Minutus

Hahnemannian 2002 wrote:
We are giving weightage to miasm theory because it is
from Hahnemann and his observations were always
careful and meticulous. For me the whole
question is still not fully answered. THere are things
that miasm theory still does not explain fully and
some of the extensions and additions people built
around are still more confusing.
*****
Dear Hahnemannian,
I think the deviation starts after the theoretical
recognition ends.Miasms, Imo are not the showpieces of
Homeopathy - just to say they exist. They serve
valuably in therapy. For example, when we are treating
a dyspeptic, when suddenly you see an eruption,which
has no itch,red tips with a sweat of foul smell, an
ordinary homeopath will think cure is nearer since he
thinks he has brought out an eruption. But,
a man versed with the theory of chronic diseases, will
know that another layer has been revealed, which is
sycotic in nature. Here too, when, the selected remedy
fails to completely relieve, The knowledge
of the prevailing miasm helps in selecting the
appropriate nosode.

Hering also thought like you did- The superiority of
symptom similarity. Kent also states in his lesser
writings that "we must raise above miasmatic
prescribing, but hold the miasm in view". But it was
the same Hering who introduced the idea of nosodes
into Homeopathy.

Hahnemannian wrote:
I think Ghatak translated a miasm piece and I read it
long back - 20 years may be- I am not sure if this is
the same Banerjee- And people threw in mesoderm and
endoderm to confuse it even further... somehow I feel
that this whole thing which started out simple has
become more complicated and looks like the tower of
Babel of Homeopathy. Is it not for the same reason to
treat chronic complaints that there is this Core
Delusions business as well? Ringworm miasm etc. Why
not?

===== Ah, these , I think are sometimes stretched out
truths.

You also wrote:
Ultimately everyone writes his/her own
version of miasm theory ( including the Banerjees and
Luc De
Scheppers of the world) and wonder of wonders - all
claim that their
version works-

+++++++ No , no, reconsider your words. Bannerjee and
Schepper are devoted hahnemannians. Especially Luc De
Schepper, has written nothing new about miasms except
the acceptance of Tubercular and cancerinic miasms. I
think, the future students owe a lot to his book
"Hahnemann revisited"- one of the most lucid,
straightforward books for "all". I myself, after a
good
four years of study, found the book a refresher and
took me into unexplored territories such as LMs.
Coming back to his writings on miasms, I think it does
not a bit deviate from the organon.
You also wrote:
I do not know how every ones version would work - if
this is a scientific process- and my version of it is
- homeopathy works without even considering miasmatic
basis....Instead of talking about miasms - if let us
say - for all chronic conditions start with
Sulphur if these symptoms are there and with Mercury
if these symptoms are there as part of the indications
without going into any theory- will it not be
effective the same way? Of course I believe
in suppression etc. but why should we build a whole
framework of pathogenesis around that? Remember
Sulphur and Mercury have been called the Yin and Yang
of alchemy long before Hahnemann and even
in Siddha, Ayurveda etc. Well that is my take of it -
and I have prescribed Sulphur and Mercury on these
lines without overly thinking about miasms - guess
what - it still works...
++++++++++++++++++
I think there is a overly critical attitude there. A
bit rigid also ?:)-

Comparing Homeopathy with TCM, Ayurvedha and Siddha
may not be correct.As for as I know, Homeopathy is THE
ONLY COMPLETE, SCIENTIFIC, CURATIVE,EFFECTIVE system
that was founded on earth. The rest were just
enoughs- some were 'also rans'.How else would you
justify the complexdecoctions of these therapies
compared to the simple,minimal and similar
dose of Homeopathy?

Regards
Venkat
__________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner now. Go to http://yahoo.shaadi.com

Dear Venkat - Thanks for analyzing things well and thoroughly. I was
describing my practice and I am not suggesting people who follow
miasms give it up. Having said that pl. see my comments below:
- Any one ( even "ordinary" homeopaths like myself who does not know
the difference between sycosis and psychosis) who thinks that the
appearance of an eruption of and by itself points to a cure is daft.
Homeopathic prognosis and progression of disease is assessed at all
levels. One of the main things that I usually look for is patients
relationship to the complaints - how sick they feel and how they
relate to the sickness - is there more of a touch of reality in their
assessment ( let us say how much are they trying to come out of
their "delusion"); clarity of the symptoms ( a partial similimum is
supposed to clarify the symptoms) esp. getting concrete symptoms,
clearly defined modalities etc. This would automatically point to the
next prescription whether I know it is sycosis coming out as a foul
smelling eruption or not...
nosodes into Homeopathy.

