(From Soul to Body)
1. Alternative Medical Care
2. Summary of Homeopathic Science
3. History of Homeopathy
4. Homeopathy’s Basic Tenets
5. Practicality & Frugality of Homeopathy
6. Addressing Homeopathy Anew
7. Start with Meditation
8. Establishing a Mental Relay
9. Final Thoughts
Δ Brief Glossary
Δ Recommended Reading
Δ The Flexner Report
© Copyright 2001, 2009 by RK
All Rights Reserved
Relays of the Mind and Homeopathy
August 2001 Dissertation
Original ©Copyright 2001 by RK,
2nd Edition ©Copyright 2009 by RK
All Rights Reserved
The concept to be developed here concerns mental relays, relays of the mind to its many abilities, specifically those which directly address ones autonomic nervous/glandular/immune systems. In Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, the third definition (specifically used in this dissertation) of relay is:
In medical history there are many, many cases which have more than amply demonstrated the very real ability (not just capability) of the mind to rule over matter (i.e., in this case, ones body). Though many specific case histories and anecdotal evidence for this “phenomenon” perplex physicians (read: allopaths), yet for the most part they have not learned to take serious advantage of it (intentionally), as doing so would go against the American Medical Association (AMA) and its historically closed mind to (read: negative agenda against) naturopathic treatments, not to mention homeopathy itself. Mind over matter is not simply a “phenomenon” which cannot be understood, nor is it an anomaly. It is quite real, and not at all unusual, as many case histories and anecdotal evidence of its very real action show.
It is the mind itself which can be self-programmed to act as a relay to accomplish goals toward an healthy physical life. It should be the intended goal of an homeopathist (with disclosure) to engender the relay ability of his/her patients’ minds toward self healing. The above definition of relay can be directly applied with the mind for just such a goal. The mind is a very practical tool for such action, in this case in the direction of minimally treating (potentizing) toward that goal. We will return to address potentizing homeopathy itself by way of mental relays in Chapter 8.
First we will address past and current issues of homeopathy and then return to the theme of using the mind to develop a relay for treating disease conditions. The following background is important to the issue, at least as negative allopathic history hopefully not to be repeated against homeopathy, and as the history of homeopathy for the reader’s information to better understand this treatise.
Then we will address the idea and process of actualizing the relay potential of the mind toward the goal of what is hoped will be a new, exoteric homeopathic treatment that does much more than just minimally treat for results which the patient’s mind was not involved in, that being only the stimulation of the autonomic immune system to either take action, or inaction (Borysenko and Rothstein, 1987, p.15) for that matter. What is proposed here is a melding of using the mind to establish a relay with the obviously very therapeutic medical practice of homeopathy toward ones autonomic immune defense system. This melding introduces a new pathway toward a more efficacious homeopathy heretofore tapped into by only a few researchers and patients (e.g., Borysenko and Rothstein, 1987, pp. 19-20, etc.) without the patient’s mind overtly involved in the deliberate process of establishing mental relays discussed in Chapter 8.
Chapter 1 » Homeopathy as Alternative Medical Care
In 1999 the united States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved over 250,000 new drugs for treatment and distribution in the united States. Adding this to the overall total of drugs now available results in quite a staggering number. There are drugs now which purport to treat everything from baldness to foot fungus, but at what price to the patient? Financial considerations aside, the toll taken on the bodies of patients who trust the latest pill, cream or injection and faithfully put it into their mouths, rub it into their skins or inject it into their bodies can be devastating. If one needs an example, just look at the recent recall by and class action lawsuit against American Family Products®™, the makers of the diet drug combination Phen-Fen®™. Thousands of people, searching for the uniquely American way of the “instant fix,” may carry permanently damaged heart valves through life with them because they trusted a drug on which long-term trials to determine long-range effects had not yet been conducted (as is now common in pharmaceutical testing laboratories with them having gone from the seven-year trial period now to a one-year trial period followed by a three-year probationary period [effectively making guinea pigs of the public during the subsequent “probation”]). Lest one believe this only to be a recent occurrence, one need only review the devastatingly severe birth defects caused by the morning sickness drug Thalidomide®™ prescribed for pregnant women in the 1960s. Mistakes, errors in judgment and oversights in the relentless pursuit to get the latest “wonder drug” on the market are more common than the average person may understand or realize is the case.
