Organon Hahnemann


Vergleich: Siehe: Anhang (Julian Winston Comparison Edition 5 th and 6th)


Alle Aphorismen in: deutsch


[Gill Graham]

The Organon and Homeopathic Philosophy

The Organon of Medicine, written by S. Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy is the cornerstone of homeopathic principles and practice. The 1st edition was written in 1810 in aphoristic style (paragraphs with numbers.) The book lays out the doctrines of homeopathy in a logical sequence of thoughts, philosophy and practice. In total there were 6 editions, 5 of which were published in Hahnemann’s lifetime, the 6th completed in 1842, but he sadly passed away in June of 1843 before it could be published. Thanks to the efforts of William Boericke. the 6th edition was published in 1921.

In order to fully embrace homeopathy, it is helpful to understand basic homeopathic philosophy. With patients, and those that wish to learn, I repeatedly refer to the mind/body connection and how symptoms should be treated in their totality as opposed to being seen as separate problems.  The fundamental tenet of homeopathic medicine is to treat the imbalances of ‘the vital force’ leading to ill health as a whole, ideally with one remedy which matches the symptoms of the mind, body and spirit (this remedy is known as the Simillimum.) The Vital Force is an undefined energy, capable of fuelling an organism, it is inherent in all living things, which if disrupted or disturbed can result in disease. “The material organism without the vital force is capable of no sensation, no function, no self preservation;

it derives all sensations, and performs all functions of life solely by means of the immaterial being (the vital force) which animates the material organism in health and disease.” (Aphorism 10, The Organon)

Hahnemann refers to it also as ‘dynamis’, ‘vital principle’ and ‘vital energy’. James Tyler Kent refers to it as ‘The Simple Substance,’ which is the dominating force in the organism; the absence of this force, is death.  To help with an understanding of this, energy parallels can be found in various cultures; the Ancient Chinese know The Vital Force as ‘Chi, the Japanese and Koreans as ‘Ki’ and in the ancient Sanskrit writings of India it is known as ‘Prana.’ Underlying this, there are 4 basic principles which govern homeopathy; each of which will be discussed.

1st principle: the law of similars

The derivation of the word ‘Homeopathy’ (originally homoeopathie) comes from the Greek homoeo, meaning ‘similar’, and pathos, meaning ‘suffering’. This leads on to the first principle which is

‘Similia Similbus Curentur,’ translated from the Latin as: ‘like cures like.’ This principle predates Hahnemann and in fact, goes back to ancient ayurvedic scripts. The idea/concept of ‘The Law of Similars’ had first been mentioned by Hippocrates (The Father of Medicine, 460-377 B.C.) then by P.A. Paracelsus (1493-1541) although Hahnemann was responsible for creating ‘Homeopathy’ as we now know it, a complete system of medicine. Through much research and hands on practice, Hahnemann proved that a substance that can cause disease in a healthy person, can actively heal the same or similar disease in another. For example, Belladonna, a well known homeopathic remedy is used to treat high fevers, redness in the face and tongue. Were belladonna to be ingested in its raw form, the symptoms of the poisoning would be exactly this. Also, think of what happens when you are exposed to a raw onion.  Your eyes water and nose burns.  The homeopathic remedy allium cepa (made from onion) can relieve these symptoms, once again, treating ‘like with like.’ The task of the homeopath is to match the patients’ symptoms to the correct homeopathic remedy, specifically those that are characteristic to the patient. This is explained in aphorism 26 in the Organon, where Hahnemann states: ‘In the living organism a weaker, dynamic affection is permanently extinguished by a stronger one which although different in nature nevertheless, greatly resembles it in its expression.’ The simillimum is just that, totality; not partial, but a complete reflection of a state that is mentally, physically and spiritually in alignment with its subject.

2nd principle: the single remedy

The Single Remedy. Hahnemann was forceful in his opinion in prescribing with one remedy for the totality of symptoms, using words such as ‘it is inadmissible’ to prescribe more than one remedy at

a time (Aphorism 273, The Organon.) The reasoning and thinking behind this lies in the fact that if many remedies were prescribed at once, it would be impossible to ascertain which remedy was actually working and could massively confuse a case. It is simple common sense when we consider that each remedy is ‘proved’ individually, the combined interaction of many remedies’ at once has not been.

This obviously has many similarities to where a GP of conventional medicine, prescribes single drugs for single complaints, the interaction of all these drugs, collectively untested, at times, with devastating consequences. Why should homeopathy be any different, given the powerful effects of so many of the remedies?

