Bachblüten Anhang
[Peter Morrell]
The Bach Flower Remedies and Homeopathy.
Taxonomy
No matter how hard and fast or how natural they may appear to be, all
systems of classification [taxonomy] and nomenclature (as used in biology and
pathology) are ultimately arbitrary and artificial human constructs that we
impose upon reality for our own convenience. They all follow the same basic
rules - similar things are placed together and different things are separated -
with the most similar things being placed closest together and the most
different being placed the furthest apart. Rather like branches of a tree,
closely related things are placed on different parts of the same branch; very
different things are placed on widely separated branches.
The purpose of any classification scheme is "to name reliably and
conveniently“, [Bullock and Trombley, 858-9] but inevitably also involves
"a degree of resemblance that unites members“, [Bullock and Trombley, 858]
of the same category or group, such that members of the same category "are
united by a basic similarity or ground plan“, [Bullock and Trombley, 858]
Obviously, some members of a group "are united by a somewhat closer degree
of similarity“, [Bullock and Trombley, 858] than others in the same group.
Inevitably also, any system of classification imposes restrictions, concerns
the [real or imagined] relationships between different classes and categories
and subtly shapes our perception of reality to suit its own purposes.
One ineradicable problem with all taxonomic schemes is that to some
degree it is "a system of idealised entities…fictions compounded out of
observed uniformities…concepts and categories…conditioned by human aims“,
[Berlin, 301] Because all such systems are "a set of formulas, of
imaginary entities and mathematical relationships“, [Berlin, 302] so to the
same degree it is always in part a false and abstract system imposed upon raw
reality itself, an "artificial construction of our intellect“, [Berlin,
302] that is not so much found but made. In reality, "nature is not a
perfect machine, nor an exquisite organism, nor a rational system“, [
By overlooking "that the disease classification is man-made…they
assume…that disease entities somehow have an independent existence“, [Wulff et
al, 82] which of course they do not. They are human constructs with no more
reality than pipe dreams. The "disease classification is still largely a
mixture of disease entities defined in anatomical, physiological and
microbiological terms“, [1; 77] which is indeed "a man-made classification
of individual patients“, [Wulff et al, 77] True and natural disease
"classifications are not arbitrary but must be moulded on reality as it
is“, [Wulff et al, 88] Thus far, these do not exist.
In the case of medical systems, a similar approach can profitably be
adopted. Natural therapies generally huddle together as a minority under the
same vague umbrella, so as to distinguish themselves from the more numerically
dominant allopathy. Though their methods vary a great deal, all natural
therapies can be said to share some common features - being gentle, natural and
vitality-enhancing, they aim to improve health through safely enhancing the innate
vital powers; to restore health autonomy and to cure. By contrast, allopathic
medical methods mostly seem to have "reduced the patient's autonomy to a
therapeutic choice of drugs or surgery“, [Diamond, 11] which stands as a
chilling indictment of its claim to cure disease Because natural therapists
regard all healing as either truly curative self-healing or a suppression, then
by their own definition, any ‘healing’ by non-innate vital powers tends
automatically to be regarded by them as a suppression. For example, when John
Foley says, "only that nerve energy that runs through you and controls
every function and autonomic process of your being every second of your life is
capable of healing you.
No drugs of doctors can do that. We can only facilitate it“, [Foley]
then he clearly echoes the vitalist views of homeopathy and acupuncture. When
he further contends that "drugs, if anything, interfere with that innate
ability to heal from within“, [Foley] and that mere "covering up symptoms
with pharmaceuticals has done little“, [Foley] then he inclines towards the
claim of homeopaths that drugs do not cure but delay healing and complicate
disease by suppressing symptoms. Bach would doubtless have agreed.
All the chemical therapeutic approaches essentially stand quite close to
herbal medicine and use natural products but in material doses. Then we can
discern the manipulative therapies like yoga, osteopathy, massage,
chiropractic, reflexology, which assist lymphatic drainage or correct bad
posture that could be underpinning causes of sickness [refs]. There are also
mind-centred therapies like hypnosis, meditation, autogenics, positive thinking
and thought control. These can also assist self-image that may alleviate many
types of sickness.
With regard to Bach Flower Remedies [BFR] in many respects they seem to
lie closest to homeopathy and the tissue salts of Schüssler, because they are
derived from plants and taken orally. Like homeopathy, they use sub-material
doses and each remedy has a fixed and distinctive profile that predetermines
its therapeutic sphere of application. Unlike homeopathy, however, there are no
provings of drugs and only mental symptoms are considered important for use.
Their mode of preparation employs sunlight and spring water as compared to
trituration, succussion or serial dilution in homeopathy. They might be seen as
closest to the mother tinctures of homeopathy.
The obvious similarities seem to easily outweigh the differences,
and it therefore seems logically convenient, for taxonomic and regulatory
purposes, to place BFR, homeopathy and tissue salts in the same branch of
natural therapy, all being basically homeopathic in concept, mode of
preparation, storage and mode of use.
Edward Bach’s Career
Dr Edward BACH (1886-1936)Bach believed that "health is our natural
state, and disease indicates that our personality is stuck or in conflict“,
[Shaw, 1998, 6]
The Bach remedies "treat the person and not the disease; the
emotional state that presages the pathological changes of illness“, [Shaw, 6]
The aim is that "treating the mood can, in many cases, make the disease
redundant“, [Shaw, 7] It is thought that "through their subtle vibrational
energy the remedies work“, [Shaw, 7] for "no physical part
of the plant remains in the remedy;" [Shaw, 10] the remedies "contain
the energy or imprint of the plants from which they were made“, [Shaw, 10] Bach
increasingly came
to believe "that the personality type and mood of an individual is
a vital element in avoiding disease“, [Shaw, 8]
Bach had a medical career that "evolved from conventional medicine
via bacteriology to homeopathy, where he became widely respected for the
discovery of the bowel nosodes“, [van Haselen, 121] Like Hahnemann before him,
he was "driven to innovation by dissatisfaction with the limitations of
conventional medicine“, [van Haselen,
121-2] However, in the course of time, this spilled over into
dissatisfaction with homeopathy and with bacteriology as well. He held the view
that certain bacteria "were not directly pathogenic [but] could lead to
intestinal toxaemia and…chronic disease“, [van Haselen, 122; see Bach, April
1920] He thus began to "apply potentised vaccines orally“, [van Haselen,
122]
This suggests that he regarded his work as "a continuation of that
of Hahnemann or leading the way to further discovery“, [van Haselen, 122] but
it also suggests he was dissatisfied with homeopathy as it is - or why else
would he be aiming to ‘improve’ it?
However, like Hahnemann, he saw an important link between emotional and
mental factors in the patient and the causes of sickness, feeling also that the
selection of the correct remedy must take into account this pivotal aspect.
Therefore, it is not surprising that he prescribed the "bowel nosodes
based upon the mental/emotional constitutional picture of the patients, rather
than on bacteriological data“, [van Haselen, 122; see E Bach, Homeopathic
World, 1930] He then gradually shifted away from bacteria and towards herbal
remedies, and one aspect of his innovation was to replace "the bacterial
nosodes with herbs“, [van Haselen, 122] the connecting link between them being
the emotional and mental profiles of remedies and patient.
