Homoeopathy, Molecular Strain Theory, Mythology & Quantum theory

Ateet Ka Jharokha

Out of all available scientific studies, quantum theory seems to have the potential to explain the intricacies involved with Hahnemannian Science. It may enable modern science to understand the mode through which the ‘Bio Prone’ media carries the ‘Drug Information’ in a true homoeopathic dose. Other schools of science lack the relevant tools.

The quality of energy emitted by an elementary particle in isolation differs from the energy of the same particle while it belongs to its matter. The reason rests in biology–not in physics. In fact for every chemical property of all the physical material, reason could be traced back to the distinct impression of their relative biological features.

Homoeopathy, Molecular strain theory, Mythology and Quantum theory may relate to and explain each other.

The incidence of evolution of ‘life’ from matter is but of special significance. This means that with the transformation of matter into organism, the matter was forced to learn its first lesson of living with restricted entry, into the ‘fifth’ dimension. Matter being gifted by nature with the access at will, is the unconditional occupant of all the five dimensions.

An understanding of this and other such physiological phenomenon of matter hold the key to resolve the secret of the crucial matter-organism relationship and beyond. And that answers every genuine query raised about homoeopathy, related to its philosophy as well as practice.

Driven by his paramount concern to affect cure without inflicting any harm a proficient physician of his times, Samuel Hahnemann laid his own ORGANON OF MEDICINE, which since (1810 AD) is called the ‘NEW SCHOOL OF MEDICINE’. ‘Similia similibus curentur’ (let likes be treated by likes ((ORGANON OF MEDICINE : Translated by R E Dudgeon, 1984 reprint (Appendix, page 32), B. Jain Publishers; New Delhi, India.)) is his underlined philosophy of which dynamization is a key element.

The cure-affectiveness of homoeopathic remedies is now a time-honoured fact. However, there is a desperate feeling that its clinical successes need more support from its Organon. This means that the philosophy of the NEW SCHOOL even today remains largely incomplete ((Jyoti Prakash: Artificial disease: Hahnemann’s innocence; SHARING NOTES; Vol. 1 No 2-3, page 3; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.)), and that there are obvious ‘missing links’ in ORGANON ((Jyoti Prakash: Towards completing the Organon; SHARING NOTES; Vol. 1 No 1, page 3; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.)). It is for this reason and shadowed by incompetence of the ‘homoeopathic’ physicians as well as ‘scientific’ researchers that homoeopathy bears a sense of ‘very small dosage’. Thus says Fudler:

“…In some ways it has wrongly eclipsed the other aspects of Hahnemann’s system, for ‘homeopathy’ has crept into common language as a word for minute dosage.” ((Stephen Fudler: THE HANDBOOK OF COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE; Second edition, 1988, page 189; Oxford University Press; New York, USA.))

This truthless notion has led all scientific attempts (towards understanding homoeopathy) to biased conclusions. For whereas to a Hahnemannian, organism is privileged with the preference; thanks to this misconception about homoeopathy in various schools of modern science, substance or medicine enjoys precedence over organism. This ‘scientific’ bias has done more harm than good to both SCIENCE and HOMOEOPATHY. For, it had offered eccentric orientation to related research. Says Jyoti Prakash:

“…All such explanations lack the fundamentals, characteristic of ORGANON.” He adds: “…The futility of these attempts hardly surprises the knowledgeable probably because nearly all of them tried to explain SCIENTIFICALLY as against the need to do so HOMOEOPATHICALLY.” Further he adds: “…This beaconed the predominance of scientific bias upon the much required unbiased thinking.” ((Jyoti Prakash: Towards completing the Organon; SHARING NOTES; Vol. 1 No 1, page 5; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.))

For example, in the desperate attempt to correlate ‘stochastic resonance’ with homoeopathic effect, Torres says:

“…Our proposal seems to reduce the identity of the original active element (solute) almost to irrelevance, as it becomes just a source of energy to be entrained by succussion to produce transition in the solvent. This is contrary to homoeopathic evidence, where a medicine is specific to both malady and patient.” ((Jose-Leonel Torres: Stochastic resonance and the homoeopathic effect; BRITISH HOMOEOPATHIC JOURNAL; July 1996, Vol 85, page 137.))