Those who believe the united States, with its Western medicine, has the edge on healing science should know that there is an alternative. Homeopathic medicine is experiencing a resurgence in popularity from its ebb early in the 20th century to its rebirth in the 1970s, 1980s and into the 1990s and now, indeed, the 21st century as well.
In order to understand alternative medicine (or practice it, should that be the goal), one must understand its history and basic tenets. The “rules” may vary slightly, according to which expert one studies, but the effect is the same–a cure about which one need not wonder whether five, ten or 20 years in the future there will be adverse consequences as severe as being forced on a daily basis to look into the eyes of ones offspring, born deformed, and know that this could have been prevented. As Yehundi Menuhim, president of the homeopathic organizations in the United Kingdom once said, “Homeopathy is one of the rare medical approaches which carries no penalties–only benefits” (F. Cummings and D. Ullman, 1997, p.xvii).
Chapter 2 » Summary of Homeopathic Science
Homeopathy is an accepted medical system which can be practiced in-home to assist in medical treatment for people with a wide variety of both acute and chronic health concerns. The term homeopathy is derived from the Greek words homeo (similar) and pathos (suffering from disease). The theory is based on the principle of offering ones body a way to stimulate its own inner healing resources through a recognition and reinforcement process geared to ones adaptive reactions (Cummings and Ullman, 1997, p.xvii). The relevant stimuli include a variety of plant, animal, mineral and chemical substances and, when used effectively, can work with ones body’s defenses to promote healing as an effective, inexpensive alternative.
Although fairly obscure in the united States, homeopathy has gained wide acceptance and popularity in other countries around the world. The practice is based on the principle of similars–meaning that the cure should produce the same type of reaction for which it is applied. Consequently, to treat a fever, the cure should incorporate a diluted dose of the substance identified as causing fever when delivered in large doses.
The practice of prescribing a single medicine at any given time is another tenet of homeopathy. Behind this precept is the assumption that, although the patient may have multiple symptoms, the underlying cause is an inherent weakness of a system within the body. Therefore, the best treatment is a prescription of a substance that stimulates the person’s own immune system.
In order to accomplish this first tenet of homeopathic medicine, according to a variety of homeopathic practitioners, one must first understand that all symptoms, regardless of how unpleasant they may be, demonstrate the body’s attempt to restore its natural healthy balance. Instead of seeing these symptoms as something wrong which must be set right, homeopathic practitioners regard them as signals that the body is attempting to help itself. Instead of trying to stop a fever with temperature suppressants, as does conventional (allopathic) medicine, an homeopath will give a remedy that will cause a fever in an healthy person, and thus stimulate the ill body to restore itself.
Second, an homeopath evaluates the totality of the symptoms presented in an holistic manner. Each person experiences a fever in an individualized manner. Yet conventional medicine dictates that all fevers are alike. Consequently, conventional medicine offers a series of temperature suppressive drugs. However, homeopathic practitioners look for the one substance that will cause similar symptoms in an healthy person. This person should experience a similar manifestation of fever, such as a continuous low-grade fever over several days, a fever which suddenly rises dramatically and then lowers, a fever that rises in the evenings or after certain periods of activity, etc.
Traditional medicine considers “health” to be merely the absence of disease. However, homeopaths view health in the more holistic manner of seeing such a person as being emancipated on all levels: physical, emotional and mental. Traditionally, the goal is to provide medicines for the control of sickness. However, these “maintenance” drugs provide no lasting cure, and the illness returns if the patient stops taking them. Homeopathic medicine, however, has the aim of curing the disease of limiting condition. Similarly, an homeopathic practitioner strives to administer only minuscule amounts of a “potentized” medicine, many times diluted to gain strength as an homeopathic cure. This, in combination with the single dose theory stating that one should not receive multiple administrations, sets the stage for a remedy worth examining. Drugs used in homeopathic medicine are formulated by homeopathic pharmacies using an official manual, recognized and accepted by the FDA, titled Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States. The drugs are completely natural, employing such substances as snake venom, such plants as dandelions, plantains, minerals such as arsenic trioxide (As2O3 or As4O6) and common table salt (NaCl or KCl). These natural substances are diluted thoroughly and with great attention until only a microscopic amount of the substance is left.
