CD - HMN - 15

[andyh]

Feras wrote:
"As I understand from Hahnemann's CD, he has introduced some specific infections as the cause of the chronic diseases. This has no relation to the spiritual or moral problems. Miasms in Hahnemannian term are infections not mental emotional qualities. But many authors have mixed this concept with another theory that relates human diseases to moral and spiritual problems. We have to understand the difference between these viewpoints."

My own understanding is that prior to infection, we have a problem with the related chakra (energy centre) and because of that we develop the susceptibility to that infection. For example when our Mooladhara (the first) chakra catches, we develop the susceptibility to genital and sexual diseases and now if some syphilis germs are present they can easily attack us.

Nader Moradi wrote:
=======
Dear Folks,
I think Feras' point was that if there was to be an external infection during the life ex-utero, there first must be susceptibility. Since a miasm by definition is an infection inherited by germ cell transmission (ie by conception); it is not an infection per se, but a SUSCEPTIBILITY due to an infection of the PAST, due to the miasm complex of those ancestors. Yes, one can be infected during a lifetime, but is it something "new under the sun", or merely an expression of the inherited susceptibility? This is a complex topic, and one which gets to the heart of the sophisticated
concept that homeopathy is, which goes beyond the if "A then B" more simplistic germ theory, and makes homeopathy as a host-treating modality so difficult to grasp for those "trained" with the germ theory model.

I will take a few cracks at some ideas here, and near the end tie it in to the "CD 15" passage posted by Farbod.

IF one assumes that the human being at some original juncture had no susceptibility to disease (a big assumption but one which Kent and others made);

AND
one assumes that susceptibility can only come about by what we call a miasm (inherited from parents--an INFECTION of the PAST retransmitted via the germ cells and having an expression which only in part resembles the original infectious disease and takes on its own form in derangement of the economy of the organism on all levels (mental, emotional, physical);

THEN
there must be a miasm present FIRST in order to be susceptible to any infection (syphilis, etc). Of course, this is a pretty theoretical argument, as no volume studies have been done which have developed a reliable way to test susceptibility and thus determine why some, though exposed in similar way, get syphilis, plague, TB, etc--- and others do not. But such a study could be done, with a lot of money, to show what miasms were present in families of individuals who contracted an illness, versus those that did not. Doubt such a large study will be done anytime soon. Meantime,
we have the evidence on a small scale.

MIASMS="DISEASE"=SUSCEPTIBILITY?--INFECTION BY GENETIC TRANSMISSION
The infectious part of a miasm, to my understanding, can occur by birth (parental inheritance of the "taint"--a non-electromagnetic energy--auric field, if you will, derangement of the germ cell which is passed on in initial cell division and through ALL of gestation (this it the point of prior treatment of the parents, and the idea of some to give remedies, especially certain nosodes, during pregnancy). This miasmatic transmission does not necessarily itself include the associated microbe, but an energetic derangement of the germ cells which affect gestation and health of the
progeny. This miasmatic taint CAN however, sometimes show up even in conventional tests. Many miasmatically tubercular clients, for example, will test "positive" for TB without having the outward disease--I'm sure many here have also noticed that.

An important question is whether the miasmatic "infection" inherited at birth is equivalent to an infection with an organism during the life. Are they the same "frequency" or complex of frequencies, thus is "disease" a completely energetic entity--completely susceptibility--and the acute expression only the opportunistic invasion of organisms who are resonant with that frequency complex?

Since susceptibility can be "annihilated" with a resonant remedy, and we all have proved that to ourselves, the miasmatic infection DOES beget the external infection, and may be of the same or similar enough "frequency". At birth, it is a particular "condition" of the germ cell chromosomes which may include missing genetic material, but which is caused by the "spirit-like" part of the germ cell, its auric, non-hertzian, "field", to use a few terms. The fact that Down's syndrome can be markedly affected by homeopathy if treated starting at birth shows that missing genetic
material is not the cause, but that the particular expression is as a result of a field derangement. According to chinese medicine, the human gestation is really 12 months, so 3 months are completed ex-utero. The organism is still very pliable at that point--an opportunity for treating the miasmatic complex IF the symptoms are available to show the way. Unfortunately, unless blatant, the child is usually not expressing the character at that time. And many aspects of the constitution are already "set in stone". Treating the parents before conception is always the superior
strategy.

