Homoeopathy has emerged as one single system of treatment since 220 years from German and Europe. And in the last two centuries it has steadily grown in India; because the basic philosophy of India and of those two countries is more or less similar. Homoeopathy is the second most popular system in India and world according to the W.H.O.

But the very acceptance of homoeopathy generally remains at stake! The difficulty, which, at the outset blocks this understanding of homoeopathy lies in the fact that its approach is fundamentally at variance with the prevailing approach of modern medical science. Approach to a particular science does not mean scientific approach.
Homoeopathy does not evaluate the illness. for instance— from the stand point of “what is the causative agent,” which is the standard procedure of modern medical science. It does not ask what infection, what abnormal chemistry, what change in structure, lies at the bottom of disease and obviously, therefore, has to be removed; but it addresses itself to what we call the phenomenon of constitutional totality. It considers the wholeness of the phenomenon in descriptive, not causalistic terms.

In order to make this as crystal clear as possible, an example of homoeopathic prescribing is given here. We will consider the case history of a patient seen for what is known as paroxysmal tachycardia. In this state there were attacks of extremely rapid heartbeat and pulse rate up to 150 or more; broadly these were the complaints for which this patient sought medical advice.
The clinical workup showed that he was also suffering from valvular insufficiency, probably of rheumatic origin. However, the attacks themselves had appeared only recently and had no obvious connection with the pre-existing valvular condition. He had been taking quinidin for a long time with fairly satisfactory success but he wanted to see if he could get rid of it permanently. In addition to the main complaints he had history of intestinal spasticity, ringing in the ears, and sacro-iliac disturbances in the right side. The laboratory reports did not show anything else of interest except that the E.C.G, which more or less confirmed the cardiac diagnosis. So far this was a complete clinical picture which indicated the drugs which had been prescribed — Digitalis or quinidin. He took them.

Now what does the homoeopath do about this? Nothing, because he does not have the complete case yet. With that history nothing could be known about the patient. In practical terms, it is a completely meaningless situation and even not the faintest idea of what drug this patient needed. Because the most important information was missing. Let me consult the case sheet.
I asked him first: “Tell me everything that bothers you— everything whatsoever, even the slightest and most irrelevant complaint, regardless of whether it has anything to do with your main trouble.” he replied that sometimes his vision was blurred. Then, he mentioned of rumbling in the abdomen and a tendency to loose stools; he had ringing in ears; he gets tired; and he had sacro-illiac trouble on right side. There was also a feeling of tenderness in the abdomen. He said also that when he was either tense or inactive his troubles started. So I told him: “it is a bit better; but still I know nothing about you,” I inquired further and this is what I elicited.

He used to be very fond of sweets—would pick up a piece of candy he could find. Funny, is it not? And how apparently silly and irrelevant! He felt better when move around vigorously. The buzzing sound in the ears was worse on the right side. I checked again on sacro-iliac trouble— was that also on the right side? It was. So I asked him: “Are most of your troubles on the right side?”
Well, no, I do not think so.
“What about your abdominal troubles”I asked.
Oh, yes; also on the right side!
I noted that all his complaints were right-sided.
Then upon questioning he remembered that much more often than not his attacks come on in the late afternoon. This statement did not satisfy me.
“What do you mean by late afternoon; three, four, five, six, seven o’clock?”
Well, it is from four o’clock on. I am happier when warm; get chilled easily, but also feel better in open air. I do not like my abdomen pressed.

When I first asked him about this, he said no; he did not mind. Then I suspected and looked at his pants. He was wearing them way down low. I asked him why, and he replied he liked to wear his belt over the bones. Again, why did he like this? And he told me he didn’t like the pressure. I had never seen him with a hat. Why? He did not own a hat. Why not? Well, he did not like hats; did not like pressure around his head.
Then I was satisfied. My remedy: Lycopodium.
From this illustration, one can surmise that progress of medical science – for that matter, any science – Largely depends upon the basic approaches one employs. When we observe NATURE, it presents itself in different ways, at different times, though holistically. It is governed by RELATIVITY.
This is the APPROACH that we in the AHC follow diligently and in letter and spirit.
Before following these approaches in each case, inner thought of every one of us encored on the axis: ‘i treat… He cures’