It remains the case that there will always be one remedy that resonates with a case more than another; wherever possible, the homeopath should go with this. However, as ever in life, there will always be grey areas and flexibility at times is necessary as long as a remedy is given sufficient time to act, and if there is a definite change in the presenting symptoms and aspect of the Vital Force.  In this instance Hahnemann, in the 4th edition of the Organon suggested that remedies could be alternated, given in short succession, and condones the use of tissue salts, in specific cases that demanded a different approach. Catherine Coulter, in ‘The unfolding of Experience’ sums up the ideal situation in prescribing, by stating that: ‘the strongest, deepest current in classical homeopathy – the tug that pulls the stream to the river and the river to the sea- is to address the multiple manifestations of the single disordered life-force with a single remedy; in a phrase, to shape unity from multiplicity.’ (Coulter, C: 2008:100) It remains the case that if this pure, philosophically appropriate method of prescribing can be attained and in whilst doing so, promotes healing without other remedies being involved, we have demonstrated the dynamic power of pure, classical homeopathy.

3rd principle: the minimum dose

Healing should be done ‘rapidly, gently and permanently; to remove and destroy the whole disease in the shortest, surest, least harmful way, according to clearly comprehensible principles.’ (Aphorism 2.) The minimum dose of a remedy, (one of these principles) simply means the minutest amount of a substance to nudge the vital force in the direction of healing. Too high a potency of a remedy or unnecessary repetition can result in unwelcome aggravations.  In homeopathy, less is more. The body has a way of signaling through the manifestation of symptoms, when a higher potency is needed or more frequent repetition of a remedy.

If there was one ‘principle’ in homeopathy that people had a problem with understanding, it would be the infinitesimal doses of a remedy given; in other words, the perception is, there is nothing in a remedy. This has been said to me on many occasions. However, it remains the case that empirically, and in thousands of studies, both observational and through clinical outcome and randomized controlled trials, homeopathy has been seen to heal many people worldwide. For those who cannot come to terms with the fact that homeopathic remedies do not contain any active material because of the molecular limits of Avogrado’s number, the current scientific evidence suggests that homeopathic remedies are nanoparticles and not ordinary conventional bulks of source material. Given this, intense scientific consideration must be seriously focused now on how nano particles can act in the body to stimulate a healing process. Much of this research is headed by Dr Iris Bell (MD, Ph.D.) from the University of Arizona College of Medicine, and for those who would like more detailed information, please read and study the research: (Bell, I, Koithan, M, 2012.) Research in this area is ongoing and is constantly being updated, by various eminent scientists and homeopaths throughout the world.

4th principle: the potentized remedy.

Homeopathic remedies are made from natural substances such as plants, minerals and animals but the process of their manufacture is unlike that of any other medicine. A remedy made from a specific substance is put through a process of serial dilution, the end result being a very dilute extract is made.  Each step of this dilution involves the substance being shaken with force; homeopathically this is referred to as ‘succussion.’ It has been found that by succusing in this way the remedy becomes active and dynamic (generally latent in its crude form) and the degree of the succussion produces a final potency of a remedy which will be given in accordance with the presenting vital force. Fundamentally, potentization means that a substance has been prepared according to homeopathic philosophy and homeopathic pharmaceutical standards, through serial dilution and succussion.


How Aphorism 27 Changed The World -by Grant Bentley reviewed by Vatsala Sperling.

Grant Bentley takes a fresh look at the Organon to see which aspects still ring true today, and which aspects were products of his own thinking that are not necessarily “laws” we need to follow strictly.

Ever since H. wrote the Organon of the medical art, homeopaths have been divided about whether to blindly follow every word written by Hahnemann or to be a rebel, question him, and chart a new course while still following the basic principles of homeopathy. This division continues to the present moment and shows no indication of going away. Books on the Organon written by the adherents of both the sides are usually commentaries that try to   simplify the archaic language used by Hahnemann.

An attempt at examining the Organon with a view to finding out which aspects of the Organon are Hahnemann’s observations of the natural laws and which are his thoughts and deductions is an exercise most scholars of the Organon dread undertaking, yet this attempt is the basis of Grant Bentley’ book “How aphorism 27 changed the world”.

Grant has set for himself the following agenda:

    Examine every aphorism of the Organon

    See which aphorisms describe the natural laws

    See which aphorisms are the constructs of Hahnemann’s thoughts

    Once the wheat (the natural laws as observed by Hahnemann) has been separated from the chaff (Hahnemann’s personal thoughts), dig into cases from more than 20 years of clinical work, incl. successes and failures, studying which aspects of the Organon are applicable in the context of today’s clinical practice and which aspects do not hold and

should hence be dropped.

