Dr. Rajan Sankaran Email Interview with Dr. Rajan Sankaran
by Greg Cooper
Copyright Minimum Price Books, September, 2006

Contents, at a glance:
Background
When symptoms suggest all three kingdoms at the same time
The meaning of 'deeper' levels of experience
How the patient responds to stress - relationship to Sensation
Human-specific vs non human-specific sensations
When are non human-specific characteristics a problem?
Are non human-specific characteristics necessary for individuality?
Sensation in Plants compared to Sensation in Animals and Minerals
Where do Plant, Animal and Mineral patients perceive the problem?
Etiology corresponds with sensation
Why so many miasms?
Acute situations during chronic treatment
Sensation more important than peculiar pathological symptoms
A new paradigm for miasms
Why learn family/group characteristics?
What's more important - finding the remedy or knowing how to use it?
Sensitivity is the key concept when opposites are equally true
Miasm - Sensation - Family - An example of Cannabis indica
Skeptics: Careful observation and rigorous testing are welcomed
Pay attention to WHAT is going on, not WHY
Where to learn more

Background

If you've studied homeopathy for some time, you've surely discovered that there are many different ways it is practiced and that new methods are constantly evolving. One of the most popular new methods comes from Dr. Rajan Sankaran.

Starting with his first major work, the Spirit of Homeopathy, in 1991, he has developed a methodology that has attracted an enthusiastic following (and a little criticism) worldwide. His search for better ways to help patients has led to a method of case taking that locates a vital sensation deep within the patient's chief complaint and connects this sensation to the right homeopathic remedy from the natural world.

Dr. Sankaran's rewarding results in his Mumbai, India clinic have led him to teach this method through video courses and in person around the world (see Events listing on this link) His teaching can also be followed through an impressive line of books and articles, a CD of Healing Music and his own software called Vital Quest.

I spent considerable time studying his latest works - the Sensation in Homeopathy and Sankaran's Schema - (as I recommend you do, to get the most out of this interview). However, as a lay homeopath some of my questions may be too theoretical. I apologize for this shortcoming, yet I believe Dr. Sankaran's wealth of clinical experience will more than compensate.

I began by asking him about the challenges of choosing remedies from different kingdoms of the natural world:

When symptoms suggest all three kingdoms at the same time

GC: Is it possible for a person to need an animal remedy, a mineral remedy and a plant remedy? For example, how would case taking proceed in these scenarios: An architect feels ashamed (sensitive - plant) after he loses a competition (animal) for most efficiently structured house (mineral)? Or if a person feels vulnerable (plant) in the cells of his body (mineral) to hostile micro-organisms (animal)? Or, "I am easily offended (plant) by rude classmates (animal) because of my internal weakness (mineral)"

RS: The idea of kingdoms is that, when we go into the depth of a person's state, we find that it has a pattern that matches with a substance from the Animal kingdom, or the Mineral kingdom or the Plant kingdom. A person has only one state at a time, and therefore, he needs only one remedy at a time. That remedy belongs to one kingdom, and therefore, it is not possible for a person to need an animal, a mineral, and a plant remedy at the same time.

Here we are given an example of an architect who has lost a competition for the most efficiently structured house. When we ask him what is his experience in that particular situation, he may say, for example, that he feels ashamed or embarrassed. We have to ask him one step deeper, 'Describe the experience of being ashamed or embarrassed.' That question will take him into a deeper level, where he will give, not the emotion, but the actual experience of it, which will be a sensation. That experience could be, "I felt I lack something, or I am incapable of something", which would be Mineral. Or the experience could be, at the deepest level, "I felt that others are better than me," which would be an Animal experience. Or it could be, "I reacted with a sense of shock and disappointment, with a feeling as if everything is sinking or that I'm going downwards". This would be a Plant sensation and reaction.

So when you probe the case, the same situation at a deeper level, you will find, at the core, the experience of the person; not his emotion, not his delusion, but his sensory experience. This will either be a sense of lacking something, or losing something, which is Mineral, or it will be a sense of competing, which is Animal, or it will be a sensation and a reaction to something, which is Plant. At a superficial level, all of us have qualities of all the kingdoms. But we are not talking superficially here, we are talking about the Sensation level, and here it will be one and only one.

