what is the source text which defines food in Sattva/Rajas/Tamas?

February 23, 2009

Hello Dr. Sachin & others,

The only question that remains in my mind, is that what is the source text

which defines food in Sattva/Rajas/Tamas? Is there such text in Ayurveda, or

do we have to look into yoga shastra, gita & purana for that?

-Omkaarnath

___________

> Vagbhata, one of the most respected ancient Vaidya stated a

> very special sutra ( statement ) . It is as follows :

> " Vruddhi Samanae Sarvesham Viparitae Viparyaya ! " ......

February 25, 2009

Here are some links where u can find some info about the

qualities of food .

http://satvikaahar.com/Satvikfood.htm

http://www.ayurshop.com/diet/diettyppes.html

If u want more accurate info , then u should switch to Jainism

literature . It will tell u everything about the food . Faith is

important to accept these criterions . Otherwise it will be very

difficult to come to any conclusion . The debate will go on & on ...

____________

The only question that remains in my mind, is that what is the

source text

which defines food in Sattva/Rajas/Tamas? Is there such text in

Ayurveda, or

do we have to look into yoga shastra, gita & purana for that?

February 25, 2009

Dear Dr Sachin

The links you give are just the opinions of their authors. I asked for the

source text from where this concept of dividing food to S/T/R comes to

Ayurveda. You mentioned the Jainist literature. Very good. Which particular

text gives the first reference of food in releation to Gunas?

More than that, I am interested if any vaidyas on this mailinglist remember

any referencies in ayurveda shastras to the division of food in this manner.

Or if we have to look into hathayoga pradipika, gherand samhita, and

bhagavad purana for that matter.

-Omkaar

__________________

> If u want more accurate info , then u should switch to Jainism

> literature . It will tell u everything about the food . Faith is

> important to accept these criterions ............

February 26, 2009

Hi Ossi,

In all of my training - admittedly limited compared to some vaidyas - I

have not come across mention of S/R/T in relation to food in ayurvedic

texts such as Charaka Samhita and Ashtanga Hridaya. This is the main

reason I question its relevance in Ayurveda.

The old yogic texts, Hathayoga Pradipika and Gheranda Samhita recommend

sweet, fresh foods; avoiding bitter, sour, pungent, salty foods

including alcohol, fish, meat, sesame, mustard, hingu (asafoetida),

garlic etc. This is a contradiction of the ayurvedic principle of eating

all the six tastes daily. As far as I know (I have not directly read the

Sanskrit text), there is no mention in the yogic texts of S/R/T in

relation to food.

There is a difference of 1,000 -2,000 years between the first ayurvedic

texts and the more recent abovementioned hatha yoga texts.

One external Hindu culture that I know of is Bali, which came under

Hindu influence over 1,000 years ago. The Balinese are meat-eaters. This

may indicate that ancient Indians were also " non-veg " .

There do not appear to be fixed definitions of S/R/T. As one poster

pointed out, they were originally considered qualities of the universe -

each one neutral, equivalent, and essential for its functioning. In

Chapter 14 of the Bhagavad Gita, however, Krishna relates S/R/T to

mental attributes, portraying Rajas and Tamas as undesirable and thus

inferior to Sattva. Charaka portrays Sattva as healthy mind, while Rajas

and Tamas are mental aberrations, just like imbalanced doshas.

One forum poster defined a sattvic person as one who is non-aggressive,

while another poster defined a sattvic as a person of high intellect

such as a scientist.

One poster said that a person may exhibit sattvic tendencies while

eating tamasic food, because of good past karma. This is an elegant

argument, but is also based on the presupposition of karma, which itself

is hard to define objectively.

While there have been many passionate and fascinating posts, none has

explained clearly the relationship between food and Sattva - however it

is defined. There appears to be a presumption that certain foods are

e.g. Tamasic, such as eggs, yet no satisfactory explanation of where

that reasoning comes from. For some posters, " non-veg " diet equates to

" non-sattvic " diet, yet this presumption is not explained.

It is everybody's right to believe what their culture system is telling

them; yet it is another thing to try and explain these concepts to the

outside world. If Ayurveda is to become accepted as a reputable health

system around the world, the concepts must be able to be defined in

terms that are objective, and not merely based on belief.

