Great idea! Miasms

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Katja Schütt on October 12, 2009 at 8:04am

Dear Heidi !
Thanks for joining this group ! Yes, miasms are a very interesting topic. There are a lot of well-educated homeopath here at HWC and I'm sure we can learn from each other.

Warm regards,
Katja

Permalink Reply by Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj. on October 12, 2009 at 8:46am

Well, I also think it is a great subject.

Hahnemann established 3 miasms for us as a means to determine the underlying causes for chronic diseases.

Thus he says in the Organon:

5. In every case of disease the particulars of the exiting cause of an acute disease are of importance. In chronic cases, the most significant points in the history enable the physician to discover its fundamental cause. Fundamental causes are generally due to a chronic miasma.

He determined that they were
1. Psora
2. Sycosis
3. Syphilis

Modern hmoeopaths have seen fit to include more, such as Sankaran, who says there are 10.
However, he did so as a means to classify remedies.
Therefore, his terminology differs from that of Hahnemann. Personally, i find his determination and terminology not necessarily adding to understanding but clouding the issue.
What i object against is the fact that he uses the term not in the classical sense, but to enable to classify remedies. Classification and enumeration are the occupation of bookkeepers and have no place in homoeopathy. Someone may object that we classical types also classify our remedies according to Hahnemann's miasms, but i find this equally misleading. Remedies are not anti-psoric, anti-sycosic or anti-syphilitic, because in homoeopathy the only "anti" is the antidote. Those terms are imprecise.
I would say the remedy is none of these things, regardless the universal acceptance. At best we should say tht a remedy is psoric, because it causes sporic symptoms in the prover. Since this is so, it is a psoric remedy and not anti-psoric at all.

What i also find strange is that in the 200+ years after Hahnemann none of the previous masters discovered any new miasms. In the last 20 years, suddenly one man comes up with 7 more! That appears to me as someone who rides the personal hobbyhorse, I am afraid to say. Are we to believe all those that came between Hahnemann and modern times were not intelligent enough to discover more? Are we to believe they lacked in powers of observation? I don't think so.

For me therefore, it is imperative we stick with the most acute observation of Hahnemann. I for one do not accept any of those "new" miasms as having any value in the determination of underlying causes. My practise has never had any need of them, since Hahnemann's terminology has suited me extremely well. I also think thse "new" miasms do not clarify more but cause more confusion.

2. The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of health or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, whether mental, emotional or physical, in the shortest, most reliable and most harmless way and following easily understandable principles.

I do not find the modern ideas easily understandable.

Permalink Reply by Heidi Stevenson on October 12, 2009 at 10:38am

I find your comments most interesting, and they seem to coincide with my own thoughts for the most part. Though I do accept the idea that there may be other miasms (specifically cancer and tubercular), the huge numbers surmised by some today strike me as pointless and, as you note, confusing.

What was Hahnemann's purpose in defining the miasms, if not as a means of classification - to simplify the conceptualisation of illness and classify remedies? You stated that it's a means of identifying underlying causes, but that needs to translate into treatment.

I believe that Hahnemann was looking at miasms as a means of classifying underlying causes, and thereby classifying treatment methods and remedies. Other than as an intellectual exercise - though certainly of interest - identifying underlying causes wouldn't have any other use.

I'm still trying to get a handle on the real purpose here. What's the benefit in defining a miasm, if not to limit the number of remedies that should be considered?

I'm rambling, which demonstrates my first point - that I find this subject confusing. Nonetheless, I think it needs serious examination, and like you, Vaikunthanath, I have problems with the proliferation of miasms today.

Permalink Reply by Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj. on October 12, 2009 at 11:31am

Cancer and tuberculosis are diseases found only in those with a strong sycosic and syphylitic tendency and as such are therefore bi-miasmatic. The fact they are or have been so numerous does not warrant any special miasmatic terminology by itself.
Hahnemann also did not honour them with a special misam of their own but declared them bi-misamatic. If they would have warranted a separate misam, does anyone think Hahnemann would not have done so?
Why should we assume authority to correct a man who was such a keen observer? Where do we get the idea we know better than him after 20 or 30 years, when he took 50 years to perfect the Art for us? I find it arrogant, but that is what i think. It does not mean anyone else could think different.
That said, we have been treating people according to the CD for 200+ years and very successfully so. So there is no need for fancy-pants concepts that pander to someone's ego. The need is to apply the Laws that Hehnemann discovered and work accordingly lie all our homoeopathic forebears.