If taken seriously at face value, this raises doubts about homoeopathy and creates confusion. Torres’s is but one example of the waywardness that dominates the so-called scientific approach. It merely signifies the unscientific attitude of the mindset in question. For this simple reason, I am not at all interested here in questioning the science of this or any of such discussions. Their ‘scientific’ validity is irrelevant to homoeopathy. It doesn’t achieve, what it sets out to. The tests of such discussions are limited to academic interest of pure science. A free and impartial mind might reveal here that these are simple attempts of Science to sieve something out of dynamization, to highlight the undermined chemical as well as physical phenomenon, which are obvious to this process.

However hereafter, there is a very big full stop. The validity of any of these discussions and their loud conclusions in the premise of Science — in isolation — is not the concern of homoeopathy. It is the applicability of a given conclusion that might interest homoeopathy, related to its philosophy as also practice.

Interestingly, the attempts to dig out some phenomenal discovery about dynamization have out-numbered the desires to resolve the mystery of homoeopathic therapeutics. The dominance of this mindset in the relationship between SCIENCE and HOMOEOPATHY till today is very unfortunate indeed. It is difficult to find a universal justification for the same. For, with this bias the TRUTH could never be found. Thus contrary to the prevailing trend, I keep my stakes on the understanding of matter-organism interaction. I find this approach generous and friendly with homoeopathy, which is the first prerequisite of any attempt to understand its science.

Out of all available scientific studies, QUANTUM THEORY seems to have the potential to enable modern science to understand the mode through which the ‘BIO PRONE’ media ((Jyoti Prakash : Is homoeopathy an addition or a substitute for conventional treatment?; SHARING NOTES; Vol. 1 No 1, page 5; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.)) carries with it, the relevant ‘DRUG INFORMATION’ of a homoeopathic medicine.

But why quanta? Simply because it seems to be knocking at the gateways of MOLECULAR STRAIN THEORY of Sir Jagadis Chandra Bose whose scientific authority in establishing some similarities between the living and non-living is unchallenged. The puzzle of mythological implication of this phenomenon is well marked in science and it still awaits physicists’ efforts to ventilate its mystery.

In his momentous address to the Royal Society on 10th of May 1901, Bose proposed that the change from PHYSICO-CHEMICAL to PHYSIOLOGICAL is not an abrupt break. Instead, it happens to be a uniform and continuous march of law. He said:

“…Amongst such phenomena, how can we draw a line of demarcation and say, here the physical ends and there the physiological begins? Such absolute barriers do not exist.” ((S N Bose: SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE NON-LIVING AND THE LIVING : JAGDIS CHANDRA BOSE; page 32; National Book Trust; India.))

The molecular strain theory might have crucial bearing upon homoeopathy. The quantum theory thus furthers the cause. Admirers of Bose have overlooked the scope and the commendators of Quantum physics failed to make the shot.

Other schools seem to lack the relevance and thus the capability, to process and judge the subtle aspects of homoeopathy. Hence they enjoy their self-conceived PLACEBO HYPOTHESES of its drug action. The subscribers to these schools declare it to be the ‘placebo effect’ merely on the ground that they are incapable of finding out some relevant scientific logic to the drug-effect of a homoeopathic dose. They term their helplessness as ‘proof’.

‘Logic’ and ‘proof’ are two separate, but definite conditions. In science the two are complimentary. Yet, an absolute compliance of any one of the two suffices to prove one’s point. Rest is the problem of science itself; of researchers blindfolded by academic interest. Only because Science could not resolve its own problems, it is absolutely unscientific to rule one’s point. The fact of the matter has nothing to do with the limitations of ‘science’, be that for any reason.

Are all subscribers to the school of science unanimous on QUANTUM THEORY? What about the numerous queries questioning the fundamentals of this theory? Are not these queries scientific enough? Is an affirmation to the latter good enough to rule QUANTUM THEORY unscientific? Debra LeRoy quotes the physicist Niels Bohr: “…Any one who is not shocked by quantum theory does not understand it.” ((Debra LeRoy : Homeopathy quantified; www.lyghtforce.com.)) Do ‘scientists’ wish to limit the applicability of this remarkable phrase of Bohr to that theory exclusively? With a variation, the same is applicable to MYTHOLOGY, leave alone HOMOEOPATHY or MOLECULAR STRAIN THEORY.

Without any reservation, I confess here that I know very little of mythology. I understand even less about the science and logic of MOLECULAR STRAIN or QUANTUM theories. But I believe in LOGIC and I am not alone to believe that PURE LOGIC has done substantial service to the fundamentals of present-day science.

