Bachblüten Anhang
[Peter
Morrell]
The Bach
Flower Remedies and Homeopathy.
Taxonomy
No matter how
hard and fast or how natural they may appear to be, all systems of
classification [taxonomy] and nomenclature (as used in biology and pathology)
are ultimately arbitrary and artificial human constructs
that we
impose upon reality for our own convenience. They all follow the same basic
rules - similar things are placed together and different things are separated -
with the most similar things being placed closest together
and the
most different being placed the furthest apart. Rather like branches of a tree,
closely related things are placed on different parts of the same branch; very
different things are placed on widely separated branches.
The purpose
of any classification scheme is "to name reliably and conveniently“,
[Bullock and Trombley, 858-9] but inevitably also involves "a degree of
resemblance that unites members“, [Bullock and Trombley, 858]
of the same
category or group, such that members of the same category "are united by a
basic similarity or ground plan“, [Bullock and Trombley, 858] Obviously, some
members of a group "are united by a somewhat
closer
degree of similarity“, [Bullock and Trombley, 858] than others in the same
group. Inevitably also, any system of classification imposes restrictions,
concerns the [real or imagined] relationships between different
classes and
categories and subtly shapes our perception of reality to suit its own
purposes.
One
ineradicable problem with all taxonomic schemes is that to some degree it is
"a system of idealised entities…fictions compounded out of observed
uniformities…concepts and categories…conditioned by human
aims“, [Berlin,
301] Because all such systems are "a set of formulas, of imaginary
entities and mathematical relationships“, [Berlin, 302] so to the same degree
it is always in part a false and abstract system imposed
upon raw
reality itself, an "artificial construction of our intellect“, [Berlin,
302] that is not so much found but made. In reality, "nature is not a
perfect machine, nor an exquisite organism, nor a rational system“, [
it is
rather "a savage jungle: science is the art of dealing with it as best we
can“, [Berlin, 302]
By
overlooking "that the disease classification is man-made…they assume…that
disease entities somehow have an independent existence“, [Wulff et al, 82]
which of course they do not. They are human constructs with
no more
reality than pipe dreams. The "disease classification is still largely a
mixture of disease entities defined in anatomical, physiological and
microbiological terms“, [1; 77] which is indeed "a man-made classification
of
individual patients“, [Wulff et al, 77] True and natural disease
"classifications are not arbitrary but must be moulded on reality as it is“,
[Wulff et al, 88] Thus far, these do not exist.
In the case
of medical systems, a similar approach can profitably be adopted. Natural
therapies generally huddle together as a minority under the same vague
umbrella, so as to distinguish themselves from the more numerically dominant
allopathy. Though their methods vary a great deal, all natural therapies can be
said to share some common features - being gentle, natural and
vitality-enhancing, they aim to improve health through safely enhancing the
innate vital powers; to restore health autonomy and to cure. By contrast,
allopathic medical methods mostly seem to have "reduced the patient's
autonomy to a therapeutic choice of drugs or surgery“,[Diamond, 11] which
stands as a chilling indictment of its claim to cure disease
Because
natural therapists regard all healing as either truly curative self-healing or
a suppression, then by their own definition, any ‘healing’ by non-innate vital
powers tends automatically to be regarded by them as a suppression. For
example, when John Foley says, "only that nerve energy that runs through
you and controls every function and autonomic process of your being every
second of your life is capable of healing you.
No drugs of
doctors can do that. We can only facilitate it“, [Foley] then he clearly echoes
the vitalist views of homeopathy and acupuncture. When he further contends that
"drugs, if anything, interfere with that innate
ability to
heal from within“, [Foley] and that mere "covering up symptoms with
pharmaceuticals has done little“, [Foley] then he inclines towards the claim of
homeopaths that drugs do not cure but delay healing and complicate disease by
suppressing symptoms. Bach would doubtless have agreed.
All the
chemical therapeutic approaches essentially stand quite close to herbal
medicine and use natural products but in material doses. Then we can discern
the manipulative therapies like yoga, osteopathy, massage, chiropractic,
reflexology, which assist lymphatic drainage or correct bad posture that could
be underpinning causes of sickness [refs]. There are also mind-centred
therapies like hypnosis, meditation, autogenics,
positive
thinking and thought control. These can also assist self-image that may
alleviate many types of sickness.
With regard
to Bach Flower Remedies [BFR] in many respects they seem to lie closest to
homeopathy and the tissue salts of Schuessler, because they are derived from
plants and taken orally. Like homeopathy, they use
sub-material
doses and each remedy has a fixed and distinctive profile that predetermines
its therapeutic sphere of application. Unlike homeopathy, however, there are no
provings of drugs and only mental symptoms are considered important for use.
Their mode of preparation employs sunlight and spring water as compared to
trituration, succussion or serial dilution in homeopathy. They might be seen as
closest to the mother tinctures of homeopathy.
The
obvious similarities seem to easily outweigh the differences, and it therefore
seems logically convenient, for taxonomic and regulatory purposes, to place
BFR, homeopathy and tissue salts in the same branch of natural therapy, all
being basically homeopathic in concept, mode of preparation, storage and mode
of use.
Edward
Bach’s Career
Dr Edward
BACH (1886-1936)Bach believed that "health is our natural state, and
disease indicates that our personality is stuck or in conflict“, [Shaw, 1998,
6] The Bach remedies "treat the person and not the disease; the emotional
state that presages the pathological changes of illness“, [Shaw, 6] The aim is
that "treating the mood can, in many cases, make the disease redundant“, [Shaw,
7] It is thought that "through their subtle vibrational energy the
remedies work“, [Shaw, 7] for "no physical part of the plant remains in
the remedy;" [Shaw, 10] the remedies "contain the energy or imprint
of the plants from which they were made“, [Shaw, 10] Bach increasingly came to
believe "that the personality type and mood of an individual is a vital
element in avoiding disease“, [Shaw, 8]
Bach had a
medical career that "evolved from conventional medicine via bacteriology
to homeopathy, where he became widely respected for the discovery of the bowel
nosodes“, [van Haselen, 121] Like Hahnemann before him, he was "driven to
innovation by dissatisfaction with the limitations of conventional medicine“, [van
Haselen, 121-2] However, in the course of time, this spilled over into
dissatisfaction with homeopathy and with bacteriology as well. He held the view
that certain bacteria "were not directly pathogenic [but] could lead to
intestinal toxaemia and…chronic disease“, [van Haselen, 122; see Bach, April
1920] He thus began to "apply potentised vaccines orally“, [van Haselen,
122]
This
suggests that he regarded his work as "a continuation of that of Hahnemann
or leading the way to further discovery“, [van Haselen, 122] but it also
suggests he was dissatisfied with homeopathy as it is - or why else
would he be
aiming to ‘improve’ it?
However,
like Hahnemann, he saw an important link between emotional and mental factors
in the patient and the causes of sickness, feeling also that the selection of
the correct remedy must take into account this pivotal aspect. Therefore, it is
not surprising that he prescribed the "bowel nosodes based upon the
mental/emotional constitutional picture of the patients, rather than on
bacteriological data“, [van Haselen, 122; see E Bach, Homeopathic World, 1930]
He then gradually shifted away from bacteria and towards herbal remedies, and
one aspect of his innovation was to replace "the bacterial nosodes with
herbs“, [van Haselen, 122] the connecting
link
between them being the emotional and mental profiles of remedies and patient.
