Hi Jeff,

... and know it the way it *really* was, i.e. in the case of Hahnemann: what he did teach NOT what many (IMO most!) homeopaths nowadays represent as his teachings.

a certain percentage of these sx have been confirmed to work in the clinic. A certain further percentage may be reliable but are as yet not confirmed.

That is to be expected on the way of process.

But in most cases we do not know which sx belong to which group. Real progress cannot start before that gets established.

The common practice of punching sx into a computer and let the software decide on the likely rx is a jump backwards on any road to progress and in any clinical practice. When this was done by the reps and with relatively few remedies ist was bad enough - but at least in using the reps., while leafing through them and seeing the rubrics in their "environment", we learned a lot "en passant" and - the remedies being relatively few - we still were able to take them in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff that is progress and homeopathy has progressed, even though some keep harping back to H.and his ways.

Well, to whom should we "harp" instead? Sankaran, Sehgal, Scholten, Sequentialists, Heilkunst, essence-prescribing, families, Elyzgia, Bannerji, ........?

In case of miasms: are they - are they not? Are they what Ayurveda says they are? Can we find some parallels in Traditional Chinese Medicine? Again: Sankaran, Scholten, Helmut Trott in Germany, Hanns Breitscheidt, ..............?

All of them??? (To pick out the fitting one for each individual case?)

Well, perhaps you and Manish and quite a few more homeopaths may have the intellectual faculties for that kind of picking out of that amount and maze of information. I identify myself with those of lesser intelligence.

In Germany, for decades, Hahnemann and v. Boenninghausen were openly considered by most to be nothing but historical figures. I learned the Kent way, later Vithoulkas etc.

Now it seems there is a swing back to the "roots" - something I have noticed on the English-speaking MLs and boards also.

I wonder why;-)

There is another reason for "harping back". From Hahnemann and v. B. we have their casebooks. They are so far the only ones where we can actually learn what worked and **what failed**. From all the others we have (almost)nothing but the success stories.

It is said that the best way to learn is by your own mistakes. The second best is to learn by the mistakes of others.

This latter is usually done by interning in hospitals or private clinics where you see success AND failure. Most homeopaths have this not at all or only to a very limited degree (it may be different in India). So everyone has to learn by their own failures only. Considering that at the beginning of each private clinic there are relatively few to very few patients to learn from, it is a very unsatisfactory state both for the progress of the individual practiicioner and also for the progress of the craft.

Regards

Luise