What is Repertorial Totality?

Repertorial Totality in Homoeopathy: A Comprehensive Academic Analysis

Abstract

Repertorial Totality represents one of the fundamental pillars of homoeopathic prescribing methodology, serving as the cornerstone for remedy selection in clinical practice. This comprehensive analysis explores the conceptual foundations, philosophical underpinnings, and practical applications of repertorial totality within the homoeopathic therapeutic framework. Originating from Samuel Hahnemann’s seminal work in the Organon of Medicine, the concept of totality has evolved through contributions from influential practitioners including Boenninghausen, Kent, and Boger, each contributing distinct perspectives that have enriched its understanding and application. The present document examines the theoretical basis of repertorial totality, its structural components, methodological approaches, and clinical significance in contemporary homoeopathic practice.

1. Introduction

The concept of repertorial totality stands as the quintessential diagnostic hallmark of homoeopathy, representing a methodological approach that distinguishes this therapeutic system from conventional medicine. In the realm of holistic medicine, the totality of symptoms functions as the fundamental diagnostic criterion upon which homoeopathic prescription is based, enabling practitioners to identify the simillimum—the remedy most similar to the patient’s disease manifestation (1). The term “repertorial totality” refers to that constellation of symptoms and clinical manifestations that are systematically organized, cross-referenced, and utilized in the process of repertorization to identify the most appropriate therapeutic agent (2).

Repertorization, defined as the specific technique of taking the totality of symptoms of a given disease and utilizing a compilation of these indications cross-referenced to medicinal agents, serves as the primary tool for finding the curative remedy (3). The repertory itself functions as a connecting link between the patient symptoms and the materia medica, enabling practitioners to navigate the vast therapeutic landscape of homoeopathic medicines efficiently (4). Without the systematic organization provided by repertories, the homoeopathic materia medica would remain cumbersome and impractical for daily clinical application (5).

The significance of repertorial totality extends beyond mere symptom matching; it encompasses a philosophical understanding of disease as a dynamic derangement of the vital force, wherein symptoms represent the outward manifestation of internal disturbance. This conceptual framework emphasizes that effective treatment must address the entire symptomatic picture rather than isolated complaints, thereby establishing the theoretical foundation for individualized homoeopathic prescription (6).

2. Historical Development and Key Contributors

2.1 Samuel Hahnemann and the Organon Foundation

The conceptual framework of repertorial totality finds its origins in Samuel Hahnemann’s (1755-1843) foundational work, particularly in the sixth edition of the Organon of Medicine. In Aphorism 7, Hahnemann articulated the fundamental principle that the totality of symptoms must be the principal, indeed the only thing the physician has to take note of in every case of disease and to remove by means of his art, in order that it shall be cured and transformed into health (7). This aphorism establishes that in the absence of any manifest exciting or maintaining cause, the symptoms alone constitute the basis for remedy selection, with the totality of these manifestations representing the outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease, that is, the affection of the vital force (8).

Hahnemann’s definition of totality emerges from his understanding of disease as a dynamic disturbance rather than a material entity. In Aphorism 8, he emphasizes that once all symptoms have been removed, nothing should remain except health, challenging the materialistic pathology that suggests disease could persist internally after symptom resolution (9). This perspective fundamentally distinguishes homoeopathic philosophy from conventional medical approaches, establishing symptoms as the sole reliable guide to treatment while acknowledging the dynamic nature of disease manifestation.

The concept receives further elaboration in Aphorism 153, which addresses the characteristic nature of symptoms to be emphasized in case taking. Hahnemann states that in the quest for the homeopathically specific remedy, the more conspicuous, exceptional, unusual, and odd (characteristic) signs and symptoms of the disease case are to be especially and almost solely kept in view (10). This emphasis on characteristic symptoms ensures that the totality constructed for repertorization purposes reflects the most distinctive features of the patient’s condition, facilitating more precise remedy selection.

