understanding 3

Bharat Sakhija
bharatsakhija@live.com

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?

Four.

Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
Abraham Lincoln

Bharat Sakhija

“ But in communicating to the world this great discovery, I am sorry that I must
doubt whether my contemporaries will comprehend the logical sequence of
these teachings of mine, and will follow them carefully and gain thereby the
infinite benefits for suffering humanity .....”(1)

The Master had foreseen the possibilities of comprehension and thus he
started explaining his great discovery with quoting such things, it was 1828
when world came to know about great discovery but it took 13 painful years to
serve this worthful discovery to humanity.

He writes, “Why, then, cannot this vital force, efficiently affected through
Homeopathic medicine, produce any true and lasting recovery in these chronic
maladies even with the aid of the Homeopathic remedies which best cover
their present symptoms…?” (1)

In other words, Hahnemann was searching for the reason that chronic cases
relapsed after benefiting from homeopathic treatment. He says he began to
consider this problem in depth from 1817 or 1817 and after many years of
thought and effort he came to the discovery of miasm,
Bharat Sakhija

“To discover this still-lacking keystone and thus the means of entirely
obliterating the ancient chronic diseases, I have striven night and day, for the
last four years, and by thousands of trials and experiences as well as by
uninterrupted meditation I have at last attained my object. Of this invaluable
discovery, of which the worth to mankind exceeds all else that has ever been
discovered by me, and without which all existent Homeopathy remains
defective or imperfect, none of my pupils as yet know anything.” (2)

He felt he had unlocked a great truth.

Eventually in 1827 he revealed his theory to Stapf and Gross – his two closest
students.

Hahnemann had a special understanding of the word miasm. Miasm is
understood to be a derangement of the vital force that predates and is more
fundamental than the current illness the patient suffers from. The job of the
physician is to try to understand the whole of the true disease inside the
patient – not just its current manifestation. To do so he must “find out as far as
possible the whole extent of all the accidents and symptoms belonging to the
unknown primitive malady.”

Hahnemann felt that there were three of these primitive maladies. He calls
these miasms psora, sycosis and syphilis. Of these three, he concluded that
psora was the most fundamental. “The monstrous chronic miasm of psora is
immeasurably more widespread, and consequently more significant….” (1)

Hahnemann believed that the miasms were both contagious and hereditary.

Especially psora he believed to be virulently contagious. “The itch disease is,
however, also the most contagious of all chronic miasmata, far more infectious
than the other two chronic miasmata…. The miasma of the itch needs only to
touch the general skin, especially with tender children.”(1)

“It is communicated so easily that the, Physician , hurrying from one patient
to another , in feeling the pulse has unconsciously inoculated other patient
with it”(1)

Bharat Sakhija

It was Hahnemann’s opinion that the external manifestation of itch (or other
signs of infection in the other two miasm) came about only after the patient
was thoroughly diseased by the miasm. He felt that the miasmatic infection
was communicated almost instantly to the whole vital force.

“The nerve which was first affected by the miasma, has already
communicated it in an invisible dynamic manner to the nerves of the rest of
the body and the living organism has at once, all unperceived, been so
penetrated by this specific excitation that it has been compelled to appropriate
this miasma to itself until the change of the whole being to a man thoroughly
psoric…” (1)

He had often used word such as Miasma of Psora,

“ Only this skin symptoms of the psora which has permeated the whole
organism (and which is more manifestly falling under the cognizance of the
senses has the name of itch ), only this eruption,as well as the sores which later
arise from it and are attended their borders with the itching and which become
humid when rubbed(the tetter), as also the tenia capitis-these alone can
propagate this disease to other persons,because they alone contain the
communicable miasma of the psora.”(1)

Thus he believed that the miasm is a dynamic, energetic entity, and Psora as a
state of organism.
Then after mentioning this theoretic principles,Hahnemann then described ,

“Then when the itch-malady develops into a manifest secondary disease there
appear the following symptoms, which I myself have treated successfully and
which confessedly originated from the contagion of itch and were mixed
neither with Syphilis nor with Sycosis”
 Scrofula,
 rickets,
 spina ventosa,
 atrophy,
 marasmus,
 consumption,
 pulmonary consumption,
 asthma,
 tabes mucosa,

