Miasms

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Colleagues

In reading the exchanges on Miasm, it has helped as a revision to clarify
some points in my mind, so I would like to share them with you.

I think there is a problem with terminology. In fact David Little directly
points to this issue at the end of his last msg.

For this reason, I just like to give the following definitions:
(If you disagree, please definitely comment)

Please remember that Miasm was defined originally as a 'fog' induced
disease. Hence malaria was thought to be because of the fog of the marshes.

Acute disease = A set of symptoms which may be regarded as an epidemic
disease, either the patient survives it or dies of it. (eg cholera, measles,
or meningitis)

In the Organon pls see also references to peculiar miasm, infectious miasms,
and especially "acute miasms which recur in the same manner (hence known by
some traditional name)." Aph 73.
These require the administration of one specific or selection from just a
few remedies to cover the specifics of the disease symptoms - pls see Aph
241

Chronic Miasm = Aftermath of an infection which leaves a lasting chronic
impression and is capable of being passed on for many generations.
In today's terminology, when Miasm is mentioned on its own, a chronic
miasm - eg psora - is being referred to.

Chronic disease = A set of symptoms that last the remaining life of the
patient - the patient either dies of it or with it.

Acute within a chronic or acute of a chronic = This is a 'flare up' of a set
of symptoms and is not an epidemic disease. This is the reason for the
symptoms responding to the administration of the chronic remedy.
[Joy gave us the example of curing an acute with the chronic remedy, unless
she can prove otherwise, most probably she was talking of acute of the
chronic and not an acute in terms of an epidemic disease like cold or flu -
although the patient may have reported flu like symptoms.]

It is important for homoeopaths to be able to know clearly the difference
between an acute of a chronic and an acute as in an epidemic disease.

We also need to understand causes of disease:

We have Fundamental Cause [These are the inherited (miasmatic) and
environmental causes with which we are born]

Maintaining causes - Environmental and nutritional etc factors which
adversely affect us.

Initiating Cause. These are the things that are clearly seen as the start of
the current phase of symptoms.
Where we have a situation that the person has NBWS chill, heat, flu;
vaccination, grief, fright etc. In such cases, effectively the initiating
cause has awoken a latent miasm.
So these are not miasms in themselves (as Nader rather tongue-in-cheek asked
in case of fright) but the beginning of the reawakening of a latent miasm.

I look forward to your comments
Kind regards

Soroush

[Piet Guijt]

Hi Soroush,

Your definition:
Chronic Miasm = Aftermath of an infection which leaves a lasting chronic
impression and is capable of being passed on for many generations.
In today's terminology, when Miasm is mentioned on its own, a chronic
miasm - eg psora - is being referred to.

With this definition only the 'negative (diseased) side' is defined.
The way I see it: the result of the infection is the more 'Material' part of
the complete miasm.
It is an essential part though and offers a valuable tool in practice.
But every negative or positive aspect is just relative and is depending on
the angle of the viewer.
Miasm also have a relation with life phase, tissues, levels and quality of
energy.
Constitution and infection attract each other and this susceptibility is
also a part of the complete miasm, which offers also positive potential for
the 'higher purposes of life'.

Kind regards, Piet

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Piet,

Could you say more about this thought, how miasms offer "positive potential
for the 'higher purposes of life'"? It's interesting... I'm noting that
growth happens thru (we could say) tension between opposing impulses, and
the nature and quality of growth being shaped by the "path" that's taken
between the two extremes. E.g. physical growth is shaped by the pull
between cohesive forces (gravity and other) and expansive forces (dividing
cells etc.). The effect (size, shape, etc.) can be altered ("diseased") by
either inappropriate forces (i.e. growth and other problems experienced from
living without gravity; or when a growing child is forced to work the body
too hard) or by inappropriate response to those forces (e.g. miasmatic
growth problems).

We could draw similar sketches for mental/emotional/spiritual growth.

Also of course the miasms include various sorts of recognition of separation
(from God/life/other people), and various characteristic responses to that
recognition, which provides a sort of template for the person's efforts? (I
would not say that a person needs to be ill in order to grow, but I do see
where the process of grappling with illness is certainly part of a person's
growth...)

Is this the general line of your thought behind this comment, or more to
add? (Hope this doesn't sound too garbled!)

Shannon
on 11/28/04 6:16 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:

[David Little]

At 05:46 PM 11/28/2004, you wrote:
Dear Piet,

Isn't this true with all diseases? Where does the positive reactions
come from? Does it come the disease or how the human being deals with his
or her suffering. Hahnemann taught that the psyche is triune in nature in
that the is the Seele (soul), the Geist (the intellect) and Gumuet (the
emotional disposition). One person falls sick and it strengthens their
character and they become more compassionate but another falls sick with
same complaint and they become very weak, depressed and destructive. Why is
this? Just asking questions - not expecting definitive answers!