If homeopathy works by annihilating the auric field of the miasmatic susceptibility (via a remedy found by semiologic inference); then the external infection is unlikely without FIRST there being susceptibility. There is a theory that such infection requires the infectious organism to be resonant with the organism in order to take up residence, in say, the genitals, and "infect". "Old school" germ theory says that there are organisms that are so virulent that infection is certain. But even in the most virulent epidemics (eg. plague) there are a host of those who do not become
sick. Thus susceptibility must really be the arbiter. Even what we know of as "nonhertzian" energy has what is equivalent ot a frequency. The host (nonhertzian) "frequency" signature shows what they will attract and harbor as parasites and opportunistic organisms which are blamed for the discomfort and degeneration. The argument between the two main schools of medicine is about this issue. Homeopathy, in treating the "spirit-like" part of the organism, is approaching the seminal (literally) and proximal, rather than the distal, locus of the the disease--the susceptibility.

INFECTION DURING THE LIFE
A NEW infectious miasm CAN be engendered onto the organism during the life, by as what is known as the typical named disease expression, complete with the microbe present; and never expelled (eg the energetic disease never approached, but the external expression is suppressed by killing only the microbe via biocidal agents such as penecillin, etc.--anti-biotics). BUT- ANY infection during the life is a "chicken or the egg" problem---was the infection because of susceptibility or because of virulent infection which overpowered the immune mechanism? Was it an expression of
individual OR group (epidemic) susceptibility, or a super-virulent organism?

At this point, in general each of us has a whole suite of miasmatic susceptibilities present in us, with one in particular dominant in the expression of our case, but others latent which could create susceptibility if aroused by existence of an external infectious agent. So the situation is complex. Even though someone is generally at a stable resonance at any given time (a stable "remedy type"), there are layers of miasmatic inheritance "underneath" that first remedy.

The situation of susceptibility among the human populace is more complex than even the situation in 1796-28 when Hahnemann developed what became the ideas in CD. With antibiotics and other measures, we save those who in Hahnemann's time might die of infectious disease before reproducing. So the "natural selection" which culls out the weakest (arguably the most miasmatically tainted individuals) has been removed, allowing susceptibility of the general population to increase and become more complex in character in a given individual---miasmatic complexes in individuals become more
branched and hydra-headed (but not just of psora, but many other miasms). This proliferation of miasms (increase in complexity of the miasmatic "mix") may be what creates newly "discovered" types of external infection--not because the external organisms are "new" (unless genetically engineered); but because of the ever-increasing combinatorial complexity of the SUSCEPTIBILITY that is now passed on. Even an organism genetically engineered could not invade an impervious spirit-like field. However, most all of us are far from impervious, unless we have been under long-term
homeopathic care of a high and consistent quality.

Are there really any "new" diseases? Or are all diseases merely an expression of what came before, and new opportunistic organisms get ALLOWED IN because of more and more complex miasmatic signatures? Because we pass on even the worst miasmatic situations, especially since the 1930's, after which more of us were saved by antibiotics and other biocides in order to do so?
CD 15
In regard to CD 15, Hahnemann is saying that an infection of psoric nature ("itch") was almost always noted in his cases 1796-1828 as being associated with the initial impairment of health. But was the infection from the outside the miasm? Or was the external infection the opportunistic organism which entered the constitution which was vulnerable to it BECAUSE of Psora first being present? Hahnemann could only theorize about microbes, as they had not been really discovered! So he was blind about them, fortunately, and thus did not have the prejudice of the germ theory to cloud
his reason. He correctly deduced that disease was due to energetic ("spirit-like") susceptibility, of which contemporary mainstream "science" blindly and religiously avoids investigation. At his time, Psora was the main taint on the surface of each case, and he saw each person fall ill because of it almost invariably. Probably, the "terrain" of people then was far less complex than at present. OR, perhaps, Psora is even now the initial derangement to unfold during a lifetime, in the same fashion as gestation follows Haeckel's law--ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. In other
words, the sequence of expression, if no overriding, overshadowing influence is present may express the miasms in the order in which humanity developed them originally. Vijayakar is investigating the connection between miasms and embryology. Hamer is investigating the connection between embryology, the brain, and psychosomatic disease, without considering miasmatic theory, but which could independently corraborate it.

