Plants and himsa

[Guest guest]

> Just as yogurt stored in fridge may become more "kapha" enhancer,

and

> a pepper soup taken hot will become more Pitta enhancer, in the same

> way, the substances whose properties were classified by ancient

> acharyas in India may strengthen or weaken certain gunas, when taken

> in extreme cold climates of arctic regions. Milk allergies may get

> enhanced when one goes from Chennai to Toronto. The preference to

> local plants and food requires emphasis.

>

> Dr Bhate

 

This observation of Dr. Bhate suggests the answer to many of the

controversies that have been discussed here recently. To say that the

food we eat does not effect our mind is contrary to every principle of

Ayurveda. Ayurvedic and Yogic science is an ancient system of

correcting disorders of the human body, mind, and spirit through

techniques of alteration or correction of past errors by removing the

excesses and supplementing the defeciencies for the purpose of healing

pathologies of the mind, body, and spirit. Ayurveda postulates that

everything we do and everything that is done to us alters us in some

way or another - food alters our body, mind, and spirit - climate

alters - medicines alter - relationships alter - daily we are effected

by everything in our environment to greater or lesser degrees.

Ayurvedic techniques have been developed to deal with every physical,

emotional, mental, and physical pathology known to man. It will not be

possible to by pass natural law to achieve sucess in this life. It

seems to me that anyone who does not understand the role that the

imbalanced Doshas and or Gunas play in human success and failure -

including the nature and quality of the mind - does not understand

Ayurveda (indeed natural order in general).

 

One wonders what a person thinks they are doing when they reccomend

someone take medicines or therapies if he is not convinced in his very

core that these things can alter and correct basic functions of the

body/mind. There is no difference or seperation between any of the

aspects of ourselves body, mind, or spirit - when we effect one aspect

all aspects will be effected.

 

Basic questions have to be asked and understood before we can

understand what Ayurveda is. What is health - what is disease and what

do we achieve if we get healed from our disease - are there levels of

health - what are the Gunas and what is the real meaning of this in

our lives - what is Sattva - what is the difference between

individuals who manifest a dominance of one Guna over the others? We

Indians were raised with these concepts and take most of the

assumptions of Auyrvedic science for granted. It seems that many

outside of Indian culture have trouble understanding why we have the

views that we do about many aspects of life - Ayurveda means something

completely different to us than it does to western students - even

many modern Indian students do not understand the depth of what

Ayurveda really is - a true science of life from the grossest to the

most refined. A science and an art that can lead us from disease and

suffering to health and beyond - beyond meaning a higher manifestation

of human existance than has been achieved before - it is a true

science of human evolution. Vaidyas and Yogis since ancient times have

tried to go to a higher level of self in themselves and in their

attempts to help others. One must have a model of that higher self

before one can know where one is going. Yogis have used the symbolic

language of the Gunas to express the issues of 'higher'

and 'lower' self - many modern people are confused by this because

they do not understand the cultural context in which these subjects

have been discussed for centuries. For modern students to understand

these issues beyond simple symptom lists they will have to experience

these things personally - then and only then will such terms as Sattva

become clear. If one can not experience Sattvic state on ones own then

come in contact with someone who has and then all will be clear.

Achieve true health and all of existance will be seen from the

perspective of that light - everything else will be left behind in the

darkness that once was.

[Guest guest]

There is no doubt regarding the antiquity or venerableness of

Ayurveda, or its legendary place among the other sacred and important

teachings and texts of ancient India. What is at debate however is

the interpretation of its application, and how this interpretation is

affected by historical revisionism, especially revisionism that has

no basis upon which to prove itself except the logic of its own

argument.

 

Ayurveda does not belong to one group of people that have one

particular perspective - it belongs to all, and its heart, can be

found as the same system of traditional medicine practiced by all

peoples all over the world. Concepts like hot and cold, the

importance of digestion and the vital force, techniques such as

sweating and purgation as therapeutic tools - these are found all

over the world, and represent not the teaching of one people who

think they are so much more noble and better than others because of

the way they dress or what they eat, but because of our relationship

with the earth. In this sense, Ayurveda is a timeless, vibratory

wisdom that is received from our sensuous and spiritual awareness of

life.

 

What we are seeing in this discussion is simply an extension of the

communal politics in India. If it were the case that one group were

so much more sattvic than another because of what they eat, the words

they chant or how they tie their dhoti then the communal violence

would be one-sided, and the sattvic ones could claim the moral high

ground - but they cannot. The fundamentalist ethic has been so

damaging to debate and discourse in India that dissenting academics

now fear for their very lives:

 

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1801/18010730.htm

 

There is also misconception about the development of Ayurveda, and as

per the above discussion, that it can be claimed by one class of

people, despite the fact that its development, including the

authentic Ayurvedic texts we hold as sacred, are heterogenous in origin:

 

http://www.hindu.dk/4/ar/zysk2.pdf

 

Regarding diet, only the ignorant would suggest that what you eat has

no bearing upon the mind, but what is at issue is HOW food affects

the mind, and how food that affects the body in turn affects the

mind. As far as I can see we cannot debate this because there is no

room for it, or even a real assessment of this question as per the

Samkhya darshana because some basic ontological facts aren't even

being addressed, like the panchabuthas and sattva guna. Most of the

time I have raised the debate I get circuitous nonsense like Aryans

migrating from the North Pole, which I take it, is supposed to be

some kind of rationalization that the beholder's perspective is so

much more noble than the other because it claims such amazing

antiquity. But tell me, how does one decide to choose one legend

over another? In ancient Tibet the Kings would hold contests to see

who was the best diagnostician, inviting medical practitioners from

China, India, Persia and Greece to have it out. According to the

records it was the local Bon practitioners that demolished them all,

because they had the best grasp of the science. According to Bon,

they consider their knowledge timeless, like the Vedas, and it just

so happens to be very evocative of Vedic teachings, with the similar

Gods, similar rituals, etc etc. Vedic scholars say the tantric

teachings of Bon are derived from when Shiva cut of Brahma's head.