Bharat Sakhija

 laryngeal phthisis,
 chronic catarrh,
 constant coryza,
 difficult dentition,
 worms and consequent diseases,
 dyspepsia,
 abdominal cramps,
 hypochondria,
 hysteria,
 dropsy,
 dropsy of the abdomen,
 dropsy of the ovaries, of the uterus,
 hydrocele,
 hydrocephalus,
 amenorrhoea,
dysmenorrhoea,
 uterine haemorrhages,
 hematemesis,
 hemoptysis and haemorrhages,
 vaginal haemorrhages,
 dysuria,
 ischuria,
 enuresis,
 diabetes,
 catarrh of the bladder,
 hematuria,
 nephralgia,
 gravel of the kidneys,
 stricture of the urethra,
 stricture of the intestines,
 blind and running piles,
 fistula of the rectum,
 difficult stools,
 constipation,
 chronic diarrhoea,
 induration of the liver,
 jaundice,
 cyanosis,
 heart diseases,
 palpitation,
 spasms of the chest,
 dropsy of the chest,
 abortion,
 sterility,
 metromania,
 impotence,
 induration of the testicles,
 dwindling of the testicles,
 prolapsus uteri,
 inversion of the womb,
 inguinal,
 femoral and umbilical hernias,
 dislocations of the joints from an internal cause,
 curvature of the spine,
 chronic inflammations of the eyes,
 fistula lachrymalis,
 short-sightedness and long-sightedness,

Bharat Sakhija

 day blindness and night blindness,
 obscuration of the cornea,
 cataracts,
 glaucoma,
 amaurosis,
 deafness,
 deficient smell or taste,
 chronic one-sided headache,
 megrim,
 tic douloureux,
 tinea capitis,
 scab,
 crusta lactea,
 tetters (herpes),
 pimples,
 nettle-rash,
 encysted tumors,
 goitre,
 varices,
 aneurism,
 erysipelas,
 sarcomas,
 osteo-sarcoma,
 scirrhus,
 cancer of the lips,
 cheeks,
 breast,
 uterus,
 fungus hematodes,
 rheumatism,
 gout in the hips,
 knotty,
 podagra,
 apoplectic fits,
 swoons,
 vertigo,
 paralysis,
 contractions,
 tetanus,
 convulsions,
 epilepsy,
 St. Vitus' dance,
 melancholy,
 insanity,
 imbecility,
 nervous debility, etc.

Also Hahnemann mentioned Leprosy as a substitute for psora, he writes

“The different names which were given by different nations to the more or
less malignant varieties of leprosy(the external symptom of psora),which in
many ways deformed the external parts of body,do not concern us and do not
affect the matter, since the nature of this miasmatic itching eruption always
remained essentially the same.” (1)
Bharat Sakhija

But let’s return to Hahnemann and his Chronic Diseases. After laying forth the
symptom lists which would lead us to suspect that a patient is either psoric,
sycotic or syphilitic, Hahnemann tries to give us clues as to how to cure the
miasm in the patient.

The therapeutics were quite simplified for sycosis and syphilis. Hahnemann
states that Thuja is specific for sycosis (that is any patient who is sycotic should
be cured by this remedy). Likewise he felt that Mercurius was specific for
syphilis. However for psora he gives a much more extensive list of remedies
which he called, “antipsorics”. This list of remedies is essentially all of the
remedies found in Chronic Diseases except for Thuja and Mercurius. The
remedies he detailed as antipsorics were:

Agar. Alum. Am-c. Am-m. Anac. Ant-c. Ars. Aur. Aur-m. Bar-c. Bor. Calc. Carb-
an. Carb-v. Caust. Clem. Coloc. Con. Cupr. Dig. Dulc. Euph. Graph. Guai. Hep.
Iod. Kali-c. Kali-n. Lyc. Mag-c. Mag-m. Mang. Mez. Mur-ac. Nat-c. Nat-m. Nit-ac.
Petr. Ph-ac. Phos. Plat. Sars. Sep. Sil. Stann. Sulph. Sul-ac. Zinc

Hahnemann instructed us to use one of these antipsorics when the case had
the features he had described for psora.