I feel the most promising post was Dr.Bhate's one in which he

hypothesised that sattvic food is food that creates a specific effect on

the pulse. We finally have a possible means of objective measurement,

and a possible definition of sattvic food: if a food does not cause

perceivable stress to the body, e.g. alteration in pulse, then it could

be considered sattvic.

This definition presupposes that the body has intelligence about its

nutritional needs - whether chemical or subtle (pranic) - and therefore

can signal that these needs have or have not been met by the foods - or

that the foods are causing stress and therefore are not compatible with

the body's needs.

Following from this, it seems reasonable that all natural foods could be

sattvic foods. Whether they do have sattvic effects depends on a number

of possible factors:

* being used to the food (satmya), through culture, upbringing etc

* the quantity of food intake

* the combination with other foods

* the mental perception and attitude of the eater with regard to the

food

The Masai have been brought up drinking cow's blood, the Eskimos have

been brought up on fish and seal fat, and Indians have been brought up

eating chickpeas. Thus these foods are sattvic to them, and possibly not

to other people. In fact, I have been told that northern Europeans

cannot digest chickpeas.

Having mushrooms (thought by some to be tamasic) can be sattvic if taken

in small quantities - and in fact may have anti-cancer properties.

Having chillies and garlic in small quantities (thought by some to be

rajasic) can also be sattvic in small quantities, making the food more

pleasurable and thus digestible - and they have powerful health-giving

properties.

Milk is considered sattvic, yet causes problems if taken with sour

foods. Same with watermelons when eaten with most other foods.

How a person views the food could determine how the food affects

him/her. For a hunter who has to stalk his prey and kill it, eating meat

may be sattvic for him. Research has found that the effects of foods

which are considered " bad " , e.g. coffee, chocolate, etc., are different

depending on whether a person feels guilty about eating them. Thus a

person who does not like seeing animals killed should perhaps avoid

eating meat, as the consumption of meat can have subtle mental effects

that render the food stressful to the body.

On the other hand, a person who eats such-and-such foods because they

have been labelled " sattvic " , may not do well with those foods. I have

seen quite a number of non-thriving and unhealthy vegetarians, and even

yogis.

This is why I do not give patients rules about food. I explain some

ayurvedic principles of what could be good foods for them, and encourage

them to assess for themselves how they respond to different foods. If

they do this, they soon are able to judge what foods are suitable for

them.

I believe it is time to question our presumptions, and identify what are

the truly essential principles of Ayurveda, so that Ayurveda can truly

become a universal system of medicine.

Best regards,

Gerald Lopez

Auckland, New Zealand

www.ScienceOfLife.co.nz <http://scienceoflife.co.nz>

_____________

> More than that, I am interested if any vaidyas on this mailinglist

remember

> any referencies in ayurveda shastras to the division of food in this

manner.

> Or if we have to look into hathayoga pradipika, gherand samhita, and

> bhagavad purana for that matter.

February 27, 2009

Mr . Omkar .

Always there is an Author of any text or literature written

at any time . Will u tell them as their own thoughts scripted in that

too ?

The Jainism is also written by some Authors . U will interpret their words

as their personal thoughts too ! I think , this matter should be

stopped here ! As I wrote in the previous post , Faith is important

in accpeting some things which cant be judged on the present

science . Now it is ur concern to accept it or not !

___________

The links you give are just the opinions of their authors. I asked

for the

source text from where this concept of dividing food to S/T/R

comes to

Ayurveda.

February 28, 2009

I have seen such debates in siddha texts too; honey is the saliva of bee;

milk is the blood of cow; water in the pond is the saliva of fish.

so this debate is endless for the 2000 years

Vidhyasagar.

_____________

The Jainism is also written by some Authors . U will interpret their words

as their personal thoughts too !

March 2, 2009

In this post, author expresses his thoughts on several issues

recently posted in the list. The misconceptions about ayurveda need

to be thrashed out, discussed and even debated, if that is the word

more appropriate for these exchanges.

Many students of ayurveda treat it as a science restricted only to

three well known texts. If that was the case, many herbs and remedies

which are not listed in those texts would be out-of-use. Posts by

Yogi_nityanand bring out the correct philosophy on which ayurveda

evolved. Many vaidyas who devoted their life to the ayurvedic

practice, have added to the knowledge, and some researchers have

tried to compile local practices by tribal vaidyas. For a serious

vaidya, it is difficult to collect and digest all this knowldege in

limited time.

