I saw Pritam Singh lecture at one of the SOH conflabs.
He tried very hard to stipulate that it was not a 'one recipe for
all' approach, and we all tried very hard to hear him, but he spoke
in such a quiet whisper that it was difficult. He was clearly a very
shy public speaker. I spoke to him afterwards and tried to clarify
his mutter (... not meant disrespectfully , only humorously!
). He explained that it was not a system that could be understood in one
lecture and that those who wanted to follow it up should enrol on his
advanced practitioner course. He condemned those who had not done
this yet who had gone on to teach his system inadequately.
He seemed to be a lovely, self effacing and really genuine person,
but I do wonder whether his convictions about homeopathy weren't
misplaced: I thought it sad to hear that he had died absolutely still
convinced that he was going to be cured.
Whatever one thinks of his teachings I think it fair to say he was an
inventive and brave man, and after all if it were not for
experimentation Hahnemann would not have got vary far either.
Whatever can be learned from his approach I suggest, for those with
an inquisitive and open mind, that it should not be dismissed out of
hand before first gleaning a proper understanding of what it was that
he taught ( I don't claim to know what this was) and what it was that
prompted him to look at homeopathy that way.
There's many a scientific postulate that falls flat on its face only
to be picked up by another, at another time and found to have had
merit, even if not the same as supposed by the originator
Balanced debate requires an open mind
Simon King,
http://www.Homeopathy-Help.net
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]