Posted by: Mirza Bilal Baig
Dear Sir,
I am a student of Homeopathy I am very much confused dye to following FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES AMONG MASTER HAOMOPATHS. The worst this is that very one gives reasons and references from ORGANON to prove himself right.I am very keen to learn real Homeopathy (Hahnemannian).Please clear my confusion. I would like you to please explain point wise the following and other not mentioned here, for this is, I think, most important issue so please spare enough time to solve this confusion for the sake of HOMEOPATHY.
1)Hering’s Law: Law, Rule or Dogma?
by Dr. André Saine, D.C., N.D., F.C.A.H. http://homeopathy.ca/articles_det12.shtml
2)Fundamental differences of Vannier,Kent, Schüsler, Eisayaga, Poitevin, Vithoulkas, Sanchez, Escalante, Roberts, Ghatak with the homeopathy of Hahnemann Posted by Dr Guillermo Zamora. Ref:
3) THE CHRONIC DISEASES
THEIR PECULIAR NATURE AND THEIR HOMOEOPATHIC CURE
A CRITICAL STUDY by Dr.Satheesh Kumar.P.K . Medical Officer, Dept. of Homoeopathy, Govt. of Kerala.
4)A CRITICAL SUMMARY OF KENTIAN HOMEOPATHY
by Peter Morrell. http://homeoint.org/morrell/articles/pm_kentc.htm
5) “The Dynamic Legacy: Hahnemann From Homeopathy to Heilkunst” by Rudi Verspoor and Steven Decker.
Regards
Hi! It is not possible to give detail analysis of all the articles, authors and approaches mentioned in your post. Some of the approaches are only superficially dissimilar and lead you to the same remedies and some are clear diversions from homeopathic principles. The confusion comes up only if you have not read and mastered the organon and chronic diseases yourself. If you rely on the source books instead of different interpretations, there would be no confusion.
Best wishes,
Dr. Manish Bhatia