Academic studies in a limited time motivate philosophies as posted in

Post#15486, challenging ayurveda to prove itself on predominantly

western paradigm.

The standard texts, while recognizing that health is balance of both

body and mind, give more emphasis to body, the treatment of mind is

indirect. One needs to turn to yoga, meditation etc. The conventional

ayurvedic practitioners do not deal with these matters extensively,

due to lack of time, and more specialized spiritual Gurus give this

advise free. Practitioners, after all, are working for bread too.

In past, author has posted how ayurveda has been discussed in

many puranas and texts more ancient than Charak Samhita(Post#4632).

The herb detoxification procedures using cow urine may have been the

outcome of self urine therapy of Damar Tantra, which existed before

ayurvedic texts. And to show that animals knew this therapy before

humans, a MPEG clip file " MONKEY_UT " is posted in file section of

group website, folder articles, subfolder Dr.BhateFiles. Author has

seen cows and buffalos taking self urine using hairy end of their

tail. When calf get injured, cow applies her urine on wound using her

tail as a painting brush. Many anti-inflamatory, anti-pyretic herbs

used in ayurveda may have been discovered by observing animals. The

trees, animals insects are the source texts for much of the basic

ayurvedic knowledge.

The doshas of mind connect the science of ayurveda and yoga. One can

substitute the word spiritualism for yoga in earlier sentence. The

commentaries on ayurveda and herbal remedies by spiritual

practitioners without studying Charak samhita or Ashtanghridya

suggestive of subtle connections between two disciplines which are

apparently distinct. Astrology opens up another looking glass to view

the living world-universe interaction. But if one looks at the origin

and need of ayurveda, it will be seen that it evolved as a need to

give long life to the body, so that spiritual seeker is not bogged

down by health problems. It is yoga practitioners, spiritual gurus

who have contributed more to the satvic, rajasic and tamasic

qualities of the food. On food, maximum contribution appears from

Jain monks, though Hindus are not far behind. Many texts by Yoga

Gurus available online prove this. Charaka Sushruta, Vagbhat were

basically sage in search of spiritual perfection, and ayurveda was a

bonus they may have obtained in their meditation.

It is fruitless to search permanent classification of foods in S,R,T

class. One important fact is that no food has permanent quality

attached to it, since the way food is prepared or consumed, can also

change its property, as written in post#13326. Food attracts

spiritual vibrations and transforms itself. Hence there are musical

compositions as well as mantras while milking cows, making ghee,

making food for masses etc. Essential condition for food to absorb these

vibrations is that its significant portion should be water, since water has

maximum sensitivity to absorb spiritual vibrations [iron rules of Health posts].

Perhaps on this tune, even if an

animal ate satvic food throughout its life, the meat obtained by

killing it becomes non-satvic. The fear, stress and grief of the

animal cause secretion of chemicals which get locked into its

tissues. That is for science mindset. Same thing happens to humans

too, especially when a mother is feeding the baby, the milk reduces

satvic nature, if mother is under stress, grief, fear. Author was

told by a mom that the taste of the milk changed after her menstrual

cycles started and baby started showing the displeasure. Incidently,

human breast milk is more satvic than Indian cow milk. The reason for

this was hinted in post#9643. If a living body offers its life out-

of-love or sacrifice, to the consumer or for the purpose of

procreation of the specie, then there are no tamasic vibrations. That

is the reason, fruits after ripening on tree itself are most satvic.

