Disease


The complete study of the phenomenon is impossible without a corresponding study of the noumenon. Hahnemann wanted to make a scientific study of diseases and drug – actions and therapeutics without attempting or ignoring the scientific study of life and mind. May be, the proper study of mind and life may require techniques and concepts totally different from those applied to the study of matter.


In the case of what we may call secondary acute exacerbations of the Chronic miasmatic illness the internal hypersensitivity is the pertinent factor; only a constitutional treatment can be of real help. Thus the term “miasm” can be taken in the sense of a sum total of all the factors (exogeno4us and endogenous, psychological, biological and chemicophysical etc.) in the production of diseased conditions, of which the living micro – organism factor can, of course, never be excluded in case of many acute or Chronic diseases.

In corroboration of these ideas we may conclude this discussion with the apt remarks of Sir John Weir, which runs thus:

“The miasm came before the microbe. All the evidence would support the theory that the first imbalance was in the host, that the patient suffered form a miasm, an unbalance, a disease which allowed for instance, the B. Coli to mutate and become a Gonococcus.

He would however, also point out that once the mutation has taken place with the formation of a Gonococcus, it must be accepted that the transference of this infection carrying organism to a healthy person could give rise to Gonorrhoea, but even then one must also consider that there is such a thing as a miasm which could favour the growth of Gonococcus. The Pasteur theory of infection is only a part of the much greater and more scientific doctrine of Hahnemann regarding the true relationship between micro – organisms and disease or Miasm.”

N.B. The writer has incorporated many passages from an admirably lucid article from the pen of Dr. E. Whitmont, first published in the February 1948 issue of the Journal of the American Institute of Homoeopathy.

THE REAL SIGNIFICANCE OF CHRONIC DISEASES

Hahnemann was an out and out scientist. He always kept himself to the plane of phenomena, actually and correctly observed by him. All his inductions, deductions and generalisations were based on observed facts. He never started with pre – conceived notions and ideas. True to the spirit of the “New Philosophy” of the 17th century Hahnemann sought to deal with those ideas or concepts which arose from controlled experiments or observations and in turn led to further experiments and observations. He regarded science as a series of interconnected conceptual schemes which arose originally from experimentation or careful observation and were fruitful of new experiments or observations.

According to him the test of a new concept is not only the economy and simplicity with which it can accommodate the then known observations but its fruitfulness. He studied the nature of Chronic diseases not with a view to acquire more knowledge about the essential nature and functioning of the Life – principle but for the sole purpose of finding a better way for treating and curing those cases. To him the concepts of psora, syphilis and sycosis and their respective miasms were sufficient for the discovery of such a desired method of effectively treating those cases.

But as the facts accumulated there grew a necessity for evolving other sets of concepts which would be adequate and relevant to the category of life. His observations, ratiocinations and logical inferences led him to accept the existence of an entity like Life – principle; but as it turned out to be an immaterial, imperceptible substance (not falling under the category of matter which is perceptible to our senses) his intensely realistic mind dared not advance farther lest it might land him in the domain of unreal, imaginative speculations.

But there he made a cardinal mistake. Medicine may be, primarily an art, an art of healing: but if it is attempted to build a rational art of healing it must be founded on true principles which have their roots not only in matter but in life and mind as well. Our Organism is an apparently indivisible tri-une whole of body, life and mind. We cannot make a complete study of one aspect only ignoring the rest; this, in the long run, is always found to be incomplete and misleading.

The complete study of the phenomenon is impossible without a corresponding study of the noumenon. Hahnemann wanted to make a scientific study of diseases and drug – actions and therapeutics without attempting or ignoring the scientific study of life and mind. May be, the proper study of mind and life may require techniques and concepts totally different from those applied to the study of matter.

But that is no ground for leaving those out of our considerations. Science and scientific attitude of mind do not bind ourselves to a particular technique or a particular set of concepts. On the other hand science advances not by the accumulation of new facts (a process which may even conceivably retard scientific progress) but by the continuous development of newer and more fruitful concepts.

B. K. Sarkar