Sankaran’s Sensation Method – Not Homeopathic, Not scientific


Chandran Nambiar
Sankaran’s ‘Sensation Method’-
Homeopathy Crippled  by Lack of Basic Scientific Awareness

Corner-stone of ‘Sankaran Method’ is classifying drugs into ‘animal’, ‘plant’, and ‘mineral’ kingdoms. Then each kingdom is related with particular group of ‘vital sensations’. Plant remedies are used for individuals having ‘vital sensations’ belonging to the group of ‘sensitivity’, animal remedies are used for those having ‘viatal sensations’ belonging to the class of ‘survival instincts’, and mineral remedies for ‘structural consciousness’.

First, we have to analyze the concept of ‘remedy kingdoms’. Medicinal properties of any remedy are determined by the chemical structure and properties of the individual chemical molecules they contain. Because, it is individual drug molecules that act upon biological molecules, produce inhibitions, molecular pathology and associated symptoms. During potentization, it is the individual drug molecules that undergo molecular imprinting, and as such, it is the individual molecular imprints that act as therapeutic agents. In the absence of this molecular perspective of our medicinal substances, we fall prey to all sorts of unscientific theories that misguide us gravely.

Let us consider a particular remedy belonging to plant kingdom. The molecular composition as well as chemical and medicinal properties of the particular drug sample will be decided by various factors. It will contain kingdom-specific, family-specific, species-specific, variety specific, plant-specific and environmental-specific chemical molecules. Part of plant from which the drug substance is extracted is also a decisive factor. Nux vomica tinctures prepared from seeds, fruits, flowers, leaves, bark or root of nux vomica plant will have different molecular composition and medicinal properties. Some molecules will be common to all samples from a particular plant. Certain other molecules will be common to all samples from a particular species. There will be some molecules common to family, as well as some common to plant kingdom as a whole.  Plants belonging to same family will have some common genes, which would produce some similar proteins and enzymes, that would lead to similar molecular processes and synthesis of similar molecules. There would be kingdom-specific, family specific, species specific, variety specific and individual specific and tissue specific chemicals in a plant drug.

As per this perspective, medicinal properties of a given drug substance of ‘plant kingdom’ will be decided by the collective properties of organ specific, plant specific, variety specific, species specific, family specific and kingdom specific chemical molecules contained in them. It is obvious that it is wrong to think that medicinal properties of a drug substance could be assumed by the ‘kingdom’ to which it belongs.

This is applicable to all drugs belonging to mineral as well as animal kingdoms.

When animal or plant substances are disintegrated or divided into individual molecules, they become similar to mineral drugs at molecular level. There are many drugs which could not be included in any particular kingdom. Petroleum is a mineral, but it is the product of disintegration of animal and vegetable matter under ocean beds. Acetic acid is a mineral, but it is prepared from vegetable products. How can we say lactic acid, prepared from milk is plant remedy or mineral remedy? All of us consider calc carb as mineral drug, but exactly it is the ‘middle layer of oyster shells’, and as such, is an animal drug. Kreasote is combination of phenols prepared from wood, and how can we say it is ‘plant’ or ‘mineral’?

At molecular level, the dividing line between ‘plant, animal and mineral’ kingdoms is irrelevant. It is the molecular structure and chemical properties that decide the medicinal properties. To be more specific, it is the functional groups or moieties that act as decisive factor. Classifying drugs on the basis of ‘kingdoms’ and assigning certain ‘mental level sensations’ to them is totally unscientific and illogical. It illustrates the pathetic level of scientific awareness that rules the propagators of ‘sankaran method’.

Rajan Sankaran’s ‘sensation’ method is based on the concepts of ‘deeper level vital sensations’ and corresponding ‘remedy kingdoms’. This method has nothing in common with classical homeopathy, where symptoms belonging to mentals, physical generals and particulars, with their qualifications such as causations, sensations, locations, modalities and concomitants decide the selection of similimum.

According to this theory, ‘structure’ is the basic sensation of ‘minerals’, ‘sensitivity’ is the basic sensation of ‘plants’ and ‘survival’ is the basic sensation of ‘animals’.

According to this methods, case taking involves an inquiry into ‘deeper levels of consciousness’, by prompting the patient to introspect from ‘symptoms’ into ‘deeper, deeper and still deeper’ levels so that his basic ‘vital sensation’ is explored. Then this ‘vital sensation’ is used to decide the ‘kingdom’ to which the patient  belong. Remedies are selected from these ‘remedy kingdoms’.

The most dogmatic part of this theory is the relating of ‘vital sensation’ with ‘remedy kingdoms’. On what basis Dr Sankaran says ‘sensitivity’ is the ‘vital sensation’ of ‘plants’? Any logical or scientific explanation for this relationship? If we go through materia medica of various drugs, we can see many ‘animal’ and ‘minerals drugs’ having sensitivity of high order. How can anybody claiming to be a homeopath ignore the whole drug provings and materia medica to declare that ‘sensitivity’ is the ‘vital sensation’ of ‘plants’ only?

When a homeopath says ‘sensitivity’ is the ‘vital sensation of plants, it means all plant remedies have produced such a characteristic sensation in healthy individuals during drug proving. To say ‘animal drugs’ have ‘vital sensation’ of ‘survival instinct’, a homeopath should be capable of showing examples from materia medica to justify that statement. Same with ‘vital sensations’ of mineral drugs. Our materia medica does not show that only ‘plant drugs’ produced ‘sensitivity’ in provers.  We can see many ‘animal’ and ‘mineral’ drugs with high order of ‘sensitivity’.  If not from materia medica, where from Dr Sankaran ‘invented’ that ‘vital sensation’ of ‘sensitivity’ is the basic characteristic of ‘plant kingdom’?

