Homeopathy is a system of medical treatment promulgated by Dr. Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann, a German physician. He had spared a long and useful life of 88years during which he benefited the suffering humanity immensely by introducing this new system of medicine.

But what did Hahnemann do when he had become convinced of the in futility and mischievousness of current medical methods Did he continue a routine practice for the sake of making a living. No! Like a noble and honest man, he refused to make a pretence of curing where he believed he did not cure. He relinquished medical practice and devoted himself to the translation of great medical classics of his time.

In 1790, when Hahnemann was engaged in translating Cullen’s Materia Medica from English to German, his attention was arrested by the remark of the author that cinchona bark cured malaria because of its bitterness and tonic effects on stomach. The explanation appeared unsatisfactory to him.

In an attempt to discover its true mode of action, Hahnemann himself ingested 4 drams of cinchona juice daily for a few days. To his great astonishment, he was attacked by symptoms very similar to ague or malarial fever. This unexpected result set up in his mind a new train of thoughts and he conducted similar experiments on himself and other individuals with other medicines whose curative action in certain diseases had been well established. He found that in the healthy persons the medicines produce symptoms very similar to what they cure in diseased individuals.

So he had led to the inference that medicines cure diseases only because they can produce similar symptoms in healthy individuals. The whole of homoeopathy derives from this law. In it resides the revolutionary breakthrough to a wholly new dimension in the understanding of medicine.

Although he had so clearly grasped and formulated this principal law of homoeopathy, Hahnemann did not feel that he had discovered it. He quotes a number of people, who, he thought; either stated it or hinted it long before he came upon it. Hippocrates, for instance, stated this law several times in his teachings. Bouldac wrote that rhubarb’s purgative quality was the reason why it cured diarrhea. Detharding said that senna cured colic because it produces a similar effect on the healthy individuals, and Stahl wrote that “the rule accepted in medicine to cure by contraries is entirely wrong; on the contrary diseases are cured by means of medicines capable of producing a similar affection.”

But even if these people did see or obscurely define the law which Hahnemann so clearly stated, they did nothing about it. They neither formulated it, nor treated accordingly, did Hahnemann go much further. He developed from it the whole system of healing –homoeopathy. We now come to the following steps in his adventure where in he discovers the different laws of homoeopathy and formulates the most complete, the most amazing system of healing the world has ever known.
In 1796, after six years of his first experiment, he published an article in Hufeland’s Journal Vol-ll, Parts 3 and 4, Pages 391-439 and 465-561. “ An essay on a New Principle For Ascertaining The curative powers of Drugs and Some Examination of the Previous Principle”.

He thus put forward his new doctrine of Similia Curantur (Like cures Like) in contrast to the age-old doctrine of Contraria Contrariis Curantur (opposite cures opposite). According to Richard Haehl ‘ 1796 is the year of birth of Homoeopathy’. In this he says, “ one should apply in the diseased to be treated , particulary if chronic, that remedy which is able to stimulate another artificially produced disease, as similar as possible and the former will be healed-Similia Similibus-likes with likes”.

The doctrines of Homoeopathy were attempted to be formulated, for the first time by Hahnemann in his article “ The Medicine of Experience” published in 1805 till the complete systematization of the principles and practice of the homoeopathic art of healing was effected with the publication of Hahnemann’s Organon of medicine in 1810.

The art of medicine was thus placed on a scientific footing when Hahnemann discovered the method of testing the positive action of each individual drug and a law guiding the selection of drug to cure diseases. Then medicine of speculation which existed since time immemorial was changed into medicine of experience. He was not a barren iconoclast like Paracelsus but an constructive genius whose parallel there was none in European history of medicine.

Every science has certain basic principles which guide the whole system. Homoeopathy as a science of medical treatment has a philosophy of its own and its therapeutics is based on certain fundamental principles which are quite distinct and different from those of other school of medical science. These fundamental principles were discussed by Hahnemann in different sections his organon of medicine and philosophy. They are as follows:

  • Law of Similia
  • Law of Simplex
  • Law of Minimum
  • Doctrine of Drug proving
  • Theory of Chronic disease
  • Theory of Vital force
  • Doctrine of Drug-dynamization

Aude has originated from Latin word. ‘Audhere’ which means ‘to dare’, ‘Sapere’ means ‘to be wise’. So ‘Aude Sapere’ means ‘dare to be wise’. “Dare to know”- P.Schmidt. “ Have the courage of your own convictions, dare to be wise”-R.Haehl. This quotation of Horace was used for the first time as the concluding words of his ‘Medicine of Organon ‘. (1805). It pleased him so well that he adopted it in the Organon as motto. This couplet of words appears on the title page of his second edition of organon, in place of Gellert’s poem, till the sixth edition.

History of human civilization records with gloom and grimness the tragedy that any new idea is opposed by the traditional ones. Any revelation of truth is liable to be suppressed by the conditioned thinking. Human mind is enslaved in prejudice and orthodoxy. It is difficult to introduce new ideas, advanced views in human mind.

The histories of many men who have risen to eminence in some particular branch of science teach us that they have done so under the most unfavourable circumstances and inspite of the greatest obstacles thrown in their way by fortune. Hahnemann belonged to this class of great men.

When the first edition of Organon of Medicine was published a storm of criticism, ridicules, started in Germany and Europe. He was attacked in the medical Journals of the day. Books and pamphlets were culminated against him and his strange doctrines. He was called a charlatan, quack, a ignoramus. It can be said without fear of contradiction that no other medical book anywhere at any time in any language drew so prompt, so vigorous, so large and varied denunciation, criticism and condemnation. A monthly journal ‘Anti-organon’ was published in July, 1810. Dr. Simon started another journal ‘Anti homoeopathic Archiv’. Books are published by Prof. A. F. Hecker, Kranfelder, Jors, Bischoff, Coroth Maissner. Many of his deciples were prosecuted by the court for dispensing their own medicines. Hornburg was jailed and his chest of the medicine was confiscated and subsequently buried with public celebration in burial ground.