In another example, a person feels "vulnerable in the cells of his body, to hostile micro-organisms" or "I am easily offended by rude classmates because of my internal weakness". This is a hypothetical statement, but even if it were true, when you take this just a little further and ask, "In the situation of being offended by rude classmates, what is your experience?" then he will not tell you all the three kingdoms at one time. He will come to the one. This has been my experience in several hundred cases, and this is something that you need to go deeper into your case and watch. Then you will see the truth of it.

The meaning of 'deeper' levels of experience

GC: In your case taking methodology, the doctor gently shepherds the patient to express deeper levels of his experience of his chief complaint, moving from its name and local sensations to the emotions, delusion, vital sensation and energy. In your interview with Neil Tessler, you used the words 'deep, deeper, deepest or depth' 28 times, so clearly the concept is important, but it is not readily apparent how or why [for example] a feeling of being crushed is 'deeper' or more useful than a well described pain with the classical descriptors of location, sensation, modalities and concomitants.

In the Organon, Hahnemann never refers to something deeper than symptoms, to a deeper understanding of patients and remedies, to a deeper disturbance, to going deeper, going deeper to the source of remedies, going deep into the mind symptoms, deeper into the mind, to deeper levels to the kingdoms, to a level deeper than delusion, to the patient's deepest level which is sensation and energy or to the deepest core of the patient's being or to a deeper miasm.

So I think it is clear that your system of homeopathy is something at least partially different than Hahnemann's homeopathy. Can you elaborate on the meaning of this word 'deeper', why you have added this new concept and how it has made a difference? Regarding my own understanding of this concept, how does one tell when one has gotten deep enough to know that one has reached the vital sensation?

RS: This is a pretty long question, and very interesting. I think, again, the answer to this question will only come from practically seeing the method in action, either through a practitioner who practices this method or trying it out in your own practice.

Let me give you an example-

I had a case of a man with a tumour in his eyeball, and he described it thus; that this tumour caused a certain "imbalance" in his eyes. Then he described this imbalance as a sense of inco-ordination, and further, how co-ordination was the most important thing in his life; how everything needed to be co-ordinated. Going further along this line, he said it's the kind of co-ordination that a pilot needs when piloting his plane, or a rocket scientist needs when he makes a rocket. It's the kind of co-ordination that an actor needs when he is performing live on stage, and several such examples.

At some point, he described a situation where his mother-in-law did something behind his back, and when I asked him what he had felt about it, he replied that he felt very disappointed, and betrayed. Now, these emotions of disappointment and betrayal are present in his case, and one might be tempted to use rubrics like "ailments from disappointment, or betrayal". But if you ask further, "Describe the disappointment", then you bring out the true individuality of the person in the circumstance. When somebody does something behind your back, which is not expected, the feeling of disappointment is common, not individual. Hahnemann always emphasized the individualizing phenomena, the characteristic symptoms. Here, when we look at disappointment, it's not individual enough, not characteristic enough. Go further. When I asked him, "Describe the disappointment", he said, "It's as if somebody had punched me in my stomach." This now gets more characteristic. Take it one step further. I asked him, "Describe the experience of being punched" and he said, "I feel completely suffocated." "Describe suffocation." And it opens out and you find that there is the suffocation sensation in many areas in his life, like when swimming, or in claustrophobic situations, etc. That suffocation sensation, along with the sense of importance of co-ordination and control, like a stage artist, or a plane pilot, gives us the remedy Argentum nitricum, which has the control, co-ordination as well as the suffocation. That remedy cured the tumour in his eye.

So the "ailments from disappointment" or "delusion that somebody had punched his stomach", is a more superficial expression. The deeper expression is the tremendous sense of suffocation that he felt, not only in the situation with his mother-in-law, but in every area of his life. A sensation that is so individual, and so completely unconnected with the external reality that it becomes the most individualizing symptom of the person, both physical and mental. It is at the Sensation level.

When you see that it is both physical and mental; that it encompasses his whole life, his whole story, and you see the same thing at the depth of all expressions, whether it be his interests and hobbies, his occupation, his relationships, his physical symptoms etc. you know you have come to the depth, to the Vital Sensation. Everything comes together at this level. And that is something one just needs to see practically happen. Then it is clear. At the level of theory, it may not be at all clear; it may lead to a lot of doubt and questions, 'till you actually experience it.

How the patient responds to stress - relationship to Sensation

GC: Other homeopaths teach that the patient's way of responding to stress is very important. In your system, the doctor tries to go from the obvious levels of experience of the chief complaint to the deeper levels. During this process, is it accurate to say that he goes from a description of the complaint to understanding the patient's individual response to the complaint? Is this similar to the way that other homeopaths teach us to explore the patient's individual response to stress?

