Are chillies traditionally indian or it was introduced in India

[Damodara Dasa]

Hare Krishna.
Dear Vidvajjanas,
During our fixing menu for our gurukula in Gujarat, a discussion came
that chillies are not indian in origin and thus it is better that we
avoid it. Pepper seems to be a good alternative. But chilli has a
specific taste that pepper cannot replace.

I want to know from this forum that "Are chillies really not indian in
origin" i.e. were they introduced by Moghul or British or are there
descriptions of chilli available in ancient Indian literatures
(specifically puranas, itihasas, Vedas, etc).

Thankyou,
Damodara Das
--
+91 9737475085
www.bvks.com

[Sivasenani Nori]

Chilli was not grown in India till maybe six hundred years or so ago. It is a part of what is called Visvamitrasrishti. In some orthodox circles I heard that pepper is used in the place of chilli.

That said, I am not in favour of this kind of orthodoxies. If we want to maintain high standards it must be in virtues like Ahimsaa, Asteyam and Saucam and practices like Indriya nigraha. Within India, there is wide variety in foods. North and east of Vizag we get Potal, which is not found in South. The cucumber of Hyderabad is not found in North Andhra. Banana varies from the west coast to east coast. I remember that during my time in Assam there was a vegetable similar to Mango which I used to make dal - this is not to be found elsewhere. Then we have vegetables in river islands, which are often different in size compared to their mainland namesakes. When it comes to leafy vegetables or pulses, one has to go strictly per the practice in a given region.

Regards
Senani

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sadasivamurty rani]

Yes. Chillies are not of Indian origin. They are from Chile Country.  So they are called Chillies. As they resemble our Pepper in taste they are called rakta marichika and krishna marichika by the modern people. 

 regards, 

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

---

From: Damodara Dasa <damoda...@gmail.com>
To: bvparishat <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 21 September 2015 9:21 PM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Are chillies traditionally indian or it was introduced in India

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

Sometimes the names may be misleading. There are people who think the "Mount Meru" in Kenya (Africa) to be the Meru parvat.

It may be better to find out if anybody has done any scientific studies to trace how (and If at al)l the chilli came to India from Chile.

Regards,

sunil KB

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[sadasivamurty rani]

To

Prof. Sunil Bhattacharjya Ji and other members! Namaste. 

Yes. My statement that Chillies were first imported from the country Chile is not proof supported but an information stored in my mind through many decades which was resulted from one of my friends from the Botany Department of Andhra University who was a the then research scholar of that department.   

On one occasion when I had to speak about the use of black pepper in Chitrannam Prasadam and Dadhyodanam Prasadam at the Famous Simhachalam Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Temple, Visakhapatnam I consulted my above friend about the origin of the Chillies. Then I was informed by him that it belongs to Solanaceae family and its early origin was from America but imported first from Chile to India. 

The same information I used for my speech on that occasion and ever since I have all through these years been in the same impression and the same has been conveyed in the present context.

I must thank Prof. Sunil Bhattacharjya Ji  for alerting me in an appropriate manner as a result of which I tried to google for its origin where I too could not get any reference for its being first imported from Chile to India. 

The only mistake I have done here is conveying it as my own statement with no sources of that information for which I may seriously be excused. 

Warm regards to all, 

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

---

From: sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com>
To: BHARATIYA VIDVAT <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 September 2015 6:04 AM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Are chillies traditionally indian or it was introduced in India

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Vidwan Damodara Dasa's question:

 

I want to know from this forum that "Are chillies really not indian in
origin" i.e. were they introduced by Moghul or British or are there
descriptions of chilli available in ancient Indian literatures

 

AadaraNIya Sivasenaniji:

 

It is a part of what is called Visvamitrasrishti

 

(The word 'Visvamitrasrishti' is being used for vegetations of  non-Indian origin, with origin outside India -Nagaraj)

 

AadaraNIya Sunil Bhattacharyaji:

 

It may be better to find out if anybody has done any scientific studies to trace how (and If at al)l the chilli came to India from Chile.

 

Scientific study is reported here.

 

Based on such studies, it is said  here that

 

The origin of chilies is believed to be as old as 7000 B.C. used in Mexico. Chilies were grown and cultivated from 3500 BC. Mexicans used it to spice up their food. Chili was brought to the rest of the world by Christopher Columbus who discovered America in 1493. Christopher had set from Spain to reach India to bring spices such as pepper back to his country. Christopher not only mistook America for India, but also mistook chili as the black pepper. That is how the chili got the name ‘chile pepper.’ He took chile pepper back to Spain where it became a very famous spice.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chili_pepper

says

Chili peppers originated in the Americas. After the Columbian Exchange, many cultivars of chili pepper spread across the world, used in both food and medicine. Chilies were brought to Asia by Portuguese navigators during the 16th century.

Word origin dictionary says

early 17th century: from Spanish chile, from Nahuatl chilli

Thus

(1) Chile pepper or Chile is from outside India

(2) Its origin is in South America from the areas around Chile

(3) No other etymology of the word Chile is given anywhere.

(4) Tracing the origin of the word Chile in Chile pepper to the place name Chile was not totally unfounded or unreasonable

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Shrikant Jamadagni]

Neither are potato and tomato from Indian subcontinent. They too come from the Americas and entered India probably the same time way as chilies.

thanks.