Inspite of this great opposition, he was the last person to surrender. He wanted to show them that he was not afraid of it. Hahnemann, wanted us, the physicians, to be bold, to be courageous. Since every lover of truth, every one willing to know more, to be wise, as every physician is ought to be, has to undergo all types of hardship. Even he may have to pay his beloved life. Such has been the lesson of history. Socrates, Galileo, Servantu, Vesalius, Scheleich Galen, Paracelsus, Amroise Pare, Harvey, Jenner, Semmelwies ect. Are only a few names from many whose lives would teach us the need of it.

Hahnemann knew the dangers of being a wise man. He knew the risk of introducing which is against the invogue beliefs and dogmas. But he was not afraid of those dangers and risk. He had the courage to standby his conviction. That is why Hahnemann replaced the stanza of Gellert’s poem and put these two words.

Life=Body +Spirit = Vital Force

It this super- sensual thing which maintain the body in living condition. This makes all the difference between the living and dead. This thing , according to Hahemann, the father of Homoeopathy is termed as Vital Force : the force of life which appears first in the fifth edition of Organon (1833).In the sixth edition, the same is changed to “Vital Principal”. This was the first introduction to the medical world of the rational concept of life itself.

Hahnemann says: “Inthe healthy condition of man, the spiritual vital force (autocracy), the dynamism that animates the material body (organism), rules with unbounded sway, and retains all the parts of the organism in admirable, harmonious, vital operation, as regards both sensations and functions, so that our indwelling reason-gifted mind can freely employ this living, healthy instrument for the higher purposes of our existence.”

As the vital force is spiritual, it can only be disturbed by some other spiritual force which is inimical to it. This inimical force affects the vital force when the former (inimical force) is superior to the latter (vital force). Because of this affection, the vital force no longer rules with unbounded sway. Its normal workings are altered abnormally and the essential harmony is disturbed. This lack of harmony both on sensational and functional plane immediately shows itself through the material body as signs and symptoms. Hence when harmonious functioning of the vital force is disturbed, we get sickness as a result.

  1. In acute disease
    The vital force is always attempting to recover from diseased states. In acute disease the role of vital force is as follows:-

      • If the acute diseases are not of too violent character, the vital force may be able to overcome the disease conditions through its own power, without outside help (i.e., medicine) but always in sacrifice of some vital energy.
      • Sometimes the assult may be so great that the vital force is not of itself able to overcome the disease conditions and be completely deatroyed.

      Homoeopathic remedies will assit in both of these cases and very often save the sacrifice of the energy as the life of the patient.

        • In chronic disease
          In this case, the vital force along can not extinguish the disease. Hence it requires medicinal help for its cure.

    During the primary action of the applied homoeopathic medicine the vital force remains passive and receives the impressions produced on it. As a result a similar, stronger medicinal disease is produced which removes the natural disease. So the vital force becomes now medicinally diseased.

    During the secondary action the vital force reacts against the primary action of the applied medicine. But due to the similar relation between the drug and disease the exact opposite condition is not possible. So the vital force indifferenciates itself and employs its increased energy to extinct the medicinal disease which gradually decreases rapidly of its own accord because of following reasons:

    (a) Minuteness of the dose.
    (b) Short and limited period of action.

    Thus the vital force being freed from both the natural disease as well as the artificial disease returns to its original normal condition and takes the charge of the already altered tissues and organs leading ultimately to health.

    So, the natural disease is removed by the primary action of the administered medicine and the medicinal disease is removed by the secondary curative action of the vital force.

    Health is the normal condition of life characterized by a sensation of ease (well-being) and comfort due to the harmonious playing of the vital force.

    It has been defined in Dorland’s Medical Dictionary as “A stage of optimal physical, mental and social well being and not merely the absence of disease.”

    According to aphorism 9 of the Organon, health is a condition in which the spiritual vital force ‘rules with unbounded sway, and retains all parts of the organism in admirable harmonious, vital operation, as regards both sensations and functions’.

    Stuart Close defies it as: “Health is that balanced condition of the living organism in which the integral, harmonious performance of the vital function tends to the preservation of the organism and the normal development of the individual”.

    According to Dr. Elizabeth Wright ‘Health, to Homoeopath, is a state of harmony between the person as a whole and the cosmos.

    The human organism is a triune entity consisting of body, mind and vital force. In the healthy condition of life this vital force unboundedly controls, regulates and co-ordinate harmoniously the activities of the whole living organism from its minutest protoplasmic molecules, cells, tissues, organs and systems to the entire body. As a result of this, all the functional and structural activities of the living organism, its nutrition, growth, development, reproduction, metabolism etc. will continue systematically in a co-ordinated way without any unpleasant sensation, rather with a pleasant sensation of well-being.

    Moreover, in the state the vital force will go on effectively resisting and subduing the influence of all inimical forces trying to disturb its normal activities, and thus it provides the organism the power of self-preservation.

    Disease is the abnormally altered state of life characterized by a sensation of uneasiness and discomfort due to dynamic derangement of the vital force.

    The Standard Dictionary defines as: “any departure from, failure in, or pervertion of normal physiological action in the material constitution or functional integrity of the living organism.”

    In Sec.11 Hahnemann defies disease as an abnormally altered state of health is which the self –acting (automatic) vital force is primarily dynamically deranged by the morbific dynamic influence inimical to life, subsequently causing disagreeable sensation and irregular functions which are exfoliated outwardly through the material body as the morbid signs and symptoms, the totality of which constitutes the disease. Thus disease is not a separate objective entity lying hidden in the interior of the organism- as was so forcibly preached by Paracelsus. It is merely a changed qualitative state of the organism. Nothing can be taken out or nothing can be added to in the cure of disease but only the state of health of the individual is to be changed. There is no ’materia peccans’ for disease.

    According to Stuart Close “Disease is an abnormal vital process, a changed condition of life, which is inimical to the true development of the individual and tends to organic dissolution”

    According to Dr. Elizebeth wright “Disease to the Homeopathy is a state of disharmony involving at least three different factors, some morbific influence, the susceptibility of the person affected, and the individuality of the patient modifying form the disease takes.