Bach wished to "replace the bacterial nosodes by the pure and simple
herbs of the field“, [Weeks, 41] and this shift in his attitude occurred
"towards the end of 1929“,
[Weeks, 41] He decided that "the true healing plants held a greater
power“, [Weeks, 49] than had previously been known to soothe and relieve
"the sufferings of the human body“, [Weeks, 49] He selected plants that
"bloom when the days were longest and the sun was at the height of its
power and strength…[using] the flower-heads alone, for the life of the
plant…[he figured, is] concentrated in its flower“, [Weeks, 49] He also felt
that "Nature was always lavish in her gifts to man“, [Weeks, 49]
The thought "flashed into his mind that each dewdrop must contain
some of the properties of the plant upon which it rested…[and that] the heat of
the sun…would serve
to draw out these properties until each drop was magnetised with power“,
[Weeks, 49] In his view, therefore, "the resulting remedies would contain
the full, perfect and uncontaminated power of the plants“, [Weeks, 49] He
therefore set about "collecting the dew from certain flowers before the
sun had caused evaporation“, [Weeks, 50]
He "shook the drops from various flowering plants into small
bottles, filling some with dew from flowers which had been in full sunlight and
others from those still in the shade“, [Weeks, 50] He was then able "to
test the dew he had collected from the flowers“, [Weeks, 50] In due course, he
found "that the dew from each plant had a definite power of some kind“,
[Weeks, 51] and that "the sun’s heat was essential to the process of
extraction“, [Weeks, 51] because the "dew collected from plants in shady
places was not so potent as that from the plants in full sunlight“ [Weeks, 51].
He then wished to move from collecting and using dew, to "perfect
the new method of preparing healing remedies“, [Weeks, 51] He then picked
flowers and placed them
"in a glass bowl filled with water from a clear stream…standing in
the field in full sunshine for several hours“, [Weeks, 51] The resulting liquid
he decided was "impregnated with the power of the plant, and was very
potent“, [Weeks, 51] This method especially satisfied his search: "it was
the method of simplicity he had longer for“, [Weeks, 52]
to "produce healing remedies of great power“, [Weeks, 52]
Bach "made plain that disease of the body is not primarily due to
physical causes, but to certain disturbing moods or states of mind which
interfere with the normal happiness of the individual“, [Weeks, 53] Thus, in
his view, "any disturbance of the mind…would not only result in a loss of
peace and serenity, but would…[ultimately affect] the proper functioning of its
organs“, [Weeks, 53-4] Thus, his view became that "disturbing moods…were
the true indication for the treatment of disease“, [Weeks, 54] and that their
true remedies would be those that have "the power to elevate our
vibrations…cleanse mind and body, and heal“, [Weeks, 54]
Through this work, he gradually became convinced that all sickness is
caused by "the underlying…moods or states of mind from which various types
could suffer“,
[Weeks, 59] Therefore, although conventional medical treatments
"relieved the physical symptoms of disease…they did not remove the
underlying cause - the mood“,
[Weeks, 60] He therefore resolved to "treat the patient’s
personality and not his disease“, [Weeks, 61]
When the remedies were prepared "in the sun for about four
hours…the water was now impregnated with magnetic power, was crystal clear and
full of small sparkling bubbles“, [Weeks, 66]
Dr Charles E Wheeler, was his "acquaintance with Edward Bach began
in the early twenties“, [Weeks, 134] Later he says, "we had rooms in the
same house and saw a great deal of one another“, [Weeks, 134] Wheeler found him
to be "free from any taint of self-seeking…single minded in altruism…[and]
courageous in asserting what he felt to be the truth“, [Weeks, 134]
One might almost say that Bach was building his system of healing amid
the ruins of homeopathy, in the sense that the 1920s was certainly a period of
stagnation and decline of
Any comparison of Bach and Cooper tends to be a re-run of the
Hahnemann-Paracelsus comparison. In this case it is Bach, Cooper and Hahnemann
who all converge in their views and ideas. When Bailey says the essences ‘are
not really medicines,’ exactly the same applies to Bach remedies and to
homeopathic remedies.
Cooper’s Arborivital System
Dr Robert Thomas COOPER (1844-1903) Focusing next on their mode of
preparation as a feature of BFR that clearly distinguishes them from all other
therapeutic systems, in using sunlight and spring water to capture the remedy
‘essence,’ Bach [1886-1936] adopted a technique reminiscent of the Arborivital
Medicine of Robert T Cooper
[1844-1903]. The use of sunlight also points to the ideas of Jakob
Lorber [1800-1864] and Paracelsus [1493-1541]. Sunlight and spring water can
quite justifiably be regarded to comprise a ‘process’ somewhat akin to
distillation, in that the flower is ‘cooked’ in the spring water by the heat
and light rays of the sun, such that the water becomes impregnated if not
entirely saturated with the healing essence, vibration or energy of the flower.
There is a similarity with the Bailey Essences, the Australian Bush Remedies
and the
Cooper described his own method thus: "the preparation of remedies
used are tinctures made on the spot from living plants, proof spirit being
employed for the sake of preserving their inherent properties...by allowing the
spirit to come into contact with the living plant - the branch, while still
attached, being kept plunged in the spirit and exposed to sunlight while thus
immersed - heliosthened, as I term it“, [Cooper, 1900]
Many within British homeopathy were impressed: "Dr Cooper had an
uncanny genius for discovering unusual remedies; some of these he got, no
doubt, from old herbals; but it has been said that he used to lie down before a
flowering plant by the hour, dragging from it its virtues of healing“, [Tyler
& Wheeler, 136] This comment could just as easily have been said of Bach,
so closely do they match each other.
Cooper conceived that there existed "in plant-remedies a
force...which acted by virtue of a power in all respects similar to a
germinating power in the human body“,
[Cooper, 1900, 2] and "...in the living plants we get a force
which, if applied...to disease, will arrest its progress and even cause its
dispersal“, [Cooper, 1900, 3]
When we read Cooper’s methods, we often see strong hints of Bach:
"Cooper's hypothesis was that a curative ability or action is inherent in
all living plant material, and that this does not require trituration,
succession or dilution to be effective....Cooper directed that the tinctures
should be administered in single drop doses, and that these remedies should be
given time to act fully before being repeated. The dose was administered in
powder form with a single drop of the tincture on to a dry tongue and on an
empty stomach“, [Bonnard, 23] How could Bach not have been inspired by these
views?
There seems little doubt that Cooper was "influenced by the Doctrine
of Signatures and relied on observation of plant structures and
characteristics...Cooper claimed that arborivital remedies were most suitable in
crises which were incurable by any other means, and this includes homoeopathic
methods" [Bonnard, 23] Cooper obviously decided that one should
"allow oneself some latitude“, [Cooper, Feb 1893, 66] in deciding upon the
true profile of any remedy, and that one should seriously question the view
that "all medicine is contained in the repertory“, [Cooper, Feb 1893 66].
In this manner, he claimed to be "returning to the methods which, in the
early days of homeopathy, Hahnemann undoubtedly employed“, [Cooper, Feb 1893,
66]
He believed that "the practitioner ought also to be able to go
amongst any variety of plants, or any variety of medicinal agents, and
determine their actions as weapons for the dispersion of disease in a manner
undreamt of by any code of rules enunciated previously to homeopathy“, [Cooper,
Feb 1893, 65]. He boldly drives very close indeed to the doctrine of signatures
employed in previous medical systems [herbalism] when he states that he takes
"advantage of all kinds of indications – such as occur to me from the
habits of the plant, their appearances, and apparently unimportant features“,
[Cooper, Feb 1893, 66]. Yet, in due course, he candidly admits to making some
deviations from the straight and narrow. However, "any departure that I
may be guilty of from the beaten tracks is to be judged of simply and solely by
result“, [Cooper, Feb 1893, 67]
Having already cast doubt upon the reliability of provings data for the
employment of medicine in sickness, Cooper then goes into more detail about his
alternative method of obtaining reliable information about drugs in the field.
