Boenninghausen’s method is based upon doctrine of analogy and doctrine of concomitance.
The symptoms should be complete only if it contains ‘location’,sensation’,’modalities’and ‘concomittants’.
For eg;
If a patient has headache(stitching pain),chest pain(stitching),knee pain(stitching) and all relived by pressure,and warm applications and at the same time he has burning sensation of feet during attack of all the above.we can arrange the case as below;
LOCATION SENSATION MODALITIES CONCOMOITTANT
head stitching >Pressure>Warm application Burning feet
knee stitching >pressure>warm application Burning feet
chest stitching <movement>warmth Burning feet
Ther are 7 chapters and you can get the above symptoms from different parts.
The drugs are arrange in 5 different marks.
There are 2 approches to repertorization
Herbert Robert’s approach
M.L.Dhawale’s approach.

Another very important thing which caught my attention in this thread is Han’s comment

.
The answer dated posted 05 July 2002 15:35 Hans wrote” The difference between Hahnemann und Kent is, that Hahnemann throughout the Organon speaks of the disease to be cured, the diseasepicture giving the only indication for the remedy to be selected, whereas Kent speaks: the person not the disease!!. From that point kent and followers till the todays homeopaths go down a different road.”

“
In organon Hahnemann clearly tells in first aphorism itself about his approch.(restore the sick(not disease) to health,to cure ,as it is termed).The whole organon follow this concept. Homoeopathy treats the patient This is not a Kentian discovery.As an inventor of the new system,his concept about the health,diseaseses(external manifestation of internally deranged vital force),disease classification,drug proving on healthy, vital force(life prniciple),dynamisation,qualities of prover,case taking,totality,peculier symptoms.etc etc.are described in his work

His case taking is different of those existed those days.The intention of his case taking method is to understand the patient ,not disease.if Hahnemann treated disease rather than patient what is the difference between allopathy and homoeopathy.what is meaning of 88 aphorism?.he clearly said about the importance of mental state there.if he is dealing with disease name only ,what is the use of it?

The difference between kentian philosophy is not what you said.

__________________
<a href="http://www.pannakkal.com" target="_blank">www.pannakkal.com</a>

hello pannakal,i can't answer for what hans meant, but my answer to your points:

you wrote:
"In organon Hahnemann clearly tells in first aphorism itself about his approch.(restore the sick(not disease) to health,to cure ,as it is termed)."

it is a logical impossibility to 'restore the disease to health' - the sick (person) is restored to health by treating the disease.

you wrote:
"The intention of his case taking method is to understand the patient ,not disease."

taking para 71, point 1, hahnemann sets out that the homoeopath needs to know, in order to cure the sick "about a disease".
in the previous par 70 hahnemann confirms that everything that is diseased comprises only the "the totality of those symptoms by which the disease demands the suitable medicine for its aid."


you wrote:

"if Hahnemann treated disease rather than patient what is the difference between allopathy and homoeopathy.what is meaning of 88 aphorism?."

hahnemann did not define disease in the same way as allopathic medicine. disease names were not what hahnemann meant by 'diseases'. hahnemann re-defined diseases, as stated in par 70, as being "only ...the state and the ailments of the patient and the alteration of his condition that are perceptible to the senses."

par 88 states that during case taking it is important to ask about the patient's mood amongst other things. this is borne out more clearly in par 211. alterations in the mood of the patient that are concomitant with the other symptoms form part of the case which can, as par 211 states, be of paramount importance.
this is again, treating the disease, as defined by hahnemann, as all alterations in the patient's health [including mental and emotional.]

my understanding of how kent differed from this is not 100% clear because kent's philosophy regarding this matter is not 100% clear to me. it appears that kent's followers, if not kent himself, interpreted kent's method as an incorporation of the patient's personality into the idea of treatment, as well as other non-pathological aspects of the patient such as likes and dislikes etc.

to my mind, this breaks the rule of par 2, that a practitioner must "clearly realize what is to be cured in diseases, that is, in each single case of disease."

HI Anna,
Its nice to hear you say, &lt;b&gt;"my understanding of how kent differed from this is not 100% clear because kent's philosophy regarding this matter is not 100% clear to me."&lt;/b&gt;

All the criticism against the KEntian approach that has been going on on this board is, in my opinion, basically a lack of understanding of the Kentian appraoach and thus an inability to apply its concepts effectively.

On no occassion is the Kentian approach treating "personality". How could one do that? One can only treat disease - isn't that just common sense?

And on what basis does one say that the KEntian approach does not include the disease to be treated? I find this a totally skewed understanding. As much as anyone else, the KEntian approach seeks to find out what is peculiar, characteristic in a disease condition of a patient AS A WHOLE and indicative of the remedy that the patient needs to be helped with, right from the chief complaint (disease) through to all other peculiarities that "INDIVIDUALIZE" the patient, including their state of mind.

IF one does not have the talent to do this, its is best to stick to a method one understands - BOger- beonnignhausen, HAhnemannian, Dhawle's, KEynote precribing (we have excellent prescribers doing this in India with FANTASTIC results). That is the way I look at it.