Unfortunately, Hahnemann never stated explicitly whether a remedy could
belong to more than one miasm or he never mentioned even the all medicine
should be seen in three miasmatic satge like Psoric Sulphur,Sycotic
Sulphur,Syphilitic Sulphur.

Nor did he ever state that the Psora means only functional disorder, Sycotic
means dealing with only accumulation or growths and syphilis means related
with destruction.

He had given long list af antipsoric medicines but never mentioned that wall
complete list, Nor did he ever suggest that any other medicine could apply to
sycotic miasm and syphilitic miasm i.e Thuja and mercurius.

Nor he ever Stated that miasm should be consider as phenomena in organism
like PsoraSycosissyphilis.

Nor he ever mentioned the possibilities of any other miasm.

Bharat Sakhija

But the truth was only that he had unlocked the truth of this all chronic
maladies that was also with painstaking working for 12 years.

Then though HERRING mentioned,

“What important influence can it exert whether a homeopath adopts the
theoretic opinions of Hahnemann so long as he holds the principle of the
master and the materia medica of our school. What influence can it have
whether a physician adopts or rejects the psoric theory so long as he searches
for the most similar medicine possible?” (5)

This simply suggested that work for only simmilimum forget the rest. So was it
such thing that before this discovery Hahnemann could hardly reached upto
simillimum?

But he clearly mentioned,

“Why, then, cannot this vital force, efficiently affected through Homeopathic
medicine, produce any true and lasting recovery in these chronic maladies
even with the aid of the Homeopathic remedies which best cover their present
symptoms…?” (1)

Then what was the practical implement of this discovery ? or it was only the
theory of etiology of chronic disease?

It was The argentinian Master, Thomas O.Paschero tells us,:

”Homeopathy views the constitution as a pathogenesis dynamism which the
individual inherits and modifies during his life,in three distinct direction
:inflammation, destruction of tissue or its proliferation. These dynamic morbid
tendencies were called by Hahnemann ‘MIASMS’- a term comparable to
‘diathesis ‘, dyscrasia, terrain, or constitution and he gave the names PSORA,
SYCOSIS,SYPHILIS.. (3)

Further these new explaination of miasms was given in the LIGA meeting of
1944. The renowned Mexican homeopath F. Ortega put forward his concept of
miasm. He maintained the concept of Hahnemann’s original three miasms (4).

However he attempted to make a clear and simple delineation of the mental
and physical characteristics of each miasm, He described the main

Bharat Sakhija

characteristics of the three constitutions in this way:
Psora = inhibition
Sycosis = excess
Syphilis = destruction

The benefit of this simplified view of the miasm was that the main thrust of the
patient and his constitution could readily be identified much of the time. Thus
the practitioner could readily categorize his patient into one of the groups. The
concept became widely accepted.

So acceptance of this theory and explanation gave self gratification to
Homeopaths by means which they could believe that they could have been
understand the core of the painstaking 12 years work of our master.

If miasms are only pathological phenomena and syphilis only means
destruction then why Hahnemann mentioned Leprosy as a Substitute for
Psora, and why Hahnemann had put destructive diseases under the name of
Psora!! ?

These explanation gave practical usefulness of miasma theory but is it the
same what Hahnemann meant by miasm?

Sankaran clearly rejected Hahnemannian understanding of Miasm because it
has no any practical implement in practice so he believed Miasm as a state and
divided These state in various 10 types,

“The traditional homeopathic Hahnemannian understanding of miasm is that it
is an etiology of disease. I looked at it and I rejected it from the beginning. I
said: “It’s a theory. I don’t want to hear this. Hahnemann has given us the tool
of totality, let’s stick to that.” But when I saw the possibility that it may not be
only an etiological classification, or a theory of disease origin, but rather can be
used as a classification of states and remedies, then I perked up because this
would be useful in practice.” (6)

For me, miasm is basically something that should be practical, and it can be
practical only if it helps us to find a remedy. I don‘t seemiasm as a theory. That
is the fundamental difference between Hahnemann‘s writings and what I am
proposing about miasm. In his theory of chronic disease, he proposed that