Bach wished
to "replace the bacterial nosodes by the pure and simple herbs of the
field“, [Weeks, 41] and this shift in his attitude occurred "towards the
end of 1929“, [Weeks, 41] He decided that "the true healing plants
held a
greater power“, [Weeks, 49] than had previously been known to soothe and
relieve "the sufferings of the human body“, [Weeks, 49] He selected plants
that "bloom when the days were longest and the sun was at the height of
its power and strength…[using] the flower-heads alone, for the life of the
plant…[he figured, is] concentrated in its flower“, [Weeks, 49] He also felt
that "Nature was always lavish in her gifts to man“, [Weeks, 49]
The thought
"flashed into his mind that each dewdrop must contain some of the
properties of the plant upon which it rested…[and that] the heat of the
sun…would serve to draw out these properties until each drop was magnetised
with power“, [Weeks, 49] In his view, therefore, "the resulting remedies
would contain the full, perfect and uncontaminated power of the plants“, [Weeks,
49] He therefore set about "collecting the dew from
certain
flowers before the sun had caused evaporation“, [Weeks, 50] He "shook the
drops from various flowering plants into small bottles, filling some with dew
from flowers which had been in full sunlight and others from those still in the
shade“, [Weeks, 50] He was then able "to test the dew he had collected
from the flowers“, [Weeks, 50] In due course, he found "that the dew from
each plant had a definite power of some kind“, [Weeks, 51]
and that
"the sun’s heat was essential to the process of extraction“, [Weeks, 51]
because the "dew collected from plants in shady places was not so potent
as that from the plants in full sunlight“, [Weeks, 51]
He then
wished to move from collecting and using dew, to "perfect the new method
of preparing healing remedies“, [Weeks, 51] He then picked flowers and placed
them "in a glass bowl filled with water from a clear stream…[left]
standing in the field in full sunshine for several hours“, [Weeks, 51] The
resulting liquid he then decided was "impregnated with the power of the
plant, and was very potent“, [Weeks, 51] This method
especially
satisfied his search: "it was the method of simplicity he had longer for“,
[Weeks, 52] to "produce healing remedies of great power“, [Weeks, 52]
Bach
"made plain that disease of the body is not primarily due to physical
causes, but to certain disturbing moods or states of mind which interfere with
the normal happiness of the individual“, [Weeks, 53] Thus, in his
view,
"any disturbance of the mind…would not only result in a loss of peace and
serenity, but would…[ultimately affect] the proper functioning of its organs“,
[Weeks, 53-4] Thus, his view became that "disturbing moods…were the true
indication for the treatment of disease“, [Weeks, 54] and that their true
remedies would be those that have "the power to elevate our
vibrations…cleanse mind and body, and heal“, [Weeks, 54]
Through
this work, he gradually became convinced that all sickness is caused by
"the underlying…moods or states of mind from which various types could
suffer“, [Weeks, 59] Therefore, although conventional medical treatments
"relieved the physical symptoms of disease…they did not remove the
underlying cause - the mood“, [Weeks, 60] He therefore resolved to "treat
the patient’s personality and not his disease“, [Weeks, 61]
When the
remedies were prepared "in the sun for about four hours…the water was now
impregnated with magnetic power, was crystal clear and full of small sparkling
bubbles“, [Weeks, 66]
Dr Charles
E Wheeler, was his "acquaintance with Edward Bach began in the early
twenties“, [Weeks, 134] Later he says, "we had rooms in the same house and
saw a great deal of one another“, [Weeks, 134] Wheeler
found him
to be "free from any taint of self-seeking…single minded in altruism…[and]
courageous in asserting what he felt to be the truth“, [Weeks, 134]
One might
almost say that Bach was building his system of healing amid the ruins of
homeopathy, in the sense that the 1920s was certainly a period of stagnation
and decline of
akin to
"Paracelsus and van Helmont building their systems impertinently amid the
ruins of the Galenic“, [French, 211] Certainly, they were all empirics and
pioneers in the same grand tradition as Lorber, Hahnemann and Cooper. It is
very hard to accept that they were not feeding off each other.
Any comparison
of Bach and Cooper tends to be a re-run of the Hahnemann-Paracelsus comparison.
In this case it is Bach, Cooper and Hahnemann who all converge in their views
and ideas. When Bailey says the essences
‘are not
really medicines,’ exactly the same applies to Bach remedies and to homeopathic
remedies.
Cooper’s Arborivital System
Dr
Robert Thomas COOPER (1844-1903)Focusing next on their mode of preparation as a
feature of BFR that clearly distinguishes them from all other therapeutic
systems, in using sunlight and spring water to capture the remedy ‘essence,’
Bach [1886-1936] adopted a technique reminiscent of the Arborivital Medicine of
Robert T Cooper [1844-1903]. The use of sunlight also points to the ideas of
Jakob Lorber [1800-1864] and Paracelsus [1493-1541]. Sunlight and spring water
can quite justifiably be regarded to comprise a ‘process’ somewhat akin to
distillation, in that the flower is ‘cooked’ in the spring water by the heat
and light rays of the sun, such
that the
water becomes impregnated if not entirely saturated with the healing essence,
vibration or energy of the flower. There is a similarity with the Bailey
Essences, the Australian Bush Remedies and the
Cooper
described his own method thus: "the preparation of remedies used are
tinctures made on the spot from living plants, proof spirit being employed for
the sake of preserving their inherent properties...by allowing the spirit to
come into contact with the living plant - the branch, while still attached, being
kept plunged in the spirit and exposed to sunlight while thus immersed -
heliosthened, as I term it“, [Cooper, 1900]
Many within
British homeopathy were impressed: "Dr Cooper had an uncanny genius for
discovering unusual remedies; some of these he got, no doubt, from old herbals;
but it has been said that he used to lie down before
a flowering
plant by the hour, dragging from it its virtues of healing“, [Tyler &
Wheeler, 136] This comment could just as easily have been said of Bach, so
closely do they match each other.
Cooper
conceived that there existed "in plant-remedies a force...which acted by
virtue of a power in all respects similar to a germinating power in the human
body“, [Cooper, 1900, 2] and "...in the living plants we get a
force which,
if applied...to disease, will arrest its progress and even cause its dispersal“,
[Cooper, 1900, 3]
When we
read Cooper’s methods, we often see strong hints of Bach: "Cooper's
hypothesis was that a curative ability or action is inherent in all living plant
material, and that this does not require trituration, succussion
or dilution
to be effective....Cooper directed that the tinctures should be administered in
single drop doses, and that these remedies should be given time to act fully
before being repeated. The dose was administered in
powder form
with a single drop of the tincture on to a dry tongue and on an empty stomach“,
[Bonnard, 23] How could Bach not have been inspired by these views?
There seems
little doubt that Cooper was "influenced by the Doctrine of Signatures and
relied on observation of plant structures and characteristics...Cooper claimed
that arborivital remedies were most suitable in crises
which were
incurable by any other means, and this includes homoeopathic methods"
[Bonnard, 23] Cooper obviously decided that one should "allow oneself some
latitude“, [Cooper, Feb 1893, 66] in deciding upon the true profile of any
remedy, and that one should seriously question the view that "all medicine
is contained in the repertory“, [Cooper, Feb 1893 66]. In this manner, he
claimed to be "returning to the methods which, in the early
days of
homeopathy, Hahnemann undoubtedly employed“, [Cooper, Feb 1893, 66]
He believed
that "the practitioner ought also to be able to go amongst any variety of
plants, or any variety of medicinal agents, and determine their actions as
weapons for the dispersion of disease in a manner undreamt of
by any code
of rules enunciated previously to homeopathy“, [Cooper, Feb 1893, 65]. He
boldly drives very close indeed to the doctrine of signatures employed in
previous medical systems [herbalism] when he states that
he takes
"advantage of all kinds of indications – such as occur to me from the
habits of the plant, their appearances, and apparently unimportant features“,
[Cooper, Feb 1893, 66]. Yet, in due course, he candidly admits to making some
deviations from the straight and narrow. However, "any departure that I
may be guilty of from the beaten tracks is to be judged of simply and solely by
result“, [Cooper, Feb 1893, 67]
Having
already cast doubt upon the reliability of provings data for the employment of
medicine in sickness, Cooper then goes into more detail about his alternative
method of obtaining reliable information about drugs in
the field.
