ONE INTEGRATED SYSTEM OF MEDICINE

By DR. K.L. DAFTARI, MAHAL, NAGPUR.

 

(II), If any action to which a living body is subjected is so strong or so long in duration that the body cannot easily bear it, the reaction of the body is opposite to but greater than the action, that is, this reaction not only brings the body to its original condition at the beginning of the action, but, in addition, deflects it in a direction opposite to that of the action. As an illustration let us suppose that the heat of the body is 102* and let us suppose that by our action we raise it go 104*. The reaction under this law, will lower the temperature not only to 102* but to 100* or still lower.

This is deflection of the body in a direction opposite to that of the action after bringing the body back to its condition at the beginning of the action. The reaction under law (1) would have in this case lowered the temperature to 102* only and not lower. Another illustration will make this law more clear. Suppose a man has got cough of 100* intensity and suppose that by giving him a drug we increase the cough to 120* degrees of intensity the cough will be brought to 50 degrees of intensity by bodily reaction will be greater than the action; the reaction under the first law would have brought the cough down only to 100 degrees if of intensity.

(III) (a) When the action is very mild, bodily reaction commences simultaneously with the action. The stronger the action, the later does the bodily reaction commence.

(b) If the action to which the body is subjected is so strong or so long in duration that the body cannot bear it, the bodily reaction is delayed, suspended, weakened or annihilated.

(c) (1) Delayed reaction comes on even without medicines and

(2) Is greater than action.

(3) Suspended reaction does not come on without proper medication but can be excited by medicine coming under the category of the second law of reaction.

(d) If the bodily reaction is weakened or annihilated there is very brief and feeble reaction to a homoeopathic action made upon the body and the body thus suffers from an incurable disease.

7. I shall not give here the evidence of these laws. It is given in my book the Bodily Reaction & C. and it is shown there that whether the body is healthy or diseased it reacts in conformity with these laws. I have also shown there with the help of these laws that (1) mild antipathy i.e. antipathy acting in conformity with the 1st law produces only temporary palliation giving some comfort to the patient that (2) strong antipathy i.e. antipathy acting in conformity with the 2nd or the 3rd law is ruinous and that (3) only Homoeopathy acting in conformity with the 2nd cure and eradicates disease.

8. As much important as these laws of Bodily Reaction are the laws enunciated and proved by Dr. Hahnemann in paragraphs 36 to 40 of the Organon of Medicine. Dr. Hahnemann is really the discoverer of these laws and not of Homoeopathy; for, Homoeopathy was also known to the ancients though they did not see as Dr. Hahnemann did the necessity of proving and infinitesimal doses.

These laws are well known to the Homoeopaths though the Allopaths has no idea of them. They show the ruinous effects of heteropathic treatment though it pacifies a disease temporarily. I may mention here that even the Rishis of Ayurveda has seen the undesirability of heteropathic treatments. They say (The treatment that pacifies one disease but creates another is not correct. Correct treatment is that which pacifies a disease but does not create another).

9. Having seen with the help of the laws of Bodily Reaction and the laws enunciated in paragraphs 36 to 40 of the Organon of Medicine, the various results of the antipathic, heteropathic and the Homoeopathic treatment, we have to consider whether we should use all these methods or only any one or two of the them for the treatment of a patient. Having seen the temporary relief given by mild antipathy or mild heteropathy and the permanent eradication of disease by Homoeopathy, we have to consider whether we should combine these methods or not and if we should combine, how and when? The Ayurveda has given us a lead on this point.

Charaka says in Chapter II of Vimanasthama (For subduing all disease, the adepts desire any of the following three kinds of treatment which is proper on the particular occasion (1) that which is contrary to the cause, (2) that which is contrary to the disease and (3) that which does work against the disease). The third kind of treatment is also called ( ) in ( ) or ( ) in chapter 12th of ( ) and from the illustration given there it is quite clear that the third kind of treatment is really homoeopathic. The 2nd kind of treatment is clearly antipathic treatment. The first kind of treatment may be either antipathic, heteropathic or Homoeopathic. Thus the passage really means that we should use either, homoeopathy, antipathy or heteropathy each on its proper occasion.

