I'm curious about the predjudice repeatedly expressed against Kent's religious belief's and their influence on his homeopathic practice...if he produced cures, why is this a problem? If he did not produce cures, why has his work persisted?

If Boenninghausen's Repertory is 'truer',why does it seem to be lost in the background...often becoming valuable to the growing homeopath only AFTER he has gained experience using Kent's successfully?

Is there really a conflict in the end... isn't it a matter of each individual homeopath's ability to use a given tool? Or is homeopathy like religion - only one 'following' knows the truth REGARDLESS of results?
Denise

Isn't it true that Hahnemann himself never considered the exploration of Homeopathy finished?

I don't know I'd call it 'prejudice'. If one reads about Swedenborgianism, one can see how it influenced Kent. His work persisted because the 6th Edition of the Organon wasn't published yet. It is being called into question now by those who've studied Kent's method in depth, and other methods (not to mention the Organon!!). That isn't to say Kent didn't affect cures - but there have been many things discovered about Kent's reliability when it comes to the way he arranged the Repertory (including clinical symptoms and failing to say which was which; proving or clinical! Changing the grading of symptoms, etc).

Why not check it out for youself? There is something to this. But it does take a lot of research. And because one points it out doesn't mean theirs is a 'prejudice opinion'. Prejudice is steeped in ignorance and fear, is it not? I don't think there is ignorance or fear coming from those here who've researched this for many years.

Boenninghausen is taught in most colleges - usually in 3rd year. Kent, traditionally (uhm, since Kent) is taught first - then students move on to other methods. Read A Brief Study Course by Elizabeth Hubbard - chapter 6 Repertorizing - she talks about the different methods and supports/encourages students to learn Kent first - then delve into the other methods.

In order to individualize a case, one must be armed with several methods, because one method might not work on a given case - as you rightly say, they are tools. Boenninghausen was given Hahnemann's stamp of approval. Why? Because he happened to live during that time AND the way he laid things out worked (and Hahnemann knew this).

I don't think Homeopathy is like a religion. We should be careful observers when taking cases. But, we should also be careful observers with the methods - and critically so, imo.

If you are truly interested in finding out why many are now seeking to better understand the discrepancies - go to www.homeopathy.ca and browse through the articles. They are well laid out, well researched with references, so one can look them up and find out for themselves.

[ 13 June 2002, 08:34: Message edited by: Artemis ]

I agree Denise,

The college and thriving homeoapthic hospital where I studies has all types of homeopathic practitioners - and a wide variety of practicing methods and techniques. We had the opportunity to learn/see most of them.

Kents, Boger- Boenninghausens, Iscador (esp cancer), Dhawle's, Keynote prescription, Specific prescriptions, Consitutional prescribing, alternate prescriptions (!), Miasmatic prescriptions. I'd rather not be the judge of who is right and who is wrong based on fixed ideas. Though I do flinch at some of them.

But suffice to say, the hospital runs to a full OPD daily, the patients continue to increase in number and more and more are relieved of their suffering. So who is a better homeopath than whom, who's method is correct or wrong, who follows the principles (which ones) or not is always a big question.

I don't think I'm in any place to criticise anyone. Each will be judged by their fruits!

Most important of all as you mentioned,"isn't it true that Hahnemann himself never considered the exploration of Homeopathy finished?"
Regards,
doctorleela

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

It sounds same that homeopathy has no rules. I read a that title few months ago. A suspended member at that time very forcely activated that title and put extensive references. But at that time no body accepted that title. Now i am watching some so called expert saying the same thing but in very very very polite manners. but that suspended member had no manners of saying all those things. :razz:

After reading this title I am atleast happy that homeopaths have no courage to accept realities. I don't know where that is gone. Just wait a minute. That post perfectly fits on this title.

Oh Yes this is the link

http://www.homeopathyhome.com/cgi-bi...c;f=2;t=005053

Artemis,
First of all I'd like to point out that the title of the thread was chosen to make my intent clear...
I AM a student (2nd year) and I do read... I have read Boenninghausen on my own and have started developing my own thoughts about what is useful and the building blocks of my education...
Your response gave no answers, just confirmed my questions... my choice of the word religion was based on the fact that it appears that some in homeopathy defend their own choice in method of practice based on a'beleif' that it is 'the only' true method... not on experience or evidence that other methods don't go to cure...

Just for the record, my experience has shown me that the repertorial method that one chooses as his tool is not nearly as important as his ability to understand the principles of homeopathy and his ability to understand MM...I have said it before, you have to have MM to prescribe, you don't have to own a repertory...I have prescribed with only MM in hand with success... this was done because my Rep was left behind, but it is an exercise everyone should try...at this stage of my learning I have not chosen 'a' method....I hope I never do, I hope to develope my art, maintaining the principles of homeopathy.... Denise

Dr Aamir Shahzad,

I really wasn't certain of your meaning in your response...due to language barrier I'm sure... I did look at the thread you mentioned... I think there is alot of misunderstanding based on language barriers (and ego on the part of ALL) happening in threads like this... it seems to me that most agree that the principles to uphold are the selection of the similimum given in the smallest dose that moves gently towards cure... the method of finding the similimum and dosing is then each individuals art and this can only be judged by ones ability to CONSISTANTLY cure in the shortest,gentlest way, maintaining the principles... The Organon has always been a work in progress, and I suspect the only reason the progress has ceased is due to the death of Hahnemann...I don't beleive he thought he had learned all there was to learn... Denise

Dr Leela,

Thankyou for understanding my point... Denise

You asked:
Because people who've been researching this, in depth, for some years (i.e. the results of their research is based on evidence AND experience), have found some major discrepancies in Kent's writings, including his Repertory. Swedenborgianism is partly to do with it. And, as I said above, this doesn't mean that Kent never affected cures.