 

Shrikant Jamadagni
Bengaluru

[Ganesh R]

Those who are interested to know about the plants which are not of Indian origin,  some of the popular books (in Kannada) and several research papers in English) of Dr.  B. G. L. Swamy, a renowned botanist of international reputation are dependable.  In spite of their questionable inferences here and there,  they are very good both as works of science and literature.  The names of Kannada books are:

Namma hoTTeyalli dakShiNa America, saakShaatkaarada haadiyalli, phalashruti.

[Siddharth Wakankar]

You may profitably refer to the excellent publication, "Portuguese Vovables in Asiatic Languages,-by Anthony X. Soares.Published in the famous Gaekwad Oriental Series(GOS) as No.74 in 1936,Oriental Institute,Baroda.

It gives very useful information about the words,popular in our languages,but, derived from Portuguese. You may find some clue to the chillis also.

Best luck.

Siddharth Y.Wakankar

--
+91 9737475085
www.bvks.com

[rniyengar]

Very correct. So also are Rose, Cashew and Coffee.  Some how even in many of our temples the first two are not rejected but Coffee has no place.  Some food for thought !

 I have heard that in the Tirupati temple, cashew was taboo in the Laddus, a few decades back.  It appears gradually almond got displaced by cashew. But still chillies are not used.

RN Iyengar

[Nagaraj Paturi]

It is interesting that Ayurvedic books list vaata pitta kapha guNas of these non-Indian origin plants and their parts too.

 

Prof. Rani or any other list member knowledgeable in Ayurvedic research methods may be able to help us in knowing how the identification of guNas of plants and their parts not discussed in the traditional books is carried out.

 

 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 9:13:37 AM UTC+5:30, nagarajpaturi wrote:

early 17th century: from Spanish chile, from Nahuatl chilli

Thus

(1) Chile pepper or Chile is from outside India

(2) Its origin is in South America from the areas around Chile

(3) No other etymology of the word Chile is given anywhere.

(4) Tracing the origin of the word Chile in Chile pepper to the place name Chile was not totally unfounded or unreasonable

From Douglas Harper's Online Etymology Dictionary

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Chile

Chile 

South American country, probably named from a local native word subsequently confused with Mexican Spanish chile "chili pepper" (see chili). Suggestions are that the native word means "land's end" or else "cold, winter," which would make a coincidental convergence with English chilly. Related: Chilean.

 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=chili

chili (n.) 

also chilli, 1660s, from Nahuatl (Aztecan) chilli, native name for the peppers. Not named for the South American country. As short for chile con carne and similar dishes, attested by 1846.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Yes, it seems to be coincidental convergence with the place name.

 

But an interesting coincidence though, because the place of origin of the plant according to research is Bolivia which is close to Chile.

 

For an Indian of the British time, it would have been difficult to sort out the coincidental convergence from the actual etymology or it would have been difficult to imagine Bolivia as different from Chile.

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Shrikant Jamadagni]

While we are on this topic . . . does anybody know of ancient recipes from India? Are there ancient recipe books in Sanskrit? Has anybody tried out any such recipes if they exist?

 

Shrikant Jamadagni
Bengaluru

[vishal jaiswal]

Then you would have to avoid all foods that are not Indian in origin.
It is definitely possible, because India has a wide variety when it
comes to choices.
But you have to think hard if you can live without tea, coffee,
vegetables like cauliflower, cabbage, and fruits like custard apple,
guava, etc.
And if it was a real gurukul, you would think of only getting organic food.
As far as I know, no gurukul or religious place or yoga center across
all of India has organic food, as of today. When you ask them, their
reply is we have "sattvic" food, but they forget that real sattvic in
itself would include organic.
Sorry for the slight digression at the end of this note - in strictly
intellectual/academic matters, important practical things like organic
food should have no say.

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

Some of the Saiva Agama-s do contain a chapter called NAIVEDYAVIDHI; there we find practical instructions for cooking those food items that are offered to Siva and other gods as naivedya in the temple.
They do also contain the details about measurements of different ingredients.
Some of these food items look 'strange' in the modern context as we are not generally used to such items that appear to be prevalent in olden times. But many of the popular food items that we find nowadays in the temple (especially in the south indian context) are not at all found in these chpaters of the Saiva Agama-s.

The 13th century text of Maanasollaasa by Someshvara contains some chapters on the ancient culinary art of ancient Bhaaratadesha.

Some years ago an european doctorate student was working on the Naivedyavidhi chapters of these Agama-s, but I do not remember the details. Also there was an indian doctorate working on this text, especially on these chapters.

NB. But in none of these chapters  DO WE FIND ANY MENTION OF CHILLIES, POTATOS, REFINED SUGAR OR OTHER SUCH MODERN INGREDIENTS.

Ganesan

[Shrivathsa B]

hariH OM,
Sir,

   You can refer to the book kShemakutUhalam of kShemasharman and pAkadarpaNam by naLa.

svasti,
       JAYA BHAVAANII BHAARATII,
                                                       shrivathsa.

[Dr.Raghavendra.Bhat]

Namaste,

If मरिच is correct Sanskrit word for Chilli then 

I would like suggest to see the 

"शलिग्रामनिघण्टुभूषणम्  - ब्रिहन्निघण्टुरत्नकरान्तर्गतौ :--सप्तमाष्टमभागौ  : क्षेमराज-श्रीकृष्णदास - बम्बाईत: , संवत् -1995"(given as it is) पृष्टसंख्या -114 - 116 (हरितक्यादिवर्गे )...

It starts  like...

मरिचनामानि -

मरिचम् पवितं श्यामं ........

Pl. also find some snapshots..

Correct if I am wrong..

