. . . . continued
One of the major misunderstandings of the theory of the chronic miasms is how an individual becomes affected or infected by a miasmatic force. Because of Hahnemann’s use of the word infection, many have been misled to think in terms of searching for the ultimate microbiological organism that is responsible for disease. The names that Hahnemann has given to two of the miasms (sycosis and syphilis) are in part responsible for this misunderstanding. Many modern homeopaths still think of these miasms only when there has been an actual gonorrheal or syphilitic infection in the individual’s history. Such thinking is very narrow and limits the practical application of the theory of the chronic miasms.
According to homeopathy, microorganisms do not necessarily have to be present when an “infection” takes place. As has been discussed previously, we can think of an infection as an interaction of an extrinsic field of morbific energy with the energy fields of the individual, rather than as an invasion of microorganisms. Before such an interaction can take place, the biofield’s soil must have been properly fertilized for an interaction so it is rendered receptive or susceptible to a morbific field.
From this standpoint, is it not possible that during the act of sexual intercourse in which there is such close physical contact, that there is also intermingling of the subtle energy fields of the two individuals? When there is deep emotional and psychological involvement between the two, would one not expect this to especially be true? If the subtle body of one of the individuals has already been infected by the sycotic or syphilitic miasm and thus emanates a perverted energy field, and if the other individual is particularly susceptible to the influence of such a distorted energy field because of the presence of the psoric miasm, is it not feasible that the latter will likewise take the imprint of the venereal miasm from the already affected field of the other person? Has not such a field that has come in contact with an infected field likewise become permanently altered and thus will likewise express the miasmatic signs and symptoms through the mind-prana-body continuum until appropriate treatment is given on the dynamic level to realign the field? As confirmation of these ideas, one often sees in clinical practice female patients who declare their problems started after marriage. And their signs and symptoms are frequently in accordance with the gynecological disturbances as characterized in one or other of the miasms.
If these things are true, then what is the role of the gonococcus and the treponema spirochete that are supposed to be the prime causative agents in venereal diseases? Is it not possible their presence is merely a consequence rather than a cause of the infection? Are they able to multiply and thrive because of the environmental changes in the whole organism that have occurred after the shock to the subtle body?
to be continued . . . . .
Dr. Barbara Bova, HOD,
Department of Homeopathy