He feels at the outset that "the doctrine of signatures…[ought to be
brought] into accord with modern thought“, [Cooper, 1898, 265], especially
considering that "the appearance of the roots or other parts of plants
very often
serve as a guide to their administration in disease, owing to…[their]
resemblance to the diseases they cure“, [Cooper, 1898, 265]. Clearly, regarding
such clues as gifts from ever-bountiful Nature, Cooper gives
some fine
examples. These include the "virtues of Hydrangea in Diabetes“, [Cooper,
1898, 270] which everybody knows is "the thirstiest shrub known,
especially in the act of flowering“, [Cooper, 1898, 270]; the leaves of Ledum
palustre are "somewhat spear-shaped“, [Cooper, 1898, 270], and thus its
use for "penetrating wounds, bee and wasp stings, must have been guided…by
a special morphological feature of the plant“, [Cooper, 1898, 270]. As Cooper
questions, such notions could never have been derived from drug provings upon
the healthy.
He does not
regard this employment of signatures to displace provings, but merely to
supplement it, to flesh out more details. He also maintains that the imperfect
nature of all provings must inevitably mean that some symptoms are missed and
thus "these symptoms cannot always be available for the purpose required“,
[Cooper, 1898, 267] in treating the sick. The signatures that plants contain
must be seen as "any feature connected with plant life that suggests the
use of such plant as curative for any form of disease“, [Cooper, 1898, 268].
While "modern thought has discarded it in toto“, [Cooper, 1898, 266] the
idea of signatures, Cooper would have us
"take
advantage of such knowledge“, [Cooper, 1898, 269] and encourage the keen
student to "depend upon his recognition of these sign-boards and his
ability to decipher them“, [Cooper, 1898, 268]. Even though such an approach
"depends entirely upon specialised vision“, [Cooper, 1898, 271], which
keen students should endeavour to refine, this "should not excite the
ridicule of those whose vision has not been exercised thereupon“,
[Cooper,
1898, 271]. In other words, we should be open-minded in our approach to gaining
deeper knowledge of drugs from all sources, including both provings and
signatures.
Bach held
similar views with regard to the unnecessary nature of provings and that the
medicinal properties of herbs could be determined, as Cooper says, by deploying
"specialised vision."
Cooper
bares his teeth and reveals his truly reforming character when he states that
"all great improvements in science are made by men who throw off the
trammels of previous teachings and begin by a complete and
radical
overhauling of the entire subject“, [Cooper, 1894, 389]. The therapist should
"give drugs in single doses in chronic and obstinate forms of
disease…especially of single doses of the undiluted juices of plants“,
[Cooper,
1894, 389]
In his
quest for therapeutic enlightenment, Cooper personally resolved "to throw
aside all provings and repertories and to rely simply upon the action of the
uninterfered-with curative principle of plants, which I believe
to be none
other than growth-force“, [Cooper, Jan 1893, 14] and to employ
"tinctures…made by myself from ordinary field plants in accordance with
indications such as occurred to me from the habits of the plants,
their
appearances, and other apparently unimportant features“, [Cooper, Jan 1893, 14]
Cooper
recommended "prescribing a single dose of a plant mother tincture prepared
from a fresh, living (vita = life) specimen. Cooper was of the opinion that
living plants have an inherent curative action that does not
require
trituration or succussion to bring it forth“, [Watson] He also suggests
"that it is possible to combat the "growth force' of a malignant
tumour with the growth force of a suitable plant - undoubtedly an ingenious
variation
on the principle of similars!" [Watson] He adopted what Watson calls
"Cooper's off-beat approach…it seems that Cooper used his intuition as
much as anything in arriving at his prescriptions, and it is apparent
that he
also drew insight from his deep botanical knowledge“, [Watson] AS Watson points
out, "Dr. Le Hunte Cooper, son of the then late Dr. Robert T.
Cooper…continued the work begun by his father in obtaining
remarkable
curative results in patients with various types of cancer“, [Watson]
Distillation
is in turn an overtly alchemical method. Others include calcination. [roasting to red heat], boiling, filtration and trituration. A
link from alchemy to homeopathy, for example, can be shown from Hahnemann’s
general use of trituration, and also his use of calcination to prepare remedies
like Causticum and Hepar sulphuris [Hahnemann, 1828]. Once we accept that
sunlight and spring water comprise a method akin to distillation,
then on
this basis it is not a large step to say that Bach and Hahnemann share a
similar appreciation of alchemical approaches in remedy preparation. They share
in fact some of the alchemical techniques enunciated by
their great
forebears like Paracelsus and Van Helmont.
Though it
is not very clear, from a strictly documentary point of view, where Bach
obtained his method from, yet Cooper is the closest and most obvious source
that he must certainly have known about. It is possible, for example, that he
heard of Cooper’s system [Winston, 176-7] from Charles E Wheeler [1868-1946] or
John H Clarke [1853-1931] after Cooper’s death in 1903. Likewise, it is unclear
where Cooper first obtained his idea of ‘heliosthened’ remedies, but he could
have been inspired by Paracelsus or possibly by Lorber, whose work was published
in German in 1851. Cooper may have learned of it perhaps through James Compton
Burnett
[1840-1901],
who is known to have read German; the only English translation of Lorber dates
from 1997.
Wheeler
forms an important connecting link between those 19th century figures like
Burnett and Cooper, and later figures like Clarke, Bach and Paterson. This view
recognises that they all existed in the tiny community
of
homeopaths in
responsible
for the development of many new remedies [mostly nosodes] and of various
approaches within the context of Hahnemann’s medical system“, [Verspoor &
Decker, 140]
Dr John
PATERSON (1890-1954) It also recognises that Wheeler, Bach and Paterson all
worked on the bowel flora and on developing the bowel nosodes in the 1910-40
period [Winston,186] The possible link connecting Cooper and Bach is not as
tenuous as it might otherwise appear. For example, Bach and Wheeler published
‘Chronic Disease: a Working Hypothesis’ in 1925 [Winston, 186].
Looking
more specifically at Bach’s life, then it is clear that he was never an actual
homeopath, never treated patients with homeopathic remedies or used a
conventional homeopathic approach. He also disagreed with
some of its
major tenets, such as using originally toxic material like Belladonna, for
healing purposes [Winston, 187]. However, in spite of these differences,
broadly speaking, there are still more similarities between
the two
systems than differences.
Jakob
Lorber; the Austrian evangelist and mystic [1800-1864], may or may not be
credited with a connection with Cooper and/or with Bach in regard to certain of
his published writings concerning the therapeutic uses
of
sunlight. Nevertheless, there are certain parallels. Lorber described "the
light of the sun, as the positive polar part of natural life…[which] no longer
spends its rays on one or the other side of the earth, the polarity on
earth keeps
changing, thus, as the sun sets for a region, that region immediately begins to
change to a negative polarity“, [Lorber, The Fly, p.17] He also felt that, "as
the sun sets for a region, that region immediately
begins to
change to a negative polarity“, [Lorber, The Fly, p.17]
Of special
significance for Bach, is that "Concerning the light of the sun, its
illumination is the same as the familiar spark. The difference is only that the
‘white light’ stems from the vibrations of love, while the
‘red light’
stems from the vibrations of rage; and, since the light of the sun originates
from the vibrations of love, its propagation is different from that originating
from anger“, [Lorber, The Fly, p.48]
Lorber
regarded the sun "as an entity, is a planet in a perfected state“, [Lorber,
The Fly, p.51] and that the light from the sun "comes from the spiritual
love-joy of the spirits surrounding this perfected planet."