Essentially, homeopathy views infectious disease as a “disruption of normal body functions that occurs when a microorganism enters the body, multiplies and thrives where it is not normally present” (Cummings and Ullman, 1997, p.15). Where homeopathy and traditional medicine part company is how the microorganisms manifest themselves in the body. Homeopathy suggests that the foreign bodies will follow the path of least resistance and “settle” in an area where the body is weakest. Therefore, in order to make a correct diagnosis, the homeopathic practitioner must take into account not only the “cause” of the infection, but also the resistance of the patient’s defense system (Cummings and Ullman, 1997, p.15).
Chapter 3 » History of Homeopathy
Homeopathy owes much of its basic principles to a German physician named Samuel Hahnemann. A personal physician to German royalty, Hahnemann was a respected chemist who left his successful practice because he felt traditional medicine was causing more harm than good during that time period. Sideline work translating various medical texts led him to a startling claim by another doctor that the “bitter and stringent” qualities of a Peruvian tree bark containing quinine was responsible for its effectiveness (Cummings and Ullman, 1997, p.3). During tests to determine this statement’s accuracy, Hahnemann began hypothesizing as to the real reasons why quinine from the bark worked, eventually leading to a lifelong dedication to the study of homeopathy.
A phrase still in use today was coined by Hahnemann during his research: similia similibus curentur (“let likes be cured with likes”) as a description of how symptoms may be alleviated with small doses of medicines known to cause, in larger quantities, those very same symptoms (Cummings and Ullman, 1997, p.4).
The conventional wisdom of the time saw symptoms as unhealthy reactions to an invasion of the body. As a result, doctors felt that these symptoms should be controlled. However, Hahnemann’s theory meant that these symptoms demonstrated the body’s own healing powers and should be augmented instead of suppressed. Therefore, rather than trying to cure a fever, homeopathic practice is to stimulate the body to complete the healing process; to suppress the fever in effect would be to tie the hands of the soldier doing battle for the good of the body.
To Hahnemann’s mind, the healer should take the role of a facilitator, building on the body’s strengths and providing medicine only as a catalyst to initiate its own healing efforts in order to achieve a long-lasting, complete cure instead of the temporary cure often observed as a response to antagonistic, symptom-suppressive therapy.
In order to discover the appropriate medicines to use in his practice, Hahnemann conducted “provings,” the giving of small doses of a substance on a daily basis until the subject built up an immunity to the substance’s effects: “The dose used is extremely small and is selected according to previous knowledge of the toxic properties of the potential medicine” (Cummings and Ullman, 1997, p.7). To do so, he worked out a precise method of diluting medicines to maximize their curative powers. This method included introduction of plant extract into an heated solution of alcohol and distilled water and the striking of the container on an hard surface in order to “success” the solution, or enable the release of its active agents (Weil, 1995, p.19). At first, Hahnemann proved primarily herbs serving as staples of the European folk medicine tradition as well as other mineral and animal-derived substances. Eventually, these provings were collected into a compilation known as the Materia Medica “list of medicines,” describing in detail the specific psychological and physiological symptoms for each substance (Cummings and Ullman, 1997, p.7).
In 1810 Organon of Medicine was published, and is considered to be Hahnemann’s most important work. Included in this work was a list of rules forming the basis of what is known today as experimental pharmacology. [By and large, it is not uncommon for drug testing to be performed only on male samples, virtually ignoring differences of gender, even though the vast majority of what have traditionally been known as “male illnesses” are now experienced by women. To continually ignore the testing of drugs on both genders is in direct violation of Hahnemann’s dictates that “[t]he medicines must be tested on both males and females, in order also to reveal the alterations of health they produce in the sexual sphere” (Weil, 1995, p.15).]