    In the state of disease, the vital force is primarily deranged, so that it is unable to control, co-ordinate and harmonise the different vital operation of the living organism. This inefficiency of the vital force is first reflected in the subjective plane in the form of various abnormal sensation in various location or in the whole self as well as in the form of disturbed condition and activities of the mind. If the disturbance is allowed to go on unchecked, it soon becomes reflected in the form of abnormal functioning of the different parts ,organs, systems as well as the whole living organism. If it is not brought to balance even at this stage it becomes manifested in the various material and structural changes.

    In short, disease may be defined as a dynamic derangement of the vital harmony of the whole organism manifested first in the sphere of sensation (feeling of illness and various unpleasant sensations), then in the sphere of functions (various functional disorder), then in the sphere of material constituents (fluid, cells, tissues and organ of the body).

    The advent of Homeopathy in the world opened a new era in medicine and gave new meaning to the word ‘cure’. The ‘cure’ was not a new word in the medical world. It had a loose deep root among the physicians merely in the term of talk. Hahnemann pointed out to the physician to their divine duty of cure as a real object. In the first paragraph of the Organon he penetrated directly to the heart of the matter and declared that the ‘physician’s high and only mission is to restore the sick to health- to cure’. And subsequently in the second paragraph Hahnemann gives an adequate and satisfying definition of the ideal expressed in word the ‘cure’. “The highest ideal of a cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of health or removal or annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible principles”.

    The concept of cure in Homoeopathy is based on the consideration of the following points:

    1. Primarily and essentially, cure is the restoration, directly by medical art, of normal physiological condition. It does not consist in the mere removal of the external secondary, tangible products of disease, but in restoration of the dynamical balance, restoration of the normal functioning of the vital force, so that the functions of the organism are again performed normally and patient is in a state of health.
    2. Disease is manifested perceptibly by signs and symptoms. Cure is manifested by the removal of all signs and symptoms. But if symptoms disappear and the patient is not restored to health, it is not cure. Cure means complete restoration of health (restoration of the dynamic balance leading to normal functioning of the vital force) along with the removal of all the perceptible signs and symptoms.
    3. In the matter of curative therapeutics, there can be no iota of rationality in going to treat any one or group of these manifestations isolately instead of covering the totality of the manifestations of the internal struggle of forces. Cure relates to the patient as a whole, not to some symptoms of his disease.
    4. Cure is not affected by the surgical removal or by any local means of the external, secondary, pathological end-products of disease, such as tumors, effusions, collections of pus, useless organs or dead tissues ; a the morbid functioning which produced those effects often remains unchanged, after such removal.
    5. As the disease is dynamic in nature, it can never be affected by anything which is not dynamic. So dynamic derangement of dynamic vital force should only be cure dynamically.
    6. By this dynamic treatment, when the struggle is settled down with the victory of vital force, the living organs shall revert to their original healthy state with no manifestation of symptoms of any disorder. Putting it conversely the permanent disappearance of all the manifestations of the internal derangement (i.e. symptoms and signs) can mean nothing but, reversal to healthy state i.e., cure.
      The accomplishment of even one true cure by medication implies the existence of a governing principle. Dr. Hahnemann established a new method of therapeutics named Homoeopathy where the principle is ‘Similia Similibus Curantur’. It is the only curative mode of treating natural diseases.
    7. The cure should take place in a definite orderly manner and direction. These orderly disappearance of symptoms are stated in Hering’s Law of Cure as follows:
      • From above downward
      • From within outward

    In reverse order of the appearance of the symptoms.

    This is based on an axiom ‘Equalia Equilibus Curantur’ which means ‘same cures the same’.

    It is difficult to fix the antiquity of the doctrine of isopathy. In one form or anothrt it has existed almost as long as medicine has been practiced. However the guiding principle was founded by W.Lux, a veterinary surgeon in Leipzig.

    Is Isopethy is a method of treating a given disease by the same contagious principle that produces it (Food note to section 56 ). This definition appeared for the first time in the 5th edition of Organon of Medicine.

    • If aperson is suffering from Otorrhoea, then he will be given the discharge of his own ear in potentised form.
    • In the same way, if there is any burn, the person is asked to apply heat on the affected part.
    • The cure of frost-bite by snow
    • For the cure of malignant pustules in cattle, the Isopathic practitioner recommended a drop of matter of the pustules in potentised form

    Allopathy is a system of therapeutics having no fixed relation between drug and disease. It makes use of any approach whatever it thinks best adopted to the case in hand. Here relation between the medicinal systems and disease symptoms are hetrogenous. Hence it is rightly remarked by Hahnemann as hetergenous mode of treatment. They prescribe following types of medicine:-

    1. Medicines bearing no direct pathological link to the disease.
    2. Medicines having opposite relation to the disease.
    3. Sometimes medicine with similar relation(un-knowingly).

    According to Hahnemann Allopathy is “the mode of employing medicines for disease……in which are given, whose symptoms have no direct pathological relation to the morbid state, neither similar nor opposite, but quite heterogenous to the symptoms of the disease”. (Organon, Footnote tothe Aphorism 22).

    Hahnemann again defies it (in Sec. 55) as “The allopathic or heteropathic , which, without any pathological relation to what is actually diseased in the body, attack the parts most exempt from the disease, In order to draw away the disease through them…….”.

    It has no inventor. It has originated empirically through ages.

    1. Treatment of itch exanthema by the employment of violet purgatives.
    2. Treatment of epilepsy by mean of issues.


    1. Allopathy tries to study the human organism from a materialistic stand point. It explains the vital phenomena in term of chemico- physical processes. They believe on the material causes of disease and regard them as the sum total of structural and functional changes in the body.
    2. It regard medicines as applied physiology and pathology and its therapeutic method are dependent on physiological and pathological discoveries which are liable to change with the process of knowledge in those branches.
    3. Being guided by the above concept, it believes in palliative , substitutive and parasiticidal measures.
    4. It concentrates its attention to the parts of the organism and misses the whole. So it associates disease with particular parts of the body i.e, tissues and organs and tries to treat those parts – tissues and organs primarily and separately.
    5. It tries to ascertain the action of drugs through animals and laboratory experimentations. Drugs have never been tested and proved on healthy human beings.
    6. It treats diseases by their names and common symptoms.
    7. It tries to found out specific remedy for specific disease – named and classified according to the nosological schema i.e. this school tries to find out specific drug for different diseases like tuberculosis, pneumonia typhoid etc.
    8. This system of treatment applies many drugs separately or their mixture at a time (one for each main symptom). It uses large quantities of medicines because it believes in the material cause of diseases. It considers the material body as the object of their treatment, hence applies different types of medicine in material doses.
    9. Allopathy has no fixed therapeutic law. In some places it prescribes the medicine bearing opposite relation, sometimes similar relation, sometimes without any established relation between drug and disease.