The science of absorbing beneficial vibrations in the herbal remedies

was exploited by Vaidyas by manufacturing medicines on particular

lunar phases, e.g. Chandrakala netranjan discussed in

post#1551,13142. Post#4283 brings out how vaidya use the natural

rhythms of herbs to maximum. Can these qualities of herbal medicines

be brought out in double blind randomized drug trials? Who will

standardize patients for such trials. While ayurveda treats

individual as a unique creation, how can we apply statistical laws

for such arts of healing. Observe the style in which traditional

vaidyas prepare individual mixtures, fresh juices or decoctions. The

kind of ayurveda imagined/practiced by academicians and traditional

vaidyas are poles apart. But if the present winds blow harder, soon

we will have a multitude of journals, conferences and papers in

heaps. More funds will be spent on researching ayurveda, rather

than improving the spiritual/healing quality of herbs. More

importance to the chemistry, ingredients rather than healing

vibrations. This trend may be termed " westernization of ayurveda " , in

sharp contrast to the traditional ayurveda practice presented in the

movie

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4697724121661222905

Satvic foods contain chemical ingredietns. which can cross the blood

brain barrier. That is why they are intelligent foods, leave us

satisfied, suppres cravings for sugary foods. They calms both mind

and body. Adequate dose of such herbs directly stimulates the

production of alpha brain waves, creating a state of mental

relaxation and concentration similar to that obtained by meditation.

Some chemicals in satvic foods, stimulate the release of GABA, a

neurotransmitter that reduces anxiety and provides a sense of calm

and well-being[Post#13868]..

One can change tamasik herb/food to satvik by combining it with

satvic ones. When garlic is boiled in ghee, its tamas softens and it

becomes an anxiety medicine[Post#13868]. This statement is based on

pulse test. Another example described in above post is Syrup of

Garlic, an invaluable medicine for symptoms of anxiety, asthma,

hoarseness, coughs and inflammation of the throat, chronic

bronchitis, difficulty breathing and most other disorders of the

lungs. When one is going through breathing difficulties, this state

amounts to ending the life, if the attack is severe enough. Have you

seen how a fish struggles to breath when the net is removed from

water and fisherman collects the fishes trapped. When such food is

consumed, our cells may be sensing those chemicals and reduce their

insulin sensitivity. They mourn the death of the animal, in harmony.

And slowly we start building up fat, a metabolic syndrome. The satvik

foods also helps us increase prana, when it is getting depleted. The

most satvic on this criterion would be air at the mountain top,

having significant ozone percentage. That is the reason that most

sage and spiritual practitioners are crowding Himalayan abodes.

Lastly, author would like to say satvic food must create waves in the

heart which make the person love the universe and every creation in

it. This necessarily requires treating everyone at equal level rather

than superior or inferior status. Growth, rather than death is the

law of the nature. The fruits, honey were created so that some

creature comes and eats the fruits/honey and causes growth

(pollination, spread of seeds through waste matter). Nature had

designed them to be eaten, to sustain the growth. Can one say same

thing abot the animal getting killed. This satvic definition springs

from spiritual ayurveda.

Dr Bhate

_________

There do not appear to be fixed definitions of S/R/T. As one poster

pointed out, they were originally considered qualities of the

universe -

each one neutral, equivalent, and essential for its functioning. In

Chapter 14 of the Bhagavad Gita, however, Krishna relates S/R/T to

mental attributes, portraying Rajas and Tamas as undesirable and thus

inferior to Sattva. Charaka portrays Sattva as healthy mind, while

Rajas

and Tamas are mental aberrations, just like imbalanced doshas.

....

if a food does not cause

perceivable stress to the body, e.g. alteration in pulse, then it

could

be considered sattvic.

March 3, 2009

Dear Vaidyas !

A lot of posts had been written on this issue uptill now . Dr.

Bhate have elaborated the properties of S/R/T food in his own

thoughts . The elaboration is good enough to understand some basic

things as stated by him . But still there are some questions which

are to be answered .

> One can change tamasik herb/food to satvik by combining it with

satvic ones.

Does this statement say , tamasik food like Non - Veg food can

be made Satvik , when it is prepared with Satvik ingredients ? eg If

some type of meat is cooked with cow ghee , will it become Satvik

one ? If alcohol is being drunk with added cow milk , will it too

become Satvik one ? How will u express it by pulse diagnosis ? If

there are 2 persons drunken alcohol , one with normal alcohol & the

other one with alcohol with cow milk , will it be possible to tell

this by just pulse diagnosis when u dont know the nature of alcohol

they drank ? The qualities of tamasik food will never change .

> The fruits, honey were created so that some

creature comes and eats the fruits/honey and causes growth

(pollination, spread of seeds through waste matter). Nature had

designed them to be eaten, to sustain the growth. Can one say same

thing abot the animal getting killed.