Permalink Reply by Hans Weitbrecht on October 12, 2009 at 7:07pm

hi Kavi
footnote:
Cancer is a primary expressions of PSORA, according to Hahnemann ORG: 80
Tuberculosis is from its symptomatology psoric.
Hering "discovered" the tubercular miasm as a seperate entity.

Permalink Reply by Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj. on October 12, 2009 at 9:02pm

Thanks for the correction. I do not have the books with me. I don't have CD here so i can't quote. sorry.

Permalink Reply by Alias Azhar on October 12, 2009 at 11:04am

100% agree with u

Permalink Reply by Dr. Wequar Ali Khan on October 12, 2009 at 2:13pm

Miasm is a deep subject,and i had lot of problems during my college days trying to get what i should make of it. My teacher in college gave very rudimentary explanation,such as that its an unknown force that is triggered in mind if one has "evil" thoughts,and that it may manifest itself as "itch";And that mother of all disease is PSORA which is the starting point of chronic disease;And that there are are two other Miasm sycotic,and syphylitic.When one puts an "evil" thought into practice the two Miasm syphilitic and sycotic or combination would emerge in various type of symptoms.Behind all was illicit sex.

I started getting a better understanding of Miasm after reading Dr S.K. Banerjea's book "Miasmatic prescribing".He claims that his whole life has been devoted to research in Miasm,and that he got the background knowledge from his four generations of ancestors,who were great homeopathic doctors of their time and that the tradition is still on in his clinic in Calcutta and now also in England.

The runs a Homeopathic college and also has a clinic there,.where he prescribes always taking Miasm into consideration,and lot of rubrics has been equated and categorized according to the Miasm they come under.He also gives a list of medicines which are also categorized under different miasm.

He also has added two Miasm Tubercular,and Cancer,of course after his experience of his fore fathers.

All this now seems to become controversial with different ideas being deployed understanding Miasm; Would it not be possible that all those who matter in Homeopathy,devolve a standard definition based on Hamenann's explanation and make it more palatable for all of us?

Permalink Reply by Katja Schütt on October 12, 2009 at 3:46pm

Thanks for starting up the discussion, Kavi, and all the others for their opinion !

Hahnemann's basic miasms are defined in dependence from their origin and classification of diseases. He discovered them after twelve years of observing patient's with different pathologies and symptoms.
In contrast Sankaran opines that the miasm expresses the way of experiencing or perceiving a situation. He classifies them depending on the common theme of the mental states and delusion, and the way a person behaves and copes with a situation or problem. How they react and how their pathology is expressed help to identify the miasm. He analyzed anti-miasmatic remedies and grouped them accordingly, which implicates a list of anti-miasmatic remedies different from Hahnemann. So their procedure in discovering them were very different, but in both concepts miasms originate from contagious diseases, do have hereditary effects, and both include mental as well as physical symptoms in their miasm patterns, and like Hahnemann's miasms they are deep diseases that rule at the very foundation of the energy of the patient. I think one difference is that not all Sankaran's miasms in comparison to Hahnemann's affect the entire world population, some of them only eappear endemically hence they cannot be considered as universal miasms.
That three main miasms were predominant at Hahnemann's time does not necessarily mean that miasms are limited to three for mankind in future. AIDS is one example and affects already the entire world population, it is contagious and fits Hahnemann description of miasms. Due to lowered immunity mankind got susceptibile to new infections and if the contributing factors like vaccinations, supressing and palliative orthodox treatment, environmental stress etc. continue to undermine our state of health then we'll also sucumb to other infectious diseases hitherto unknown.
It is really astonishing that Hahnemann alone mastered the task of finding the genius remedies for the "epidemic" diseases of Psora, Sycosis and Syphilis. Homeopathy of the current era are now confronted with the task to find the genius remedies for new epidemic diseases like AIDS, based on group anamnesis of patients who suffer from the similar cause. With the possibilities of modern technique it should be even far more easy than for Hahnemann !
I agree with Heidi that one benefit in defining miasms is to limit the number of remedies that should be considered. But they also give us an idea of the patient's pathology, allow a more precise prognosis, and are a valuable in tool in case management as there development has to follow Hering's law. As such considering miasms does mean to look at a broader totality of the patient.
I would not define the cancer miasm as a separate miasm in terms of Hahnemann's definition, as it cannot be aquired by contagion and does not origine from a particular disease. It rather fits §40 Organon where Hahnemann writes that chronic diseases can form a complex disease in which each of them occupies a particular locality in the organism, namely, the organs peculiarly adapted for it.

