An interview with Jan Scholten An interview with Jan Scholten (R. Jackson) Jan Scholten, the Dutch Homeopath, came to San Francisco in May o !""# as part o a lecture tour ollowin$ pu%lication o his %ook, Homoeopathy an& the 'lements. his interview took place ust prior to the seminar. He has a %eautiul, liltin$, Dutch accent, so i you can ima$ine it, try rea&in$ it that way. AH* How &i& you come to write the %ook+ How lon$ &i& it take you to write it+ Scholten* wo years was the whole proect. F rom the irst, it is &iicult to tell. here was a lot o %ack$roun& work. $ot the %asic i&ea o the spiral, especially the risin$ up an& the all, three years, ive months a$o, then it took me a lon$ time to &o all the work, test all those reme&ies. t was &iicult to reine it, to make $o o& &ierential &ia$noses %etween all the sta$es, %ecause at the %e$innin$ ha& only the %asic i&ea, %ut not e-actly what were the &ierentials, the thin$s %etween all the sta$es. %e$an writin$ two years a$o, writin$ every &ay or our an& a hal months. woul& see patients in the mornin$ an& in the aternoon an& evenin$ woul& write, every &ay, even on weeken&s. AH* How was the process &ierent rom writin$ Homoeopathy an& Minerals+ Di& you have the element %ook in min& then+ Scholten* he irst %ook was &ierent, it was easy irst starte& thinkin$ ha& to write some articles an& then reali/e& that it was way too much, to e-plain e- plain the %asic i&ea, so thou$ht to make a %ook % ook o it. At that time &i&n0t have h ave the aintest i&ea o Homoeopathy an& the 'lements. AH* Are you amiliar with Men&eleyev+ Scholten* 1es, stu&ie& chemistry or two years. AH* So you know how he structure& the perio&ic ta%le, leavin$ %lanks to %e ille& in later as new elements woul& %e &iscovere&. Di& you have that in your min& as a mo&el in some way+ Scholten* 2ot consciously, %ut it0s in the %ack$roun&. 3hat was thinkin$4 many o the reme&ies in the earth must have a picture, even i we &on0t know it, so or me it was 5uite clear that all those elements in the perio&ic ta%le ha& to have a picture. he only thin$ was that we &i&n0t know them. 6y $uessin$ the reme&ies or a ew o the sta$es , an& &oin$ provin$s or a ew o the reme&ies it came alon$. he provin$s on 7irconium an& un$sten $ave us clues. 'specially the provin$ o 7irconium. t helpe& me un&erstan& the point a%out the %e$innin$, illin$ in the $aps, an& i someone is urther on than that sta$e, ust try the ne-t one. Most o what learne& was rom patients, what they were sayin$, or %oth %ooks, then, $enerali/in$, o course. 3hen 8hromium has a thin$, one patient who ha& %eneite& very well rom 8hromium, sai& that she ha& to prove hersel, then un$sten sai& it too, %ut in a &ierent way. At irst &i&n0t un&erstan& it, %ut then you $o on rom one o ne to the other an& then with Moly%&enum, $ot a provin$ rom ominello in Australia, it was the link. here was a &ream that clariie& the &arin$, challen$in$ part o it. A man was throwin$ a woman in the air an& catchin$ her a$ain. AH* 9ivin$ $reater wei$ht to the 5uestion one woul& ask a patient, :3hat0s the matter+: How &i& you come to the i&ea o the sta$es+ Scholten* t was a lash o insi$ht. t was an inspiration. t $ave me a kin& o euphoria or two &ays %ecause elt it ha& to %e that. hen it took two an& a hal years, $ivin$ the