That physiologists were puzzled and sceptical ((S N Bose : SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE NON-LIVING AND THE LIVING : JAGDIS CHANDRA BOSE; page 29; National Book Trust; India.)) at the first announcement by Bose of the response to ‘STIMULI’ by non-living and that ‘science’ finds it hard to digest the logic of HOMOEOPATHY, MYTHOLOGY and QUANTUM THEORY give me the feel that the four have the potential to demystify each other. I do have a hunch – I am not absolutely wrong either!

Bose observed that under optimum strain magnetic oxide of iron shows a striking resemblance to a muscle. He demonstrated that the fatigue shown by this inorganic material could be removed by the gentle vibration of massage or by placing it in a warm bath. ((S N Bose : SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE NON-LIVING AND THE LIVING : JAGDIS CHANDRA BOSE; page 27; National Book Trust; India.)) With the outcome of these results (1900 ad) one witnessed the first stream of science demanding inclusion of mythology into its mainstream.

With the draft proposal on quantum hypotheses (1905 ad), the mainstream of science made rapid strides in this direction. Whether or not one knows the ropes, science is proposing to explain mythology. The moment science approved hypotheses as being the theory, the rational translation of MYTHOLOGICAL element of life (the ji:v) into the biological element of science ceased to be an impossibility. The level of remoteness of this possibility for now does not hold much water to present discussion. It rests on these two facts:

(a) Bose had an eye on the secret of evolution and genetics though he did not intend to work on it,

(b) Quantum theory seems to be offering ground not only to the physicist’s physiological hypotheses but to mythology as well.

Bose demonstrated and logically established that THERE IS FUNDAMENTAL UNITY AMIDST THE APPARENT DIVERSITY OF NATURE ((S N Bose : SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE NON-LIVING AND THE LIVING : JAGDIS CHANDRA BOSE; page 28; National Book Trust; India.)) and that THE PHYSIOLOGICAL IS RELATED TO THE PHYSICO-CHEMICAL. ((S N Bose : SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE NON-LIVING AND THE LIVING : JAGDIS CHANDRA BOSE; page 32; National Book Trust; India.))

The QUANTUM THEORY inattentively offers reason to former’s paper entitled: ON THE SIMILARITY OF RESPONSES IN INORGANIC AND LIVING MATTER. ((Read at the International Congress of Physics, Paris; 1990.)) Though an indirect inference, this seems logical at least, as I have perceived.

ENERGY is among the elementary particles that constitute all matter. This behaves both like particles and waves. Particle, when one sees it. Wave, when one does not see it. Energy flows in discrete units (quanta). Whether we see it or not, the flow of quanta is a natural phenomena and it persists along with its own logic. However, with appropriate tools, one can compel these energy particles/waves to perform. In other words, at a proper plane and using appropriate devices, information could be planted upon quanta, at will, that it carries and obeys — till captive of such compulsions. Also, the extent of obedience naturally, depends upon appropriateness and efficacy of the devices employed.

quarks are sub elementary. They constitute elementary particles called hadrons. Six of the quarks have been identified as yet. Three of the following phenomenon of quarks, I wish one to keep in mind when elaborating the present hypotheses of mine:

(a) Quarks are trapped forever within the body of the particle they embody,

(b) Each quark has an antiparticle,

(c) Present day Science believes that each kind emits three colours that help them to recognize each other. However one finds oneself incapable of putting forward a proof of this statement because none has seen them till now.

At this juncture, I am tempted to offer logic. Whether we are able to prove it or not for now, it reads:

The Energy (be it of any form — known or otherwise) emitted by an elementary particle in isolation and the same when it still belongs to its matter, differ qualitatively. It differs even further from matter to matter.

Thus QUANTA carries information of the matter it belongs and of the substance that succeeds in impressing and thus planting its instruction and information upon it. I have a vital point to raise here:

‘MATTER’ and the ‘INFORMATION OF THE MATTER’ are two distinctly different things. Even the modern understanding that Matter and Energy are interchangeable makes no difference. Matter (Or for the same reason, Energy) is substantial whereas information is the abstract one. I believe latter to be biological, rather — if (and this is a very bold ‘if’) the quantum theory, as expressed, has scientific validity.