But, in any case, the "itch" EXPRESSED in CD 15 was not the "miasm"--it was not strictly speaking the "disease". It was the "exciting cause" of the health derangement--the infection which came to the party as an indicator of what was already there--PSORA and/or another miasm--as an inherited energetic disturbance(s) in the host.

The above is more or less my working hypothesis at the moment on the backdrop of our system of treatment. It would be appreciated if I could be corrected in my assumptions, and/or be given more information (by which all readers will benefit) on how the above ideas are discussed by Hahnemann himself in CD and the Organon, by those more versed in those works than myself. That's a big request on this complex topic. I don't have expectation on it, nor that it will happen all at once. As Farbod's study of CD continues, maybe more will unfold.
KENT AND OTHERS--PSORA AS"ORIGINAL SIN"
The idea of ascribing an original mistake which led to the "fall" of humanity into (supposedly) shorter-life-spanned creatures beset with suffering is an OVERLAY and CONNECTION to Hahnemann's ideas, not a replacement.

Hahnemann dilineated the different susceptibilities by relating them to extant diseases suffered by ancestors and passed on such that they produced particular derangements in the progeny which were "occult":-) versions of the originally recognized form of the disease. Syphilitic miasm produced not syphilis, but detachment, self-destructive and destructive nature, etc. Sycotic miasm produced obsessions, proliferations, secretive behavior. Psoric miasm produced overreaction to stimuli, eg allergies, phobias, fears, etc. All the miasmatic expressions are examples of how the miasm
affected the gestating progeny (creating the "constitution"); which then lived a life according to certain themes, behaviors, and discomforts. As can be seen miasms are definitely connected with moral issues and expressions. And miasms are definitely "spiritual" in the sense that spiritual is energetic. All consciousness is "spiritual".

What Hahnemann discovered by empirically showing how susceptibility (disease) is propagated and dilineating its character by showing the nature of its past source is probably the greatest scientific discovery in medicine--as yet unappreciated by any except those who practice the system which can remove the susceptibility. But I don't think Kent etc were trying to replace it--but to CONNECT the idea to its parallel in the writings of various "religions"--which are, after all, groups of people who--by inheritance or thinking for oneself--share a common THEORY as to the history of
humanity, what the purpose of the world is, and why we exist in corporeal form and leave that form after a few decades; are oppressed instead of free; suffer instead of experience only perfect joy; etc. My guess is that Kent, in understanding that disease is susceptibility, used Swedenborgian and Christian theory to answer the question--"but what FIRST created the susceptibility of humanity?" (assuming there was formerly a humanity without susceptibility). In other words, what caused humanity to have any taints which led to susceptibility to the invasion of the surrounding
nature, instead of coexistence with it without the suffering that microorganisms, fungi create when they invade; or the suffering and death caused by functional and organic derangements apart from any invasion from external nature?

A deep understanding of the a spectrum of the most cogent of these theories we call "religions" could very well lead to a further coloring of our understanding of the topic of the chronic diseases. But the idea of "Original sin" or "separation from perfection" does not replace the theory of Psora, only CONNECTS it to another set of ideas. Such connections are needed if one is interested in understanding the whole. But in the microcosm of homeopathy as a medical modality, they could for many prove to be a diversion and could, as Nader pointed out, cause confusion of whether
homeopathy is a therapeutic science or a theology, as for most people these two are strictly separated; though the truly philosophical can handle their conjunction. When the mixture of empiricism and theory is done from long experience PLUS the study of a theological system (e.g Kent) it is not necessarily incorrect. BUT it is an ancillary idea to the actual therapeutic application of homeopathy and its empirical underpinning, (eg. CD itself). AND, invoking "original sin" is not a very exact argument to conjoin with the more empirical information that Hahnemann presents.
Before conjoining the two concepts, one must first define "sin" --(from Chinese philosophy "sinn"=the "tao" of taoism (I Ching)--but tao is another definition to tackle). One must decode the allegory of scripture before correctly conjoining it with strictly empirical (nontheoretical) informaton. One cannot define "sin" precisely enough in the same context as Hahnemann's work using, for example, the story of Adam and Eve and the Serpent by itself. That story is an allegory of a reality, not a discrete reality itself. So it is once-removed from case-taking and miasm
identification. The connection could be made if the allegory is decoded, and the common denominator between theology and medical science is found.

