Originally Posted by aweynsayl
Originally Posted by Panserbjorne
it's stunning, the difference between them! barnard is very bach-ish, of course, while scheffer comes out against several of bach's key points, while still using his FEs (something that always intrigues me).
you will be suprised at how often you find this.
i guess i'm not that surprised when i think about it now, but i did bristle at her word choices. "misunderstanding" and so on, almost like she was calling bach out in regards to his own flowers. having read (and resonated so deeply) the barnard, it almost *stung*. but i'm being overly emotional about it. ;-)
...and more of a "whole".... a simple system that fits together in an organic, whole-istic, growth-oriented, and spiritual way.
IMO the way they're meant to be used, but we all have different starting points, yes?
hard not to feel that way if you "follow" how barnard talks about them. again, "growth" being key for me (it's almost like we're having the homeopathy conversation again....)
yes, but you see how the divide exists across multiple modalities too, which is good. I believe in the growth aspects too! OF COURSE! But sometimes people just need a gateway. I've seen again and again on this forum where people were using rescue for things that would have been much better addressed by other flowers. I know Mizram, myself and a few others have been clear that there are better choices and many if not most don't want to hear it. they want x essence to address y problem. It's just not how they work.
it feels like a huge divide.
Well, who is she? What's she doing? She's a therapist trying to make flowers accesible to other therapists. She's a clinician. She is using the flowers in her practice and wanting other therapists to do the same.
that does make sense. her writing is very "clinical." in an almost off-putting sort of way. it's sad to me, because this is THE one FE book my public library system has. seems like an odd choice. although, i will grant, if you *do* want to be that way about FEs, it would be a helpful tool. it just starts to feel... inappropriate. again, though, i do tend towards the systemic approach. taking the FEs out of the context.... makes me bristle. yes, i am a contextualist. ;-)
It's the most well known book and her original book on theory and practice has been out there a LONG time. It's another perspective and still brings a good amount to the table, but it's not how I work. I think it was my original book on flowers actually. I hear you too...things do feel inappropriate when taken out of context when you understand the context first. This is true of many things. When you go to the source (the origin) it makes everything else feel cheap and petty. But if you never had the foundation of the source then you'd work your way towards it, rather than away from it. As much as it's almost always better to start with the source, it rarely happens! So again, as I said in the previous post you welcome people where they are and try and deepen awareness!
obviously, i far prefer the barnard, and want to read more of him (and bach himself, too-- is barnard's collected writings of bach a worthwhile purchase, panserbjorn, do you think? vs just reading 12 healers online?) which of his other books would you recommend? "healing herbs" or "a guide"? are they distinct enough to warrant having both?
they're all good, but there is overlap. I love reading what Barnard has to say because he's a direct line to the legacy. It's of course imperative to read Bach's works, but then I look to Barnard, NOT the Bach institute.
well, bach is next then! i think i'll try and get the collected writings, because i found myself wanting more each time barnard quoted him. fascinating about the divide with the institute. barnard, imo, presents it.. diplomatically in the text. he's very.... english. ;-)
Oh yes, VERY British. But he did sue Nelson's and won! So he's got fight in him. LOL. Definitely read Bach though. No question. Best to get info from the horses mouth and then assimilate the other ways people have interpreted it!