Healing vs. Curing

Here’s a bit of distillation of the philosophy of healing that Heilkunst embodies. It’s based on Hahnemann’s teachings but also draws from Rudolf Steiner, Wilhelm Reich and others, and says that as we evolved spiritually over the ages, we lost some etheric vitality as a tradeoff, and took on susceptibility to disease.

To understand this new definition of disease and curing of disease, we need to define two distinct aspects of the human life force. This is the Dynamic view, and differs significantly from the Vitalist view that most of traditional natural medicine approaches espouse.

Traditional natural medicine, including Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, and all the various modern naturopathic approaches are based on the idea of healing of disease by shoring up the “vital force”. Also they work by the law of opposites rather than the law of similars.

For example, if you felt a little chilly so you took a warm bath, that would be using the law of opposites. Or you might have a deficiency of some nutrient, so you would treat the deficiency by providing what is lacking. That’s using the law of opposites appropriately.

But Hahnemann taught that the law of opposites doesn’t have jurisdiction in disease proper. In disease, only the Law of Similars has jurisdiction. And the curative medicine is one that’s given according to the Law of Similars.. so that you would give a remedy that has been proven to have similar effects as the disease that you’re trying to cure.

Dr. Hahnemann found that using the law of similars with remedies that were highly diluted would not cause harm. The remedies are not only diluted but shaken vigorously, which activates the curative properties.

So this is the basis for understanding what Hahnemann meant by the dual nature of the life force or “Living Power”. The Generative side of the living power involves the law of similars; while the Sustentive side of the living power involves the law of opposites.

This means that all the natural healing approaches that are using the law of opposites are only engaging one aspect of the living power, the Sustentive side. And, it is not the sustentive side which has the power to engage in the curing of disease.

Healing is the function of the Sustentive side, but Curing is the function of the Generative side.

The true healing function comes into play after curing has been accomplished, by restoring balance and sort of cleaning up the battlefront after the battle has been won.

So, “healing” in this sense is really not the primary focus we need for annihilating disease, but “curing” is.

In no other discipline that I know of is this distinction made.

Now, to continue about curing and the generative power.. Disease is a matter of the generative power, because it is an actual impingement or impregnation by a disease entity. It’s not simply a condition arising out of an imbalance. So it needs to be treated with remedies that annihilate or extinguish the impingement.

Rudi Verspoor has said, and it matches my own experience, that boosting the life force as it exists on the etheric level can help conditions that have arisen on the etheric level; but that true disease involves the generative aspect of the life force, and so it must be aborted like a pregnancy. And like pregnancy, you can’t undo it simply by strengthening the person’s vital force!

When there is not an actual disease process, only symptoms of imbalance, that can be corrected by boosting the etheric.. because in that case, the generative force is not involved, only the sustentive force which can be shored up in various ways.. etheric boosting, devices like the zapper, classical homeopathy, herbal medicine, nutrition, etc.

So, to sum up:

Medicine (potentized remedies working via the law of similars) engages the Generative power and is used in the curing of disease.

Regimen (working via the law of opposites) engages the Sustentive power and is used in the healing process.

Disease needs curing; imbalance needs healing. That’s sort of a simplistic distinction, because treating disease completely really includes curing and healing both. But I think it’s important to understand this distinction and the different jurisdictions involved, in order to begin to understand the real nature of disease and what is required to treat it.

This view of the remediation of disease squares with my years of personal experience, and accounts for the fact that all my other efforts in the realm of natural medicine weren’t panning out for me, until I underwent Heilkunst treatment.