Generally, from this point Hahnemann’s teachings spread by small numbers throughout Europe until progressing to the united States in the early 1800s. Only eight years after the arrival of the first homeopathic physician in the New World, the Hahnemann Medical College opened in 1836 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Just as quickly, his works were translated from their native language into English and one could purchase them in the early 1840s. With a rallying of homeopathic believers in the works, a professional organization couldn’t be far behind, and An American Institute of Homeopathy was founded in 1844 (Weil, 1995, p.20).
Interestingly, homeopathic physicians experienced a great deal of success in the treatment of various cholera epidemics which swept the Midwest in the mid-1800s, effectively surpassing traditional medical doctors in cure rates. As a result, the practice became popular and its practitioners wealthy. But trouble was brewing in the form of professional polarization by allopathic doctors of the time. They, too, set up professional organizations and succeeded in influencing the passage of legislation in various forms designed to limit the avenues of medical conduct by homeopaths, adding to the already-tense political atmosphere of the period (Weil, 1995, p.20).
The first edition of the previously mentioned Organon of Medicine (1810) forged a new path in the art of healing. This iconoclastic philosophy of a “new” medicine was strongly and immediately rejected by the conventional (allopathic) medical community during this time. Hahnemann chose the one man he felt could defend his work from its detractors, his son, Dr. Frederick Hahnemann. The first edition of this text was later superseded by subsequent editions in 1818, 1824, 1829 and 1833. The final, 6th edition was completed shortly before Hahnemann’s death in 1843, but remained unpublished in German until 1920, largely to be ignored as the trend had long since gone by the wayside. The elder Hahnemann’s credentials presented the profile of a man who had earned the respect due him. Hahnemann, a student of classical philosophy and a master of ancient Greek and Latin, studied the original works of the ancient Greek naturalists and the Hippocratic Canon. His favorite philosopher/healer was the Grecian, Hippocrates (c. 460 B.C.), the father of clinical medicine, and it was from this author that Hahnemann found his inspiration. Hippocrates taught that physis (the power of natural healing) was innate to the human constitution and temperament. This life force (termed in esoteric circles as prana, chi or qi), dynamis (sovereign), and considered it to be the source of all vitality:
By the end of the 1800s, the science of homeopathy was extensively practiced in the united States with more than 22 schools offering instruction in the field, including the New England Female Medical College, the first coed medical institution in the united States. It has been estimated that 15% of American physicians practiced some form of homeopathy by this time with other estimates reaching 20%. However, these figures were to drop, along with the popularity of homeopathy, because of The Flexner Report, a document published in 1910 that began the establishment of medical schools in the united States and leaned heavily toward conventional medicine (Eisenberg, et al, 1993). As a result, by 1910 only 15 colleges remained; and by the late 1940s, no courses in homeopathy were taught in American institutions.
By 1922, the American Foundation for Homeopathy began to teach homeopathy as a postgraduate course for doctors, courses (now administered by the National Center for Homeopathy) which have continued to this day. The current trend toward a resurgence of homeopathic practices is slowly bringing homeopathy back to a prominent place in the united States’ medical care system.
In the last 15 to 20 years, interest in these practices has attained an even greater percentage of the average American’s attention. According to Eisenberg, et al, “It is estimated that approximately 3,000 physicians and other health care practitioners currently use homeopathy; and a recent survey showed that one percent of the general population, or approximately 2.5 million people, had sought help from an homeopathic doctor in 1990” (Eisenberg, et al, 1993).