Attenuated homoeopathic medicines of Alcohol (Allen ((T F Allen : THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PURE MATERIA MEDICA; 1995 reprint, Vol 1, pp 138-46; B. Jain Publishers; New Delhi, India.))), Saccharum album/officinalis (Allen ((T F Allen : THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PURE MATERIA MEDICA; 1995 reprint, Vol 3, pp 471-73; B. Jain Publishers; New Delhi, India.)), Boericke ((W Boericke : POCKET MANUEL OF HOMOEOPATHIC MATERIA MEDICA; Ninth edition, 1984 reprint, pp 564-65; B. Jain Publishers; New Delhi. India.)), Clarke ((J H Clarke : A DICTONARY OF PRACTICAL MATERIA MEDICA; 1992 reprint, Vol 3, pp 1060-62; B. Jain Publishers; New Delhi, India.))) and Saccharum lactis (Clarke ((J H Clarke : A DICTONARY OF PRACTICAL MATERIA MEDICA; 1992 reprint, Vol 3, pp 1055-60; B. Jain Publishers; New Delhi, India.))) are the classic examples. These are proven homoeopathic remedies and the ‘physiologically interactive factors’ [PIF], which represent homoeopathic ‘medicines’ in the trio, are dispensable even when their respective substances are used as their vehicles. ‘Science’ has its own difficulties in accepting this simple homoeopathic fact. For, the puzzle is — how these ‘medicines’ retain their REMEDIAL IDENTITY in the given condition?

In addition to the above, another fact of common homoeopathic practice is equally interesting. It is — the organism is capable of interacting with ‘Sucrose’ that is carried to it by absolute alcohol and the ‘Sucrose’ that is carried to it by sucrose itself, without any therapeutic difference. The same is true of ‘Alcohol’ when this medicine is dispensed selecting alcohol, lactose or sucrose as its vehicles.

These two homoeopathic facts have special significance, which deserves much higher attention. Together they share the potential that holds the key to the beginning of the journey that can demystify the quartet of homoeopathy, molecular strain theory, mythology and quantum theory from the black hole. And how?

Thanks to Einstein, science seems to be agreeing upon the fourth dimension — TIME. Attaining the ‘ZERO-TIME’ status bears the meaning that the attainer has surpassed the fourth dimension. In other words, at this stage time factor will cease to affect it. It is a state of timelessness. Whether the matter as such can attain this status is a query of science. However, some known elementary particles of the likes of light (photon) and quarks perform very nearly at ‘ZERO-TIME PLANES’ – leave alone the unknown ones.

Thus, here is an interesting observation:

Whether or not the fact and the logic stated above does have the inference that the ‘zero-timer’ officially attains the ‘fifth’ dimension (If science permits to term it so). It is interesting to note here that hindu mythology believes in the ‘sixth’ and ‘seventh’ dimensions as well. It recognises these as the ‘ka:ran and ‘maha:ka:ran‘ deh respectively. ((Gopinath Kaviraj : MAHATMA JYOTI JI, SADHU DARSHAN TATHA SATPRASANG; Third edition, 1991, pp 32-9; Bhartiya Vidya Prakashan; Varanasi, India.))

Above is an interesting query that philosophy would be delighted to put before Science.

Logic holds that the energy emitted by a matter essentially surpasses the fourth dimension. In other words, it operates upon the plane of timelessness — comfortably placed in ‘fifth’ dimension. That it carries some kind of a complete blueprint of the biological encyclopaedia of its host is thus indisputable.

As a matter of fact, significance of this functioning at zero-time plane is much deeper than the odds that have been thought of as yet. For example, the realization that these ‘zero-time’ (or the timeless, as one might conveniently prefer to name them) operators are virtually tools to the matter to which they belong. The latter uses the former to reveal and retain its identity and existence, to enable itself to travel along ‘absolute time zone’, to realize and express its ego. In organism also, the vicar/emissaries of ‘life’ are essentially placed at ‘zero-time’ planes. A drop-out is doomed to death, decay.

In brief, timeless plane symbolises the respective LIFE vested in each of the substance in the universe and beyond – be it the matter or the organism. That is why under a FREE FROM ANY COMPULSION state, matter retains its identity and remains undistorted for ages. Immortality is implied in ‘jarattv’ itself. On the other hand, ‘chetana:’ is the symbol of mortality.

In other words, both ‘jar and ‘chetan’ possess ego–The Life. Only their relative ‘forms’ vary. That is what HINDU mythology maintains.

The debut of LIFE witnessed the furtherance of the ego of matter. Until then the matter enjoyed a self-imposed restriction upon itself. This it did to limit its ego sufficient enough to fulfil the identity and existence. Till the matter consciously remained indifferent to destiny, the latter never exhibited its influence upon the former.