Why is it that people reel at finding out that Kent did things like inserting symptoms from desktop provings in the repertory (he was called on it!! and he stopped it!! or are people now going to say this is an okay way of including symptoms in the repertory?)? It certainly makes me sit up and think about all this! Doesn't it concern anyone else?

If you already know all this (and the rest which is too long to state here) - then why bother asking? I thought the title of your thread was to open all this up for discussion? I can't begin to know what the boundaries of your knowledge is, you know , so I put my two-pence in. Is it any less valid because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs?

Are we to assume that all people who use Boenninghausen all think it is THE ONLY way to practise? I should hope not! I don't.

I for one am grateful for the opportunity to learn from the people who've studied all this in depth! I may not agree or draw the same exact conclusions as them - after researching (and checking their references), but it certainly is worthy of looking in to, isn't it?

How do we know the information put forth was not based on experience or evidence?? How can anyone say that? Unless one is prepared to name names, how can anyone honestly say that?

How about - let's be open-minded to ALL possibilities (either way!). I suspect that the reason that people get so upset over this topic is because their own bank of knowledge is called into question sometimes. It upsets the apple-cart, if someone finds out that what they are being taught is faulty in any way. Same thing happens when someone is making the switch between allopathy and homeopathy. It's happened to me many times.

Why not research the material and see what all the fuss is about, from people who actually have more experience and HAVE critically looked all this for years?

If someone discovered that a particular method strayed from the principles of cure - should they dogmatically stick with it? Dunno - maybe it delves into other areas of treatment besides homeopathy (if it strays from the principles of homeopathy, that is...)

Ever tried explaining homeopathy to someone - only to have them argue back based on the allopathic paradigm? Frustrating ain't it? Then, at some point - you just give up because you know you are not 'playing on the same field' at all and only find yourself talking at cross-purposes.

It's easy to call others dogmatic or say people stick to a 'belief' when one only has a vague idea where the other person is coming from. (general statement - not meant toward anyone in particular) Reason I say this is because it becomes apparent at some point just what people are talking about. And, that word is bandied about a lot these days.

[ 13 June 2002, 18:04: Message edited by: Artemis ]

Artemis,
WOW...although you now have actually answered my original question regarding Kent, you have made some significant assumptions about what I think and how I prescribe...Dr Leela understood what my questions were about...the most difficult thing about homeopathy is trying to understand the in fighting that lacks all the qualities we need as homeopaths, mainly objectivity as an unpredjudiced observer...

As far as quoting the Organon...this is the place most similiar to religion in homeopathy...quotes taken out of context or even just fighting over interpetation...also,my thought is, if one can't say it in his own language, one often doesn't have a true understanding of the information...reference to an aphorism is great, we all have our own Organon...

By the way, Boenninghausen has been a significant influence in my education...I pointed no fingers, you made assumptions...

I titled this thread as I did knowing what it would likely bring...but my desire was to understand the reason for the predjudice (and I DO have my own) there is between homeopaths about their methods of coming to the similimum and therefore creating the same result (cure) regardless of their method... I personally think methods are chosen based on ones type of thinking...some people are more intellectual in their thinking, and others are more conceptual....what difference does it make as long as one is taking their patients to cure? I also have a suspicion that some of the 'Organon thumpers' don't actually prescribe and live in a theoretical world...there is no better teacher than practical application...meaning one actually sees their patient and the result of their prescription, and the next time one reads the Organon a new and deeper understanding based on experience emerges.
Artemis, just to be clear...the thoughts in this paragraph are GENERAL, not directed at you or anyone specifically... Denise

I understand what you are talking about. I understood your first post.

The reason there is a lot of in-fighting (which is by no means a new phenomenon) is because people cling to what they have learnt for a variety of reasons. No one wants to have their knowledge base undermined. It's not pleasant. At all.

I agree that people can take things out of context when quoting from the Organon (or other sources). That is why I liked the articles on the site I mentioned before - because everything is referenced and I was able to verify conclusions for myself. Tedious, but necessary for me personally when I began to see some cracks that didn't make sense. And none of those 'quoted sources' was out of context as far as I could fathom - and I did research quite a few sources.

I also agree that people lose objectivity easily - it's not easy to maintain.

If someone is affecting real cures with whatever method - then theoretically, yes - who cares, as long as it is within the principles of cure and really curing patients. But, I personally don't think it is that simple, Denise. Otherwise, Hahnemann wouldn't have gone to such pains to clearly lay out the guidelines (and revising). But, much like Dr Leela said earlier - the proof is in the results!

If someone quotes the Organon and another person thinks it is out of context - that is a GREAT opportunity to bring clarity to everyone's learning!!! Why should anyone be annoyed by it? Take the opportunity to discuss and clarify. That would seem more productive than calling someone an Organon-thumper .

If someone can't quote the Organon without being labelled now --- WOW, that is like boxing someone in and saying - if you disagree with me you are not allowed to quote sources to back up your understanding. Doesn't make sense. Careful or you might start a trend here .

And to clarify things on my part: nowhere in my my posts was there any personal remarks aimed at anyone! It was simply general discussion on my part. I haven't made any assumptions about you personally; how you prescribe or how you think! As I said above, I don't know your boundary of knowledge.

I think to be an objective observer we have to learn how to be dispassionate about the whole subject. Just my opinion.