============
Nader Moradi wrote:
Dear Venkat,

Whould u pls elucidate how psora is primarely mental and secoundarly physical???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kind Regards,
Nader

The idea of Psora being more mental than physical may or may not be involved with the concept that Psora originated as a mental "mistake". Each miasm will have a wide-ranging effect on the entire organism and imprint its themes. A miasm is "spirit-like", and manifests in the economy. It probably does not start in the mental. It may provide susceptibility to the person apprehending a "fixed idea" or "delusion", but is this the starting point? If one has no fear (one idea ascribed as the basis to Psora, though cannot give the reference) by willing it so, can they abolish psora
in their system? Not the typical person, certainly.

It is perhaps possible, and if so, would represent the work of an individual possessing higher healing modality than homeopathy--being able to will spirit-like miasms out of their own economy without medicinal intervention. This has perhaps been attained by some throughout history, especially in the Indo-Orient and coming out of the medical and yogic traditions there. But in the absence of demonstration of such, it is doubtful that Psora can be shown to be more mental than physical in manifestation or origin within an individual.
MIASM RELATION TO A CHAKRA
I think Nader's point (if I understood) was that a miasm is a larger, more complex; and unique concept, and cannot be equated to just a chakra susceptibility. I don't think Feras meant to equate a chakra disorder with a miasm "one to one". It is definitely true that a miasmatic taint will localize and create susceptibility at a particular chakra (eg. Lyc has a big 3rd chakra weakness leading to inveterate digestive problems and "power" (one-upmanship) issues). But Lyc, for example is not a one-miasm rx. The third chakra weakness is cured by a multimiasmatic expression, and
thus we define it as such, as true cure and its artifacts are the only way to prove theory. As well, the third chakra may not be the only chakra affected in a Lyc individual, maybe just the dominant one. So the expression of a single miasm cannot necessarily be equated to the more complex expression of a miasm--or if it can, it is difficult to prove. The chakra susceptibility is a manifestation, not causal.

That being said, for example the idea that the Syphilitic and Sycotic miasms MUST have a first and/or second chakra vulnerability seems almost to be a given, as Feras has pointed out.

Best to all,
Andy

==================

[Shannon Nelson]

Sure, one can use "the state of the soul" to explain ailments that date from
birth or before, tho that takes leave of the framework that Hahnemann left
us with. But then the phrase should be that disease "originate[s] in the
mental/emotional sphere *or the sphere of the soul*", or something like
that. Which has the disadvantage, IMO, of alienating folks of differing
belief when it is really unnecessary. Personally, I find that explanation
(congenital disorders relating to trauma carried by the soul) to be just
fine, and quite plausible, BUT one doesn't need to believe that, in order to
learn and practice homeopathy -- so I am leery of setting up unnecessary
hurdles!

But more to the point: It is *useful* to realize that *some* physical
ailments have their root in the mental or emotional sphere; because
*sometimes* (often?) once the M/E is taken care of, the physical issues
resolve on their own. But to set out a blanket statement that *all* disease
originates in the M/E can in some cases be counter-productive, by giving the
patient the message that their physical problems would all go away if they
would just "work on their attitude", or something like that. But
*sometimes* what they need is not an attitude adjustment, but instead help
with physical repair work.

I guess it's not a point worth beating to death , but that statement
("all disease... mental...") is one that always leaves me feeling a tad
queasy, so I thought I'd voice my objections. IMO sometimes the body leads,
sometimes the mind leads, and sometimes you don't know *which* is leading,
you just take the case...