Bharat Sakhija

diseases were created from suppression of scabies, suppression of gonorrhea
and syphilis. (6)

“For me, this theory is not so useful in finding remedies, which is our main job.
Miasm can only be of value if we use it as a help in finding remedies. So I
thought: “How can it help?” Only if we can classify patients‘ states into
miasms, and remedy states into miasms too. And thus it can make our choice
easier. If we find a patient is in a particular miasm, we only need to look at
remedies of that miasm. Then I had to understand how this can happen. If we
have symptoms and sensations, etc., then what is the role of a miasm?
Somehow I understood that the miasm must represent the different pace and
desperation perceived in a given situation. And in this way we can identify ten
different types of pace and desperation that are possible.” (6)

During my teaching times I often asked Professors IS TUBERCULAR MIASM?
Some of them said yes while most of others denied saying IT IS DIATHESIS
HOW IT CAN BE MIASM!!!! Nobody given explanation why not miasm? Or
nobody knew or dared to tell about basic requirement to anything named as
MIASM. That was only inner feeling behind that answers that Hahnemann told
only three so there cant be any other possibilities .

Some further intellectual progress was made by Vithoulkas and he took miasm
as predisposition.

“Based upon what has been said thus far, we can now present a definition of
miasms: A miasm is a predisposition toward chronic disease underlying the
acute manifestations of illness 1) which is transmissible from generation to
generation and 2) which may respond beneficially to the corresponding nosode
prepared from either pathological tissue or from the appropriate drug or
vaccine.” (7)

Thus, by the time of Vithoulkas’ writings we had three characteristics for
miasm:
Infectious – a miasm must be contagious.
Hereditary – a miasm or the susceptibility to a miasm must be transmissible
from parent to child.
Nosode – a nosode must be obtainable from the miasmatic disease.

Bharat Sakhija

Vithoulkas stated clearly first time Tubercular as miasm separately as it is
fulfilling all basic requirement to named as miasm.

But still question arise that Hahnemann investigated whole world before this
discovery and tuberculosis is not something new disease for this mankind.

Skeletal remains from a Neolithic Settlement in the Eastern Mediterranean
show prehistoric humans (7000 BC) had TB,[8] and tubercular decay has been
found in the spines of mummies from 3000–2400 BC.[8] Phthisis is a Greek term
for tuberculosis; around 460 BC, Hippocrates identified phthisis as the most
widespread disease of the times involving coughing up blood and fever, which
was almost always fatal.[9] In South America, the earliest evidence of
tuberculosis is associated with the Paracas-Caverna culture (circa 750 BC to
circa 100 AD).[10] Skeletal remains from prehistoric North America indicate that
the disease was so common that "virtually every member of these late
prehistoric communities had primary exposure to tuberculosis."

Dhawale also considered miasm as Diathesis,

“The three Miasms represent three broad constitutional types which indicate
different susceptibilities to the development of illness.In other words,when we
consider Miasms, we consider them on the same plane as Diathesis.” (11)

But the explanation given by Paschero and Ortega still are widely accepted and
further modification and classification of various state and disease done
accordingly,

Dr.Vijaykar suggested miasm as a defence mechanism of our body,

“Psora is equivalent to Physiological defence response.
Sycosis is equivalent to constructive defence response.
syphilis is equivalent to destructive defense response.” (12)

Then he further classified further this defence as Miasm as following along
with “the theory of 7 layer suppression”.

Bharat Sakhija

The resembled same work and observation was also done by RECKWEG
SYSTEM through HOMOTOXICOLOGY By Dietrich Klinghardt, M.D., Ph.D. long
years before(1983) this defence explanation of miasm.

Homotoxicology named them SIX-PHASE table and that was made for making
prediction for better assessment of the possibilities for a vicariation effect.

“The six phase table is a field matrix reflecting medical experience based on
careful observation and eperical learning.It is a phase-by-phase arrangement
of disorders with no direct relationship between them. No causal pathogenetic
link between disorders can be interfered,The structures of the table makes it
suitable for developing a prediction system giving a better assessment of the
possibilities for a vicariation effect” (14)

Dr.vijaykar`s explanation resembled same as of Ortega`s and Paschero`s
explanation but defence was highlighted in the former that the cell has only 3
defensive responses and there can be only 3 miasms.