10. Here, we must also consider a very important statement in chapter 12 of Sutrasthana of It is as follows: ( ) (Medicine also if of two kinds (1) that which pacifies the disease and (2) that which does not cause the return of the disease). In this statement, medicine having been divided into two classes, one class is said not to be causing return of the disease, other class must therefore, be causing return of the disease. The other class called ( ) must therefore, be a class of temporary palliative i.c.

It must correspond to heteropathic and antipathic treatments while the first class that does not cause return of the disease and therefore, really eradicates it must correspond to Homoeopathic treatment. That ( ) Medicines are antipathic or heteropathic is clear form the statement in ( ) in chapter 23rd that palliatives stronger than a disease pacify that disease but soon create another disease, ( ) and from a similar state in ( ) chapter 39 following lists of palliative of ( ) and ( ) (It should be noted here that ( ) i.e. another disease includes both the opposite disease and an absolutely different disease).

This division of medicines into two classes also requires a decision about the occasions for the use of medicines of either class. But as this division really correspondence to the homoeopathic, the antipathic and the heteropathic methods of treatment, we must consider the proper occasion for each of these.

11. As Homoeopathy is the only method that cures without causing return of the disease, it should be the only method to be used on all occasions. That is what some would say. But the Homoeopathic methods has also got its defect and it is that it first aggravates and then cures. The laws of Bodily Reaction show that it cannot cure without first aggravating a disease. Therefore, if a disease is in its acme causing apprehension of immediate death, the homoeopathic method increases the apprehension of immediate death and should not be applied in that condition.

The proper procedure in that case would be first to lessen the intensity of the disease by palliatives i.e. by the antipathic or the heteropathic method and then to administer the homoeopathic remedy during the lessened condition i.e. during amelioration of the disease for, there can be no real cure without the homoeopathic remedy. The same procedure will have to be followed in case of unbearable agony. So it follows that palliatives are to be applied when the disease is in its acme or when there is unbearable agony.

But the palliation must be mild, acting in conformity with the first law of reaction, for otherwise the disease will return with greater force. The palliative methods may be knowingly employed to prolong the life of an incurable patient. On all other occasions homoeopathy alone must be employed. This is the integration of different methods of treatments.

12. For working in conformity with this integration, we may employ any agent. We may employ vegetables, minerals, artificial chemical compounds, water, heat or cold, electricity, mental action or will, rays of different colour, ultra violet or infrared rays or any other available thing or agent. Different agents do not really make different system. It is really wrong to say that, Ayurveda, Allopathy, Homoeopathy, Schusselers Biochemistry, Hydropathy, Chromopathy, Electropathy, Pschycopathy & c are different system of medicine, for they must all be worked in conformity with the principles of integration shown above. All the agents employed in all these systems must be employed Homoeopathically antipathically or heteropathically as occasion requires. This is the integration of several systems of medicine in vogue.

13. But will not this one integrated system of medicine cause inconvenience and confusion by the innumerability of agents to be employed? What is the remedy? Here also the Ayurveda has given a lead, though it has been entirely misunderstood. It says:

(The toxins trouble the body by creating innumerable disease of innumerable forms; therefore, it is not possible to describe the cause, the symptoms and treatments of each of those innumerable disease, separately, therefore, we describe what is common to all diseases. For, the only cause of all diseases is the Humours. In all diseases there is nothing more than the three Humours). This draws our attention to the fact that the same pathological condition lies at the basis of innumerable diseases (for example inflammation lies at the basis of Lobar Pneumonia, Bronchitis, Dry Pleurisy, Rheumatism, Boil, Mastitis Orchitis &c) and that such pathological conditions are only a few.

We can therefore, divide all the innumerable diseases into a few classes, each class consisting of innumerable diseases. Any single remedy that can reach all parts of the body, must be able to cure all the innumerable diseases in any one of these classes; for when the pathological condition underlying the disease is cured the local symptoms in the disease depending upon it must go sway also. Thus we arrive at the conclusion that we can divide disease into a few classes curable by a few remedies.