So, this book is based on the agenda I have just mentioned. If you are a homeopath, you will know the Organon and know aphorism 27, but perhaps you have not realized its

importance to you as a professional; I would suggest that you read this book. You may find yourself nodding your head in approval because Grant has dealt with many of the

questions that you might have asked about the Organon, but have never found an answer for.

The title of this book has a “hook”, a techno-speak amongst authors and publishers. A hook is what reels the reader in. You ask, “What, how did aphorism 27 change the world? Did it really?” Once you are bristling with these questions, Grant gives you well-known statistics to chew on. These are based on the success of homeopathy in reducing mortality in the epidemics and pandemics of the late 1800s and early 1900s.

The mainstream is fond of negating these statistics, saying that homeopathy succeeded because it did not do blood-letting, not because the remedies did their job. Homeopathy was successful in the flu pandemic of the early 20th century when blood-letting had become totally out of fashion, and Grant assigns this success to the healing effect of the remedies. He argues convincingly that homeopathy – functioning on the basis laid out in aphorism 27 – not only saves life, but also enhances the quality of life and increases the energy of its users so that they operate from a platform of creativity, benevolence, determination and selflessness; in other words, their higher selves are able to manifest because their life energy is not robbed and consumed by diseases.

A healing modality of such a vast potential was discovered by Hahnemann, and in laying down its tenets, he was both an artist and a vigilant scientist. In a quick stride, Hahnemann crossed the boundary between mysticism and science when he mentioned the word “vital force”. Successive generations of homeopaths have tried to be scientific, attempting to place homeopathy in an easily definable square box, while some have tried to embrace the mystic, artistic side. Leaving these two camps to conclude their battle, Grant has taken a middle ground and described homeopathy as “energy medicine”. Energetic stressors from various sources can influence the vital force. Homeopathic remedies are energy medicines that help the vital force in coping with the impingement on its energy.

Understanding homeopathy as energy medicine frees us from the obligation to not repeat the dose till it exhausts its action. If the vital force can succumb to a daily robbery

of energy, and a well chosen remedy can replenish the robbed energy, then why not repeat the dose? Hahnemann’s edict about not repeating a dose turns out not to be an observation of a sacrosanct and irrefutable natural law but simply his thinking. Today the times have changed, so let us rethink this question.

In this vein, Grant examines the origin of the sixth edition of Organon and says that Hahnemann experimented relentlessly and came up with LM scale because he saw the need for frequent repetition of the remedies.

Grant has analyzed the failures Hahnemann had with treating chronic cases and concluded that Hahnemann’s failure originated from his assumption that all chronic cases start from infections. Based on his work of homeopathic facial analysis, HFA, Grant explains miasms not just as inherited diseases but as the body’s defence for fighting of stressors; he suggests that the chronic diseases also can have a non-infectious origin. The stressors commonly seen today were virtually unknown in Hahnemann’s time and therefore his views on chronic diseases and miasms need a re-examination.

A ‘healing crisis’ is another word that homeopaths, and even consumers of homeopathy, take for granted, believing that in homeopathy you first get worse before getting better. Based on his work with HFA, Grant says that a true simillimum does not elicit a healing crisis.

‘Vital force’ is another word that is scrutinized closely. Hahnemann did not consider vital force as anything more than an earthly, instinctive, unreasoning energy which is quite limited in its ability to defend us. Therefore there is the need for medicines to exist so they can support the otherwise limited vital force and help it to overcome disease. Hahnemann did not see it as a spark of the divine within us. Grant cuts ruthlessly through all new developments in homeopathy and says that when homeopathy is considered as a straight and simple energy medicine there is no need for homeo-psychoanalysis.

Grant takes a favorable stand for conventional medicine while pointing out that Hahnemann began homeopathy as a revolt against conventional medicine. The conventional medicine of today is not what it used to be in Hahnemann’s time, Grant emphasizes, and he writes that if the clients want to take allopathic medicines alongside homeopathy, it is acceptable. Homeopathic remedies, being energy medicines, work and produce healing despite conventional medicines. The conventional medicines of today are not centered around bleeding, vomiting, sweating and salivation as they were in Hahnemann’s time and if our clients take a course of antibiotics for an acute, or a few antidepressants, they will still benefit from homeopathy. The war that Hahnemann entered into with conventional medicine was based on his observations in a bygone era. We have to examine this observation in today’s light and circumstances and make room for co-existence of homeopathy alongside conventional medicine. We can end the battle that Hahnemann started.