reme&ies to patients an& seein$ that they worke&, like Scan&ium. 3e ha& no inormation a%out Scan&ium at all, it was inspiration. AH* 3hat is your %ack$roun&+ Scholten* have a lot o %ack$roun&s. My stu&ies o me&icine were 5uite uneventul, ust stu&ie& it. saw what they &i& in hospital an& &i&n0t like it so much, an& ha& a eelin$ that at least hal o those patients were %etter o not %ein$ there. 6ut then &i&n0t know much a%out homeopathy. knew it e-iste& %ut at that time was more involve& with her%olo$y an& naturopathy. hen inten&e& to $o to work as a psychiatrist %ut ha& to wait ive years to $et into the pro$ram, so %ecame a $eneral practitioner. still ha& to wait a year to enter that pro$ram, which is when %e$an to stu&y acupuncture an& homeopathy, thinkin$ coul& &o more than ust $ive anti%iotics. 3hen starte& stu&yin$ homeopathy an& hear& those stories a%out people eelin$ reuvenate&, like their ol& sel a$ain, ree, that kin& o thin$, ha& a eelin$ that this was real curin$4 so went on with it. t took me at that point. AH* 3ho has inluence& you most+ Scholten* At the %e$innin$ stu&ie& at the school in Hollan& that was very much inluence& %y Hahnemann, ;ent an& ;un/li, an& also went to seminars $iven %y ;un/li on a small islan& o the coast o 9ermany. worke& with that or a while, %ut it &i&n0t hol& or me. t was too limitin$, especially the amount o reme&ies was too limitin$, as well as the way he was workin$ with the reme&ies. then hear&, or the irst time, 9eor$e
syche an& Su%stance, there was a whole $oo& thin$ a%out the Ma$nesium0s. He tau$ht me a lot.
9eor$e ha& only one si&e o it, the paciist si&e, %ut the a$$ressive si&e is much more stresse& in >syche an& Su%stance there are two parts to the same thin$. AH* Are you sayin$ that one homeopath ten&s to $ive only one si&e o a reme&y+ Scholten* 1ou &on0t know, it0s a &evelopmental thin$. he uture can only tell. 1ou &on0t know i it0s inishe&, the uture can only tell. hat0s also the same with my %ooks. AH* s there a spiritual path or tra&ition that you ollow+ Scholten* A lot, %ut not special. 1ou know in a way, when Raan talks a%out a %asic &elusion, in a way it0s like 6u&&hism, it0s all connecte&. 3hen you talk a%out Milton 'rickson an& his psychotherapy, it0s the same as 6u&&hism. Someone has a kin& o picture, you show him a picture an& he says it0s a &elusion. AH* Di& 'rickson inluence you with the sta$es+ Scholten* 2o, not with the sta$es, %ut the %asic i&ea o what he &oes. n homeopathy, you $ive the same thin$ %ack. Do it an& &o it more. hey call it para&o-ical therapy, %ut it0s the same as homeopathy. He &oesn0t &o it with reme&ies %ut with interaction. AH* Do you see a relationship %etween your work with the ta%les an& alchemy+ Scholten* (lau$hs) he whole o homeopathy is alchemy. 1ou know the whole way o makin$ potencies is like alchemy. 3hen you rea& the ol& stories a%out alchemy, you &o it over an& over a$ain, you puriy it more an& more an& more, it0s like potenti/ation. 3hat0s also a connection is that you use su%stances, %ut the real &evelopment is in the min&. t0s the same in homeopathy. An& the %o&y ollows. t0s all the same. AH* 1ou are makin$ a system, 9ur&ie ha& a system where hy&ro$en was the principle component o the universe, an& was tol& that he an& Men&eleyev were han$in$ out to$ether in Moscow at the same time. Scholten* hey ha& a connection. AH* An& 9ur&ie ha& the i&ea that hy&ro$en was the su%stance that was hol&in$ the universe to$ether an& %ase& a theory o evolution aroun& it. Do you have a theory a%out your system relectin$ the evolution o humanity+ Scholten* More or less. was rea&in$ a %ook o Davi& Foster, or$et the title, an& he says that evolution is the &evelopment o the $rowin$ consciousness, that it %roa&ens, an& think that0s ri$ht. AH* ?ike the poem %y .S. 'lliot, returnin$ rom where we %e$an an& knowin$ it or the irst time. Scholten* 1es, %ut in a &ierent way4 we take with us the e-periences we learne&. AH* Do you in& that &evelopment $oes on in an or&erly manner, like rom sta$e !@ to !, or woul& it $o rom !@ to !!