Aphorism 257 further refines this concept by employing the more complete phrase “totality of characteristic symptoms,” establishing that effective prescription depends not merely on the quantity of symptoms but on their quality and distinctive character (11). This philosophical foundation has guided all subsequent developments in repertorial methodology, establishing the parameters within which totality must be erected and interpreted.

2.2 Boenninghausen’s Contribution

Baron Clemens Maria Franz von Boenninghausen (1785-1864), a contemporary and close student of Hahnemann, made seminal contributions to the systematization of repertorial totality. His Therapeutic Pocket Book, published in 1846, represented the first systematic attempt to organize homoeopathic therapeutic knowledge into a practical clinical tool (12). Boenninghausen’s understanding that characteristic indications were those bearing particular relationship to one another revolutionized the approach to totality construction (13).

The Boenninghausen concept of totality comprises seven distinct maxims that provide structural organization to the case analysis process. These seven points, derived from the Latin interrogatives, encompass the essential dimensions of disease manifestation: QUID (the nature and peculiarity of the disease), QUIS (the personality and individuality of the patient), UBI (the seat of the disease), QUIBUS AUXILIIS (accompanying symptoms), CUR (the cause of the disease), QUOMODO (modification, includingaggravation and amelioration), and QUANDO (the time dimension) (14). This framework ensures comprehensive case evaluation that addresses all relevant aspects of the patient’s symptomatic presentation.

Boenninghausen developed four foundational doctrines that underpin his approach to repertorial totality. The Doctrine of Analogy permits the construction of complete symptoms by combining scattered elements, based on the principle that “what is true to the part is also true to the whole person” (15). This doctrine facilitates the elevation of local symptoms to general status, addressing the practical challenge of incomplete proving data by enabling extrapolation from known symptom relationships.

The Doctrine of Concomitance identifies those symptoms that exist together with the leading symptom without theoretical pathological relationship, yet demonstrate actual clinical relationship through simultaneous manifestation in the same person at the same time (16). These unreasonable attendants serve as differentiating factors in case analysis, enabling the practitioner to distinguish between similar disease presentations and remedy pictures. Hahnemann himself praised Boenninghausen’s work in a footnote for arranging the characteristic symptoms of homeopathic medicines in a manner that facilitated their practical application (17).

2.3 James Tyler Kent’s Systematic Approach

James Tyler Kent (1849-1916) contributed significantly to the development of a hierarchical approach to repertorial totality, emphasizing the primacy of mental and general symptoms in case analysis. Kent’s philosophy rests on the principle that removal of the totality of symptoms equals removal of the cause, establishing a direct correspondence between symptomatic resolution and disease eradication (18). His lectures on homoeopathic philosophy elaborate this concept extensively, emphasizing that when symptoms disappear under the action of the simillimum, the disease ceases to exist because the totality of symptoms represents the entire representation of the disease (19).

Kent established a systematic hierarchy for symptom evaluation, wherein every symptom must be examined to determine its relation to the totality, its position within the totality, and its value in the overall assessment (20). This hierarchical approach recognizes that certain symptom categories carry greater clinical significance than others, with mental symptoms and general symptoms occupying the highest positions in the evaluative framework. The general symptoms, when more closely characterized, provide the most reliable basis for remedy differentiation, while common symptoms seemingly insignificant in isolation may become characteristic when properly contextualized (21).

The Kentian approach emphasizes that totality should not be understood as the mere sum of independent symptoms; rather, it represents the essential characteristics and image of the sickness that brings a clear idea of the nature of the disease (22). Many small symptoms can be omitted without damaging the totality, as the essential features of the disease presentation take precedence over peripheral manifestations. This understanding cautions against prescribing from only a partial view of the case, which Kent identifies as a common mistake leading to suboptimal therapeutic outcomes (23).

2.4 Cyrus Maxwell Boger’s Integrated Approach

Cyrus Maxwell Boger (1861-1935) developed an integrated approach to repertorial totality that synthesized elements from both Boenninghausen and Kent while introducing novel concepts regarding pathological generals and time dimensions. His Synoptic Key of the Materia Medica represents a significant contribution to the practical application of totality principles in clinical practice (24). Boger’s approach entails pathological generals, tissue affinity, and the time dimension along with Boenninghausen’s concept of totality, creating a comprehensive framework for case analysis (25).