He feels at the outset that "the doctrine of signatures…[ought to be
brought] into accord with modern thought“, [Cooper, 1898, 265], especially
considering that "the appearance of the roots or other parts of plants
very often serve as a guide to their administration in disease, owing
to…[their] resemblance to the diseases they cure“, [Cooper, 1898, 265].
Clearly, regarding such clues as gifts from ever-bountiful Nature, Cooper gives
some fine examples. These include the "virtues of Hydrangea in Diabetes“,
[Cooper, 1898, 270] which everybody knows is "the thirstiest shrub known,
especially in the act of flowering“, [Cooper, 1898, 270]; the leaves of Ledum
palustre are "somewhat spear-shaped“, [Cooper, 1898, 270], and thus its
use for "penetrating wounds, bee and wasp stings, must have been guided…by
a special morphological feature of the plant“, [Cooper, 1898, 270]. As Cooper
questions, such notions could never have been derived from drug provings upon
the healthy.
He does not regard this employment of signatures to displace provings,
but merely to supplement it, to flesh out more details. He also maintains that
the imperfect nature of all provings must inevitably mean that some symptoms
are missed and thus "these symptoms cannot always be available for the
purpose required“, [Cooper, 1898, 267] in treating the sick. The signatures
that plants contain must be seen as "any feature connected with plant life
that suggests the use of such plant as curative for any form of disease“,
[Cooper, 1898, 268]. While "modern thought has discarded it in toto“,
[Cooper, 1898, 266] the idea of signatures, Cooper would have us "take
advantage of such knowledge“, [Cooper, 1898, 269] and encourage the keen
student to "depend upon his recognition of these sign-boards and his
ability to decipher them“, [Cooper, 1898, 268]. Even though such an approach
"depends entirely upon specialised vision“, [Cooper, 1898, 271], which
keen students should endeavour to refine, this "should not excite the
ridicule of those whose vision has not been exercised thereupon“, [Cooper,
1898, 271]. In other words, we should be open-minded in our approach to gaining
deeper knowledge of drugs from all sources, including both provings and
signatures.
Bach held similar views with regard to the unnecessary nature of
provings and that the medicinal properties of herbs could be determined, as
Cooper says, by deploying "specialised vision."
Cooper bares his teeth and reveals his truly reforming character when he
states that "all great improvements in science are made by men who throw
off the trammels of previous teachings and begin by a complete and radical
overhauling of the entire subject“, [Cooper, 1894, 389]. The therapist should
"give drugs in single doses in chronic
and obstinate forms of disease…especially of single doses of the
undiluted juices of plants“, [Cooper, 1894, 389]
In his quest for therapeutic enlightenment, Cooper personally resolved
"to throw aside all provings and repertories and to rely simply upon the
action of the uninterfered-with curative principle of plants, which I believe
to be none other than growth-force“, [Cooper, Jan 1893, 14] and to employ
"tinctures…made by myself from ordinary field plants in accordance with
indications such as occurred to me from the habits of the plants, their
appearances, and other apparently unimportant features“, [Cooper, Jan 1893, 14]
Cooper recommended "prescribing a single dose of a plant mother tincture
prepared from a fresh, living (vita = life) specimen. Cooper was of the opinion
that living plants have an inherent curative action that does not require
trituration or succussion to bring it forth“, [Watson] He also suggests
"that it is possible to combat the "growth force' of a malignant
tumour with the growth force of a suitable plant - undoubtedly an ingenious
variation on the principle of similars!" [Watson] He adopted what Watson
calls "Cooper's off-beat approach…it seems that Cooper used his intuition
as much as anything in arriving at his prescriptions, and it is apparent that
he also drew insight from his deep botanical knowledge“, [Watson] AS Watson
points out, "Dr. Le Hunte Cooper, son of the then late Dr. Robert T.
Cooper…continued the work begun by his father in obtaining remarkable curative
results in patients with various types of cancer“, [Watson]
Distillation is in turn an overtly alchemical method. Others include calcination. [roasting to red heat], boiling, filtration and trituration. A
link from alchemy to homeopathy, for example, can be shown from Hahnemann’s
general use of trituration, and also his use of calcination to prepare remedies
like Causticum and Hepar sulphuris [Hahnemann, 1828]. Once we accept that
sunlight and spring water comprise a method akin to distillation, then on this
basis it is not a large step to say that Bach and Hahnemann share a similar
appreciation of alchemical approaches in remedy preparation. They share in fact
some of the alchemical techniques enunciated by their great forebears like
Paracelsus and Van Helmont.
Though it is not very clear, from a strictly documentary point of view,
where Bach obtained his method from, yet Cooper is the closest and most obvious
source that he must certainly have known about. It is possible, for example,
that he heard of Cooper’s system [Winston, 176-7] from Charles E Wheeler
[1868-1946] or John H Clarke [1853-1931] after Cooper’s death in 1903.
Likewise, it is unclear where Cooper first obtained his idea of ‘heliosthened’
remedies, but he could have been inspired by Paracelsus or possibly by Lorber,
whose work was published in German in 1851. Cooper may have learned of it
perhaps through James Compton Burnett [1840-1901], who is known to have read
German; the only English translation of Lorber dates from 1997.
Wheeler forms an important connecting link between those 19th century
figures like Burnett and Cooper, and later figures like Clarke, Bach and
Paterson. This view recognises that they all existed in the tiny community of
homeopaths in
Dr John PATERSON (1890-1954) It also recognises that Wheeler, Bach and
Paterson all worked on the bowel flora and on developing the bowel nosodes in
the 1910-40 period [Winston,186] The possible link connecting Cooper and Bach
is not as tenuous as it might otherwise appear. For example, Bach and Wheeler
published ‘Chronic Disease: a Working Hypothesis’ in 1925 [Winston, 186].
Looking more specifically at Bach’s life, then it is clear that he was
never an actual homeopath, never treated patients with homeopathic remedies or
used a conventional homeopathic approach. He also disagreed with some of its major
tenets, such as using originally toxic material like Belladonna, for healing
purposes [Winston, 187]. However, in spite of these differences, broadly
speaking, there are still more similarities between the two systems than
differences.
Jakob Lorber; the Austrian evangelist and mystic [1800-1864], may or may
not be credited with a connection with Cooper +/o. with Bach in regard to
certain of his published writings concerning the therapeutic uses of sunlight.
