Homeopathy, Phenomenology And ZEN

The natural starting place is to look at what homeopaths actually do and say rather than at what they have written. Though that too will need to be examined. We can start by proposing that homeopathy is more about looking than about theorizing. It is more concerned with perception of the patient than with analysing or classifying their problems. In this important respect, homeopathy differs very sharply from allopathic medicine, which adopts a far more analytical and teleological approach to the patient. It analyses the symptoms of the patient in an attempt to find chains of causes. This is teleology, the study of causes, and has become typical of the whole of natural science, upon which allopathy is very largely based.

We can provisionally sum this up by saying that homeopathy is at least two things in its approach - firstly it is a method and secondly it is observational and descriptive rather than explanatory. In both these respects it is therefore broadly very close to phenomenology - which is also a method and more observational and descriptive than explanatory.

Homeopathy is not about classifying or compartmentalising or theories, but about perceiving the patient. It is deeply rooted in perception, direct viewing in an undogmatic fashion without prejudices. It is not about explaining - the patient must be viewed, not judged or classified. Thus homeopaths reject the teleological approach as unhelpful. They do not wish to find the causes of the patient's problems, they merely want to describe them accurately. This description can then be matched against the images of sickness found in the provings of the materia medica.

In Kent's words:

*

'The sick are entitled to exact knowledge, not to guess-work.'
*

'It is not a matter of theory, or belief, or opinion; we must have something more substantial. Homeopathy must rest upon facts.'
*

'The doctrines of allopathy are kaleidoscopic, changing every year and never appearing twice alike.'
*

'Homoeopathy is an applied science not a theory.'
*

'The disease is not to be named but perceived; not to be classified but to be viewed, that the very nature of it may be discovered.'
*

'Throw aside all theories, and matters of belief and opinion, and dwell in simple facts.'
*

'The human mind should not be burdened with technicalities. They destroy the description, and close the understanding.'
*

'You must see and feel the internal nature of your patient an the artist sees and feels the picture he is painting.He feels it. Study to feel the economy, the life, the soul.'
*

'The physician must penetrate into the Inner recesses of symptoms; the very life of the patient must be opened and laid bare, Learn the fears, instincts, desires and the aversions of the patient. The remedy often crops out through the affections.'

(from the Lesser Writings)

In these first nine quotes, we can see how very close Kent comes to phenomenology. We should dwell in simple facts and we should throw aside all theories; we should view and describe the disease, not classify or name it. As we shall see, these are just the very same pieces of advice given both by Husserl and by the great Zen masters.

In this regard, science - which concerns itself almost entirely with mechanism and explanation - stands in marked contrast both to phenomeology and to the holistic approach of homeopathy. Both of these tend more towards perception and description rather than to explanation or involvement with mechanisms and theories.

Regarding the mental tendency towards mechanism, as Kent says:

'There is no such thing as one organ making another sick. The disorder in the stomach comes from the centre and likewise a disordered liver, they do not make each other sick.' (Lesser Writings)

'It is contrary to all science and logic (except allopathic medicine) to say that anything that exists is itself a cause of itself or is capable of working changes within itself.' (Lesser Writings)

'An inflamed liver is not the disease. The liver is not the cause of itself. It is under the control of the Vital Force and it becomes what the Vital Force makes of it.' (Lesser Writings)

'The idea that an organ like the liver, which is under the control of the Vital Force, is able to set up a disease itself and thereby make the patient sick is preposterous.' (Lesser Writings)

Yet in allopathy it clearly is necessary to separate some symptoms out as more or less important, and to regard one set as being causes and others as effects, because that is the teleological method, their method, the method of explanations and models, rather than of descriptions.

The Zen ConnectionPhenomenology and Existentialism also stand close to Zen in their view of the world, where direct viewing has supremacy over 'fancy theories' or scriptural nicety or philosophizing. The world and consciousness are to be viewed, experienced (tasted?) and described but not explained. The direct view, or 'seeing as-is' triumphs over deep philosophising or intellectuallism, because to philosophise is clearly to lose the object.

Conclusion

By way of conclusion I would just say that the above presentation hopefully goes some way to identifying two traditions which come close to homeopathy and which share certain aspects of its world view. I would also say that homeopathy, especially in its attitude towards the patient, is a profoundly phenomenological method, and it is in this area too that it comes close to the directions given by Zen masters for obtaining 'direct insight' and profound knowledge.

The underlying purposes of phenomenology, Zen and homeopathy are widely divergent, and it would be silly to pretend otherwise. However, what I hope to have shown is that there are real points of contact between these three systems that we as homeopaths can learn from, thus enriching our understanding and improving our practice.

By way of summary I shall paraphrase what I said in the anthropology article. The approach of the homeopath towards the patient can be likened to an anthropologist viewing a member of an alien culture. The best advice is to try and stay neutral, keep your prejudices out of it and try to faithfully describe but not explain what you see. If you try and explain you will, as Kent says, lose the description - it will tend to become distorted and inaccurate. The most difficult job of the homeopath is to view and describe the patient neutrally and faithfully. That forms the basis of the prescription and all that follows. In my view, the adoption of a broadly phenomenological and Zen approach greatly improves this process.