Guest guest Posted July 20, 2003 Report Share Posted July 20, 2003 Hi OneLove, Sorry, it wasn't an article - just some random thoughts, ones that I often share with students and patients. As far as the concept of ahimsa (non-violence) goes this is not a part of traditional Ayurvedic medicine, and nor has it ever been a part of Ayurvedic medicine until relatively recently when the doctrine of ahimsa gained gradual acceptance by Indian society. The whole concept of ahimsa and its spread begins in the post-Buddhist period, where it was an important component of Buddhist morality, which was later transferred to Hinduism when the reforms of Adi Shankaracharya essentially took the Buddhist monastic ideals and replaced the orientation with traditional Vedic ideas - but the original Buddhist concepts of poverty, being chaste and ahimsa were retained. I believe that one can see the Buddhist influence upon Ayurveda most clearly in Vagbhata's Ashtanga Hrdaya (6-7th cent CE), enunciated in the section of sadvritta (daily conduct) and prajnaparadha (crimes against wisdom). Thus ahimsa is something that I believe has been superimposed onto the Ayurvedic model, for what its worth, but is not found as an important ideal in any of the ancient texts I have consulted. In fact, by reading the list of dietary articles enunciated by these texts, it is very clear that meat was never a forbidden food, and its consumption was actively promoted. Further to the idea that some foods are more disruptive to consciousness than others, yes, I agree. But I think this is more a case of individual predilections and factors such as racial heritage than it has to do with any kind of absolute. Meat and animal products are generally thought to have a tamasic nature in most Ayurvedic texts, but of course in some cultures, such as in Tibet, or among the First Nations people of North America, meat was a necessary food. And I think it would be a spurious and prejudiced argument to suggest that these traditional peoples are any less sattvic than vegetarians in India. In fact, I believe that if your body needs meat, i.e. you have a Vata prakriti, and you do not eat it for whatever reason, the result of this is far more destructive to your health. Bear in mind that I always emphasize sustainable ethics, honor and respect for all living things we eat, and in the case of meat, means organically-fed and free-range. From my understanding sattva is a quality beyond quality - it exists as pure buddhi, pure awareness, within our consciousness. In order to manifest this we need to respect the vehicle of our body to ground that pure state within an active awareness of our physical consciousness. If our diet allows to do this, to feel grounded and embodied, then the diet serves the purpose of the higher good, which is to realize we are pure awareness. Now, certain advanced individuals are able to process any food eaten and supply their body with the required nutrients. Thus, the typical yogic diet of fruit, nuts and dairy, which is generally promulgated as being sattvic, is the basis by which these exceptional individuals can manifest all their bodily requirements, while observing the doctrine of ahimsa. But of course this adherence to ahimsa is only partial, because the logical conclusion of ahimsa is already well described in Jainism, in which the goal is essentially to not eat anything living at all - and hence starve to death, as all the great Jain saviors have done. Thus, once again, modern Hindu practices such as vegetarianism are actually a reflection of the Buddhist idea of the middle path. In summation, sattvic foods are those foods which allow you to feel nourished and happy. This isn't a list to memorize, but an enquiry into your own life and physical awareness. Ayurvedic practitioners can assist greatly in this, but when an Ayurvedic practitioner makes dietary recommendations based in philosophy as opposed to the identified need, I believe this is a great error that does wrong to this venerable system. On a slightly different note, Kenneth Zysk's fascinating text "Asceticism and Healing in Ancient India," elaborates how the ancient Indian healer actually existed outside the mainstream in orthodox Indian society, because like almost all healers everywhere, they wandered from place to place to gather their medicines, and consorted with all peoples regardless of caste. This of course would mark such healers as out-castes among the "twice-born" Brahmins, who promulgated religious healing over the more mundane arts of herbal medicine. In many cultures, be it in Egypt, ancient China or Mesopotamia, there was a strict delineation between natural healing and shamanism, and although these practitioners often worked in tandem, the people knew the difference between them. Unfortunately, I think some folks within the Ayurvedic community are confused when it comes to making this distinction. Caldecott, Cl.H., AHG Clinical Herbalist Wild Rose Clinic ******************************************* of Clinical Herbal Studies Wild Rose College of Natural Healing ******************************************* 400 - 1228 Kensington Rd. NW Calgary, AB T2N 5P6 CANADA tel: (403) 270-0891 ext 315 fax: (403) 283-0799 email: phyto http://www.wrc.net/phyto ******************************************* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.