“The homeopaths of the future will not be ‘unprejudiced observers’. They will be self-aware participants in the magical interaction that occurs between practitioner, client and remedy. Furthermore, they will no longer rely on that which can be perceived ‘objectively’ with the senses. They will learn to fine-tune their inner faculties, and practice with confidence and accuracy based on their understanding of energy.”

I came across the above quote in a programme for a college that a young friend of mine is due to begin as a student, when she asked my opinion on the contents. The quote is from Ian Watson who co-founded the school. I could hardly believe my eyes when I read it. This quote has not been edited; it stands alone on the last page of the programme, which promotes the school.

My question: is this the way forward for homeopathy?

This is what you get in the absence of a curriculum and regulating bodies (be it peer governed). Everyone going in a direction which is deemed suitable to that individual.

BTW, it also represents, sadly, the way homeopathy is these days.

__________________
Don't take life too seriously, it aint permanent.

Hi Louise,

I'm all for self-awareness. Sure, it greatly enhances a person's ability to separate their issues from other people's 'stuff' (including patients). Enlightenment; I'm all for it. BUT, that's where it ends, imo, because it has no reliable and repeatable value when it comes to doing-the-work to find-the-most-suitable-homeopathic-remedy for any given case. Nevermind case analysis, and all the other stuff that comes in between!...

Gotta do the work.
And that entails a rational approach a lá Hahnemann. And, this entails sound training.
There are no shortcuts.

And, anyone who thinks there are [shortcuts in homeopathy] - is fooling themselves.

As fascinating as some of the outer-fringe stuff is (and it IS!), it's not necessarily homeopathy. A lot of people seem to blend the two together. Or, more importantly, have difficulty discerning just where the line is between what IS and what is NOT homeopathy.

Perhaps that college should consider calling itself a research institute for homeopathy. I'm all for research!! Just call it what it is.

There are many many students out there who are striving to learn homoepathy in its purest form. If we build on it later, from practical (reliable and repeatable) experience -- great!

Someone once said to me (not that long ago):
There are no choices in life -
there is only integrity.

Best wishes!!
Lisa

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

Being an objective observer implies a keen inner sense of self. How else can one know what is of the other person and what is coming from oneself. Any intuitive sense about a case, which is what being aware of the energetics and other non-objectively percieved phenomona is all about, only comes after a lot of work. If the work isn't there, the intuition is not reliable.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

Dear Members

This is the way out of Homeopathy, because the defining principles are negated.

My views on the way forward in Homeopathy for the seeker are:

1] Study Homeopathy from its initial stage,
which I would define as the time of Hahnemann, Boenninghausen, Jahr, up to about 1850.
Practise that and see for yourself. Whenever questions arise, go back to the Organon, or the Chronic diseases and find the answers.

2] Once one is fully acquainted with the rules and principles and has studied the MMP and the Chronic diseases, and has used the possibilities outlined there to the full extent, then
there may be the time to look into the later homeopaths such as Hering and Lippe.
Study there works and be critical to the word, it is unwise to mix unreliable things with what you have found to be reliable before.

3] Once that is done, one may have a look into the writings of Boger, Kent, Allen, to see and compare again.

4] Then at last, the more contemporary exponents like Scholten, Sankaran, Mazi, Watson etc. can be looked at.

It is important to have the basics accurate.
This is what one always can return to.
Commentaries can never replace the Originals.

It is much easier to start from the well and follow the developments through the generations, than to try to get a grip on what’s thought to be homeopathy today, and from there to work the way back.

This all may sound pathetic to many, who look for the quick answer, the new idea, but without knowing what Homeopathy is, HOW CAN ONE ASSESS THE VALUE OF ‘’NEW IDEAS’’????

I want to leave it here, as other duties are calling.
Take care, Hans

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath
homeopathy study guide: http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity....hy-study-guide

Hi Shirely,

I agree. And, I'm sure many others do too.

