Fan Eustace & Allan Pollock:Learning from the Old Masters

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 29194
    [post_author] => 5
    [post_date] => 2022-11-03 13:22:18
    [post_date_gmt] => 2022-11-03 12:22:18
    [post_content] => Society members Allan Pollock and Fan Eustace share their experience of attending the Old Masters Workshops.

Allan Pollock attended Workshop 1 with Karen Allen & Tim Shannon and Workshop 3 with David Mundy

The truism that we “stand on the shoulders of giants” is widely applicable and no less so in the case of Homeopathy.  I dare say that this was the reasoning behind the Society’s “Old Masters Series” of workshops that reaches its conclusion in November (13/14th) when Shilpa Bhouraskar will consider which approach might work best for a given type of patient. I signed up for two of the sessions, the first on Boenninghausen, presented by Karen Allen and Tim Shannon from the USA.  “Zoomed-out” we may all be, but one cannot deny the efficacy of the technology in facilitating such an “across the pond” event.  The noble Drs Boenninghausen and Hahnemann, time travelled to the 21st Century in Karen’s “Tardis” as “Clem” and “Sam” (such cheek!) and we learned how the Dutch Dr Clemmens Maria Fran’s Boenninghausen (1785-1864) brought his botanical classification skills born in the “Age of Reason” to develop an effective repertory of the essentially Hahnemannian (1755-1843) Materia Medica of the period.  In contrast with Kent - of whom more later - in “Clem’s” pre-Freudian age, it was the physical symptomatology that dominated . Though familiar with the name, Boenninghausen didn’t feature much in my studies (likely inattentive!), and it was only recently that I learned something in a recent talk by Dr Gabriel Blass on the work of paediatrician Heiner Frei and Polarity Analysis, a method that is grounded in “Clems” manner of classification. Shannon developed Karen’s introduction by demonstrating the simplicity and power of Polarity Analysis.  Writing as a superannuated novice, it seems to have much to commend it; a compact materia of around 300 remedies and efficient differential diagnosis.  Tim is concerned (justifiably in my view) that orthodox physicians willing in their curiosity to consider homeopathy push it aside due to its apparent complexity and time inefficiency.  Here is a tool, says Tim, that can be learned from scratch in six months to a year and incorporated into a busy practice. Next came David Mundy on James Tyler Kent (1849-1916), with whom all are of course familiar.  Though probably not familiar enough to call him “Jimmy” in Karen Allen’s style!   David reminded us of the polymath and Christian Mystic Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), whose philosophy of “correspondences” - as above, so below -  strongly influenced Kent (Constantine Hering and others). Kentian homeopathy, though considered “Classical” was not, in David’s view, truly Hahnemannian.  Hahnemann surely spoke of the vital force, but for Kent this force is “Vice-Regent”; a “Simple Substance” that connects the immaterial soul (innermost) with the material body (outermost).   In contrast to Boenninghausen, the mental sphere is significant in Kentian analysis,  though this may be overly emphasised in the current assessment of Kent’s work in David’s view.  Nonetheless, Man’s “Will” (Desire) and “Understanding” (Delusion) are key concepts, that David names respectively “Magnet” and “Mirror”. In the manner of “Correspondences” from physical to spiritual, it was Kent who pioneered the range of potencies from low (body) to high (mind / spirit) somewhat akin to the octaves in music, contrasting the more pathological approach of the low potency prescribers such as Richard Hughes in the England.  Kent gathered a wide following including such luminaries as Margaret Tyler and (Sir) John Weir. Traces of Kentian themes can be found in antiquity (TCM, Paracelsus and so on) and in quantum physics as David demonstrated by sharing some of Einstein’s pithy words.  I liked this “What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses”. I unfortunately missed the workshop on Boger, Burnett and Boericke, but assuming it was of the quality of the two I attended, it must be worth a watch on catch-up.

Fan Eustace reports on Workshop 2 with Dion Tabrett, Dr Ashok Borkar & Dr Gajanan Dhanipkar

The Old Masters workshop with Dion Tabrett, Dr Ashok Borkar and Dr Gajanan Dhanipkar was a really good seminar. 

I am already a fan of Boger. I was introduced to him by a colleague when we worked in a low-cost clinic. Boger is perfect if you don't have much time as his Materia Medica is so clearly laid out. I have to admit that I have never read the Forward, but after what Dr Ashok Borkar said, I promise I will read it! 

I also use Dr Boericke's Materia Medica almost daily and know that the Indian homeopaths know it backwards as Dr Gajan Dhanipkar demonstrated. He also gave us some very interesting cases, demonstrating the use of some smaller remedies. 

Dion Tarbett is a master on Burnett. He gave such a clear introduction to the history of the organopathic approach to homeopathy. He packed so much into his session, giving us clear and concise cases and examples of Liver, Spleen, Uterine and Heart remedies. That would have been enough, but he also found time to go into Vaccinosis, which will be so useful at the moment. 

It really was a very good day, with lots of revision and a new way of looking at some of the masters. I look forward to the next date. 

