Translate

Search This Blog

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

IS KENT STRICT HAHNEMANNIAN ???????

IS KENT STRICT HAHNEMANNIAN ??????? 

Author Dr. Nitesh Nirdoshkumar Jain

IS KENT STRICT HAHNEMANNIAN ???????

A second proff. student of  B. H. M. S. when goes to O. P. D’s for his
Clinical classes is generally seen perplexed while taking up of the case, finding too

few or no Mental Symptoms. As if without Mental Symptoms the medicine cannot

be prescribed and the case is incomplete. Who had taught him these? He had only
been taught the theoretical part of Organon – then why it occurs? You might have

also encountered such situations. This clearly portraits influence of James Tyler

Kent, even after decades of his death. Kent’s influence still persists no mater he is

dead or alive, rather it is on the rise. Is this influence Hahnemannian? Is Kent strict

Hahnemannian?



Stuart Close, in third paragraph, page number 1 of “Chapter 1, The

Psychological Point of View” of his book “The Genius of Homoeopathy Lectures

and Essays on Homoeopathic Philosophy”, says “Disciples or would-be disciples

have always to be on guard against false teaching”. Inspired by these words I feel it

to be my moral obligation to throw light on Kent’s view by keeping Hahnemann’s

view at the back of the mind. Thereby I present this for your consideration.

In Homoeopathic literature there are a number of points which cries that in

Homoeopathy –
“Some things written wrongly,

Some things understood wrongly,

Some things interpreted wrongly,

Some things added wrongly,

Some things omitted wrongly,

Some things propagated wrongly,

What we learn as Homoeopathy today is Homoeopathy maligned by the

sum total of all these WRONGS !!!!!!!!”

In this article I will only focus on the thoughts of Kent and that of

Hahnemann. I presuppose that the esteemed reader is well aware of the

fundamental concepts of Kent and Hahnemann. Initially on reading “Lecture 1;

The Sick” from “Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy” by James Tyler Kent, we

see that Kent says that man comprises of Body (External man) and Life

(Comprises of Will, Understanding and Memory; collectively the Internal man),

but Hahnemann went for Wholistic concept – to consider man as a whole and treat

accordingly. Kent gave importance to Internal man. For Hahnemann everything is

to be seen equally and (striking, singular, uncommon, peculiar) characteristic

symptom depends as per the case in hand - § 153 of “Organon of Medicine”.

In the same chapter Kent says “It is not the principle business of the

physician to be hunting in the rivers and cellars and examining the food we eat for

the cause of the disease”, whereas Hahnemann in § 4, of his “Organon of

Medicine” gave importance to hygiene.

Hahnemann says in “Medicine of Experience” – one of the precursors of

Organon “Medicine is the science of experience, its object is to eradicate diseases

by means of remedies.” But, Kent says in the very chapter “Beware of opinion of

man in science Hahnemann has given us principles which we can study and

advance upon. It is the law that governs the world and not the matter of opinion or

hypothesis”. Experience, as when one experiences something astray; then only his

opinion is made which sounds different, and working on it makes hypothesis.

Further, Kent says “We must begin to have a respect for law, for we have no

starting point unless we base our propositions on law. So long as we recognize

man’s statement we are in state of change for men and hypothesis changes. Let us

acknowledge the authority.” This shows that Kent only accepted those things that

he himself could not do! This shows his haughtiness! This may be the reason why

he criticized Boenninghausen’s ‘Concept of Analogy’, by example of Arsenicum

album’s headache (which is well known), but praised him for his work on

Concordance (which he could not do…). Further in his “Lectures on

Homoeopathic Materia Medica” page number 1011, in lecture on ‘Veratrum

album’ he praises ‘Analogy’ by saying, “I remember a farmer who consulted me in

the Summer. He had a strange sensation when he drank water, as if it ran down the

outside and did not go down the oesophagus. It was so marked that he requested

his friends to see if it did not run down the outside. Veratrum 2m. cured him. No

remedy has produced that sensation, but I figured it out by analogy.”

In “Lecture 5, § 5 Discrimination as to Mantaining, External causes and

Surgical Cases” of his book “Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy” Kent says

“Psora is the cause of all contagion. If man had not had Psora, he would not have

the other two miasms, but Psora the oldest, became the basis of others.” But,

Hahnemann in his “The Chronic Diseases their peculiar nature and their

Homoeopathic cure” says that there are two venereal miasm – Sycosis and

Syphilis, which can be acquired (even if the person is not having Psora).

In “Lecture 6, § 6 The unprejudiced observer notes only the change of state

as shown by symptoms” of his book “Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy” Kent

says “ The man needs the same course of treatment that he has needed from his

baby hood.” This statement gives indication to what we call ‘Constitutional

treatment’ As per this statement a child requires a particular medicine in his

childhood and with advancement of age, may many changes occur in his mental

and physical body; but he requires the very medicine which was required in his

childhood. On the contrary Hahnemann says –

1. In his “Organon of Medicine” § 5 – Accessory circumstances play a role in

chronic diseases.

2. In § 6 – “Morbid phenomenon accidents, symptoms” which are to be taken

into account while observing the change in state.

3. In “The Chronic Diseases their peculiar nature and their Homoeopathic

cure” Hahnemann mentioned about acquired miasm, which is to be taken

into account, if present.

Hahnemann in § 63 – 64, of his “Organon of Medicine” treats of the Primary and

Secondary action of Medicines. But, in “Lecture 16, Oversensitive patients.” of his

book “Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy” Kent says “….. There is no

necessity for dwelling upon this subject.” “Let it be any symptom primary or

secondary, if it is produced by the medicine, it will be cured by it.” So, he says to

skip these paragraphs.

Kent commences his “Lecture 18, Chronic Diseases - Psora” of his book

“Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy” by – “Psora is the beginning of all

physical sickness” where as in the same book page 138 Kent says, “Psora, says

Hahnemann became, therefore the common mother of man’s chronic diseases. It

can be said that at least 7/8th of the chronic maladies existing at the present day are

due to psora.” This shows that Hahnemann calls Psora to be the cause of 7/8th of

the chronic maladies not 8/8th as Kent mean!!!!!!!

I conclude these points by “Reading between the Lines”, which I have only

hastily sketched down, with the hope that I may have succeeded in putting into the

true light the difference between Kentian and Hahnemannian concept and to incite

my profession on their part to treat these more at length, to remove the confusions

and keep the pure extract in unadulterated form. Today we want to bridge the

knowledge and compact it so as to be useful at the time of need. This is a humble

attempt on this track.

Peace is the religion,

Love is the language,

Compassion is the relationship,

Truth is in action and;

Happiness is the way of living.

A new world of Homoeopathy …….. is very soon going to be a reality”

Jai Hahnemann, Jai Homoeopathy.

Presented by –

Dr. Nitesh Nirdoshkumar Jain

M. D. (Hom) Scholar

A. H. M. C & R. I. Anand.

Author – Organon Revisited.

e mail – sandesh4nitesh@rediffmail.com

Published in a soverneur in Jodhpur.