In the 11th para of Organon Hahnemann says “When a person falls ill it is only the spiritual self – acting (automatic) vital force everywhere present in the organism that is primarily deranged by the dynamic influence of morbific agent inimical to life, it is the vital principle deranged to such an abnormal state that can furnish the organism with its disagreeable sensations and incline it to irregular processes which we call disease.”
Again, in the 12th para he repeats the same thing “it is morbidly affected vital force alone that produces the disease.”
In a foot note to the 12th para Hahnemann says “How the vital force causes the organism to display morbid phenomena, that is how it produces diseases, it would be of no utility to physician to know.” (But our friends morbid attempts are very keen to find this out for perhaps they possess progressive knowledge of science.)
This remark was made by Hahnemann here only because he had bitter experience in trying to explain how cholera spreads or affects persons with a probable i.e. doubtful theory which unhappily our friend has utilised for honouring Hahnemann really perhaps trying to honour himself by way of, as he thought a wonderful or intelligent discovery. To call Hahnemann father of Bacteriology is only to do him dishonour to our minds, as said before.
Now what was the bitter experience he had? It was a challenge of Dr. Hufeland, his theory of the “Probable” cause of the spread of cholera. I shall quote from the Lesser Writings of Hahnemann that is from the old stock of our friends arguments.
At page 758 Hahnemann says:- (Only fact brought forward by Hufeland against my proofs that is on board an English Ship in the open sea about the latitude of Riga that had no (?) communication with the town two sailors were suddenly seized with the cholera – proves nothing, for it is not known how near the ship came to the infected town of Riga so that the fear of miasm – exhalation from the town although diluted might yet have reached and infected the sailors who were still unused to the miasm especially if they, as if often the case, were rendered more susceptible to it from intemperance).
Here, Hahnemann being cornered by Hufeland, has been compelled to admit that sailors on board ship near Riga were attacked with cholera not from infectious matter washed out from the town, a far fetched idea, but was attacked with miasm of cholera being susceptible to it from the lowered vitality or vital weakness due to their intemperance etc. Now everybody with common sense is bound to admit that sailors on board ship on the Ganges were also affected with cholera, from the same cause of lowered vitality caused by intemperance etc.
The dismal unhealthy condition which helped the growth of cholera miasm certainly lowered the vitality of sailors also on the Ganges. Of course, the bad odour, mouldy atmosphere etc., added fuel to the fire in spreading the disease. So the meteoric or telluric influences causing sporadic or epidemic attacks of actual diseases can not be thrown overboard with bad logic or fallacious arguments.
What Hahnemann had published in 1843 in Organon must have greater authenticity than what he gave out in his Lesser Writings. Again Hahnemanns statement quoted by my friend is not purely Hahnemanns idea. It was only an echo of the opinion of public journals, is clear as day light from his writings at page 758 of Lesser Writings quoted below.
“The most striking example of infection and rapid spread of cholera as is well known and as the journals inform us in this way. “On board ships in the confined spaces filled with watery vapours the cholera miasm finds a favourable element for its multiplication etc. If the sailors on the sea near Riga are liable to attack of cholera without any actual contact due to intemperance lowering the power of vital force to resist the disease miasm, the sailors on board ship near the shore of the Ganges living under same unhealthy condition and character had their vitality lowered by intemperance etc.
The same causes have been expressed in 73rd paragraph of Organon, of epidemic diseases which prevail among thickly congregated masses of human beings. That calamities of war, inundations and famine also produce acute diseases by lowering the strength of the vital force and thereby developing susceptibility to diseases when innumerable persons gather together and live under unhealthy conditions and privations, is readily understandable. Hahnemann says:-
Morbific noxious agents do not possess the power of morbidly deranging the health of man unconditionally but we are made ill by them only when our organism is sufficiently susceptible to the attack of the morbific cause (Org. 31st para.)
