If we get a ‘single’ similimum that cover the ‘totality of symptoms’, should we think about a second drug? My answer is an emphatic NO. Homeopathy is all about finding ‘similimum’. Nothing more, nothing less.
But in how many cases we get an exact similimum that cover the ‘totality’ of physical generals, mentals, miasms and particular disease symptoms? Very rare. For example, a person with ‘Calc’ constitution may come with an acute shock from grief indicating ‘ignatia’. He may be having a skin eruption with symptoms indicating ‘ars’, and certain rectal symptoms indicating ‘nit acid’. We will not get a ‘single’ similimum that cover the complete ‘totality’ of this case.
In such cases, we are normally taught to start with a ‘single’ drug that would address his most disturbing complaints and step by step address the ‘total’ case ‘layer by layer’ with ‘single’ drugs. What I am now saying is that there is no harm in prescribing all these ‘similimums’ that cover the whole layers ‘together’. That way we can ensure a ‘total’ cure rapidly.
KENT taught us to find a similimum based on ‘totality of constitutional symptoms’. His method is most appropriate in determining ‘constitutional similimum’.
BOENNINGHAUSSEN taught us to find similimum on the basis of ‘causation-location-sensations-modalities-concomittants’ of ‘particular disease symptoms’.
Nobody would ever reach a same similimum through this different methods proposed by these two .masters’.
Does it mean either of them was wrong? NO. Both were right. BOENNNINGHAUSSEN was talking about ‘particular totalities’ and KENT was talking about ‘constitutional totality’. I think we should combine KENT and BOENNINGHAUSSEN. Or, combine constitutional totality with particular totalities to get ‘complete totality’.
This concept of combining potentized drugs evolves from my understanding that potentization involves a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, and individual constituent molecules of drugs are ‘imprinted’ in their individual capacities. That means, even a drug we consider ‘single’ is in fact a mixture of different types of ‘molecular imprints’ of diverse constituent drug molecules, and they exist without interacting with each other. According to this view, even if we mix two or more potentized drugs together, the constituent ‘molecular imprints’ will not interact each other, and act up on the appropriate molecular targets in their individual capacities.
‘Single drug/multiple drug’ dilemma does not bother us if if understand the ‘molecular imprinting’ concept proposed by Dialectical Homeopathy. For the last few years I was experimenting on this issue, and I have found it totally harmless and very effective to combine potentized drugs above 30c, selected on the basis of constitutional as well as particular ‘symptom complexes’.
Hahnemann was talking about SINGLE drug on the basis of scientific knowledge available to him during his period 250 years ago.
He had no idea about the molecular level structure of drug substances, or their molecular level interactions with biological molecules. He had no idea about the molecular level pathology and molecular inhibitions undelying diseases. He considered drugs as ‘single’ substance, and diseases as ‘singular’ entities.
For him, NUX was a ‘single’ substance, whereas we now know NUX tincture is a mixture of hundreds of types of alkaloids, gycosides and other phytochemicals, which act upon our body on the basis of their molecular structure and chemical properties.
We now know, NUX tincture prepared from different parts of that tree will have entirely different molecular constitution, and as such, the idea of NUX PERSONALITY does not have any logic or scientific validity.
We should update on the basis of new scientific knowledge available to us.