Somehow at some point of time and for some unexplained reason, an element of GREED was introduced to the ego of the matter that for ages remained satisfied with and indifferent to its state. Hence, some of the ‘jar transformed themselves into the ‘chetan’. This resulted into the present-day concept of life, which then evolved. In turn, the phenomenon of MORTALITY was introduced. Ego was furthered to gain an upper hand on the Destiny. In turn, the latter revealed few of its real powers.

Matter satisfied with its restricted ego, remained at timeless plane. Organism with furthered ego, is compelled to share its existence partly on timeless plane and partly otherwise. The emissaries of organism performing on ‘time relative’ planes are naturally mortal. Those, which operate on timeless plane, still remain immortal.

An interesting query will not be a digression here: Does not the logic here has the inference that with the transformation of matter into organism, it was led to learn its first lesson of ‘life’ with entry into the FIFTH dimension ‘restricted’? Matter enjoys that unconditionally and at will.

The author has stated earlier that evolution is a long sustained process — the continuous flow of Nature (‘Prakriti’ is more appropriate here). This continuity is lasting. However, the sprouting of ‘life’ is a landmark of this flow. ((Jyoti Prakash: Artificial disease: Hahnemann’s innocence; SHARING NOTES; Vol 1 No 2-3, page 8; Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.)) One might not prove to be in error in calling it ‘the most significant of all such (known) landmarks’, after the evolution of matter.

Despite Nature’s ‘agreement’ or ‘permission’, a clear difference exists between the two kinds of evolution, which is fundamental. Nature enjoyed absolute privilege that dictated the quest as well as the direction to find its way related to the evolution of matter from matter. Where as in the biological evolution, raison d’être is an added analogue, which along with the above is guided by the brainwork of the organism. Modern science agrees that ‘life’ originated from some ‘exaggerated’ chemical activities.

However in wider perspective, seeing the sequential development what can be said of evolution of ‘life’ is it was from micro to macro. Or as mythology suggests, from ‘sukshm’ to ‘sthu:l’. It has already been said earlier here that organism (the chetana: or ji:van) evolved from matter (the achetan or jar). Hence matter is the link between the two.

The natural meaning of this is that the physical sciences evolved from the womb of primitive biology, which in turn evolved into present-day biology. In fact what can be definitely said is — for every chemical property of all the physical material, reason could be traced back to the distinct impression of their relative biological features.

Now, we all know that interaction between any two components is only possible when they are placed at the same plane. Or, in case placed at planes apart, the relative plane of one (at least for once) interacts with that of the other. Like addition or the subtraction in the numbers of given subjects is only possible when they belong to the same category; Like 20 tigers and 10 cats don’t make 30 cats or tigers. What they do make are 30 members of cat family (Or for a change, 30 animals). This is but fundamental to science.

Applying the same logic, one should not find any difficulty in accepting the fact that an interaction between the matter and the organism is only possible when their respective relative planes interact. However one can explore matter-organism interaction primarily within three of the (only) possibilities:

(a) The ‘zero-time’ planes of the two remain far apart (i.e. they do not meet at all),

(b) The two only bisect each other (i.e. they only meet casually),

(c) They superimpose each other (i.e. the two ‘zero-time’ planes run along and together).

In first case, both the organism and the matter will essentially remain indifferent to each other. This means that matter will not leave any impression on the organism. In other words, even the functional group properties (the physical or chemical planes) of the matter will not affect the organism. The systems of organism will let the matter pass off itself ‘untouched’, and hence unchanged. The rational possibility of any kind of a physical injury to either of the two is the only exception to this conclusion.

In second case, the ‘bisective’ interaction of ‘zero-time planes’ offers organism an access to the functional group properties of the matter or vice versa. The biophysical and biochemical interactions belong to this category. The significance of the brevity of duration (of this interaction) in the given case enjoys both the relevance and the irrelevance of the aspect.

I agree here that, on the face of it, this seems to be a little complicated statement. Nevertheless, this is one of the most crucial components of my hypotheses and is significant to me to the extent that it matters little whether or not the ‘quantum’ aspect of homoeopathy holds any water. In any case, this has an important bearing upon the understanding of homoeopathy and its drug action. And for an open mind, which believes in and is capable of accepting the truth (Or without being prejudiced, at least gives an ear to the logic that might lead to the Truth), it ceases to be an uphill task.