Chapter 4 » Homeopathy’s Basic Tenets
David Little (in a 1998 on-line publication entitled, Hahnemannian Homeopathy) discusses the basic principles behind the homeopathy phenomenon and why these seemingly “common sense” dictates are often overlooked by the conventional (read: allopathenogenic) medical community. According to Little (1998), homeopathic tenets are a guide to comprehension of the “language of nature” and assist the homeopathic practitioner in understanding the body and presenting the best possible solution to its ailments. As a result of the principles propounded by Little, “homeopaths have brought this healing art up to date while preserving the essence on which it is founded.” Little presents his primary principles as a starting point for the potential homeopathic practitioner, maintaining that, while they offer a base for study and diagnosis, they are not rigid enough in nature to stifle the practitioner’s individual sense of the patient’s need:
Little goes on to state:
The actual number of herbs or other substances prescribed by homeopathic practitioners is significantly lower than conventional medical treatment because they do not look at each individual disease name or symptom in isolation. Homeopathic practitioners look at the entire constitution as expressed by various elements of the individual through the totality of the symptoms. As each individual represents a single mind/body complex, any mistunement of the unitary vital force produces a constitutional syndrome of signs and symptoms. David Little sees this singular constitutional state as most similar to “the single remedy” which is the simillimum that represents the complete spectrum of the disease. The singularity of the constitutional remedy reflects the integrated nature of the defensive powers as well as the unitary nature of the vital force. The single remedy allows the vital force to concentrate its maximum healing power on the essential picture of the illness rather than dispersing vital energy in reaction to several medicinal influences simultaneously (Little, 1998).
An homeopathic remedy works by stimulating conditions similar to the disease state but slightly stronger due to potentization. The primary action of the homeopathic remedy is opposed by the secondary healing action of the vital force which leads to the cure. If a constitution is too warm, a similar warm remedy in potency will stimulate the opposite reaction of coolness from the instinctive vital force, bringing the individual toward a balanced state of health.
Potentization consists of a process of successive dilution, according to Cummings and Ullman. “Homeopaths have found… that generally the more a substance is potentized, the deeper it acts, the longer it acts, and the fewer number of doses are required in treatment” (Cummings and Ullman, 1997, p.11).
Although some opinions vary here, the minimal dose is also a basic precept of homeopathy. Throughout early history, the power of ones vital force was respected and was interfered with as little as possible. Simple remedies were allotted in small amounts and carefully repeated to aid the body’s natural healing power in its effort to rid the body of the disease. Hahnemann walked very carefully in the footsteps of the ancient Greek teachings concerning the vital life force. He, like they, based his work on the adage, “Do no harm.” For this reason, homeopathic practitioners begin with a single test dose and observe the reaction very closely. However, according to Little, many homeopaths misunderstand the nature of the minimal dose.
Chapter 5 » Practicality & Frugality of Homeopathy
Recent surveys in the united States found that most patients receiving homeopathic treatment seek care for chronic illnesses (Jacobs and Crothers, 1991) and that homeopathic physicians spend twice as much time with their patients, order half as many laboratory tests and procedures and prescribe fewer drugs (Jacobs and Crothers, 1991). Because treatment of chronic illness accounts for a large proportion of health care expenditures in the united States, the cost effectiveness of homeopathic medicine should be investigated by comparing homeopathy with conventional treatments for specific chronic illnesses such as recurrent childhood ear infections, allergies, arthritis, headaches, depression and asthma.
Clinical outcomes should be measured as well as such factors as utilization of health services, number of missed days of work or school, patient satisfaction and the cost of health care overall. This research will help to determine whether incorporating homeopathy into the national health care scheme would significantly reduce health care costs.
Certainly this author has reason to believe that it would. Beyond that, it is hoped that allopathic “care” will be phased out completely, because there will no longer be a need for it as an intermediate transition toward homeopathic dominance.
However, homeopathy alone (as it is practiced) is simply not enough, because it fails to address the complementary role an homeopathist’s patient should play, even if it does include that same patient’s autonomic immune system.
[Top of Next Column]
Chapter 6 » Addressing Homeopathy Anew
More than ever it is becoming obvious how vitally important it is to understand the mental connection in all things, whether physical/etheric (including chemical/electrical treatments), emotional/mental (whether self-suggestive and/or hypnotic) and/or spiritual. This is especially vital concerning homeopathic patients. And homeopathy must address this issue eventually or find itself sidelined with inappropriate blinders on (if it isn’t already on the sideline). Without the mind of course, it is quite impossible for one to have any connection with the physical/etheric body to begin with at all, for patient or doctor.
And even though it has become generally accepted (though not by application) that there is a “mind/body connection,” it has been greatly ignored, much to the serious disservice of many in need concerning their health (even if homeopathy has been usefully helpful to some). This has been mostly because of lack of education (particularly esoteric education, which allopathy never addresses) about the nature of the mind, its abilities and its capabilities.