Along the same line and logic, Grant says that the long list of do’s and don’ts attached to homeopathic prescriptions are ridiculous: homeopathic remedies are not fragile China dolls and they can withstand handling. I did not see any mention of homeopathic remedies not being able to survive X-Ray in the airports! This issue has nagged me ever since I began traveling with a bunch of remedies packed in my luggage.

The Law of similars is as true today as it was in H.’s time, and it is the cornerstone, foundation and soul of homeopathy. When we choose remedies based on the law of similars, we can produce excellent results with 70 or so well proven remedies from Hahnemann’s time, and we do not have to engage in homeo-psychoanalysis and go hunting for exotic and barely proven remedies. Grant’s words must fall like sweet music on the ears of those homeopaths who cringe at the modern path of homeo-psychoanalysis that has become very popular all over the world.

In chapter eight, Grant dissects aphorisms 1, 2, 5, 9, 26, 38 and 158 word by word and ruthlessly examines Hahnemann’s word in the light of today. He draws conclusions about Hahnemann’s failure in handling chronic diseases and suggests that chronic diseases do not all have to have their origin in infections. The modern lifestyle, that did not exist in Hahnemann’s time, is quite capable of eliciting chronic disease of non-infectious origin. These modern chronic diseases can be handled and managed quite successfully by methodically replenishing the energy of the patients by repeating the energy medicines (remedies) as and when the patient’s energy is depleted. We can repeat the remedies daily if necessary, without worrying about spoiling the healing work begun by a dose while waiting for six months or more for the dose to exhaust its action. Grant has based this suggestion on his personal experience in the clinic using HFA.


[Farokh Master]

Logical Views on Organon and Chronic Disease

Organon of medicine and chronic disease are two very difficult books to understand easily.

I would in this essay try to make some points very clear for the reader.

Let’s me first give you introduction of Hahnemann’s theory of the nature of chronic diseases.

Hahnemann after discovery of homoeopathy very soon realized that he had noted little success in his patients’ long-term recovery from chronic diseases, although he achieved

effective homeopathic treatment of patients with acute conditions. He started looking for the hidden factor of the "maintaining cause” of chronic diseases. He often asked himself whether it could be due to too small a number of remedies being known.

However this explanation didn’t fully satisfy him, even though in hindsight it was one of the major cause of the solution. H. tried to solve this problem for almost ten years

by burning his night lamp.

Finally in 1827, he presented to the homoeopathic community his discovery of the nature of chronic diseases.

Hahnemann reported that the cause of chronic diseases was an underlying chronic infection which he later lad as miasm. At first glance, this makes a lot of sense as most chronic diseases evolve in a similar fashion as infectious diseases - relentlessly progressing each time the defences of the organism are down.

Hahnemann concluded, from the evidence then available to him, that almost all chronic diseases had their origin in three underlying miasmatic or infectious diseases, namely syphilis, sycosis or what he called "the fig wart disease" (genital warts), and psora (scabies). He writes, "In Europe and even and rest of the world so far as it is known, according to all investigations, only three chronic miasms are found, the diseases caused by which manifest themselves through local symptoms, and from which most, if not all, the chronic diseases originate; namely, first, syphilis, which I have also called the venereal chancre disease; then sycosis, or the fig wart disease, and finally the chronic disease which lies at the foundation of the eruption of itch; i.e., the psora which I shall treat first as the most important." This discovery led him to search for remedies addressing what he considered to be the most important of these chronic diseases, psora or scabies. Thus, in 1828 he published the first volume of his materia medica of antipsoric remedies. (as contrast to Materia Medica Pura) Hahnemann uses syphilis as the model disease to illustrate the evolution of chronic diseases, which incidentally was also recognized in his time as a chronic disease by the rest of the medical fraternity.

Hahnemann described the different stages in the evolution of syphilis, which he eventually extrapolates to the other two chronic miasms. First, he said, there is the contagion that happens at the point of contact. This is followed by a prodromal state where the entire organism is seized by the miasm. Then after a lapse of time there is the appearance of local symptoms, the chancre in the case of syphilis. Then, he says, as long the local skin manifestation remains present, the disease will not manifest itself in the interior of the organism. Therefore, it is the disappearance or suppression of the chancre that precipitates secondary syphilis. "So it, the chancre, when not expelled acts vicariously and soothingly for the syphilis within. "This last point is so important that Hahnemann’s entire understanding of the evolution of chronic diseases rests upon it.

Hahnemann then explored these steps in regards to scabies. He writes in Chronic Diseases that "Psora (the itch disease), like syphilis, is a miasmatic chronic disease, and its original development is similar" but it is "the most contagious of all chronic miasms, "as it" needs only a simple contact like a mild touch to the skin." He explained that in scabies, as in syphilis, there is a prodromal state during which there is an absence of symptoms while the miasm invades the rest of the organism dynamically through the fine nerves of the body. Then, he says, "The diseased vital force tries to soothe the internal malady through the establishment of a suitable local symptom on the skin, the tiny vesicles that has a pleasurable itching.