See the rubric ‘sensitive’ in ‘mind’ of kent repertory:
[Kent]Mind : SENSITIVE, oversensitive:- Acon., Aesc., Aeth., Alum., Am-c., Anac., Ang., Ant-c., Apis., Arg-n., Arn., Ars., Ars-i., Asaf., Asar., Aur., Bar-c., Bell., Bor., Bov., Bry., Calc., Calc-p., Calc-s., Camph., Cann-s., Canth., Carb-an., Carb-s., Carb-v., Cast., Caust., Cham., Chin., Chin-a., Chin-s., Cic., Cina., Clem., Cocc., Coff., Colch., Coloc., Con., Crot-h., Cupr., Daph., Dig., Dros., Ferr., Ferr-ar., Ferr-p., Fl-ac., Gels., Gran., Hep., Hyos., Ign., Iod., Kali-ar., Kali-c., Kali-i., Kali-n., Kali-p., Kali-s., Kreos., Lac-c., Lach., Laur., Lyc., Lyss., Mag-m., Med., Meph., Merc., Mez., Mosch., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nat-p., Nat-s., Nit-ac., Nux-v., Ph-ac., Phos., Plat., Plb., Psor., Puls., Ran-b., Sabad., Sabin., Samb., Sanic., Sars., Seneg., Sep., Sil., Spig., Stann., Staph., Sulph., Tab., Teucr., Ther., Thuj., Valer., Verat., Viol-t., Zinc.

In this list, 46 remedies belong to ‘mineral kingdom’: alumina, ammo carb, antim crud, arg nit, ars, ars iod, aur, baryta, borax, calc, calc phos, calc sulph, carb sulph, causticum, cupr, ferr, ferr ars, ferr ph, fl acid, hep, iod, kali group, mag mur, mercury, natrum group, nit acid, phos acid, phos, platinum, plumbum, sanicula, silicea, stannum, suplh, zinc

12 remedies are from ‘animal kingdom’: Apis, cantharis, carb an, crot h, lac can, lach, med, moschus, psorinum, sep, theri.

Remaining 56 remedies are of ‘plant kingdom’.

On what basis sankaran says ‘sensitivity’ is the ‘vital sensation’ of plant kingdom? How can anybody say persons who are ‘sensitive’ at the deeper’ level need ‘plant remedies only? How can this theory be called homeopathy?

Similarly, if we examine various rubrics belonging to ‘survival’ instinct, or ‘structural’ sensations, we can see they are not limited to animal or mineral remedies only. Many ‘plant remedies’ have such symptoms.

According to Rajan Sankaran, FEAR is the indication of VITAL SENSATION of ‘survival instincts’ which need an ANIMAL KINGDOM drug. Based on which materia medica  Dr Rajan Sankaran says ‘vital sensation’ of ‘fear’ indicates only ‘animal kingdom remedy’?

Please see the MIND rubric FEAR in Kent Repertory:
[Kent]Mind : FEAR:- Absin., Acet-ac., Acon., Aeth., Agar., Agn., Aloe., Alum., Am-c., Anac., Ang., Ant-c., Ant-t., Arg-n., Ars., Ars-i., Asaf., Aur., Bapt., Bar-c., Bar-m., Bell., Bor., Bry., Bufo., Cact., Calad., Calc., Calc-p., Calc-s., Camph., Cann-i., Cann-s., Caps., Carb-an., Carb-s., Carb-v., Cast., Caust., Cham., Chin., Chin-a., Chlor., Cic., Cimic., Coca., Coc-c., Cocc., Coff., Coloc., Con., Croc., Crot-h., Cupr., Daph., Dig., Dros., Dulc., Echi., Elaps., Eupho., Ferr., Ferr-ar., Ferr-p., Form., Gels., Gent-c., Glon., Graph., Hell., Hep., Hydr-ac., Hyos., Hyper., Ign., Iod., Ip., Kali-ar., Kali-br., Kali-c., Kali-i., Kali-n., Kali-p., Kali-s., Lach., Lil-t., Lob., Lyc., Lyss., Mag-c., Mag-m., Manc., Meli., Merc., Merc-i-r., Mez., Mosch., Mur-ac., Murx., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nat-p., Nat-s., Nicc., Nit-ac., Nux-v., Onos., Op., Petr., Phos., Phyt., Pip-m., Plat., Psor., Puls., Ran-b., Raph., Rheum., Rhod., Rhus-t., Rhus-v., Ruta., Sec., Sep., Sil., Spig., Spong., Squil., Stann., Staph., Stram., Stront., Stry., Sul-ac., Sulph., Tab., Tarent., Thuj., Til., Valer., Verat., Zinc.

See. 75 drugs belong to PLANT KINGDOM! 54 are MINERAL drugs! Only 9 ANIMAL drugs! How Rajan Sankaran say only ANIMAL drugs are indicated for ‘vital sensation’ of ‘survival instincts’? By this approach, the practitioner who looks only ‘animal’ drugs is actually deprived of a large number of drugs belonging to other ‘kingdoms’, one of which may be the real similimum.

There may be many patients ‘sensitive at deeper levels’ who may require ‘animal’ or ‘mineral’ drugs if we select drugs using homeopathic method of totality of symptoms. Limiting all ‘sensitive’ patients to ‘plant kingdom’ remedies may be detrimental in such cases.

Rajan Sankaran says FEAR is the expression if ‘vital sensation of survival instincts’ which the ‘theme’ or quality of ‘animals’. As such, sankaran method uses only ‘animal remedies’ for people exhibiting ‘deep seated’ fear.

Homeopathic understanding of medicinal properties of drug substances are based on symptoms produced in healthy individuals during drug provings. Those symptoms are listed in our materia medica and repertories. Similimum by comparing symptoms of patients with symptoms of drugs, which is the basis of our therapeutic principle ‘similia similibus curentur’.

Please go to KENT REPERTORY> MIND > FEAR: Aconite, Argentum Nit, Aurum, Bell, Borax, Calc Phos, Calc, Carb sulph, Cicuta, Digitalis, Graphites, Ignatia, Kali Ars, Lyco, Lyssin, Nat Carb, Phos, Platina, Psor, Sepia and Stram are the drugs listed with THREE MARKS under FEAR.

As per homeopathic method of similimum being selected on the basis of our materia medica, these are the prominent drugs to be considered in patients with characteristic sensation of FEAR.

But, according to Sankaran, FEAR indicates ‘vital sensation’ of ‘survival instincts’, which needs ‘animal remedies’ only. Only animal remedies found in above list are Lyssin, Psorinum and Sepia. Homeopaths practicing Sankaran method will obviously ignore all other drugs in this list, since they are not ‘animal remedies’. Does this approach strengthen homeopaths, or debilitate them?