Nevertheless, there are certain parallels. Lorber described "the light of
the sun, as the positive polar part of natural life…[which] no longer spends
its rays on one or the other side of the earth, the polarity on earth keeps
changing, thus, as the sun sets for a region, that region immediately begins to
change to a negative polarity“, [Lorber, The Fly, p.17] He also felt that,
"as the sun sets for a region, that region immediately begins to change to
a negative polarity“, [Lorber, The Fly, p.17]
Of special significance for Bach, is that "Concerning the light of
the sun, its illumination is the same as the familiar spark. The difference is
only that the ‘white light’ stems from the vibrations of love, while the ‘red
light’ stems from the vibrations of rage; and, since the light of the sun
originates from the vibrations of love, its propagation is different from that
originating from anger“, [Lorber, The Fly, p.48] Lorber regarded the sun
"as an entity, is a planet in a perfected state“, [Lorber, The Fly, p.51]
and that
the light from the sun "comes from the spiritual love-joy of the
spirits surrounding this perfected planet." [Lorber, The Fly, p.52]
Further, that "these spirits are the ones who, through their vibrations of
love and joy, cause the actual illumination of the sun“, [Lorber, The Fly,
p.53] Lorber believed that "these expelled spirits are the actual shining
light of the sun which, when it falls on a planet, imparts the positive part to
it, which is the accompanying light, or rather, the continued love-joy
vibration of the completed spirits."
[Lorber, The Fly, p.54]
For Lorber, "God's revelations regarding health and well-being are
based on a spiritual foundation, and the reader will discover that the origin
of all things is spiritual, not physical."[Lorber, book review of Lord’s
Book of Life and Health]
In a very broad sense, Lorber’s remedies, "prepared with the
healing power of sunlight belong to the category of homeopathy, because both
are based on the same foundation. The reader is shown several ways how the
energy of the sun can be directly bound by the carrier substances of mineral,
animal and plant kingdoms, and how these substances can assist in healing the
mind, body and spirit“, [Book review of The Healing Power of Sunlight]
Sunlight
The process of using sunlight has quite a history, and is clearly akin
to the process of distillation in alchemy and the parallel extends to the way
the sun’s light and heat rays fall upon the earth, lifting water vapour into
the sky and creating clouds, which ultimately returns to earth as rain, frost,
dew, mist or snow. This easily observed aspect of sunshine in the world could
to the metaphysical eye of ancestors be seen to represent a distillation
process in which ingredients of the land and water of the earth are purified,
and rarefied into an invisible vaporous form that is lifted into an essence
state in the air element using the fiery elemental power of sunlight. This
notion, this way of seeing, can be easily extended backwards in time to the
Ancient Egyptians, who revered the Sun [Osiris] and who regarded it not only as
the source of all life on earth, but also as a purifying spiritual agent on the
earth and so also in the life of man.
Such parallels would resonate powerfully with figures like Paracelsus
and Lorber as important antecedents of Hahnemann, Cooper and Bach. Light is
also of course associated with spirit and so resonance can be clearly
established between the sun, light and spirit essences way before the
appearance of Edward Bach. In essence, you cannot get more natural than
sunshine. Therefore, it is replete with many healing overtones.
Paracelsus even declares that an important aim of medicine is "to
bring to light that which lies hidden“, [Coulter, I, 372] This was a crucial
concept to Paracelsus. He also emphasises the central aspect of process -also
called coction, or physis- in normal physiology [e.g. digestion of food], in
disease and in curative therapy.
A good example of Paracelsus’ view is when he says, "the light of
nature in man comes from the stars, and his flesh and blood belong to the
material elements…one is that fundamental light…the second influence emanates
from matter“, [Coulter, I, 397] For he says, it is spirit whose light
"illuminates our work, and our task, our talents and our doctrine“,
[Coulter, I, 463] He also calls alchemy the "eyes of fire“, [Coulter, I,
463] and that the true physician should always strive to drive out whatever is
invisible from medicine [Coulter, I, 463] by letting in the light of nature and
reason. Hence, the true physician "has the true knowledge and experience
of Nature’s light“, [Coulter, 470] and makes all things clear and visible to
the eyes. The sun also represents the life force, the Godhead, Elixir, Gold,
and Healer in ancient medicine.
The alchemists regarded "the energy of the sun and stars as the
power outlets of God“, [Reid] because "the light-energy of the sun is the
source all life“, [Reid] That being the case, "how is one supposed to be
able to capture, store, and use the energy of the sun?" [Reid] The sun has
a healing effect; its rays "fall gently on your shoulders and massage out
the stiffness of the winter“, [Reid]
It was supposed that the energy carried "within the rays of
sunlight that reaches our planet is loaded with universal Sulfur. The gases and
subtle water vapours in our atmosphere interact with this energy and delicately
condense it into a somewhat tangible form. This is the "sidereal
distillation of the macrocosmos"…" [Reid]
As Bach and Cooper discovered, "the best time for collecting this
energy is in the middle of the day when the sun's rays are at their most
intense. You would be right…" [Reid] "The Philosophers speak of two
waters that are the primary cause of creation. Both of these waters are said to
be produced or issue forth from the chaos of the sun“, [Reid]
"Here for the first time the intangible, unseen energy of the sun
is clothed in a material albeit diaphanous garment“, [Reid]
"a very subtle type of alchemical circulation was going on. The
sun's rays enter the earth's atmosphere and react with it“, [Reid]
Certain alchemists regarded gold as being akin to sunlight: "the
concentrated "solidified sunlight“, gold, to gild the body’s immune system
and aura. On a subtle level it actually...[streams] through the body’s
channels." [Feite]
Hahnemann on Vexation
A range of quotations made by Hahnemann and scattered throughout his
works reveal his awareness of the part played in sickness of mental and
emotional strains and upsets. For example, when he says "some violent
exertion of the body or mind, but particularly some shock to the health caused
by some severe external injury, or a very sad event that bowed down the soul,
repeated fright, great grief, sorrow and continuous vexation“, [Hahnemann,
1828, 3] can induce a collapse of good health. He says that is especially those
who "have been exposed to many mental exertions and thousand fold
vexations of spirit“, [Hahnemann, 1828, 44] where sickness will crop out.
Health, he says, will be vouchsafed if "he may also lead a quite
endurable life…without much hindrance, attend to his business as long as he is
young or still in his vigorous years, and so long as he does not suffer any
particular mishap from without, has a satisfactory income, does not live in
vexation or grief, does not overexert himself; especially if he is of quite a
cheerful, equable, patient, contented, disposition“, [Hahnemann, 1828, 47]
However, "as soon as these persons advance in age, even moderate causes (a
slight vexation, or a cold, or an error in diet“, [Hahnemann, 1828, 48] or are
visited by some upset "caused by mental disturbance (grief, fright,
vexation), a chill, over-exertion of the mind or body immediately after
eating“, [Hahnemann, 1810, intro] "a vexation (sometimes even a
bewitchment), etc“, [Hahnemann, 1810, aph.206] then sickness of some form is
almost bound to follow in its wake.
Hahnemann said he could see no internal innermost essence to any disease
and to search for one was futile. Hahnemann bemoans the "search into the
internal essence of diseases“, [Ameke, 95] which he regards as an utterly
futile endeavour. He also condemns any medical system that searches out and
respects only "the mechanical origin of diseases...[and] which derives
diseases from the original form of the parts“, [Ameke, 95]
However, Hahnemann -like Bach, Paracelsus and Bailey- regarded sickness
as due to "a morbid derangement of the internal dynamis“, [Hahnemann,
1810, Aph. 12] and an affection of the "morbidly deranged spirit-like
dynamis“, [Hahnemann, 1810, Aph.15]
He declared all diseases act to "dynamically derange the living
organism…[by deranging] the automatic life-energy, called vital force“,
[Hahnemann, 1810, Aph.72] He regarded "symptoms…[as] the expression of the
vital force untuned“, [Handley, 66] He also states that "diseases obviously
are not and cannot be mechanical or chemical changes in the material substance
of the body...but are an exclusively dynamic, spirit-like untunement of life“,
[Hahnemann, 1810, Aph.31] All these views undoubtedly place Hahnemann close to
Cooper, Bach, Paracelsus and Bailey in the way he perceives sickness and the
conceptual basis upon which he constructs his medical system.