RS: Yes, we explore the description of the complaint as well as the individual response to the complaint. At some point of exploring the description of the complaint, and bringing out its fineness, you find that it is the same as the response to the complaint. Everything comes together at the level of Sensation, body and mind together.

When we explore the person's physical experience of his symptom to its deepest level, then we come to how he reacts to that particular problem, and when that in turn is examined to its deepest level, it will come to the very same point, which is the Sensation. The Sensation level is the meeting point, where everything comes together.

When you say that other homoeopaths teach us to explore the patient's individual response to stress, the question is to what depth, to what level, do they teach you to explore? If they teach you to explore each thing to the level of Sensation, then we are in perfect agreement.

Human-specific vs non human-specific sensations

GC: Your system aims to find the non-human specific sensation experienced by the patient, which leads directly to the [non human] animal, mineral or plant remedy which will solve the case. In your Schema, you list many sensations corresponding to the different families of plants - contraction, stuck, twisted, compressed, suffocative, scattered etc - non-human specific sensations that can be found in unhealthy humans and outside humans in the natural kingdoms. For clarification, can you describe a few human specific sensations, so the difference between non-human specific and human specific will be clear?

RS: When I talk of "human-specific" sensations, I am talking more of emotions like fear, anger, jealousy, joy, sadness, disappointment, ambition, grief etc. And also delusions, like being a king, a dictator, a slave, a princess, tortured, persecuted, conspiracies, and so forth. At these levels, of emotion and delusion, many things are specific to human beings. But, at the level of Sensation, that's where you go beyond the human into the non-human.

When are non human-specific characteristics a problem?

GC: Are the non-human specific characteristics within each person always a problem?

RS: The non-human-specific characteristics within a person, when they are persistent, when they form a pattern, and that pattern fixes a persons' life, and he's stuck in it, then it becomes a problem, and that is the disease. If a person's sensations change along with the circumstance, if he is able to be in the moment; when he's on a mountain he's enjoying the wind and experiencing lightness and floating, when he's at work he's experiencing his capability to work, when he's in a competition he feels competitive; then this is absolutely perfect. Anything becomes a problem when it gets fixed and long-standing, and colours and limits the person's whole life.

Are non human-specific characteristics necessary for individuality?

GC: Is differentiation or individuality possible among humans without non-human specific characteristics?

RS: Individuality will still be there. Some are tall, or short, or intelligent, or strong etc, individual differences will always be there. But these differences will not limit the individual; they will not be pathological. Hence, they will not be stuck. Each one will experience his individuality as well as his freedom. That would be health.

Sensation in Plants compared to Sensation in Animals and Minerals

GC: In the Sensation in Homeopathy, page 292, you indicate that structure is the basic sensation of minerals, sensitivity is the basic sensation of plants and survival is the basic sensation of animals. In the Schema book, when covering Plants, numerous characteristic sensations are given for all the families, but for Minerals and Animals, the word sensation is not used - instead there are stages in life for the minerals and behaviours/attack/attacked feelings for the animals. Do you equate stages in life with specific sensations (for minerals) and behaviours/attack/attacked feeling with specific sensations (for animals)? Does this mean that we look for a vital sensation only in connection with plant remedies, whereas for mineral remedies we look for the stage of life and for animal remedies we look for behaviours/attack/attacked feelings?

RS: This would be more or less right. In Plants, you would get the sensation directly. Minerals' sensation would be the sense of lacking or losing something, that we call structure. The sensation of Animal is the sensation of victim-aggressor or the fight for survival. This survival instinct being the basic, it will have many different modes of survival within this sensation.

Where do Plant, Animal and Mineral patients perceive the problem?

GC: For a student who can only grasp very simple concepts, would it be helpful to say that 'mineral' patients believe their problem is within themselves, 'plant' patients believe their problem is from some process or substance from outside themselves and 'animal' patients believe that their problem is from some entity from outside themselves?

RS: More or less, yes. The Mineral person feels the problem as something lacking within himself; or that he is losing. The Animal person believes that the problem is due to something outside himself. But, the Plant person doesn't see the problem as coming from anything outside. He sees the problem as his own sensitivity and reactivity to something outside of himself.

Etiology corresponds with sensation

GC: How do you explain the emphasis of classical homeopathy on the etiology or causation of symptoms?