Hence as long as this eruption continues in its normal form, the internal psora, with its secondary manifestation cannot break forth, but must remain “covered or latent”.

Therefore, the danger of suppressing the external manifestation of a chronic infection became the keystone of his "discovery" or understanding of the nature of chronic diseases. This becomes so important that this theory is the basic foundation of Hahnemann’s theory of suppression.

Unfortunately Hahnemann was not the first scientist to discover this phenomena of the danger of suppressing itch like eruption, He himself quotes a great number of physicians having made similar observations, and among them Dr. Autenrieth who between 1806 - 1808 published a treatise on the danger of suppressing the itch eruption. This name comes in the second edition of chronic disease where Hahnemann confesses that he was not aware of the work of Autenrieth. Hence the danger of suppressing

the itch eruption with the use of certain ointments like arsenic, mercury and sulphur was a major cause of psora to go deeper and affect the other important organ.

Hahnemann was very persistent in his view that disappearance of the local skin lesions of the three chronic infectious diseases, scabies, syphilis, and genital warts paves the way for the development of almost all natural chronic diseases, to an extent this was true but what about drug included and occupational diseases as well as diseases due

to wrong life style!!!!!

Finally Hahnemann concluded that the three chronic infectious diseases like syphilis, fig wart disease and scabies share a common denominator and that he called as "miasms" where, after incubation, a skin lesion develops and acts vicariously to keep the internal miasm in check. But as soon as the skin lesion disappears, the chronic miasmatic disease affects the interior of the organism.

H. and Autenrieth were at a cross road regarding their belief as Hahnemann believed serious internal malady appeared in patients who got their eruption suppressed by applying zinc ointment whereas Autenrieth believed it was the toxicity of the ointments used that caused these adverse health conditions and not the fact that scabies disappeared because of an external application!!!!!!

Here Hahnemann was totally correct in his belief because he also observed that many times skin eruptions make their appearance toward the end of treatment with antipsoric remedies, he felt that they were the old suppressed scabies eruptions and saw this as another confirmatory element of his discovery.

Let’s examine the same for the fig wart disease, or sycosis, a sexually transmitted infection that has figwarts as its first symptom, and is "usually (not always)" accompanied by a thick, purulent, Gonorrhoeal discharge. When the figwarts would disappear or be removed by local ointments or cautery, he felt there would be similar excrescences that would "then break out in other parts of the body, in different parts of the body like mouth, face, tongue, lips, neck etc., or there would arise other ailments of the body like contraction of the tendons of the flexor muscles (fingers)."

Unfortunately when one examines the history of homoeopathy in detail one will see that great stalwarts of homoeopathy like Lippe, Hering, Guernsey and Dunham made almost no reference to Hahnemann’s concept of chronic diseases.

Most of the above stalwarts considered constitutional defects what we call as dyscrasia and diathesis rather than Hahnemann’s concept of chronic miasms as the

fundamental cause of disease.

One thing which I liked about Hahnemann was that he always protected his theory by clinical success from his practice. What his theory lacks is that it does not hold true in the light of modern micro biology, immunology and genetics.

Hahnemann’s errors are too numerous to be listed here but we could look at some of the major ones. First, Hahnemann based his theory on many observations that have now been found to be incorrect.

For example, regarding the disappearance of the skin eruption which is the keystone of his discovery, he assumed that if the chancre in syphilis is not removed by local treatment or cured after internal treatment it will remain "standing on the same place during man’s lifetime" and therefore "the secondary symptoms of the venereal disease, syphilis, cannot break out as long as it exists."

It is now known that the primary chancre disappears spontaneously in most untreated people within two to six weeks of its appearance. It is also known that the chancre can still be present in some cases of secondary syphilis. Also, Hahnemann likely confused chancroid with syphilis, as he attributes to syphilis the chancre and its buboes being painful which, in syphilis, they are not.

Thus, Hahnemann was wrong when he said that no "trace of the venereal disease breaks out, so long as the chancre remains untouched in its place ... for it never passes away of itself"

An interesting fact is that Dr. Lippe reported that patients he thought had been cured of syphilis would return many years later with manifestation of secondary syphilis.

Also it is very interesting to understand that "almost all" natural chronic diseases, with the exception of those issuing from the chronic effect of syphilis and human papilloma virus infection, come originally from scabies.

