watched with trepidation, the miracle happened again! We were measuring his

temperature every 15 minutes being apprehensive that it might rise further but luckily it dropped rapidly as follows:

6.00 p.m. : 106.8 oF 6.45 p.m. : 102.4 oF

6.15 p.m. : 104.6 oF 7.00 p.m. : 102.0 oF

6.30 p.m. : 103.0 oF 8.00 p.m. : 100.0 oF

He perspired so profusely that all his clothes were drenched but when we changed his clothes, he fell into a deep sleep.



When he woke up next morning, he was quite well; he said that for the first time in so many attacks of fever, he was

feeling fit in spite of the fact that he had suffered for a fortnight. Since then, he has not had any more such attacks in

the last 20 years.

These three instances in which I had found Homoeopathy acting like a charm were enough to convince me that this was the

system which I should study and practise. So, I discarded all my original volumes of therapeutics and replaced them with

homoeopathic books. To this day I have not regretted this change. On the contrary, I have earned far more appreciation

and gratitude and derived far more satisfaction than I ever should have dreamt of securing by doling out routine

prescriptions of other systems of medicine. Every aspect of Homoeopathy such as the intelligent case taking, the system

of matching the disease-picture with the drug-picture, the single drug, the minute dose, etc., has appealed to me and I

really enjoy practising Homoeopathy.

Homoeopathy - an explanation

Its origin Homoeopathy is a system of medical treatment founded by a celebrated German physician and chemist, Dr. Samuel

Hahnemann. Born in Germany on 10th April 1775, he was spared a long and useful life of 88 years during which he

benefited humanity immensely by introducing this new system of medicine. He first graduated in Medicine and practised

for several years becoming very successful and famous. However, the practice of medicine in those days was very

unscientific and crude, even barbarous, so that in spite of his success, he was thoroughly dissatisfied with the methods

and the results of the orthodox treatment. Patients were purged and sweated, bled and branded. It was often in doubt

whether the patients died of the disease or of the treatment! So, in disgust, Hahnemann gave up medical practice. But

he continued to study and experiment in an effort to evolve a more rational method of treatment.

Even in those days Cinchona, from which Quinine is derived, was famed for its specific curative effect in malaria.

Hahnemann, in an attempt to discover its true mode of action, himself ingested some Cinchona, whereupon he was

surprised to notice that it produced in him fever and chill, resembling Malaria. This unexpected result set up in his mind

a new train of thought and he conducted similar experiments with other well-known drugs. To his surprise, every drug

produced in his healthy body the same symptoms which it was reputed to remove from sick persons. So he was led to the

inference that what a drug cures in the sick it causes in the healthy, and similarly, what it causes in the healthy it can

cure in the sick. He, therefore, put forward the new principle of treatment "Similia Similibus Curentur", which

translated means "Let likes be treated by likes". This principle, however, was not an entirely new discovery because it

had been already enunciated and followed by ancient Indian physicians, as stated in the popular proverb (Poison cures

poison), but Hahnemann was the first to confirm this by experiment and observation and to emphasize it.

Its development Applying this principle in practice, to know what a drug can cure, we have to merely find out what it can cause. This can be

done by administering it to healthy human beings and noting down its effects. Following this approach, Hahnemann

experimented with nearly a hundred drugs and recorded all the symptoms produced by them. Such experiments, which

are called "Provings" *, are continued by his followers. Thus the real effects of more and more drugs are discovered, i.e.

what they cause and therefore what they can cure. Hahnemann, adopting this principle, cured innumerable cases. Even

within his lifetime, this method became world-famous and ultimately when he migrated to Paris, he received patients

from several countries. His system became known as Homoeopathy (Homoeos meaning similar and Pathos meaning

Suffering).

However, it was found that when cases were treated according to this new homoeopathic principle the disease symptoms

became initially a little worse. This was only to be expected because the drug is similar to the disease in its effects.

Therefore, in order to cut down this initial aggravation, Hahnemann reduced the dose, i.e. , the quantity of the medicine.

As he gradually reduced the dose he observed that the patients improved better. The smaller dose seemed actually to

have a better effect. So, gradually bringing down the dose further and further, he ultimately started diluting the

medicine with some inert medium (like sugar or alcohol). Even when so diluted the medicines seemed to act very well. In

fact they seemed to act better. So these dilutions became known as "Potencies". These potencies are a peculiar feature

of Homoeopathy, and the idea of potentiation has been called Hahnemann's greatest gift to science. Such dilution with



sugar and alcohol makes the medicines not only harmless and palatable but also very economical.

Its features We shall now discuss the main features of Homoeopathy. They can be summarized as the Similar drug, the Single drug, the

Small dose and the Single dose.

