Minutus

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]

Dear Listee

Although I learned and enjoy a lot from the discussion on the subject I want to remind the old problem. There are as many interpretations of the word "MIASM" as number of world homeopaths. It is not proper for a science to have such misunderstanding. We (homeopaths) should have a common language, but at the moment when talking about miasm one would get Hahnemannian view, the other would get the Kentian view, third homeopath would think of Sankarian miasm and classification of remedies and many of us would think about our personal view ( energetic or spiritual or chakra based , etc.) , ofcourse any of us insist on correctness of his own point of view and ofcourse each view has its own value, many of them are useful.
This was the subject of a disscussion in mailing list some months ago. To solve the problem I suggest to study Hahnemann's Chronic diseases at first and try to look at the concept of Miasm as Hahnemann's point of view. Ofcourse after completing CD we could start to study other concepts and have some critics on all of them.

Again I want to suggest that we look at the subject as the way Hahnemann did ( only when we study the HMN's CD book ), another suggestion is to specify, what one is talking about, for example we could say Hahnemann miasms, kent miasm or sankaran miasm etc. Because these are completely different subjects with a same name.

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