Boger detailed his approach to identification and development of the totality through a “combination of the analytic and synoptic methods,” enabling practitioners to systematically evaluate and organize case information (26). His work recognized that the totality of a case constitutes the basis for repertorization and serves the purpose of finding the most similar medicine of the materia medica, establishing the theoretical foundation for modern repertorial practice (27).

3. Conceptual Framework of Repertorial Totality

3.1 Definition and Fundamental Principles

Repertorial totality may be defined as a logically related group of symptoms that characterize a particular disease manifestation, selected and organized according to specific principles for the purpose of remedy identification through repertorization (28). This concept embodies the holistic philosophy of homoeopathy, wherein the disease is understood not as an isolated pathological entity but as a comprehensive manifestation of disturbance in the vital force.

The fundamental principle underlying repertorial totality is that disease manifests through symptoms, and these symptoms collectively represent the internal pathological state. According to Hahnemann’s formulation, the totality of symptoms constitutes the outward image of the internal essence of the disease, making symptom totality the sole guide to remedy selection (29). This principle establishes symptoms as the primary source of diagnostic information, rejecting the materialistic approach that seeks to identify disease through pathological anatomy or laboratory investigations.

The concept of characteristic symptoms forms a crucial component of totality construction. Characteristic symptoms are those that distinguish one case from another, encompassing not only the unusual and exceptional but also symptoms that, through proper characterization and arrangement, acquire distinctive significance (30). The arrangement of elements in time and space confers distinctiveness upon the totality, such that even common symptoms can become characteristic when properly contextualized within the case presentation (31).

3.2 Distinction Between Totality and Complete Symptom

Understanding the relationship between complete symptoms and totality is essential for effective repertorization. A complete symptom comprises three essential elements: location (the anatomical region affected), sensation (the subjective experience of the patient), and modality (the conditions that modify the symptom) (32). These three components together provide the basic unit of information that can be meaningfully repertorized.

The totality, however, transcends the simple aggregation of complete symptoms. It represents a logical combination of symptoms that characterizes the person as an individual while also differentiating the current presentation from other similar conditions (33). The distinction between “the totality of symptoms” and “symptom totality” is significant: the former refers to all perceptible manifestations of the disease, while the latter refers specifically to those symptoms selected for repertorial analysis and matching.

This conceptual differentiation has important practical implications. Many symptoms can be collected during case taking without all of them being incorporated into the repertorial totality. The practitioner must exercise judgment in selecting those symptoms that will most effectively differentiate between potential remedies, focusing on characteristic features rather than attempting comprehensive symptom enumeration (34).

3.3 Relationship to Disease Classification

An important consideration in constructing repertorial totality involves the relationship between patient symptoms and specific disease entities. A patient may suffer from more than one disease simultaneously, each with its own totality of symptoms (35). The practitioner must determine which symptom constellation corresponds to which disease process, ensuring that the totality erected accurately reflects the condition requiring treatment.

Hahnemann’s disease classification distinguishes between primary and secondary diseases, with primary diseases being constant in nature and often having discernible causes, while secondary diseases are of variable nature requiring emphasis on symptomatic presentation (36). The disease image will generally reveal secondary diseases, and it is these manifestations that typically constitute the basis for repertorial totality construction.

This understanding has significant implications for chronic versus acute disease management. In acute diseases, characteristic symptoms are generally more striking, requiring less detailed investigation for totality construction. Chronic diseases, however, demand the most careful and minute investigation, going into the smallest details, as the characteristic symptoms are often most exceptional and least resembling those of rapidly passing diseases (37). Patients with chronic conditions frequently become accustomed to their suffering and may ignore smaller symptoms, yet these accompanying deviations from the healthy state are often decisive in searching out the appropriate remedy (38).