+ Scholten* 2ormally it $oes or&erly in the sense that in human lie you in& all the &evelopment normally4 %ut someone $ets stuck somewhere an& he takes that %ein$ stuck with him all the time. So he can have phases when he can %e stuck everywhere, %ut the system o &evelopment ten&s to %e or&erly. 6ut then you $o with the ne-t lesson when you &i&n0t really inish with the irst lesson, when you &i&n0t completely solve it, you only partially solve& it. AH* Do you have any eelin$s a%out reincarnation+ Scholten* For me it is the only thin$ that can %e true. (?au$hin$) t0s stupi& to think that it coul& not %e true. t0s also the case that in 8hristianity, that &urin$ the time o 8hrist it was normal, all over the worl&, like in n&ia, it0s normal, there0s har&ly anyone who thinks &ierently. Also with 8hristianity it0s normal, %ut in the Bth century there was a council
that &eci&e& that reincarnation wasn0t $oo&, so they took it o the %ooks. t ha& to &o with the ear, you know, live a $oo& lie now so you won0t $o to hell. he church woul& lose its power, it0s more a power thin$, an& politics, more than %ein$ in contact with it. AH* So, let0s say, hypothetically, you have a patient who is an Arsenicum at sta$e !@. 1ou treat them successully, &o they %ecome a Sulphur+ Scholten* 2o, you cannot tell. All the elements are proections o possi%ilities, o talents an& pro%lems. think that all the humans have all the possi%ilities in them, an& those talents. 6ut you can $et stuck with that talent an& so it can %e that someone $ets stuck in an Arsenicum kin& o a pro%lem, or make a pro%lem o it. 6ut the Sulphur is not a pro%lem at all. So the ne-t sta$e coul& %e anywhere, coul& %e Hy&ro$en a$ain. 3hat you see oten is that you start with the latest pro%lem, when they are in their a&ulthoo& or ol& a$e an& they have a :&irector: pro%lem. So you start with the 9ol& series an& you see many times they $o up to the Silver series or the ron series. 1ou solve that an& they $o to the 8ar%on series. t0s like the laws o He rin$, you $o %ack to your youth. hat0s what see happenin$ 5uite oten, %ut you cannot tell or sure. here are times when you have to $ive the Aurum or whatever. 1ou always have to look at what0s happenin$. For$et a%out all the theories an& look at what0s happenin$. AH* 1ou talk a%out &isease as creator. Scholten* he i&ea is that you create or yoursel a lesson to teach yoursel somethin$, an& or you, that nee&s a pro%lem, otherwise there is nothin$ to learn. So you can compare it with a play in a theater. 3hen you look at it rom the point o view o the actor, he0s really involve& in it. 3hen you look at it rom the point o view o the &irector, or him, it0s a creation. AH* 1ou ha& sai& in Homoeopathy an& Minerals, when you were talkin$ a%out :meta levels,: that a%straction makes it possi%le to pre&ict the picture o unknown reme&ies. 6y %asin$ your reme&ies on the position o the elements in the chart, as well as its sta$es, are you %ein$ as careul as you woul& %e in prescri%in$ a reme&y or someone as you woul& %e prescri%in$ a reme&y that has ha& a ullC%lown provin$+ Scholten* For me that is not a 5uestion. he point is that $et a patient with a picture. hen there are a ew possi%ilities4 know the picture, =;, so that0s not a pro%lem, can prescri%e it. =r, &on0t know the picture, an& then have to look at some point to $et a clue or it, look or some stran$e keynotes. 6ut in a case where you &on0t in& any clues, or some cases where you try some reme&ies %ut they &on0t seem to it, an& you &on0t have the eelin$ :that0s it:, you have to in& some other way. have my way o analy/in$ in Homeopathy an& the 'lements an& i it $ives a reme&y that its completely, so why shoul&n0t try it+ AH* o help the patient. Scholten* '-actly, to help the patient. his is the irst rule. have ten statements in my %ook. he irst is, in an unknown picture you have to $ive an unknown reme&y. t0s the ?aw o Similars. So when you try a known reme&y like Sulphur, in a case you &on0t un&erstan&, you have to ail, otherwise Homeopathy woul& %e cra/y AH* Hahnemann elt that an important cornerstone or the practice o Homeopathy was the reliance only on me&icines whose reactions ha& %een &etermine& %y careul provin$s. %elieve he wrote in the =r$anon that speculation on the action o me&icines %y usin$ them on patients, without irst knowin$ their true action, was unethical. How &o you
