What I also came to understand is that trauma
and collective trauma is strongly connected to epidemic diseases. And, like we’ve discussed before regarding
Miasms in Labour, as far as I understand, miasms and epidemic diseases are also connected
to the individuation process, but then not so much on the individual level but on a collective
level. So these epidemic diseases play a role in
the development of mankind. So, to me, treating trauma even comes first
to treating epidemics – and certainly [treating] collective trauma. Now, like genocide, like the Holocaust: this
is, of course, clearly collective trauma. But if you look at rape: in Africa, there
are areas of Africa where the chance for a girl to get raped is higher than that she
will learn to read and write. This means that this is an individual trauma
taking place on a collective scale. Also, if you look at the homeopathic treatment
of (for instance) rape, and you would ask homeopaths remedies they prescribe, they will
usually have a small set of remedies with which they treat most of their cases. This means that in homeopathy we already tend
to treat trauma in a genus epidemicus kind of way, which I have now been calling ‘genus
traumaticus’. So you can analyze a certain type of trauma,
and take the cases of those people that experience it ‘as if one person’, and come to a remedy. If you can find in the materia medica – wonderful. If Peter Chappell can make it – wonderful…
whatever works. But as such, as an approach, this is something
we can do and should do, I think. This came about the first time when Peter
went to Rwanda in 2005 to treat AIDS patients. He went to Rwanda to treat AIDS. And so this was 11 years after the genocide
in Rwanda, when in ten days’ time 800,000 people were butchered. So this was a huge trauma to the whole population. Either you were one of the killers, or you
had lost people, or you had been injured yourself: there’s nobody in the country that is not
traumatized by it. So when he started treating their AIDS, he
saw that trauma was perhaps even more dominantly in their state than AIDS, and he realized
he had to treat… … an epidemic of trauma. He had to treat trauma. And so, using the same technology he decided
to make… he just analyzed the situation, took many cases ‘as if one person’, and
prepared a remedy for that, and tried it out. And he noticed that it worked with the people
that he was treating there. There was this one case that came to me in
my practice in Holland – a woman, a therapist – that was talking about a deep, deep, deep
pain and grief inside of her, that was so big, so huge, that she even didn’t dare
to get close to it. And her personal life story was: her mother,
psychiatric patient, being hospitalized. So she was missing the love and care of the
mother and all of that. But somehow this didn’t measure up to the
depth of her pain and grief. And, discussing this, she told about how her
mother had lost all of the family during the Holocaust. She was a Jewish woman, and all of her family
had been killed in the concentration camps. And that I could connect to the depth of the
pain that she was describing. And this was a woman that had followed all
kinds of therapies. Being a therapist herself she knew the channels,
she knew where to go, and nothing had ever helped. And so I asked her: “Are you willing to
test a remedy I’ve never prescribed before? All I know that in Rwanda it seems to work
for people that experienced the genocide. My understanding is that your pain is connected
to the collective pain of the Holocaust.” And so she took that remedy and I saw her
back a couple of weeks later, and she told me, she said: “I could never imagine that
this would be possible for me.” Just in a matter of weeks this pain and this
grief had left her. This woman had been weeping for years: no
more weeping. She continued taking the remedy for several
months, there was no more change, and the kind of symptoms she had then were all symptoms
that you could relate to her everyday life and to her personal history. So that’s when I complemented this collective
remedy with an individual remedy for her, Lac humanum – it happened to be Lac humanum. She responded wonderfully to it, and never
needed another dose for years. So it meant to me: first of all, a patient
with deep pathology, you give one remedy once and never have to repeat – those are rare
cases. Here, treating the collective [layer] first,
to which she responds wonderfully, and then just one dose of the individual remedy and
also responding wonderfully, made clear to me that in many cases treating the collective
[layer] first, or the root of the problem (which might not be individual at all) first,
might be the way to go, depending on what you are perceiving in the person. So if the individual picture is very strongly
there, that’s what you prescribe for. If you very strongly see a collective issue
there, or an issue which comes from the family, you might have to prescribe for that first,
and then come to an individual remedy. OK. Now what about, though, the question of why