H. neglected to identify genetic, congenital, metabolic, nutritional, auto immune and degenerative diseases.

H. also failed to differentiate or consider the dozens of diseases issuing from chronic infection, other than those issuing from infection with the spirochete Trepanoma pallidum or the human papilloma virus, such as tuberculosis, gonorrhoea, genital herpes, leprosy, Lyme disease, malaria, brucellosis, histoplasmosis, treponematoses (endemic syphilis, yaws, and pinta), actinomycoses, etc. He also mistakenly considered most skin eruptions to be manifestations of the internal itch infection, including eczema, leprosy, erysipelas, psoriasis, warts, ringworm, tinea capitis, psoriasis, yaws, etc., depending, as he says, on different environmental factors. We know today that scabies, or the itch, is the result of an infestation of the skin by the microscopic Sarcoptes scabiei mite.

Hahnemann confused the skin infestation by the scabies mite with an internal infection. There is no evidence whatsoever to support a systemic infection beyond the skin infestation by the Sarcoptes scabiei or any other microorganism. Also majority of people now living all over the world have no past history of having contracted scabies, and have tons of chronic diseases!!!!

When I look at the time line during Hahnemann’s period I can see clearly that Europe was under the grip of scabies.

Hahnemann in his chronic disease and organon attributed the chronic diseases due to some kind of poison or a virus ("Gifte") the agent transmitted in cases of infection.

The following references give validity of my statement.

This is noted in his treatise on venereal diseases of 1789

In his two articles on hydrophobia (1792 and 1803)

Article on the Genius of the Homeopathic Healing Art (1813 and 1833)

In his Reminiscence (1818 and 1825)

In a footnote to symptom 673

Materia Medica of Sulphur in the Materia Medica Pura (1825)

Chronic Diseases (1828 and 1835).

Moreover, in a pamphlet published in 1831 on the propagation of cholera, he writes "the contagious matter of cholera most probably consists" of "those excessively minute, invisible, living creatures,"

or "millions of those miasmatic animated beings."

However, this contrasts with his later, but apparently incorrect, understanding that the transmissible influence of an infection is "invisible" and "nonmaterial." Indeed, in the sixth edition of the Organon of 1843, Hahnemann defines in a long footnote to paragraph 11 the term "dynamic influence," which begins as follows: "

When man falls ill it is at first only the self-sustaining spirit-like vital force (vital principle) everywhere present in the organism which is untuned by the dynamic influence of the hostile disease agent."

He defines this "dynamic influence" as an "invisible" and "nonmaterial spirit-like force" to which he ascribes the transmission of miasms similar to the way "the magnet communicates magnetic force to the needle."

Moreover when Hahnemann talks about return of skin symptoms after its suppression by local ointment is actually the return of scabies.

Regarding sycosis, Hahnemann wrongly associated genital warts with gonorrhea, leukoplakia, pigmented nevi, and Dupuytren’s contracture, which have no demonstrable

pathological links between each other.



Die Paragraphen über Heilungshindernisse in Hahnemanns Organon VI. Auflage Samuel Hahnemann

§ 252

Fände man aber beim Gebrauche der übrigen Arzneien, daß in der chronischen Krankheit die bestens homöopathisch gewählte Arznei, in der angemessenen (kleinsten) Gabe, die Besserung nicht förderte, so ist dieß ein gewisses Zeichen, daß die, die Krankheit unterhaltende Ursache noch fortwährt, und dass sich in der Lebensordnung des Kranken oder in seinen Umgebungen ein Umstand befindet,

welcher abgeschaltet werden muß, wenn die Heilung dauerhaft zu Stande kommen soll.

§ 255

Dennoch wird man auch bei diesen zur Ueberzeugung hierüber gelangen, wenn man jedes, im Krankheitsbilde aufgezeichnete Symptom einzeln mit ihnen durchgeht und sie außer diesen, über keine neuen, vorher ungewöhnlichen Beschwerden klagen können, auch keines der alten Zufälle sich verschlimmert hat. Dann muß, bei schon beobachteter Besserung des Gemüthes und Geistes, die Arznei auch durchaus wesentliche Minderung der Krankheit hervorgebracht haben, oder, wenn jetzt noch die Zeit dazu zu kurz gewesen wäre, bald hervorbringen. Zögert nun, im Fall der Angemessenheit des Heilmittels, die sichtbare Besserung doch zu lange, so liegt es entweder am unrechten Verhalten des Kranken oder an andern, die Besserung hindernden Umständen.