By Similar drug, we mean the drug that is able to produce symptoms similar to the disease. To know to which diseases drugs

are similar, homoeopaths administer to healthy persons a drug (in non-toxic doses **), and record its effects. Human

beings are still preferred for such experiments because they are more sensitive than test-tubes, and, unlike animals,

they can express their sufferings. At present the effects of over 2 000 drugs are available. From among these drugs

whose effects are so recorded, the homoeopath selects the one which is most similar in the totality of its effects to the

case that he wants to treat. In so selecting, he takes into consideration every symptom of the patient. He first examines

and diagnoses the case like any other physician, for which purpose he must of course have all the knowledge possessed by

the ordinary physician. But in addition to noting the symptoms of the disease he goes further and notes the symptoms

peculiar to each patient. For example, when he deals with cases of Pneumonia, he notes that in addition to all the

symptoms of Pneumonia like fever, cough, rapid breathing, etc., which are to be found in every pneumonia patient, the

first patient is restless, the second is thirsty, the third is irritable, the fourth is drowsy and so on. Even though the

disease may be the same, each patient reacts in a different way and as such produces some symptoms which are peculiar

to himself. The homoeopath takes into consideration all the symptoms of the case - the common and the uncommon ones -

giving more value to the latter which reflect the patient's individuality, and prescribes that drug which has produced an

identical group of symptoms in the provings.

The second feature of Homoeopathy is the Single drug. The homoeopath always prescribes drugs singly because only single

drugs have been tested in homoeopathic provings. The effects of combinations of drugs have not been observed or

recorded and so combinations and mixtures are not generally prescribed by the homoeopath.

The third feature of Homoeopathy is the Small dose. As already explained, the dose of the drug in Homoeopathy is usually

so minute that chemical analysis does not reveal any trace of the drug in the higher potencies. It seems that by the

special method of dilution used in Homoeopathy all the energy of the drug is liberated and transferred to the medium of

sugar or alcohol. Indeed the dose looks ridiculously small; but the development of physics has shown us what a vast

amount of energy lies within the infinitely minute atom, awaiting to be released and utilised.

The fourth feature of Homoeopathy is the Single dose. Homoeopaths usually prescribe one dose of the indicated medicine

and then wait till its action is completely exhausted. While the patient is improving, the medicine is generally not

repeated. * Sometimes this single dose is found to act for weeks or even months and occasionally the single dose often

cures the case.

By the way, we must mention that homoeopathic treatment is purely medical in nature. When a homoeopath comes across a

frankly surgical case **, especially mechanical conditions requiring surgical intervention, he hands the case over to the

surgeon. But even here homoeopathic medication before and after the surgery hastens recovery.

Its progress We shall now briefly consider the progress of Homoeopathy. Originating from Germany, Homoeopathy has spread all over

the world. There are homoeopathic physicians almost in all countries, a good number of whom are converts from other

systems.

In India, Homoeopathy was introduced by a German physician, Dr. Honigberger, who was called upon to treat Maharaja

Ranjit Singh. The system then rapidly spread to Bengal and some of the best physicians of Bengal including Dr. Mahendra

Lal Sircar were converted to Homoeopathy. It has then spread all over India and it is now recognised and accepted as a

standard system of medical treatment in most States. Homoeopaths have been appointed as the personal physicians to

the President of India.

The homoeopathic approach is accepted and appreciated especially in India as it has a peculiar appeal to the oriental mind

with its inherent acceptance of the non-material. Further, the modern trend of medicine in the West is also to view the

sick organism as a coordinated whole and to give less importance to the individual organs. Considering all the factors, viz.,

the scientific foundation of Homoeopathy on the eternal principle "Similia Similibus Curentur", its Materia Medica built

up from scientific experiments on healthy human beings, its single harmless dose, its curative effects, its power of

aborting diseases in the early stages and of strengthening the human organism and also its economical nature, there is

reason to believe that Homoeopathy, which seems to be actually in advance of its time, has a bright future, particularly



in India.

Elements of homoeopathic pharmacy A remarkable discovery of Hahnemann is the potentized dose, a phenomenon which even the modern scientist is unable to

comprehend, let alone explain, although it results from a ridiculously simple procedure. This makes homoeopathicpharmacy a fascinating and intriguing subject. This chapter attempts to introduce the newcomer to the elements of thissubject. For more information, the reader should refer to standard books on the subject.

Pharmacy is defined as that department of the medical art which consists in the collecting of drugs and the preparing,

preserving and dispensing of medicines.

Drugs are substances which have the power of altering the state of health of the living organism. When drugs are purified,

processed and prepared so as to become fit for administration to patients they are called medicines. Medicines when

properly administered in sickness are called remedies.

