Miasma Anhang 5
[Mir Zahed]
Dr. Mir Zahed
explains with great clarity Hahnemann’s miasm concept, the practical problems
that stemmed from it, and how Sankaran’s new approach solves those problems.
Since the Organon
Homoeopathic Medical Association Pakistan (OHMAP) started introducing and
teaching Sensation Homoeopathy in Pakistan, a number of questions and doubts
regarding this method have emerged. Most of the questions are related to Rajan
Sankaran’s modern concept of miasms. Certainly, the reason behind this is that
homoeopathic literature prior to Sankaran contains some doubts about the theory
of miasms. On this account, this concept has neither been accepted nor carried
out in practice as an obligatory rule of prescription. I have attempted to
answer the questions about the modern concept of miasms in the following
article which, I hope, may remove the doubts regarding the modern concept of
miasms.
Question 1:
Hahnemann, the
founder of Homoeopathy, mentioned three miasms: Psora, Syphilis and Sycosis.
How did Sankaran discover ten miasms?
Why did Hahnemann not refer to miasms other than
Psora, Syphilis and
Sycosis?
Answer:
It is a
misunderstanding that Hahnemann had specified only three miasms. He had spoken
of Psora, Syphilis and Sycosis in Aphorism No. 78 of the “Organon” and called
them chronic miasms
which are never
eradicated without proper homoeopathic treatment. Before mentioning the chronic
miasms, Hahnemann alluded to “Acute Miasms” in aphorism No. 73. While speaking
of acute diseases, Hahnemann says:
“Sometimes they are
peculiar acute miasms which recur in the same manner (hence known by some
traditional name), which either attack persons but once in a lifetime, as the
smallpox, measles, whooping-cough, the ancient, smooth, bright red scarlet
fever of Sydenham, the mumps, etc., or such as recur frequently in pretty much
the same manner, the plague of the Levant, the yellow
fever of the
sea-coast, the Asiatic cholera, etc.”
So, according to
Hahnemann, primarily, there are two types of miasms.
Type 1 is “Acute
Miasms” which have a specific period of affliction and during this period
either the affliction terminates after completing its course or the patient
expires. Hahnemann has further sub-divided the “Acute Miasms”.
1st the
diseases that attack once in a lifetime such as Chicken-pox, Whooping cough,
Scarlet Fever and Mumps etc. etc. It is a point to be noted that more diseases
can be included in this list.
2nd
“Acute Miasms” includes diseases which appear in the form of epidemics such as
Plague, Yellow Fever and Asiatic cholera etc. Here, too, Hahnemann has left the
provision of more diseases
to be included in
this list. It signifies that miasms are of two kinds—-Acute and Chronic. As every
homoeopath knows, Hahnemann’s “Chronic Miasms” are three—Psora, Syphilis and
Sycosis while “Acute Miasms” comprise a long list of diseases such as Chicken
pox, Measles, Mumps, Scarlet Fever, Yellow Fever and Asiatic Cholera etc.
Therefore it is inappropriate to say that Hahnemann has mentioned only three
miasms and that Sankaran, by elaborating ten miasms, has created something
unfamiliar in the fundamental philosophy of Homoeopathy.
In homoeopathic
literature, discussion of Hahnemann’s three chronic miasms persisted for a long
time after Hahnemann. Then Vithoulkas introduced a new miasm named Tubercular.
After that,
in 1950, Foubister
presented another miasm labeled as Cancer and after that, in 1980, Vakil
conducted a proving of Leprominun and another miasm Leprosy came under
discussion in homoeopathic literature. Thus prior to Sankaran seven miasms were
under discussion in our literature.
1: Acute 2: Psora
3: Syphilis 4: Sycosis 5: Tubercular 6: Cancer 7: Leprosy
On what grounds did
Hahnemann differentiate Acute and Chronic miasms? As Hahnemann described Acute
Miasms under acute diseases, so his definition of acute diseases applies to
them.
Aphorism 72
“The diseases to
which man is liable are either rapid morbid processes of the abnormally
deranged vital force, which have a tendency to finish their course more or less
quickly, but always in a moderate time – these are termed acute
diseases…………………………….”
According to
Organon, Acute Miasms take effect intensely and terminate after completing
their course while Chronic Miasms keep penetrating deeper and do not cease
without proper homoeopathic treatment. It means that Hahnemann has
distinguished the Acute and Chronic miasms on the basis of their “pace and
depth”. “Rapid process” denotes the
“pace and “finish their course” denotes the “depth” of Acute Miasms. Whereas
gradual progression of Chronic Miasms is their “pace” and their everlasting
nature is their “depth”.