[Lorber,
The Fly, p.52] Further, that "these spirits are the ones who, through
their vibrations of love and joy, cause the actual illumination of the sun“, [Lorber,
The Fly, p.53] Lorber believed that "these expelled spirits
are the
actual shining light of the sun which, when it falls on a planet, imparts the
positive part to it, which is the accompanying light, or rather, the continued
love-joy vibration of the completed spirits."
[Lorber,
The Fly, p.54]
For Lorber,
"God's revelations regarding health and well-being are based on a
spiritual foundation, and the reader will discover that the origin of all
things is spiritual, not physical."[Lorber, book review of Lord’s Book of
Life and
Health]
In a very
broad sense, Lorber’s remedies, "prepared with the healing power of
sunlight belong to the category of homeopathy, because both are based on the
same foundation. The reader is shown several ways how the energy of the sun can
be directly bound by the carrier substances of mineral, animal and plant
kingdoms, and how these substances can assist in healing the mind, body and
spirit“, [Book review of The Healing Power of Sunlight]
Sunlight
The process
of using sunlight has quite a history, and is clearly akin to the process of distillation
in alchemy and the parallel extends to the way the sun’s light and heat rays
fall upon the earth, lifting water vapour into the sky and creating clouds,
which ultimately returns to earth as rain, frost, dew, mist or snow. This
easily observed aspect of sunshine in the world could to the metaphysical eye
of ancestors be seen to represent a distillation process in which ingredients
of the land and water of the earth are purified, and rarefied into an invisible
vaporous form that is lifted into an essence state in the air element using the
fiery elemental power of sunlight. This notion, this way of seeing, can be
easily extended backwards in time to the Ancient Egyptians, who revered the Sun
[Osiris] and who regarded it not only as the source of all life on earth, but
also as a purifying spiritual agent on the earth and so also in the life of
man.
Such
parallels would resonate powerfully with figures like Paracelsus and Lorber as
important antecedents of Hahnemann, Cooper and Bach. Light is also of course
associated with spirit and so resonance can be clearly established between the
sun, light and spirit essences way before the appearance of Edward Bach. In
essence, you cannot get more natural than sunshine. Therefore, it is replete
with many healing overtones.
Paracelsus
even declares that an important aim of medicine is "to bring to light that
which lies hidden“, [Coulter, I, 372] This was a crucial concept to Paracelsus.
He also emphasises the central aspect of process - also
called
coction, or physis - in normal physiology [e.g. digestion of food], in disease
and in curative therapy.
A good
example of Paracelsus’ view is when he says, "the light of nature in man
comes from the stars, and his flesh and blood belong to the material
elements…one is that fundamental light…the second influence emanates from
matter“, [Coulter, I, 397] For he says, it is spirit whose light
"illuminates our work, and our task, our talents and our doctrine“, [Coulter,
I, 463] He also calls alchemy the "eyes of fire“, [Coulter, I, 463] and
that the true physician should always strive to drive out whatever is invisible
from medicine [Coulter, I, 463] by letting in the light of nature and reason.
Hence, the true physician "has the true knowledge and experience of Nature’s
light“, [Coulter, 470] and makes all things clear and visible to the eyes. The
sun also represents the life force, the Godhead, Elixir, Gold, and Healer in
ancient medicine.
The
alchemists regarded "the energy of the sun and stars as the power outlets
of God“, [Reid] because "the light-energy of the sun is the source all
life“, [Reid] That being the case, "how is one supposed to be able to
capture, store, and use the energy of the sun?" [Reid] The sun has a
healing effect; its rays "fall gently on your shoulders and massage out
the stiffness of the winter“, [Reid]
It was
supposed that the energy carried "within the rays of sunlight that reaches
our planet is loaded with universal Sulfur. The gases and subtle water vapours
in our atmosphere interact with this energy and delicately
condense it
into a somewhat tangible form. This is the "sidereal distillation of the
macrocosmos"…" [Reid] As Bach and Cooper discovered, "the best
time for collecting this energy is in the middle of the day when the sun's rays
are at their most intense. You would be right…" [Reid]
"The
Philosophers speak of two waters that are the primary cause of creation. Both
of these waters are said to be produced or issue forth from the chaos of the
sun“, [Reid]
"Here
for the first time the intangible, unseen energy of the sun is clothed in a
material albeit diaphanous garment“, [Reid]
"a
very subtle type of alchemical circulation was going on. The sun's rays enter
the earth's atmosphere and react with it“, [Reid]
Certain alchemists
regarded gold as being akin to sunlight: "the concentrated
"solidified sunlight“, gold, to gild the body’s immune system and aura. On
a subtle level it actually...[streams] through the body’s channels."
[Feite]
Hahnemann
on Vexation
A range of
quotations made by Hahnemann and scattered throughout his works reveal his
awareness of the part played in sickness of mental and emotional strains and
upsets. For example, when he says "some violent
exertion of
the body or mind, but particularly some shock to the health caused by some
severe external injury, or a very sad event that bowed down the soul, repeated
fright, great grief, sorrow and continuous vexation“, [Hahnemann, 1828, 3] can
induce a collapse of good health. He says that is especially those who
"have been exposed to many mental exertions and thousand fold vexations of
spirit“, [Hahnemann, 1828, 44] where sickness
will crop
out.
Health, he
says, will be vouchsafed if "he may also lead a quite endurable
life…without much hindrance, attend to his business as long as he is young or
still in his vigorous years, and so long as he does not suffer any
particular
mishap from without, has a satisfactory income, does not live in vexation or
grief, does not overexert himself; especially if he is of quite a cheerful,
equable, patient, contented, disposition“, [Hahnemann, 1828, 47] However,
"as soon as these persons advance in age, even moderate causes (a slight
vexation, or a cold, or an error in diet“, [Hahnemann, 1828, 48] or are visited
by some upset "caused by mental disturbance (grief, fright, vexation), a
chill, over-exertion of the mind or body immediately after eating“, [Hahnemann,
1810, intro] "a vexation (sometimes even a bewitchment), etc“, [Hahnemann,
1810, aph.206] then sickness of some form is almost bound to follow in its
wake.
Hahnemann
said he could see no internal innermost essence to any disease and to search
for one was futile. Hahnemann bemoans the "search into the internal
essence of diseases“, [Ameke, 95] which he regards as an
utterly
futile endeavour. He also condemns any medical system that searches out and
respects only "the mechanical origin of diseases...[and] which derives
diseases from the original form of the parts“, [Ameke, 95]
However,
Hahnemann - like Bach, Paracelsus and Bailey - regarded sickness as due to
"a morbid derangement of the internal dynamis“, [Hahnemann, 1810, Aph. 12]
and an affection of the "morbidly deranged spirit-like dynamis“, [Hahnemann,
1810, Aph.15]
He declared
all diseases act to "dynamically derange the living organism…[by
deranging] the automatic life-energy, called vital force“, [Hahnemann, 1810,
Aph.72] He regarded "symptoms…[as] the expression of the
vital force
untuned“, [Handley, 66] He also states that "diseases obviously are not
and cannot be mechanical or chemical changes in the material substance of the
body...but are an exclusively dynamic, spirit-like untunement
of life“, [Hahnemann,
1810, Aph.31] All these views undoubtedly place Hahnemann close to Cooper,
Bach, Paracelsus and Bailey in the way he perceives sickness and the conceptual
basis upon which he constructs his
medical
system.
Hahnemann's
expresses his own sentiments in the Organon [Aphorisms 11 [9, 10], 15 and 16]:
"let it be granted now...that no disease...is caused by any material
substance, but that every one is only and always a peculiar, virtual, dynamic
derangement of the health“, [Hahnemann, Organon, Aphorisms 11 [9, 10], 15 and
16] Such is certainly a view of disease as a "dynamic derangement of the
life force“, [Close, 37-8, 74] As Hahnemann
states,
"fright, fear, horror, anger, vexation, a chill, &c., are impressions
that do not present themselves in a concrete form, that cannot be subjected to
physical. Investigation“, [Hahnemann, 1809] but he regards them all as reliable
triggers of sickness.
