The ABC Homeopathy Forum
Remedy Relationships
Assalamu Alaikum!I'm a practitioner. While studying inter-remedial relationships, I highlighted few points. Please help me with these few:
1) There are some remedies which are inimical but also they follow each other very well. Like Pulsatilla & Nux Vomica have opposite temperaments but Nux Vomica also works after Pulsatilla effectively. How to see this relationship; how do we practically use these kind of remedies?
2) In the Duration column of remedies, some have a very short working interval whereas some long. (i.e., 2-3 days & other 50-60 days duration, respectively). The Question is, how do we repeat them? What to do (keeping their durations in mind) with a smaller one to higher potencies?
I'll note the rest, See you later inshaAllah!
Thanks in advance!
Regards.
electronics.143 on 2014-11-24
This is just a forum. Assume posts are not from medical professionals.
The concept of relationships in homoeopathy is interesting, and to some degree contentious too.
It is important to remember that remedy relationships are only observations and experiences of other homoeopaths, and as such they are only as reliable as the person who observed them (which is to say they may not be reliable at all).
Relationships between remedies are just suggestions, guides when you might otherwise be a little lost or confused. They are not actual rules, and should never be treated as such. The practitioner who follows relationships as if they are laws will make terrible mistakes. They are best used by novice homoeopaths and students, people who have not yet enough of their own experience and skill to make second (and third etc.) prescriptions confidently. They might also be useful when you are unable to take a case for some reason - lack of opportunity or resources.
There is only one rule in homoeopathy - Similarity. Those remedies often listed under complementary/follows well/inimical are actually there because of some aspect of similarity with the remedy being discussed. Such relationships never take the place of a well-taken case and a properly prescribed medicine (similarity, totality, peculiarity) but should only ever be suggestions to the prescriber which they must confirm through the symptoms.
Mechanical or rote prescribing in homoeopathy produces failure very frequently, especially if the prescriber doesn't really understand the reasons for those remedies being in that 'relationship' - in other words what kind of relationship actually exists between them. Relationships are like the repertory - a way of reminding us of certain things, to keep remedies in our view when we might have forgotten them. We should not follow them blindly though.
A remedy may be listed as having a relationship because of similarity in one organ, body part or named disease/condition. This is probably the least valuable kind of relationship except in cases of acute (non-chronic) disease.
A remedy may be considered to have a relationship for more important reasons -same miasm, similarity in mental/emotional state or general state. This is the most reliable kind of relationship and is more likely to result in a positive outcome for the patient.
Duration, on the other hand, is of little use to us in practice. Duration relates ONLY to proving symptoms (the primary action of the medicine), and is not reliable at all in my experience. Duration of the primary action relies on the sensitivity of the patient, the amount of remedy given, the number of doses given, the degree of tissue change in the patient, the level of vitality in the patient - all the same things that affect the homoeopathic aggravation (which is just a homoeopathic proving similar to the symptoms of the patient). With so many variables, it is impossible to predict the duration.
On top of that, the secondary action of the medicine (response of the vital force) is often mixed up in our literature with primary action, and so you will see Duration of Action extended far beyond what it actually is.
It is important to remember that remedy relationships are only observations and experiences of other homoeopaths, and as such they are only as reliable as the person who observed them (which is to say they may not be reliable at all).
Relationships between remedies are just suggestions, guides when you might otherwise be a little lost or confused. They are not actual rules, and should never be treated as such. The practitioner who follows relationships as if they are laws will make terrible mistakes. They are best used by novice homoeopaths and students, people who have not yet enough of their own experience and skill to make second (and third etc.) prescriptions confidently. They might also be useful when you are unable to take a case for some reason - lack of opportunity or resources.
There is only one rule in homoeopathy - Similarity. Those remedies often listed under complementary/follows well/inimical are actually there because of some aspect of similarity with the remedy being discussed. Such relationships never take the place of a well-taken case and a properly prescribed medicine (similarity, totality, peculiarity) but should only ever be suggestions to the prescriber which they must confirm through the symptoms.
Mechanical or rote prescribing in homoeopathy produces failure very frequently, especially if the prescriber doesn't really understand the reasons for those remedies being in that 'relationship' - in other words what kind of relationship actually exists between them. Relationships are like the repertory - a way of reminding us of certain things, to keep remedies in our view when we might have forgotten them. We should not follow them blindly though.
A remedy may be listed as having a relationship because of similarity in one organ, body part or named disease/condition. This is probably the least valuable kind of relationship except in cases of acute (non-chronic) disease.
A remedy may be considered to have a relationship for more important reasons -same miasm, similarity in mental/emotional state or general state. This is the most reliable kind of relationship and is more likely to result in a positive outcome for the patient.
Duration, on the other hand, is of little use to us in practice. Duration relates ONLY to proving symptoms (the primary action of the medicine), and is not reliable at all in my experience. Duration of the primary action relies on the sensitivity of the patient, the amount of remedy given, the number of doses given, the degree of tissue change in the patient, the level of vitality in the patient - all the same things that affect the homoeopathic aggravation (which is just a homoeopathic proving similar to the symptoms of the patient). With so many variables, it is impossible to predict the duration.
On top of that, the secondary action of the medicine (response of the vital force) is often mixed up in our literature with primary action, and so you will see Duration of Action extended far beyond what it actually is.
♡ Evocationer last decade
To post a reply, you must first LOG ON or Register
Important
Information given in this forum is given by way of exchange of views only, and those views are not necessarily those of ABC Homeopathy. It is not to be treated as a medical diagnosis or prescription, and should not be used as a substitute for a consultation with a qualified homeopath or physician. It is possible that advice given here may be dangerous, and you should make your own checks that it is safe. If symptoms persist, seek professional medical attention. Bear in mind that even minor symptoms can be a sign of a more serious underlying condition, and a timely diagnosis by your doctor could save your life.