Ayurveda has three such classes, Hippocrates has four and Schussler has twelve. That diseases are to be classified is common to all. They only differ about the number of classes. Ayurveda and Hippocrates did not carry their theory to its logical conclusion and did not thereby reduce the number of remedies. Schussler did carry his theory to its logical conclusion and did reduce also the number of remedies. As there is a conflict we must consider what the truth is.

14. It appears clearly that the founders of Ayurveda first made a list of symptoms common to all diseases, and then divided them into those of ( ) and ( ). The symptoms observed to be aggravated by cold and fasting were put under ( )l those observed to be aggravated by heat and feeding were put under Pitta; those observed to be aggravated by feeding and cold under ( ). Now it is quite possible that aggravation by heat, cold or fasting is the characteristic of more than one pathological condition and that therefore, the three humours of Ayurveda probably need sub – division.

It is quite clear by comparison of the symptoms of Humours in Ayurveda and the symptoms of the 12 drugs of Schussler that ( ) is to be sub divided into two classes corresponding to Kali Phos and Mag. Phos, ( ) into five classes corresponding to Ferrum Phos, Nat. Phos, Calcarea, Sulph, Kali Sulph and Nat. Sulph and ( ) into four classes, corresponding to Kali Mur., Calcar Phos, Calcar Fluor, and Silica and a fourth humour corresponding to Nat. Mur is to be added.

(The Ayurveda – founders missed this class the symptoms of which are aggravated by food and both by cold and by heat. The cold not imagine such a class and therefore, they missed it). This is the harmony between Ayurveda, Hippocrates and Schussler. This harmony also harmonizes with the pathological conditions underlying all diseases as the following table will show.

TABLE OF TWELVE DRUGS.

S.No. Name of Ayurvedic Name of the General Symptom

the Drugs. Humour. Pathological of the Pathological

condition. Condition.

1. Natrum Mur. Catarrhal Wetness or dryness

inflammation accompanied by

or unequal redness, paleness

Distribution or blackness, heat or

of water coldness, itching and

(aggravated cracks & uneven fever

both by cold & burning & pain.

or by heat)

2. Ferrum Phos. Inflammation. Redness, heat, pain,

burning, dryness &

continuous fever

aggravated by heat only.

3. Calcar Sulph. Suppuration. Non sticky, nonfetid

pus aggravated by

heat or by drinking

water, working in

or moist weather.

4. Natrum Sulph. Non-elimination Soft painless swelling

of water or puffiness,

formed in the yellow, green or

tissues hydrogenoid orange coloured &

constitution sour or bitter discharges

charges, uneven

fever. Aggravated

by drinking water,

working in water

or moist weather.

5. Kali Sulph. Lack of Oxy-

gen in tissues.

Yellow or green mucus, yellow or green discharges. Profuse desquamation of skin, aggravated by heat, closed air (atmosphere) and fatty foods.

6. Natrum Phos. Non-elimination Acidity, golden

of lactic yellow or honey

acid formed like or green

in tissues. discharges aggravated

by fatty,

starchy or sugary

foods.

7. Kali Mur. White mucus Discharge of white

or Phlegm. Yellowish or blackish

white, mucus,

soft sore, swelling,

black coloured, thick

or clothed blood. No

itching aggravated

by cold & food enlarged

glands.

8. Calcar Phos. Watery mucus Discharge of thick

or Phlegm. water – coloured,

white or green

fetid mucus, sweet

taste, black thick

or clotted blood,

itching, bitter or

nasty taste, aggravation,

by cold &

drinking water non

nourishment of bones

& teeth. Enlarged

glands.

9. Silicea. Suppurating Redness or blackness,

mucus or heat or coldness,

Phlegm. pain, burning, itching hing, discharge of

sticky foetid pus or

hardness, uneven

fever, enlarged

glands, aggravation,

by cold and food.

10. Calcar Fluor. Hardening Loss of elasticity of

Mucus or elastic tissues,

Phlegm stony hardness with

rough surface of

enlarged glands or

tumours, carries of

bones, horny skin.

11. Magn.Phos. Excitement Cramps (tonic or

of nerves & clonic) not accompanied muscles. panied by hardness

or heat in the nerves

or extremities, pain

in nerves, aggravated

by cold.

