Esoteric Coffeehouse

Homeopathy is the brainchild of Samuel Hahnemann, a German doctor practicing at the beginning of the 19th century. As a young physician, Hahnemann became discontented with the mainstream medicine practiced during his era, which often employed harsh and doubtful measures such as bloodletting, purging, blistering and excessive doses (1). His own experience and observation led him to propose a radically new medicine, homeopathy, which could be translated as “the cure is like to the disease”. Homeopathy is based on a few pillar principles developed by Hahnemann, which I will attempt to summarise below:

1. The law of “similars”. This law, which is rightfully considered as the basic tenet of homeopathy, had been the mainstay of several ‘dissident’ physicians such as Hippocrates, Paracelsus or Stahl. The law maintains that cure should be similar, rather than opposed to disease. In other words, patients should take medicine that is apparently ‘stimulating’ the illness. This may sound rather absurd in our day-and-age, when it is ‘self-understood’ that the medicine should be contradictory to the disease: thus, when we have an infection we take antibiotics to ‘reduce’ or ‘eliminate’ it. Who would even consider taking something that would increase the infection? Yet some famous physicians, including Hahnemann, thought that a contrary medicine only quashes the symptoms, without addressing the real problem. The infection may be reduced or eliminated, but the body’s disease would only find some other outlet to express itself. That is because, in Hahnemann’s views, disease goes deeper than what we normally think as illness. Disease is a spiritual entity, rather than a physical one (2).

2. Theory of the vital force (“vitalism”). Homeopathy belongs to a long lineage of scientists or philosophers that believed that, behind the apparent materiality of the universe lay a spiritual force that organized matter (3). Proponents of this theory include Aristotle, Hippocrates, Paracelsus, Van Helmont, Stahl, Bergson, Driesch and others (4, 5). Hahnemann subscribed to this view, maintaining that the body was animated by a spiritual force he called “dynamis”, which was responsible for maintaining and regulating the body (6). Far before the ideas of homeostasis and immunity were introduced into medicine, he believed that the body had the capacity of self-regulating itself. However, he also considered that, when disease takes over, the body is no longer able to protect itself and the physician must then intervene.

(more…)

The history of the Knights Templar may be fascinating, but it does not compare with the history of their legend. It is hence regrettable that insufficient research has been done in Knights Templar mythology. Whether the Templars were truly in possession of some wondrous knowledge, the Grail, or they were devil worshippers, we will probably never know. What we can record is what the people believed, and some continue to believe, about the Templars.

From what I have been able to fathom, the Templar-mania is no coincidence. Even during the existence of the knighthood, they were the object of an intense medieval propaganda. At the beginning, the propaganda was positive, even idealistic, initiated by high church figures and popular troubadours. Then, as Philip IV and Pope Clement began to defame the order, the publicity became very negative. The story they told about the Templars resembled a modern ‘conspiracy theory’. In any case, in the 13-14th centuries, the Templars were, as it were, “big news”. Today, books like those of Dan Brown or Michael Baigent only perpetuate a medieval news story.

The positive propaganda was initiated by an influential monk, St. Bernard of Clairvaux. St Bernard was an amazing figure: he single-handedly organized the reformist Cistercian order in Europe, preached the Second Crusade and even arbitrated the choice of the Pope (for more on him, see 1). In addition, St Bernard was a staunch supporter of the Templar order. In fact, much of Templar ideology came from St Bernard’s vision. In 1128, at the Council of Troyes, he penned down the outline of the Templar Rules, which became a standard of chivalry in the epoch (2). Later on, he wrote “In the Praise of the New Knighthood”, which portrayed the Templars as an ideal knightly order that combined military chivalry and monk dedication (3). In his view, the Templars were probably meant to be more than an order – but an archetype of the ‘new knighthood’. In this spirit, he urged the entire European knightly class to join the Templars (4).

(more…)