Our friend has not clearly defined where lies the similarity of the action and affections of the miasm of Hahnemann and his parasites or bacteria. Hahnemanns miasms are immaterial and invisible but bacteria and parasites are material though microscopical. Miasms primarily affect immaterial vital force, the mind etc., whereas parasites can affect the material parts of man because they are themselves material.
The power of the parasites and bacteria can produce a single or a very limited few diseases only, whereas the miasm of psora produces innumerable diseases which affect mankind throughout the world, which pathologist failed to count or name anything like exhaustively. It is better to say that we cannot see elephant being blind than being laughed at saying that the animal is like a pillar or like a tail as in the story related by Paramhansa Ramkrishna Dev.
The truth is unless the vital force is weak and susceptible no acute or chronic miasm can ever affect the vital force. After quoting the doubtful statement of Hahnemann from his Lesser Writings as shown above my friend felt inwardly uneasy and wanted to find out something like more positive assertion relating to his Bacterial theory from Hahnemanns Chronic Diseases. But having failed to find anything of definite nature from the body of the book he had to plunge into the foot note at page 35 little suspecting that careful readers will never miss to defect the notes of interrogation put at the end of 2 para quoted denoting the doubt in Hahnemanns mind.
Again “Chronic Diseases” was written about the same time as the Lesser Writings. So the doubtful statement regarding the probable conception of Bacillus etc. occurred at that time of Hahnemanns life, if at all, but did not take the form of doubtless conviction to be recorded properly in the body of his authentic books. Now I beg to repeat here that from such doubtful data can any logical conclusion be arrived at? My friend has undoubtedly shown great and profound knowledge of logic. But he has also proved the truth of Burkes saying that it is the nature of all greatness not to be exact.
The prejudices of his Allopathic training gave my friend tempting incentive to exertion for finding hint of Bacteria or Bacilli in the Lesser Writings of Hahnemann. He found them and exclaimed like Archimedes – Eureka, – I have found it. True students of Homoeopathy will be at one with Dr. Kent and say – By none the doctrines of Homoeopathy are so much distorted as by some of his pretended devotees. Kent said “The Bacteria are the result of conditions within as it were evolved by spontaneous generation.
The cause of ultimates are not from without but from immaterial, invisible centre; the power of evolving is endowment from the Creator – K.P. 90.” The Britons understood and accepted this but some of my Indian friends does not yet. Poets and Philosophers are born never made.
The British Homoeopathic Association has adopted Kents Philosophy whole of it, Materia Medica and Repertory as text books for study in their faculty whereas our West Bengal Homoeopathic State Faculty has rejected first part of Kents philosophy. Britons know how to honour truth wherever found with sincerity. In order to draw out the meaning, denotation and connotation of Hahnemanns Psora and Miasm my friend has left no stone unturned in the fathomless lore of English Dictionary. Science, Metaphysics, Philosophy and remarkably in Logic which to my mind is only to create psychological cosmos out of logical chaos.
It was in the year 1906 we had Platos definition of man as a featherless biped and enjoyed it. But in the year 1951 we are given Hahnemanns Miasm and Psora in terms of bacilli, bacteria and parasites etc., only to regret amply.
God has given Homoeopathy to this world through one of His chosen sons for the real, curative and lasting benefit of its suffering humanity. The critics and commentators are temporal beings who work to display their powers of prejudiced judgment and verbose literary abilities. But truth is not altered by their efforts. Dr. Dudgeon, for instance, charged Hahnemann with “frequent changes and repetition of the same thing etc.” He certainly failed to reckon the necessities for introduction of a perplexing new thing in questions of life and death.
Others with more profound knowledge found in Hahnemanns huge writings which they mostly misunderstood – unwarranted presumption, dogmatic assertion, obscure conception, undue generalisation, incomplete formulations and arguments in a vicious circle. What more to add by these noble critics? Let their too much light kill their vision. You go on collecting honey like honey – bees wherever found with Mind – Tabula rasa.