I do not advice mere symptom covering- in chronic I would concentrate
also more on longitudinal patterns than cross sectional patterns... I
support nosodes etc. My point is any anti miasmatic can be prescribed
on careful study of symptoms -whether a miasm is perceived or not -
since any miasmatic classification of remedies would start only from
the symptoms that they are capable of producing... If Aconite is not
antimiasmatic it is because it did not produce any miasmatic symptom-
right? If it produces antimiasmatic symptoms and is still not
considered an antimiasmatic - there is something seriously wrong with
our theory.
Well if I practice like Hering did, what more can I ask for?
Sorry if I sounded a little too casual. I have lots of respect for
Luc's work. Banerjee- I do not which one it is. I just mentioned them
since you had quoted their work and what I meant to say was there is
a wide disparity between what diff. authorities teach about miasms.

I may be criticizing since there is a lot in homeo practice that is
taken for granted. Sometimes what should be a "science" is practised
with a zeal associated with religion etc. There is a lot of
swallowing of all that is dished out by Gurus without assimilation.

I am not rigid as many others in this list who are convinced that
they are right. I am just saying what I think and how I practice.
Sometimes people preach something and practice something else
altogether. Moreover I am trying to loosen some rigidity here- not
put more bindings.
Well probably Siddha people might think differently Regarding
their complex decoctions - why do you think they are doing it? How do
you think they were able to find the 200 items that could go into a
combination-preparation and still not cause any side effects if taken
as directed eventhough the medicine includes Mercury and other heavy
metals - animal research? Human research? I suggest you read about
Van Mezhugu in Siddha literature and see what it says. Believe me
when I say that there are more things in these different systems than
you and I are capable of understanding - probably like these
miasms...

How many posts were there in this group about antimiasmatic
prescribing? For the past 1 year( since when I am a member) there
have been so many questions about so many chronic cases - almost all
cases discussed here are chronic- till now I have not seen even one
case - may be there was and I might have missed it- where a
presenting case was discussed in terms of miasms and remedy also
suggested accordingly and the case followed up on miasmatic basis-
except the last "rodent" ulcer... why is that so? I see people coming
out with suggestions to give all kinds of milk, dolphins and whales
and hydrogen (and of course "vacuum") - but none on miasmatic
basis...Even the miasm discussion I remember reading a month back had
some spurious information about the various psychology presentations
and core delusions of the miasms - definitely not from hahnemann's
chronic diseases- it looked like more from a 21st century Hahnemann...
http://yahoo.shaadi.com

Dear Hahnemannian,
While I see the correctness of your views on symptom based
prescription, I cannot overstate the gains of the miasmatic totality
on hand. To some it may be boring and a drudgery but to me it is
fascinating. Some quick answers to some specifics.
1. The Bannerjee I speak of is SK Bannerjee who wrote 'miasmatic
diagnosis' a standard reference guide used by Luc De Schepper. (And
me). the other Bannerjee is PN Bannerjee who translated Ghatak's
classic work on Chronic disease from Bengali into English.
2.The symptom similarity versus miasm debate will rage I think
forever.Dr Luc has given an interesting situation when sometimes he
would press for a stronger miasmatic remedy even if it covered
symptoms less than a symptom similar Rx.
3. With your depth, trying to whip those stray out of the classical
hahnemannian realm is really not necessary imo. We have some very
positive developments recently in homeopathy. First and foremost is
the interest of rank outsiders like me, the emergence of discussion
groups like minutus, emergence of Luc and his books, talk of organon
sixth edition and LM s- the list is endless. I will rather be
pleased if you start something like an online magazine, write a book
etc. which will bring out the bottled good in you.
4. I was always tutored from the childhood about native Tamil
(Siddha) medicines. But my experiences with it even with BSMS docs
did nothing. Even for me. But taking all these a flaw in practice I
will look at it afresh. The Van Mezhugu is interesting. Where can I
get books on it. Know any source in Coimbatore or Chennai ?

Best
venkat

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "hahnemannian2002"
wrote:
was
know
daft.
all
their
is
the
foul
concentrate
patterns... I
prescribed
not -
from
not
symptom-
with
De
them
is
miasms.
is
practised
assimilation.
not
do
a
taken
heavy
than
all
one
coming
whales
had
presentations
Hahnemann...

OK Venkat - Thanks

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "J.venkatasubramanian"
wrote:
totality
(And
he
classical
is
discussion
organon
book
I
I
the
patients
symptoms,
to
Luc
for
there
that
practice.
Regarding
How
into
about
me
there
basis-
back
hahnemann's