However, according to tradition, the Bon teachings are said to have

been re-established 18,000 years ago by a buddha-like figure named

Tonpa Shenrab Miwo, who traveled from the land of the Aryans, a land

to the West of Tibet that is inaccessible by normal humans means.

The Bonpo consider these people, from Olmo Lungring (Shambhala), as

the true Aryans (noble ones), from which ordinary humans have learned

their highest spiritual ethics. But to the point, the Bon

pracitioners believe that the Hindus derive many of their beliefs and

practices from them. Is this true? And how should they prove it?

Perhaps we could visit them on our way to Mt Kailash, which is part

of THEIR ancestral territory (pretty far from the Gangetic plains we

must admit), and see what knowledge and wisdom these yak-eating

people have.

 

I cannot spend much more time on this, but as a last example, I would

ask the reasonable minded people on the list to consider this.

Mushrooms are tamasika in Ayurveda, and yet in China, mushrooms are

stated to be good for the mind. In fact, some mushrooms such as

Reishi (Ganoderma lucidum) is considered to be so special in China

that it is called the "herb of spiritual potency", and is venerated

by the taoists and healers alike, used as a panacea that is

particularly good for "calming the spirit". Modern research has

shown that this creature which lives on dead and decaying material

has numerous benefits - medline has over 400 papers alone indicating

its efficacy and medicinal effects. So how can this be rationalized

in Ayurveda? Do we simply ignore it and hope it goes away? Or is

there an honest, open-minded assessment that says "ok, maybe this

sattva-rajas-tamas thing needs to be reconsidered a little. Maybe we

have injected our own cultural bias into the equation to such an

extent that we might miss out on new opportunities for healing.

Maybe our culture developed a phobia about mushrooms and perhaps

other tamasika items that are unjustified. Perhaps we should

reassess our knowledge somewhat, and be open to new possibilities

(even when there is ample evidence in our own teachings)."

 

But you know what my friends, there will be a few people on this list

that will NEVER do it because they are right. They are noble. They

are the self-appointed lanterns of wisdom for us all, except that you

will still be an outsider. Only they can tell you what Ayurveda is,

and never a mleccha like me.

 

Caldecott

todd (AT) toddcaldecott (DOT) com

www.toddcaldecott.com

[Guest guest]

Dear Todd

 

First "Dharma" of a Vaidya is to help patients. Discussion on other man made religions is of secondary importance. Author found following mail interesting in relation to the current discussions.

 

Since you seem to be aware about the mushrooms and if you have

experience with them, this author requests you to post your

experience and specifically, if you can help the following patient:

 

Posted by: "Cathy" Lhunhen (AT) starfireresearch (DOT) com lhunhen

Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:22 am (PDT)

 

Morning. I am new to the list and wanted to introduce myself.

 

I was dx with Breast Cancer in April 2006, had a lumpectomy and SNB to

remove the tumor. I refused chemo, radiation, Tamoxifen and Herceptin

treatments. I have changed my diet to a vegitarian diet eating mostly

vegi's and fruits. No dairy, no meats and no sugars. It was not easy

in the beginning but I feel so much better now and have more energy.

I also take a lot of supplements and herbs.

 

Has anyone tried Maitake mushrooms for your cancer and if you have, do

you think it helped?

 

Cathy

 

ayurveda, Todd Caldecott <todd

wrote:

>

> I cannot spend much more time on this, but as a last example, I

would

> ask the reasonable minded people on the list to consider this.

> Mushrooms are tamasika in Ayurveda, and yet in China, mushrooms

are

> stated to be good for the mind. In fact, some mushrooms such as

> Reishi (Ganoderma lucidum) is considered to be so special in China

> that it is called the "herb of spiritual potency", and is

venerated

> by the taoists and healers alike, used as a panacea that is

> particularly good for "calming the spirit". Modern research has

> shown that this creature which lives on dead and decaying material

> has numerous benefits - medline has over 400 papers alone

indicating

> its efficacy and medicinal effects.

[Guest guest]

There is a book. I think it is called "Medicinal Mushrooms" by

Christopher Hobbs that has lots of info on medicinal properties of

mushrooms. I cannot vouch for the results. Todd would probably

have a better handle on that.

 

GB

 

In ayurveda, "Shirish Bhate"

<shirishbhate wrote:

>

> Dear Todd

>

> First "Dharma" of a Vaidya is to help patients. Discussion on

other man made religions is of secondary importance. Author found

following mail interesting in relation to the current discussions.

>

> Since you seem to be aware about the mushrooms and if you have

> experience with them, this author requests you to post your

> experience and specifically, if you can help the following patient:

>

> Posted by: "Cathy" Lhunhen lhunhen

> Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:22 am (PDT)

>

> Morning. I am new to the list and wanted to introduce myself.

>

> I was dx with Breast Cancer in April 2006, had a lumpectomy and

SNB to

> remove the tumor.