Following the
footprints of Hahnemann, Sankaran started working on the thesis that chronic
miasms also can be defined and identified on the basis of “pace and depth” as
done in the case of Acute and Chronic miasms by Hahnemann. When Sankaran
initiated his studies on these lines he not only succeeded in finding out a
distinct and decisive identity of all the pre-existing miasms but also
identified three other miasms—Malaria, Typhoid, and Ringworm. Thus Sankaran
established a clear cut distinction among ten miasms on the basis of “pace and
depth”. This “pace and depth” of a miasm is expressed through the response of a
patient which Sankaran calls a coping mechanism. This established identity of
miasms can be easily understood and applied in a homoeopath’s practice. In this
way, the two hundred years old dilemma about identifying miasms and applying
this concept in practice seems to be resolved.
Question 2:
What is fundamental
difference between the old theory of miasms and Sankaran’s concept of miasms?
Answer:
The basic
difference between the two concepts is that of mode of identification. In the
old concept miasm was determined etiologically while according to Sankaran’s
concept a miasm is decided
on the basis of
“pace and depth” expressed through the coping mechanism of a patient in a
particular situation. In the old concept, a history of suppressed gonorrheal
infection or warts was considered
indication of sycosis but we have reservations when many of our cases with
gonorrheal history or warts were cured by the use of psoric remedies such as
Sulphur or syphilitic remedies such as Mercurius etc. etc. What have the psoric
or syphilitic remedies to do with suppressed gonorrhea and warts? When we
follow Sankaran, we do not adjudge a patient with gonorrheal history
or warts as sycotic
but we take note of the patient’s attitude and response i.e. coping mechanism
whether it is sycotic or not. Is the patient giving sycotic responses in his
malady as well as in other affairs of his life or not? My personal practice
stands witness to the fact that a number of my patients with warts were cured
with psoric remedies like Sulphur or Nat-m etc. It is probable that a sycotic
patient may have warts but it cannot be anticipated that a patient with
gonorrheal history or warts must be sycotic. Similarly miasms like Malaria,
Typhoid, and Leprosy do not mean Malaria fever, Typhoid fever and the disease
of leprosy. In any disease, the decision of miasm will be taken on the grounds
of patient’s specific coping mechanism and pace and depth of the disease. It is
possible that the miasm of a T.B. patient may be cancer or sycosis, and a
patient with Typhoid fever may not have typhoid miasm.
Question 3:
How much is
Sankaran’s concept of miasms beneficial in practice? Isn’t the previous
literature on miasms adequate? Why is it necessary to understand Sankaran’s
concept of miasms?
Answer:
It is imperative to
understand Sankaran’s concept of miasms in order to become a proficient
homoeopath. In the previous literature on miasms, practically there were two
major problems: firstly, to identify the miasm of a patient and secondly, to
establish the miasms of remedies. Before Sankaran, Hahnemann and all other
renowned physicians attempted to identify a miasm on the basis of the history
of miasmatic infection. But from a practical point of view, many pathological
expressions and symptoms come under more than one miasm. In this way it becomes
difficult to identify a miasm in a patient. Furthermore a history of miasmatic
infection in patients is rarely found and if a history of miasmatic infection
is present the indicated remedy may belong to some other miasm. When Sankaran
identified miasms on the basis of “pace and depth” of the miasms and “coping
mechanism” of patients both the problems were resolved.
Sankaran has
established only one miasm for each remedy which is very much practicable.
Prior to that, a number of miasms were ascribed to every remedy, so it was
almost impossible to apply a remedy according to a miasm. For instance Arsenic
is syphilitic as well as psoric and acute. Sulphur belongs to all the three
miasms as far as the old classification is concerned. Similarly Silicea has
also been denoted as a medicine of the three miasms. When we cannot determine
the miasm of Sulphur, Thuja, Arsenic, Phosphorus and even important nosodes like
Tuberculinumn and Medorrhinum, how can we use the remedies according to the
miasmatic concept? Thus, keeping the pace and depth of miasms and coping
mechanism of patients in view, Sankaran has devised a new miasmatic
classification of remedies. In this classification every remedy comes under one
miasm only. In this way the miasm of a patient as well as the miasm of a remedy
become distinct and identifiable and miasmatic application of a remedy becomes
easy and conclusive.
It is necessary to
note that Sankaran’s miasmatic classification of remedies is somewhat different
from the old classification. For instance, according to the old classification,
Nat-m is recognized as a great psoric remedy but Sankaran labels it as a remedy
of the Malarial Miasm. In the old classification, Arsenic was stamped psoric
and syphilitic while Sankaran has identified it as a remedy of the Cancer
Miasm. Sepia was supposed to be psoric and sycotic but in Sankaran’s system it
belongs to the Leprosy Miasm. Phosphorus was said to be psoric and syphilitic
but according to the Sensation method it relates to the Tubercular Miasm only
and so on.
Briefly, in
Sankaran’s system, the miasm of a patient can be identified with full
confidence and every remedy has been classified under one miasm only (?!). It is such a
great achievement in the history of homeopathy that for the first time
Hahnemann’s great discovery of miasms is being confidently utilized in
homoeopathic practice.