Dear all,

The problem with many collegues: they promise themselves to improve their repertorization skills "on the long run".

I can warrant everyone that using Boenninghausen's methodology will bring you much better results in cases now difficult and also in those not so difficult. The best about it is that
a. you can create complete symptoms not in any repertory as such
b. come to a choice of remedies even not found in existing complete symptoms, and.... the remedies will work. (Why do you think Kent included Boen's generalized symptoms under the chapter Generalities, although (later in his live) he was against Boen's methodology (for which you need those rubrics).

that is the problem we face: increasingly difficult patients, more remedy choices and stuck to one repertorization style that forces on to constantly improvise with the risk of becoming less accurate and biased.

Roger

Dear Roger, Dear Homeolist,

Thanks for bringing up the issue of Von Boenninghaussen’s method- the much talked about but little done about thing. I am amazed how such an easily comprehensible, simple and logical system of collecting and analyzing case data was neglected close to a century. The therapeutic Pocket Book (TPB) method was discussed by many, especially myself , (on almost every case help that was posted on minutus and homeolist) but I’m still not sure to what extent it went.

That at the centre of every case of suffering is a sensation, which has its seat of action (location), and its conditionalities- internal and external, - (which is a symptom complex) is known consciously or otherwise to many if not every homeopath. We have Roberts ( and even VB himself) on record that a single symptom complex is enough to make a successful preparation. But, there is an additional thing. That is when a concomitant is found( the better the farther removed it is from the seat of suffering), we can be sure of a cure of the’ case of disease’.

The first Location+ Sensation + modality throws up a group of similars which can be differentiated by that intelligent grading from 1 to five for the remedies appearing against each component of the above group. This is especially the case WHEN WE DO NOT HAVE A RELIABLE CONCOMITTANT. There are many who simply have said that the method is direct from the organon. Yes and No. It is not the aph 153 method that many confuse The TPB method to be. The aph 153 method is fairly straightforward since it is the concomitant which decides the prescription. But in the absence of it, the only other way is to compare the grading totals MECHANICALLY. The top remedy will automatically become the prescription. If there are many toppers , then material medica knowledge has to be applied for the differentiation. In the former scenario, material medica conformation is not a must since , an unusual remedy may get indicated. (Note that we are artificially combining parts of symptoms). Someone will object to ‘not consulting the MM but sometimes with TPB this is possible. This mail may not be the place to explain the TPB method verbatim, but those who want to read them, the method is explained by H A Roberts in “ Allen’s edition of The Boenninghaussen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book’ published by IBPP New Delhi. It is the best printed version available. Homeoint.org also has the preface by Roberts in 500+ articles (file name therapbook-(make a word search inside homeoint). There is a proviso. Roberts cites cases where the entire person’s locations, sensations and modalities are covered and naturally you can expect a similmium that can be 100% sure to hit the mark. But we often see cases when first seen, exhibit partially. Sometimes, only parts are there which is all that covers the case. The kentian training will automatically make us dig the mental aspect. The patient , under pressure of examination may give a totally unrelated mental symptom and we know where the case may go. (the mental symptom may even be an aspect of a deeper layer). But in any case, the patient cannot get the relief he expects.

There are two gains. One, we find a quick prescription for the immediate, superficial, current, acute (name as you like) phase of the disease. Often, (not always) this remedy will bear some relationship to the larger picture(complementary) ot the subsequent changed picture(follow well). The quickness and ease with which you have hit a remedy will make you suspicious but that way it goes ! For example , to find a modality like (for a headache,) bending back amel, the search will take no more than a few seconds for a normal user of the repertory. Try it in kent’s ! Kent’s sensation based arrangement of modalities has been a confusing factor (for me). The same modality for another sensation will contain a different set of remedies. The saving grace being the Generalities where we at least to look up to confirm the general nature of the sensation. On the contrary, Boenninghauusen taught that every sensation and modality are general BUT WITH VARYING DEGREES OF CERTAINTY (IES). That explains the grades 1 to 5.
5 grade is the surest one majority proving + majority clinical confirmation
4 is next many provers + many clinically confirmed
3 is next some provers + some clinical confirmation
2 is proving alone confirmation scanty in clinic
1 is suspect given in bracket , observed sometime by the compiler in proving or clinic but not confirmed.