धन्यवादाः 

With warm regards,

Dr Raghavendra Bhat
+91 8956610988
drbhat...@gmail.com

[Nityanand Misra]

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 5:36:58 PM UTC+5:30, Dr Raghavendra Bhat wrote:

Namaste,

If मरिच is correct Sanskrit word for Chilli then 

I would like suggest to see the 

"शलिग्रामनिघण्टुभूषणम्  - ब्रिहन्निघण्टुरत्नकरान्तर्गतौ :--सप्तमाष्टमभागौ  : क्षेमराज-श्रीकृष्णदास - बम्बाईत: , संवत् -1995"(given as it is) पृष्टसंख्या -114 - 116 (हरितक्यादिवर्गे )...

It starts  like...

मरिचनामानि -

मरिचम् पवितं श्यामं ........

Pl. also find some snapshots..

Correct if I am wrong..

धन्यवादाः 

The Sanskrit word marica is used for pepper, which is native to South Asia and is different from chilli pepper. This is clear from the diagram shown and the Hindi translation given in the book. Pepper belongs to the genus Piper, whereas chilli pepper (also called just chilli) belongs to the genus Capsicum. 

When used alone, the Hindi word mirca/miraca/mircī (derived from Sanskrit marica) usually means green chilli. When the word is preceded by the word kālī (kālī mirca), it means pepper. 

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

22.9.15

Nalapākadarpaṇa edited from original manuscripts by late Mm. Vamacharan Nyayacharya  (1879-1931) of the then Government Sanskrit College (later Sampurnanand Sanskrit Visvavidyalaya) was published before 1930 in Varanasi. I may tell the exact date later. A copy will be available at the Sarasvati Bhavan Library.

Best

DB

[Damodara Dasa]

Hare Krishna.
Dear Scholars,
Thankyou for this nice discussion. This is just to acknowledge my
presence, I am not out of this discussion but am reading all the
answers and getting a lot of help. Please continue this discussion and
I will also contribute, by reading some the literatures mentioned
here, contacting some people and by my own research.

Damodara Das

>> <https://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1993/v2-132.html>

>>
>> Based on such studies, it is said here

>> <http://www.chilly.in/origin_of_chili.htm> that
>>
>> The origin of chilies is believed to be as old as *7000 B.C*. used in
>> Mexico. Chilies were grown and *cultivated from 3500 BC*. Mexicans used

>> it to spice up their food. Chili was brought to the rest of the world by
>> Christopher Columbus who discovered America in 1493. Christopher had set
>> from Spain to reach India to bring spices such as pepper back to his
>> country. Christopher not only mistook America for India, but also mistook

>> chili as the black pepper. That is how the chili got the name ‘*chile
>> pepper*.’ He took chile pepper back to Spain where it became a very

>> famous spice.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chili_pepper
>> says
>> Chili peppers originated in the Americas. After the Columbian Exchange,
>> many cultivars of chili pepper spread across the world, used in both food
>> and medicine. Chilies were brought to Asia by Portuguese navigators
>> during
>> the 16th century.
>> Word origin dictionary says

>> early 17th century: from Spanish *chile*, from Nahuatl *chilli*

>> *Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty*
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com>
>> *To:* BHARATIYA VIDVAT <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 22 September 2015 6:04 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Are chillies traditionally indian or

>> it was introduced in India
>>
>> Namaste,
>>
>> Sometimes the names may be misleading. There are people who think the
>> "Mount Meru" in Kenya (Africa) to be the Meru parvat.
>>
>> It may be better to find out if anybody has done any scientific studies
>> to
>> trace how (and If at al)l the chilli came to India from Chile.
>>
>> Regards,
>> sunil KB
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:59 AM, 'sadasivamurty rani' via
>> भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes. Chillies are not of Indian origin. They are from Chile Country. So
>> they are called Chillies. As they resemble our Pepper in taste they are
>> called rakta marichika and krishna marichika by the modern people.
>> regards,

>> *Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty*
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Damodara Dasa <damoda...@gmail.com>
>> *To:* bvparishat <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
>> *Sent:* Monday, 21 September 2015 9:21 PM
>> *Subject:* {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Are chillies traditionally indian or it

>> was introduced in India
>>
>> Hare Krishna.
>> Dear Vidvajjanas,
>> During our fixing menu for our gurukula in Gujarat, a discussion came
>> that chillies are not indian in origin and thus it is better that we
>> avoid it. Pepper seems to be a good alternative. But chilli has a
>> specific taste that pepper cannot replace.
>>
>> I want to know from this forum that "Are chillies really not indian in
>> origin" i.e. were they introduced by Moghul or British or are there
>> descriptions of chilli available in ancient Indian literatures
>> (specifically puranas, itihasas, Vedas, etc).
>>
>> Thankyou,
>> Damodara Das
>> --
>> +91 9737475085
>> www.bvks.com
>>
>> --
>> निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

> --
> निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>


--

+91 9737475085
www.bvks.com

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Adaraniya Nagraj Paturiji,

There could be some indigenous varieties of Chilli in India, such as the Bhut Jolokia (probably the hottest Chilli in the world) and the Kon jolokia or the Bird's-eye chilli. .  May be the botanists have to study this in detail.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Yes sir. If Botanists confirm its indigenous origin, those who are avoiding Chilli Pepper on account of its foreign origin, will be able to use these varieties, provided they can bear with the hotness of the hottest Chilli in the world.  

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

The bhut jolokia is already well known as a cultivated hybrid chili with a fairly recent origin. It was cultivated in the Assam region, but the parents of this hybrid are from elsewhere.

