susceptibility / miasmatic influence

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Joy

Let us assume that this is day 1 of mankind on Earth. He is clean in all
matters and knows what to do. He is free from miasms and disease.

Let us assume he is in harmony with himself and the environment.
This means that he has micro organisms inside him in some kind of a balance
and also outside of him.

But it does not mean that he is not susceptible. We are susceptible to a
number of things and if one thing weakens us, it leads to other factors
taking advantage.

But let us understand that it is a situation where the Law of Jungle
applies. So it is kill or be killed and also the strong will dominate the
weak.

Ignoring all the issues about deviations from the straight and narrow etc, I
am theorising now, but all we need is for the environmental conditions to
change rapidly for our character to become stressed. Lack of food would soon
follow - stresses would soon build up and weaken and our chaps may become
infected by one of the germs with which he was in harmony. This is what Hn
called acute miasm.

Let us assume that he survives, but the battle scars remain. These are the
chronic effects.
These are then passed on to the next generation and we therefore have the
inherited chronic effects of an epidemic disease. What the Master called
chronic miasm.

Good homoeopathy will reduce our susceptibility - that is really the only
sensible conclusion I can make.

But at the end of the day, no end of such discussion is going to get us
anywhere - we need to learn to heal our patients.

Rgds
Soroush

Message: 9
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:18:15 +0000
From: J Lucas
Subject: Homeopathy!!

If susceptibility existed before miasmatic influence - what was there to be
susceptible to?? What was there before chronic and acute miasms.

But no-one can prove anything yet about what came first, the chicken or the
egg. Perhaps, because the two are so intimately linked (susceptibility and
miamsatic influence), so dependable are they to each other, that they
evolved together.

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

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

not in contention with your overall post Saroush, but but isn't this
snip below the problem, that there exists this concept of 'Day 1' for
humankind's existence?
This is what I posted a day or two ago, that this discussion was
leaning toward the 'Adam and Eve' idea.

If we are to 'go back' to the beginning of all disease, miasm etc, -
then we have to decide how far back we go - 200 years ago, 20,000,
-back to Dude erectus?, Neanderdude? Pre-history? Pre-world?
Pre-Bangus biggus?

When was the first disease? was it as soon as there was a Homo Sapiens
to experience Sx, the friday after, or before, or later?
Until that line is drawn how can there be any meaningful deductions?

The point really is that there is no line in time that can be drawn
except for purely hypothetical discussion which means any POV is purely
that, and useful as a working hypothesis, but no absolutes, no facts.
Simon
(here and now)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Rosemary C Hyde, Ph.D.]

Following this discussion, it's interesting to see how Kent arrived at the "original sin" interpretion, I'm finding. Rosemary