The Bailey
essences developed in
mind:
"mind and body inter-react with each other. When the mind is not at ease,
neither is the body. It is this unease of the mind that is often the origin of
our illnesses. Out of date attitudes and conditionings can
disempower
us and make us very unhappy. They stand in the way of positive personal change.
The Bailey Essences act as catalysts for this needed change“, [Bailey] They
also aim to "honour the inherent healing potential
of the
flowers to the greatest possible degree“, [Bailey] The essences, "relate
to attitudes of mind rather than clinical symptoms“, [Bailey]
The initial
inspiration for the Bailey essences, "was the work of Dr Bach, but they
are not produced in quite the same way. They are usually made by floating the
flowers in a bowl of spring water in full sunlight for several hours (Sun
method). This "Mother Tincture" is then diluted in an alcohol
preservative to make the bottled essences. Dr Bach's boiling method has been
replaced with alcohol extraction, which gives a more rounded quality
to the
essences. In this case, the essences are floated in alcohol for 15 minutes
(apart from Pine Cones which are left for several hours). For one essence,
Cymbidium Orchid, we use moonlight in a similar way to the sun method”.
[Bailey]
The Bailey
essences "are not medicines as the word is normally understood. They are
not intended to cure or alleviate any medical condition. Their mode of
operation is to help to rebalance the mind-body-spirit unity of the person
taking them. However, physical health and symptoms are related to the internal
harmony within the being, so improvements in clinical conditions may well be
experienced. They are catalysts for change, not medicines that impose their
effects on the body“, [Bailey] These points could equally be applied to Bach
Flower remedies and even to homeopathy. Neither are really ‘medicines’ in the
narrow and ordinary allopathic sense either.
When Bailey
says, "as a child I was always drawn towards flowers. I found them
fascinating with all their different colours, smells and shapes. To me they
were beautiful and somehow mysterious“, [Bailey] then he again echoes similar
sentiments expressed by Bach, Cooper and Paracelsus: they all equally resonated
with nature and wild plants.
The present
range of Bailey essences is "primarily concerned with personal growth and
liberation. This does not mean…[they] cannot help physical illnesses - far from
it. Yet their main emphasis is that of helping to
integrate
mind, body and spirit. We need to break the hold of old conditionings and
beliefs which can so deny us our freedom. As these old patterns ease away, we
need support and insight so that we can find our own true
path in
life“, [Bailey] The first Bailey essences "were then prepared from them
using Dr Bach's "Sun" method…" but "they were not for
emotional states like the Bach ones“, [Bailey]
In the
above sense, they were therefore "quite different from the Bach remedies.
Indeed, it is our attitudes of mind that give rise to negative emotional
states…many of us are severely restricted in our freedom to live life
as we would
wish. These restrictions usually stem from childhood, when the development of
true self-confidence is often stunted. As a result we also lack confidence in
our innate spiritual natures“, [Bailey]
Bailey says
that he "discovered for myself, experience is far superior to belief.
Beliefs are usually based on what other people have told us, and may be totally
untrue. Personal experience, even though it can be
misinterpreted,
is a far surer path“, [Bailey] Such a sentiment is often expressed by pioneers
and empirics of all types - like Hahnemann, Cooper, Bach and Paracelsus.
Examples include where Cooper declares, "any
departure
that I may be guilty of from the beaten tracks is to be judged of simply and
solely by result“, [Cooper, Feb 1893, 67] He always claimed to be
"returning to the methods which, in the early days of homeopathy,
Hahnemann undoubtedly employed“, [Cooper, Feb 1893, 66] Cooper reveals his
truly reforming and experimental character when he states that "all great
improvements in science are made by men who throw off the
trammels of
previous teachings
and begin
by a complete and radical overhauling of the entire subject“, [Cooper, 1894,
389]. He personally resolved "to throw aside all provings and repertories
and to rely simply upon the action of the uninterfered-with curative principle
of plants…" [Cooper, Jan 1893, 14]
Like
Paracelsus before him, Hahnemann also despised book learning as a source of
medical truth. What he also called "speculative refinements, arbitrary
axioms…dogmatic assumptions…[and the] magnificent conjuring games of so-called
theoretical medicine“, [Ameke, 134] Instead, he reserved his greatest respect
for "a science of pure experience…knowledge of the disease to be treated
and the actions of drugs”. [Ameke, 134]
These, he
insists can only be deduced "from pure experience and observation.“,
[Ameke, 134] Such words could equally be those of Bailey, Cooper, Bach or
Paracelsus.
More Bach
In the
early phase of developing the BFRs, "he potentised these remedies
[Impatiens, Mimulus and Clematis] and prescribed them purely on the basis of
the mental and emotional constitutional features of the patient”.
[van Haselen,
122; see E Bach, Homeopathic World, Feb 1930] These were in fact the first
three of the 37 BFRs to be discovered [Weeks, 41]. Putting microbiology firmly
behind him, in 1930, he pursued development of
the BFRs
with renewed vigour [van Haselen, 122]. He then "went to Wales to find new
remedies, which is where he also discovered the new method of ‘potentisation’
involving placing the fresh flowers…in a bowl with
spring water and exposing them to direct
sunlight“, [van Haselen, 122]
His new
method of remedy preparation also involved boiling "flowers and twigs of
trees, bushes and plants…which bloom early in the year before there is enough
sunshine“, [van Haselen, 122] In 1930-31 he also made
the
"definitive break between the new system of healing he propagated and
homeopathy“, [van Haselen, 122] He considered his new system to be "a
further advancement of the principles laid down by Hahnemann“,
[van
Haselen, 122] but that is not how homeopaths saw it, and increasingly his views
were "not well received in homeopathic circles“, [van Haselen, 122]
Certainly,
he viewed sickness as "a learning process…to help us understand more about
ourselves“, [van Haselen, 122; see also Dethlefsen, 1990] and profoundly, like
Hahnemann, he believed that "health comes when we regain harmony between
our physical and spiritual selves“, [van Haselen, 122] But Bach’s departure
from homeopathy can in part be appreciated when we regard his "exclusive
focus on the mental state of the sufferer“,
[van
Haselen, 122] which is so characteristic of his new approach, but which is by
no means the only focus for the homeopath.
Like
Hahnemann, he also believed in the innate "self-healing energy in the
patient“, [van Haselen, 123] what he called the "self-regulating vital
force, the vis medicatrix naturae“, [van Haselen, 123] Both he and
Hahnemann
were "exponents of the empirical…therapeutic method…in which symptoms and
signs of the curative effort of the dynamis…must be interpreted as positive or
beneficial phenomena“, [van Haselen, 123]
They both
therefore stand in the grand Hippocratic medical tradition. Bach also believed
that remedies should "not be repeated once improvement has taken place“, [van
Haselen, 123] This type of ‘therapeutic minimalism’
is
certainly normal practice in homeopathy, where too frequent repetition of
remedies is generally condemned both as uncurative and potentially damaging to
the patient.
Both
systems also "aim to transfer the healing energy contained in the source
material to a pharmaceutical medium and involve a form of energisation“, [van
Haselen, 123] However, it is equally clear that Bach departed
from
mainstream homeopathy in his preferred mode of remedy ‘potentisation’ using
spring water and sunlight. He "claimed to have found a simple and more
perfect method of energisation“, [van Haselen, 123] by which
the
"healing energy of plants…concentrated in its flowers…could be passed into
a carrier [water] by the energy of the sun“, [van Haselen, 123] For some plant
species he employs "boiling the fresh flowers and twigs of
trees,
bushes“, [van Haselen, 123] etc to obtain a decoction or infusion of the
plant’s healing energy. By "simple and more perfect method“, he might have
meant a method more suitable for remedies made from flower essences and suited
for use based on emotional profiles, NOT a method superior to Hahnemannian
potentisation.