    1. The allopathic treatment attacks the body in the least diseased parts that have no direct pathological relation to the disease to be cured. Use of violent purgatives to treat itch exanthema does not cure the skin disease but only adds another trouble to the patient viz. ruined digestion and impaired strength.
    2. In allopathic system of medicine, the employment of large doses of mixture of medicines generally of unknown nature induces a morbid state quite heterogeneous and dissimilar to the original one and thus ruins the patient’s constitution at the sacrifice of patient’s strength. Cure is never thereby effected but an aggravation is the invariable consequence.
    3. The old disease is not cured by a dissimilar medicine but if the allopathic treatment is mild, the old disease repels the dissimilar medicinal disease and remains as it is . the patient is thereby weakened.
      • Or, (because, according to the process of nature, the new and stronger disease merely obscures and suspends for a short time the original weaker one) if the allopathic medicine is strong, it attacks the body violently and suspends the original weaker dissimilar disease for a short time but after the medicinal action is over, the old disease returns with its strength undiminished.
      • Or, (because, according to the process of nature, two dissimilar disease, when both are of a chornic character and of equal strength, take up a position beside one another in the organism and complicate each other) if the allopathic medicines are employed for a long time in large doses, the original chronic disease beside the original one. This makes the patient much worse than before as he has now two diseases instead of one. Such mischievous treatment renders the patient more incurable than before, as daily experience shows.

    Homoeos’ means ‘similar’, ‘alike’ and ‘pathos’ means ‘suffering’ ; ‘disease’. Alloeos’ means heterogenous’ and pathos’ means ‘suffering’; ‘disease.

    ‘Similia Similibus Curantur’, which means ‘likes cure likes’.No fixed principle.

    Homoeopathy is a method of curing the sufferings of a person by the administration of a drug which has been experimentally proved topossess the power of producing similar sufferings in healthy human beings. Inshort, it is a therapeutic system of symptom-similarity. Allopathy is a system of therapeuitcs which has no fixed relation between drug disease. In some places it prescribes the medicine bearing oppositr relation, sometimes similar relation (unknowingly) and sometimes without any established relation between drug and disease. So it is a heterogenous mode of treatment.

    The ‘Law of Similars’ was known to the medical world since antiquity. But Hahnemann was the first who applied this law in the field of therapeutics i. e., in the treatment of ARE diseases in a systematized way. It has no particular inventor. It has originated from empirical methods.

    Homoeopathy appreciates the dynamic concept of life. It believes that apart from the material existence of the organism, there is something immaterial, super-sensual power which animates the material body and imparts life in it. According to Hahnemann this spiritual power is termed as ‘Vital Force’ –the force of life. The Orthodox school tries to study the human organism from a materialistic view point. It tries to explain the vital operations of life in terms of chemico-physical relation.

    According to homoeopathy, no two cases of the same disease are exactly alike. Difference of manifestation in symptoms and modalities always exit in individuals. It is these differences which give each case its individuality, and create the need for an individual remedy. Apart from the disease diagnosis, Homoeopathy proceeds further for the selection of appropriate homoeopathic remedy. It takes note of uncommon, peculiar, striking symptoms for the diagnosis of the patient i. e., for individualization which leads to therapeutic diagnosis. The trend of Orthodox medicine is to generalize, to diagnose and to treat illnesses on the basis of common symptoms of the disease. The Allopathic school comes to as end of their diagnostic labour by the time they determine a disease-condition and put a label on it.

    Homoeopathy accepts the concept of the biological whole. So it tries to treat the patient as a whole and not the particular diseased part-as is commonly talked about in homoeopathic parlance. The orthodox school concentrates its attention to the parts of the organism and misses the whole. So it associates diseases with particular parts of the body, i.e., tissues and organs and tries to treat those parts-tissues or organs primarily and separately.

    According to this system diseases are nothing but the dynamic derangement of the vital force. Homoeopathy regards bacteria, parasites etc. as the end-products of morbid vital processes and they come as ‘seavenger’ of disease. Kent says “Bacilli are not the cause of disease they never come untill after the disease.” They consider disease to be caused by some material causes such as bacteria, parasites, viruses etc. On the basis of this concept they have materialistic approach to their treatment. They consider that man is suffering from tuberculosis due to the infection of tubercle bacilli.

    Homoeopathic therapeutic methods are not dependent on physiological and pathological and pathological discoveries but are dependent on the experimentations and clinical observations of the effects of the drugs on the healthy human beings i. e., on drug-proving which is not liable to change. The homoeopathic approach to the study of disease is from its clinical standpoint. It regards structural changes as the end results of disease. The basis of the homoeopathic prescription is the totality of the symptoms which represents the functional disorder-the abnormal process of the disease itself, not its ultimate or end-products. The scope of Homoeopathy lies in treating the actual morbid vital force, neither its causative agents not its ultimates.

    The orthodox school regards Medicine as applied physiology and pathology and its therapeutic methods are dependent on physiology and pathology discoveries which are liable to change with the process in knowledge acquired in those branches of science. The approach of the orthodox school to the study of diseases as the sum total of structural and functional changes in the body. Hence they want to treat the ‘end-results’ of the disease such as enlarged liver, enlarged spleen etc.

    Homoeopathy treats patients on the basis of totality of symptoms with most similar remedy- whatever may be the nosological term for their disease condition e.g., ten cases of Influenza, may require ten different disease-conditions bearing different nosological labels may require the same medicine.

    The orthodox medicine tries to find out specific remedy for specific disease named and classified according to a nosological scheme.