I would like to know, from where Dr Snkaran got the idea that only ‘plant remedies’ have ‘fear’ and ‘survival instincts’? Which drug proving? Which materia medica? A person cannot claim to be homeopath by ignoring all available homeopathic literature on materia medica, and producing materia medica and symptoms from his fancies.

Some people claim, Sankaran’s concepts are based on his ‘observations’.
Did he conducted drug provings of all drugs and ‘observe’ their symptoms? Did he prove the symptoms given in our materia medica are not reliable? Which proving showed him sepia, lyssin and psorinum has more ‘fear’ than phos, bell, stram or arg nit?

Would Sankaran say a homeopath cannot cure a patient having ‘survival instincts’ and ‘fear’ using phosporous or stramonium, if they turn out to be similimum on the basis of totality of symptoms. Should we avoid phos, since it is not an ‘animal drug’?

Please see following rubrics:
[Kent]Mind : FIGHT, wants to:- Bell., Bov., Hipp., Hyos., Merc., Sec.

[Kent]Mind : QUARRELSOME:- Acon., Agar., Alum., Ambr., Am-c., Anac., Anan., Ant-t., Arn., Ars., Aster., Aur., Bar-c., Bell., Bor., Bov., Brom., Bry., Calc., Calc-s., Camph., Canth., Caps., Caust., Cench., Cham., Chel., Chin., Con., Cor-r., Croc., Crot-h., Cupr., Dig., Dulc., Elaps., Ferr., Ferr-ar., Fl-ac., Hipp., Hyos., Ign., Ip., Kali-ar., Kali-c., Kali-i., Lach., Lepi., Lyc., Lyss., Merc., Merl., Mez., Mosch., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nat-s., Nicc., Nit-ac., Nux-v., Olnd., Pall., Petr., Ph-ac., Phos., Plat., Plb., Psor., Ran-b., Rat., Rheum., Ruta., Seneg., Sep., Spong., Stann., Staph., Stram., Stront., Sul-ac., Sulph., Tarent., Thea., Thuj., Til., Verat., Verat-v., Viol-t., Zinc.

According to sankaran, ‘quarelling’ and ‘fighting’ indicates ‘survival instincts’, which require ‘animal remedies’.

Under the rubric “Mind : FIGHT, wants to”, not a single ‘animal remedy’ is seen, except hipp.

Under ‘quarrelsome’, ambra, asterias,cantharis, cenchris, corralium, crotalus, elaps, hipp, lach, lyssin, psor, sep, spong, and tarent are the animal remedies.

Would you say, all remedies other than these ‘animal remedies’ should be eliminated while selecting a similimum for this patient?

According to sankaran, JEALOUSY is a ‘vital sensation’ of ‘ANIMAL KINGDOM’.

See this rubric:
[Kent]Mind : JEALOUSY:- Anan., Apis., Calc-p., Calc-s., Camph., Cench., Coff., Gall-ac., Hyos., Ign., Lach., Nux-v., Op., Ph-ac., Puls., Raph., Staph., Stram.

LACHESIS and HYOS are 3 marks drugs for this symptom. Only APIS, CENCHRIS, and LACHESIS are ‘animal’ drugs’. Anan, Camph, Coff, Hyos, Ign, Nux, Opium, Puls, Raph, Staph and Stram are ‘plant remedies’. Calc P, Calc S, Gall ac and Phos ac are mineral drugs.

We  have to eliminate HYOS when searching a similimum for a person with jealousy as a prominent symptom, if we follow Sankaran method!

Homeopathic materia medica or repertory does not support Sankaran’s theory that persons with ‘vital sensation’ of ‘jealousy’ would require ‘animal drugs’ only.

Sankaran says LACK OF SELF CONFIDENCE indicates a vital sensation of ‘structural consciousness’, which is a MINERAL quality. Only ‘mineral drugs’ have to be considered for patients exhibiting ‘vital sensation of LACK OF SELF CONFIDENCE.

See this rubric in kent repertory:
[Kent]Mind : CONFIDENCE, want of self:- Agn., Alum., Anac., Anan., Ang., Arg-n., Aur., Bar-c., Bell., Bry., Calc., Canth., Carb-an., Carb-v., Caust., Chin., Chlor., Dros., Gels., Hyos., Ign., Iod., Kali-c., Kali-n., Kali-s., Lac-c., Lach., Lyc., Merc., Mur-ac., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nit-ac., Nux-v., Olnd., Op., Pall., Phos., Plb., Puls., Ran-b., Rhus-t., Ruta., Sil., Stram., Sul-ac., Sulph., Tab., Ther., Verb., Viol-t., Zinc.

Only ANACARDIUM is 3 marks drug for this symptom. It is a PLANT REMEDY!

24 drugs- Agnus, Anac, Anan, Ang, Bell, Bry, Carb v, China, Dros, Gels, Hyos, Ign, Lyc, Nux V, Oleand, Opium, Puls, Ran b, Rhus t, Ruta, Stram, Tab, Verb and Viol t are PLANT REMEDIES.

5 drugs- Canth, Carb an, Lac can, Lach and Ther are ANIMAL DRUGS.

23 drugs- Alum, Arg Nit, Aur, Bar c, Calc, Caust, Chlor, Iod, Kali c, Kali n, Kali s, Merc, Mur ac, Nat c, Nat m, Nit ac, Pall, Phos, Plumb, Sil, Sul ac, Sul and Zinc are MINERAL DRUGS.

Materia medica or repertories no way justify Sankaran’s theory that LACK OF SELF CONFIDENCE would require only MINERAL REMEDIES. How can a person claiming to be homeopath make a theory and method of practice totally ignoring our whole materia medica and drug proving?

Sankaran’s reputation, experience or vast followings should not prevent us from asking genuine questions. We need answers for these questions, since Sankaran claims to be a homeopath.

Sankaran’s method will result in gravely disabled in incapacitated homeopathic practice, preventing homeopaths from utilizing the unlimited potentials of our materia medica.

Obviously, the basic dogma of ‘sensations-kingdom’ relationship on which ‘Sankaran’s method’ is built up lacks the support of logic or materia medica.

Anybody can make any theories. But it is wrong to say it is homeopathy.

As part of our mission to evolve and promote scientific homeopathy, we have to discuss and analyse various existing theories about homeopathy . We have to analyse and expose each and every ideas, concepts and methods in homeopathy that hinder scientific transformation of homeopathy.

