G: I wanted to add something to the description of the healing setting. Do you remember more than 50 years ago you attended a lecture by Krishnamurti, in which he said that the speaker, the listener and the speaking are one? In your description of the healing setting, you have included the patient, the healer, and the remedy…
AV: At the time I did not understand what Krishnamurti was saying, but now I can say from experience: the lover, the beloved, and the love are one. There is only the experience of love. In our 3D reality, that experience splits in an object and a subject, a sender and a receiver, but in fact there is only conscious experience.
G: Now, if you apply that to the healing setting…
AV: Then you have the patient, the healer and the healing, but in reality they are one and there is only the experience of healing.
G: … An experience that is lived by…
AV:… the healer! Now I’m a bit confused….. You mean, there is only the experience of healing and the action, so to speak, for which we always need an object and a subject is only in 3D.
G: That’s close to the truth. The same is true for the patient, who is cured, it just depends on who is the object and the subject. And everyone who experiences is by nature ‘a subject’.
AV: Is that what is meant by ‘there is no one out there, there is only you’? Or like Krishnamurti’s book with the title: ‘You are the World’.
G: By many sages, repeated over and over again in different places and times….
AV: It is difficult to assume that we create our own world in and with our thoughts because there appears a reality out there, independent of us. There seems to be consensus about the world with or without our presence. Nevertheless, I understand that without us there is no world, or as I put it: there are three conditions for a rainbow: water, light and an observer. Without an observer there is no rainbow.
G: Go on.
AV: So we are at the same time the spectator, the screenwriter and the actor in our life story; the collection of experiences we gain here in 3D.
G: And so… apply this to healing….
AV: We create disease, we create a healing method and a healer and voilà, the play begins. The healing method can be homeopathy, but it can also be something else. Is that true so far?
G: It’s a bit more complex, but the fundamentals are there.
AV: Seen in this light, homeopathy is actually a fabrication of the imagination and only serves as a medium to experience healing.
G: I wouldn’t use words like ‘fabrication of the imagination’, that has a negative connotation, as if it were a negligible or erroneous idea. And homeopathy is a good idea.
AV: I’m all ears!
G: What ‘works’ is what is charged with energy by large numbers of people through their faith and experience. Hence homeopathy does work.
AV: I sometimes think that Hahnemann discovered something more or less by accident, without the preconceived belief that potentized substances, which no longer contain material components, would work even better.
G: He discovered a universal law, namely, the law of similarity, or at least has examined it thoroughly and systematically to its ultimate consequences.
The Law of Similarity
AV: The law of similarity says that all learning, understanding, resonance and communication is based on similarity. Bateson calls it: communication and patterns. Indeed, it is clear that there can be no communication without similarity: there must be a minimum of ‘known’ phenomena, objects or language in order to have a meaningful communication. Moreover, all learning processes are based on adding to what is already known. People, animals, sounds only resonate if they have enough similarity although they don’t have to be identical.
G: …
AV: My suspicion is that there are patterns behind the phenomena, which may even explain that resonance. Then phenomena that share the same pattern would start to resonate with each other because of the ‘underlying’ similarity. I can’t explain it any better, but since I’ve been singing my ‘simplifying homeopathy’ song, it’s like I’m being pulled in that direction. Those supposed patterns are probably reducible to the Platonic solids, and even further to the Flower of Life: one tetrahedron and you’re off to create the entire universe!
G: ….
AV: Could it be that “similarity” means “belonging to the same pattern”? For example: all kinds of phenomena that are derivative forms of the cube and the means that are similar to it? Then a new division is required. Can you give me clarification about those patterns, those classifications and whether any clues can be found in figures?
G: Before we embark on a new tidal wave of questions, has there been a satisfactory answer to the question of who is whispering the remedies to you?
AV: Yes, no one is whispering. I know because I know it, and I consider it your work.