Hahnemann's expresses his own sentiments in the Organon [Aphorisms 11
[9, 10], 15 and 16]: "let it be granted now...that no disease...is caused
by any material substance, but that every one is only and always a peculiar,
virtual, dynamic derangement of the health“, [Hahnemann, Organon, Aphorisms 11
[9, 10], 15 and 16] Such is certainly a view of disease as a "dynamic
derangement of the life force“, [Close, 37-8, 74] As Hahnemann states,
"fright, fear, horror, anger, vexation, a chill, &c., are impressions
that do not present themselves in a concrete form, that cannot be subjected to
physical. Investigation“, [Hahnemann, 1809] but he regards them all as reliable
triggers of sickness.
The Bailey essences developed in
The initial inspiration for the Bailey essences, "was the work of
Dr Bach, but they are not produced in quite the same way. They are usually made
by floating the flowers in
a bowl of spring water in full sunlight for several hours (Sun method).
This "Mother Tincture" is then diluted in an alcohol preservative to
make the bottled essences.
Dr Bach's boiling method has been replaced with alcohol extraction,
which gives a more rounded quality to the essences. In this case, the essences
are floated in alcohol for
15 minutes (apart from Pine Cones which are left for several hours). For
one essence, Cymbidium Orchid, we use moonlight in a similar way to the sun
method”. [Bailey]
The Bailey essences "are not medicines as the word is normally
understood. They are not intended to cure or alleviate any medical condition.
Their mode of operation is to help to rebalance the mind-body-spirit unity of
the person taking them. However, physical health and symptoms are related to
the internal harmony within the being, so improvements in clinical conditions
may well be experienced. They are catalysts for change, not medicines that
impose their effects on the body“, [Bailey] These points could equally be
applied to Bach Flower remedies and even to homeopathy. Neither are really
‘medicines’ in the narrow and ordinary allopathic sense either.
When Bailey says, "as a child I was always drawn towards flowers. I
found them fascinating with all their different colours, smells and shapes. To
me they were beautiful and somehow mysterious“, [Bailey] then he again echoes
similar sentiments expressed by Bach, Cooper and Paracelsus: they all equally
resonated with nature and wild plants.
The present range of Bailey essences is "primarily concerned with
personal growth and liberation. This does not mean…[they] cannot help physical
illnesses - far from it.
Yet their main emphasis is that of helping to integrate mind, body and
spirit. We need to break the hold of old conditionings and beliefs which can so
deny us our freedom.
As these old patterns ease away, we need support and insight so that we
can find our own true path in life“, [Bailey] The first Bailey essences
"were then prepared from them using Dr Bach's "Sun" method…"
but "they were not for emotional states like the Bach ones“, [Bailey]
In the above sense, they were therefore "quite different from the
Bach remedies. Indeed, it is our attitudes of mind that give rise to negative
emotional states…many of us are severely restricted in our freedom to live life
as we would wish. These restrictions usually stem from childhood, when the
development of true self-confidence is often stunted. As a result we also lack
confidence in our innate spiritual natures“, [Bailey]
Bailey says that he "discovered for myself, experience is far
superior to belief. Beliefs are usually based on what other people have told
us, and may be totally untrue. Personal experience, even though it can be
misinterpreted, is a far surer path“, [Bailey] Such a sentiment is often
expressed by pioneers and empirics of all types - like Hahnemann, Cooper, Bach
and Paracelsus. Examples include where Cooper declares, "any departure
that I may be guilty of from the beaten tracks is to be judged of simply and
solely by result“, [Cooper, Feb 1893, 67] He always claimed to be
"returning to the methods which, in the early days of homeopathy,
Hahnemann undoubtedly employed“, [Cooper, Feb 1893, 66] Cooper reveals his
truly reforming and experimental character when he states that "all great
improvements in science are made by men who throw off the trammels
of previous teachings and begin by a complete and radical overhauling of
the entire subject“, [Cooper, 1894, 389].
He personally resolved "to throw aside all provings and repertories
and to rely simply upon the action of the uninterfered-with curative principle
of plants…" [Cooper, Jan 1893, 14]
Like Paracelsus before him, Hahnemann also despised book learning as a
source of medical truth. What he also called "speculative refinements,
arbitrary axioms…dogmatic assumptions…[and the] magnificent conjuring games of
so-called theoretical medicine“, [Ameke, 134] Instead, he reserved his greatest
respect for "a science of pure experience…knowledge of the disease to be treated
and the actions of drugs”. [Ameke, 134]
These, he insists can only be deduced "from pure experience and
observation.“, [Ameke, 134] Such words could equally be those of Bailey,
Cooper, Bach or Paracelsus.
More Bach
In the early phase of developing the BFRs, "he potentised these
remedies [Impatiens, Mimulus and Clematis] and prescribed them purely on the
basis of the mental and emotional constitutional features of the patient”. [van
Haselen, 122; see E Bach, Homeopathic World, Feb 1930] These were in fact the
first three of the 37 BFRs to be discovered [Weeks, 41]. Putting microbiology
firmly behind him, in 1930, he pursued development of the BFRs with renewed
vigour [van Haselen, 122]. He then "went
to Wales to find new remedies, which is where he also discovered the new
method of ‘potentisation’ involving placing the fresh flowers…in a bowl with
spring water and exposing them to direct sunlight“, [van Haselen, 122]
His new method of remedy preparation also involved boiling "flowers
and twigs of trees, bushes and plants…which bloom early in the year before
there is enough sunshine“, [van Haselen, 122]
In 1930-31 he also made the "definitive break between the new
system of healing he propagated and homeopathy“, [van Haselen, 122] He
considered his new system to be "a further advancement
of the principles laid down by Hahnemann“, [van Haselen, 122] but that
is not how homeopaths saw it, and increasingly his views were "not well
received in homeopathic circles“, [van Haselen, 122]
Certainly, he viewed sickness as "a learning process…to help us
understand more about ourselves“, [van Haselen, 122; see also Dethlefsen, 1990]
and profoundly, like Hahnemann, he believed that "health comes when we
regain harmony between our physical and spiritual selves“, [van Haselen, 122]
But Bach’s departure from homeopathy can in part be appreciated when we regard
his "exclusive focus on the mental state of the sufferer“, [van Haselen,
122] which is so characteristic of his new approach, but which is by no means
the only focus for the homeopath.
Like Hahnemann, he also believed in the innate "self-healing energy
in the patient“, [van Haselen, 123] what he called the "self-regulating
vital force, the vis medicatrix naturae“, [van Haselen, 123] Both he and
Hahnemann were "exponents of the empirical…therapeutic method…in which
symptoms and signs of the curative effort of the dynamis…must be interpreted as
positive or beneficial phenomena“, [van Haselen, 123]
They both therefore stand in the grand Hippocratic medical tradition.
Bach also believed that remedies should "not be repeated once improvement
has taken place“, [van Haselen, 123] This type of ‘therapeutic minimalism’ is
certainly normal practice in homeopathy, where too frequent repetition of
remedies is generally condemned both as uncurative and potentially damaging to
the patient.