With the safe assumption that it is at least generally accepted that there is a very real connection between mind and body, let us move on to a discussion concerning that very connection and what must come first, and its practical and illimitably useful implications toward establishing therapeutic mental relays.
Chapter 7 » Start with Meditation
First let’s talk about relieving stress, which is readily accepted as at least one of the serious (if not the most “important”) progenitors of the worst of maladies in the lives of most in “modern” society today. This is where meditation must take its place. Most individuals are plagued (to one degree or another) with their minds constantly running amok with random thoughts and disconnected emotions. So let’s begin with a very basic definition of meditation that I have found to be quite apt:
The key is not only to rein in ones thoughts, but to guide them toward whatever important goal one has in mind (one at a time), in this case toward establishing a relay for the mind to work on for specifically addressing ones particular, current malady. So, one must guide their thoughts toward a thematic resonance between the mind and the etheric (read: energetic, upper half of ones) body to establish a therapeutic mental relay. (We’ll get back to the mental relay process in Chapter 8.)
The meditation process is certainly not “instant coffee.” It takes time and effort spent in meditation (as defined above) to make any real progress, but not without serious commitment to meditation and ones purpose for it. More progress can be made than one might imagine with less time and effort, though that time and effort spent must be quality time and effort. Each meditation session must begin where the previous one left off, with serious effort made toward moving closer to ones goal. And if one falters with one meditation session when compared with a previous session, then it must be repeated until progress is made. Perhaps not so obviously, this must include learning to relax completely, as well as learning to rein in ones thoughts at least to some degree. Without the foregoing accomplished first, establishing an effective and consistent, therapeutic mental relay will not be possible.
For beginners, meditation must be practiced daily for at least 30 to 45 minutes in a sitting position (hands in lap) in a straight-backed chair which may be cushioned for comfort if one prefers. Be sure to wear loose, comfortable clothing and find a quiet place (no music allowed, meditation is neither entertainment nor entrainment) with no interruptions or distractions allowed for the period of your meditation. (Remember to relieve yourself beforehand.) It is okay to have a fan running (or air conditioning system) on low (if possible) if there is any nearby noise (which would need to be masked) that would otherwise distract and/or annoy.
Mornings may be better for most to meditate, as long as one has completely awakened first and before ingesting any stimulants (e.g., coffee, etc.). If one prefers their meditation session to be in the evening, it must be over for at least one or two hours before one would normally become sleepy and lie down for the night.
On another related note concerning meditation, it is generally believed to be the case among most New Agers that meditation can be practiced in a group; but “group meditation” is an oxymoron, because meditation properly is (and can only be) quite a singular pursuit and certainly a very personal activity. After all, no one else can help oneself learn to control ones own mind. If you are going to learn to drive, you must get behind the wheel yourself.
Also, don't forget to exercise at least twice weekly (or more often if possible), because it should always be a part of any normal or therapeutic regime.
Chapter 8 » Establishing a Mental Relay
Establishing a mental relay is not the same as conditioning (i.e., behavioral [shaping] psychology). The process involves only one mental relay at a time and is done very deliberately and without the need for (generalized Pavlovian) self-conditioning. The process might remind one of how “remote sensing” works, because of it being very specific and focused throughout.
The idea has to do with a patient programming themself each time for a specific purpose, so it is very important to know what is specifically wrong to begin with. That means getting an official diagnosis to work from (you will control the prognosis). This can be done in addition to whatever single specific treatment is given by ones homeopathist.
Dream Remembrance and Control
How one learns to remember (and later control) their dreams has a similarity which can be applied in the mental relay process. One must make oneself physically ready for when one begins to awaken each day. This is done the night before going to sleep.
Place a pen and paper in reach from your sleeping position so you can start writing immediately as soon as you open your eyes. Then you must tell yourself that you will consciously remember your dreams before awakening the next morning. It should be spoken as the last thing before closing your eyes for sleep. As soon as you become aware you are about to awaken the next morning, begin rehearsing to yourself what you have been dreaming as thoroughly as you are able to. And when you feel you have rehearsed enough, only then open your eyes and reach for your pen and paper. Write as much as you can as quickly as you can of what you have rehearsed and can remember. As each day goes by, it will get a bit easier and you will remember more and more. You will find dreams quite easy to remember before long (about a month or so), even without writing them down as you have at first.
