Courtesy: Published in "The Homoeopathy" (England) (2nd issue 1998) and also reproduced in
"Similimum" (USA) (Oct 1998 issue).
An interview with Dr.Rajesh Shah
by Hiloni Sanghrajka
For part-II of the interview, click here..
Goto the main page
Dr.Rajesh Shah Seminar in UK, USA, India
Q: After about eighteen years of study, practice and teaching in
the homoeopathic profession, what do you think about homoeopathy
in general ?
A : The homoeopathic profession has taught me different things at
different stages. In the very early years, it gave me a sense
of exuberance on realising that I had learnt a technique
of healing which was a panacea ! Homoeopathy as a science
can often give the enthusiastic novice a feeling that he can change the
world, whilst the more experienced practitioner realises
that what he knows is not enough and accepts his
limitations. Nevertheless, over the years of serious thinking, the
knowledge and experience get consolidated.
Now, there is a clearer understanding. It is now possible to
judge the prognosis of most medical conditions. It
can now be stated emphatically that allergies are curable and
so are most of the acute infections. It can safely be said that
homoeopathy can cure many of the psychosomatic diseases such as
migraine, eczema, early cases of rheumatoid arthritis,
ulcerative colitis etc. It can now be said that in cases of
psoriatic arthritis, schizophrenia the capacity to cure is
limited.
Homoeopathy is an excellent healing faculty and it has a terrific
potential, provided we apply it for the right condition at the
right time, in a right manner...
Q : How do you visualize the presence of homoeopathy as a medical
system in the next century ?
A : I have always felt that homoeopathy has been underrated as a
medical system. I am terribly upset with an idea that we often
restrict the application of homoeopathy to the treatment of
certain non-treatable conditions as a 'last chance' therapy. I
think, homoeopathy should not be taken to as a last resort and we
should not be happy treating only some hopeless cases of
neurotics, depressions, terminal cancers and the like. We should
not be unknowingly working just as a counselors.
My vision of the future homoeopathy is that of a mainstream
medicine. And why not ? Homoeopathy, beyond doubts, can tackle
most kind of infections including some rare infections resistant
to the latest antibiotics. Homoeopathy cures viral infections for
which the modern medicine is struggling for years. The simplest
example is of the warts. Homoeopathy is capable of handling acute
and well as deep-seated chronic diseases. There is a hope for
auto-immune diseases, for collagen diseases. This shows the
strength and capacity of our system.
Homoeopathy, as I hope to see in future, will have a
revolutionary face-lift. Homeopathy medicines should be better
understood and evaluated, in the modern light of immunology and
the nuclear physics. There will be a major breakthrough in this
area, one day, I am sure. You will, than find homoeopathy
enjoying its deserving position.
I must admit at this point that, to achieve the desired status
for homoeopathy, a lot depends on all of us. I mean, we
homoeopaths.
Q : What is your opinion about the new teaching techniques and
methods of case-analysis ?
A : Well, I can only say that any prescribing technique or
method used to analyse the case should be logical and based on a
scientific understanding.
I am of the opinion that if our science has to become universally
acceptable, we should have sound, logical and
simple methods of analysis as far as the prescribing is
concerned.
Q : Rajesh, can you elaborate more on this ? I have read in your
editorials that you are against certain case analysis techniques,
which you find illogical and inexplicable...
A : Basically, the way I view this issue is that there are
two major processes involved in the homoeopathic prescription,
where one has to be careful. One, the case analysis; two, the
remedy understanding. What has happened lately is that under the
pretext of refreshing thoughts, some new case analysis methods
have been introduced which are far from being scientific. For
instance, the case analysis based on the theme of dreams and
delusions. I stress that, it is important to consider the
repeatedly seen dreams of the patients, in the prescribing
totality. But, it is ridiculous to make speculative
interpretations of the dreams and delusions, and base the
prescription on such a fantasy. This is unscientific.
When it comes to interpretation, it tends to become quite
subjective and personal. For instance, every prescriber can
offer a different analysis to every dream theme, therefore
leading eventually to a wide range of remedy suggestions. This
could certainly be harmful.
Secondly, the remedy understanding. Hahnemann, Boenninghausen,
Kent and other masters understood remedies more or less in black
and white. But somehow, the new trends of incorporating the study
of the materia medica with mythology, symbolism, dream-proving,
story-telling and so on, have introduced a lot of unproven data,
which I am afraid, will take homoeopathy far from universal
acceptance.
Q : How exactly is it that you think that a dream or delusion
based homoeopathic prescription could be harmful ?
A : My counter question to you is, how do you justify the
scientificity of such an approach in this era ? I have heard the
stories that one prover is administered a remedy and another
person sits in the next room to 'receive' the effect of that
remedy, with intent to 'prove' it ! I read a report in an
American journal of a teacher administering a remedy to a
patient. The teacher then declares that not only the patient
who
was administered the remedy would get cured, but all others in
the neighborhood who required the same remedy, but not
being administered the remedy, would also get cured !
