Scholten/Sankaran was provings

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Tanya, others,
Why is that necessary for using their methods?

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[Shannon Nelson]

I would say it's necessary so you can *check* your prescription, and so
if you're going off on a tangent (e.g. prescribing "mouse fluff" for a
case that would traditionally be given calc-c), at least you *know*
you're deviating from 150 years of experience, can decide whether your
"fluffy" prescription seems more compelling, and have the calc-c to
fall back on if the other does not pan out!

And of course to have the grounding in case management, knowing the
significance of changes, etc.

Shannon

[John Harvey]

Luise's question raises a serious matter, though, whether or not it's quite what she intended: that, whereas the basis of all homoeopathy practice is a full case-taking and a pathogenesis that's reasonably adequate (at least adequate enough to match this patient), the basis of the Sankaran "method" is entirely different: the key interpretations by one man of what a remedy is "about" (my term) -- regardless of whether it even has a pathogenesis, regardless of whether what it is "about" is largely contradicted by its pathogenesis, taking into account a psychoanalytical interpretation rather than a symptom totality, and prescribing on the basis of the interpretation rather than even the few symptoms in which the practitioner takes special interest.
As such, it has nothing in common with the practice of homoeopathy and appears to require no homoeopathic skills, knowledge, or understanding at all.
Given that the two "methods" appear to be entirely discrete, what need is there to have Sankarinists trained in homoeopathy?
The Sankaranian method has been termed "advanced" even by very well-educated homoeopaths only, I believe, on the basis that it should not be taught to homoeopathic students before those students understand homoeopathy. With this contention I'd agree fully; but I'd take it much further and ask what need there is to cooperate with the pretence that the one practice is based on the other or has any connection with it. Sankaranism does not aim to prescribe a medicine based on its pathogenetic mimicry of the patient's totality; it aims to prescribe a medicine based on its symbolising the patient's spiritual state. They are practices completely at odds with each other.
This confusion in imagining that Sankaranist students should learn homoeopathy before they learn Sankaranism evidently arises simply because Sankaran misappropriated the word "homoeopathy" as the category into which his method falls. As it does not in fact depend upon an effort to match pathogenesis to patient state (and by state I mean not "like a swan" but symptom totality!), it is a method of matching remedy to patient that does not fall within, and in fact has no connection with, the symptom-matching architecture within which all homoeopathic practices fall.
The simpler method of solving the problem of homoeopathic ignorance of students qualifying in Sankaranism is to recognise that Sankaranian practice actually requires no knowledge of homoeopathy at all and is therefore independent of homoeopathy.
To Luise's question, then, I would suggest that it is completely unnecessary to require the practitioner of Sankaranism to have any knowledge whatever of homoeopathy; what is necessary rather is that both the Sankaranist and the homoeopath be clear about the difference and refrain from furthering confusion between the two.
Cheers --
John
2009/7/5 Shannon & Bob Nelson >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."

— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)

[Fran Sheffield]

I think John is right when he identifies Sankaranism as not being homeopathy - the fact that there can be classes about the approach without the need for any foundational homeopathic knowledge confirms it.

I think it has been our great delusion.

--
Kind regards,

Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Tutorials - Remedies - Immunisation)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
Do No Harm Initiative (Free Information on Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org
Homeopathy for Autism (Guidelines for Treatment - Search for Practitioners)
http://www.homeopathy4autism.com
John Harvey wrote:

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi John,
Yes, what you write is exactly what I meant, ad I agree with everythig
you say.

either Sankaran nor Scholten's method are "homeopathy" - unless we
broade the concept to include all "potecy medicine", as it is
colloquially done (see the thread on that).

So requiring "homeopathic" education in the narrow sense as a
pre-requesite is quite illogical.

The earlier Sankaran approaches were different - but the method has
evolved to a "signature" medicine and an education in Anthrophosophic
Medicine (the signature part of it) would be much more appropriate.

After all - what we would want, if not as homeopaths then as
practitioners of alternative medicine (to upgrade its reputation) and
as people concerned with the benefit of the patients, is that Sankaran
therapists master their specific method as well as possible. Spending
years of time, lots of money and energy on mastering homeopathy and
then adding the knowledge of the Sankaran method just by books and
seminars does not seem to be the best way to achieve this.

The same goes for Scholten's and other methods that do not work the
"homeopathic" way.

I like your idea of coining the expression "potency medicine" -
especially since potency medicine is at what the enemies of our craft
are aiming (which was what I tried to show in the other thread.)

Under the umbrella of such potency medicine we could all get together
and speak with one voice - no matter how ad on what theory we use the
potentized medicines.