Now control is another matter, but of course begins with being able to remember your dreams easily first. Once that is accomplished you will be able to move on to establish control in your dreams to one degree or another. First try to see your hand (or hands) in front of you in the dream state. Next try to see your feet. This will help to establish an initial level of conscious awareness in the dream state, which is the first goal toward learning control in (and later of) your dreams.
Of course this will also take time and effort (while you are asleep that is) in addition to your meditation sessions during waking hours, but the rewards won’t just be in directions other than establishing a therapeutic mental relay for yourself. Keep in mind that the purpose for learning to remember and control your dreams is to be able to set up a therapeutic mental relay eventually.
The next stage of control is learning to stop a dream in the middle and later to initiate one you would like that you have decided to dream before going to sleep. At this stage you must return to writing your dreams down, particularly ones you have intentionally interrupted. And of course you will need to do the same with the dreams you have decided before sleep to dream when you accomplish that.
This will set the stage for initiating a therapeutic mental relay to be combined with homeopathic treatment. Before going to sleep, make the last thing you say to yourself have to do with engendering a positive physical response to any treatment you are under, specifically addressing the exact moment you will receive treatment the following day. You must remember also to do the same thing while you are asleep, whether in the midst of an ongoing dream or when you find yourself consciously aware in sleep while dreamless.
Just before you receive the treatment the next day, close your eyes (with your head raised a bit), and gently tap your forehead twice or three times with the dominant finger of your dominant hand (to “success” the relay) and remember what you said before going to sleep and while you were asleep (at treatment time, nothing is spoken). What you say beforehand can be as simple as, “I will receive the intended positive results from this treatment.” Or better, you can name the specific treatment you will receive and the specific result it intends for you.
The reason for the above has to do with the autonomic nervous/glandular/immune system, and cannot be overstated as far as its effectiveness is concerned. Also, initially establishing a committed (and progressive) meditation habit is important because you need to have at least some control over the waking mind before you can even begin to address the sleeping mind and get any results from the mental relay process. The sleeping mind can then be addressed much more effectively for therapeutic results from the mental relay you will set in motion.
Remember it is important to interact with your breath during meditation. Until you learn the nervous/glandular [electrochemical] language the breath “speaks,” any control exerted over it will not result in any progress toward learning that language, which must come first. However, during your interaction with the breath, gently, very gently slow your breath rate a bit more during each of your meditation sessions, while listening to and heeding any autonomic feedback you get from the lungs. This will help in learning to control the many thoughts that normally run amok otherwise. So, your attention should be on the breath, whether you are simply watching it at first, or later, gently, very gently slowing its rate. In the process of interaction with the breath the language of words must be left behind. One should see why it is important to quiet the mind and its endless torrent of words and their related thoughts and emotions. Concentrating on the breath helps to accomplish this.
Learning the autonomic nervous/glandular [electrochemical] system language of the lungs by way of interacting with the breath (while listening for its “feedback”) can be directly applied when working with ones autonomic immune system; but, again, one must know what the official diagnosis is so that one can establish their own prognosis and their own results from a specific mental relay one sets up for their autonomic immune system.
So, a mental relay is very consciously (while awake and while asleep) delivered to the autonomic immune system with deliberateness, while being as gentle with oneself as possible, and firm (read: decided). Working gently with the breath is an important part of breath interaction (instead of unsuccessful, dead-end attempts at overt muscular control otherwise [as it is taught by the vast majority of meditation “teachers”]).
The effectiveness of this mental relay process cannot be overemphasized, particularly if one has established a peaceful and relaxed meditative life otherwise as grounding for it to be launched from. So, consider that it is necessary for one to make a purposed, long-term (if not life-long) commitment to meditation, and not only to use it in helping to bring about your own positive prognosis. This is because of the process of habituation. If meditation is discontinued and you find yourself confronting another disease condition later in life, the process will have to be repeated. And time may be “of the essence” at that point, too. Hopefully you will gain more from meditation than results from mental relays, and have your own otherwise reasons to continue in it, particularly peacefulness and very much needed relief from daily stresses in life.