Cheers,
Shannon
on 7/27/04 5:31 PM, Eleana Needham at eleanan@hotmail.com wrote:

[Feras Hakkak]

Dear Nader,
As you say, what Hahnemann theorized was that miasm is formed when one contracts some specific diseases through the related germs. And if these are not cured or are suppressed, chronic diceases come out of them. This is no relation to sin. You are absolutely right.
Then some other theoreticians came and defined the word 'miasm' in a different way (the original sin ...). They also used the same term 'miasm' to express their ideas.
Conclusion: Hahnemannian miasm is not equal to Kentian miasm. These are neither equal to Sankaranian miasm....!
My own idea: Before infection, we have susceptibility for infection. Susceptibility exists when the subtle system (nadis and chakras) do not work properly and the Kundalini is not up. The subtle system malfunctions when we are morally and spiritually doing wrongs. Now add the concept of reincarnation and past lives! So susceptibility can be a very complicated issue, which we homoeopaths try to eradicate through our remedies, Yogies try to eradicate with meditation and Kundalini awakening, etc.
Until we do not have full knowledge about all aspects of life, we'd better stick to what we clearly understand from experience, the one based on pure observation by unprejudiced observers. And pray to be guided to the correct path.
Best regards,
Feras

Nader Moradi wrote:
Dear Feras,

Thanks very much for info but it doesn mean that susceptibility to genital and sexual disease is a part of syphilis disease and also chakra problem which cause suceptibility to itch disease is a part of psora disease.When Hahnemnann speak about miasms he means contagious,infectious disease not other things else.
Unfortunately some Homeopaths use miasm in other means such as sin and etc which are nonsense and cause orthodox medicine ridicules Homeopathy.

Kind Regards,

Nader
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Eleana Needham]

sometimes the mind leads, and sometimes you don't know *which* is leading,
you just take the case...<<<<<<

Absolutely! I have no argument there - I was simply answering Nader's
question... and that is why I mentioned the Moebius strip! )

As for people's personal or religious beliefs - again, we have a framework
of reference - I was not being dogmatic; different concepts work for
different people but the basics are the same: food, shelter, love,
procreation, creativity, compassion, expression, intuition... divinity.

If we don't lose sight of the basics we can help people attain what THEY
feel is the optimum health for THEMSELVES.

)
Eleana

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

[Peter Graham]

I would love to read the text.
Michele.

[Eleana Needham]

I guess we might want to go back to the definition of the VF - is it spirit,
soul, life-breath, qi, prana...

IF the VF is the TOTALITY that makes the difference between a LIVE and a
DEAD organism, then the VF can in theory be weakened by mental/emotional
problems. In its weakened state, the VF would be susceptible to pathogens.

We could then go into the realms of susceptibility v. individualisation and
the issues surrounding those.

To quote Pasteur in his deathbed "Le terrain c'est tout"...

Eleana

[Nader Moradi]

Dear Eleana,

As I understood Pathogens affect primarily VF not mental/emotional sphere.

Nader

[Shannon Nelson]

Chakra problem could perhaps be caused by external stressors which are too
strong or too persistent for even the healthy VF to adapt to? (If we go by
Hahnemann's framework and definitions, any chronic disturbance is caused by
either "errors of living"/maintaining cause, or miasm.)
Shannon
on 7/28/04 1:21 PM, Nader Moradi at nmoradi@tbzhom.com wrote:

[Nader Moradi]

Dear Feras,

Can we have a person with chakra problem but without any miasms?

Rgds,
Nader

[Feras Hakkak]

Nader Moradi wrote:

Dear Feras,

Can we have a person with chakra problem but without any miasms?
If we take 'miasm' in its Hahnemannin meaning, yes. Because the germ and the infection is a part of the Hahnemannian miasm.

Something else. I have observed many times that when a chakra is not functioning properly, you are likely to receive an injury or blow or some other thing on the region of the body related to that chakra! For example, if you have problem with your spouse the left Nabhi chakra catches and then you have to be careful with your left knee! I have seen this phenomenon many many times. I mean even if there isn't any germ to make the infection, we may receive some other problems. This is God's warning to show us where our problem is. Disease, bankrupcy, death of loved ones, calamities, etc are all God's warnings that show our problems and weaknesses to ourselves. It is a part of His mercy.

Best,

Feras

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]