RS: The etiology or the causation in Classical Homoeopathy has to do with the sensation. When we say the etiology of Arnica is injury, or the etiology of Lachesis is jealousy, or the etiology of Ignatia is shock, or disappointment, these are the exact sensations of the various remedies. So an etiology or causation is the thing that excites the sensation to the maximum degree, and therefore, in each remedy, it has to correspond with the basic sensation.

Why so many miasms?

GC: How is it that classical homeopathy only has 3 to 5 miasms (psora, tubercular, sycotic, syphilis and cancer) while your system has 10?

RS: It depends on what you mean by "miasms". I use the term "miasms" to denote a specific type of response, and that type of response corresponds to the body's response to a specific infection.

For example, one response to a situation or a problem could be thus, "Let us try to make the effort and try to solve it, and if we can't succeed, then we have to accept the situation; the situation is something we can live with but it would be better if we could get rid of it, so we'll keep making efforts", and so the efforts alternate with acceptance. As, for example, a person who is trying to lose weight. He can live with the weight, but it's better to lose it, so he makes an effort, goes to one dietician or one exercise program, tries for some time, and then it doesn't work, he gives it up, then for some time he accepts it, and then again he makes another attempt. This kind of perception is typical of the reaction of the body to ringworm infection. It accepts it for some time, and then reacts to it with some itching or inflammation for some time, and again it quietens down for some time etc.

So I saw that there were typical reaction patterns, and there are definitely more than three. I could identify about ten. Each one is very similar to the body's reaction to a particular infection, like leprosy or ringworm or malaria etc. This division into ten miasms of the patient's state, and correspondingly the division into ten miasms of the remedies, has been an extremely useful tool to pinpoint the remedies. Especially in the Plant kingdom, it has really acted as a boon, because then you can decide on which plant of a particular family is needed by the patient, based on which miasm he is in.

I've been working with this idea since 1991, and seeing if there are more patterns. So far, I haven't been able to identify any more than these ten. These ten seem to cover a majority of the cases that I come across, and it's a very practical and extremely useful system.

Acute situations during chronic treatment

GC: In your system, do you prescribe for acute symptoms? Why or why not? How are results?

RS: There are five categories of acute presentations:

1 The patient comes directly in the acute phase.

Here we need to understand the acute as part of the deep state of the patient and use the opportunity to find the global remedy of the case, which alone will be the remedy most effective in the acute situation.

2 The patient comes in an acute phase, during a chronic that is doing well.

Here we need to go into the peculiarity in the acute and go to the sensation level. Often we will come to the same sensation as the remedy the patient was already receiving. We will need to see that this is following Hering's Law. And also see what potency and repetition the patient needs.

3 The patient comes in an acute phase, during a chronic that is not doing well.

The patient was being treated for a chronic condition that was not doing well. When he comes in with an acute, this is the best chance to find the remedy that will help him in the long run.

4. The patient comes in an acute phase, during a chronic that is doing okay, but the picture is very different.

Here we need to study the acute situation in its present totality and see what is indicated. The patient may need a different remedy in the acute phase. This may happen in cases who are getting, as their remedy, slow paced ones, such as Calcarea carb, Baryta carb, etc. In acute situations, these patients may need another remedy, as the whole picture is different from the chronic one. For example, a Calc. carb child who develops an acute spasm of the lungs with breathlessness and coughing etc. may need Antim-tart or Arsenic-alb for the acute phase. Later, he will present the original symptoms of the earlier remedy, which will be needed again.

5. Acute causes.

Injuries, burns, prolonged loss of sleep, surgeries, dental extractions and treatment, etc and other intense factors can produce a clear picture temporarily that calls for remedies that have that exact picture, like Arnica, Cocculus etc.

Sensation more important than peculiar pathological symptoms

GC: Do you prescribe on the basis of peculiar pathological symptoms, for example, the color, shape, smell and discharge of ulcers?

RS: I do use these symptoms sometimes as confirmatory ones, though I don't prescribe on that basis. I always prescribe on the basis of the sensation.

A new paradigm for miasms

GC: You have described the miasm as the depth or level of desperation or attitude with which the patient experiences his sensation. Is this compatible with the classical view of miasms as constitutional taints indicating deficiency (psora), excess (sycotic) and destruction (syphilitic)?

RS: My idea of miasms is in a different framework, or paradigm. It has some similarities with the classical view of psora, sycosis and syphilis. But it is much broader and more specific in its description, in terms of attitude, pace, reactions, etc.