    Homoeopathy tries to as certain the action of drugs by proving them on healthy human beings who are able to communicate their subjective symptoms to the experimentalist.

    The orthodox school tries to ascertain the action of drugs through a normal and laboratory experimentations, hence the drugs used are unknown as regards their specific action on human beings.

    Only one single, simple medicine is employed at a time in minimum dose (subject to change in some exceptional circumstances). It employs large quantities of medicines. Many drugs each for a prominent symptom are mixed together and administered.

    Homoeopathy feels the necessity of having a therapeutic law of cure. It regards no branch of knowledge as scientific which has hitherto failed to discover a general law as laws which seem to underlie and correlate the phenomena of the phenomena of the particular subject concerned. That the homoeopathic therapeutic law of cure is absolutely scientific is justified by the processes of observations, inductions, deductions, and experimental verifications. It is based on the eternal, irrevocable law of Nature “Similia Similibus Curantur.”

    The orthodox school odes not feel the necessity of discovering a therapeutic law of cure. It makes use of any approach whatever it thinks best adapted to the case in hand.

    Thousand of observations support that homoeopathy is the only curative mode of treatment among other system of medicine the world had ever seen.From different observations it is very much clear that this mode of treatment can not cure diseases, rather palliate, suppress or complicate in the long run. Thus the diseases become more worse than before and become incurable as daily experience shows.

    According to Sec. 71 the three necessary points which comprise the act of curing are as follows:-

    1. Investigation of disease.
    2. Investigation of the effects of medicine.
    3. Their appropriate employment.

    Investigation of diseases:
    In this point, the physician has to investigate the general and individualistic symptoms of the case. The general symptoms help in the diagnosis of the disease which is essential for management, diet and regimen and also for prognosis. The individualistic symptoms of the patient help in therapeutic diagnosis i.e., in the selection of the homoeopathic remedy. After proper investigation the classification of disease becomes easy and it helps in selection of mode of treatment to be adapted for cure.

    Investigation of the effects of medicines
    The disease producing power Of a medicine is its disease curing power. So the complete investigation of the pathogenetic power of the medicine is one of the most essential factors to be considered for cure. The process by which we can obtain the knowledge of the pathogenetic power of the medicine by administering it on healthy human beings is known as drug proving. So the physician must know how to prove drugs. Drug proving is done according to the instructions laid down in sec. 105 to 145.

    Their appropriate employment
    The third point of enquiry is the investigation of most suitable method of employing these artificial agents {medicines] for the cure of natural disease. It is covered by sec. 146 to 285.

    The word in the ‘miasm’ has originated from Greek word miasma which literally means, up to Hahnemann’s time many things, including polluting exhalations , malarial poison etc. It was loosely used in his time to express the morbific emanations from putrescent organic matter, animal or vegetable and sometimes the effluvia arising from the bodies of those affected by certain diseases, some of which were regarded as infectious and others not.

    But Hahnemann has used this in much more precise form and is used in the sense of chornic syndrome (.i.e., combination of signs and symptoms associated with a morbid process).

    Miasms are dynamic disease-producing powers which stain and pollute the human organism with unhealthy tendencies and thus become the producer of different disease.

    Stuart Close in his “Genius of homoeopathy” remarks “A miasm is, according toHahnemann, and to most of his followers, an infecting agent and acause of disease. According to some, it is also the disease produced by the miasm” Sir Jon Weir remarks in his book ‘Science and art of Homoeopathy’.

    In Sec. 28 Dr. S. Hahnemann advices not to attach much importance to explain scientifically of how homoeopathic cur takes place. But as our scientific mind is not satisfied without some intellectual interpretation of the fact, Hahnemann offers a probable explanation of the mechanism of cure by homoeopathic medicine is sec. 29 and 148.

    A medicine is selected which bears the greatest similarity to the totality of symptoms observed in a given case of natural disease. During this selection the most striking, singular uncommon , peculiar (characteristic) symptoms are to kept in view .This medicine will and must be the most suitable, the most certain homoeopathic remedy for that case. It is the specific remedy of that particular case at that particular time. The most common symptoms like headache, loss of appetite, fever which may be seen in different types of disease are to be neglected.

    The medicine thus selected in administered in single, simple form in suitable dose. In its primary action, it affects dynamically the morbidly deranged vital force of the individual acting through the sentient faculty of nerves. The dose of sufficient to excite the vital force because of increased susceptibility to the similar medicine in diseased condition. As it has the power and tendency to produce similar symptoms, it attacks those very parts and point in the organism now suffering from the natural disease and produces a similar stronger artificial disease.

    This similar stronger artificial disease removes the weaker natural disease according to the Natural law of cure of Sec.26 which asserts:

    “A weaker dynamic affection in permanently extinguished in the living organism by or stronger one, if the latter (whilst differing in kind) is very similar to the former in its manifestation“.

    On account of great similarity and stronger, the artificial disease occupies precisely the same seat which was occupied previously by the natural morbid derangement. So from that time the instinctive, automatic vital force is no longer affected by the natural disease but solely by the stronger similar medicinal disease. This slight intensification of the existing symptom symptoms after the administration of a similar medicine is called homoeopathic aggravation.

    But the instinctive vital force, which is now merely medicinally diseased (through in a stronger degree) is compelled to react violently against the primary action of the medicine –Secondary curative action of the vital force.

    On the other hand, the medicinal disease gradually becomes weaker and weaker due to the following reasons:

    1. Minuteness of the dose of medicine.
    2. Fixed and shorter duration of action of medicinal agent.

    As there is similar relation between drugs and disease – the vital force indifferentiates itself and employs its increased energy to over come medicinal disease.

    As the medicinal disease is growing weaker and weaker finally a time will come when the vital force will come when the vital force will overcome the medicinal disease.

    The vital force is freed from both natural as well as medicinal disease and enabled to carry on healthily the vital operations of the organism. Thus health is restored.

    Actually in homoeopathic cure, on account of extraordinary minuteness of the medicine the vital force has to exert very little effort for the extinction of medicinal disease which is very transient slight and disappears spontaneously.