12. Kali Phos. Atrophy or Blackness, fetor

gangrene or like that of dead

non nourishment body. Bloodlessness

causing whiteness,

loss of functions,

neuralgia. Aggravation

by fasting, cold

and work.

We thus see that there are 12 classes of diseases each curable homoeopathically by one medicine. This is the simplification of ONE INTEGRATED SYSTEM OF MEDICINE. This is also the integration of Ayurveda, Unani, Homoeopathy, and Schusslers Biochemistry and Allopathy. Further experience may reveal to us some more classes or may exclude some of these twelve. Already my experience of 40 years shows that there is no class corresponding to Natrum Phos and I found no patient requiring it.

15. Has surgery no place in this integrated system? Yes it has a place on its proper occasion. When the cause of a disease cannot be removed without surgery, it must be resorted to. For example, an arrow or a bullet being the cause of inflammation and suppuration must be removed by Surgery. When an artery is cut bleeding would cause death, therefore, the artery must be sewn, When the mechanical structure of the body is deranged, it must be corrected by surgery, as in case of intestinal obstruction, incarcerated hernia, croup etc. When internal pus threatens to enter those parts wherein it causes death, the pus must be removed by surgery. On such occasions only, surgery is necessary. On other occasions it amounts to antipathy or heteropathy and becomes ruinous like them.

16. Finally and briefly I put down the elements of “ONE INTEGRATED SYSTEM OF MEDICINE” as follows:

(1) The laws of Bodily Reaction to be recognized.

(2) The laws proved by Dr. Hahnemann in paragraphs 36 to 40 of his “Organon of Medicine” to be recognized.

(3) To apply either Homoeopathy antipathy or Heteropathy as occasion requires.

(4) To make use of any agent whatsoever according to the principles fixed above.

(5) But for simplification to make use of the twelve drugs of Schussler for homoeopathic treatment. Addition to their drugs or reduction from them to be made as experience will show.

(6) Any agent to be used for antipathic or heteropathic treatment.

(7) No agent to be made use of unless properly proved.

(8) All causes of disease to be eschewed during treatment.

(9) Surgery to be used only on proper occasions define above.

EDITORIAL COMMENT.

With all respect to the learned writer of the above article the editor apprehends that the former has failed to grasp the basic idea which was attempted to be established in the Editorial Article (Synthesis in Medicine) referred to by Dr. K.L. Daftari. The real synthesis in Medicine cannot be arrived at either by combination in mass or by successive practice in the treatment of individual patient or different patients. The Editor likes to reiterate once again what he wrote before, viz., “Synthesis not only includes each and every different principle but transcends each one of them as the principles, often apparently contradictory to one another, are reconciled in it.

It is the widest generalisation of a Law wherein hitherto discovered individual laws turn out to be but particular application of it.” Such a synthetic Law implies discoveries of synthetic concepts and introduction of synthetic terminologies and nomenclatures. Dr. Daftari has talked of general laws of bodily reactions with regard to actions of morbific agents of various degrees of potency. What do these reactions consist of? surely of physico – chemical, vital and mental phenomena. These necessitate discoveries of general concepts like Sattwa, Rajas and Tamas or Vayu, Pitta and Kapha. Dr. Daftari has tried to establish the superiority of Homoeopathic and Bio – chemic treatment. But that is beside the point here.

General pathological concepts on which Bio – chemic system of treatment seems to be based, seem to be too crude for Homoeopathic treatment which is from first to last an art of individualising patients as well as drugs. Dr. Daftari mentions about palliative treatment by antipathic and heteropathic methods. But Hahnemannian Homoeopaths and followers of Kentian School might assert that rightly selected homoeopathic remedies would just as well act as palliatives in incurable cases. “Different agents do not really make different systems” is true as written by Dr. Daftari but the distinctiveness of a system depends on the principle on which it is based.

The Editor regrets to differed from Dr. Daftari when he opines that “All the agents employed in different systems of treatment must be employed Homoeopathically, antipathically or heteropathically as occasion requires. This is the integration of several systems of medicine in vogue.” Bio – chemic system may be few enough to manage and therapeutically efficacious it might be, but it cannot be styled as an integration of Ayurveda, Unani, Homoeopathy and Allopathy.

Leave a Comment