Since the homoeopathic prescriber depends almost entirely on the infinitesimal doses of the single drug, it is essential that

the homoeopathic medicinal preparation must be absolutely dependable. So the pharmacist must be learned, skilled,

honourable and trustworthy and must be fully aware of his responsibilities. As there are no available tests to see if the

medicines obtained are genuine, we have to depend completely on the pharmacist and therefore the pharmacist must be

completely reliable. The most painstaking care and accuracy must be exercised by him in every step of preparation,

handling and dispensing.

Collection

Sources The sources of the medicines in Homoeopathy are mainly the following:

1. The Mineral Kingdom: Consisting of the various chemical elements and their compounds (organic and inorganic), e. g

Arsenic, Calcium carbonate, Petroleum, Sulphur. 2. The Vegetable Kingdom: Consisting of the various plants, herbs and trees, their parts, exudates and extracts, e.g.

Asafoetida, Lycopodium, Pulsatilla, Thuja. 3. The Animal Kingdom: Comprising of the healthy secretions and tissues of various animals, and other living creatures, e.g.

Aranea diadema (Spider), Lachesis (Snake). 4. The Nosodes: The products of disease of human beings, animals and plants, e.g. Lyssin (Saliva of rabid dog), Secale

cornutum (Ergot of Rye). 5. Imponderabilia: Non-material elements, e.g. X-ray, Sun's rays (Sol), Moonlight (Luna), the magnet.

Hahnemann's discovery of the method of potentiation has revealed that every substance or element in the world, whether

falling into one of the above groups or not, has inherent medicinal energy which can be released and developed by proper

methods. *

Drugs collected should conform absolutely to the descriptions and standards laid down in the standard homoeopathic

pharmacopoeas.

Plants are collected as far as possible from their natural habitat just before or during full bloom. Generally, the whole plant

is used to prepare the medicines. Where fresh plants cannot be procured, the dried plants can be used.

Recently the method of curing or removing the ill-effects (toxic or allergic) of crude drugs by the administration of the

identical substances in potentized form has become popular. Mr. Dudley Everitt has coined the term Tautopathy for this

therapy and Ramanlal Patel has written extensively about it.

Preparation The actual art of preparing the medicines is termed Pharmacopraxy.

The drugs (crude substance) are combined with some neutral substance in such a way that their medicinal energies are

developed and preserved in the neutral medium. These preparations are called Potencies. They are also called

Attenuations or Dilutions. The method of preparing such potencies is called potentiation or dynamization.

For the purpose of preparing potencies, one of the following media is selected.



Liquid media 1. Aqua distillata or distilled water.

2. Alcohol. Used for preserving green plant extracts, preparing mother tinctures from dry herbs and for making higher

dilutions (liquid potencies).

Strong alcohol (containing 94% by volume of Ethyl alcohol) is mainly used for preparing mother tinctures.

Dispensing alcohol (obtained by adding 1 part of strong alcohol to 12.75 parts by volume or 10 parts by weight of aqua

distillata) is used for preparing most of the dilutions because this is readily absorbed by cane sugar and milk sugar and is

therefore suitable for medicating the sugar globules or powders.

Rectified spirit is practically the same as dispensing alcohol.

3. Glycerine is used as a preservative for certain animal products, e.g. Crotalus horridus, Elaps.

Solid media 1. Sugar of milk (Lactose, Saccharum Lactis): The hard and sharp crystals of this substance make it an ideal medium for

triturating drugs.

2. Cane Sugar globules are found very convenient to medicate and use. These are available in various sizes from 5 to 100,

the number representing the diameter of ten globules put together and measured in millimeters e.g. the total diameter

of ten globules of No. 5 put together would be 5 millimeters.

Potencies The purpose of attenuation or dynamization is to divide and sub-divide the medicinal substance progressively in order

thereby to liberate and develop its latent power by degrees and to retain it in a suitable form. This is generally done by

dilution with alcohol and succussion (shaking) in the case of soluble substances; and dilution with sugar of milk and

trituration (rubbing) in the case of insoluble substances.

Since the products of such attenuation seem to acquire more and more power, they are called "Potencies".

In case of vegetable products and other soluble substance, this is done by expressing the juice of the plant and mixing it

with alcohol. The mother tincture, designated Q, the basis from which potencies are run-up, represents one tenth of the

drug strength. Further subdivision is done by diluting with alcohol and succussing (shaking it up). Such liquid potencies

are called "Tinctures" or "Dilutions".

When green plants are used, the amount of moisture in each plant is calculated and deducted. Only the quantity of the dry

crude drug is taken as the starting point from which to calculate the strength of the medicine.

Mineral and other insoluble substances are similarly potentized by mixing with sugar of milk and triturating (rubbing in a

mortar). Such potencies are called "Triturations".

Homoeopathic potencies are thus prepared in the form of (1) Tinctures, (2) Triturations.