Both systems also "aim to transfer the healing energy contained in
the source material to a pharmaceutical medium and involve a form of
energisation“, [van Haselen, 123] However, it is equally clear that Bach
departed from mainstream homeopathy in his preferred mode of remedy
‘potentisation’ using spring water and sunlight. He "claimed
to have found a simple and more perfect method of energisation“, [van
Haselen, 123] by which the "healing energy of plants…concentrated in its
flowers…could be passed into a carrier [water] by the energy of the sun“, [van
Haselen, 123] For some plant species he employs "boiling the fresh flowers
and twigs of trees, bushes“, [van Haselen, 123] etc to obtain a decoction or
infusion of the plant’s healing energy. By "simple and more perfect
method“, he might have meant a method more suitable for remedies made from
flower essences and suited for use based on emotional profiles, NOT a method
superior to Hahnemannian potentisation.
Clearly therefore, these methods "are different from potentisation
as used in homeopathy“, [van Haselen, 123] and it would be futile to pretend
otherwise. For example, "exposure of [homeopathic] remedies to direct
sunlight or intense heat is thought to inactivate“, [van Haselen, 123] them and
are therefore factors specifically to be avoided
in order to vouchsafe the longevity of homeopathic remedies.
Nevertheless, one might say the two systems acknowledge "the influence of
direct sunlight and intense heat on the energy contained in [medicinal]
substances“, [van Haselen, 124] or indeed, upon plant and animal extracts.
Thus, even an apparent difference between the two systems can be seen to
contain a similarity.
In relation to finding some common ground, then homeopathy and the BFRs,
both "contain a non-material healing energy“, [van Haselen, 123] They are
also prescribed "based on presenting symptomatic layer“, [van Haselen,
123] and they both aim to mobilise the "self-healing vital force“, [van
Haselen, 123] which they both recognise as the source of all natural healing.
Sir John Weir [1879-1970] said in an address that homeopathic "remedies do
not act directly on disease; they merely stimulate the vital reactions of the
patient, and this causes him to cure himself“, [Weir, 200-201] Both systems
"use single remedies“, [van Haselen, 123] which are "not to be
repeated once improvement takes place“, [van Haselen, 123] All these points of
obvious similarity between them inevitably bring the two systems into close
proximity.
In the quite other sense, that "Bach’s aim was to develop a system
which was simple and accessible in order to promote self-help“, [van Haselen,
124] for the common weal
of humanity, then he resembles Dr John Henry Clarke [1853-1931], who
deliberately taught lay persons homeopathy, and lent bold support to lay
homeopathy, either through genuine conviction or to aggravate those faculty
doctors who he despised as traitors, and who condemned such an approach as
beneath their professional dignity [see Morrell, 1999, 190]. It is also of
interest that Dr Clarke was editor of The Homeopathic World until his death in
1931 and it was therefore he who published all Bach’s most controversial papers
on vaccines and Flower remedies during the 1920s. [see also Morrell, 1999]
Robert Thomas Cooper
Clarke was also a big friend of Dr Robert T Cooper [1844-1903] who
originally used the sunshine method of remedy preparation, [‘arborivital
medicine’] as also was
Dr Charles Edwin Wheeler, with whom Bach had worked on nosodes.
Therefore, the claim that Bach did not know about sunshine making remedies
looks far less credible,
the deeper one probes into that very small world of British homeopathy,
1900-1930; that all these people knew each other and were on friendly terms
somewhat erodes the validity of the claim made that Bach just plucked original
ideas from thin air.
It is genuinely hard to believe that no such influence took place. It is
hard to believe that he lived in the tiny world of
Dr John Henry CLARKE (1853-1931)
Dr Charles Edwin WHEELER (1868-1946)
However, unlike Clarke, Bach seems to have genuinely espoused a ‘treat
yourself’ medical philosophy and may therefore be credited with genuine
foresight in conceiving of
a medicine "for the purposes of self-help“, [van Haselen, 124]
because in recent times "over the counter [OTC] self-treatment has become
very popular“, [van Haselen, 124] whether for tissue salts, homeopathy,
aromatherapy or Bach Flower essences.
However, this was not so much the case back in the 1930s. The easy
do-it-yourself method Bach employed, of preparing remedies, by floating flowers
in spring water for 3 hours in direct sunshine [Shaw, 12] allows anyone to make
their own remedies and so frees them "from dependence on doctors and
medical systems, and allowed them the power to heal themselves“, [Shaw, 12]
Certainly Bach viewed sickness "as a ‘correction’ of an error“,
[van Haselen, 125] - shades there once again of
on the importance of compassion as part of the healing process“, [van
Haselen, 125] One might well agree with van Haselen that "although
homeopathy and DBS are clearly different, relationships between both systems
exist“, [van Haselen, 126] Many homeopaths would also agree with him that the "flower
remedies can be used to ‘open up’ a case by stimulating the vital force“, [van
Haselen, 126] Therefore, "although both systems are clearly different,
some common ground exists…both systems may have a complementary role which is
perhaps insufficiently recognised“, [van Haselen, 126]
Bach clearly "recognised that mental and emotional symptoms were
the most important ones“, [Franz, 29] He employed "potentised nosodes from
the pathological intestinal flora“, [Franz, 29-30] and prescribed them
"according to the mental and emotional symptoms that he recorded
intuitively“, [Franz, 29-30] and which he saw in patients. He regarded the
intestinal toxaemia as analogous to "the physical substrate of Hahnemann’s
Psora“, [Franz, 30] which Steiner construed as: "if our egos are low our
intestinal flora is pathological“, [Franz, 30] Eventually, Bach "looked
for plants that could replace these nosodes“, [Franz, 30] but similarly
selected them on the basis of emotional symptoms.
To prepare his essences, Bach used "water from a certain spring“,
[Franz, 30] and being "inspired by the sunlit morning dew, he developed a
new method for capturing the ethereal plant quality in remedies - comparable to
the ‘arcanum’ of Paracelsus“, [Franz, 30] When Franz says Bach also ‘cooked’
some remedies "in water over a wood fire to utilise the sun’s energy of
the past few years“, [Franz, 30-31] he presumably means that the wood
represents the sun’s light energy captured in life as growth by the plant and
then released by the flames of the fire.
Few would dispute Franz’s assessment that the "Bach flower remedy
is best compared to a low homeopathic LM or Q potency“, [Franz, 31] and that
they lead to "stimulation of a person’s self-healing strengths“, [Franz,
32]
He also thinks that "homeopathic remedies and Bach essences act as
a catalyst“, [Franz, 32] to stimulate innate self-healing processes. Franz
claims that "Hering’s law is also observed“, [Franz, 32] in the action of
Bach flower essences, and also observes that Bach contends, as with homeopathy,
that "there is a constitutional remedy for each person“, [Franz, 32-33]
Franz clearly believes "they act directly at the emotional level“, [Franz,
33] for he regards this as a fulfilment of Bach’s main "objective…to
determine the emotional state of the patient“, [Franz, 29] and upon which he
believes the entire Bach system is based. Franz estimates that "both in
the preparation of remedies in homeopathy and also the preparation of Bach
flower remedies are based on the principles of alchemy“, [Franz, 33]
Bach professed -just like Paracelsus and Cooper- an "overwhelming
love for nature“, [
Paracelsus and van Helmont used the term "archeus…which referred to
the human vital force“, [Richardson, 174] The matter did not rest there,
however, as they further contended that "each organ had its own specific
archeus, with the stomach being the leading factor“, [Richardson, 174]. In
their system, "disease sprang from specific seeds, ‘semina’…[related to]
certain invisible disease patterns“, [Richardson, 174] It was these invisible
disease patterns that could affect "the archeus undermining its healthy
functioning“, [
A very good example of the parallel between Bach and homeopathy concerns
the plant, Walnut [Juglans regia]. In the 19th century, "homeopathic
investigations revealed Juglans regia…as beneficial in migraine headaches, and
Bach considered this plant as a unique and protective healer that shields the
mind from heightened impressionability and suggestibility“, [Richardson, 175]
Other examples have been less interesting as the profiles of some homeopathic
drugs also used by Bach do not reveal so much overlap
in their therapeutic range of application within the two systems.