As stated earlier, the interaction between the ‘zero-time planes’ of the interactors (i.e. matter and organism) provides an opportunity for the biological interaction to take place. In the given case, irrespective of the shortness of the duration (of interaction), the act enables both to acquire some initial ‘pass-words’ that allow one’s entry into the other’s functionary mechanism. This development capacitates both of them to interact mutually at respective ‘functional group’ planes i.e. their material planes.

In other words, the organism obtains the access to the physico-chemical planes of the matter or vice versa. This is the significance of the brevity of the interaction that I prefer to call irrelevant. ‘Irrelevant’, because it does not hamper the functional (material) interaction — the information is transferred in any case, however brief be the interaction.

However, as vigilant critics would react to this statement, it implies that the interaction has little punctuation, between the lines. One is not wrong either way. The given interaction does not harness the optimum potential. It is an interaction with certain reservations by both interactors. One may prefer to compare it with the so-called willingness to be friendly, though each of the two remains cautious of the lack of faith in the other. Naturally, the achievable can never be achieved this way. Hence, the significance of the brevity of the period of interaction is thus quite relevant.

This brevity restricts biological interaction. Though it enables both to mutually share some of their biological information, the resultant transfer remains obviously superficial, also, at a very slow pace. This implies that a complete transfer of much detailed vital biological information is a remote possibility. Though none can rule it out absolutely or definitely, either way.

With every fresh biophysical/biochemical (i.e. material) interaction between matter and organism, some of the fresh biological information is transferred from matter into the organism. Less or more, the magnitude is insignificant here. The fact that some fresh biological information is transferred is significant. However, the more BIOLOGICALLY ‘potent’ the matter, the more is the possibility of transfer of BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION. Here one might find an explanation to the query as to why the cases of excessive consumption of toxic substance provide ‘accidental proving’ to the homoeopathic METERIA MEDICA?

Another compulsive explanation here again: One should always remember that in obsession to explain what one is incapable of, at times knowledge is lost. One tends to forget this, though. Unless driven by vested interest — obvious or otherwise, one finds one’s reason in over enthusiasm. The definitive word ‘potent’ that I have used here has been a victim of this injudicious approach.

There happens to be a theory called ‘ARNDT-SHULTZ LAW’. Its upgraded version is known as ‘BIPHASIC RESPONSE’. Says Debra LeRoy: “…This amendment proves that the more potent the drug (such as the toxic substances often used in homeopathy) the smaller the dose that is needed to stimulate the organism. Here we have evidence of why high potencies work. In high potency, you are left with a smaller (or no) material dose.” ((Debra LeRoy : Homeopathy quantified; www.lyghtforce.com.)) Here I feel compelled to underline the two words, though I am least interested in commenting upon the law — so far observations pertaining to it are limited only to its relevant contexts of ‘material’ sciences and should remain so as that is its premise.

However, I wonder whether the law or the up gradation of that, had something to do with the BIOLOGICAL PLANE of matter. That is why its interpretation into homoeopathy is misleading — as theorists often do or else, as some corporate producers of ‘homoeopathic’ commercial products have been doing that. At least till its clear rationalization on the ground of homoeopathy, beyond doubt. Debra LeRoy and Dr Reckeweg & Co. ((Dr Reckeweg & Co, Germany : HOMOEOPATHY FOR TOTAL AND SAFE CURE; Indian edition (R 19, R 20); Dr Roshan Lal & Sons Pvt Ltd; New Delhi, India.)) are but the representatives of this mindset.

Explaining the third possibility of interaction now becomes easier because the conclusions seem to be obvious:

When the ‘zero-time’ planes of the matter and the organism run together (i.e. when they are superimposed on each other) there is a total transfer of the biological information between them. Nothing, biological, can remain concealed in-between. The effect is so loud and dominating that the material planes of the matter cease to be of any practical significance to the organism; to the extent that for all practical purpose, even their existence appears to be insignificant to the organism.

This phenomenon of interaction provides an explanation as to why a moderately dynamized homoeopathic dose does not leave any chemical impression upon the organism? It acts simply as the defined remedy. However, if the interaction is kept unduly for a longer period (i.e. overdosing of medication), the chemical plane of the matter always has a fair chance to make its impression felt upon the organism. Especially when relatively material doses are administered.