A general rule is that the geographical region where you find the maximum genetic diversity is the place that is the best candidate for assigning native origins. Central and the northern parts of South America are the best candidates for all chili varieties, but today, India is the largest producer, consumer and exporter of chilies. A number of crops that are used worldwide today originate from the new world and were introduced to Asia, Europe and Africa only after the Spanish and Portuguese started conquering the Americas. These include potatoes, tomatoes, cocoa, tobacco, corn and the most recently popularized grain, quinoa.

In very observant south Indian households, the food for SrAddha rituals avoids the use of chilies, as also vegetables introduced to India in recent times, such as cabbage, carrots, potatoes etc. On the other hand, we also avoid toor dal and chana dal for SrAddha food, although both are known to have been cultivated and eaten in India for more than 3000 years. We don't avoid any of these for regular consumption at other times.

Best regards,
Vidyasankar

[Savitri]

INDIANS USE ALOT IN THE WORLD IT SEEMS

Sent from my iPad

--

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Chillies are non-Indian and are brought from Chile (look at the shape of the country) - this is known thru uninterrupted tradition.

For the taste of कटु , Indians have been using black/white pepper/ मरीच (also आर्द्रकम् - ginger) .

Chillies , unlike Cabbage etc, have entered the Indian kitchen - even on the day of death ceremony (आब्दिकम्) .

शुचिर्विप्रः शुचिः कविः -- तैत्तिरीयसंहिता

Pl note that chillies are not an exact substitute for pepper.

Tender pepper causes phlegm (कफः) whereas the ripe/dry ones kill the same(even today the dicoction of मरीच and शुण्ठी (dry ginger) is taken against fever /cold/cough).

Chillies (रक्तमरीच - - वस्तुगुणदीपिक in Telugu) are good for bones, joints and against मधुमेह , body would be lighter - but if taken too much -would kill वीर्यम् (sperm) and damage the blood .

Sesame oil (तिलतैलम्) would check the affects of  Chillies.

हितं भुञ्ज्यात् मितं भुञ्ज्यात् न भुञ्ज्यात् अमितं हितम्

हितम् = the dish that is suitable to one's body.

Since you want to introduce a menu in your Vedic village सात्विकाहार is recommended --

आयुस्सत्त्वबलारोग्यसुखप्रीतिविवर्धनाः।

रस्याः स्निग्धाःस्थिराः हृद्याः आहाराः सात्त्विकप्रियाः॥ भगवद्गीता 17-8

Obviously , Chillis fall under राजसाहार --

कट्वम्ललवणात्युष्णतीक्ष्णरूक्षविदाहिनः।

आहारा राजसस्येष्टा द्ःखशोकामयप्रदाः॥  ,, 17-9

अतिकटु - अत्यम्ल - अतिलवण etc - says शांकरभाष्यम् ।

 आमयः = रोगः (रोगव्याधिगदामयाः - अमरः)

It is not possible to explain these verses without the  knowledge of चरकम् / सुशृतम् / वाग्भट ।

I have taken the term कटु in the sense it is used in चरकसंहिता ( सूत्रस्थानम् - 1-65) --

स्वादुरम्लो’थ लवणः कटुकस्तिक्त एव च ।

कषायश्चेति षट्को’यं रसानां सङ्ग्र्हः स्मृतः॥

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

It is interesting that Ayurvedic books list vaata pitta kapha guNas of these non-Indian origin plants and their parts too.

 

Prof. Rani or any other list member knowledgeable in Ayurvedic research methods may be able to help us in knowing how the identification of guNas of plants and their parts not discussed in the traditional books is carried out.

                                                                 --- Vidvan Nagaraj

It is not difficult - आयुर्वेद is a way of life . Here is चरकसंहिता - सूत्रस्थानम् --

रूक्षः शीतो लघुः सूक्ष्मः चलो’थ विशदः खरः ।

विपरीतगुणैः द्रव्यैः मारुतः संप्रशाम्यति ॥ 59

सस्नेहम् उष्णं तीक्ष्णं च द्रवम् अम्लं सरं लघु ।

विपरीतगुणैः पित्तं द्रव्यैः आशु प्रशाम्यति ॥ 60

गुरुशीतमृदुस्निग्धमधुरस्थिरपिच्छलाः ।

श्लेष्मणः प्रशमं यान्ति विपरीतगुणैः गुणाः ॥ 61

स्वाद्वम्ललवणा वायुं , कषायस्वादुतिक्तकाः ।

जयन्ति पित्तं , श्लेष्माणं कषायकटुतिक्तकाः॥ 66

(कट्वम्ललवणाः पित्तं स्वास्वम्ललवणाः कफम् ।

कटुतिक्तकषायाश्च कोपयन्ति समीरणम् ॥)

There are many details and they can be had from commentary of चक्रपाणि ।

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

[Jsr Prasad]

High standards in spiritual practice instead of orthodoxy tradition in food, and sAttvikAhAra/organic food suggestion by res. Prof. Korada Subrahmanyam ji and Sri Vishal Agarwal and Sri Siva Senani can be given a thought by sri Damodara Dasa. Thanks to Sri Satavadhani R. Ganesh ji for suggesting books on plants of foreign origin in Kannada. Prof. Wakankar ji's hint might be useful to explore further, while Prof. Dipak Bhattacharya ji's bibilographical detail is really helpful.