4. Structural Components of Repertorial Totality

4.1 The Boenninghausen Framework

The Boenninghausen approach to totality structure organizes symptoms into seven distinct categories, each addressing a specific dimension of disease manifestation. This framework ensures comprehensive evaluation while maintaining systematic organization for repertorial purposes.

Quis (Personality) encompasses the individual characteristics of the patient, including constitutional features, temperament, and personal history. This dimension recognizes that disease manifests differently in different individuals, and understanding the patient’s personality contributes to accurate totality construction.

Quid (Disease Nature) addresses the essential character of the pathological process, including the quality and intensity of symptoms. This component examines what is happening in the disease process, establishing the fundamental nature of the disturbance.

Ubi (Seat) identifies the anatomical location of the disease manifestation, whether general or local. Boenninghausen’s doctrine of analogy permits the application of symptoms pertaining to one part to other parts of the body, raising local symptoms to general status for comprehensive evaluation (39).

Quibus Auxiliis (Accompanying Symptoms) comprises those symptoms that exist concurrently with the leading symptom without having direct pathological relationship to it. These concomitant symptoms serve as crucial differentiating factors, as they reflect the unique way in which the disease manifests in this particular individual (40).

Cur (Cause) addresses the etiological factors, including both exciting and maintaining causes. While Hahnemann indicated that manifest causes must be removed before symptomatic treatment, understanding causation contributes to comprehensive totality construction (41).

Quomodo (Modifications) encompassesaggravation and amelioration factors, including the conditions under which symptoms worsen or improve. This dimension includes modality factors such as time, weather, temperature, position, and other circumstantial influences that modify the symptom presentation.

Quando (Time) addresses temporal aspects of symptom manifestation, including time of day, season, menstrual cycle, and other temporal relationships. This component recognizes that disease manifestations follow characteristic temporal patterns that contribute to remedy differentiation.

4.2 The Kentian Hierarchy

Kent’s approach to totality structure emphasizes a hierarchical organization that prioritizes certain symptom categories based on their clinical significance. This hierarchy guides practitioners in evaluating and weighting symptoms during case analysis.

At the highest level, mental symptoms occupy the primary position, reflecting Kent’s philosophical emphasis on the importance of the spiritual-mental essence in disease manifestation. These symptoms encompass alterations in mental function, emotional states, and cognitive processes.

General symptoms constitute the second tier, representing manifestations that affect the entire organism rather than specific locations. These symptoms relate to overall well-being, energy levels, sleep, appetite, and other systemic functions.

Particular symptoms form the third category, encompassing local manifestations with their specific modalities and characteristics. These symptoms, while less significant than generals in the Kentian framework, remain essential for remedy differentiation.

Common symptoms, representing manifestations shared by many diseases and remedies, occupy the lowest position in the hierarchy. While seemingly less significant, these symptoms can acquire importance when properly characterized and contextualized (42).

4.3 The Boger Integration

Boger’s approach synthesizes elements from multiple traditions, incorporating pathological generals as a distinct category. His framework recognizes that certain symptoms represent tissue or organ system affinity, providing a systematic basis for remedy differentiation based on structural pathology (43).

The time dimension receives particular emphasis in Boger’s methodology, addressing not only temporal patterns of symptom manifestation but also the progression of disease over time. This temporal perspective contributes to understanding the dynamic nature of disease and its response to therapeutic intervention (44).

5. Methods of Erecting Totality

5.1 Principles of Totality Construction

The erection of totality must be based upon facts collected during case taking, with no fixed formula governing the process. Totality is not the sum total of symptoms but rather a logical combination that characterizes the individual and provides the basis for remedy differentiation (45). The construction process requires careful evaluation of symptom relationships, distinguishing characteristics, and clinical significance.

The first step involves comprehensive case taking, gathering all available information about the patient’s condition. This process must be thorough, particularly for chronic diseases where minute details often prove decisive. The investigation should proceed according to the principles outlined in the Organon, addressing both physical and mental manifestations, local and general symptoms, and all modifying factors (46).