No one is superior to anyone else for using any method that suits them and gets them verifyable clinical results.

regards,
doctorleela

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Thanks very much, Leela, for your implication that we who use Boenninghausen only do so because we don't have the talent to use other methods. It's clear to me from what you have written on Boenninghausen, that you don't understand it very well at all. The comparison between the two ways of working will be ongoing, with each bringing to the discussion their time and contributions, and it would be helpful if you keep your judgements as to why you think homeopaths chose to work certain ways, seperate from the comparison, because they are just judgements on the persons, nothing more.

Well here again judgements on choice of words!! IT never ends on this BB.

I think I've very much aware Anna, of what is disease - homeopathic or otherwise.
- The Chief compliant (location, sensations, modalities and concomittants) is THE MAIN and obvious manifestation of the present diseased "mistunement" of the vital force.

Yes the use of "immature phychology" is a problem. One needs to have the talent to precieve the psychology so that it is not immature (!) and if one does not have this talent, stick to methods that one knows how to use. Otherwise it may be the cause of many failures.

The problem then is not with Kent, but with the "immature" prejudiced, observer who is trying to use this method in vain.

Doctorleela

[ 12 July 2002, 09:45: Message edited by: doctorleela ]

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Oh Louise - never saw your post!

Do feel free to have your judgements and opinions.

[ 12 July 2002, 10:11: Message edited by: doctorleela ]

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

According to Hahnemann's concept health means harmonious flow of vital force,and disease otherwise.Hahnemann used the word 'sick' purposefully.he can use the word 'disease'instead.diseae we usually observe as symptoms or sighns.everty other systems treat diseases.In case of fever the symptom is raise of temperatur and in diarrohea,asthma etc according to the disease.A hompath cannot treat by just hearing disease name.In case of fever on the approch it self we look whethet the patient tiredness about his thirst ,like to lie or not etc,in case of children whether crying or sleepy etc,etc.thses are disease affected patient's symptom.you can clearly understand itself from case taking method of hahnemann he intend to reach the patient than the apparent disease he approched for.he even gives impotance to'uncommon ,peculier,chracteristic symptoms'.some times theses symptoms have no relation to the disease symptom.So the word patient and disease has different meaning .when you treat disease you think only about the disease symptoms.when you treat patient you look the mental state,and physical generals like thirst or sweat etc even it is seemingly no relation to the disease.
Boenninghausen gives importance to the concomittats.theses are the symptoms accompaniying the main complaints and apparently no relation to the disease.these are also clue to the patient.(eg;high cravings to pickles after every attack of epilepsy).
Kent gives important to the mentals and personality .he wrote drug personality.
every one's intention is to treat the pateint or man in sick not disease.
so I objected only the comment of Han's,which is sure to be objected .
with reggards,
pannakkal

__________________
<a href="http://www.pannakkal.com" target="_blank">www.pannakkal.com</a>

good morning dr leela

i drew attention to the definition of disease because neglect in identifying what is disease is a weakness of the kentian approach.

in particular par 5 of the organon has been misapprehended in kentian practice.

kent's expansion of the mind section of the repertory leads to over-emphasis of- and speculation about- a patient's pscyhological disturbance and recently, about the 'central delusion'.

regardless of the qualities of individual practitioners, the compiler of kent's repertory was not wholly mature nor unprejudiced.

a big problem with kent was that his repertory revolutionized practice without justifying the change by means of a coherent philosophy.

good morning pannakal

yes, boenninghausen took organon par 153 and 164 and 'ran with them' in a way that hahnemann approved of, and which was in accordance with the organon. [i.e. characteristic symptoms]

on the other hand kent took organon para 211 and 'ran with it' in a way that conflicted with the organon [para 5 and 7]

in pursuit of logic - i would like to look at dr leela's comments:

"On no occassion is the Kentian approach treating "personality". How could one do that? One can only treat disease - isn't that just common sense?"

i agree with this 100% that one cannot treat personality and that one can only treat disease, as per the organon.

dr leela continues:

"And on what basis does one say that the KEntian approach does not include the disease to be treated? "
[my answer: a homoeopathic approach does not 'include' the disease to be treated - the disease is *all there is* to be treated]

"I find this a totally skewed understanding. As much as anyone else, the KEntian approach seeks to find out what is peculiar, characteristic in a disease condition of a patient AS A WHOLE and indicative of the remedy that the patient needs to be helped with, right from the chief complaint (disease) through to all other peculiarities
that "INDIVIDUALIZE" the patient, including their state of mind."

[my comment - 'other peculiarities' are only relevant if they are disease manifestations since homoeopathy only treats disease symptoms.
the patient's state of mind is only relevant to the case if it is a disease symptom or a concomitant modality to a disease symptom.]

i think here dr leela is not using the term 'disease' in the homoeopathic sense. the disease is not the 'chief complaint'; it is the mistunement of the vital force as evidenced solely through the symptoms.

another big problem with kent's method and repertory is the amateur psychology it encourages, which leads to a swamp of uncertainty in practice.