May be some homeopath who apply Sankaran's Sensation method or who work with Ardarvan Shahrdar's miasm concept could contribute to our discussion !

Permalink Reply by Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj. on October 12, 2009 at 4:25pm

Katja,

"AIDS is one example and affects already the entire world population, it is contagious and fits Hahnemann description of miasms."

I disagree 100% with you there. This sort of statement is exactly what i mean. You present an assumption that echoes what allopathy says about the disease. We all know how allopathy jumps to conclusions that are proven to be wrong. There are several threads here that expose allopathic wrongheadedness.

Aids does not affect the entire world population and is certainly not contagious. The HIV entity has not been proven to exist and in the entire world there is not a single protocol that describes it. Even Kary Mullis - someone who developed a test for its detection - says that there is no protocol and that his Nobel Prize he received for it was a gross mistake. He admits he was wrong and says now that HIV does not exist.
Ask the Pasteur Institute in Paris (Montagnier) or the US CDC (Gallo) and you will get nothing but computer generated stuff, but no Electron Microscopic images. If you insist on better quality of the presentation you are met with stony silence or irritation. If you then still insist they become angry, as i personally experienced.

Aids is simply drug-disease, which can be discovered by treating the people who are diagnosed with it.
After having treated 138 cases and the careful study of their medical records, it is quite obvious that the causal principle is excess of, or allergic reaction to, antibiotics. Hence Aids is the Antibiotic-Induced Deficiency Syndrome, in a juxtaposition of poetic justice. That does not make it miasmatic.

I am suspicious for many reasons that the new miasms are based upon similar incomplete studies by their advocates. I don't need them and don't accept them for exactly that reason. Of course anyone is free to accept what he likes, but consensus does not make something correct. We need no democratic process to have something accepted but a scientific standard that proves something is right.

Permalink Reply by david hartley on October 14, 2009 at 8:26pm

Kaviraj, as usual, is exactly on point.

Aids is a massive scam, akin to the current flying pig flu scam.

Four chronic miasms, plus possibly cancer as a mixed miasm, exist which we can consider from the viewpoint of Hahnemann and forward.
Others' views of "new" miasms .. is another fork in the road, possibly useful to some, but NOT "miasms per se" cannot be regarded universally in the light of Hahnemann's Chronic Diseases and miasm "theory."

Sankaran himself has agreed that his 'advanced' material is only meant to be of use to persons with full strong grasp of Hahnemannian homeopathy.
I think it unfortunate that Sankaran chose to use the term miasm.

Permalink Reply by Hans Weitbrecht on October 12, 2009 at 7:16pm

Well observed.

Hahnemann observed several acute miasms and 3 chronic miasms.
Acute miasms are for example: whooping cough, measels, mumps etc.
There cannot be more than 3 chronic miasmatic diseases unless we change the meaning of miasm -- but then we loose common ground. You may ask why?

The answer is in the theoretical part of the CD.
Hahnemann states there, that everything which is chronic and not man-made and not syphilitic or sycotic must be psoric. -- because he cured with his anti - psoric remedies. (so he sais,-- his own journals give a different impression)
(too tired to refference it --)

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 6
• Next ›
• Page