respon& to the criticism o your %ook, %y some, that it is promotin$ speculative, curative properties o unproven su%stances+ Scholten* here is a lot happenin$ there. must $o throu$h it one %y one. Hahnemann &i&n0t say that knowin$ the reme&y %y &oin$ the provin$ was the only way o knowin$ the reme&y. t coul& %e that he sai& that provin$s were a $oo& way o in&in$ a reme&y picture, an& that is true, they are a $oo& way o in&in$ a reme&y picture, %ut not the only way. 'very science starts with pure empirical ways o thinkin$4 ust look at it an& write it &own, &on0t think a%out it, ust look at it an& write &own all you see. hat0s what Hahnemann sai&, %ecause in his time there was only speculation. 2o one was really lookin$ at what was $oin$ on, so he was ri$ht, in that sense, %ut he coul& have meant only provin$s. hen, &on0t a$ree with him, there he0s alse. Hahnemann is alse in many ways in his =r$anon. t0s like a reli$ious type o thinkin$ that Hahnemann was the %e$innin$ one so he must %e correct in everythin$. that0s cra/y He trie& his %est an& ma&e many mistakes. t0s not true that you cannot repeat a the same reme&y twice, it0s cra/y, it0s not true, everyone &oes it. here are many points like that in the whole =r$anon. t &oesn0t mean &on0t respect Hahnemann, %ut it0s &iicult to ollow him %lin&ly like a $uru an& note it all &own e-actly what he sai&, an& never $o away rom it %y a little point. hat0s not science, that0s reli$ion. Don0t think you are respectul to Hahnemann i you ollow him that way %ecause he was a researcher. He wante& to &evelop homeopathy %ecause he elt it was a stron$ way o healin$. Ater the sta$e o empirical science, look at what happens. 8lassiication, makin$ cate$ories, makin$ classiication, ust as Men&eleyev &i& with his p erio&ic ta%le. t was a classiication o all the known 5ualities o those elements, even the &iscovery that they were elements was, in a sense, a classiication. here is a whole lot o knowle&$e or$ani/e& in the perio&ic ta%le, it0s a classiication o all those thin$s. he thir& sta$e o science $oes to theory, which is &ierent rom theori/ation an& speculation, which is what Hahnemann warne& us a%out. he &ierence is that in theories, you &o a speculation an& then you test it. 1ou look to see i it0s true, an& i it hol&s, how lon$ it hol&s, how many cases, an& i you can in& cases where it won0t hol&, an& then look at it an& see why it won0t hol& in that case. hat0s theory. t0s &ierent rom speculation %ecause speculation an& theori/in$ is a%out makin$ up antasies an& not %otherin$ a%out them anymore, not really lookin$ in reality to see i it0s true or not. hat0s the &ierence %etween the two. AH* An& you eel you have enou$h &ata+ Scholten* have teste& them an& teste& the pre&ictions with my system with reme&ies like Scan&ium an& Moly%&enum, $iven them to my patients an& they worke& with my pre&iction, so it0s real science. AH* Does it sometimes not work+ Scholten* = course, that0s when $ive Sulphur, an& no one woul& o%ect to that AH* Apropos o that, can you $enerali/e a%out the Homeopaths who critici/e your work an& those who applau& it+ Scholten* 3hat see in $eneral is that the Homeopaths who are newer to the iel& love it an& the ones who are ol& in the iel& o%ect to it, not all o them, %ut the ones who have a lot o e-perience with the ol& ways o trainin$, they have &iiculties acceptin$ this new way o thinkin$. he criticism is also mostly rom people who haven0t trie& the system. he proo is in the pu&&in$ 1ou have to try it yoursel %eore you critici/e.