Sincerely, David
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000

[Shannon Nelson]

on 11/29/04 1:50 AM, Chris Gillen at chrisgillen@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Er, that depends on who you're talking to. My experience also is that when
*most* of the homeopathic community speaks of a "miasm", they are speaking
of a chronic miasm. I won't argue (any more) with your assertion that this
is incorrect, and (in my own words) perhaps sloppy use of the term, but in
my experience also it is the common use of the term. So you have your
experience, and others have a different one. Maybe we could more profitably
just talk about which is the more *useful* way to use the term.

There is an advantage to sticking with traditional usage where feasible, but
it's worth being aware that many of us *today* have deviated from this, so
definitions may need to be clarified in the course of any particular
conversation!
Er, it would make *me* not question whether "contagious agents" exist, but I
am still untroubled by saying that illness from contaminated food or water
is a "contagion", and see no need at all (tho I have no objection either)
for calling it a "miasm". I still don't see the point. After all, if you
disinfect (let's say "boil") the water, the organisms will still be there,
but they will be dead and will no longer make anyone ill. Can you remove a
miasm by boiling it? I thought we have previously agreed that a "miasm" is
what's left once the infectious agents are out of the picture? (Tho I'm not
sure that in e.g. suppressed gonorrhea the agent *is* actually out of the
picture; seems I've heard that one both ways too!)
I do understand (or at least am familiar with the idea) that an epidemic
disease is associated with a "miasm", in that each will have its own
character (and associated genus epidemicus) and remedies can (apparently) be
used prophylactically *when the disease is 'in the neighborhood'*. One
could equally explain these observations from the standpoint of simple
mechanics of infection, via particular strains of the organism, and the
latent period, after infection but before symptoms have begun.

I confess I am still uncertain about what makes the term "acute miasm" a
usdeful one; so try me again?

Thanks for the thought-provoking points!
Shannon

[Piet Guijt]

Hi Shannon,

Yes, this is the general line of my thought behind this comment.
Thanks for making me clear so very well what I meant.

Kind regards, Piet

[Piet Guijt]

David wrote;
Isn't this true with all diseases? Where does the positive reactions

Hi David,

When we regard the miasm only as a bad influence caused by microorganism,
that has to be removed by 'turning back the time' we will miss the
individual part of the miasms. When we see it that way we are no better then
allopaths with antibiotics. The individual part is involved in the
constitutional reaction, when it is stuck it is negative and limiting, but
when the same individual overcomes the miasmatic situation it is positive
and leads to more freedom.

Kind regards, Piet

[Jennifer Ruby]

Hi!
I've been reading Henny Heudens-Mast's book on Chronic Miasms. She states plainly that if a person is needing treatment for a specific miasm, that one has to find THE correct remedy within that Miasm category, in order for change to occur.
She does have some wonderful tables for describing each miasm, but I haven't seen any tables for the remedies to be listed according to which miasm they belong to. I was wondering if anyone had a book they recommend that would include some sort of breakdown of remedies according to their miasm category?
Thanks in advance!
Health, Hope, Joy & Healing :
May you Prosper, even as your Soul Prospers 3John 2
Jennifer Ruby
Email advice is not a substitute for medical treatment.
http://www.rubysemporium.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SymphonicHealth
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Therapeutic-Laser_Therapy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Reversingautism
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SOTA_LightWorks/
http://www.lazrpulsr.com
______________________________________________
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

[Ellen Madono]

Hi,
Banejerea's book Miasmatic Prescribing has been renewed. I have not seen it. Has anyone seen it? It was quite disorganized. But has lots of detail of breakdown of physical and mental characteristics. Also, he gives each miasm a number 1-3 to indicate the degree to which it belongs to each miasm. Obviously, how each author thinks of each miasm is going to influence which remedy is more strongly in which category. There is plenty of disagreement. But, as usual there seems to be more agreement with polycrests. Abdur Rehman's Encyclopeida of Remedy Relationships in Homeopathy gives you a good idea of the range of disagreement. But that books is way too expensive.
Best,
Ellen
2008/11/15 Jennifer Ruby >

[Nader Moradi]

If one wants to know what Hahnemannian miasm is, the best reference,IMO, is Dr Ardavan Shahrdar's website (www.Minutus.org ).
Rgds,
Nader