Clearly
therefore, these methods "are different from potentisation as used in
homeopathy“, [van Haselen, 123] and it would be futile to pretend otherwise.
For example, "exposure of [homeopathic] remedies to direct sunlight
or intense
heat is thought to inactivate“, [van Haselen, 123] them and are therefore
factors specifically to be avoided in order to vouchsafe the longevity of
homeopathic remedies. Nevertheless, one might say the two systems acknowledge
"the influence of direct sunlight and intense heat on the energy contained
in [medicinal] substances“, [van Haselen, 124] or indeed, upon plant and animal
extracts. Thus, even an apparent difference between the two systems can be seen
to contain a similarity.
In relation
to finding some common ground, then homeopathy and the BFRs, both "contain
a non-material healing energy“, [van Haselen, 123] They are also prescribed
"based on presenting symptomatic layer“,
[van
Haselen, 123] and they both aim to mobilise the "self-healing vital force“,
[van Haselen, 123] which they both recognise as the source of all natural
healing. Sir John Weir [1879-1970] said in an address that
homeopathic
"remedies do not act directly on disease; they merely stimulate the vital
reactions of the patient, and this causes him to cure himself“, [Weir, 200-201]
Both systems "use single remedies“, [van Haselen, 123] which are "not
to be repeated once improvement takes place“, [van Haselen, 123] All these points
of obvious similarity between them inevitably bring the two systems into close
proximity.
In the
quite other sense, that "Bach’s aim was to develop a system which was
simple and accessible in order to promote self-help“, [van Haselen, 124] for
the common weal of humanity, then he resembles Dr John Henry
Clarke
[1853-1931], who deliberately taught lay persons homeopathy, and lent bold
support to lay homeopathy, either through genuine conviction or to aggravate
those faculty doctors who he despised as traitors, and who condemned such an
approach as beneath their professional dignity [see Morrell, 1999, 190]. It is
also of interest that Dr Clarke was editor of The Homeopathic World until his
death in 1931 and it was therefore he who published all Bach’s most
controversial papers on vaccines and Flower remedies during the 1920s. [see
also Morrell, 1999]
Robert
Thomas Cooper
Clarke was
also a big friend of Dr Robert T Cooper [1844-1903] who originally used the
sunshine method of remedy preparation, [‘arborivital medicine’] as also was Dr
Charles Edwin Wheeler, with whom Bach had worked
on nosodes.
Therefore, the claim that Bach did not know about sunshine making remedies
looks far less credible, the deeper one probes into that very small world of
British homeopathy, 1900-1930; that all these people
knew each
other and were on friendly terms somewhat erodes the validity of the claim made
that Bach just plucked original ideas from thin air.
It is
genuinely hard to believe that no such influence took place. It is hard to
believe that he lived in the tiny world of
his son
Robert M Le Hunte Cooper [c.1863-c.1940], both friends and close associates of
Clarke and Wheeler. Such a view beggars belief.
Dr John
Henry CLARKE (1853-1931) Dr Charles
Edwin WHEELER (1868-1946)
However,
unlike Clarke, Bach seems to have genuinely espoused a ‘treat yourself’ medical
philosophy and may therefore be credited with genuine foresight in conceiving
of a medicine "for the purposes of self-help“,
[van
Haselen, 124] because in recent times "over the counter [OTC]
self-treatment has become very popular“, [van Haselen, 124] whether for tissue
salts, homeopathy, aromatherapy or Bach Flower essences.
However,
this was not so much the case back in the 1930s. The easy do-it-yourself method
Bach employed, of preparing remedies, by floating flowers in spring water for 3
hours in direct sunshine [Shaw, 12] allows
anyone to
make their own remedies and so frees them "from dependence on doctors and
medical systems, and allowed them the power to heal themselves“, [Shaw, 12]
Certainly
Bach viewed sickness "as a ‘correction’ of an error“, [van Haselen, 125] -
shades there once again of
held a
rather simplistic or highly judgemental view of sickness? Such a view was not
shared by most homeopaths. However, he did, like Hahnemann, place great
"emphasis on the importance of compassion as part of the healing process“,
[van Haselen, 125] One might well agree with van Haselen that "although
homeopathy and DBS are clearly different, relationships between both systems
exist“, [van Haselen, 126] Many homeopaths
would also
agree with him that the "flower remedies can be used to ‘open up’ a case
by stimulating the vital force“, [van Haselen, 126] Therefore, "although
both systems are clearly different, some common ground exists…both systems may
have a complementary role which is perhaps insufficiently recognised“, [van
Haselen, 126]
Bach
clearly "recognised that mental and emotional symptoms were the most
important ones“, [Franz, 29] He employed "potentised nosodes from the
pathological intestinal flora“, [Franz, 29-30] and prescribed them
"according to the mental and emotional symptoms that he recorded
intuitively“, [Franz, 29-30] and which he saw in patients. He regarded the
intestinal toxaemia as analogous to "the physical substrate of Hahnemann’s
Psora“,
[Franz, 30] which Steiner construed as: "if our egos are low our
intestinal flora is pathological“, [Franz, 30] Eventually, Bach "looked
for plants that could replace these nosodes“, [Franz, 30] but similarly
selected
them on the
basis of emotional symptoms.
To prepare
his essences, Bach used "water from a certain spring“, [Franz, 30] and
being "inspired by the sunlit morning dew, he developed a new method for
capturing the ethereal plant quality in remedies - comparable
to the
‘arcanum’ of Paracelsus“, [Franz, 30] When Franz says Bach also ‘cooked’ some
remedies "in water over a wood fire to utilise the sun’s energy of the
past few years“, [Franz, 30-31] he presumably means that the
wood represents
the sun’s light energy captured in life as growth by the plant and then
released by the flames of the fire.
Few would
dispute Franz’s assessment that the "Bach flower remedy is best compared
to a low homeopathic LM or Q potency“, [Franz, 31] and that they lead to
"stimulation of a person’s self-healing strengths“, [Franz, 32]
He also
thinks that "homeopathic remedies and Bach essences act as a catalyst“,
[Franz, 32] to stimulate innate self-healing processes. Franz claims that
"Hering’s law is also observed“, [Franz, 32] in the action of Bach
flower
essences, and also observes that Bach contends, as with homeopathy, that
"there is a constitutional remedy for each person“, [Franz, 32-33] Franz
clearly believes "they act directly at the emotional level“, [Franz, 33]
for he
regards this as a fulfilment of Bach’s main "objective…to determine the
emotional state of the patient“, [Franz, 29] and upon which he believes the
entire Bach system is based. Franz estimates that "both in the preparation
of remedies in homeopathy and also the preparation of Bach flower remedies are
based on the principles of alchemy“, [Franz, 33]
Bach
professed - just like Paracelsus and Cooper before him - an "overwhelming
love for nature“, [
and Bach
the same function as attenuation does in homeopathy. In this way, he thus
proposed to utilise therapeutically "the ethereal life force which
animated all life“, [Richardson, 174] This view contends
that "the spiritual and material interwove to create the specific dynamic
of all processes“, [
Paracelsus
and van Helmont used the term "archeus…which referred to the human vital
force“, [Richardson, 174] The matter did not rest there,
however, as they further contended that "each organ had its own specific
archeus, with the stomach being the leading factor“, [Richardson,
174]. In their system, "disease sprang from specific seeds,
‘semina’…[related to] certain invisible disease patterns“, [Richardson,
174] It was these invisible disease patterns that could affect "the
archeus undermining its healthy functioning“, [
A very good
example of the parallel between Bach and homeopathy concerns the plant, Walnut
[Juglans regia]. In the 19th century, "homeopathic investigations revealed
Juglans regia…as beneficial in migraine headaches,
and Bach
considered this plant as a unique and protective healer that shields the mind
from heightened impressionability and suggestibility“, [Richardson,
175] Other examples have been less interesting as the profiles of
some
homeopathic drugs also used by Bach do not reveal so much overlap in their
therapeutic range of application within the two systems.