Regards

Luise
whereas the basis of all homoeopathy practice is a

--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[Shannon Nelson]

On Jul 5, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Luise Kunkle wrote:
I disagree, because the *correspondence* is what it is; due to the
preponderance of evidence, we'd assume that *if* provings are
done--esp. if done extensively enough, and on enough people--the
symptom correspondence, of the type generally noted in our repertories,
*would / will* be found (the sensations; susceptibilities; habitual
responses; medical histories; etc.). But there are many possible ways
of *finding* the remedies with that correspondence.

People needing certain remedies have characteristic ways to doing
*many* things--reacting to noises; choosing foods / drinks; responding
to climate, weather, criticism, etc. I fail to see why characteristic
*movements*, gestures, choice of clothing, etc., should be any
different?

And in fact some of that is noted in the reps, e.g. certain gestures;
preferences for certain colors or clothing, etc. So we already have
*some* of the type of information Sankaran is using, it's just that he
has chosen to focus on those *parts* of the overall pictures. it's a
different *set* of symptoms, but hey, life is like that; reality
doesn't tend to obediently end at the boundaries of our conceptual
frameworks!
To me that sounds like complaining that carpenters should not bother
learning to use (pick any tool Q), because what carpenters use are
hammers, nails, (make a list of Xs). If you're going to learn to use a
Q, then what's the point of learning to use X too?

My answer: Different tools for different problems.
As noted, different methods are needed for
children
infants
animals
comatose
over-mentalized
pre-verbal
hyper-verbal
etc., etc., etc.

Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Luise,
I don't suppose you know how good her results are--or how long her
customary follow-up period is?

Hm, what gesture would mean "pointing to the sea..."? (Or I guess that
was just an off-the-cuff example?) But I know the type of prescribing
you mean. I assume that a single gesture or a single comment wouldn't
form the *sole* basis for the prescription--or that, if a particular
homeopath makes a habit of that, I'd be interested to hear how good
their results are.

I know that sometimes the reason given is not the sole reason that
*went in* to the prescription; and I know that sometimes some
homeopaths prescribe on what I would call very scanty evidence. But
the one person I have known who was working with Sankaran's method did
not go solely on any single gesture or phrase; and they did also try to
confirm (or rule out) the prescription via repertory and materia
medica--when that was available for the remedy. Other times yes, I
guess you could say "doctrine of signatures", tho not in the way it was
used in the past ("leaves shaped like a liver, so this plant must be
liver tonic").

And from the little I have seen, it is not the sum total of his method.
(Would you put the "sensations" under "doctrine of signatures"? To a
degree perhaps, but not entirely... ??)
Maybe someone here knows more.

Shannon

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Shannon,
Well, I do not really kow the method that well, but on the German list
is a homeopath who sometimes describes how she goes about by it.

So a patient makes gestures that the homeopath interpretes as pointing
to the sea - by that she is led to a marine remedy.

Or, as Hahnemannia once described: a patient gets Lachesis because she
wore a saree with snake patterns.

This is plain signature prescribing. Homeopathy of any kind I do not
see at all.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[Tanya Marquette]

i have been looking into sankaran's sensation method lately.
it seems there is some distortion going on here. what i
get is that it is a somewhat different style of case taking
but still looks to basic homepathic principles. wasn't it
joy, writing about ledum, who noted the legitimate use of
characteristic` sx of the rx for complaints not in the reperatories?
is that any different than trying to get to the characteristic sx
at the core of a case? miasms and kingdoms are studied in the same
manner. true, there is some experimenting with new rx but many homeopaths are
using the newer and smaller rx. and has been noted many times, many of
our rx are not well proven but are still considered legit.
tanya

[John Harvey]

Two questions are relevant here: (1) What is the homoeopathic principle (i.e. what makes prescribing homoeopathically "legit")? (2) Does Sankarinism rest on the homoeopathic principle, or use it to confirm its choices when the principle is applicable?

(1) The homoeopathic principle is not to find a remedy by random means and assess whether it seems to have some connection with the patient, regardless of whether it even has a known pathogenesis. It is rather to seek that remedy whose pathogenesis best fits the patient's symptom totality.

(2) If Sankarinism were a homoeopathic practice with new tools, it would be based on the principle mentioned above: that of seeking the best fit of pathogenesis to the patient's symptoms. Instead, it seeks -- as in the swan example I gave earlier -- to go directly to a remedy with some presumed connection with the patient (as Shannon has so well described it: "we'd assume that *if* provings are done--esp. if done extensively enough, and on enough people -- the symptom correspondence, of the type generally noted in our repertories, *would / will* be found"). The practitioner may perhaps seek to confirm some symptom similarity if some pathogenetic symptoms happen to be known -- but, if it is not, remains unfettered in making the prescription!

What more need be known in order to determine that Sankarinism is not homoeopathy?

Cheers --

John
2009/7/6 tamarque@earthlink.net >