Following case taking, the practitioner must organize and evaluate the collected information, selecting those symptoms that will constitute the repertorial totality. This selection process should focus on characteristic symptoms that differentiate the current presentation from other similar conditions. Quality takes precedence over quantity in this selection, as the most encompassing peculiarity of the symptom rather than the number of symptoms determines their clinical value (47).

4.2 Pattern Recognition

Characteristic refers not merely to unusual or exceptional symptoms but to patterns of information that are distinctive. Each element of the pattern may not individually be unusual, yet the arrangement of elements in time and space confers distinctiveness (48). This understanding emphasizes the importance of pattern recognition in totality construction, where the configuration of symptoms provides more meaningful information than isolated symptom enumeration.

This principle finds analogy in chemistry, where slight rearrangement of atoms creates different substances with distinct properties, and in genetics, where subtle differences in protein arrangement produce dramatically different effects (49). Similarly, in homoeopathy, the arrangement of symptoms in time and space must be reproduced for accurate remedy matching.

4.3 Integration of Multiple Approaches

Contemporary practice often integrates elements from multiple methodological traditions, combining Boenninghausen’s structured approach with Kent’s hierarchical emphasis and Boger’s pathological perspective. This integrative approach acknowledges that different cases may benefit from different analytical frameworks, and the skilled practitioner must be capable of applying multiple methods as appropriate (50).

The selection of approach depends upon the nature of the case, the information available, and the practitioner’s training and experience. Acute cases may respond well to rapid evaluation using characteristic symptoms, while chronic cases often require comprehensive analysis using multiple dimensions of totality construction.

6. Clinical Application of Repertorial Totality

6.1 The Process of Repertorization

Repertorization involves the systematic matching of the repertorial totality against available remedy information to identify the most appropriate therapeutic agent. This process utilizes the repertory as a tool for cross-referencing symptoms with medicinal agents, enabling systematic evaluation of remedy relationships to the presenting symptoms (51).

The process begins with the selection of rubrics from the repertory that correspond to symptoms in the constructed totality. These rubrics are then combined and analyzed to determine which remedies appear most frequently and with highest grades, providing a ranked list of potential therapeutic agents for further evaluation against the materia medica (52).

Modern repertorization often employs computer software that facilitates rapid analysis of complex symptom combinations. However, the fundamental principles remain unchanged: the practitioner must select appropriate rubrics, interpret the results in light of totality principles, and verify the indicated remedy against the full symptom picture and materia medica information (53).

6.2 Evaluation and Differentiation

The repertorial process generates a list of remedies that match the totality symptoms, but final remedy selection requires further evaluation. This differentiation process involves comparing the indicated remedies against the complete case picture, considering factors such as constitutional fit, aetiologic relationship, and overall symptom correspondence (54).

The grades assigned to symptoms in the repertory indicate the frequency and intensity of symptom occurrence in provings and clinical observations. Boenninghausen established a five-grade system: first grade (capitals, 5 marks) indicates frequent and verified symptoms; second grade (bold, 4 marks); third grade (italics, 3 marks); fourth grade (roman, 2 marks); and fifth grade (parenthesis, 1 mark) indicates symptoms not verified or confirmed (55). These grades provide guidance for weighting symptoms in the repertorial process.

6.3 Relationship to Materia Medica

Repertorization provides the starting point for remedy selection, but the indicated remedy must be verified against the complete materia medica before final prescription. This verification ensures that the remedy corresponds not only to the selected repertorial symptoms but to the totality of the patient’s presentation (56).

The materia medica provides the comprehensive picture of remedy action derived from proving symptoms and clinical observations. The practitioner must evaluate whether the remedy picture corresponds to the patient’s full symptom presentation, including mental general symptoms, particular symptoms, and any exceptional characteristics that may not have been captured in the repertorial totality (57).

7. Contemporary Relevance and Challenges

7.1 Integration with Modern Practice

Contemporary homoeopathic practice continues to rely upon repertorial totality as the foundation for remedy selection, though the methodology has evolved to incorporate technological advances and clinical insights. Computerized repertories have facilitated more rapid and comprehensive analysis, while evidence-based approaches have sought to validate traditional methodologies through systematic investigation (58).