AH* So the para&i$m theory &eine& %y ;uhn its here, in that the ol& $uar& may %e reectin$ a chan$e occurrin$ in somewhat esta%lishe& practices+ Scholten* hat coul& %e the case. t coul& %e that am wron$ too (lau$hter), only time will tell. AH* 3hat percenta$e o cases that come to you are element cases+ Scholten* can0t say i they are, (lau$hs) %ut prescri%e a%out BE minerals. >ro%a%ly BE are mineral cases. AH* Do you think they come to you on :automatic sort: %ecause you0re known as the :mineral man:+ Scholten* 2o, most o my patients &on0t know, it0s only the other homeopaths that &o. Most o my patients come to me %ecause one o their amily mem%ers was helpe& very well an& now they want to come. hey &on0t know a%out the %ook an& they &on0t %other a%out it. $ive a lot o plants, CE, it was also the same in the past, in the ol& repertories an& materia me&icas most o the pa$es are minerals. AH* =ur environment is &eterioratin$. How is that impactin$ the prescription o reme&ies+ Scholten* &on0t know. &o know that we now have to use a lot o reme&ies that have &eterioration in them, DD, penicillin, a lot o the me&icines. t was the same in Hahnemann0s &ay. A lot o the reme&ies that Hahnemann &evelope& were reme&ies we know rom into-ication, an& they were very much nee&e& %ecause a lot o people were into-icate& then. 0ve seen many patients who have nee&e& penicillin, an& you $ive the reme&y an& they are one level urther. 1ou nee& those reme&ies too. So, the pro%lem is the more reme&ies there are, the more stu there is in the worl& that can into-icate someone, the more pictures we have to know a%out those kin&s o thin$s. AH* 3hat is happenin$ in 'urope with Homeopathy, provin$s+ Scholten* t0s &evelopin$ very ast, %ut think we are only at the %e$innin$. AH* 8an you ela%orate+ Scholten* 3hat 0ve written &own is ust the %e$innin$ o the mineral kin$&om, you can make all those com%inations an& even more than what is in my %ook. hey nee& more cases, more provin$s. 3e nee& to &evelop keynotes o them, an& then we have to sort out all those reme&ies, even the ol& ones. here are lots o symptoms that &on0t even %elon$ to some o the reme&ies. So, we have to reCevaluate an& sit it out. Still to %e &one. An& then $o to the plant kin$&om. here are twoChun&re& an& ity thousan& plant species. am also lookin$ at the plants, my preerence $oes to the plants, not the minerals. 'veryone thinks 0m the mineral man. t0s not true. AH* 1ou0re not wearin$ a $reen acket or nothin$ How &o 'uropean homeopaths view Homeopathy in America+ Scholten* 2othin$ speciic. hey eel mostly that it0s one community. 'veryone has some o%ection to one teacher or another, %ut it0s not an issue o America an& 'urope. he issue &oesn0t live as ar as see it. AH* s there a $reater acceptance o Homeopathy %y national me&ical $overnin$ %oar&s in 'urope+ Scholten* t0s startin$, more or less. n 2orway they will pro%a%ly $et it into law. here was a %i$ conerence in 6erlin an& one Gn&erCMinister o Health sai& that we have to chan$e our policy an& look at it more as a system o values. t0s &iicult to tell what comes out o it. here are a ew hints. Also, the 'uropean >arliament is $oin$ more
towar& alternative me&icine than most $overnments, %ut you never know how it $oes. here is also a lot o resistance %y re$ular &octors. AH* here is so much resistance in this country. Scholten* hat is why &on0t think you have to i$ht them, ust cure all the patients you $et. hat0s the %est way to &o it. 8ure E o all the cancer patients we $et, ima$ine, can we %e let out+ t woul& %e impossi%le. hey woul&n0t &o it or one, two, three years, an& then it woul& turn aroun&. he patients woul&n0t take it anymore. hey will come to us. So, we &on0t have to %lame them, ust &o the o% %etter. AH* n America there is a lot o the use o com%ination reme&ies. How &o you view them in li$ht o your com%inin$ elements that have never %een com%ine& %eore+ Scholten* he pro%lem is that we har&ly know what we are &oin$. So, what a mess when you prescri%e a comple- reme&y, you never know which su%stance is &oin$ what he &ierence is when $ive 8o%altum Flouratum, it0s a salt, with its own 5ualities. 