Material published in this section of the website does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Society of Homeopaths. [post_title] => Fan Eustace & Allan Pollock:Learning from the Old Masters [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => 29194 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2022-11-03 15:28:25 [post_modified_gmt] => 2022-11-03 14:28:25 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://homeopathy-soh.org/?post_type=blogs&p=29194 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => blogs [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

Society members Allan Pollock and Fan Eustace share their experience of attending the Old Masters Workshops.

Allan Pollock attended Workshop 1 with Karen Allen & Tim Shannon and Workshop 3 with David Mundy

The truism that we “stand on the shoulders of giants” is widely applicable and no less so in the case of Homeopathy.  I dare say that this was the reasoning behind the Society’s “Old Masters Series” of workshops that reaches its conclusion in November (13/14th) when Shilpa Bhouraskar will consider which approach might work best for a given type of patient.

I signed up for two of the sessions, the first on Boenninghausen, presented by Karen Allen and Tim Shannon from the USA.  “Zoomed-out” we may all be, but one cannot deny the efficacy of the technology in facilitating such an “across the pond” event.  The noble Drs Boenninghausen and Hahnemann, time travelled to the 21st Century in Karen’s “Tardis” as “Clem” and “Sam” (such cheek!) and we learned how the Dutch Dr Clemmens Maria Fran’s Boenninghausen (1785-1864) brought his botanical classification skills born in the “Age of Reason” to develop an effective repertory of the essentially Hahnemannian (1755-1843) Materia Medica of the period.  In contrast with Kent – of whom more later – in “Clem’s” pre-Freudian age, it was the physical symptomatology that dominated .

Though familiar with the name, Boenninghausen didn’t feature much in my studies (likely inattentive!), and it was only recently that I learned something in a recent talk by Dr Gabriel Blass on the work of paediatrician Heiner Frei and Polarity Analysis, a method that is grounded in “Clems” manner of classification.

Shannon developed Karen’s introduction by demonstrating the simplicity and power of Polarity Analysis.  Writing as a superannuated novice, it seems to have much to commend it; a compact materia of around 300 remedies and efficient differential diagnosis.  Tim is concerned (justifiably in my view) that orthodox physicians willing in their curiosity to consider homeopathy push it aside due to its apparent complexity and time inefficiency.  Here is a tool, says Tim, that can be learned from scratch in six months to a year and incorporated into a busy practice.

Next came David Mundy on James Tyler Kent (1849-1916), with whom all are of course familiar.  Though probably not familiar enough to call him “Jimmy” in Karen Allen’s style!   David reminded us of the polymath and Christian Mystic Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), whose philosophy of “correspondences” – as above, so below –  strongly influenced Kent (Constantine Hering and others).

Kentian homeopathy, though considered “Classical” was not, in David’s view, truly Hahnemannian.  Hahnemann surely spoke of the vital force, but for Kent this force is “Vice-Regent”; a “Simple Substance” that connects the immaterial soul (innermost) with the material body (outermost).   In contrast to Boenninghausen, the mental sphere is significant in Kentian analysis,  though this may be overly emphasised in the current assessment of Kent’s work in David’s view.  Nonetheless, Man’s “Will” (Desire) and “Understanding” (Delusion) are key concepts, that David names respectively “Magnet” and “Mirror”.

In the manner of “Correspondences” from physical to spiritual, it was Kent who pioneered the range of potencies from low (body) to high (mind / spirit) somewhat akin to the octaves in music, contrasting the more pathological approach of the low potency prescribers such as Richard Hughes in the England.  Kent gathered a wide following including such luminaries as Margaret Tyler and (Sir) John Weir.

Traces of Kentian themes can be found in antiquity (TCM, Paracelsus and so on) and in quantum physics as David demonstrated by sharing some of Einstein’s pithy words.  I liked this “What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses”.

I unfortunately missed the workshop on Boger, Burnett and Boericke, but assuming it was of the quality of the two I attended, it must be worth a watch on catch-up.

Fan Eustace reports on Workshop 2 with Dion Tabrett, Dr Ashok Borkar & Dr Gajanan Dhanipkar

The Old Masters workshop with Dion Tabrett, Dr Ashok Borkar and Dr Gajanan Dhanipkar was a really good seminar. 

I am already a fan of Boger. I was introduced to him by a colleague when we worked in a low-cost clinic. Boger is perfect if you don’t have much time as his Materia Medica is so clearly laid out. I have to admit that I have never read the Forward, but after what Dr Ashok Borkar said, I promise I will read it! 

I also use Dr Boericke’s Materia Medica almost daily and know that the Indian homeopaths know it backwards as Dr Gajan Dhanipkar demonstrated. He also gave us some very interesting cases, demonstrating the use of some smaller remedies. 

Dion Tarbett is a master on Burnett. He gave such a clear introduction to the history of the organopathic approach to homeopathy. He packed so much into his session, giving us clear and concise cases and examples of Liver, Spleen, Uterine and Heart remedies. That would have been enough, but he also found time to go into Vaccinosis, which will be so useful at the moment. 

It really was a very good day, with lots of revision and a new way of looking at some of the masters. I look forward to the next date. 

Material published in this section of the website does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Society of Homeopaths.

Share this page