Boenninghausen: Minding the Mind

- By the team at Dr Kamlesh P. Mehta’s Homoeopathic Health Care Center

Preamble: 

Hahnemann rediscovered homoeopathic principles. He worked tirelessly despite all

odds against homoeopathy to give us a sound therapeutic system and made it perfect through
his experiences.

Dr Boenninghausen probably was the first one to give an expert system, supporting the
same diligently for more than 35 yrs and also has contributed relentlessly to the literature of
multiple dimensions, regarding Homoeopathy for physicians and also for the general public like
Homoeopathic philosophy, Materia Medica, Repertory, Therapeutics, Remedy relationship,
Affinities of remedies, Posology, Diet etc..

Credit also goes to him for correlating experience of Hippocrates with Homoeopathy in
his invaluable 'Aphorisms of Hippocrates'.

Moreover, he has always remained progressive with time so that rather than to
continue with same structure of the repertory he reconstructed its structure, and worked on it
tirelessly for almost ten years presenting us with his indispensible Therapeutic Pocket Book.

He simplified and presented detailing of Hahnemann’s philosophy and guidance

regarding Homoeopathy; hence we find the applied aspect of homoeopathic principles in his
literature and that too in the lucid manner. He remained honest towards Homoeopathy and
dedicated himself to the ‘Restoration of Sick to Health’.

Subsequently it is we, who have divided Homoeopathy into various approaches by the
way of Boenninghausen, Boger, Kent etc, he never intended branding, it is we who have
distributed this simple system based on Nature's Laws into various sects based on the literature
given by each pioneer.

Boenninghausen’s and J. T. Kent’s works are very complimentary to each other and we
find that Dr. Kent has very respectfully included Boenninghausen’s contributions in his work.
Even Boenninghausen's contribution is so trustworthy that it has become a fundamental and an
unavoidable part and parcel of 21st century Homoeopathy.

There was a time when his contribution was considered obsolete because of its
mechanical application. Then during the periods of 1900 and 1905, C. M. Boger compiled his
work, which drew the attention of homoeopathic fraternity towards Boenninghausen’s work.

By this time Homoeopathy had grown both in regards to the number of drugs proved
and practice. Now a days there are more tools, more learning opportunities, software and
teachers available which not only made the practice simpler, but also took away the diligence
from the study of Homoeopathy and somewhere, some sort of compromise became the norm,
so conveniently Homoeopathy was divided into different approaches, and in this process
Dr. Boenninghausen was accepted only as per face value and understood only by the
commentaries and teaching on his literature. Following is an attempt to understand his
guidelines and their applications in practice.

It is very important to understand that he presented integrated Homoeopathy in toto.

Hahnemannian Boenninghausen:           

Boenninghausen and Hahnemann were contemporaries. All his works on Homoeopathy

were strictly based on observation of working of the laws given by Hahnemann. So there were
no hypotheses or assumptions of any sort in his work or in his literature.  By his relentless work
he gave a simplified version of literature already provided by Hahnemann, expanding on it
further for a deeper understanding and clarity. This noteworthy contribution of
Boenninghausen was thoroughly reviewed and approved by Hahnemann.

Hahnemann’s central idea for restoration of sick to health (i.e. cure) centered around
'What is to be treated in every case' (§3) and the 'Essence of the disease' (§7). His focus never
deviated from the fundamental duty of the physician (§1).The rest of his expositions are in the
form of aphorisms, where he has explored the application and rectifications of the same, and
are all about understanding the disease i.e. the ‘SICKNESS’ and the application of the 'Curative
power' based on the 'Law of Similia'. Boenninghausen took no liberty from this fundamental
core.

Hahnemann focused on the individuality of disease (sickness, suffering), its indications in

the form of characteristic symptoms (§ 153 & § 3). We can see his faithfulness from §1 itself to
the sick & to the sickness rather than to the personality part.

Observing the fact that the patients having similar pathology were found to have
different 'sufferings', 'reactions' and 'meanings of the diseases'; a reflection of the same was
seen in the Materia Medica, that almost all drugs were found to affect all parts of the body,
with almost a similar set of signs and symptoms, but differing in the reactivity. Hence, the idea
of what is to be treated in every case emerged, rather than only treating the pathology. These
reactions which are fundamentally related to the DISPOSITION of the patients are an expression
of the internal process of imbalance (mental and physical), hence they form the sole guide for
deciding the similimum.

