Leading Voices in Homeopathy

[pgjhomeopathy]

Dear Roger:

I am trying to reconcile a fitting rubric for the symptom " Patient wakes with a headache in forehead, only on awakening in the morning, is better by rising & moving about."

In Boger's "Boenninghausen's Mat Medica & Repertory" on page 992 under chapter "Sleep" we find a rubric "headache, waking with, from sleep" about 19 remedies. But his "Sleep" chapter does not have 'aggravations & ameliorations" appendix like other chapters. I would have to go to his 'Head chapter' for that.

But if we look under his chapter 'Head-Internal" on page 280, we find a rubric "Morning early, bed, in;" about 21 remedies. These 21 remedies do not fully cover the 19 remedies mentioned above and vice versa.

Same chapter, on Page 282, I find under "Head - Internal - Aggravation" a rubric "Awaking on, after sleep' about 70 remedies'.

Same chapter on Page 294 under "Amelioration, rising from bed, after:"
around 25 remedies.

Should the 'headache' rubric found in the "Sleep" chapter be ignored or included in repertorization exercise compared to the three rubrics under "Head - Internal" chapter?

What was Boenninghausen's intention on including a rubric with only 19 remedies under the sleep chapter when he had already had it covered under his "Head - Internal" chapter, but with some different/more remedies listed.

Do you have any advice about the above?

I find similar other errors in Phatak, Kent, Robin etc
Of course, Materia Medica, and Generals, Mentals, location, sensation, modality, concomitants are the final judge & jury

Thanks,
Philip Joseph
_________________
Philip Joseph

[rozand]

Dear Philip,
this is a nice exercise in repertorizing, using specifics and/or going to more generalized rubrics, or, in other words, going from a Kentian/Knerrian repertorization to a more Boen/Phatak style of repertorizing.
There are three complete symptoms that can be repertorized:
Head; Pain; forehead; morning; agg.; waking, on
Head; Pain; forehead; morning; agg.; rising amel.
Head; Pain; forehead; morning; motion amel.
which does not mean that those rubrics can be found though, but theoretically those are the complete rubrics you could use. When you look into the Complete Repertory you will see that the last rubric does not exist.
In your rubric choice using Boenninghausen I am missing the location: forehead. You need to use a combination of rubrics that does include that.
That you will find rubrics that are the same or similar at different locations in the repertory happens in all repertories. That some remedies differ and also some degrees is usual too. It should not be that way in an ideal world though.....
Whereas in a Kentian approach try to use complete rubrics (i.e. that have a combination of at least three building blocks: location; phenomenon, modality, causation and/or concomitant) finding those complete rubrics can be difficult, because very specific, in a Boenninghausen style approach you need to find the partial rubrics (at different locations) and combine/cross them to find the potential remedies. And of course, in the example you mentioned, fitting the possible remedies with the patient is the next step.
Hope it helps,

Roger
_________________
Roger is the author of the Complete Repertory and Repertorium Universale, published in several languages. He lectures and continues writing/developing for the benefit of homeopathy.
His work is used by all important homeopathic programs worldwide

[pgjhomeopathy]

Dear Roger:
Thank You for the reply & clarification,

What I am observing over the years is that each homeopath is wired differently towards his/her favorite repertory.

To a homeopath who is very specific & detail oriented (an ars personality for example), Kent's & Robin's repertories find great favor.
For those who are concerned only about the big picture (a Sulph personality) then he refers Phatak's to tie the loose ends or is happy with Boenninghausen as he is so wisely able to connect the disparate symptoms scattered across different chapters as only he is able to track the line of abstract thought across the entire book.

I think it is a matter of being born deductive or inductive
I have not yet bought your repertory, but I hope to enjoy it soon.