The fundamental principles established by Hahnemann and elaborated by subsequent practitioners remain relevant to contemporary practice. The emphasis on characteristic symptoms, the construction of logical totality, and the relationship between symptom picture and remedy picture continue to guide clinical decision-making (59).

7.2 Challenges and Considerations

Despite its central importance, the construction of repertorial totality presents significant challenges in clinical practice. Patients may present with complex symptom pictures that resist systematic organization, and the selection of appropriate rubrics requires substantial training and experience. The distinction between symptoms that should be included in the totality and those that may be omitted without damage requires careful judgment (60).

Furthermore, the relationship between totality construction and individualization continues to generate discussion within the homoeopathic community. While the totality provides the framework for remedy selection, the ultimate aim is to find the simillimum that addresses the patient’s unique pathological state, which may require consideration of factors beyond the strictly symptomatic presentation (61).

8. Conclusion

Repertorial totality represents the fundamental methodological framework for homoeopathic remedy selection, embodying the holistic principle that disease manifests as a comprehensive symptom picture requiring systematic analysis for effective treatment. Originating from Hahnemann’s foundational work in the Organon, the concept has evolved through contributions from Boenninghausen, Kent, Boger, and other practitioners, each adding dimensions of understanding and practical application.

The construction of repertorial totality involves careful evaluation of symptoms according to their characteristic nature, hierarchical significance, and clinical relevance. Different methodological approaches—Boenninghausen’s seven maxims, Kent’s hierarchical structure, Boger’s integrated perspective—provide complementary frameworks for comprehensive case analysis. The skilled practitioner must be capable of applying these methodologies appropriately, selecting the approach most suited to the individual case requirements.

Despite challenges in practical application, repertorial totality remains essential to homoeopathic practice, providing the systematic foundation for remedy selection that distinguishes this therapeutic approach from conventional medicine. The ongoing development of repertorial tools and methodologies ensures that this fundamental principle continues to serve practitioners in their pursuit of the simillimum.

References

1. Homoeopathic Journal. Concept of totality and its vital significance in homoeopathy. Homoeopathic Journal. 2024;10(2):139-834.

2. Longani KA. Repertorial totality. In: Explaining Homoeopathic Concepts. YouTube; 2024.

3. Verspoor R. Repertorization—the principles for its use. Hpathy.com. 2009.

4. JISH-MLDTrust. Back to basics and beyond: Repertorisation as a concept and a tool for clinical decision-making. JISH. 2024.

5. Hahnemann S. Organon of medicine. 6th ed. Leipzig: Arnold Arnoldi; 1921.

6. Hahnemann S. Organon of medicine. 5th/6th ed. Translated by Künzli J, Naumann E, Mandal PP. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 1992.

7. Hahnemann S. Organon of medicine. Aphorism 7. In: Organon of Medicine. 6th ed.

8. Bhatia M. Lectures on Organon of medicine—understanding aphorism seven and eight. Hpathy.com. 2007.

9. Hahnemann S. Organon of medicine. Aphorism 8. In: Organon of Medicine. 6th ed.

10. Hahnemann S. Organon of medicine. Aphorism 153. In: Organon of Medicine. 6th ed.

11. Hahnemann S. Organon of medicine. Aphorism 257. In: Organon of Medicine. 6th ed.

12. Boenninghausen CMF. Therapeutic pocket book. 1846.

13. Verspoor R, Decker S. Homeopathy re-examined: Beyond the classical paradigm. Montreal: Hahnemann College for Heilkunst; 2008.

14. Boenninghausen’s concept of totality. SITE123. 2024. Available from: https://250048.site123.me/boenninghausen-totality

15. Boenninghausen CMF. Doctrine of analogy. In: Therapeutic pocket book. 1846.

16. Boenninghausen CMF. Doctrine of concomitance. In: Therapeutic pocket book. 1846.

17. Hahnemann S. Footnote to Organon Aphorism. In: Organon of Medicine. 6th ed.

18. Kent JT. Lectures on homoeopathic philosophy. In: Totality of symptoms. HomeopathyBooks.in.

19. Kent JT. Lecture 12: The removal of the totality of symptoms means the removal of the cause. In: Lectures on homoeopathic philosophy.

