Boenninghausen has shown in his repertory that these aggravations and ameliorations are modalities and therefore rank as generals. Close rates this repertorial work as ” the greatest masterpiece of analysis, comparison and generalization in our literature” The attempt to limit the application of the modality to the particular symptoms with which they were first observed has not been successful in practice, so Boenninghausen’s grouping of them as generals was a masterpiece of inductive reasoning. Writing in regard to these modalities which he considers generals, he says :
All of these indications are so trustworthy, and have been verified by such manifold experiences that hardly any others can equal them in rank; to say nothing of surpassing them. But the most valuable fact respecting them is this: That this characteristic is not confined to one or another symptom, *but like a red thread it runs through all the morbid symptoms of a given remedy, which are associated with any kind of pain whatever, or even with a sensation of discomfort, and hence it is available for both external and internal symptoms of the most varied character.
He arrived at these truths by the inductive study of the facts, and the results were the products of the sound reasoning.
We see, then, that homoeopathy is more than the law of similars. It is basically a scientific method of healing which is based upon natural laws and developed by inductive reasoning. It is closely allied with the principles of natural growth and development. The whole fabric is summed up in the third paragraph of the *Organon, where Hahnemann writes:
If the physician clearly perceives what it is in disease in general and in each of disease in particular that has to be cured (knowledge of disease, knowledge of the requirements of the disease or disease-indications): if he clearly perceives what is the healing principle in medicine generally and in each medicine in particular (knowledge of the powers of medicines) : if in the light of clear principles he can so adapt the healing virtue of the drug to the illness that is to be cured that recovery must follow, and if he has the ability not only to select the particular remedy whose mode of action is most suitable for the case (choice of the remedy or indicated medicine), but also to choose the exact quantity of the remedy required ( the suitable dose) and the fitting period for its repetition, if, I say, he knows all these things and in addition recognizes in every case the hindrances to lasting recovery and can remove them, *then truly he understands how to build up his work on an adequate basis of reason, and he is a rational practitioner of the healing art.
What must a physician know before he can successfully practice medicine? (*Answer : What is curable by medicine and what is curative in drugs.)
How can he learn what is curative in drugs?
Compare the value of homoeopathy in chronic and acute work.
How does the homoeopathic physician regard seemingly confusing symptoms?
In what relationship does homoeopathy consider the sickness of local parts?
What does homoeopathy not give more weight to the experimentation upon the lower animals?
Why do we feel that the knowledge of drugs and their reaction, assembled and recorded by homeopathy, is truly scientific?
What is the larger definition of homoeopathy? (*Answer: A system of medicine based upon natural laws.)
How does homoeopathy regard gross physical pathology?
What did Hahnemann mean by ” removing all obstacles to cure “?
How does disease manifest itself?
How much can we ever learn of disease?
How do we treat emergencies, such as poisoning, asphyxia, etc.?
What do we mean by natural disease? By artificial disease.