    It should be noted that the natural disease is removed by the primary action of the administered medicine and the substituted artificial (medicinal) one is removed by the secondary curative action of the vital force.

    Mongrel means a cross breed dog. This word is used by Dr. Hahnemann for a certain type of homoeopathic prescribes who neither study seriously nor try to get ‘simillimum’ carefully and laboriously to cure his patients. Due to the lack at their own knowledge, when unsuitable remedy does not give relief, they blame to homoeopathy without any hesitation saying that homoeopathy has nothing to do in this disease and quickly resort to allopathic drugs.

    The actual selection of the homoeopathic remedy most similar in every respect to each morbid state is a laborious and care demanding task. It requires a great amount of circumspection and serious deliberation. But some homoeopathic physicians without going details of the case employ medicines which are in a form and appearance homoeopathic, but not actually homoeopathic to the case. Naturally there is no improvement-no cure. Then instead of finding out correct remedy labouriously again, they ascribe this inefficiency to homoeopathy which they accuse of great imperfection.

    They know, however from frequent practice, how to make up for the efficiency of the scarcely half homoeopathic remedy by the employment of allopathic means. When the patient recovers, they extol their venesection, leeches, alleging that these operations in reality contributed the best share towards the cure.

    But if the patient die under the treatment, as not infrequently happen, they seek to console the friends by saying that, “ they themselves were witnesses that every thing conceivable had been done for the lamented disease.” Regarding this Hahnemann comments in F. N. S, 149/1 is ‘May the just recompense await them, that, when taken ill, they may be treated in the same manner.’

    Diseases having too few symptoms are known as One-sided diseases. They are termed one-sided because they display only one or two principal symptoms which obscure almost all the others. They belong chiefly to the class of chronic diseases. Due to the dearth of symptoms they are less amenable to cure. (S. 172-173)

    So by definition, one –sided disease is chiefly a chronic disease with one or two principal symptoms which obscure almost all the other symptoms.

    Bodily reaction to the similar remedy occur in a definite direction. Such reactions ultimately lead to cure. Hering first introduced the Law of Direction of symptoms. It does not occur in Hahnemann’s writings. He mentioned a few points, in his ‘Organon of Medicine’ and Chronic Disease’ to understand the process leading to cure. For instance, the symptoms should disappear leading cure. For instance, the symptoms should disappear in the reverse order of their appearance, the first to appear being the last to disappear. Or, if suppressed skin disease or any discharges during the treatment, it signifies that the patient is on the way of cure.

    Dr. Hering formulated a definite law regarding the direction of cure after long observation and keen examination of keen examination of thousands of patients with his clinical mind. It is spoken of as Hering’s Law. There is scarcely anything of this law in the literature of Homoeopathy, except the observations of symptoms going from above to the extremities, eruptions appearing on the skin and discharges from the mucous membrane or ulcer appearing on the legs as internal symptoms disappear. There is no specific assertion in literature except as given in lectures in Philosophy at the postgraduate school.

    Hering’s Law of cure may stated as follows. At the time of cure, the symptoms will disappear:

    • From above downward.
    • From within outward.
    • From an important organ to a less important organ.
    • In the reverse order of their appearance, the first to appear being last to disappear.

    Allergy is a state of hypersensitivity of the body to a specific substance (allergen, antigen) characterized by an altered reaction incited by an antigen or allergen.

    1. Some person are attacked with urticaria on taking eggs due to hyper-susceptibility to eggs.
    2. Some again are prone to have paroxymal sneezing with running of nose due to Hyper-susceptibility to dust.


    Idiosyncrasy is a peculiar corporeal constitution which although otherwise healthy, possesses a disposition to be brought into a more or less morbid state by certain things which seem to produce no change in many other individuals. (for details-consult “ A Treatise on Organon of Medicine.” Part-l)

    Idiosyncrasy is a personal type of hypersensitivity or allergy. For example, among the people who are allergic to fish Subrata gets diarrhea from fish, Asit gets urticaria from eating fish and Tapan gets edema of face from eating the same. This peculiar reaction shown by three persons all in different ways shows the peculiar state of hypersensitivity or allergy to the same allergen (fish).

    Thus idiosyncrasy to Subrata fish to differ from Asitand Tapan, although they are all allergic to fish. It is due to idiosyncrasy that each person shows his peculiar expression of symptoms although suffering from the same cause.

    N.B. :- There are different opinion among the professors regarding the difference between allergy and idiosyncrasy-although it has not much practical value. With the present advancement of knowledge, of allergy, the difference is coming closer and closer).

    The moral state and mental condition of the patient often determine the choice of the homoeopathic remedy”. (Organan)

    Mental symptoms, almost always define a case absolutely when the doctor exercises the art and patience to extract them from carefully taken case-history and to understand them.

    Boennighausen gave a very small place to mentals with a certain justification. He was of the opinion that in actual practice it is difficult to extract reliable mentals, very often the psychic state has to be ignored as it is only a mask for the true mental symptoms which are exhibited through the physical expressions. Boenninghausen did not under-rate the mentals but he felt that it was not practically possible. He therefore, did not give the priority to the mentals which Kent later did. For Kent, it is the mental symptoms around which other symptoms revolve because mental symptoms express the innermost of the man and hence most characteristic of a sick individual. The mind is a subjective as well as objective index which reveals the bias and rules the whole case.

    Mental symptoms are truly ‘Generals’ of the patient but can be common as well as (uncommon) characteristic. It is not always that mentals are given precedence, because in certain mental diseases, the apparently characteristic mental symptoms are meraly common symptoms of disease. Here other physical generals are much more important. The mental symptoms in the hysteric are not usually reliable.

    Usually the earliest mental manifestations are decidedly the most important of all the symptoms. If we have the acumen to detect this very early we will discover that the later mental phenomena are simply variations and that either will lead to the same remedy, which will, however, be found with increasing difficulty as the case progresses.

    The mental systems pertaining to the will and emotions are important than those concerning the intellect. Actually strong physical generals may be more important from the point of view of remedy selection than symptoms of intellect like forgetfulness, poor memory etc.

