Hering's Law-A Discussion
We know what is called "Hering's Law". But I doubt if anybody in this field knows where it came from. Where it originated from. You might say it is a law of nature, it originates from nature, but first: where does it come from in terms of having been discovered and having been described?
Hering's law - the four principles: 1 The disease progresses from outside in, and when it cures, it cures from inside out. 2 Cure will be from above downwards; 3 Cure will go from the most important, to less important organs; 4 Cure is in the reverse order of appearance of symptoms.
How does psychosomatic disease fit in hering's law? If disease progresses from outside in and is cured from inside out and if it is a law, how can we explain psychosomatic disease within that law? A law is a law. It is not contradictory. A law means that it does not change. If you have the right circumstances, the outcome will always be predictable. A law is for everyone, everybody who will observe it will see the same thing. Hering's Law can be found in Kent's lectures. Probably most of you have read it. He says many times that disease will cure from inside out, from the central nervous system to the periphery, to the extremities, the skin. Here I ask you how do you comprehend this description of the law of cure with psychosomatic disease? Do you comprehend it? Does it fit in the law? Hering's Law states that disease will progress from outside in. When cure occurs, it occurs from inside out. Psychosomatic disease is a disease that starts from the psyche and that afterwards, later, expresses itself on the physical level. This seems to be contradictory to the description of Hering's Law. It is not explained and I don't understand it. The definition of a law in English language, and I am sure in every language, means something that does NOT change. If you say sometimes it is like this and sometimes it is like that, it is not a law anymore. There are four aspects to Hering's Law. If it is said that a law has four aspects, we have to respect these four aspects. What I am telling you is a very complex phenomenon. The direction of cure is a very complex phenomenon and it has not been well explained yet. If I ask you some questions like this it is just to show that our own understanding of it is very minimal. We don't really understand the whole process, but you have hints, you have observed certain things clinically that you know that are true, but they may not fit the law.
How do we understand the law? We observe that a person starts to be anxious, maybe anxious for one month, and then you have gastritis, and eventually you have ulceration of the part, but how do we make this observation of all of us coincide with Hering's Law as it is described in our text books? The direction of cure is a very complex phenomenon. It is not well explained. It doesn't fit in with the observation of classical writers as it is described, as you see it in your own life and as it is described in modern textbooks or by any good observation of a classical psychosomatic disease. It doesn't fit. There is a dichotomy between what we observe and the law as it is described. My question to all students of homeopathy is: "What do you understand about the direction of cure? Is it only one of those principles that must fit the case, each case; or just two of them, or three of them or all four of them. When you are treating somebody, must the cure precede in this direction, in all four directions, in all patients, or just in some directions, in some patients? How is it understood from your own understanding clinical practise? The way it is written, it is a "must".
Research If you research Hering's Law, you will only find very few texts talking about it. Which text do you know talking about it? You always say the same thing. But where does it come from? Do you find it with Hahnemann? I just want to point out that you have to be very careful in using what you understand presently of the law in treating people with mental disease and more specifically with psychosomatic disease, because it may not fit and you will make a mistake. While the patient is really improving, you might think the patient is getting worse, because you are trying to fit your patient into a conception that is not well understood. You can read it from Roberts. What does he say? How does he call this? He doesn't call it Hering's Law. Kent also talks about it in his lectures. He describes the four directions like Roberts. For Kent it is a law, it is a must. But he doesn't say it is Hering's Law. Where else have you read it? Where does the term Hering's Law came from? What is the reference? I tell you that when Kent wrote it, it was not known as Hering's Law. When he wrote his lectures on homeopathic philosophy, it is not described as Hering's Law. What do you know about the history of your own science? Some people tell me that history is not important. How important is it to know the history of homeopathy, the goal is to cure the patient. Many people will say that and it is true, who cares about the history, what Hahnemann did and what Hering said and what happened. Who cares, you have the symptoms of the patient, you have the materia medica, you take a remedy, you give it and that is it!
History Roberts wrote about it, but Kent talks about it, thirty years before Roberts. If it is a law of nature it is to be accepted by everyone. Are we talking about a real thing, or has somebody imagined it? Hahnemann was a good observer, a superb observer. Does he talk about the direction of cure? History is important, because you can easily be misled and you won't know you are misled, because you don't know your history. What does history teach us? A great lesson of history is what? It is not to repeat the same mistakes. Why do people study history? Because in history you have the behaviour of human beings repeated again and again and again. You can understand the moment by looking at the whole history, the whole thing. In homeopathy, if we don't do that, we are just repeating the same thing and same mistake. I follow every aspect of homeopathic history up to the present and the same subjects are talked about every twenty years, more or less. The same questions come up in cycles, are all repeated and uselessly done, because if only their teacher had taught them where we were at, they didn't need to go back and repeat about pathology, they didn't need to go back and ask about all this. All the same questions return in cycles. But we don't need to do that! Once you know your history you just go forward. You don't go repeating the same interrogation, the same conflicts and so on.Thanks for patience reading and kindly respond this by a comment.