Why learn family/group characteristics?

GC: Classical materia medica attempts to locate a unique pattern of symptoms in each remedy, so that the pattern can be recognized and the remedy used in future patients. Your materia medica also attempts to locate unique characteristics of each remedy, but also puts a strong emphasis (some would say too strong) on finding similarities to other remedies in the same family or group. For the student of Materia Medica, how important are the symptoms of the entire family (or group) as compared to the unique symptoms of the remedy? How is this knowledge used in practice?

RS: This is a very important question. It underlines the most basic thing with regard to my approach, which is a system approach, rather than a symptom approach. For example, let us take the remedy Theridion. We know its individual characteristics, such as the desire for oranges or sensitivity to noise. We could look at the remedy as merely a conglomeration of symptoms, and they will appear unrelated. But there is a background on which these symptoms exist. The background is the family or the group to which that remedy belongs. So Theridion does have a craving for oranges and extreme sensitivity to the slightest noise, but basically it is a Spider. So it will have a background of Spider sensations interwoven with its individual characteristics. If we understand each remedy in this way, then the characteristics will fall into place, and not merely hang in the air without any basis. This approach then will help us to prescribe remedies, which are much lesser known. We'll be able to first come to the family, and then, through the characteristics, we can locate which remedy of that family it belongs to. The same goes for snakes or mammals, or Anacardiaceae. If we can understand the family, we understand the background on which the remedy stands. After having worked with the system approach for the last ten-twelve years or so, I see how indispensable it is to my practice.

What's more important - finding the remedy or knowing how to use it?

GC: Many modern teachers are emphasizing the importance of repeated doses of the remedy in chronic cases, with slight alteration of potency between doses by succussion or stirring. This has been according to their own understanding for the 5th or 6th editions of the Organon and many claim much better results. In your system, the emphasis seems to be on getting the right remedy, rather than on how to manage cases, repeat or change the remedy. Is this a fair understanding? Are the details of case management less important when the remedy is more accurately chosen by your method? In general in a chronic case, do you just give one dose, dry, and wait 4-8 weeks for a response?

RS: I have, in my books and seminars, definitely laid more emphasis on the system, on finding the remedy, understanding the levels, and on the case-taking technique etc. But I also run a practice for over the last twenty-five years. So I also have some observations on case-management, repetition, changing remedy, etc. I shall definitely discuss these observations, once I have properly formulated them.

Sensitivity is the key concept when opposites are equally true

GC: On page 134 in Sensation in Homeopathy, you explain a rather bold law or concept that you have derived from practice over the last two years - that the opposite is equally true of whatever is said. You are talking about how a person's sensitivity in an area is indicated whenever he spontaneously brings up a particular issue in that area. Fine. You contend that, if a person expresses a lack of self confidence, it means that he surely lacks self confidence. Fine. But then you continue that this person also has the potential to be a very good public speaker. How do you know that a person who expresses lack of self confidence has the potential to be a good public speaker?

And then you generalize to the concept/law that the opposite is equally true of whatever is said. How is lacking self confidence to be a good public speaker the opposite of having the potential to be a good public speaker? I would think that having the self confidence to be a good public speaker would be the opposite of lacking that confidence. Please explain how having the potential to be a good public speaker is the opposite of lacking confidence to be a good public speaker?

Honestly, I think that there is a good point that you want to make, and that it would be understood by more people if it were stated more precisely. Instead of assuming that a person with low self confidence has the potential to be a good public speaker, and generalizing the law that the opposite is equally true of whatever is said, could you instead say something like: the person who spontaneously mentions low self confidence shows sensitivity to the issue of self confidence, and interestingly, clinical experience has shown that such people benefit from the same remedies that help people who have excessive self confidence?

RS: In this example, you ask, how is lacking self-confidence to be a good public speaker the opposite of having the potential to be a good public speaker. What I meant to say was that every person, every patient who says that I don't have the confidence to speak in public, also expresses the desire, in the same breath, to be a public speaker. What underlies the lack of self-confidence and the desire to be a successful speaker is the person's ability in that direction; sensitivity to that ability. Hence, all these are expressing the same things; having the confidence to be a good speaker, having the potential to be one, lacking the confidence to be one, or the feeling that I have the lack of ability to be one. These are all expressing the area, namely, public speaking, to which the person shows sensitivity, whether it is expressed as a lack of confidence, or a confidence.