Dr. K.T. Achaya (1923-2002) has authored a couple of books related to Indian food: 1. The Illustrated Foods of India, OUP (1994) 1. A Historical Dictionary of Indian Food (2002) 3. Indian Food: A Historical Companion (1998). More related books can be found on Amazon/Flipkart. Also, Prof. P.V. Sharma's (an Ayurvedic scholar) book on 'Fruits and Vegetables in Ancient India' might be helpful to look back the historical journey of vegetables of Indian origin.

Prof. R.N. Iyengar ji's reference to Tirupati Laddu is interesting. But still some Vaishnavite scholars strictly use vegetables and cooking ingredients of Indian origin only at homes. Using cashew in preparing Laddu may be somewhat political too as tenders are called in crores of rupees for its supply in tonnes. Inclusion of such dry fruits in prasAdam might be the influence of the trust board, of which, some members run several such parallel businesses (I may be wrong here!).

Prof. Nagaraj ji might have wanted to refer the pharmaco-dynamics (rasapancaka) of dravyas instead of the Vata-Pitta-Kapha in plants of foreign origin. Of course, it is attested in the tradition – नास्ति मूलमनौषधम् । For instance, the most popular 'aloevera' is an exotic herb and in vogue in India since 16th C., as quoted in Bhavaprakasa Nighantu. Today, you can imagine, aloevera minus Ayurveda pharmacy = ?

Bhavaprakasa offers the following information on 'marica.' Derivation: 'म्रियन्ते जन्तवोऽनेनेति वा म्रियते जिह्वा अनेन इति मरिचम् ।' Rasapancaka: Latin name - Piper nigrum, Family – Pipereceae; रसः - कटुः, गुणः - लघु, वीर्यम् - उष्णम्, विपाकः - कटुः, कर्म - कफवातजित् , दीपनम्, छेदनम् ।

Sri Viyasankar Sundaresan ji – has South America possess a vast arid land, as chillis are highly grown in arid lands in India? I am not aware whether this crop is also cultivated in marshy lands.

Regards

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 2:36:42 PM UTC-4, Jsr Prasad wrote:

Sri Viyasankar Sundaresan ji – has South America possess a vast arid land, as chillis are highly grown in arid lands in India? I am not aware whether this crop is also cultivated in marshy lands.

These plants, depending on their variety, can grow from highly humid conditions to dry desert conditions. They require a lot of heat in the soil and easily die if the soil temperature gets low. They really thrive in tropical conditions, so they have adapted to India very well. The milder varieties, like the capsicum that we can cook as a separate vegetable (simla mirchi as it is called in Mumbai), adapt well to milder temperatures. They don't like waterlogged soils, so they don't grow well in marshy lands. High humidity + high temperatures + good soil drainage are a good combination for growing the hotter varieties. 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

   

[Jsr Prasad]

Apologies for the typo in in your name sir. And thanks for the kind information!

Regards

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Why tea? There are two broad varieties of tea, one is the Chinese variety and the other is the Indian variety originating from the state of Assam. The British found that Assam tea was superior and fetched better price. Today the state of Assam produces about half of the world tea.

Regards,

Sunil KB

--

[Damodara Dasa]

Hare Krishna.

----------------------------------
From respected Korada Subrahmanyamji,

Obviously , Chillis fall under राजसाहार --
कट्वम्ललवणात्युष्णतीक्ष्णरूक्षविदाहिनः।
आहारा राजसस्येष्टा द्ःखशोकामयप्रदाः॥ ,, 17-9
अतिकटु - अत्यम्ल - अतिलवण etc - says शांकरभाष्यम् ।

-------------------------
अतिकटु, this means that if taken in more amount, then it is rajasika,
otherwise not.

Also, we are trying to give full organic diet to our children and hope
to be fully successful in a few months from now. This is ofcourse an
important point as children are future of any community and if they
are physically, mentally, and spiritaully healthy the society can
easily achieve aim of human life successfully.

It is nice that scholars are giving their valuable inputs to this
question and I will read the different references provided in this
conversation.

Thankyou,
Damodara Das

--
+91 9737475085
www.bvks.com

[vishal jaiswal]

Very nice to hear that you have taken note of the importance of food
without chemicals.
This is the key point that keeps me from exploring or studying at
various yoga centers around the country, because I do not wish to
consume slow poison.
Another point you can explore is that the diet in yoga is not the same
as that in Ayurveda.
Though (from my practical experience) the yoga diet is ideal, it would
be too restrictive or boring for the layman.
Regarding tea (& even coffee) - both are excluded in yoga.

[Jsr Prasad]

----------------------------------
From respected Korada Subrahmanyamji,

Obviously , Chillis fall under राजसाहार --
कट्वम्ललवणात्युष्णतीक्ष्णरूक्षविदाहिनः।
आहारा राजसस्येष्टा द्ःखशोकामयप्रदाः॥  ,, 17-9
अतिकटु - अत्यम्ल - अतिलवण etc - says शांकरभाष्यम् ।
-------------------------
अतिकटु, this means that if taken in more amount, then it is rajasika,
otherwise not.

The spiciness of chillies referred to by śaṅkara, as 'atikaṭu,' reminded me a real life incident happened in the life of H.H. 35th Jagadguru śrīmadabhinava-vidyātīrtha-mahāsvāmigal, before His sannyāsāśrama. In His pūrvāśrama, revered Swamiji was known as Srinivasa Sastry. The following happened when he was a little boy.

