Respected Sirs,
It is seen that provings of animal products are being talked about in terms of the respective animal behaviour.
We know that predators like Tiger and the like are known for their Fight response than flight response and their preys like the Deer for their flight response. The predators are not known to have acquired the flight response even temporarily after surviving on preys meat throught their lives generation after generation.that is to
say, the effect of a substance cannot be discussed in such simplistic manner.It is one thing to use the nature of the proved substance for memorising certain rubrics and yet another thing to talk in terms of that animal behaviour in proving.
Your comments please.

Hello,

What you have written deals with two questions - Effect of diet on the psyche and - Using the characteristics of the source to judge the symptoms of a remedy. I am not sure where you read examples similar to the lion-deer one, but there is a absic flaw in this statement. This you will understand better through the Indian philosophy of food. In India, food is classified among three classes - Satvik, Tamsik, and Rajsik. The satvik food primarily consists of vegetable food and some dairy products like milk. It is void of any rich and spicy ingredients. The Tamsik food comprises of non-veg, rich and spicy food. The Rajsik one is considered to be the ideal balance of the two. It is well accepted fact among Indians that the kind of diet you take does affect your psyche and behaviour.

But this does not mean you will acquire the characteristics of what you are eating. Flesh is part of tamsik diet - be it of deer or cheetah (lions do eat cheetahs occassionaly) and the agressive nature or the carnivores is compatible with what they are eating.

I know there are some modern homeopathic gurus who make very gross generalizations about the remedy portrait based on the source (esp of animal kingdom). I personally think understanding the attributes of the source to memorize the symptomatology is fine but any effort to introduce psychic portraits without proving should be condemned. I totally agree with you about this one!

Dr. B