Boenninghauseen ‘s generalities was only “ aggravation and amelioration” But Kent expanded its scope by adding general sensations.

I myself have felt the need for the Kent based repertory after the first prescription by using TPB method. Part of it because TPB lists two hundred and odd remedies whereas kent lists thrice the quantity. Another is that nosodes are not in the TPB. ( and who prescribes a nosode on Sensations and locations ? ). Plus TPB is inadequate in it listings on 'desires and aversions' 9while being rich in agg and amel)

The minuses apart, TPB is a wonderful aid in emergency situations, to relive acute situations. Simple, handy and, easy to use. What more can one ask for ? Use it to believe its efficacy.

Venkat

I guess, that those who really master the Bönninghausen approach can do so much without ever using Kent - regardless of the case at hand (acute or chronic).

Personally, I am very impressed by the Germans running the Boger forum on their use of Bogers repertories. It is truely amazing how much they can achieve by using only the Card Index.

Different cases needs different approaches.

Dear Members
For more information on Boenninghausen's works see:
www.Boger-Beonninghausen.com/

Boenninghausens TT 1846 has become a popular repertory, but the SRH (1835), which has never been published entirely in english is just as important.

Boenninghausen used both side-by-side, and the combination of both does not make any other repertory neccessary.

C.M.Boger for the very same reason combined both in his work:
Boenninghausen's Characteristics and repertory 1905.

The currently available versions are all based on an second (post hum) edition from 1937 which contains an enormous amount of mistakes, and therefore is not reliable at all compared to the first edition from 1905.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

Quote:

Boenninghausen used both side-by-side, and the combination of both does not make any other repertory neccessary.

Isn't that rather like saying: "My Victrola machine plays 78s just fine, no need for LPs, tapes or CDs..."?

Hi Hans,

What are TT and SRH?

Shannon

Quote:

What are TT and SRH?

The only publication listed for 1846 is his "Therapeutic Manual".

1835? In 1836: "Showing the Relative Kinship of Homeopathic
Medicines."

A Systematic Alphabetic Repertory of Homœopathic Remedies, Part First. Embracing the Antipsoric, Antisyphilitic and Antisycotic Remedies (1832), A Systematic Alphabetic Repertory of Medicines which are not Antipsoric (1835) and the Therapeutic Pocketbook (1846) are Boenninghausen trinity of repertories. These works are companion volumes that review the symptoms found in the Hahnemann's Materia Medica Pura and the Chronic Diseases.

The ARHR 1, (Commonly called the Repertory of Anti-porics) contains the symptoms and anti-miasmic remedies found in the Chronic Diseases. This is a truly unique repertory because it is based on the symptoms of the miasms and anti-miasmic remedies. Hahnemann original intended that a similar work would be included as a repertory to go with his Chronic Diseases. The majority of these remedies are minerals. The development of a chronic repertory that contains rubrics of the miasms with their remedies is something that needs to be brought up to date.

The ARHR 2 (Commonly called Repertory of Non-Antipsorics) contains the apsoric remedies found in the Materia Medica Pura. This is also a unique repertory that contains mostly plant remedies know for acute disease but not limited to them. There is no English translation. For know we have to use the German original and learn and translate the rubrics.

The Therapeutic Pocketbook is also a unique repertory that is based on the generalized characteristic symptoms of the remedies found in Repertory of Anti-psorics and the Repertory of Non Anti-psorics and the MMP and CD. Every symptom in this work contains golden characteristic threads that run through these 125 remedies. This repertory has very few sub-rubrics with further particularizations. On is expect to make up each complete symptoms by the locations, sensation, modification and concomitants with their locations, sensations and modifications. It is truly a masterpiece.

One limitation with these works are that they only contain around 125 remedies introduced during Hahnemann's lifetime. In my humble opinion all these works need to be brought up to date in accordance with our most carefully proven remedies since that time. Are these the only repertories one should use? Well, in my opinion all the major repertories like Kent's, Knerr's, Boger's, Phatak's, etc., all have their uses in different cases. This includes the modern compilation repertories like the Synthesis and Zandvoort's Complete and Repertorium Universale.

Sincerely, David Little