Further according to this understanding symptoms were grouped and classified
and considered as miasmatic symptoms accordingly,
This was made further to the symptoms of medicine and thus tri-miasmatic
material medica derived!

“If not all, most of the remedies can be seen in 3 shades-the psoric,sycotic and
syphilitic. The symptoms both physical and mental will be according to
underlying miasm” (13)

Bharat Sakhija

This miasmatic materia medica idea was also given by P.Ortega,
“The Miasmatic Classification of medicines in function of their symptoms

Lycopodium – the trimiasmatic
Calcarea carb as preponderant homoeo-Psoric
Pulsatilla and Thuja as pre-eminent Homoeo-sycotics.
Mercurius.the characteristic homoeo-syphilitic.

The various triangles symbolizing medicines,with reprensentation of the
miasmatic series of symptoms which they produce.” (15)

Such all explanation are easy to understand and follow but still question
remain same Is this explanation are justifying Masters explanation?
If psora only means to inflammation or primary defence response of functional
disturbance then why Hahnemann went through the ancient history?
Why he said Leprosy as a substitute of psora?
Why he mentioned various destructive disease under the name of Psora?
Why he said the Psora as most contagious and most destructive then other all
miasm?

Bharat Sakhija

Why he needed to classify miasm according to venereal and non-venereal ?

If all medicine have three stages of psora, syphilis and sycosis then why
Hahnemann didn’t mention any other syphilitic medicine other then merc?
Why nitric acid and Thuja were only antisycotic remedies?
Why only Psora having such list of remedies?
Why He never mentioned other miasmatic aspect of medicine nor he
suggested possibilities of that?

Following the Miasm Theory and further in following only THREE does not
make that we got Hahnemann.

“Are these refinements and further differentiations useful?” Or is it just further
theorizing?

By going thorough Master`s explanation and other modern explanation about
this theory one can easily feel that He is lost in his Theory, which was from 12
painstaking years , for day and night ,by uninterrupted meditation without
which all existent of Homeopathy remains defective or imperfect.

Bharat Sakhija

REFERENCES:

1. S.HAHNEMANN: The Chronic Diseases Their Peculiar Nature and their Homoeopathic cure
(theoretical part), B-jain Publisher,new delhi,india-1996
2. Samuel Hahnemann letter to Baumgartener.
3. Paschero T- Homeopatia Talleres grafcs.Gral
San Martin Buenos Aires .1973
4. ORTEGA: something new about 3
5. CONSTANTINE HERING: Hahnemannian monthly-1865-66
6. SANKARAN RAJAN: Narayana Verlag,Spectrum of Homeopathy 2010-3 Miasms 1828 – 2010
7. VITHOULKAS GEORGE: The Science Of Homeopathy,b-jain publishers, New Delhi-1998
8. Hershkovitz I et al. (2008). Ahmed, Niyaz. ed. "Detection and Molecular Characterization of
9000-Year-Old Mycobacterium tuberculosis from a Neolithic Settlement in the Eastern
Mediterranean".
9. Zink A, Sola C, Reischl U, Grabner W, Rastogi N, Wolf H, Nerlich A (2003). "Characterization of
Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex DNAs from Egyptian mummies by spoligotyping". J Clin
Microbiol
10. Hippocrates. Aphorisms.. Retrieved 7 October 2006.
11. DHAWALE,DR.M.L: principle & practice of homoeopathy part-1,MLD TRUST-MUMBAI-1967
12. "South America: Prehistoric Findings". Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Vol. 98 (Suppl.I)
January 2003. Retrieved on 8 February 2007.
13. VIJAYAKAR,DR.PRAFULL: the end of myasmtion of miasm-mrs preeti vijayakar-mumbai-2003
14. http://www.naturalworldhealing.com/philosophyofhealth/homotoxicologytable.htm
15. ORTEGA P.:Notes on miasm

Bharat Sakhija

understanding 3

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to understanding 3

Recently uploaded

understanding 3