I think in order to fully understand and be successful using Kent, one has to understand the hiararchy of 'bodies' within an individual.

If you look at the mineral kingdom, all you see is matter. This is held in common by everything on earth.

The next step up is the plant kingdom, which has a life body (not the life force. This is held in common with the animal and human kingdoms. The matter and the life body together make up the physical body of all living beings. When it is healthy, the physiological processes within the body work properly.

Next is the animal kingdom, which has a feeling body. It is held in common with humans. It is where we have our desires and aversions and where we experience thoughts in response to the world around us. Most of life's conscious activities take place here. For example, my thoughts that I am writing here are in response to ideas expressed on this thread. When the feeling body is healthy, a person responds in an appropriate manner to any of life's circumstances that come his way. It can be as complex as going through the grief process in a healing way or as simple (although not always easy) as making healthy food choices.

The highest body is that of spirit, which is held my man alone. When the spirit is healthy, one has a sense that there is a higher power than oneself (even the healthy aethiest believes in 'natural law') and a sense of purpose to one's life.

Kent's contribution was to take the symptoms of the case and place them in this hiararchy. Someone who is wheelchair bound, but is happy in their work and family life is healthier than someone who is in great physical condition, but lies, cheats and steals.

When we take symptoms based on this hiararchy, if we match the spiritual and feeling dis-ease to the remedy, then use the physical symptoms to verify the remedy, the whole person heals.

This is not the only way to practice homeopathy, but but when one understands it and applies it correctly, the success rate is very high.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

This is not a hypothesis.
Christian Spirituality (and that of most major religions) say the same thing. HAhnemann was a very spiritual person himself. Any number of Aphorisms to prove that.

OR maybe now the debate will be whether GOd is a hypotheses?

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

hahnemann's miasm theory ,kent's statements like before an evil action ,there will be an evil thinking so every thing starts from mind(if my memmory is correct)are probably from bibilical concept.

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

good evening shirley and thank you very much for this contribution.

i remember this kind of model from vithoulkas' 'science of homoeopathy.' i think it is a good exposition of a major way in which the kentian approach differs from the hahnemannian.

the reason i think this approach is un-hahnemannian is because hahnemann tells us to avoid hypotheses and to stick with observed facts, using a scientific method. [in my opinion, kent's and vithoulkas' ideas clearly transgress organon par 1, footnote 1]

This concept of the various kingdoms on earth is not a hypothesis since it can be observed by anyone who looks carefully at the various kingdoms.

In addition, Rudolf Steiner wrote many books decribing how one goes about varifying this concept; and Constantine Hering observe, used and verified this very concept in his direction of cure.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

dear shirley, dr leela and pannakal,
this is simply how we classify matter - animal, vegetable, mineral.

the point at which it becomes speculative is to say we as humans have all these kingdoms 'within us' in an esoteric heirarchical way, like russian dolls. this is just one belief-model humans have contstructed of what it is be human.

i am not suggesting what is wrong or right as a belief, just that belief is best kept out of the methodology.
regards, anna

I agree that it is but one model, however, it is an observable one that can be applied in a practicle manner.

Also, re the importance of M/E SXs, take particular note of Par 211:

Par 5 In these investigations, the ascertainable physical constitution of the patient, his moral and intellectual character, his occupation, mode of living and habits, his social and domestic relations, his age, sexual function, etc., are to be taken into consideration.

Par 6 ...he can take note of nothing in every individual disease except the changes in the health of the body and the mind (some translations say soul) which can be perceived ...

Par 210 In all cases of disease we must include the state of the patient's mental disposition as to be particularly noted, along with the totality of the symptoms, if we would tace an accurate picture of the disease, in order to be able to therefrom treat it homeopathically with success.

Par 211 This holds good to such an extent that the mental state of the patient often chiefly determines the selection of the homeopathic remedy...

Par 212 The Creator of therapeutic agents has also particular regard to this main feature of all diseases, the altered state of the disposition and the mind.

Par 213 We shall, therefore, never be able to cure conformably to nature - that is to say, homeopathically - if we do not in every case of disease, even in an acute one, observe, along with the other symptoms, those relating to the change in the state of mind and disposition.

It's not the importance of the M/E SXs that sets Kent apart from Hahnemann. In fact if one studies his cases, the physical SXs are always taken as important to the case. Rather it's Kent's Swedenborgian ideas regarding simple substance and the irrelevance of dose size. Both of these concepts are generally ignored by modern day Kentians, although the general lay public with some familiarity with homeopathy still buys into the notion of irrelevance of dose size - at least in the USA.

[ 14 July 2002, 15:16: Message edited by: sreischman ]

__________________
Shirley Reischman

I am hijacking my thread back

instead of this back and forth Kent vs. Boenninghausen can someone please post a simple case example using Boenninghausen method.

me

__________________
Man, do not pride yourself on your superiority to animals. For they are without sin and you in your greatness defile the earth by your appearance on it and leave traces of you foulness after you. Dostoyevsky

dear barb

boenninghausen published some of his cases in his lesser writings. it's not an expensive volume and well worth having. if you don't have it, and if you twist my arm a bit, i might type out one later in the week.

i thought the discussion with shirley was productive rather than just batting the ball. i would like to reply to shirley that my understanding of para 5 of the organon is that it is a list of the background info on the patient rather than the symptoms - whereas kent[ians] treat/s some of this info as the symptom picture.

regards to all, anna

Barb, sorry to add this one last comment, but yes, Anna, this is correct. Kent would use these as SXs and give them very high priority if there were any changes in these areas.

__________________
Shirley Reischman