Here I will state some difference . Nature have always differed

the things in its own manner . There are always diferences in the

things which are living things . As we know there are Herbivorous &

Carnivourous type of living species . There are differences in these

species as per their own lifestyle which is natural . Herbivorous

animals have longer small intestine compared to the Carnivorous

ones . Also the teeth in the herbivorous animals have less canines

in their teeth compared to the Carnivorous ones . There should be

some reason behind this type of design in the Carnivorous animals .

The reason is they have to eat their meal ie meat of other animals .

That made more canines in their mouth comparing to the herbivorous

ones .

There is one more difference everybody can see . Give water

filled bucket to drink any Herbivorous & Carnivorous animal . See

how they drink it . U will see big difference . Herbivorous animals

always drink the water like human beings by gulping it sip by sip .

Whereas Carnivorous animals always lick the water at the time of

drinking .

Nature have designed the food to be eaten . It is the real

truth . But there is difference in the food for every living thing .

Nature have designed the living things likewise . But today , the

minds are changing towards lifestyle . Everybody want to change it &

some justifications are given to implement it in everybody's life !

__________

In this post, author expresses his thoughts on several issues

recently posted in the list. The misconceptions about ayurveda need

to be thrashed out, discussed and even debated, if that is the word

more appropriate for these exchanges.

March 3, 2009

Dear readers,

Please find the input of Dr. Partap Chauhan below.

Forwarded to group with permission of the author.

-Omkaarnath

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Dr Partap Chauhan <drchauhan

Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:12 AM

RE: What is the source text which defines food in

Sattva/Rajas/Tamas?

Ossi Viljakainen <ossi.viljakainen

Hi Ossi,

As per your question regarding SRT it requires some discussion to understand

this whole concept. Ayurveda is not only limited to the books that are

called “Ayurvedic” like Caraka, Sushruta etc.

Ayurveda is a knowledge about mind, body, senses and soul and there are a

lot of other books (other than Ayurvedic) which also talk about these

subjects like Samkhya, Yoga, Vedanta, Bhagvatam, Bhagvat Gita, Upanishads,

Vedangas and of course Vedas. Most of these books, including the Ayurvedic

ones were written during the time when people followed majority of rules and

regulations about eating and life style and had awareness of subtle part of

the human being (mind, intellect, ahamkar, chitta and soul). That is why

they have not elaborated much on these subjects in Ayurvedic books. In the

Ayurvedic books they mainly describe about physical diseases and their

treatments but in the sutra sthana they do talk about three types of

diseases and three types of treatment including spiritual diseases and

treatments.

Another fact is that all these books including Ayurveda were meant to be

taught and studied through a special process. This fact is very clearly

recorded in all Ayurvedic books in the very beginning while they describe

the descendence of Ayurveda. But nobody elaborates that and we do not pay

much attention to that. If you read again you will realize why they only

chose “Bhardwaj’ rishi to go to learn Ayurveda from Indra, or why did not

Bhardwaj go to Daksha or Aswini kumars to study Ayurveda. All these stories

have some deep meaning behind. Because Ayurveda and other Vedic knowledge

were taught only through authentic “paramapara” only the authentic gurus

could explain these things. I can tell you all these things because after

studying 6 years in University I studied another 6 years under my guru and

that’s where I realized that these teachers in the Ayurvedic schools can

only literally teach what is written in the Ayurvedic books. Even the

English translations of Ayurvedic books are just literal translations.

So all this discussion about SRT although a very genuine discussion but we

many not really find any book which talks about food divisions based SRT. In

these ancient books they have written principles or sutras which the guru

used to elaborate and depending on its meaning a list of things could be

made. So we may only find very small discussion about what is sattva, rajas

and tamas or what are the qualities/characteristics corresponding to each

and based on this we have to make the classification. It is very similar to

VPK where they describe the qualities of each but not necessarily the food

classifications.

Govinda Hari,

Partap Chauhan

__________

There has been very deep and detailed discussion about sattva/rajas/tamas in

ayurveda-online mailinglist. I put forward a question that what is the

original source text that introduces the division of foods into S/R/T as I

had not seen it in Caraka Samhita....

Where does this concept originate from?

May 16, 2009