Isn't it outrageous ? How can the homoeopaths tolerate this
kind of
teaching? If we go to the W.H.O. or Prince Charles, with this
kind of development in homoeopathy they would surely withdraw all
their support.
I strongly feel that the time is changing. There is a lot more
awareness and homoeopaths can not be fooled anymore with such
fantasies and theorising.
Homoeopathy, for me is a scientific system and not a spiritual
form of healing.
Q : How can there be speculative materia medica ? Can you us
give some examples?
A : Speculative materia medica is one where the entire
understanding of a remedy is imaginary and not supported by the
drug proving. A well-known example, is of Aurum metallicum. In
brief, as against common belief, Aurum metallicum is neither
industrious, nor conscientious. He isn't responsible
or
dictatorial and isn't ameliorated by music! Aurum is not
religious and does not have any great sense of duty. The commonly
held image of Aurum has originated from fantasy land! Similarly,
we have have a lot of such baseless symptoms existing in the
materia medica. I am strictly against it.
Q : What could be the origin of these speculative theories
according to you?
A : It is difficult to say. I think, some of these ideas are the
stretched out versions of grand generalisation, which give one a
free way to sky high imagination. Although, I am sure,
Boenninghausen must not have ever imagined that his concept of
grand generalisation will one day get such a fantastic
transformation ! Boenninghausen wanted to say that
certain
modalities may be generalised to have broader application of the
materia medica. Boger stretched it little further, Phatak and
others supported it in the sixties.
Probably, those in search of new methods to teach old ideas and
for the entertainment of the delegates at seminars with these so
called novel methods did the extreme distortion.
Q : But, don't you think such analysis and the teaching is
thought provoking and interesting ? Do you think it helps the
student understand remedies better?
A : Yes, I agree that it is interesting to hear such theories and
stories. But are we interested in just getting entertained or in
producing consistent results in practice ? Do we want to make
homoeopathy merely interesting to study or have an effective
practice ? More and more experienced practitioners are getting
conscious over this issue and are have started showing a long-
term concern.
It may be perhaps very entertaining to hear the cases where the
prescriptions are derived from some vague symptoms. I was told
that a remedy is taken by a prover sitting in a room and it is
also believed to be proved by another person sitting in another
room, but without taking a dose of the remedy ! He just medicates
and proves the remedy !! I am hearing that based on the dreams
seen by mother during the pregnancy is used to prescribe a remedy
for a 10 years old boy. One of the latest theories I heard lately
was about a case where the prescription is based on the past life
of the patient ! If you call this stuff interesting, it is
interesting, no doubt, but it is funny and utter non-sense. Where
is the limit ? Where is the rationale ?
An analogy will not be out of place if I say that when an
allopath successfully treats cases of Pneumonitis with
standard antibiotics, he makes no dramatic theories, he just does
his job. It is more important for us to repeatedly succeed and
produce predictable results.
Q : What about the doctrine of signature ?
A : The doctrine of signature is good to gather the initial
information about the remedy. But, you do not need to work hard
to find a relation with every feature of the original source and
make a connection with the remedy. One could say that Graphites
is an inert substance and correspondingly the remedy is dull and
docile. But the same rule does not apply for Lycopodium which is
also an inert substance and similarly for Ferrum. If we had to
make such connections, we would have an interesting materia
medica where a banana remedy should be a great aphrodisiac and so
on ! This is not homoeopathy.
I do not believe in such speculative theorising. Hahnemann was
wise enough to guard against his own proposed theory of the
doctrine of signature.
Q : Let me ask you a frequently asked question, what does
classical homoeopathy mean to you?
A : It is simple. Classical homoeopathy, for me is nothing but
practice based on the fundamental principles laid down by
Hahnemann. A case has to be well taken, thoughtfully analysed,
thoroughly evaluated. The prescribing totality should cover the
mentals, the generals, the particulars. It should also reflect
the pathology, the miasmatic predisposition.
The totality should reflect the patient as an individual. The
selection of a single remedy, correct potency selection based on
the susceptibility and other criteria alongwith a long term plan
for the case, are all integral components of classical
homoeopathy.
Q: Another similar question is about the constitutional remedy.
What is it according to you, and does the constitutional remedy
remain same all life long ?
A: I think, there should be no controversy about it. The
constitutional remedy is one which the constitution calls for at
any given phase in life. It can not change frequently, but it
can not remain the same life-long. It should not.
One can compare the constitutional remedy to an overcoat. The
measurement of it would change very slowly from birth to the
age of say, 18 years, after which its height remains
more or less the same but the width might change, say every 5-10
years. Its consistency, the thickness and the material might
require some change depending on the weather. If it snows, one
might need to wear gloves and a scarf. This is just an analogy.
The constitutional remedy essentially covers the totality of the
case. The constitutional remedy can not be determined on the
basis of some vague speculative theme.
Our body system or constitution is very
intricate and we understand it little. I do not think that we can
fit it in a box of a single constitutional remedy forever.
For part-II of the interview, click here..
Goto the main page