Potentiation Potentiation is usually done in two scales.

a. The Centesimal, evolved by Dr. Hahnemann and

b. The Decimal, evolved by Dr. Hering.

c. In the last edition of the Organon, however, Hahnemann has described a new scale of potentiation, which is named the

50th Millesimal scale.

Tinctures ( dilutions) 1. Centesimal Scale

For the purpose of carrying out the preparation of potencies in liquid form, pour into a small, clean, new phial one minim (i.e.

one drop) of the mother tincture of the drug (designated Q) and add ninety nine minims of dilute alcohol. Cork the phial

tightly with a new cork, hold it in the right hand with a finger on the cork, raise it above the shoulder and give a shake or

a jerk to the contents in such a way that each shake terminates in a jerk against the palm of the left hand or on a book.



Repeat this process ten times. This results in the first centesimal potency of the drug.

If one minim of the 1st potency so prepared is taken and ninety-nine minims of dilute alcohol are added and shaken ten

times, as described above, the second potency is prepared. Further potencies are prepared in the same manner by

repeating this same procedure.

2. Decimal Scale

During Hahnemann's life time, another scale of drug attenuation was introduced by his staunch follower Dr. Constantine

Hering. According to this scale the first potency should contain 1/10th part of the drug substance, the second potency

1/10 part of the first potency and so on.

Preparation of tinctures under decimal scale is made by taking one minim of mother tincture and nine minims of dilute

alcohol and shaking the bottle ten times as described above, the 1X potency being thus obtained. The 2X potency is then

prepared in the same manner by taking one minim of the 1x potency, adding nine minims of dilute alcohol and shaking as

usual ten times. Further potencies are prepared in the same manner.

In modern times such dilution and succussion are done with a potentizing machine in which the process is carefully and

automatically regulated.

Triturations 1. Centesimal Scale

To one grain of the substance is added thirty three grains of milk sugar, and this mixture is rubbed vigorously in a mortar

for 6-7 minutes; it is then scraped for 3-4 minutes.

This process is repeated thrice so that the first centesimal potency results in an hour by the addition and trituration of

ninety-nine grains of milk sugar, in three instalments of thirty-three grains each time, to one grain of the drug (1:99).

For preparing triturations under the decimal scale, the same method as in the centesimal will be employed except that here

ten grain by weight of the crude substance is triturated with thirty grains of sugar of milk each time and the process

repeated thrice as described above, so that in all ninety-grains of milk sugar are added to the ten grains of the drug and

triturated (1:9).

Even minerals and other insoluble drugs when triturated upto the 6x potency become soluble in a liquid medium so that

further potentiation can be continued in an alcohol medium.

Nowadays trituration is done by machines in which the mortar and pestle are rotated by machines.

Potencies prepared under the centesimal scale are marked by using simple numbers or by the number followed by the letter,

e.g. Sulph 200 or Sulph. 200C. 2. Decimal Scale

Potencies of the decimal scale are marked by suffixing an "X" to the number, e.g. Sulph. 200x, or by the Prefix "D",. e.g.Sulph. D 200.

Thus in the Decimal Scale we have potencies such as 1x, 2x, 3x and so on made up as follows:

1x - 1 part of dry substance and 9 parts of diluent: representing Drug strength - 1/10,

2x - 1 part of the 1x and 9 parts of diluent: representing Drug strength - 1/100,

3x - 1 part of the 2x and 9 parts of diluent: representing Drug strength 1/1000 and so on.

In the Centesimal Scale, we have:

1 or 1C: one part of the drug substance to 99 of diluent: representing Drug strength 1/100

2 or 2C: one part of 1C to 99 of diluent: representing Drug strength 1/10000 and so on.

It can be seen that in drug content, the 1C corresponds to the 2x, the 2C to the 4x and so on.

Sometimes, the potency strength is designated by Roman numbers (especially the higher potencies), e.g. 200 as CC, 1 000

as M or 1M, 10 000 as 10M, 50 000 as 50M or LM, 100 000 as CM, 500 000 as DM, 1 000 000 as MM, and 500 000 000

as DMM.

3. 50th Millesimal Scale

Hahnemann had in the last years of his life envisaged another scale of potencies in which the drug is diluted with 50,000

parts of diluent and potentized. The potencies thus made are designated as 50 millesimal scale or LM scale of potencies.

Everitt has calculated that these potencies can be compared or equated theoretically on paper to the traditional potencies

as follows:

New Scale Potency I - 16x

II - Between 20x and 21x ( i.e. 10c approx.)

