Organon of Medicine

APHORISM 6:
§ 6:

The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.1

1 I know not, therefore, how it was possible for physicians at the sick-bed to allow themselves to suppose that, without most carefully attending to the symptoms and being guided by them in the treatment, they ought to seek and could discover, only in the hidden and unknown interior, what there was to be cured in the disease, arrogantly and ludicrously pretending that they could, without paying much attention to the symptoms, discover the alteration that had occurred in the invisible interior, and set it to rights with (unknown!) medicines, and that such a procedure as this could alone be called radical and rational treatment.

Is not, then, that which is cognizable by the senses in diseases through the phenomena it displays, the disease itself in the eyes of the physician, since he never can see the spiritual being that produces the disease, the vital force? nor is it necessary that he should see it, but only that he should ascertain its morbid actions, in order that he may thereby be enabled to cure the disease. What else will the old school search for in the hidden interior of the organism, as a prima causa morbi, whilst they reject as an object of cure and contemptuously despise the sensible and manifest representation of the disease, the symptoms, that so plainly address themselves to us? What else do they wish to cure in disease but these?

Prasad Rasal:
After explaining how to investigate the Fundamental Cause, now Dr Samuel Hahnemann want to explain what should be the actual approach of the Homoeopathic Physician for the same.
He says that the Homoeopathic Physician should be the Unprejudiced Observer i.e. He should be totally Unbiased. His memory should be Empty so that he should not consider any medicine in his mind till the whole case taking is finished.Its quiet difficult thing to achieve because we are reason & memory gifted human beings. But, these gifts itself creates problem. We immediately start comparing the things because of those gifts. If we are able to achieve this criteria i.e. to become Unprejudiced, we can consider each case as a New One & Individualization can be achieved very perfectly. If one is able to achieve such a thing, his Inner Conscience develops to come to a truth.
Then, he should find out what are the changes that have taken place during the sickness of the patient. He should collect all this information from the Patient, Attendants & thro' his Careful Exact Observation which represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.
Here, he write about the Portrait of the Disease. What is exactly mean by Portrait? A portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face and its expression is predominant. The intent is to display the likeness, personality, and even the mood of the person. For this reason, in photography a portrait is generally not a snapshot, but a composed image of a person in a still position. A portrait often shows a person looking directly at the painter or photographer, in order to most successfully engage the subject with the viewer. Naturally, if you are able to create a Portrait of the Disease, it is quiet easy to find out a Similimum for it.

Foot Note:
In the foot note, He compares this Homoeopathic aspect with the Allopathic System & He criticizes a lot on their aspect of Case Taking & looking inside the Human being to find out the Prima Causa Morbi. He further argue that how is it possible for them to understand the Cause of the Disease without carefully attending the Sick & How on the basis of Common Symptoms, they are able to find out the Unknown Cause? Because, the basic cause of the disease is Dynamic one. Allopaths goes on finding out something Material Cause as a Prima Causa Morbi inside the Human being & tries to remove it with the help of the Unknown Medicines & calls themselves as a Rational Practitioner of the Healing Art. He has used the terminology as Unknown Medicine because those allopathic drugs are not proved on Human beings but on the Animals. Naturally, there effects on the human being are unknown. As they are not proved on humans, number of times they shows some different reactions which are considered as the Side Effects but actually they are the real effects of those medicines. They overlook the Symptoms & look for something else. This aspect of the Allopaths is criticized by Dr Hahnemann.
The things are same even today & that's why Allopaths are not able to Cure the Chronic Diseases.