"One day , He and His friends unintentionally consumed a very pungent dish served to them at a house. The friends screamed for water and jaggery. Sri Srinivasa Sastry remained undisturbed. He advised His friends that such longing for jaggery was unnecessary. Their mouths were burning, as it were, and here He was adding fuel to the fire. "You speak thus," they challenged, Can you eat a handful of chillies without a murmur of protest?" "Yes," was the reply. Immediately, a handful of chillies were brought. One by one the chillies disappeared into His mouth. The boys looked on, more astonished than disappointed. All the chillies were consumed without any trace of discomfort on His face. He then said, "It is not necessary to consume spices like this. You have demanded it and so I ate them to convince you that it is possible to be contended with what food one gets." (source: Yoga, Enlightenment and Perfection, Sri Vidyateertha Foundation, 2nd Reprint, Chennai, 2001 pp. 19-20)

I believe, revered Swamiji's message was very clear, through the above incident.

Regards

[Jsr Prasad]

Another point you can explore is that the diet in yoga is not the same as that in Ayurveda.

Diet in Ayurveda is based upon the constitution of individual wherein it is a finite list of food items, prescribed in Yoga.

Regarding tea (& even coffee) - both are excluded in yoga.

Kshemakutuhalam text has been referred by respected members in this thread. It mentions various drinks made of fruits like mango, several kinds of buttermilk, milk drinks, lemon juices etc.

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

अतिकटु - अत्यम्ल - अतिलवण etc - says शांकरभाष्यम् ।

-------------------------
अतिकटु, this means that if taken in more amount, then it is rajasika,
otherwise not.

                                                     --- Vidvan Damodara Dasa

Your interpretation is right , rather than mine .

The following may be useful , since you are referring to menu in a Vedic village --

what prompted Samkaracarya to apply the following न्याय in the present श्लोक --

द्वन्द्वान्ते द्वन्द्वमध्ये द्वन्द्वादौ च श्रूयमाणं पदं द्वन्द्वघटकपदैः प्रत्येकं संबध्यते 

सुश्रुत says that one should consume all the six tastes (sorry I have to search for the reference) till the end of life .

Otherwise what happens ?

There will be ओजःक्षय (AIDS) - 

ओजः is the cause of बलम् (बलाधिष्ठानम् अरोग्यम्) - 

... ओजो बलम् । ब्रह्म क्षत्रम् ...(काठके - संज्ञानम् विज्ञानम् प्रज्ञानम् ...10)कृष्णयजुर्वेदः

ओजो’सि सहो’सि । बलमसि भ्राजो’सि ...(काठके - लोको’सि स्वर्गो’सि ...21)कृष्णयजुर्वेदः

बलं च मे ओजश्च मे (रुद्रम् - चमकम्)कृष्णयजुर्वेदः

ओजो बलम् - कार्यकारणयोः अभेदविवक्षायाम् - आयुर्वै घृतम् इतिवत् ।

अथातो वेदोत्पत्तिम् अध्यायं व्याख्यास्यामः - beginning of सुश्रुतसंहिता ।

So Samkaracarya applied the above न्याय and interpreted the verse.

Usages like भैषज्यते (2/3 अध्याय - सूत्रभाष्यम्) etc reveal his knowledge of वैद्यकम्।

Therefore , one should not give up any taste altogether - save medical conditions .

षड्रुचिs are widely discussed in अध्याय 42 (रसविशेषविज्ञानीयः) of सुश्रुतसंहिता।

Chillis are by nature रेचनकारकाः (laxatives) - antidote is sugar (products) , buttermilk , khas khas  etc.

More important is - the जगत् is अग्नीषोमीयम् ( अग्नि / सोम) - so every 'thing' can be put either under the quality of ' उष्ण / hot ' or ' शीत / cool ' .

Balance of hot and cool has to be maintained .

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

--

[Jsr Prasad]

सुश्रुत says that one should consume all the six tastes (sorry I have to search for the reference) till the end of life .

ācārya Caraka offers the same expression in the  rasavimāna of vimānasthāna, as follows - रसास्तावत् षट् -  मधुराम्ललवणकटुतिक्तकषायाः । ते सम्यगुपयुज्यमानाः शरीरं यापयन्ति, मिथ्योपयुज्यमानास्तु खलु दोषप्रकोपायोपकल्पन्ते ।। (3.1.4) cakrapāṇi comments:

यापयन्ति = puts in equilibrium (of tridoṣa)

मिथ्योपयुज्यमानाः = atiyoga, ayoga, mithyāyogas (of rasas). In other words, atiyoga = excessive use; ayoga = under use; mithyāyogas = improper use

 

ओजः is the cause of बलम् (बलाधिष्ठानम् अरोग्यम्) - 

 

loss of Ojas is the main cause resulting in prameha, one of the 'eight mahāgadas.' There are two types of Ojas - 'Para' and 'Apara.'

Regards

[Jsr Prasad]

loss of Ojas is the main cause resulting in prameha, one of the 'eight mahāgadas.'

 Sorry, it is 'madhumeha,' not 'prameha' as said. Madhumeha is part of 20 types of pramehas.

Thanks.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 9:59:57 PM UTC+5:30, Jsr Prasad wrote:

----------------------------------
From respected Korada Subrahmanyamji,

Obviously , Chillis fall under राजसाहार --
कट्वम्ललवणात्युष्णतीक्ष्णरूक्षविदाहिनः।
आहारा राजसस्येष्टा द्ःखशोकामयप्रदाः॥  ,, 17-9
अतिकटु - अत्यम्ल - अतिलवण etc - says शांकरभाष्यम् ।
-------------------------
अतिकटु, this means that if taken in more amount, then it is rajasika,
otherwise not.