III - " 24x and 26x ( " 13c " )

VIII - " 44x and 51x ( " 25c " )



X - " 52x and 61x ( " 30c " )

XII - " 60x and 71x ( " 35c " )

XVIII - " 84x and 101x ( " 50c " )

XXIV - " 108x and 131x ( " 65c " )

XXX - " 132x and 161x ( " 80c " )

In practice, however, they seem to be far more powerful.

Medicines for external use

Ointments Ointments are usually prepared by mixing the mother tincture of the required drug with any simple base such as prepared

lard, vaseline, etc. The proportion of drug content may vary from 1 in 10 to 1 in 40.

Though "homoeopathic" medicines for external use are available, they are not commonly used. The homoeopathic concept is

that all diseases including all manifestations on the skin arise from internal disturbance and therefore they are to be

cured by internal medicine. By the use of external medicines, there is a possibility that the external manifestation is

extinguished without a corresponding internal improvement and this will give rise to a false sense of satisfaction.

Preservation Homoeopathic medicines should be stored in rooms which are neither too hot nor too cold, away from sunlight, dust, smoke

and strong odours. The phials should not be coloured. Phials and corks should be washed and boiled, and then washed

again in distilled water and dried before using.

Phials used for keeping one medicine should never be used for any other medicine nor for the same medicine in any other

potency. The same rule applies to cork also.

Never use glasses for measuring, keeping, dispensing or administering potentized medicines because they become

contaminated with the potency energy which is very difficult to destroy.

Two phials containing different potencies or remedies should never be opened at the same time in close proximity. It is

always safe to record one phial and put it away before opening another for fear that the corks may be interchanged.

Always mark the name of the medicine and potency clearly on the cork, besides labelling the phial correctly, as soon as any

medicine is prepared.

Sterilisation: Hahnemann mentions that after preparing a trituration, if the mortar, pestle and spatula are made red-hot,

the medicinal substance will be destroyed.

But McCrae thinks this not enough. He lays down that if by chance any material or container has come into contact with the

homoeopathic potentized medicine and has thus become contaminated with the drug energy, then such potency energy is

never destroyed unless the material is sterilised by exposure to dry heat at 160 degree C. for one hour.

Dispensing The practitioner can usually obtain his potencies from homoeopathic pharmacies both in liquid form (alcoholic dilution) and in

solid form (globules, powders and tablets). They can be then dispensed in both forms. It need not be emphasized that

the pharmacy must be a reliable one, particularly as it is very difficult to identify or analyse the drug or its potency *.

Liquid potencies can be used to medicate globules by adding 5 to 6 drops to a drachm of cane sugar globules in a phial and

mixing it very well after corking. The excess of liquid if any, is drained. Small globules, say size No. 20 or 30 are found

very convenient.

Both the liquid and solid potencies keep well for several years if kept well-protected as directed.

Dispensing in distilled water: Pour the requisite number of drops or pills into doses. If distilled water is not available, use

filtered, boiled and cooled water.

Bottles and corks should never be used again for another drug or another potency of the same drug.

A case is also related in which a servant of a worthy lady in Silesia was to obtain a homoeopathic medicine from an

apothecary, besides fetching a certain sort of wool (called Estremadura No. 5) from a shop and the pharmacist promptly

supplied the medicine labelled "Estre madura No. 5"!



While discussing how long the medicines can retain their potency McLaren states that he used a potency that was seventy

years old and found it quite effective.

Aegidi of Freienwalde reports having used in 1860 with excellent effect a potency of Cantharis in pills, which had beengiven to him by Hahnemann himself in 1831.

Tomlinson mentions that a potency of Zinc sulph. 82M in his possession for 42 years continued to act. Phatak records that a potency of Ledum which he had with him for 20 to 25 years had turned black, but was found by him

to act, though he did not expect it to act.

Other ways of dispensing:

1. Put one drop of the dilution on a little sugar of milk, say 5 grains. This forms one dose.

2. A few canesugar pills medicated as directed above can be added to a little of sugar of milk, say 5 grains, and crushed so

as to make a uniform powder. This forms one dose.

The number of drops or the number of pills of the medicine makes little difference. Given at a time, one drop or one pill will

have the same effect as many drops or many pills.

The powders should be packed in clean new papers, preferably in cellophane or tissue paper.

Where two different sets of powders are given, they should be dispensed in separate envelopes.

Medicines, dispensed in whatever form, should always be neatly labelled, the name of the patient and full directions for use

being written on the label.

Administration The subject dealing with the route of administration of medicines is termed Pharmaconomy.

Hahnemann has laid down that homoeopathic medicines may be administered in any of the following ways.

1. By oral route. 2. By inhalation. 3. By application to the skin.

For many years he was administering medicines mainly by mouth. But in his last years, he favoured the inhalatory method.