Dr Jean-Baptiste VAN HELMONT (1577-1644) Like Bach and Hahnemann, van
Helmont "also hinted at the power of the mind in the causation of
disease…[especially that] fear or loss of honour could start an illness“,
[Richardson, 175] He saw disease as often being caused by "an intruding
archeus…[leading to] an unbalanced organism…led by the imagination“,
[Richardson, 175] Again we see the connection between the ideas of Hahnemann,
Paracelsus, van Helmont and Bach. Certainly, "Hahnemann reflects van
Helmont’s notion that the image of disease is originated in the
mental/spiritual realm, in the imagination, which is located in the archeus“,
[Richardson, 175] According to van Helmont, "illness begins as the
personal archeus becomes subjected to the archeus of another life form…[which]
imparts a new and erroneous image to the increasingly unbalanced vital force“,
[Richardson, 175] This is not so far as it might seem from what Hahnemann and
Bach were also saying. In this way, the organism "falls out of tune
initially and then becomes accessible to invasion by a foreign archeus“,
[Richardson, 175] Such would be the ‘error’ of Bach, the miasm of Hahnemann and
Hahnemann also "believed that consciously held erroneous thoughts
or beliefs could spark disease“, [
[and represents] the highest immaterial or spiritual extraction of
medicines“, [Richardson, 176] Kent’s view that potentised remedies contain
"purely energetic medicinal powers imprinted on the water/alcohol medium
during preparation“, [Richardson, 176] is entirely consistent with the views of
Hahnemann and Bach, and they would probably all further agree with him that
such remedies resonate "profoundly with the soul, mind and will“,
[Richardson, 176]
Rudolf STEINER regarding sunlight, perhaps Bach, like Rudolf Steiner,
"linked the power of the sun…to the human heart as a seat of goodness“,
[Richardson, 176]
This might partially explain his insistent connection of the flower
remedies to basically emotional states of health or sickness. Steiner also
"used various methods of energetic potentisation…[including] exposure to
light or heat“, [Richardson, 176] For Steiner, and Hahnemann and Bach,
"natural agents are selected to uplift the disharmonious human condition
to a more synchronised one“, [
In these entire natural healing systems it is quite apparent that they
"aspire to utilise the harmony of nature for the [treatment of the]
diseased human being“, [Richardson, 177] It is hard to see how any of the great
pioneers of natural medicine would disagree with that sentiment, which reads like
the ultimate summary of or last word on this subject.
Bach affirmed that "all diseases begin in the mind…[resulting from]
errors in the personality“, [Richardson II, 26] This notion is akin to "disease
begins in the imagination, according to van Helmont, or is conceived on the
spirit-like, dynamic plane, according to Hahnemann“, [Richardson II, 26] The
difference, if any, between them is subtle if not non-existent. It also
approaches the fundamental innate Psora of Kent.
His method of using "freshly plucked flowers…floated onto the
surface of water in the open air and sunshine for optimal release of subtle,
ethereal healing powers…[is] catalysed by the four elements of fire, water, air
and earth“, [Richardson II, 26] These remedies clearly "derive their
healing powers from the [same] sunshine and heat which deactivate homeopathic
remedies“, [Richardson II, 26-27] What might be termed "the special method
of Bach Flower potentisation“, [Richardson II, 27] using sunlight and spring
water, "enables Bach to achieve the desired vibrational power and healing
effect within the personality sphere of the human being“, [Richardson II, 27]
It might be assumed, therefore, that this "catalytic power of the BFRs in
freeing the vital force from disease patterns or foreign archeus“, [Richardson
II, 27] achieves this result solely by "addressing the root of the
personality“, [Richardson II, 27] rather than by any imagined impact upon the
biological or physiological plane of organism functioning. Improvement in the
emotional plane is then deemed to be transferred to the biological plane. This
again is reminiscent of
It is also clear that in his first ‘nosode phase,’ of medical research,
Bach "had attempted to match the healing vibrations of the nosodes to
those of the healing plants of nature, which he later identified as the Bach
Flower Remedies“, [Richardson II, 27] This might be seen as strong evidence
that all along he had been in hot pursuit of a mental/emotional form of healing
as one of his primary objectives. We might well conclude therefore, that
"errors in the personality, as well as the forces of aging or the
consequences of accidents or other events, may propel distortions in the
personal archeus or vital force“, [Richardson II, 27] In this way, disease
expression "is shaped by the person’s temperament, while being
predetermined by genetic and miasmatic heritage“, [Richardson II, 27]
The Bach system clearly acknowledges that the vital force becomes
"more challenged during times of stress and adversity“, [Richardson II,
27] and in that sense, the BFRs could well be "more subtle than
homeopathic remedies…[in addressing] the first tendencies in the personality to
distortion and imbalance…[which] appear even before the archeus becomes deeply
affected“, [Richardson II, 27] that is even before sickness has become
manifested at the level of physical symptoms of ill-health. It is as if the BFR
sphere of action is at the pre-physical or pre-biological level of organism
functioning, what
"all disease causes are in Simple Substance. We must enter the
realm of causes in order to see the nature of disease“, [Kent, 1926]
Empiricists like Paracelsus, Hahnemann and Bach were "rejecting
sterile rationalism“, [
Paracelsus saw words "as the bark covering the sap of invisible
arcane knowledge“, [McLean, 112] just as
[
Philippus Theophrastus Bombastus Von HOHENHEIM PARACELSUS (1493-1541)
For Paracelsus, "each individuum was wholly peculiar and…[for him] there
were as many diseases as patients“, [McLean, 170]
Bach and Hahnemann would agree. Another important connecting link to
Paracelsus is found in Bach’s intuitive use of signatures in finding the plants
he desired. Yet, "the correspondence theory of signatures in plants…is the
most contentious manifestation“, [
simple one, but easily opens to misinterpretation and
over-simplification.
A good example of Paracelsus’ qualification as a radical empiricist,
like Bach, is when he "thought he could learn more medicine by travelling
and observing than from any library“, [French, 148] which is certainly a
sentiment reminiscent of Bach’s travels in the English countryside searching
for healing plants. The notion is further repeated when Paracelsus insists that
"God sent diseases, but also cures; and it was the true doctor who could
recognise from signs the abundant natural remedies that God had provided“,
[French, 149] He also held that the true knowledge of medicine "was not to
be acquired from authority, but existed in the natural objects themselves“,
[French, 149] Such is precisely Bach’s perhaps naïve view that numerous would-be
healing plants were simply ‘out there’ in the lanes and fields just waiting to
be discovered. Bach also felt that "Nature was always lavish in her gifts
to man“, [Weeks, 49]
Original sin?