§ 260

Für chronisch Kranke ist daher die sorgfältige Aufsuchung solcher Hindernisse der Heilung um so nöthiger, da ihre Krankheit durch dergleichen Schädlichkeiten und andere krankhaft wirkende, oft unerkannte Fehler in der Lebensordnung gewöhnlich verschlimmert worden war.

Anm.: Kaffee, feiner chinesischer und anderer Kräuterthee; Biere mit arzneilichen, für den Zustand des Kranken unangemessenen Gewächssubstanzen angemacht, sogenannte feine, mit arzneilichen Gewürzen bereitete Liqueure, alle Arten Punsch, gewürzte Schokolade, Riechwasser und Parfümerien mancher Art, stark duftende Blumen im Zimmer, aus Arzneien zusammengesetzte Zahnpulver und Zahnspiritus, Riechkißchen, hochgewürzte Speisen und Saucen, gewürztes Backwerk und Gefrornes mit arzneilichen Stoffen, z.B. Kaffee, Vanille u.s.w. bereitet, rohe, arzneiliche Kräuter auf Suppen, Gemüße von Kräutern, Wurzeln und Keim-Stengeln (wie Spargel mit langen, grünen Spitzen), Hopfenkeime und alle Vegetabilien, welche Arzneikraft besitzen, Sellerie, Petersilie, Sauerampfer, Dragun, alle Zwiebel-Arten, u.s.w.; alter Käse und Thierspeisen, welche faulicht sind, (Fleisch und Fett von Schweinen, Enten und Gänsen oder allzu junges Kalbfleisch und saure Speisen; Salate aller Art), welche arzneiliche Nebenwirkungen haben, sind eben so sehr von Kranken dieser Art zu entfernen als jedes Uebermaß, selbst das des Zuckers und Kochsalzes, so wie geistige, nicht mit viel Wasser verdünnte Getränke; Stubenhitze, schafwollene Haut-Bekleidung, sitzende Lebensart in eingesperrter Stuben-Luft oder öfters, bloß negative Bewegung (durch Reiten, Fahren, Schaukeln), übermäßiges Kind-Säugen, langer Mittagsschlaf im Liegen (in Betten), Lesen in waagerechter Lage, Nachtleben, Unreinlichkeit, unnatürliche Wohllust, Entnervung durch Lesen schlüpfriger Schriften, Onanism oder, sei es aus Aberglauben, sei es um Kinder-Erzeugung in der Ehe zu verhüten, unvollkommner, oder ganz unterdrückter Beischlaf; Gegenstände des Zornes, des Grames, des Aergernisses, leidenschaftliches Spiel, übertriebene Anstrengung des Geistes und Körpers, vorzüglich gleich nach der Mahlzeit; sumpfige Wohngegend und dumpfige Zimmer; karges Darbenu.s.w. Alle diese Dinge müssen möglichst vermieden oder entfernt werden, wenn die Heilung nicht gehindert oder gar unmöglich gemacht werden soll. Einige meiner Nachahmer scheinen durch Verbieten noch weit mehrer, ziemlich gleichgültiger Dinge die Diät des Kranken unnöthig zu erschweren, was nicht zu billigen ist.

§ 261

Die, beim Arzneigebrauche in chronischen Krankheiten zweckmäßigste Lebensordnung, beruht auf Entfernung solcher Genesungs-Hindernisse und dem Zusatze des hie und da nöthigen Gegentheils: unschuldige Aufheiterung des Geistes und Gemüths, active Bewegung in freier Luft, fast bei jeder Art von Witterung (tägliches Spazierengehen, kleine Arbeiten mit den Armen), angemessene, nahrhafte, unarzneiliche Speisen und Getränke u.s.w.


 Aphorism 1 to 10 | HPATHY.COM


 Aphorism 11 to 20 | HPATHY.COM


 Aphorism 21 to 30 | HPATHY.COM


Understanding Aphorism 30 to 33 | HPATHY.COM


Lecture on Aphorism 34 to 35 | HPATHY.COM #

Organon & Philosophy | HPATHY.COM


Lecture on Aphorism 38-39 | HPATHY.COM


Aphorism 31 to 40 | HPATHY.COM


Lecture on Aphorism 41-42 | HPATHY.COM


 Aphorism 41 to 50 | HPATHY.COM

Some homeopaths attack vaccination unaware that in the 6th edition of the Organon, Hahnemann has said that vaccination is a wonderful thing and it has saved the lives of children. Do see the footnote under paragraph 43.

Hahnemann seems to have considered that the Jennerian method of vaccination -scratching cowpox pus into the skin- was both preventative in epidemics and curative when

it was used against similar disease states. Both homeopathy and Jenner’s cow pox vaccine came around in late 1700s and Hahnemann saw the benefits of cow pox vaccination.