Chapter 9 » Final Thoughts
It is very much hoped that homeopathy will take the next logical and reasonable mental step beyond itself. The idea of setting mental relays in therapeutic motion is just one pathway toward that goal. Other related ideas come to mind in that direction, but it suffices here to focus on mental relays specifically for this dissertation as at least one example process (based in meditation) of what can be done therapeutically for oneself, always in conjunction with homeopathic care (and exercise).
Strictly working with the body and leaving the patient’s own mental participation out to any significant, participatory degree is virtually tantamount to joining the allopathic “political” party (read: the AMA) and their own methods of antagonistic (lack of) control over disease, which has never proven its worth. There are absolute mountain chains of evidence proving its ultimate worthlessness, which must be worked against.
Homeopathy is a most worthy candidate in that direction, if and only if it moves beyond itself to engender its patients’ own mental participation as well. It would be very disappointing if one were to find that the profession of homeopathy has no impetus in the direction of including the participation of the patient’s mind in the therapeutic medical practice and process of homeopathy.
Otherwise at least some patients’ lives, such as they may be, will likely continue with unabated stress (whether self-engendered and/or by way of drug- or food-related stimulants of hypertension) which a patient’s commitment to meditation could relieve, even if one were not to go toward establishing therapeutic mental relays addressed in this paper, or any other ideation process grounded in meditation for that matter. As is certainly the case with homeopathy, meditation also “carries no penalties–only benefits”; and should always be put to use by the patient in his own participation in his/her own progress toward better physical health and a stronger, more effective and peaceful mental life for him/herself. Meditatively based mental relays can be used by patients in conjunction with homeopathic treatment of any disease or condition as a vital new adjunct to homeopathy for themselves. Why let patients of homeopathy only be objects of the homeopathic practitioner, when engaging a patient’s own participation in the medical treatment can produce a much greater benefit for the patient when he enriches his life with the mental/emotional benefits (without penalty) of meditation and what one can do with it for ones own health.
As always, exercise must also continue to play its own part as well in a person’s normal life, including during any therapeutic regime.
And finally, what good does a materia medica and repertorium do for an homeopathist and his practice when his patients’ mental relay capabilities have much more power to skirt around (or go with) any treatment received? [Borysenko and Rothstein, 1987, pp.15 & 19-20]
It is not proposed here that ones materia medica and repertorium should be thrown out with the bath water; however, it certainly could be amplified and/or enhanced with meditatively based (patient participation by way of) mental relays as a seriously important adjunct to homeopathy. It is recommended that homeopathists should engender their patients’ innate capabilities and encourage them to develop mental relay abilities through meditation in the context of their own personal health maintenance regime.
Around the turn of the [20th] century there was a large movement on behalf of the allopaths (“doctors who believed in a biomedical approach to medicine”) to discredit other medical approaches, in particular homeopathy. Allopaths had been losing authority and support as doctors, and they were struggling for a way to gain control of the medical profession. Their answer came in 1910, with the publication of The Flexner Report. This report ranked medical schools and hospitals into three categories, from the best to the worst, and gave them each a letter: A, B and C respectively. Flexner was most impressed with Johns Hopkins. “Flexner’s recommendations were straightforward. The first-class schools had to be strengthened on the model of Johns Hopkins, and a few from the middle ranks had to be raised to that high standard; the remainder, the great majority of schools, ought to be extinguished” (Starr, 1982: p.120). For the allopaths, this was a godsend, because Johns Hopkins was a school focused primarily on biomedicine and research.
In the following decades, if medical schools wanted to be prestigious, they had to reformulate their educational process to model that of Hopkins. “The significance of Johns Hopkins Medical School lay in the new relationships it established. It joined science and research ever more firmly to clinical hospital practice” (Starr, 1982: p.116). Medical education was drastically altered by this report; the report lay the foundation for training which has just recently (in the past three decades) received major attention and criticism.