The spiciness of chillies referred to by śaṅkara, as 'atikaṭu,' reminded me a real life incident happened in the life of H.H. 35th Jagadguru śrīmadabhinava-vidyātīrtha-mahāsvāmigal, before His sannyāsāśrama. In His pūrvāśrama, revered Swamiji was known as Srinivasa Sastry. The following happened when he was a little boy.

A minor point specific to BG 17.9. BG 17.9 uses two words ‘kaṭu’ and ‘tīkṣṇa.’ As ‘tīkṣṇa’ has been separately used, commentators on the verse have interpreted the word ‘kaṭu’ as bitter, and ‘tīkṣṇa’ as pungent. In the collection of eleven commentaries published by Gujarati Printing Press (1895) and the eight commentaries published by Nirnay Sagar Press (second ed. 1936), the commentators who have given examples under the categories listed in BG 17.9 have listed ‘marica’ (black pepper) under ‘tīkṣṇa.’ 

https://archive.org/stream/Srimad.Bhagavad-Gita.with.Eleven.Commentaries.by.Shastri.Gajanana.Shambhu.Sandha/Srimad-Bhagavad-Gita.with.Eleven.Commentaries#page/n1299/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/SrimadBhagavadGita.With.the.Commentaries/Srimad-Bhagavad-Gita.with.Eight.Commentaries#page/n667/mode/1up

आनन्दगिरि - कटुस्तिक्तः कटुकस्य तीक्ष्णशब्देनोक्तत्वात्

वेदान्तदेशिक - तीक्ष्णस्यापि मरीचादेः

वेङ्कटनाथ - अतितीक्ष्णो मरिचादिः

पुरुषोत्तम - अतितीक्ष्णो मरिचादिः

नीलकण्ठ - अतितीक्ष्णो मरिचादिः

मधुसूदन - अतितीक्ष्णो मरिचादिः

धनपति - अतितीक्ष्णं मरिचादि

श्रीधर - अतितीक्ष्णो मरिचादिः 

Even modern commentaries like Tattvavivecanī list red chilly under ‘tīkṣṇa.’

[sunil bhattacharjya]

As regards "Tea" I read an article years ago that Sushruta said that there are 40 types of Soma-plants  and these are available in the North-eastern Himalayas.  Tea-plant  was found among the naturally growing plants in the north-eastern slopes of the Himalayas in Assam and there was the tradition of drinking tea-concoctions among the people of the North-eastern India. It has been surmised by some scholars (I do not have the details ready with me now) that the Tea can be one of the 40 types of Soma plants. Thus there exists a possibility  that tea was accepted for its value by the ayurvedic doctors in the past. 

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Damodara Dasa]

Hare Krishna.

So it is accepted that all 6-rasas are to be taken in balance (it may
need some survey of traditions all over India if this rule was
followed).

Still katu (or tiksna) whatever may be the name, can be achieved from
pepper, etc. even without using chillies. So still it doesn't answer
the question fully. It does answer that if katu-ness (or tiksna-ness)
of chlli is the reason for not comsuming it then small (or yukta)
amount of it is not prohibited. Similarly more amount of pepper is
also prohibited. That means this sloka of Bhagavad-gita does not
prohibit eating chillies per se.

Thankyou,
Damodara Das

> *Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada*
> *Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in <http://Koradeeyam.blogspot.in> *

--
+91 9737475085
www.bvks.com

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Vidvan Damodara Das -

1.So it is accepted that all 6-rasas are to be taken in balance (it may

need some survey of traditions all over India if this rule was
followed).

--- No , this is not the idea .

Depending on the nature of the person -

1. any person with knowledge in Ayurveda would be in a position to clarify as to what is the तत्त्वम् ( वात / पित्त/ कफ)

2. the person himself /herself will be able to say his / her तत्त्वम् - ie sweet / hot is not suitable to my constitution (just like some medicines are)

3. depending on the जातकचक्रम् (horoscope) it is easier to know the तत्त्वम् । If गुरु (बृहस्पति) is लग्नाधिपति ( धनुर्लग्नम् / मीनलग्नम्) then it is कफतत्त्वम् । शनि (मकर or कुंभ) - वाततत्त्वम् etc.These things are clearly explained in ज्योतिषम् - जातकस्कन्धः । It may change depending on the permutations and combinations of planets - and one should take care of the षष्ठस्थानम् , ie शत्रुरोगऋणस्थानम् ( counted from लग्नम्) ।

2.Still katu (or tiksna) whatever may be the name, can be achieved from

pepper, etc. even without using chillies. So still it doesn't answer
the question fully. It does answer that if katu-ness (or tiksna-ness)
of chlli is the reason for not comsuming it then small (or yukta)
amount of it is not prohibited. Similarly more amount of pepper is
also prohibited. That means this sloka of Bhagavad-gita does not
prohibit eating chillies per se.

--- yes , chillies taken as per मितं भुञ्ज्यात् / अति सर्वत्र वर्जयेत् , for that matter any ' thing' under the Sun , there won't be any harm. 

If taken in excess check with more curd or raw banana(cooked) etc.