1ou can make it, you &on0t $o out an& in& it somewhere. 0ve never seen Sulphur outsi&e the la%oratory. 1ou &on0t $o out walkin$ in nature an& say :=h, there0s some Sulphur,: an& no one has any o%ection to it4 so why o%ect to 8o%altum Flouratum %ecause it0s only in the la%oratory. 8omple- reme&ies are ust a mi-ture, it0s not a com%ination like a salt. 2atrum Muriaticum is a salt. 2o one woul& say :that0s a comple- reme&y, you cannot $ive it.: So these su%stances all e-ist in nature. here are a lot o what we use that are manCma&e. Mercurius o&atus Flavus is manCma&e, it0s all manCma&e, ; ali Sulphuricum, &on0t think you can in& in nature. 1ou can make it an& $ive it to someone. it0s the same with >lutonium. t &i&n0t e-ist years a$o, &oes that mean that you can0t $ive it+ AH* 3hy are there so many ru%rics containin$ S ulphur+ 3as it possi%ly that lie %e$an on metallic suli&es+ Scholten* Hahnemann was an alchemist, an& in Alchemy you have three %asic su%stances, Sulphur, Salt an& Mercury. hose are the most known reme&ies, an& when you rea& Materia Me&ica >ura, an& 8hronic Diseases o Hahnemann, those reme&ies have the most symptoms. Hahnemann &oesn0t state it so o%viously, %ut he was an Alchemist. =r, he was very much, not in the sense that he was only an Alchemist, %ut he ha& a lot o thin$s $oin$ on there. hose three su%stances are ust sym%olic, as su%stances in themselves, they aren0t more prominent than another one. 3hen you look at it really, the most %asic su%stance or lie is 9raphites, or any kin& o 8ar%on, %ut not Sulphur. t0s the same with the metals. n astrolo$y you have the seven ol& metals, they com%ine them with the seven planets. hey still try to &o it. 1ou can0t &o it, it &oesn0t make sense, it takes you to the wron$ &irection. here are a ew connections here an& there, %ut irst leave it, an& may%e later look at it. t $ives you %etter clues than $oin$ &irectly to it. rea& an Anthroposophic %ook a%out healin$ with metals. let it out %ecause it0s ru%%ish. here are thin$s that are there that it our pictures, they took it rom our pictures, %ut a lot o the thin$s there are speculation, not lookin$ to see i it0s true or not. Always $o %ack to the patient. 9o %ack to the e-perience. hat0s what always &o. speculate a lot more than have written AH* 3hen were you %orn+ Scholten* 0m a 8apricorn. was %orn in !"!. AH* So, you hit the Si-ties
Scholten* think the B0s were a $reat inluence in the worl&, a $reat li%eration o all the ri$i& ways o thinkin$. 3e %eneite& a little %it an& it was very nee&e&. t0s nee&e& even more now. Sometimes when 0m here in America it astonishes me, a little thin$ happens an& it0s in the newspaper or weeks. rea& where an Air Force woman may have to %e in ail or years %ecause she slept with someone4 that0s ri&iculous here seems to %e more ri$i&ity now. 6ut then, it comes in waves. here is nothin$ in ri$i&ity, it0s empty, it &oesn0t lea& you to the ne-t evolution, so the chil&ren aren0t e&ucate& to think or themselves %ut only %y the rules. >eople are arai& that i people are ree, the worl& will $o cra/y. hat0s simply not true. he more &ierent people are, the more ree you have to %e to live to$ether, that0s how a city works. n a sense, every city is li%eratin$ an& every countrysi&e is restrictive. AH* So, to $o %ack to the ol& mo&el o the evolution o civili/ations4 amily, %an&, tri%e, city, country... Scholten* Gniverse So, then you are completely ree AH* So that motion rom a very small, restrictin$ situation like a amily, to a lar$e, cosmopolitan one, like a city, re5uires the chan$es in consciousness to traverse it. Scholten* 1es, an& that is the &evelopment everyone has to &o, either in this lie or another one.
