Prejudice. The blaming of the external.

Let us look at § 9. This is a short paragraph, but as we study it, we see that within it is the complete fundament of Homœopathy (in short form).

In § 9 Hahnemann brings us the fundament of a healthy condition of a person. From this we understand that a healthy person is living in a condition; that life is a condition, for everything that is born, or alive, can die. Hahnemann explains that the condition of life is dynamic; this dynamis is animating the physical body. If we study Kent’s Lectures on Homœopathic Philosophy we see that he brought a wide view on this point. There are two parts of a person, the psychical and the physical. The spiritual person is the part of the person which we cannot have scientific evidence for. Only by analytical thinking is it possible to come to the conclusion that we human beings are not just flesh and bones; that there is unity between two poles, the spiritual and the physical. If we go further and study Kent’s philosophy, the absolute conclusion reached, is that the physical body has no possibility of being injured before the spiritual person. This is a most difficult point for us to understand. If this is accepted, digested and understood, no one will have resistance to Homœopathy and it will be accepted.

Our natural resistance to truth, our prejudice, started from kindergarten. When a child goes to kindergarten and hurts himself by hitting a chair, what does the nurse tell him? “You were hit by the chair.” Everyone accepts that this is a lie and that the child hit the chair; life which is more dynamic, influences the inanimate. This way of thinking, that the external influences Man, is the way of allopathic thought. According to our philosophy the higher vital energy, is influencing a level of the dynamis which is below its power. So one of the common deviations in thinking, or irrational thinking, starts from the child’s parents or at kindergarten.

We are brought up in an allopathic world. We really believe that if something happens in our life it is caused by our neighbour, by the weather or another external influence. When we study a proving, we see that many things happen to the life of the individual during the time of toxification. If it was not this way, how would it be possible to cure one person in the world? Of course, in the beginning this idea seems imaginary. If a person goes to a homœopath and complains that he never gets his post, that it is always put through the door of his neighbour, do we believe it is possible to change this result? Do we believe that because someone gets hit with a hammer he needs to get acute treatment? Or do we know that because he was under some influence of an Inimical Force to Life, he then had the “accident”?

We see from a proving, the first act is that a person takes a “medicine” which is defined as being a toxin. Then, during the first minutes, hours, days, weeks, or longer, different events happen in the life of the person on the spiritual and physical level. If we select a few of this person’s phenomena and say that because of this result he was given the “medicine”, we will all agree that this is irrational. When we read Kent’s interpretation of § 9, we see he says that every phenomenon in the world has a cause, and that its cause is the result of another cause which stands behind it. How far we can go backwards with this chain of thinking is dependent upon our understanding. Did the person who needed Arnica need it because he had an injury to the soft part? Or because he was already Arnica he needed an injury to the soft part?

We should ask the following questions: if a person gets an injury, is this the reason that he needs Arnica? Or did he get an injury because he was Arnica before he received it? Is our life the cause of the external world?

By Joseph Reves, Introduction to Homoeopathy in Organon of Medicine, 1994