Without criticizing and exposing wrong ideas and wrong practices, we cannot evolve and promote right ideas and right practices in homeopathy.

Some friends have expressed their apprehension that criticizing wrong theories and practices happening in homeopathy in public will harm the good will and reputation of our community and our therapeutic system.

I do not subscribe to that view. All these ‘wrong things’ in homeopathy are done and promoted by their propagators in public, without any concern about the harm they are doing, through articles, books, interviews and seminars all over the world, making homeopathy a topic of unending mockery before the scientific community. All these things are already known to general public better than homeopaths themselves.

These people have already done enough damage to homeopathy through their unscientific theories and nonsense practices. They supply arms and ammunition to skeptics to attack homeopathy.

If homeopathic community continue let these people go like this, we cannot even dream about making homeopathy a scientific medical system, and get it recognized as such even in a far distant future.

It may help in creating an aura around the teacher, which would attract people to seminars. That is not a silly thing, where money matters above homeopathy!

In his 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”

How would the followers of Sankaran respond to these statements?

Collect all mentals, physical generals and particular symptoms of your patient, with all qualifications such as causations, sensations, locations, modalities and concomitants. Then grade the symptoms into uncommon, common, mental, physical general and particulars. Then repertorize. Compare the materia medica of drugs coming top in repertorization, and decide a similimum. That is the simple way of homeopathic practice- and the most successful way.

If a drug is similimum according to totality of symptoms, it does not matter whether that drug belongs to animal, mineral or plant kingdoms. It does not matter to which ‘sub kingdom’ or ‘family’ the drug belongs. Such knowledge does not make any difference in our similimum.

Chandran Nambiar. Kerala
Email :

  • Dr. Mrinal

    Hello doctor chandan,
    Plz do see my long scream at :

  • Nicely described, valid arguments with references Chandran Nambiar sir. Expecting Dr. Sankaran’s feed back on this article.

    • Thank you, doctor

      • Dr. Nguyen

        An agriculture expert reviewed another agriculture professor’s seminar: the efficacy of Old horse manure. So the expert says, “why would the age of the horse make a difference? Theory crippled by lack of scientific awareness. Horse’s age irrelevant to implications of crop development.”

        • Dr. Nguyen

          Chandran makes an irrefutable argument. The science behind pharmcotherapeutic treatment cannot be compared with plant kingdoms. Pharmcotherapeutic processes, through a series of chemical manipulation, restores organ function despite the root cause of the issue. 
          I haven’t studied homeopathy, but the basic premise is to address the physical effects of the root cause by improving a SPECIFIC immune system function to help the body heal itself. Basically  to remove the problem, address the root’s physiological effects. 
          I mean there’s no real therapeutic treatment that cures the common cold or any disease. They just stabilize organ function until the body heals itself. The body may not heal as rapid but organ function restores quickly
          Same with homeopathics, they don’t cure the disease but instead they provide “nutrients” to allow the body to properly address specific symptoms that have lead to pathology. It may not restore function as rapidly but the body fixes the cause quickly.
          So from the homeopathic practice developed over 200 years, Sankaran expands on one theoretical idea. Sounds like an idea toward psychosomatic treatment. 

  • Of course linking particular sensations to only particular groups is very much wrong, as it will be whole chemical based on of course its constituents too for energy that will be entrapped in alcohol. Though yes what that energy is, has always remained a big question, as neither any form of electromagnetic energy too has been detected in homeopathic medicines. It however is energy, and not those molecular imprints with which you have been misguiding homeopathic community from long, and trying to figure out a new homeopathy without vital force and energy mechanisms by your false explanations…

    If there are others proposing wrongs, you too are one among them…


    • I have nothing to argue with this young man living in a world of illusions and fancies. I would suggest every body to read his book from the site he provided. Once you read a few initial pages of his VARUN THEORY, you will start wondering what happened to this smart young man, you will most probably prescribe a drug for his mental condition.

      I really appreciate his courage to make such a ‘grand theory’ and call it VARUN THEORY, and publish a massive book on it. No scientist ever introduced a theory in his own name. Hahnemann did not call his therapeutic system as HAHNEMANN THEORY. Hering never called his laws ‘hering laws’, but somebody later called it so. Avogadro law was named after him by somebody else. Einstein did not introduce an einstein theory. Newton made ‘laws of motion’, but somebody later started to call it ‘newtons laws’.

      For the first time in the history of human knowledge, a 30 yr old young man comes with a theory named after his name, and publishes a book in that name. THAT IS REALLY UNIQUE AND COMMENDABLE.

      Now, with a single sentence, he has proved MIT wrong! “Molecular Imprinting Theory – Another wrong proposition to basis of Homeopathy”. He explained the reasons also. Anybody got anything from what he said?

      I will not request Mr Varun to read something on ‘molecular imprinting’ and ‘molecular imprinted polymers’ before declaring “molecular imprinting now of whole chemical, and of individual molecules is far out of question”. I am sure, he will not, and even if he read it, his mental condition is such that he cannot understand such things. He is so much obsessed with thought about some mysterious “unique energy”, even though he confesses “we haven’t found tracks of this unique energy”.

      So, varun, be happy in your beautiful world of illusions, spinning theories about ‘unique energy”. I am not available for an argument. GOODBYE!

  • Terra Yott

    In any seminar or lecture I have attended, and in his teachings, Rajan Sankaran has always humbly expressed his position on his “method” in relationship to Hahneman’s principles of classical homeopathy. It is merely another tool to use in our quest for the similimum, based on his many years of devoted and passionate clinical experience. To the best of my knowledge and experience, he has never claimed to have developed a replacement for the fundamental principles, rather he has merely added to the development of practical and proven philosophy regarding case taking and prescribing based on his work in the field. He is always expressing a preference for a solid foundational understanding of homeopathy before further study of his method. He is also quite willing to admit his setbacks and mistakes along the way. He has many clinical examples of cured/proven cases and many years of successful prescribing under his belt. It goes without saying that he must be doing something right. We have all developed and honed, or wish to hone, our individual style in our attempts to further serve our patients, and without the ability for our profession to corraborate and share our ideas and experiences without prejudice, homeopathy will never be able to fully shine. We all have choices…we can choose to evolve and continue to develop a consistent system of medicine with strong foundational values that capitalizes on the experience of proven professionals over time, or we can choose to remain stagnant and ignore the amazement of further exploration into the possibility that we can improve on Hahnemann’s teachings…as we all know he would have.

    • drofart

      Hello dear,
      You may say for or against SM but the bitter truth is that, Sankaran sir is causing a great deal of injury to homoeopathy. A keen observer & a critical thinker, who knows what is homoeopathy & how it works, ll always be bothered by such selfish works. There are hundreds of flaws in theory & thousands in practical. How can he treat a child, a psycho, an acute disease,an uneducated patient, predominant physical disorder with out perceptible mental symptom ? Let him the question is how can we ?

  • Rajan Sankaran gives a case of ‘tumor in eye ball’ cured by ‘argentum nit’ as an example of successful employment of his ‘sensation method’:

    “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 we analyze, this case, we would realize that sankaran did not utilize his ‘kingdom approach’ in this case. He does not say ‘argentum nitricum’ was selected as a ‘mineral drug’, as he normally does. Instead, he says “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.

    Rajan Sankaran, being a very experienced physician having mastered the materia medica and successfully treated thousands of cases in his practice, could rightly select ‘arg nit’ as the correct similimum from symptoms such as ‘general sensation of suffocation’, ‘sensation of incordination’, and of course, from other numerous symptoms and observations he would have collected during case taking but opted to give in his case report.

    Can any less experienced follower of sanakaran, with lesser materia medica knowledge, ever select ‘arg nit’ as the similimum of this patient, on the basis of ‘suffocation’ and ‘incoordination’ only, and a knowledge that patient needs a ‘mineral drug’ as per sankaran’s theory? Please note, Sankaran does not mention ‘kingdom’ while explaining this case.

    Any homeopath who knows how to take case, repertorize and decide a similimum using materia medica, could have very easily selected ‘arg nit’ in this case by classical method in a very simple way.

    Since the patient is coming with ‘tumor in eye’, an ordinary homeopath would start case taking by collecting symptoms with ‘eye’ and ‘vision’, trying to collect all modalities, sensations and concomitants associated with ‘eye’ and ‘vision’.

    The ‘incoordination’ in eyes sankaran talks about will have to be probed in detail, to know whether it is problems of accommodation(accommodation defective), dimness of vision, diplopia, moving vision, alternate vanishing of vision or anything like that. Remember, all these problems of vision could be seen in materia medica of ‘arg nit’ in high order. Observe whether there is any chemosis, echymosis, lachrymation, pain, swelling, or any other peculiar sensations in eyes, with their modalities. Sensation of fullness in eyes, strbismus, cold-heat modalities also have to be ascertained. Itching, discoloration, frequent wiping, and many such features could be observed.

    After completing ‘particulars’, physician would inquire mentals and physical generals. What sankaran interprets as ‘suffocation’ would be described by the patient as aggravation in closed room, desire for open air, aggravation in crowded rooms, general physical anxiety, sensation of balls internally, intolerance of clothing, sensation of being constricted by a band around body, and such symptoms. See, most of these symptoms strongly indicate argentum nitricum.

    Regarding his mentals, from what sankaran explained, we can understand there would be symptoms such as persistent anxiety, despair, feeling of betrayed, sadness, anticipations, confusion of mind, being repudiated by relatives, dwelling on past bad experiences, delusions of getting punched, forsaken feelings, mortification and many such symptoms, most of which obviously points to argentum nitricm.

    For an experienced homeopath like sankaran, arg nit is the obvious prescription for this case without any special methods and techniques or even repertorization. Any homeopath who could collect these symptoms would reach argentum nit through simple repertorization. As for me, I would have reached arg nit by the time I complete my case taking.

    Why should Rajan sankaran pretend to be finding similimum in this type of obvious cases through his ‘sensation-kingdom’ method, only to confuse youg homeopaths?

    That is the game plan of all modern gurus and masters. They would prescribe correctly using their materia medica knowledge and, make results. Then they would pretend the made this miraculous results using their ‘special methods’ they are marketing! Innocent follower is betrayed, and his carrier doomed to be spoiled, by keeing on trying the ‘methods’ the guru taught them.

  • Dr Sruthi

    Mr Nambiar seem to have understood sensations well but have not understood the concept of Levels which is an equally important part of the Sensation method. The vital sensation is derived from the 5th level, the deeper level than emotion and delusion.So the jealousy a Hyoscyamus patient feels at emotional level is all togather different than a jealousy a snake remedy evokes.Which a repertory will not be able to differentiate and there understanding of the kingdom helps.
    How to differentiate the degree,intensity and type of any fear or dependence is not taught by repertory or any mathematical calculation. Homoeopathy is not only a science, but also an art.Understanding of vital sensation helps to fine tune your understanding of materia medica, repertory and case taking and finally your selection of similimum.No repertory teaches you how to differentiate similar medicines and
    what the difference is in degree,type and root of sensitivity of Pulsatilla, Lachesis and Phosphorus.

    This method is not opposing the scientific approach but it is beyond it which has its roots in fundamental principles.And application of this method in practice has helped in prescribing with more confidence and clarity and bringing better results for sure.

    Someone who has thought of out of the box and showed a new path has always paid the penalty including Dr. Hahnemann. To criticize is an easy job but to create is a huge task.Ending these lines with deep regards to Dr. Sankaran for enriching homoeopathy with his revolutionary work and insights.

    • A homeopath never prescribes hyos or lach on the basis of ‘jealousy’ only. He can differentiate between these two drugs very easily by comparing other mental, general and particular symptoms expressed by the particular patient. It is very simple for a homeopath who knows how to use repertory and materia medica. Differentiating between hyos and lach becomes an issue only for sankaran’s followers, who try to find similimum on the basis of singular ‘vital sensations’.

      According to sankaran, ‘jealousy’ of hyos is only a ‘superficial emotion’, where as in ‘snake poisons’, ‘jealousy’ is a ‘level 5’ vital sensation!

      • My approach to ‘differentiation’ of drugs s different. I would use the rubric ‘jealousy’ for this symptom:

        [Kent]Mind : JEALOUSY:- Anan., Apis., Calc-p., Calc-s., Camph., Cench., Coff., Gall-ac., Hyos., Ign., Lach., Nux-v., Op., Ph-ac., Puls., Raph., Staph., Stram.

        Then I can ‘eliminate’ drugs from this group, using two or more prominent mentals, generals and particulars expressed by the patient. For example, if patient is aggravated after sleep, I would use the following rubric:

        [Kent]Generalities : SLEEP : After : Agg.:- Acon., Aesc., Ambr., Am-m., Anac., Apis., Arn., Ars., Asaf., Bell., Bor., Bov., Bry., Cadm., Calc., Camph., Carb-s., Carb-v., Caust., Cham., Chel., Chin., Cina., Cocc., Coff., Con., Crot-c., Dig., Euphr., Ferr., Ferr-ar., Graph., Hep., Hyos., Ign., Kali-ar., Kali-c., Kali-p., Kreos., Lac-c., Lach., Lyc., Mag-c., Mur-ac., Naja., Nat-a., Nux-m., Nux-v., Olnd., Op., Paeon., Ph-ac., Phos., Phyt., Puls., Rheum., Rhus-t., Sabad., Samb., Sel., Sep., Spig., Spong., Stann., Staph., Stram., Sulph., Thuj., Verat.

        If the patient is prominently hot generally, I would use this rubric:

        [Kent]Generalities : HOT REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s):- Aesc., All-c., Aloe., Ambr., Apis., Arg-n., Asaf., Aur-i., Aur-m., Bar-i., Bry., Calad., Calc-i., Calc-s., Coc-c., Com., Croc., Dros., Ferr-i., Fl-ac., Grat., Ham., Iod., Kali-i., Kali-s., Lach., Led., Lil-t., Lyc., Nat-m., Nat-s., Nicc., Op., Pic-ac., Plat., Ptel., Puls., Sabin., Sec., Spong., Sul-i., Sulph., Thuj., Tub., Ust., Vesp., Vib.

        After eliminating with these three rubrics, only Lach.(8), Apis.(7), Puls.(7), Op.(4) remain.

        If the patient is very talkative, I will use this rubric:

        [Kent]Mind : LOQUACITY:- Abrot., Acon., Aeth., Agar., Agn., Aloe., Ambr., Anac., Ant-t., Apis., Arg-m., Arn., Ars., Ars-h., Ars-i., Aur., Bapt., Bar-c., Bell., Bor., Bov., Calad., Calc., Camph., Cann-i., Canth., Carb-s., Carl., Caust., Chel., Cimic., Coc-c., Cocc., Coff., Croc., Crot-c., Crot-h., Cupr., Dulc., Eug., Eup-pur., Ferr-m., Ferr-p., Gamb., Gels., Glon., Grat., Guare., Hydrc., Hyos., Iod., Ip., Kali-i., Lach., Lachn., Lil-t., Lyss., Mag-c., Meph., Merc-i-f., Mur-ac., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nicc., Nux-m., Nux-v., Oena., Onos., Op., Par., Petr., Phos., Plb., Podo., Psor., Pyrog., Rhus-t., Sec., Sel., Stann., Staph., Stict., Stram., Sulph., Tab., Tarax., Tarent., Teucr., Thea., Ther., Thuj., Trom., Verat., Viol-o., Zinc.

        Now, the choice is between Apis.(8), Op.(6), Lach.(11)

        If there is underlying grief as causative factor, I can use this rubric:

        [Kent]Mind : GRIEF : Ailments, from:- Am-m., Anac., Ant-c., Apis., Ars., Aur., Calc-p., Caust., Clem., Cocc., Colch., Coloc., Con., Cycl., Gels., Graph., Hyos., Ign., Kali-p., Lach., Lob-c., Lyc., Naja., Nat-m., Nit-ac., Nux-v., Ph-ac., Plat., Puls., Staph., Tarent., Verat.

        Now, only Lach.(14), Apis.(10) remain.

        If the patient dislikes company, I can use this rubric:

        [Kent]Mind : COMPANY : Aversion to:- Acon., Aloe., Alum., Ambr., Anac., Anan., Ant-c., Ant-t., Atro., Aur., Aur-s., Bar-c., Bar-m., Bell., Bry., Bufo., Bufo-s., Cact., Calc., Calc-p., Calc-s., Cann-i., Carb-an., Carb-s., Carb-v., Cedr., Cham., Chin., Cic., Cimic., Cinnb., Clem., Coca., Coloc., Con., Cop., Cupr., Cur., Cycl., Dig., Dios., Elaps., Eug., Ferr., Ferr-i., Ferr-p., Fl-ac., Gels., Graph., Grat., Ham., Hell., Helon., Hep., Hipp., Hydr., Hyos., Ign., Iod., Jug-c., Kali-bi., Kali-br., Kali-c., Kali-p., Kali-s., Lac-d., Lach., Led., Lyc., Mag-m., Mang., Meny., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nat-p., Nicc., Nux-v., Oxyt., Petr., Phos., Pic-ac., Plat., Psor., Ptel., Puls., Rhus-t., Sec., Sel., Sep., Stann., Sul-ac., Sulph., Tarent., Tep., Thuj., Til., Ust., Verat.

        Now, Only LACHESIS (16) remains.

        I will then go through the materia medica of LACHESIS and verify whether it agrees with all other important symptoms given by the patient.

        This is the most ideal, homeopathic way of differentiating between drugs to reach a similimum. We need not worry about ‘kingdoms’, or ‘levels of sensations’.

  • Any drug substance of plant origin contain diverse types of chemical molecules. Those chemicals would be life-specific, domain-specific, kingdom-specific, phylum-specific, class-specific, order-specific, family-specific, genus-specific, species-specific, variety-specific, individual plant-specific and tissue-specific. That means, not only common family, all these factors play a role in deciding medicinal properties and symptoms of any drug substance. Drugs belonging to common family, common genus, common order, common class, common kingdom, all would have SOME common properties. But they would differ upto TISSUE level. Nux vomica prepared from seeds will be different from that prepared from bark- with some common properties. It is the individual drug that is proved and potentized- not ‘family’ or genus. Giving undue importance to common properties of ‘families’ would undermine the principle of individualization in homeopathy. It will lead to ignoring materia medica and drug proving, and make homeopathy an art based on imaginations and fancies of some individuals.

  • dr.nilesh

    Dear Dr. Chandran,
    I would like to suggest u to read something in detail,try to understand it,try to follow it or apply it and then discuss the positive and negative findings of your experience with the experts and then u can say something about any approach. I think u have not read the sensation method in detail, u never ever try to understand it, so you are not able to follow and apply it.
    It seems from your criticisation that you r criticising or describing the things that are having no relation with the basics of sensation are writing something without knowing depth of the sankarans method.
    It is difficult for me to explain all the differentiation of the kingdoms here. But i m trying to show u the same.
    First and foremost thing u should know that kingdom should be classified only at the sensation level of the case taking. You might be not knowing this. You r trying to classify the kingdom at the level of repertory language. I think this is the worst mistake u are doing. Repertory is only the index. It also do not help in differenciation the materia medica and understanding of the remedies. And u r trying to fit them all in one.
    So please try to understand that repertory language is different from the sensation language. And u r judjing the sensation at the repertorial language.
    Of course there are limit and scope to each approach in homeopathic case taking and finding the similimum. But one should be get skillful in every approach by understanding and following each one. Afterall homeopathy is art and science.
    Lastly I can say that sensation method is the further evolution in homeopathy with her roots in the basic hahnemanian homeopathy. ” Aude Saphere”.

  • carl

    My concern is…
    1. Dr.Hahnemann was medically qualified Homeopath who invented Homeopathy.So, he had a very strong basic knowledge of Anatomy, Physiology, Pharmacy, Medicine and surgery.
    2.He established a principle to restore the sick to health–by altering an abnormal pathology to normal physiology–means cure.
    3. For ascertaining curative power of Drug and Disease Physician should possess the knowledge what he mentioned–Do ” sensation” method elaborates any of such principles ?
    Please, comment does sensation method explain any of this ?

  • Dr Owais Ahmed

    I feel that homoeopaths around the globe should stop criticizing each other & work together towards what is good. As far as the question of scientific evidence is concerned then homoeopathy spread around the world even when no scientific evidence was provided in the Hahnemannian era. What Hahnemann gave were only the results that he was getting in practice & nothing else. So our job is to give results in our practice no matter which method we follow either classical or sensation. This doesn’t mean that we should not put a scientific inquiry into it, which by all means will only make homoeopathy more clear, better & readily acceptable to the modern world.

  • Sergey Shatrov

    Sir, Corner-stone of ‘Sankaran Method’ is sensation. You would open any repertory or MM and read world: sensation!!!

    Hahnemann also took remedies from different kingdoms, plant, mineral, anymal, it is not matter!

  • In our materia medica, there are Lac vaccinum, Lac vac defloratum, Lac Vac Coagulatum, Lac Vac Floc- all from cows milk. They were proved separately, and have different symptomatology. According to you, all drugs prepared from any part or tissue of cow should represent the COW. And their symptoms and medicinal use will be decided by the ‘kngdom’ and ‘family’ to which cow belongs. There are other drugs prepared from COW such as ‘cholesterinum’, fel tauri, calculo bili, all with different symptomatology. You said “according to law of potentisation medicine carries the energy of substance as a whole not the particular molecular formation”.

    Do you believe drugs prepared from any part of nux vomica plant such as seeds, flowers, leaves, fruits, bark, root etc will be same in symptomatology and medicinal properties?

  • See how a dedicated follower of sankaran method explains his logic of prescribing ‘indian parrot’ for ‘leucoderma’. He selected the drug on the basis of “bird feeling at the experience level, like caged, confined, freedom, fly, etc. and than specific features to the parrot family that is the love between two entity, love as oneness, dependency for the partner for love”. This is the essence of sankaran method!

    See. ‘caged feeling’ will be present only for caged parrot- not free, wild parrots. So, we have to potentize ‘caged parrot’ itself!.

    May I ask a question? Excuse me if if I am talking foolish. Just to resolve my doubts. Were the symptoms such as sensations of “caged,confined,freedom, fly,etc. and than specific features to the parrot family that is the love between two entity, love as oneness, dependency for the partner for love” produced in healthy human beings during provings of ‘indian parrots’? In which materia medica I can read those symptoms?

    If not from drug proving, did you elicit those ‘sensations’ in live ‘indian parrots’ by observing their behavior? Is it the way we prepare materia medica of our drugs? Can we collect the ‘sensations’ of a dog, a cat or a cow by observing their behavior, and prescribe then potentized forms in persons behaving like those animals?

    If a patient expresses ‘vital sensation’ of being ‘caged’, and ‘desire to be free’, can I give him potentized broiler chicken as his similimum?

    • dr.krunal kosada

      this is last question to you sir from my side.Just forget about the any other method.Please clarify to the followers and believers of your theory that why u haven’t included any advance repertories in your software. Do you believe that the work whatever kent and hahnemann has done is complete and ultimate? And science which is growing by others is worthless.They were the only inventor in homeopathy,no other can do further establishment to make it more evolutionary. Do you believe that only 750 medicine of kent repertory suffiecient enough to run practice? Why i couldn’t found the complete repertory or synthesis in your similimum ultra software sir? Are u that much rigid to stick to the only old theorys and limited version of materia medica, rather to accepting the new repertories with many more new rubrics and medicine? And spreading same rigidity and unawareness to your followers by showing the practicality of chosing the medicine by repertorial method. It is also a big cheating to our science and followers of homeopathy to show them the half truth.I think before blaming to any other’s system you should see your face in mirror. If you cant open your mind for the advance repertory with new medicine also how can i expect something that you will understand the sensation method? I think that your spact is too thick to see the new era of homeopathy.

      • You very cleverly evades all questions raised about sensation method in my article, and turns the table asking me to “forget about the any other method”, and start discussing Similimum Ultra Software. Since outside the scope of this conversation, we can discus it some where else. Please confine to the topic.

        I have no “followers and believers”. Please don’t misunderstand.

        I have no any “theory”. I just proposed a “hypothesis”, which have to proved by scientific methods to call it a ‘theory’. Don’t call every proposed concepts as “theories”.

        I have raised some questions about your ‘new remedies’such as ‘indian paarot’ and ‘tortoise’. Please explain.

        New remedies should come. They should be proved according to homeopathic method and materia medic produced. That is why I asked about proving of ‘indian parrot’. You didnt answer. I am curious to know whether ‘indian parrot’ was proved and potentized as a whole, or any particular tissue, organ or secretions of ‘indian parrot’. Same curiosity about ‘tortoise’.

        I dont think homeopathy will become more scientific and advanced by discarding repertories, materia medica and drug proving, and all homeopaths start to prescribe ‘indian paarot’ for vital sensation of ‘caged feeling’.

        You should know, there are thousands of very successful homeopaths curing millions of patients using ‘only 750 drugs’ of kent repertory. Nobody questions new remedies coming. But they should come in homeopathic way of drug proving. If you think anybody talking about ‘repertories’ and ‘materia medica’ are ‘cheating’ homeopathy, I fail to comment. I think you have failed miserably in learning and using repertories, and understanding their importance in homeopathic practice.

        • dr.krunal kosada

          your thinking about me or any single homeopathy doesn’t harm anybody, but to raise question without proper knowledge and argue to prove it untill the other one let it go will definately harm the whole community of homeopaths. For your information dr.milind have written one web address to have look for new proving. you can have reference with book of Dr.nency herrick,annae schade, misha norland,dr.sujit chatterji, and the homoeopathic links for better understanding of new provings. If you search you can get the particular provings of indian parrot and tortoise also as i know who has done that.But you have to open your eyes for better view. And mr.nambiar now i dont want to stretch myself in this discussion anymore because i dont want to prove you wrong anywhere but because you have done such cretisicing thing to the other person that should not be done in any science. You may have question about the hypothesis.But to stating somebody’s name is not justified.To prove somebody wrong you are trying to close the intellect of so many person who are just followers by nature like us. They will get in the wrong paradigm and definately your article actually did harm to homoeopathy. And Requesting all the readers of these site to be unprejudice in thinking after reading any above comments.And please make your stand neutral to have more hypothesis like this to improve our practise atlast.

          • A single request. Can you give me a source where I can read provings of ‘indian parrot’ and ‘tortoise’? I want to learn it with ‘open’ mind.

          • You asked: “Do you believe that only 750 medicine of kent repertory is sufficient to run homeopathic practice?”

            According to you, we cannot run homeopathic practice without using ‘new remedies’ such as ‘indian parrot’, ‘tortoise’, ‘bear’s milk’ etc. You also accused me of “spreading rigidity and unawareness to your followers by showing the practicality of chosing the medicine by repertorial method”, as it is “a big cheating to our science and followers of homeopathy”.

            With my 42 years of experience with homeopathy, I am fully confident I can deal with almost any case with around 100 drugs in our materia medica. I do not need “750 drugs of kent repertory”. A repertory of 500 selected rubrics is enough for my work- not those ‘millions’ of unverified rubrics contained in ‘new repertories’. I very rarely used more than 20% of rubrics listed even in kent repertory.

            If you know how to use your repertories, materia medica and remedial agents judiciously, it is possible to ‘run homeopathic practice’ even with 100 well proven drugs.

            I am not against ‘new remedies’, if they are well studied, well proven, and if they are selected as similimum by similarity of their symptoms with those of the particular patient- not arbitrarily by so-called sensation method or signature method.

            I will also agree with the scientific method of using any potentized drugs based on the knowledge of their molecular constitution as well as the exact molecular processes involved in pathology.

            You can make your practice more scientific by enhancing your knowledge of biochemistry, drug chemistry and molecular imprinting.

          • When you say about ‘indian parrot’ as a remedy, you are bound to answer whether ‘indian parrot’ or ‘tortoise’ is proved and potentized as a whole, or any particular organ, tissue or secretions from ‘indian parrot’ or ‘tortoise’. We have to get at least that much knowledge about a drug used by homeopaths.

            Anybody with minimum knowledge of science would agree that a ‘drug’ prepared by potentizing ‘brain tissue’ of an ‘indian parrot’ will be different in chemical and medicinal properties from drugs prepared from lungs, heart, intestines, ovaries, eggs, excreta, skin, bone or feathers of same ‘indian parrot’. Which drug will you call ‘indian parrot’?

  • Swabir

    Test mail

  • dr.krunal kosada

    any of my colligue homeopath can have very good information regarding any new provings on the, so please register your self to make your knowledge upgrade with new provings.

    • Really a clever way of promoting a paid site here.

      SITE INFORMATION: “Access to the protected part of the website (systematics, search functions, links, sources, substance information) is only possible after you have payed the yearly subscription fee of 25 Euro. The subscription will not be prolonged automatically but only if you pay the fee again after one year.

      On this page you only find seminars that work with the method of systematic homoeopathy (Bombay or Sankaran method) or other methods referring to natural families of remedies, and therefore are directly connected to the purpose of this website”

  • Rajan

    Good discussions

  • A

    You know who’s killing homeopathy? You guessed it right – homeopaths.

    Why blame poor allopaths? They are NOT slinging mud at us we are there for each other. It’s because of opinions like these homeopathy is being banned from some countries. We, homeopaths are saying homeopathy is not scientific (i.e ‘Z’ person’s method is non – scientific eventually means homoeopathy is non – scientific. A=B, B=C hence A=C). People out there use articles like your’s as an evidence against homeopathy.

    The questions you have raised are excellent. Why not discuss it with the concerned person? Well in person – face to face is what I mean. It’s interesting that there’s so much we can learn from each other.

    Also in the Homeopathic Links interview, Vithoulkas says: “Sankaran and Jan Scholten alone has done more harm to homeopathy than all the enemies of homeopathy together.” You forget to copy paste the other name.

  • Narasimham

    it is true that The Rajansankarnas method there are anomalies, which rice eyebrows. But what we should see is not the way he went but what result he got. Secondly he is not mixing medicines and depending on single remedy single dose.that is the most greatness of the system

  • Aashish

    Dear all,
    I have a serious problem with myself and hope to find help here. I was having a headache and went to a homeopathic dr. He gave me some antidote for caffeine and other salts that are in a tablet for headache saying the antidote basically as a hormone. My brain went slow, and i am having reduced feelings as may be my tolerance increased or sensitivity decreased. I have no numbness less pain, every feeling is subdued. I feel very very less. Is this a nerve or brain problem? please help

  • pravin pandey

    Thank you nambiar sir u r absolutely right