do people get traumatized in the first place? In other words, the homeopathic perspective
is that there is a propensity behind even collective trauma. So could you address that question, perhaps:
Why is it that we enter this trauma state in the first place, that’s so fundamental? You could say that the fundamental delusion
of mankind is that we are separate, so that the connection between us and the rest of
the world is broken: we’re out of Paradise. And that is being experienced as a trauma,
and so through this your interests might not be my interests – that’s my belief – so
I need to reach a deal with you, or keep something secret from you, or go into competition with
you… whatever. And so this trauma, I think, is a kind of
basic trauma – a basic delusion, based on a delusion – in all of mankind. OK. So from this basic delusion, what happens
to bring about collective trauma? Well, if, from this basic delusion, you grow
up in a family, and so your interests might not be my interests. So there is already competition and trauma
on a small level, scale, going on. And like we discussed with malaria, when you
have the interests of the individual and the interests of the group, the tribe, then again
there is an area of friction. And depending on the individual, and depending
on society, a person will be more or less traumatized by that. So there’s a lot of trauma going on a small
level, and that just adds up, adds up, adds up. And by also suppressing the expressions of
trauma, for instance by suppressing diseases that flourish on trauma, by suppressing these
expressions, you deepen the way the trauma will come out. And then, possibly then the initial traumas
which could be treated with those collective remedies… later on, after suppression and
so forth, that’s where you get into the conventional classical homeopathy? Meaning that once a lot of time has passed
and you have something built up on top of the trauma, and that’s the individual picture
that we are familiar with as homeopaths? Yeah, that’s what we mainly treat. It’s a wonderful way of working as a homeopath,
because it’s extremely interesting. It’s beautiful, all those individual pictures. But it’s actually, if you look at it, not
very effective on the larger scale. So it’s in a sense treating end results
as opposed to the root…which is what we’re trying to do? Yeah, we’re standing at the very end of
the river, where it enters the ocean, and we try to pick out those that are still alive. But if we could move up the river and prevent
people from jumping into the river, that cannot swim, we might do much more effective work. So if you look at it like this: there’s
trauma, collective trauma, there’s disease, collective diseases, and ultimately you find
the chronic diseases and then the individual issues a person can have in his own process. We tend to be focused a lot on the last, whereas
if we were focused more on the collective issues, we would prevent a lot of the individual
issues that come out later in this whole process. And instead of trying to fight our way back,
I think we would be much more effective if we treated epidemics, collective trauma, for
large amounts of people. And then use classical homeopathy for those
problems that still remain and are not addressed by that general approach. Now, what about the situation in the West,
so-called West, as opposed to the Third World: Do you see the genus traumaticus, genus epidemicus
approach, equally applicable, or is it just the case that in the West the individual approach
happens to be more useful, and vice versa? I think individualization in the West as such
is more than in developing countries, for instance, so an individualized approach might
be more necessary here. Because we’re more sick, more removed from
our initial traumas, or because, say, Western people are more individualized than in more
collective societies? More individualized and more mentalized. In the West we’re very much mentalized,
and we fight our reality with our mind. We have got all kinds of concepts and ideas
about how it should be. If I look in Africa and I talk to people,
people much more easily accept life as it is, and it includes being born or dying, and
it includes that if… I mean, you can see people that are about
to die, and if you treat them well and you see them back one week later and they’re
just alive and kicking, they might just accept this as a usual thing, there’s nothing about
it. They don’t have all these stories connected
to their situation as we have. Also, if you take a case in Africa, usually
you will not find deep stories that you have to dive up somewhere deeply in the subconscious
or whatever. No, things are as they are, and when you treat
that it’s gone. Many homeopaths who work in developing countries
have the same experience, that taking a case is a lot more simple, because you don’t
have the over-mentalized layer that you have to go through first, of all the concepts and
understandings and theories people have about their state. It was a very interesting observation that