    Oxford Dictionary defies ‘Logic’ as the “science of reasoning”. Reason is the mind’s eye and enables us to explain the different phenomena critically. Reasoning is the intellectual faculty by which conclusions are drawn from premises by connected thought. It teaches us how one judgment may be inferred, that is arrived at, reached from other judgements. Any process of inference is based on reasoning. Hence logic is also called the “ science of inference.

    Inductive logic

    The inductive method in logic is the scientific method that proceeds by induction o, e. by drawing universal conclusion from particular premise.

    By inductive reasoning we as certain what is true of many different things. It proceeds by induction. By induction universal conclusion is drawn from particular premises. Our senses fells us what happens around us and by proper reasoning we may discover the law of nature, in consequence of which they happen.

    Inductive logic does concern itself with fact, with reality. Its primary purpose is the discovery and use of truth. It requires –

    1. Exact observation.
    2. Correct interpretation of the observed fact with a view to understand them in relation to each other and to their causes.
    3. Rational explanation of the fact by referring them to their real cause of law.
    4. Scientific conclusion-putting the facts in such co-ordination that the system reached shall agree with the reality.
    5. Inductive logic and Science

      The inductive method in science is the application of the principle of inductive logic to scientific research. This method was originated by the Lord Becon and set forth in his Novum Organum. It was further developed by John Stuart Will in his great system of logic. It has been the inspiration, the basis and the instrument of every modern science.

      Before Lord Becon’s time, logic was used principally as an instrument for argument and disputation. Little or no attention was given to facts. Direct and systemic investigation of nature was unknown or ignored. Opinions, speculations and theories were used as the material for constructing more opinion and theories. The search for truth ended now here.

      Lord Becon called upon men to cease speculating and go direct to nature in their search for truth. He demolished innumerable false systems and restored logic to its true place as the guide to truth.


      In deductive logic we do the opposite and infer what will happen in consequence of the law. Here a particular conclusion is drawn from a universal premise i.e. inference is drawn from general to particular.

    We live in the age of science. So whether comes to our knowledge our scientific mind always want to explain them scientifically. Homoeopathy is not an exception. But a controversy revolves amidst the non- homoeopathic scientists and even among homoeopaths round the question as to whether Homoeopathy is a science or an art. According to this man of learning, anything that can be explained by materialistic science has nothing to do with science. These gentlemen seem to forget the very definition of science in general vis-a viis that of technical art, as given in different Dictionary.

    According to Webster’s seventh New Collegiate Dictionary-

    Science– A department of systematized knowledge as an object of study; knowledge of covering general truths or the operation of general law esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method.

    Scientific method– Principles and producers for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

    Art– Systematic application of knowledge of skill in effecting a desired result.

    Relationship between science and Art- Science and Art are inseparably bound together. Every art has its foundation in science and every science finds its expression in art. Consciously or unconsciously the artist or the craft man at work is applying principles and laws, formulated and systematized knowledge of which constitutes science.

    Homoeopathy, a Science– Like chemistry or physics, Homoeopathy is established under the
    principles of the inductive method in science. It rests fundamentally upon some principles which are Similia, Simplex, Minimum dose, Drug- proving, Chronic disease, Potentization and Vital force. The formulation of each and every one of the principle is based on pure observation of facts and thoroughly rational inductions thereform and confirmed by myriads of subsequent experiments and experiences in accordance with strictly scientific method of yard sticks. These principles have also been tested clinically for about 175 years and their scientific validity has been conclusively demonstrated.

    Thereapeutics is that department of medical science that relates to the treatment of disease and the action of remedial agents on the human organism, both in health and disease”(Standard Dictionary).

    Since it confirms to every requirement of the authoritatives definition of science, Homoeopathy has been defined as the Science of Therepeutics.

    Recent experimental evidences in support of scientificity of homoeopathic principles-

    1. Mordern experiments show that human being gives off radiations which have been first photographed in Russia and U.S.A by using high frequency currents which is known as Kirlian photography. The pattern of this photograph differs from man to man in health as well as disease. Is it not the support of Hahnemannian theory of vital force and individualization?
    2. Recently R.R.Sharma, Associate professor and Head, Biophysics department, Post-graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh experimentally proved that potentized 30 C alloxan induced acute diabetes although the probility of finding one molecule of alloxan in the dose is about 1in1041. The 10030 fold simple dilution of alloxan exercises no curative action although the probability of finding a molecule of alloxan in the dose is same as far 30C alloxan.
    3. The use of ‘inert’substances used in Homoeopathy has occasionally been the object of ridicule. The crude sand has no effect on health but when the sand is grinded up very fine, it can have an effect L.U. Gardner reported in 1937 that the iohalation of fine particles of Silicia by Guineapigs or their injection in c lloidal form can cause serious and even lethal pathology. “Silicia can cause every type of cellular response found in tuberculosis. Miners breathing silicia dust are known, furthermore, to develop scleroderma, polyarthritis and involvement of lungs, heart and kidneys.

    In an experiment on 200 Guineapigs, systematic administration of table salt in a high dilution produced marked pathology in the test group, lowered weight and higher morbidity and mortality”.

    The infinitesimal dose
    Since the early decades of the twentieth century homoeopathic investigators in Europe and the United States have sponsored a variety of physical, chemical, botanical, and biological experiments in an effort to demonstrate the existence of some medical power in those small doses.

    (i) Bio-chemical investigation: In the early 1930’s V.M. Persson in Leningrand had investigated micro-dilutions (up to 120X) of mercuric chloride for their effect on fermentation of search by salivary amylase and on the lysis of fibrin by pepsin and trypsin, obtaining significant results in controlled studies. Later it was confirmed by William Boyd in Edinburgh, Published in 1916.

    (ii) Botanical investigation: In the United States Wanna -maker conducted experiments to test the effect of sulphur micro-dilutions on the growth of onion plants. The planted seedlings obtained from a commercial grower in large trays, 96seedlings per tray, and added 12X, 24X, 30C, 60X, and 20M sulphur micro-dilutions to the trays. Trays were also set aside as controls. The micro-dilutions were found to affect in a significant way, the weight and dimensions of the onion bulbs and seedlings, and their Ca, Mg, K and Na content.

