When I was introduced to Boenninghausen's generalisation concept for the very first time, I was amazed at the sheer brilliance and simplicity of his whole concept and approach.
Having cut my teeth into the basic Hahnemannian and Kentian Approach to start with, this approach was a breath of fresh air.
I found it amusing that much of Boenninghausen's literary work was done much before he was given the licence to start his practice. So in a way he had this time to think dwell and really research and study the pros and cons of a system before he actually put things in his practice much later in life.
It is also interesting to see the co-relation between being a botanist in his earlier profession and a homeopath later on that is reflected in this approach in a unique way.
I have always pondered about this connection in my own way. The study of plant taxonomy is all about identifying an unknown plant and placing plants into their groups or families. It includes grouping of individual specimen so that all individual in one group have certain features in common. So it is studying both the general and individual characteristics.
Similarly in homeopathy the study of a case is all about identifying its individual and general characteristics. So this information can be matched to a specific remedy and its group characteristics.
For me the general symptoms match the common group symptoms to which a remedy belongs to while the individual symptoms match the exact remedy within the group.
For me the Boenninghausen's approach in case analysis is a perfect amalgamation of generalisation and individualisation. The Grand Generalisation concept is a beautiful process that incorporates the above two.
Having said that I have to say that the grand generalisation concept was something that didn't click for me in a day. It took a long time before the concept really sunk in. It was only after a lot of research and using it in different ways in many cases and having made lots of mistakes that the combination of the logical and creative side became more and more clearer.
I remember the tip one of my teachers gave us while trying to make this concept really simple for us as students.
It was about looking for one component of a complete symptom that repeats more than three times in a case. Eg If more than three sensations occur in a specific location then you generalise the location. If one sensation repeats in more than three location then you generalise the location and so on.
It was simplistic but a great place to start with.
Later as I grew into this concept I could use it much more creatively in my own way. So let me share a case where this concept is adapted in my own practice.
My intension is not to teach this approach from scratch. There are plenty of wonderful books which do that. However I want to give my own perspective and insight into using this concept in my practice. Hope it inspires you to dive into it for the first time if you haven't done so as yet. Or encourage you to revisit this wonderful practical approach and who knows it may help you unlock some of your current challenging cases...
So before I end I have a question. Do you use Boenninghausen's approach in your practice? What are your reasons?