The point of deviation from health to disease (§ 6 ) is very vital for defining ‘the disease’
as well as for the management of the case. The ‘disease’ as Hahnemann suggested is expressed
by characteristic symptoms i.e. specific, well defined symptoms, which are 'Striking, Singular,
Rare, Strange, and Uncommon' (§. 153). Boenninghausen simplified this guideline of
Hahnemann analytically by explaining ‘Characteristic’ through various components of the
symptoms mainly location, sensation, modality, time, concomitant and causation, besides the
‘change in personality’ during the evolution of disease (sickness) by his article 'Characteristic
Value to Symptom'.
            This change in personality involves changes at physical and mental level and these
changes are the earliest guidelines to select the homoeopathic medicines, even much before
the establishment of a diagnosis. This aspect of Boenninghausen’s guidelines definitely suggests
importance of both physical as well as mental changes in the patient during evolution of
sickness. Likewise, he always considered dispositional features, physical as well as mental for
the final selection of the remedy, though they were not specifics. It is needless to say that
whatever decides the remedy cannot be of least importance but of ‘prime importance’!

'Mis-minding' regarding Boenninghausen:

The issue is never regarding about how important are the mental symptoms to him, but
the point always remains about the authenticity or reliability of the symptoms for the purpose
of selection of the remedy due to problems at multiple levels- the physician’s ability and
subjectivity, patients’ and also Materia Medica. Otherwise why did Hahnemann need to
emphasize regarding unprejudiced observation, sound senses, fidelity of mind and freedom
from speculation? So Mind it!

           In his Original Preface to the Therapeutic Pocket Book, he mentions as follows:

 “In regards to the first section, it must be especially observed that our Materia Medica Pura
contains nowhere more secondary symptoms, than under the mind & disposition, and on the
other hand most beginners in Homoeopathy are liable to overlook this part of the picture of the
disease, or to make mistakes. Therefore, I have considered it wise to give here only what is
essential & prominent, under as few rubrics as possible, in order to facilitate reference. The
rubric ‘intellect’ I have been able to simplify very greatly, since any symptom, as, for eg.
‘insanity’ by means of different moods, been clearly defined in other places.”

Hence TPB is as a filter helping to sieve secondary symptoms and giving us pure primary
symptoms as rubrics. Thus it provides us the most reliable symptoms as an 'Ideal Repertory'
does.

Widening the horizons:

            TPB took almost 10 years to have its structure reformed from the Repertory of Antipsoric
remedies (the current BBCR is based on structure of Repertory of Antipsoric Remedies); he did
this to make the repertory handy, which is another important feature of any 'Ideal Repertory'.

The structure of Therapeutic Pocket book is more, giving us freedom for logical and tested
permutations and combination of symptoms of one section with other. Thus TPB has the
potential of serving countless mental symptoms by combining its Mind chapter with all other
chapters as aggravation / amelioration and association as concomitants to a great extent so as
to overcome limitation of proving.

Minding the observation :

            In the era of the 18th century the disease pathology was individualised by its evolution
and characteristics along with patient’s treatment in terms of anxiety, sadness, anger, irritability
etc. This data from the patient, relative and observation by physician (§.6 and §.84) becomes an
integral part of the holistic approach as it is related to the disposition of the patient, which is
why Hahnemann has warned us against prescribing Nux vomica in a mild and phlegmatic
patient and Aconite in a calm patient (F.N. § 122 to § 213).

            Hence these observations that are unspecified but are found in a broader way like
anxious, worrisome, irritable, sad, depressed etc. help to finalize the remedy and they require
to be taken at the end even they are not specified (as per §. 153). If case processing is started
primarily with such symptoms, it would give an unnecessarily large group of drugs, hence they
are considered at the end rather than ignoring them though they are unspecific. The same is
true for the physical dispositional features as well.

Conclusion:

Since we have differed from Hahnemann’s and Boenninghausen’s literature and made
our own ‘simplification’ and ‘explained’ them, we need to go back to original literature which is
amply available and is self explanatory, so as to improve the quality of our homoeopathic
practice to its optimum. There has been much recent advancement in homoeopathy all of
which are connected to Boenninghausen and need to be understood in some or the other way,
necessitating rectification following his original works.