Aphorism 51 to 60 | HPATHY.COM


Aphorism 61 to 70 | HPATHY.COM


Aphorism 71 to 80 | HPATHY.COM


Aphorism 91 to 100 | HPATHY.COM


Aphorism 101 to 110 | HPATHY.COM


Aphorism 111 to 120 | HPATHY.COM


 Aphorism 121 to 130 | HPATHY.COM


 Aphorism 131 to 140 | HPATHY.COM


Aphorism 141 to 150 | HPATHY.COM


Aphorism 151 to 160 | HPATHY.COM


Aphorism 171 to 180 | HPATHY.COM


Aphorism 181 to 190 | HPATHY.COM


Aphorism 191 to 200 | HPATHY.COM


 Aphorism 211 to 220 | HPATHY.COM


Aphorism 231 to 240 | HPATHY.COM


Aphorism 241 to 250 | HPATHY.COM


 Aphorism 251 to 260 | HPATHY.COM


 Aphorism 261 to 270 | HPATHY.COM

6th of the Organon, footnote 270f, Hahnemann states:

In this much higher ratio of the dilution medium to the medicine, many succussions of the vial filled to 2/3 with the wine spirit can bring about a far greater development

of power my new method engenders a medicine of the highest development of power and the gentlest action which, if well chosen, curatively touches all sick points


Aphorism 291 to 294 | HPATHY.COM


Aphorism 271 to 280 | HPATHY.COM


Aphorism 281 to 290 | HPATHY.COM


Lectures on Organon of Medicine - Ideal Homeopathic Cure ...


Organon Of Medicine - Samuel Hahnemann | HPATHY.COM


Organon Of Medicine - Samuel Hahnemann | The Organon of Medicine was written by Samuel Hahnemann in 1810. This book is written in aphoristic style ...


Where Kent Differs with Hahnemann · David Little · Lectures on Organon of Medicine - Vital Force in Health Understanding Aphorism Nine & Ten · Manish Bhatia ...


Lectures on Organon of Medicine - Perceiving Cure - Understanding ...


Lectures on Organon of Medicine - Vital Force in Health ...


Lectures on Organon of Medicine - Understanding Nature's Law of ...


Potency Selection Guidelines by Dr. Hahnemann | HPATHY.COM


Lectures on Organon of Medicine - PSORA - Understanding Aphorism ...


Hahnemann's Advanced Methods Part 3: Managing The Case | HPATHY.COM


Hahnemann's Advanced Methods Part 5: Speeding The Cure | HPATHY.COM


Lectures on Organon of Medicine - Totality of Symptoms is ...


15 Sep 2010 ... We ended our last lecture on aphorism 33. So what's written in aphorism 34 and 35? In aphorism 34 Hahnemann says that a homeopathic medicine ...


Lectures on Organon of Medicine - Homeopath's Mission ...


Lecture on Aphorism 40 | HPATHY.COM


Lecture on Aphorism 36-37 | HPATHY.COM


Lectures on Organon of Medicine - Knowledge of Disease ...


Understanding Aphorism 28 to 29 - How Homeopathy Medicines Work ...


Lectures on Organon of Medicine - Totality of Symptoms ...


Lectures on Organon of Medicine - Perception of Complex Disease ...


Hahnemann's Advanced Methods Part 1: Hahnemannian Homoeopathy ...


Lectures on Organon of Medicine - Introduction to Miasms ...


Lectures on Organon of Medicine - What is CURE? - Understanding ...


Lectures on Organon of Medicine - Pseudochronic Disease ...


Lectures on Organon of Medicine - Vital Force in Disease ...


Organon & Philosophy | HPATHY.COM - Part 2

Lectures on Organon of Medicine - Homeopath's Mission - Understanding Aphorism One · Manish Bhatia · Hahnemann's Advanced Methods Part 9: The Choice of ...


Lectures on Organon of Medicine - Vital Force in Cure ...


Using Acute Intercurrent or Intermediate Remedies in Chronic ...




Hahnemann's Advanced Methods Part 7: Administering the Dose ...


Lectures on Organon of Medicine - Knowledge Of Medicine ...


Lectures on Organon of Medicine - Acute Exacerbation of Chronic ... -




 Hahnemann's Advanced Methods Part 6: Preparing the Medicinal ...


 Organon of Medicine History & Development | HPATHY.COM


 Lectures on Organon of Medicine - Incurable Disease ...


 Collection of Drug Substances | HPATHY.COM


 Where Kent Differs with Hahnemann | HPATHY.COM



Vorwort/Suchen  Zeichen/Abkürzungen                                    Impressum