Thanks for taking the time to answer me
Philip Joseph
_________________
Philip Joseph

[rozand]

Dear Philip,

I do not fully agree to your statement. Although it is true that many prefer a specific repertory due to their studies (and that is many times Kentian all over) the real approach should be to take the patient as axis to build upon. If the patient has symptoms that can be better translated into rubrics using Bönninghausen's or Phatak's repertories because they contain the rubrics you are looking for, than do that. That means that a homeopath needs to know his/her tools and not only know one tool he/she always uses although their is a better one lying somewhere unused. Another good reason to not only work with Kentian Repertories is that with the Bönninghausen style repertories you will be more able to take rubrics to be crossed to create a complete rubric not available in a Kentian repertory, but fitting the patient. Why do you think people work and have good results with for example Bönninghausen's Therapeutic Pocketbook........
be well,

Roger
_________________
Roger is the author of the Complete Repertory and Repertorium Universale, published in several languages. He lectures and continues writing/developing for the benefit of homeopathy.
His work is used by all important homeopathic programs worldwide

[pgjhomeopathy]

Dear Roger:
Thanks for your informative and correct post. I am with you that the patient should be the basis for selecting rubrics and that a practioner should use all tools neccessary (different repertorial methods available) that best suits the patient such as when mentals predominate (Kent's repertory etc) or advanced pathology cases (Boericke's repertory etc) or both where needed or 'Complete" or McR or CARA etc..

The above goal is the ideal to be strived for in every case. But in practice, in reality, in a majority of case-takings (in my limited observation) a practioner's bias towards a specific method creeps in involuntarily. Very rarely, does he/she do a confirmation of the remedy choice by using more than one repertorial method.

Kent had this to say about Boenninghausen's Repertory "B.. was a grand old man, but that was simply his idea and it was defective for my method of practice....." etc. Here the 'defective idea' that Kent did not like in B's Repertory was the mixing of modalities, Generals & Particulars all together. Kent also was not a fan of Dr. Lee's "Mind" repertory. So Kent too had an unfortunate but legitimate bias towards using B's repertory.

In short, many (but luckily not all) practioners due to a sense of familiarity or for other reasons do show a tendency to a favorite repertory and are not so objective to use many repertorial methods. (This is once again, only, my personal limited observation).

To be quite frank, Kent's repertory was not perfect either, it is claimed to have been corrected of over 10K errors by Dr Patel's repertory and other corrections by Dr Kunzli / Dr Pierre Schmidt. There are ommissions (printer's devil errors) between Kent's 3rd edition (which Kent said - completes his life work) and his 6th edition published posthumously. But the 6th edition is used widely today and how many use the 3rd edition (I am not even sure if a copy of 3rd exists today) or Dr Kunzli's etc.

Even Boenninghausen's remedies under the rubric for "Head-Internal, aggravation, awaking, on, after, sleep" (70 remedies) should ideally have ALL the 19 remedies found under "Sleep, waking with headache". But it is missing 3 - canth, mur-ac & zinc.

Another issue is Kent's repertorial methood will rarely bring up Carcinosin as a similimum but it will reveal itself under other case taking questioning or obervation.

To summarize, I agree with your earlier advice, and the ideal goals to be used while repertorizing to use the patient as axis always and keep repertorial bias out. My limited personal obervations would pale in comparison to your broader experience and extensive repertorial research that went into your wonderful "Complete Repertory".

Thank you for your wisdom and advice.
Philip Joseph
_________________
Philip Joseph

[rozand]

Dear Philip,


I agree with your statement that most homeopaths tend to pick out one repertory for general use. Mostly that one that is offered to them during study and that they have learned to use. This is mostly Kent's repertory or nowadays also Synthesis or the Complete Repertory. Although larger, more updated, grade-improved etc., these reps do not contain all there is. So, in special cases, people should know the existence of others reps and/or (evenly important) other methods of repertorization. Sometimes, even with the same repertory, one can get different/better results using a different approach to the material.
I like to read that there are still people interested in the historical background of this specific tool that we are using so often...

be well,

Roger
_________________
Roger is the author of the Complete Repertory and Repertorium Universale, published in several languages. He lectures and continues writing/developing for the benefit of homeopathy.
His work is used by all important homeopathic programs worldwide

[Gaby Rottler]