Comments (0)

By Aaron Means, June 20, 2009

There is much debate at the moment about whether the concept of sensation and its method of case taking and prescribing would be acceptable in light of Hahnemann’s established principles. My observations and present understanding of homeopathy and its principles lead me to be very supportive of the concept of Sensation as a whole. I also feel Hahnemann would accept the idea of sensation method for reasons outlined below.

First of all, the idea of sensation itself is really not something new. In the Organon, Hahnemann refers many times to sensation being the expression of the disease. Aphorisms 9, 11, 86, 98, 126, and 137 are the most direct references. Aphorism 11 states, “It is only this vital force thus untuned which brings about in the organism the disagreeable sensations and abnormal functions that we call disease.” Aphorism 89 states, “Only when the patient, whose own account of his sensations is most to be trusted…” Aphorism 98 states, “Since the physician must pay particular attention to what the patient himself says about his complaints and sensations, and the exact expressions the patient uses…”

Hahnemann himself spent a lot of time investigating and trying to understand remedies. He even found similarities among various remedies, causing him to classify them into various miasms. Sensations are also a way of understanding remedies, with each family expressing similar sensations. These sensations are founded upon a deep understanding of materia medica and repertory. Homeopaths have sifted through the hundreds of symptoms within remedies and observed patterns of expression.

Hahnemann also advocated freedom from bias, the development of unprejudiced senses and fidelity in recording the image of the disease – aphorism 83. So often in homeopathy we lead the patient, pigeon-hole the patient, and interpret what the patient says. With the application of the sensation method, we fully allow the patient to describe the image of the disease, by asking further and further clarification on what they mean, what they feel and experience, until there can be no doubt. Interpretation has little avenue for expression when the patient actually describes the sensation itself and what is happening.

Disease, Hahnemann felt, was the totality of signs and symptoms. When Sensation is described on both a local and general level it brings together the totality of signs and symptoms into one crystallized picture of the disease itself. This is because sensation, which describes what is, on both a physical and mental level, becomes and expression of the whole being on a very deep level. It is totality at a subtle level, a non human level, an energetic level.

This energetic level is the vital force itself. The closer we can get to its expression, the clearer picture we can behold. We must therefore understand the remedies and their expressions on the same level to effect lasting cure.

One could also argue that since the sensation method itself is not outlined in the Organon, and Hahnemann’s reference to sensation was most likely in conjunction with the physical level, that this method should not be practiced.

Hahnemann also felt that remedies should not be used until fully proven and understood. The sensation method leads us into the realm of source words and being able to at times understand what a person needs by them actually using words that lead to a specific remedy. This is probably the area that is most controversial.

There are still many families of remedies that have not been researched and therefore do not have sensations associated with them. One is then forced to default to the older method of collecting various signs and symptoms and their attending modalities.

There is an enormous amount of information that is now available to homeopaths. Hahnemann was successful in his time with perhaps only 200 remedies or fewer and a simple straightforward interview process. Is there validity then in further provings and newer methods? Why establish something new? Perhaps though since homeopathy is a dynamic phenomenon, its way of prescribing and thinking of disease needs to also be dynamic.