Homoeopathic medicines are generally administered singly and by the oral route. Administration by mouth seems to be most

convenient and effective. Homoeopathic potentized medicines seem to require no digestion but seem to be absorbed

directly from the mouth and then act through the central nervous system. If the medicine is dropped below the tongue

(sub-lingual), even the possibility of a coated tongue interfering with the absorption and action of the medicine will be

avoided.

In the writer's experience, medicines appear to act as effectively when administered as pills or powders or in the form of

watery solutions. Hahnemann, however taught in his later years that the medicines should be invariably administered in

water.

During recent years, homoeopathic potencies have been introduced in the form of injectables. Since the medicines given

orally seem to act effectively and promptly, the merits or advantages of the injectables is not clear. Further, no

scientific or objective large-scale studies have been published comparing the relative effects of the injectable and the

oral administration. So the need for and value of these injectables are yet to be assessed.

Pharmacology The exact mode of action of the homoeopathic medicine is still not known but it is known that the sick individual is most

sensitive to the similimum (most similar remedy).

Considering that the drug substance is in such infinitesimal quantity that it is practically impossible to analyse or detect it,

the average allopathic physician refuses to believe that this can have any medicinal effect at all. So efforts have been

made by various homoeopaths to show the presence or effect of drug substance even in high dilutions.

The famous German surgeon Prof. Augustus Bier had demonstrated that it requires 250 000 times as much formic acid to

affect a healthy person as is needed to cause a sufferer from gout to react.

Tomlinson reports that he was able to make prints on sensitive photographic plates by the help of the radium contained in

one part.

Boyd has shown by very carefully conducted elaborate experiments that high potencies have an action on the rate of growth

of yeast.

Sir Jagadish Bose was able to demonstrate that plants are sensitive to the effect of very minute quantities of poisons.

Anna Koffler et al proved that homoeopathic potencies are able to affect the growth of plants.

Other examples are: A small amount of Selenium, e.g. 2.5 parts per million can poison young rats (not old ones!) and 0.7 permillion can affect chick embryos; Colchicum in dilution of 1 part per billion can inhibit cell division; inhalation of 0.000 000



1 gm can produce a garlic odour in breath; LSD - 0.000 02 gm or 1/700 000 000 of body weight can producehallucinations.

Materia medica

The study of materia medica The importance of the study of the Materia Medica and its enormous value to the homoeopathic physician cannot be

adequately described. It has a predominant role in the field of Homoeopathy. We can do no better than to quote the

words of Clarke who says, "We must never lose sight of the fact that Homoeopathy is Materia Medica and nothing

whatever else. All other branches of medical study are Homoeopathy's handmaidens buy take away Hahnemann's Materia

Medica and Homoeopathy vanishes from the scene. So that in so far as we are homoeopathists, Materia Medica is our

sole concern...

Books of Materia Medica and Repertories are the Road maps, Time-tables and Guide books of the powers at our disposal..."

The homoeopathic Materia Medica is peculiar in its construction and differs very much from the orthodox Materia Medica.

Whereas the orthodox Materia Medica traces the action and therapeutic uses of various drugs through physical and

chemical properties, pharmacological action, etc., the homoeopathic Materia Medica provides no such material. In truth,

it is mainly a record of the effects of drugs on healthy human beings. The original basis for our Materia Medica is the

records of provings * and poisonings (accidental or intentional), the former being experiments done to intentionally

produce drug symptoms on healthy persons for the purpose of advancing medical knowledge. These symptoms are later

confirmed and augmented by clinical experiences.

The Materia Medica Pura of Hahnemann is actually not a Materia Medica in the ordinarily accepted sense of the word but is

purely a record of drug-effects. It is unfortunately rather dry to read and difficult to digest. If this Materia Medica

Pura is put in the hands of a beginner, he is likely to be frightened away from Homoeopathy for life **.

Meyer describes the difficulty in studying the homoeopathic Materia Medica. He writes, " We shall probably not be

contradicted when we affirm that the study of the Materia Medica is the most difficult in the whole range of medicine.

Who is there of us who has not, in the beginning of his practical career, often taken up Hahnemann's Materia Medica

with the most energetic purpose and sincere intention of studying and mastering some one or other of the remedies

there recorded by the hand of the master and has not, as often, thrown the book aside in despair and disgust? Our own

experience will furnish the reason for this frequently repeated result. It is not from the absence of a scientific interest

in the matter, nor from want of a steady perseverance; the difficulty lies in the Materia Medica itself. A single glance at

a remedy presenting to us many hundred different symptoms is enough to shake the most earnest good intentions, and if

we reflect further on the absolute want of connection between these phenomena and that at the most, the only link

between them is the part of the body in which they make their appearance, it is not to be wondered at that so many

remain mere bunglers in this department of our art, and that some, terrified by the apparently insuperable difficulties

that beset the way should have rejected Homoeopathy and sought a resting place in the arms of their less exacting

allopathic mother. In both ways our therapeutics have received great injury, and many of promising genius have been led

astray."

