Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Ahimsa and diet

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

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

*******************************************

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...