Would you consider this a goal for students - to be able to work cases intuitively? (maybe I misunderstand your point here...?) [this isn't to say there isn't one soul in the world who can't do it, but I don't buy that everyone can or can learn to do it)

We know Hahnemann acknowledged (observed, I think) meserism and other forms of healing - having mentioned it in the Organon - in a separate bit at the end (as you already know). It's distinctly and clearly organised/separate. And with good reason, imo.

I think it's important to keep the lines very distinct and clear - and most especially with students!

It seems there is a lot of speculative theory batted round as 'proven fact'. Some of it is interesting. Some of it is promising. Some of it is rubbish.

As long as people are clear about what they are doing or teaching - fine by me. It's when something is taught as part-and-parcel of homeopathy, and I later see it contradicted in the Organon, that I start to scratch my head and question the claim/s. It's not always easy for students to tell where speculation creeps in and leaves off of homoepathy. And, this is my point. {And where does this leave homeopathy?}

I get the feeling there are a lot of:
a) people who are thoroughly entrenched in new-agey ideas and love exploring ideas and unexplained phenomena

b) people who love homoepathy

and

c) people who love homeopathy and want to 'amalgamate' it ('a' & 'b') all together.

No problem with group a or b. Group c is the one that worries me somewhat. ANY science needs to be clear about what they are doing - even with the art-part of it - for it to be reliable and repeatable.

Does anyone know (have a reference?) if Hahnemann advised/encouraged/demanded that students of homeopathy seek self-awareness in order to be a better observer?

Good discussion Louise!!
Take care,
Lisa

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

The outline of whom to study, and in what order, is clear and much appreciated.

I can vouch for learning things in the correct order; it's much easier to discern when you come across something, whether it is or isn't in line with the principles.

Seeing as the principles are often misunderstood or skewed in some of the more modern (contemporary) books - starting with the classic books really is more reliable (principles and proving data, etc) and gives a very sound foundation.

The beauty of it is that you can explore (later on) - secure in the knowledge you've acquired - without wondering if you're 'building houses on sand'.

Best wishes,
Lisa

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

What the hell does it mean, though? Pretty talk, but it seems meaningless to me. Designed as a way to attract a certain clientele, but empty of content.

__________________
David Kempson.<br />Dip.Homoeopathic Medicine.<br />Lecturer Australian College of Natural Therapies (Brisbane Campus)<br />Member AHA, AROH, HMA<br />Member Australian Homoeopathic Association. Member#0442.

The book of Chronic Diseases is not included in the recommended reading list.
I don't know a homeopath who denies that homeopathy must continue to develop, but I don't understand how the path to the future can be found when Chronic Diseases is not even on the list.

"You don't need to read very book, or study every remedy in order to Practice sucessfully. Your own direct, personal experience will teach you more than any book. Learn to listen, to observe and be fully present. Read only the things that interest you, and your learning will be effortless."

This above quote appears at the bottom of the recommended reading list page, and is by the same author. There is a capital P for Practice, but prehaps that is due to a misprint...
There is certainly alot of non homeopathic activity on the course, from chakras to bush flowers, yet the pamplet is entitled 'Homeopathic Training Courses'.

I think Hans' advice is right on.

As to intuition, to me it's something one may develop after a lot of experience where one gets a feeling about who the person is or where the real problem is and can be used to gain an understanding of the person. However, this understanding is only valid as it pertains to finding a remedy when it has been verified by the person. I would never trust a 'homeopath' who works on intuition. An example is someone who comes for a particular problem and after listening for awhile, you have a sense that the person may have been abused and is really angry, even though they seem very gentle. By a judicious use of a question at the appropriate time, you can give ther person an opening to volunteer their experience of this and thereby verify if your intuition is correct or not.

Sometimes it takes several follow ups before they open up enough, but you have a sense of there being more there than the person is willing to discuss. Some people have this inuition early on and others have to work with a lot of different people before they achieve it and some never do. It can be of value, but never substitutes for good case taking and analysis skills or knowledge of materia medica.

__________________
Shirley Reischman