This is testimony concerning himself of one of our most excellent homoeopathic colleagues: "I am not ashamed to

acknowledge", says he, "that if when I commenced the study of Homoeopathy, had I not had the most intimate conviction

of the truth and excellence of the homoeopathic fundamental law, such were the difficulties in the study of the Materia

Medica that they would have been near repelling me from it altogether."

It requires very great insight to look into each symptom and pick out the characteristic features of each drug. But thanks

to giants like Clarke, Dunham, Farrington, Kent and others it has been possible to construct out of these seemingly

unconnected and fragmentary pieces, living throbbing images of the drugs. Their labours have lightened our task

considerably and we are now able to comprehend well the individuality of the drugs even without going through the

records of provings. By repeatedly refreshing our memory from these books, we are able to have a good grasp of the

subject.

Moore says, "Four requisites to an intelligent study and application of homoeopathic Materia Medica should be recognised.

First, a thorough knowledge and intelligent understanding of the philosophy of Homoeopathy so far as this is revealed;

second, such a familiar acquaintance with the names, appearances and properties of remedies as comes not only from a

knowledge of practical homoeopathic pharmaceutics, but from personal contact and handling of the remedies

themselves... "



Weisselhoeft advises the following method, "Now take the Materia Medica and divide it up in that way. Learn one medicine

at a time, and then you are over the worst of it, but do not try to learn it alphabetically. That is like trying to learn a

language by learning the dictionary by heart. All these methods require work and most people do not want to do that.

Most of us would like to have a machine that would put it right into the brain without any exertion on our part. Take the

chemical groups, the lead group,the arsenic group, the gold group. If you know one of the group well, you know

considerable about the rest."

Del Mass writes, "To study the Materia Medica so that one will not fall into some rut and become one-sided and weak in his

armour of defense against disease requires many methods of study."

"It is to be admitted that for the first years of study, each remedy should be studied alone until a vivid picture is obtained

of its general characteristics, so that the physician would readily recognise in the symptoms of the sick individual the

corresponding similia of the proven drug."

"When we have to do with an art those end is the saving of life, any neglect to make ourselves thoroughly masters of it

becomes a crime.

"Do not think that when you have finished your college work you are thorough with the study of your Materia Medica; if you

have learned how to study you have done well. It is when in active practice that the greatest amount of careful

systematized study should be done."

"There are great opportunities for modernization. We admit without hesitation that we have a cumbersome Materia Medica,

but we also know that the real clinician is able to use it successfully. It is to be modernized first by literary research

and analysis. The value is there, but we must subject the mass to modern methods to develop that which is of value."

Different authorities suggest different methods of studying the Materia Medica. In general, all are agreed that the whole

Materia Medica cannot be memorized. The Pulfords say, "We all know that it is impossible to memorize our Materia

Medica. On the other hand, we all know how necessary it is to have an individual grasp of each drugs used."

But many authors suggest that at least the leading characteristics of remedies should be memorized. Seibbert says, "We

are called to the bedside of a patient, possibly a new family or an influential old family. We face a different proposition

than books, quiz or society. We are facing a life and death situation. Under these circumstances it would be extremely

hard to choose a remedy by totally relying entirely on memory.

"I can call to mind cases in which I thought half our Materia Medica was indicated according to symptoms given, and then by

chance, some leader would present itself and lead to the correct prescription.

"For this reason I believe we should always keep leaders first in our memory, even at the expense of totalities."

But yet, the process of study and simplification of the Materia Medica has not been taken to its logical conclusion, for,

notwithstanding the coherent picture given by Kent and others, students and neophytes find themselves struggling hard

to grasp and retain in the memory the essential features of each drug. When we stepped away from the structure of

Hahnemann's Materia Medica Pura and compiled a regular descriptive Materia Medica so that students may understand

easily the action and uses of the various drugs, we have taken only the first step towards the goal of simplification.

Further steps must necessarily follow. The idea is explained below.

We do not conceive of drugs as mere inert material substances to be used in diseases on the basis of previous experience.

Our conception is that drugs are living, vibrating personalities, each full of its own specific energy and capable of

influencing life in all the three planes, viz. the physical, mental and moral (or spiritual). Each drug performs a specific

type of work of a specified degree. We may even conceive drugs as constituting a separate world of their own specified

field and function, just as we have in our society doctors, lawyers, teachers and so on. As in our human world, no one

individual is completely similar to nor can completely replace another. Similarly no drug can be a completely satisfactory

substitute for another. It should, therefore, be our object to study drugs as individuals and completely grasp their full

individual characteristics so that at the right time we may call upon the right individual to do the right job.