A useful link exists in Bach's thinking can be seen regarding homeopathy
and the miasms. Bach realised with Bowel nosodes that when a case becomes stuck
in homeopathic treatment, the bowel flora then becomes pathological and that
when this is potentised to make a remedy then it unblocks the stuck case for
normal homeopathic remedies to then resume their good work.
He then identified this state in two ways - an emotional profile of the
patient as a reliable guide to the nosode [and later to the flower remedy] and
that this blocked state was indicative of latent Psora, or the fundamentally
psoric state first described by Hahnemann. Thus, Bach clearly forms conceptual
bridges from nosodes to vexation, which Hahnemann saw as a fundamental cause of
sickness, then to the bowel flora, to emotional symptoms and thus to the flower
remedies and miasms all apparently in one leap.
This also suggests that Bach, like Hahnemann, thought sickness to
primarily stem from a deeper and invisible predisposing cause of a universal
character, just as the miasms of Hahnemann are seen by most homeopaths. Perhaps
Bach, like Hahnemann and Paracelsus, felt we are all sick in the same primary
or fundamental sense of
This sense that we are all ‘fallen beings’ is what
When Kent said, "Psora is the beginning of all physical
sickness...is the underlying cause and is the primitive or primary disorder of
the human race“, [Kent, 1980, 126] he meant to say that "it goes to the
very primitive wrong of the human race, the very first sickness of the human
race that is the spiritual sickness...which in turn laid the foundation for
other diseases“, [Kent, 1980, 126] He called Psora, "this outgrowth, which
has come upon man from living a life of evil willing“, [Kent, 1926, 654] He
clearly echoes earlier medical writers where "the fallen condition of
mankind was blamed for the ubiquity of sickness, suffering and the empire of
the Grim Reaper. Through their original sin, Adam and Eve had brought disease
and death into the world as punishments for disobedience“, [Porter, 1986, 27]
Certain diseases have long been "associated with the Almighty's punishment
of sin“, [Porter, 1998, 84] Sufferings of all kinds "could be a godsend
and a trial. ’Blessed is the man, whom God correcteth,' declared Job, singled
out by the Lord to undergo great suffering..“, [Porter, 1998, 85]
In many times and cultures, sickness was "regarded as part of God's
design for the individual [bringing training and a sense of God's mercy] then
the intervention of the physician is incompatible with the notion of God's
purpose. That is medicine is seen to interfere with a religious plan. In any
case, the Christian theologians often regarded human maladies...as charged with
spiritual powers....by stressing the educative aspect of sickness; the Church
was able to accept the role of the physician as compatible with these Christian
principles“, [Turner, 27]
Kent unambiguously declares that "had Psora never been established
as a miasm upon the human race...susceptibility to acute diseases would have
been impossible...it is the foundation of all sickness“, [
It is clear from these quotes that
Summary
I do not wish to force the issue about influences upon Bach because we
simply do not know much with great certainty; we can only point to various
probabilities. It is perfectly possible that Bach, like many empirics before
him, simply discovered his remedies and their mode of preparation for himself,
in his own way, in isolation from any prior knowledge of Cooper, Paracelsus or
Lorber. This can be true of all empirics and pioneers in any field. However, it
is also possible that, like Hahnemann, he did recognise these influences of
predecessors, but chose not to reveal the more obvious links to the pioneers in
his own field. And if he did do that, again, no shame is attached because we can
only guess at the possible motives that led him to adopt such a path.
Regardless of such influences, if they exist, he was still an original pioneer
of a new medical system distinctive in its own way, though with obvious
connections to the other systems.
In summary, this detailed survey shows that there are infinitely more
similarities between homeopathy and BFR than differences. Most objections to
this view of a common underpinning rationale seem both feeble and to stem from
pedantic hair splitting by parties on both sides who probably wish to keep the
two systems separate for solely commercial purposes. For example, Bach first
launched his remedies "through the homeopathic pharmacies“, [Barnard, 299]
even though he himself "made clear that the flower remedies were not
homeopathic“, [Barnard, 299] and that they are not prepared "by
homeopathic methods“, [Barnard, 299]
Although one might justifiably say the BFR are based upon "a
pseudo-homeopathic dilution“, [Barnard, 300] system and "based more upon quality
and not a quantity“, [Barnard, 301] but exactly the same can be said for
homeopathic remedies and so the ‘score’ remains tilted in favour of similarity
rather than difference. Many different types of dilution are employed by
homeopaths and they are clearly based more upon quality than quantity. Indeed,
numerous homeopaths have said that they contain none of the original substance
molecules.
In a letter of 1982, Richard Katz, President of the Flower Essence
Society, claims that BFR and homeopathic remedies "are distinctly
different“, [Katz, 1] from each other and that because "unlike homeopathic
remedies…
[their preparation] involves the action of the sun“, [Katz, 1] so
"they are not homeopathic remedies“, [Katz, 1] Indeed, as he points out,
the Bach centre "was adamant in insisting“, [Katz, 1] on such a difference
for years. Although Katz quite rightly insists, the "properties attributed
to flower essences have not been derived from standard homeopathic provings“,
[Katz, 1] yet nor have certain remedies and views of homeopaths like Cooper,
Scholten and Whitmont. Even some of
Although Katz claims that "flower essences are a form of
‘alchemical’ transformation of consciousness and are essentially a method of
spiritual healing“, [Katz, 2] yet exactly the same claim can be made for the
medical systems of Paracelsus, van Helmont, Cooper and Hahnemann and for
exactly the same reasons.
It is not strictly true that "the Bach method of preparation is not
in any way similar to the homeopathic method“, [Bach Remedy Newsletter, Sept
1979, 178] for, as we have seen, there are indeed at least as many similarities
as differences. Nor, therefore, does it necessarily follow from this that
"a different force is set free by the trituration and succussion used in
preparing homeopathic remedies“, [Bach Remedy Newsletter, Dec 1977, 118]
That is merely an opinion, for no-one knows with any certainty what the
underlying ethereal basis of homeopathic remedies or Bach essences is.
Therefore, it is not possible to say definitively that "their higher
radiations still cannot be obtained that way“, [Bach Remedy Newsletter, Dec
1977, 118] or that the BFR "obtain the highest form of radiation…which is
the ultimate potency…[which] cannot be increased“, [Bach Remedy Newsletter,
Sept 1979, 178] The claim that there are no "higher potencies of the Bach
Remedies - for life force cannot be increased“, [Bach Remedy Newsletter, Dec 1977,
118] is therefore another meaningless statement that cannot be corroborated and
so must be seen as a mere statement of opinion.
As I said at the outset, any classification scheme is ultimately an
arbitrary human construct designed for convenience. For convenience, I can see
good clear reasons to regard BFR as a form of homeopathy, even though it
deviates from pure homeopathy in a number of key respects: no provings, no
succussion, no trituration, no use of physical symptoms and use of sunlight.
In presenting a detailed study of the myriad connections between
homeopathy and BFR, I find that there are many more similarities than
differences, both at the conceptual level and in methodology. I see no reason,
therefore, why these similarities cannot be justly used as the basis for legal
and regulatory purposes of classifying the BFR system as a form of homeopathy,
distinctive in its own ways, but nevertheless sufficiently similar for this
approach to inflict no lasting harm to either system. It is the only other natural
therapy that stands anywhere near close to it and with which it has clear
historical links. Thus, for the convenience of legal and regulatory purposes
there is little to be lost by placing them in the same category side by side as
very similar systems of therapy.
Vorwort/Suchen Zeichen/Abkürzungen Impressum