Dr
Jean-Baptiste VAN HELMONT (1577-1644) Like Bach and Hahnemann, van Helmont
"also hinted at the power of the mind in the causation of
disease…[especially that] fear or loss of honour could start an illness“, [Richardson,
175] He saw disease as often being caused by "an intruding
archeus…[leading to] an unbalanced organism…led by the imagination“, [Richardson,
175] Again we see the connection between the ideas of Hahnemann, Paracelsus,
van Helmont and Bach. Certainly, "Hahnemann reflects van Helmont’s notion
that the image of disease is originated in the mental/spiritual realm, in the imagination,
which is located in the archeus“, [Richardson, 175]
According to van Helmont, "illness begins as the personal archeus becomes
subjected to the archeus of another life form…[which] imparts a new and
erroneous image to the increasingly unbalanced vital force“, [Richardson,
175] This is not so far as it might seem from what Hahnemann and Bach were also
saying. In this way, the organism "falls out of tune initially and then
becomes accessible to invasion by a foreign archeus“, [Richardson,
175] Such would be the ‘error’ of Bach, the miasm of Hahnemann and
Hahnemann
also "believed that consciously held erroneous thoughts or beliefs could
spark disease“, [
[and
represents] the highest immaterial or spiritual extraction of medicines“, [Richardson,
176] Kent’s view that potentised remedies contain "purely energetic
medicinal powers imprinted on the water/alcohol medium
during
preparation“, [Richardson, 176] is entirely consistent with the views of
Hahnemann and Bach, and they would probably all further agree with him that
such remedies resonate "profoundly with the soul, mind and will“, [Richardson,
176]
Rudolf
STEINER regarding sunlight, perhaps Bach, like Rudolf Steiner, "linked the
power of the sun…to the human heart as a seat of goodness“, [Richardson,
176] This might partially explain his insistent connection of
the flower
remedies to basically emotional states of health or sickness. Steiner also
"used various methods of energetic potentisation…[including] exposure to
light or heat“, [Richardson, 176] For Steiner, and
Hahnemann
and Bach,
"natural agents are selected to uplift the disharmonious human condition
to a more synchronised one“, [
In these
entire natural healing systems it is quite apparent that they "aspire to
utilise the harmony of nature for the [treatment of the] diseased human being“,
[Richardson, 177] It is hard to see how any of the great
pioneers
of natural
medicine would disagree with that sentiment, which reads like the ultimate
summary of or last word on this subject.
Bach
affirmed that "all diseases begin in the mind…[resulting from] errors in
the personality“, [Richardson II, 26] This notion is
akin to "disease begins in the imagination, according to van Helmont, or
is conceived on
the
spirit-like, dynamic plane, according to Hahnemann“, [Richardson
II, 26] The difference, if any, between them is subtle if not non-existent. It
also approaches the fundamental innate Psora of Kent.
His method
of using "freshly plucked flowers…floated onto the surface of water in the
open air and sunshine for optimal release of subtle, ethereal healing
powers…[is] catalysed by the four elements of fire, water, air
and earth“,
[Richardson II, 26] These remedies clearly "derive
their healing powers from the [same] sunshine and heat which deactivate
homeopathic remedies“, [Richardson II, 26-27] What might
be termed "the special method of Bach Flower potentisation“, [Richardson
II, 27] using sunlight and spring water, "enables Bach to achieve the
desired vibrational power and healing effect within the personality sphere of
the human being“, [Richardson II, 27] It might be
assumed, therefore, that this "catalytic power of the BFRs in freeing the
vital force from disease patterns or foreign archeus“, [Richardson II, 27]
achieves this result solely by "addressing
the root of
the personality“, [Richardson II, 27] rather than by any imagined impact upon
the biological or physiological plane of organism functioning. Improvement in
the emotional plane is then deemed to be transferred
to the
biological plane. This again is reminiscent of
It is also
clear that in his first ‘nosode phase,’ of medical research, Bach "had
attempted to match the healing vibrations of the nosodes to those of the
healing plants of nature, which he later identified as the Bach Flower Remedies“,
[Richardson II, 27] This might be seen as strong
evidence that all along he had been in hot pursuit of a mental/emotional form
of healing as one of his primary objectives. We might well conclude therefore,
that
"errors in the personality, as well as the forces of aging or the
consequences of accidents or other events, may propel distortions in the
personal archeus or vital force“, [Richardson II, 27] In
this way, disease expression
"is
shaped by the person’s temperament, while being predetermined by genetic and
miasmatic heritage“, [Richardson II, 27]
The Bach
system clearly acknowledges that the vital force becomes "more challenged
during times of stress and adversity“, [Richardson II, 27] and in that sense,
the BFRs could well be "more subtle than homeopathic remedies…[in
addressing] the first tendencies in the personality to distortion and
imbalance…[which] appear even before the archeus becomes deeply affected“,
[Richardson II, 27] that is even before sickness has
become
manifested at the level of physical symptoms of ill-health. It is as if the BFR
sphere of action is at the pre-physical or pre-biological level of organism
functioning, what
"all
disease causes are in Simple Substance. We must enter the realm of causes in
order to see the nature of disease“, [Kent,
1926]
Empiricists
like Paracelsus, Hahnemann and Bach were "rejecting sterile rationalism“, [
because he
represented a troublemaking tendency, "an anti-authoritarian stance and
insisted…on the importance of inner revelation or ‘lumen naturae’…" [
more, as a
fertile and reliable beacon of hope and revelation, than the thunderous
hair-splitting rationalism of philosophers and textbooks. For book learning he
had only a thinly-disguised contempt. Like
Kent
and, to some degree, Bach, Paracelsus insisted "on the unitary nature of
the field of medicine and theology“, [
Paracelsus
saw words "as the bark covering the sap of invisible arcane knowledge“,
[McLean, 112] just as
[
Philippus Theophrastus
Bombastus Von HOHENHEIM PARACELSUS (1493-1541) For Paracelsus, "each
individuum was wholly peculiar and…[for him] there were as many diseases as
patients“, [McLean, 170]
Bach and
Hahnemann would agree. Another important connecting link to Paracelsus is found
in Bach’s intuitive use of signatures in finding the plants he desired. Yet,
"the correspondence theory of signatures in plants…
is the most
contentious manifestation“, [
simple one,
but easily opens to misinterpretation and over-simplification.
A good
example of Paracelsus’ qualification as a radical empiricist, like Bach, is
when he "thought he could learn more medicine by travelling and observing
than from any library“, [French, 148] which is certainly a
sentiment
reminiscent of Bach’s travels in the English countryside searching for healing
plants. The notion is further repeated when Paracelsus insists that "God
sent diseases, but also cures; and it was the true doctor who could recognise
from signs the abundant natural remedies that God had provided“, [French, 149]
He also held that the true knowledge of medicine "was not to be acquired
from authority, but existed in the natural objects themselves“, [French, 149]
Such is precisely Bach’s perhaps naïve view that numerous would-be healing
plants were simply ‘out there’ in the lanes and fields just waiting to be
discovered. Bach also felt that "Nature was always lavish in her gifts to
man“, [Weeks, 49]
Original
sin?
A useful
link exists in Bach's thinking can be seen regarding homeopathy and the miasms.