    (iii) Bacteriological investigation: Patternson and Boyd in 1941reported alternation of the Schick test from positive to negative following per oral administration of alum precipitated toxoid 30 C Diptherinum 201 C (made from diphtheria bacillus).

    Our potentized drugs act even against pathogenic organisms. In support of this a paper was presented by Dr. Girish Gupta in the scientific session on ‘Viral Infection’ in 10th All India Homoeopathic Congress. During experiments of screening homoeopathic drugs (potentized) against two plant pathogenic fungi (namele Curularia lunata and Alternaria tenuis) in vitro, at National Botanical Research Institute, Lucknow, a few astonishing results were obtained. Bacillinum (30,00, 1M), Fagopyrum (200, 1M), Sepia (200, 1M) and Petroleum (6, 200, 1M) caused 100% reduction in the growth of A. tenuis and sulphurlod (6, 1M) Petroleum (200) afffforded 100% inhibition in the growth of C. Lunata, both in vitro studies.

    (iv) Zoological investigation: In 1976 Van Mansvelt and Amons reported on the effect of mercuric chloride, at dilution as low as 0.9 x 1025 on the proliferation of a mouse lymphoblastic cell strain, growth inhibition was detected down to a level of 0.9x 1017 but the curve, instead of being flat as expected had peaks of toxicity at 105, 106, 1016 and 1017. The authors do not try to explain the finding but call their results a “substantial indication towards some as yet unconceived phenomena which needs further study”.

    (v) Investigation using the technique of physics: A paper was published by R.L. Jussal, S.Meera, R.D. Dua and R.K. Mishra. All are the research workers of I.I.T. New Delhi on the subject “Physical effects on the suspending medium by compounds in asymptotically infinite dilution”. Capacitance resistance and dielectric dispertion were measured by a LCR Bridge and by time domain reflectance spectroscopy. H-ion concentration were measured by a digital PH meter and the electrode potentials by non polarizing electrodes. These shows reproducible changeswhich did not vary linearly even on averaging. Attempt is made to explain this on the basis of long- range coherence (Frohlich).

    The nuclear magnetic resonance (N.M.R) spectrograms of sulphur tincture to 30X reported by Smith and Boericke show a significant difference in the spectra of the hydroxyl group of the succussed dilutions of sulphur when compared to the alcohol controls. There is little if any change in the CH3 and CH2 alcohol group. These results support our theory that hydroxyl (OH) group is the seat of appropriate modification during the process of dynamization.

    Sankaran cities the French physicist Custave de Bon as having demonstrated that sodium chloride in IM potency (equivalent to 1001000 fold dilution) when sprayed into vacuum produced the sodium spectrum.

    Homoeopathic veterinary medicine:

    The using of Homoeopathy in veterinary medicine is of particular interest.

    Bardoulat in 1961 reported on trials of 5C, 7C, and 10C micro dilutions of diphtheria toxin in treating avain diphtheria. In 8 sets of observation on as many flocks of chickens he concluded that the diseased birds healed in about 12 day and that the disease did not spread to the remainder of the flock.

    Macleod in 1972 reported on the treatment of pulmonary emphysema, bovine mastitis, bowel odema, vibrionic dysentery and enteric colibacillosis in a variety of farm animals, using remedies from the lowest to the highest potencies. In another article he presented his treatment for infertility in cows, horses, sheep, dogs and cats.

    Campbell in 1975 described an interesting series of cases, consisting of three litters from the same mothers guineapig. All were infected with an eye disease at birth, the 4 pups treated with chloramphenicol became almost blind in that eye, while the 4 pups treated homoeopathically recovered completely.

    Homoeopathy ,an art : The therapeutic application of homoeopathic scientific principles constitutes an art. Medicine in general and therapeutics in particular are authoritatively classified among arts. From the time immemorial the practice of medicine has been called “ The art of healing” Hence, a cure is a product of art .The homoeopathic mode of case-taking, evaluation of symptoms, its mode of individualization, the choice of remedy, and administration of medicine etc. all are nothing but an art.

    So Homoeopathy is both an Art and Science. The successful homoeopathician must be both an artist and a scientist. Theory and practice must go and in hand. Technique must be consistent with profession.

    Conclusion : This does not at all mean that Homoeopathy is free from all problems and dark corners and perhaps no science or art can ever reach such a stage of perfection. Although we find that the rapid progress of various natural sciences including Quanium physics, Bio-physics, Psychology and Genetics in recent times in confirming and explaining the various principles and phenomena related with Homoeopathy, still many spots remain illuminated. We are sure that , the science aspect of Homoeopathy will develop steadily paripassu with development of other sciences.


    1. The Genius of Homoeopathy – By Stuart close. M.D.
    2. Sharma. R.R. (1982) : ‘Experimental support for Principle of Dynamization’ : The Hahn. Glean. April, 1982.
    3. L. U. Gardner. ‘The Similarity in the lesions produced by Silicia and by the Tubercle Bacillus,’ American Journal of Pathology’ Hahn. Glean. April, 1982.

    4. Michael Mason and H. L F. Curry. ‘An introduction to clinical Rheumatology.’ Second edition. Hahn. Glean. April, 1982.
    5. W M Persson,’The principle of Catalysis in Biochemistry and Homoeopathy’, Journal of the American Institute of Homoeopathy.
    6. W. M. Persson. “Effects of very small amounts of Medicaments and Chemicals on Urease, Diastuse and Trypsin,” Archives Internationales de Pharmacodynamic etiqe Therapie”.
    7. Anna Koffler Wannamaker. “Effects of sulphur Dynamizations on Onions.’ Journal of the American Institute of Homoeopathy. Hahn. Glean. April, 1982.
    8. Girish Gupta ‘Our Potentized Drugs act even against Pathogenic Organisms’, Hahn. Glean. August, 1982.
    9. Singh. B. Sundara, Gupta. Girish (1981) : “ Effects of Homoeopathic Drugs on the Growth of A. Tenuis & C. Lunata, the common Leaf Spot Pathogens of Plants’, The Hahn. Glean. September, 1981.