For more details you can contact Dr.A.N.Das on 91-9337404283 or Mail at-drandas28@gmail.com.
Hering's law - the four principles: 1 The disease progresses from outside in, and when it cures, it cures from inside out. 2 Cure will be from above downwards; 3 Cure will go from the most important, to less important organs; 4 Cure is in the reverse order of appearance of symptoms.
How does psychosomatic disease fit in hering's law? If disease progresses from outside in and is cured from inside out and if it is a law, how can we explain psychosomatic disease within that law? A law is a law. It is not contradictory. A law means that it does not change. If you have the right circumstances, the outcome will always be predictable. A law is for everyone, everybody who will observe it will see the same thing. Hering's Law can be found in Kent's lectures. Probably most of you have read it. He says many times that disease will cure from inside out, from the central nervous system to the periphery, to the extremities, the skin. Here I ask you how do you comprehend this description of the law of cure with psychosomatic disease? Do you comprehend it? Does it fit in the law? Hering's Law states that disease will progress from outside in. When cure occurs, it occurs from inside out. Psychosomatic disease is a disease that starts from the psyche and that afterwards, later, expresses itself on the physical level. This seems to be contradictory to the description of Hering's Law. It is not explained and I don't understand it. The definition of a law in English language, and I am sure in every language, means something that does NOT change. If you say sometimes it is like this and sometimes it is like that, it is not a law anymore. There are four aspects to Hering's Law. If it is said that a law has four aspects, we have to respect these four aspects. What I am telling you is a very complex phenomenon. The direction of cure is a very complex phenomenon and it has not been well explained yet. If I ask you some questions like this it is just to show that our own understanding of it is very minimal. We don't really understand the whole process, but you have hints, you have observed certain things clinically that you know that are true, but they may not fit the law.
How do we understand the law? We observe that a person starts to be anxious, maybe anxious for one month, and then you have gastritis, and eventually you have ulceration of the part, but how do we make this observation of all of us coincide with Hering's Law as it is described in our text books? The direction of cure is a very complex phenomenon. It is not well explained. It doesn't fit in with the observation of classical writers as it is described, as you see it in your own life and as it is described in modern textbooks or by any good observation of a classical psychosomatic disease. It doesn't fit. There is a dichotomy between what we observe and the law as it is described. My question to all students of homeopathy is: "What do you understand about the direction of cure? Is it only one of those principles that must fit the case, each case; or just two of them, or three of them or all four of them. When you are treating somebody, must the cure precede in this direction, in all four directions, in all patients, or just in some directions, in some patients? How is it understood from your own understanding clinical practise? The way it is written, it is a "must".
Research If you research Hering's Law, you will only find very few texts talking about it. Which text do you know talking about it? You always say the same thing. But where does it come from? Do you find it with Hahnemann? I just want to point out that you have to be very careful in using what you understand presently of the law in treating people with mental disease and more specifically with psychosomatic disease, because it may not fit and you will make a mistake. While the patient is really improving, you might think the patient is getting worse, because you are trying to fit your patient into a conception that is not well understood. You can read it from Roberts. What does he say? How does he call this? He doesn't call it Hering's Law. Kent also talks about it in his lectures. He describes the four directions like Roberts. For Kent it is a law, it is a must. But he doesn't say it is Hering's Law. Where else have you read it? Where does the term Hering's Law came from? What is the reference? I tell you that when Kent wrote it, it was not known as Hering's Law. When he wrote his lectures on homeopathic philosophy, it is not described as Hering's Law. What do you know about the history of your own science? Some people tell me that history is not important. How important is it to know the history of homeopathy, the goal is to cure the patient. Many people will say that and it is true, who cares about the history, what Hahnemann did and what Hering said and what happened. Who cares, you have the symptoms of the patient, you have the materia medica, you take a remedy, you give it and that is it!
History Roberts wrote about it, but Kent talks about it, thirty years before Roberts. If it is a law of nature it is to be accepted by everyone. Are we talking about a real thing, or has somebody imagined it? Hahnemann was a good observer, a superb observer. Does he talk about the direction of cure? History is important, because you can easily be misled and you won't know you are misled, because you don't know your history. What does history teach us? A great lesson of history is what? It is not to repeat the same mistakes. Why do people study history? Because in history you have the behaviour of human beings repeated again and again and again. You can understand the moment by looking at the whole history, the whole thing. In homeopathy, if we don't do that, we are just repeating the same thing and same mistake. I follow every aspect of homeopathic history up to the present and the same subjects are talked about every twenty years, more or less. The same questions come up in cycles, are all repeated and uselessly done, because if only their teacher had taught them where we were at, they didn't need to go back and repeat about pathology, they didn't need to go back and ask about all this. All the same questions return in cycles. But we don't need to do that! Once you know your history you just go forward. You don't go repeating the same interrogation, the same conflicts and so on.Thanks for patience reading and kindly respond this by a comment.
For more details you can contact Dr.A.N.Das on 91-9337404283 or Mail at-drandas28@gmail.com.
Comments
Post a Comment