Bach realised with Bowel nosodes that when a case becomes stuck in homeopathic
treatment, the bowel flora then becomes pathological and that when this is
potentised to make a remedy then it unblocks the stuck case for normal
homeopathic remedies to then resume their good work.
He then
identified this state in two ways - an emotional profile of the patient as a
reliable guide to the nosode [and later to the flower remedy] and that this
blocked state was indicative of latent Psora, or the fundamentally psoric state
first described by Hahnemann. Thus, Bach clearly forms conceptual bridges from
nosodes to vexation, which Hahnemann saw as a fundamental cause of sickness,
then to the bowel flora, to emotional symptoms
and thus to
the flower remedies and miasms all apparently in one leap.
This also
suggests that Bach, like Hahnemann, thought sickness to primarily stem from a
deeper and invisible predisposing cause of a universal character, just as the
miasms of Hahnemann are seen by most homeopaths. Perhaps Bach, like Hahnemann
and Paracelsus, felt we are all sick in the same primary or fundamental sense of
This sense
that we are all ‘fallen beings’ is what
point.
When Kent
said, "Psora is the beginning of all physical sickness...is the underlying
cause and is the primitive or primary disorder of the human race“, [Kent, 1980,
126] he meant to say that "it goes to the very primitive wrong of the
human race, the very first sickness of the human race that is the spiritual
sickness...which in turn laid the foundation for other diseases“, [Kent,
1980, 126] He called Psora, "this outgrowth, which has come upon man from
living a life of evil willing“, [Kent, 1926,
654] He clearly echoes earlier medical writers where "the fallen condition
of mankind was blamed for the ubiquity of sickness, suffering and the empire of
the Grim Reaper. Through their original sin, Adam and Eve had brought disease and
death into the world as punishments for disobedience“, [Porter, 1986, 27]
Certain diseases have long been "associated with the Almighty's punishment
of sin“, [Porter, 1998, 84] Sufferings of all kinds "could be a godsend
and a trial. ’Blessed is the man, whom God correcteth,' declared Job, singled
out by the Lord to undergo great suffering..“, [Porter, 1998, 85]
In many
times and cultures, sickness was "regarded as part of God's design for the
individual [bringing training and a sense of God's mercy] then the intervention
of the physician is incompatible with the notion of God's purpose. That is
medicine is seen to interfere with a religious plan. In any case, the Christian
theologians often regarded human maladies...as charged with spiritual powers....by
stressing the educative aspect of sickness; the Church was able to accept the
role of the physician as compatible with these Christian principles“, [Turner,
27]
Kent
unambiguously declares that "had Psora never been established as a miasm
upon the human race...susceptibility to acute diseases would have been
impossible...it is the foundation of all sickness“, [
and that
"the human race today walking the face of the earth, is but little better
than a moral leper. Such is the state of the human mind at the present day. To
put it another way everyone is Psoric“, [Kent,
1980, 135]
It is clear
from these quotes that
me that
Bach held similar views both in his interpretation of Psora as a primary
sickness and in his view that Love was the panacea.
Summary
I do not
wish to force the issue about influences upon Bach because we simply do not
know much with great certainty; we can only point to various probabilities. It
is perfectly possible that Bach, like many empirics before him, simply
discovered his remedies and their mode of preparation for himself, in his own
way, in isolation from any prior knowledge of Cooper, Paracelsus or Lorber.
This can be true of all empirics and pioneers in any
field.
However, it is also possible that, like Hahnemann, he did recognise these
influences of predecessors, but chose not to reveal the more obvious links to
the pioneers in his own field. And if he did do that, again, no
shame is
attached because we can only guess at the possible motives that led him to
adopt such a path. Regardless of such influences, if they exist, he was still
an original pioneer of a new medical system distinctive in its
own way,
though with obvious connections to the other systems.
In summary,
this detailed survey shows that there are infinitely more similarities between
homeopathy and BFR than differences. Most objections to this view of a common
underpinning rationale seem both feeble and to
stem from
pedantic hair splitting by parties on both sides who probably wish to keep the
two systems separate for solely commercial purposes. For example, Bach first
launched his remedies "through the homeopathic pharmacies“, [Barnard, 299]
even though he himself "made clear that the flower remedies were not
homeopathic“, [Barnard, 299] and that they are not prepared "by
homeopathic methods“, [Barnard, 299]
Although
one might justifiably say the BFR are based upon "a pseudo-homeopathic
dilution“, [Barnard, 300] system and "based more upon quality and not a
quantity“, [Barnard, 301] but exactly the same can be said for homeopathic
remedies and so the ‘score’ remains tilted in favour of similarity rather than
difference. Many different types of dilution are employed by homeopaths and
they are clearly based more upon quality than quantity. Indeed, numerous
homeopaths have said that they contain none of the original substance
molecules.
In a letter
of 1982, Richard Katz, President of the Flower Essence Society, claims that BFR
and homeopathic remedies "are distinctly different“, [Katz, 1] from each
other and that because "unlike homeopathic remedies…
[their preparation]
involves the action of the sun“, [Katz, 1] so "they are not homeopathic
remedies“, [Katz, 1] Indeed, as he points out, the Bach centre "was
adamant in insisting“, [Katz, 1] on such a difference for years. Although Katz
quite rightly insists, the "properties attributed to flower essences have
not been derived from standard homeopathic provings“, [Katz, 1] yet nor have
certain remedies and views of homeopaths like Cooper, Scholten and Whitmont.
Even some of
Although
Katz claims that "flower essences are a form of ‘alchemical’
transformation of consciousness and are essentially a method of spiritual
healing“, [Katz, 2] yet exactly the same claim can be made for the medical
systems of Paracelsus, van Helmont, Cooper and Hahnemann and for exactly the
same reasons.
It is not
strictly true that "the Bach method of preparation is not in any way
similar to the homeopathic method“, [Bach Remedy Newsletter, Sept 1979, 178]
for, as we have seen, there are indeed at least as many similarities
as
differences. Nor, therefore, does it necessarily follow from this that "a
different force is set free by the trituration and succussion used in preparing
homeopathic remedies“, [Bach Remedy Newsletter, Dec 1977, 118]
That is
merely an opinion, for no-one knows with any certainty what the underlying
ethereal basis of homeopathic remedies or Bach essences is. Therefore, it is
not possible to say definitively that "their higher radiations
still
cannot be obtained that way“, [Bach Remedy Newsletter, Dec 1977, 118] or that
the BFR "obtain the highest form of radiation…which is the ultimate
potency…[which] cannot be increased“, [Bach Remedy Newsletter, Sept 1979, 178] The
claim that there are no "higher potencies of the Bach Remedies - for life
force cannot be increased“, [Bach Remedy Newsletter, Dec 1977, 118] is
therefore another meaningless statement that cannot
be
corroborated and so must be seen as a mere statement of opinion.
As I said
at the outset, any classification scheme is ultimately an arbitrary human
construct designed for convenience. For convenience, I can see good clear
reasons to regard BFR as a form of homeopathy, even though it deviates from
pure homeopathy in a number of key respects: no provings, no succussion, no
trituration, no use of physical symptoms and use of sunlight.
In
presenting a detailed study of the myriad connections between homeopathy and
BFR, I find that there are many more similarities than differences, both at the
conceptual level and in methodology. I see no reason,
therefore,
why these similarities cannot be justly used as the basis for legal and
regulatory purposes of classifying the BFR system as a form of homeopathy,
distinctive in its own ways, but nevertheless sufficiently similar
for this
approach to inflict no lasting harm to either system. It is the only other
natural therapy that stands anywhere near close to it and with which it has
clear historical links. Thus, for the convenience of legal and
regulatory
purposes there is little to be lost by placing them in the same category side
by side as very similar systems of therapy.
Vorwort/Suchen Zeichen/Abkürzungen Impressum