20. Kent JT. Hierarchy of symptoms. In: Lectures on homoeopathic philosophy.

21. Kent JT. Characteristic symptoms. In: Lectures on homoeopathic philosophy.

22. Kent JT. Nature of totality. In: Lectures on homoeopathic philosophy.

23. Kent JT. Common prescribing errors. In: Lectures on homoeopathic philosophy.

24. Boger CM. A synoptic key of the materia medica. 1931.

25. JISH-MLDTrust. Exploring the application of Boger’s approach in clinical practice. JISH. 2024.

26. Boger CM. Approach to totality. In: A synoptic key of the materia medica.

27. Homeobook. Repertorization methods by CM Boger. Homeobook.com. 2024.

28. Homeopathy360. Repertorisation with one complete symptom: A precise approach. Homeopathy360. 2024.

29. Hahnemann S. Aphorism 18. In: Organon of Medicine. 6th ed.

30. Hahnemann S. Characteristic symptoms definition. In: Organon of Medicine. Aphorism 153.

31. Verspoor R. Pattern vs quantity in symptom evaluation. Hpathy.com. 2009.

32. Homoeopathic Journal. Complete symptom definition. Homoeopathic Journal. 2024.

33. Steps to repertorisation—erecting totality. Hpathy.com. 2024.

34. Kent JT. Partial view prescribing. In: Lectures on homoeopathic philosophy.

35. Verspoor R. Multiple diseases and totatlity. In: Repertorization principles. Hpathy.com. 2009.

36. Hahnemann S. Primary vs secondary diseases. In: Organon of Medicine. 6th ed.

37. Hahnemann S. Chronic disease investigation. In: Organon of Medicine. Aphorism.

38. Hahnemann S. Accompanying symptoms importance. In: Organon of Medicine. 6th ed.

39. Boenninghausen CMF. Doctrine of grand generalization. In: Therapeutic pocket book.

40. Boenninghausen CMF. Concomitant symptoms. In: Therapeutic pocket book.

41. Hahnemann S. Causa occasionalis. In: Organon of Medicine. Aphorism 5.

42. Kent JT. Common symptoms evaluation. In: Lectures on homoeopathic philosophy.

43. Boger CM. Pathological generals. In: A synoptic key of the materia medica.

44. Boger CM. Time dimension. In: A synoptic key of the materia medica.

45. Steps to repertorisation. Erecting totality. Hpathy.com. 2024.

46. Hahnemann S. Case taking principles. In: Organon of Medicine. 6th ed.

47. Verspoor R. Quality vs quantity. Hpathy.com. 2009.

48. Verspoor R. Pattern recognition. In: Repertorization principles.

49. Verspoor R. Analogy to chemistry and genetics. In: Repertorization principles.

50. JISH-MLDTrust. Integrated approach to repertorization. JISH. 2024.

51. Boericke W. Pocket manual of homoeopathic materia medica and repertory. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Boericke & Runyon; 1927.

52. Kent JT. Repertory of the homoeopathic materia medica. 1897.

53. RadarOpus. Computerized repertorization. RadarOpus Software.

54. Allen HC. Boenninghausen’s therapeutic pocket book. Lucknow: Central India Publishing Company; 1934.

55. Boenninghausen CMF. Grading system. In: Therapeutic pocket book.

56. Boericke W. Homoeopathic materia medica. 1901.

57. Clarke JH. Dictionary of practical materia medica. London: The Homoeopathic Publishing Company; 1900-1902.

58. ResearchGate. The totality of symptoms—an empirical review. ResearchGate. 2024.

59. Hahnemann S. Simillimum principle. In: Organon of Medicine. 6th ed.

60. Hahnemann S. Symptom selection. In: Organon of Medicine. 6th ed.

61. Hahnemann S. Individualization. In: Organon of Medicine. 6th ed

See less