people did in Rwanda, also: people that were treated for the genocide were responding wonderfully;
there were a few that were responding not as well as the others, and these few had been
living in London and had been studying there for many years. So these were more mentalized people, whereas
those people that we may tend to call simple from our perspective, and they are more simple
in a way that they are more able to just take life as it is, they also heal more easily
from whatever occurs to them. So you can see dramatic results. So going back to your question, how it is
in the West: I haven’t treated enough people in the West with a general genus traumaticus
approach to be able to judge. What we can see in homeopathy is that some
people with an advanced stage of a chronic disease like multiple sclerosis are very difficult
to individualize at some point: all you see is the disease. This means that you might have to start with
a remedy fitting the symptoms of the disease as it presents. So this is another area where I’ve seen
very interesting cases since I started working with Peter, and one of the first cases I’ve
seen was very dramatic in that sense. So I had met Peter, talked to him, decided
to go to Africa, and before I could go there were a couple of months in which I treated
some patients with a PC remedy for a chronic disease – completely not classical thinking. So one of the first patients was a person
with Parkinson’s that I had been treating for quite some time, and I was happy with
the results. So we had seen an improvement and then he
was stable. Great: that’s what you can reach with homeopathy
with Parkinson’s, as far as I was aware of. I gave him this PC remedy for Parkinson’s
and just told him: “Well, what I understand from Peter is that you just take it daily,
five drops every day.” And I saw him back the day before I went to
Malawi, and I must admit that before I went to Malawi I was very enthusiastic after having
seen this case at the congress, but then three months later I thought: Oh, you’ll see that
when I go to Malawi all these people are dead, and it’s just a hoax, you know… he thought
he saw these results but in the mean time they might have died or whatever. So the day before I went to Malawi this Parkinson’s
patient was coming back, and he entered my office, and I didn’t perceive the Parkinson’s anymore:
he just walked normally, he moved normally. And he said: “Well, you told me to take
this remedy every day, and I took the remedy, and already after 2-3 days I had an aggravation
of my Parkinson’s, so I thought, no, I’m not going to take this anymore.” But he said: “But then again a few days
later the aggravation went away and I started to improve. And I thought: Okay, let me take another dose.” And he said: “I took another dose, and again
I had an aggravation, but not as strong as the first one, and then after several weeks
I could take the remedy daily, and I just kept improving, and right now I’m just fine.” I’ve never seen a result like that before
with Parkinson’s. The same happened to a case with multiple
sclerosis, a woman that I had been treating for 14 years, and after this PC remedy for
multiple sclerosis she was better than 10 years back. A woman that could walk bare-feet on the beach
again, instead of just for 5 minutes around the block and that was it, on high shoes to
keep her ankles stable. So I’ve seen quite amazing results with
that as well. And so it’s a very practical approach: I
just start with what I perceive. If I can see the simillimum – wonderful,
I’ll start with that, that’s my first option. If I’m not sure about it, if it’s difficult
to find it and it’s a clear diagnosis – this could be trauma, this could be chronic disease
– I start with that. And my experience is that when you start treating
the disease – actually what we call clinical homeopathy, and just Peter found a new way
of making a one-remedy approach for that – if you start with that you will start to see
changes in the pathology, and because the pathology is being lifted off a little, you
start to see individual symptoms coming up, and the individual remedy gets clearer and
clearer. So it’s a beautiful approach to complement
[the classical approach]. And I think, based on this I’ve come to
understand that classical homeopathy and clinical homeopathy are not two ways of applying homeopathy
that should fight each other, but that they are wonderful ways to complement each other,
and you just start with what is the most obvious. Very fascinating… and you see, I guess,
that the work with collective… a collective approach to homeopathy as being key to moving
homeopathy forward, and the future of homeopathy and so forth? I think if we were treating epidemics much
more, and just collected data and the results, that we would come up with very convincing
reports. It is a lot easier than trying to treat chronic
diseases, so the results will be better. It’s also a lot easier to have lots of patients
included in a trial, so also the numbers will be much more convincing. It’s our strongest asset, I’m convinced. Right. So what is your vision for the future beyond