This is what a homoeopath calls the medicinal aggravation. As Boericke instructs: “…Stop (Blatta orientalis) with improvement to prevent return of aggravation.” ((W Boericke : POCKET MANUEL OF HOMOEOPATHIC MATERIA MEDICA; Ninth edition, 1984 reprint, page 124; B Jain Publishers; New Delhi, India.)) Or, says Cartier: “…(Arsenicum) sometimes acts like a charm; we must not however, neglect to supervise its action, for overdone it is liable to cause an aggravation.” ((Francois Cartier : THERAPEUTICS OF THE RESPIRATORY ORGANS; 1989 reprint, page 221; B Jain Publishers; New Delhi, India.))

I have dealt here only with the basics of the phenomenon of interaction between matter and organism. In all its simplicity, this is the mode of interaction between matter and organism. Logically, this applies primarily to the interaction between different matters. It is but fundamental to every single material happening, be it physical, chemical, biological or of any kind what so ever, that matters in the universe, and beyond. Though the objective here is limited, it is crystal clear.

I have offered logic that explains precisely and beyond question, how a homoeopathic dose still affects organism when Avogadro, seemingly, holds ground to raise the doubt! The content of present paper is limited to offering viable hypotheses that is capable of explaining scientifically, part of the therapeutic route of homoeopathic medication — how the information is transferred from the medicine into the organism?

To those who read some contradiction in my statements here, I must add that upon giving a second thought they might feel otherwise. For, what I have discussed here is definitely a shade lesser than what could be justified as a working model. Nonetheless I am quite confident that homoeopathy works because every single remedy of it embodies biological information of what it was prepared from; because the ailing organism could read that, and in turn, react to it ((Jyoti Prakash: Understanding the mechanism of preparing and dispensing of a homoeopathic dose; www.rediscoverhomoeopathy.com; Philosophy; June 05, 2002.)). Primarily, it is the organism that cures itself, and not the medicine.

Though this statement does not question that the medicine induces the cure-process, a mode of treatment that accepts an active role of medicinal substance ceases to be homoeopathy. I am equally sure of the other face of the coin. It reads: An understanding of the process of evolution holds the key.

However when I speak of EVOLUTION here, it observes no limits. It is such concept of evolution that concerns the evolution of ‘EVERYTHING’, in the Universe and beyond — from practically nothing. ‘NOTHING’ signifies here THE ABSOLUTE ABSENCE OF EVERYTHING that the Material Science so far, considers being ‘SOMETHING’. ((Jyoti Prakash: The theory of evolution; www.rediscoverhomoeopathy.com; Philosophy; May 15, 2002.))

A true understanding of this would lead to clear understanding of the philosophy that governs homoeopathic system of medicine.

Based on the above hypotheses, several other queries could also be addressed. They could well be of the likes of:

Why and how given organism reads the biological information that a homoeopathic dose embodies?

How and why is biological information curative to an ailing organism? Why a wrongly prescribed dose is often believed to be harmless in homoeopathic practice?

Whether or not similia and biological information are essentially the two faces of the same coin?

And crucial of all, the discussion that whether or not ethically, physiological is the better mode of therapeutic than the conventional material ones?

These I intend to discuss elsewhere.

Though to an inquisitive one who disproves the idea of waiting until then, here is a hint: The secret rests with the understanding of how and where from the ‘lethal gene’ evolved; Or, in the unknown relationship between the genesis of cancer and the remedies that have shown the potential to cure it.

Nonetheless, with a clear understanding of my viewpoints expressed and explained here, one finds oneself capable enough to resolve rest of such fundamental queries as:

How, when and why a homoeopathic dose requires repetition?

Why an acute case is resolved much earlier and with lesser homoeopathic doses as compared to a chronic one?

How and why ‘miasms’ come in to the frame and why they ought to be dealt with priority?

However the basic prerequisite of transfer of information, from matter into organism, is to be reaffirmed here: The ‘time-level’ of the two interactors should essentially synchronize. This answers the much-evaded query as to why only selective potency is proved to be effective in a given case.

(12 August 2014)
[Adopted from SHARING NOTES (Vol 1 No 4, October-December 1999); Rashmi Prakashan; Bhopal, India.]



References:

[Unless mentioned otherwise, all references to Organon, Aphorism(s) and Footnote(s) to aphorism(s) be referred to Organon of Medicine by Samuel Hahnemann, translated from 5th & 6th edition by R E Dudgeon, 1984 reprint, B. Jain Publishers, New Delhi, India.]