Both the opposites indicate the same sensitivity. And what you say, that a person who spontaneously mentions low self-confidence shows sensitivity to the issue of self-confidence etc. is also definitely true. The whole idea is the idea of sensitivity. Whether it is expressed in positive or negative terms, what we have to look at is the sensitivity of the person. I think, once that concept is understood, it hardly matters in what way it is expressed or conveyed.

Miasm - Sensation - Family - An example of Cannabis indica

GC: In Schema, page 7, you indicate keywords for Sycotic miasm: fixed, covered up, guilt, hide, secretive, warts, tumors, gonorrhea, neurosis, fixed weakness, avoidance, accepting, middle age. Then on page 17 you indicate the sensation of the Hamamelididae family as compressed, heavy, pressing, load. . . . . and opposites lightness, flying, expanding, free, etc. On page 25, you indicate the sycotic remedy of the Hamamelidae family as Cann-i. Is there a connection between the materia medica of Cann-i and the Sycotic keywords?

RS: By putting Cannabis indica in the sycotic miasm in Family Hamamelidae, what I mean to say is, that the sensation of compressed, heavy, pressing, load etc. of the Hamamelidae family will be experienced in Cannabis indica as a fixed sensation, which must be accepted and lived with; and also that situations where one feels heavy, compressed, pressing, closed etc must be avoided. In Cannabis indica, in the Materia Medica, we see that they are constantly living in a world of avoidance. They avoid reality by going into an illusory world, where things are open, light and free, and they avoid the heaviness and the compression and the load and the closed feeling all the time by escaping into this world. So from that understanding, we see that Cannabis indica has a sycotic way of reacting to the compressed, heavy feeling, by avoiding it and escaping into an illusory world.

Skeptics: Careful observation and rigorous testing are welcomed

GC: The skeptics: In the 4/99 Homeopathic Links interview, Vithoulkas says, "Sankaran alone has done more harm to homeopathy than all the enemies of homeopathy together." Andre Saine writes on his website "Sankaran demonstrated several basic errors of methodology and reasoning in his example of how he 'discovers' a remedy". Apparently Hering, Hahnemann and contemporary doctors like Luc De Schepper place the value of homeopathic proving symptoms far above the value of symptoms learned by family or periodic group associations. Do you have an update for the critics?

RS: With all due respect to Vithoulkas, Andre Saine, Hering, Hahnemann and contemporary homeopaths who have done wonderful work in homoeopathy, I must say that any science has to move on, has to progress, get more refined and advance, simply because nothing is complete or finished. Hahnemann, in his own lifetime, changed the Organon six times, introducing new concepts, new ideas, and depths of understanding each time. So to remain stuck to what Hahnemann said, as the last and final word, is in a way going against his very spirit. One has to go by what one observes and what one sees, and, following on the method of Hahnemann, using the logic, using observation, testing it out, testing the concepts, being self-critical, being circumspect, one has to advance in order that we get better and more consistent results. And that's the way it has gone. These concepts have been of tremendous value in my practice. Having practiced for more than twenty-five years, I know how much these concepts have helped me, and it is my earnest desire to share these concepts with my colleagues in the profession. I am glad that the profession is showing openness to the ideas and testing them out and becoming collaborators in the progress of the science.

Pay attention to WHAT is going on, not WHY

GC: I have heard of some leading edge scientific work that suggests that certain events can be caused by other events that follow them in time. In your work with provings, have you ever seen an event that was thought to be caused by an event that happened after it?

RS: I haven't given serious thought to this, because I do not much subscribe to the idea of causality. Phenomena happen. Why they happen is always a theory. I rather hold the view that one has to see something and examine it for what it exactly is, rather than what caused it. That is how I approach cases and Materia Medica. So when I talk to the patient, I am interested in finding out exactly what is going on, to the finest possible detail that I can get to, rather than why it happened, or why this particular disease happened, or why do these diseases happen, or why does anything happen. This does not concern me too much, because I know that examining the 'Why' of anything will always be a theory. The 'What' of anything is the truth and needs to be examined to the deepest and finest possible level.

Where to learn more

GC: Besides buying our books, how can people learn more about your system?

RS: They can attend my seminars or video courses, join Insight webgroup, look in to the software VitalQuest (all listed in www.thespiritofhomoeopathy.com), join local discussion groups on the system, and they can try it out in practice and send the feedback to me. I welcome cases and feedback from all colleagues. Let us join to take Homeopathy ahead.