showing homeopathy – that homeopathy works – to others, ultimately what do you see
as the full manifestation of the potential of homeopathy? Hmm… Well, as I said before, to me life is homeopathy,
in that sense that life is all about resonance, and that we are experiencing our simillimum,
in a way, all of the time. And homeopathy is just an application of that
same law that makes it possible to go through transitions in a much milder, quicker way. And so homeopathy, I think, is a great tool
to actually support evolution in a way that will include less suffering. Ultimately, I think, ‘like cures like’,
the law of similars, is an expression of love. The basic delusion we talked about, the idea
that we are separate, is one that is being bridged by love, and it’s this delusion
that in all kinds of facets is actually being treated by homeopathic remedies, because you
can resonate back to the individual, and the individual can, as it were, retrieve parts
that have been lost and heal himself. And that healing is not only on the individual
level but that’s on the collective level as well. It’s in principle impossible to only treat
one individual. Everyone is connected to many others. So if you have a family and you treat one
person from the family the others will be influenced as well, and that’s something
which is very understandable. But every homeopath knows this experience
that you treat a person that had a conflict with someone 20 years back: you treat this
person, and the shortly after that this person that they haven’t been seeing for decades
calls them, writes to them, whatever. So there is a lot more going on that we don’t
see. So I think that homeopathy is much more about
healing the basic delusion or basic state of humanity, than just treating diseases. Diseases are just expressions of them, and
actually tools, helpers, to find our way, because without them we wouldn’t know that
we were lost. So do you see the potential of transforming
entire societies through the treatment of collective diseases or trauma? I think potentially yes. I mean, we might be far removed from realizing
something like that, but I think potentially yes. Initially, like we’re doing now, with treating
epidemics in Africa, we’re still treating small numbers, so the effect of this will
be mainly to the lives of these individuals. But I would imagine that if you were to treat
a large-enough percentage of people suffering from one and the same disease, at some point
there will be a kind of collective response. You could say that each disease has a kind
of purpose and a role to fulfill in life, and that once you treat enough people that
are involved with this collective disease, that this role and purpose can become fulfilled
and that humanity can move on. Like we’ve seen in history, I mean, this
is what happens: even if we don’t treat it, this is what happens. Diseases have their impacts, and whether it’s
intentional impact or it’s just the impact of the disease, that doesn’t make a lot
of difference for homeopaths, because we just treat the symptoms, we treat the totality. Whether this effect is intentional, yes or
no, is not so important. But what I would expect is that, in principle,
to each disease there is a connected role and purpose of its existence, and that once
you have either treated enough people… A critical mass of… … a critical mass of people, that the collective
can then move through this whole transformation, and the disease becomes obsolete – just
like we can see this in individuals, I mean there is not a big difference here, it’s
just ‘as if one person’. And individuality, as we discussed already,
is actually a kind of delusion: we are connected, we are one, but we are all different expressions
of this same oneness. Now where could people find out about this
approach? In 2007 we started a foundation, the Amma
Resonance Healing Foundation, so there can be information found on its website, which
is www.arhf.nl. Then there is a website about the PC remedies
that are available for epidemic, infectious, traumatic, and chronic diseases, which is
www.vitalremedies.com. The remedies are also available from Helios
Pharmacy in London, and the Hahnemann Pharmacy in Holland, and the Florian Pharmacy in Austria. And Peter Chappell has written a great book,
The Second Simillimum, in which he describes his whole journey in Africa, and how he came
to making the remedy, and his philosophy behind treating diseases, about health and disease. So these are the main sources. And then for Africa we produced a specific,
small booklet. I wrote something: the most concise way to
explain how to treat epidemics and trauma in Africa – that’s the Amma4Africa Manual. And besides that we developed a kit for Africa
which includes some of the remedies for treating epidemic disease, trauma, and just a few chronic
diseases. And those are available on your website, right?
So: www.arhf.nl. Yes, there you can find all the information.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *