Page 5 - Winter 18

On the third day, the morning started with a live case- taking on stage followed by all the teachers, one by one, presenting their analysis of the case and suggesting a remedy/treatment.
The teachers were Frederik Schroyens, Jan Scholten, Jeremy Sherr, Jonathan Hardy, Marcelo Candegabe, Massimo Mangialavori, Michal Yakir and Rajan Sankaran. Misha Norland was the master of dialogue.
There were around 300 delegates representing 30 countries.
So, how did it go?
I have been to seminars with most of these teachers before, but never have I sat down for a day of enlightening enter- tainment like this. Imagine sitting down in the morning to listen to both Schroyens and Scholten followed, after lunch with friends from all over the world, by an afternoon of Sherr and Sankaran – pure homeopathic paradise!
How did it go? Well, there were no casualties. There were no fights, to be frank there wasn't even a heated argument or an uncomfortable moment of confrontation. Everybody conducted themselves with deference and charm. The teachers went out of their way to compliment each other, presenting cases of remedies proven by the other teachers etc etc. The show was run with the usual disarming humour and grace of Misha Norland and Rajan Sankaran, which did a lot to keep a light positive mood and at times a very moving atmosphere. In a hall of 300+ people, the focus and the awareness of being part of something great was palpa- ble and profound.
The highlights for me were the unscripted moments, when these great minds were discussing their experiences, espe- cially on the (too) rare occasions where disagreements led to animated discussions. One such discussion came after Jonathan Hardy's presentation of the big cat-remedies, when in answer to a question about the significance, when using remedies from the animal kingdom, of the source of the remedy (the individual animal, the part of the animal
etc). A lively discussion followed as some teachers initially suggested that it is only the species that counts, whereas others felt that a lac- remedy was “milk” as much as it was the mammal it came from and would be different from a remedy made from blood from the same animal. Some offered examples of the individual circumstances (gender, pregnancy, manner of death) of the animal the remedy was sourced from reflecting in the remedy picture. This was all rounded off beautifully with everyone agreeing that the truth to the question has to be a reflection of all these observations. The state of the individual animal at the time (injury, captivity etc) plays a part. So does the tissue involved (milk, blood, hair etc) – but there is also an overall archetypical or even symbolic role to the species and the way they interact with or are used by humans. As one dele- gate put it “what happens to one falcon, happens to all falcons”.
Misha Norland and Rajan Sankaran
3