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.