Symptoms evoked by a drug in the proving may seem unrelated to each other and even bizarre in nature. Yet, they have

been produced by the particular substance owing to the impact of its own individuality on a particular organism which had

been functioning in a coordinated and harmonious manner before the proving was done - the set of symptoms have been

produced on account of an organised disturbance caused by the drug. Therefore, even though the symptoms appear to be

parts of a jig-saw puzzle, if the essential personality of the drug is grasped, the various features will fit into a

harmonious pattern. Therefore, the study of the action of the drug, viz., the Materia Medica should be done in an

intelligent and imaginative manner.

Pulford writes, "We must not merely teach our students to simply read the Materia Medica so that they may get just what

little out of it they can but we must teach them how to study it, just what they must look for in a drug and how to find

it. Our Materia Medica is vast, and the worst of it is that it is only a very small portion of what is to follow when the

unfolding of Homoeopathy is completed; no single mind can grasp it; it staggers all newcomers who approach it, and it



means no more than a vast amount of words to them, meaningless in their import, and thus a barrier. But with a charted

map one can traverse the paths of what seems a vast tractless wilderness, with some degree of intelligence surely, and

benefit."

Diechmann says, "And we do not want to get the remedy diagnosis from physiological consideration but from the drug

picture. Yet in modern medicine we must construct on the physical data, then the facts of the Materia Medica will stick

more firmly in our minds and sometimes with very similar drug pictures it may be made easier to choose the right

direction. It remains a matter of personal inclination how one creates order and lucidity in the compartments of one's

brain."

Schwartz writes, "To study the Materia Medica so that one will not fall into some rut and become one-sided and weak in his

armour of defence against disease, requires many methods of study.

"It is to be admitted that for the first years of study each remedy should be studied alone until a vivid picture is obtained

of its general characteristics, so that the physician would readily recognise in the symptoms of the sick individual the

corresponding similia of some proven drug."

In our efforts to study and understand the complete individuality of the drug, we should naturally proceed as we would do

when we deal with a sick individual, for to the homoeopath the drug-picture and disease-picture are only counter-images

of each other.

Individuality comprises of the special inherited characteristic features moulded, altered or added to by the particular

circumstances and influences to which each person is exposed. We have to study, understand, unravel and interpret the

congenial and acquired attributes of the individual, subsequently modified by the circumstances. Every individual is to be

studied in his own surroundings, in his own background, his actions and reactions being interpreted in that light. In

absolutely the same way, we have to know, study and understand every facet of the make-up of each drug, to see if that

could offer some clue to explain the peculiar activity of that drug.

Such aspects as the morphology, habitat, physical and chemical properties, family relationships, group tendencies, electiveaffinities, the identity of substances, the sources and origin with particular reference to the nature of and behaviour ofthe original substance (mineral, plant or animal), traditional uses, physiological and toxic effects, medicinal andnon-medicinal uses, etc., should be considered and analysed. Every piece of information that may enhance ourunderstanding of the drugs should be collected and collated.

That morphology may offer some clue towards the action of the drug is a most ancient idea, from which arose the doctrine

of signatures. This doctrine has been sufficiently ridiculed but, perhaps, it was not entirely baseless. The shape of the

plants and animals, their size, colour, structure, etc., reflect their individuality. Even the crystals of various minerals

ultimately assume the same shape and pattern with the result that we are able to recognise the original substance by

looking at one microscopical part of it. So also is their individuality reflected in their actions (effects). If such is the

case, if the shape and pattern as well as the actions reflect the individuality, is it not possible that the two are

inter-related in a way we are unable comprehend or explain? The aspect of the Thuja patient, who has the waxiness andbuild resembling the plant, is but a crude instance of such a conception.

Boger, writing on this subject, says, "The doctrine of signatures has been derided and is said to rest upon pure fancy but I

know of no accident in nature and everything has an adequate cause; hence we should not be too ready to attribute such

things to mere coincidences. Such correspondences are too numerous as well as too striking to be lightly passed over. It

seems rather a case of not knowing just what they mean or what the real connection is.

"At the risk of seeming to ask hard questions we may inquire why the time of the honey bee's greatest activity corresponds

closely to that of the Apis aggravation? Why the poison of the sleepy surukuku snake is most active a little while afterfalling to sleep? Why Kali bichromicum crystals become tough on exposure to the air? Why the twining Convulvulucaecause twisting intestinal colics, etc., etc."

The juice of Chelidonium is yellow, resembling bile, and it is one of the well-known remedies for jaundice and liver diseases;Corallium rubrum, the red coral cures red chancres.

Boger further writes: "In the life history of every substance there is a mark which points towards its application. The

doctrine of signatures is not all fancy even if correspondences have most

the elements of homoeopathy

Documents