---------------------------------------------

Now the serious question of commentary / translation of the verse from भगवद्गीता 

1.Still katu (or tiksna) whatever may be the name - Vidvan Damodara Das

2.A minor point specific to BG 17.9. BG 17.9 uses two words ‘kaṭu’ and ‘tīkṣṇa.’ As ‘tīkṣṇa’ has been separately used, commentators on the verse have interpreted the word ‘kaṭu’ as bitter, and ‘tīkṣṇa’ as pungent. In the collection of eleven commentaries published

आनन्दगिरि - कटुस्तिक्तः कटुकस्य तीक्ष्णशब्देनोक्तत्वात्

वेदान्तदेशिक - तीक्ष्णस्यापि मरीचादेः

वेङ्कटनाथ - अतितीक्ष्णो मरिचादिः

पुरुषोत्तम - अतितीक्ष्णो मरिचादिः

नीलकण्ठ - अतितीक्ष्णो मरिचादिः

मधुसूदन - अतितीक्ष्णो मरिचादिः

धनपति - अतितीक्ष्णं मरिचादि

श्रीधर - अतितीक्ष्णो मरिचादिः 

Even modern commentaries like Tattvavivecanī list red chilly under ‘tīkṣṇa.’

                                                            --- Vidvan Nityananda Misra

--------- Please look at my first posting 

<<<<It is not possible to explain these verses without the  knowledge of चरकम् / सुशृतम् / वाग्भट ।

I have taken the term कटु in the sense it is used in चरकसंहिता ( सूत्रस्थानम् - 1-65) --

स्वादुरम्लो’थ लवणः कटुकस्तिक्त एव च ।

कषायश्चेति षट्को’यं रसानां सङ्ग्र्हः स्मृतः॥   >>>

I was well aware of the commentaries - why only eleven ? let us take a 100 or so , that too for a span of 1200 years (even a late महामहोपाध्याय from Andhra Pradesh , translated in the same fashion - following earlier commentaries)

Samkaracarya did not say anything in this regard.

Here again the same case as ' अपरस्परसंभूतम् ’ - then it was व्याकरणम् and now it is वैद्यकम् -

गतानुगतिको लोकः न लोकः पारमार्थिकः - nobody wants to refer to the उपवेद on वैद्यकम् ।

What is the problem ?

How many रसs are there ? six

How many रसs are there ? sixty three

How a रस gets in ? thru water (आप्यः)

Here is सुश्रुतसंहिता (सूत्रस्थानम् - अध्यायः 42 रसविशेषविज्ञानीयः) --

स खलु आप्यः रसः शेषभूतसंसर्गात् विदग्धः षोढा विभज्यते । तद्यथा - मधुरः अम्लः लवणः कटुकः तिक्तः कषायः इति ।

ते च भूयः परस्परसंसर्गात् त्रिषष्टिधा भिद्यन्ते ।

..... तत्र वाय्वग्निबाहुल्यात् कटुकः ......।  (4)

औष्ण्य-तैक्ष्ण्य-रौक्ष्य-लाघव-वैशद्यगुणलक्षणम् पित्तम् । तस्य समानयोनिः कटुको रसः।(8)

तस्य (मधुरस्य) पुनः अन्ययोनिः कटुको रसः । स श्लेष्मणः प्रत्यनीकत्वात् कटुकत्वात् माधुर्यम् अभिभवति , रौक्ष्यात् स्नेहं , लाघवात् गौरवम् , औष्ण्यात् शैत्यं , वैशद्यात् पैच्छिल्यम् इति । तदेतत् निदर्शनमात्रम् । (10)

I have already recommended this chapter.

So we should not put कटु and तीक्ष्ण in the same basket.

Just try to maintain our standard -

common cold - once in 5 years

cough - once in 27 years

fever - never

युक्तियुक्तं वचो ग्राह्यं न ग्राह्यं गुरुगौरवात् - याज्ञवल्क्यशिक्षा

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

[Jsr Prasad]

Namaste.

So it is accepted that all 6-rasas are to be taken in balance (it may
need some survey of traditions all over India if this rule was
followed).

 

One man's food is another man's poison or one man's poison is another man's cure. What rasa should be given prominence is based on the prakṛti of an individual. In addition to Sushruta's explanation as cited by Prof. Subrahmanyam garu, Caraka offers the following as per 'doṣa.'

1. कटु, तिक्त and कषायs generate वात

2. मधुर, आम्ल and लवणs pacify the above

3. कटु, आम्ल and लवणs generate पित्त

4. मधुर, तिक्त and कषायs pacify the above

5. मधुर, अम्ल and लवणs generate कफ

6. कटु, तिक्त and कषायs pacify the above.

So, based on the body constitution (predominance of certain doṣa), one may consider consuming appropriate rasas and avoid rasas that generate viruddhaguṇa. Otherwise, there might be a problem in achieving the 'धातु-साम्यक्रिया,' because, it is said that 'आहारसम्भवं वस्तु रोगाश्चाहारसम्भवाः ।' Again, one has to change food habits based on seasonal changes. Hence, food is the basis for either health or disease. Besides the above, Caraka says in mātrāśitīyādhyāya, 'उष्णमश्नीयात्, स्निग्धमश्नीयात्, मात्रावदश्नीयात्, जीर्णेश्नीयात्, वीर्याविरुद्धमश्नीयात्, इष्टे देशे इष्टसर्वोपकरणं चाश्नीयात्, नातिद्रुतमश्नीयात्, नातिविलम्बितमश्नीयात्, अजल्पन्नहसन्तन्मना भुञ्जीत ।' and so on and so forth. This is as part of dinacaryā. If these general parameters are not maintained, then there would be imbalance in health, in spite of following doṣa specific rasa consumption.

Still katu (or tiksna) whatever may be the name, can be achieved from
pepper, etc. even without using chillies. So still it doesn't answer
the question fully. It does answer that if katu-ness (or tiksna-ness)
of chlli is the reason for not comsuming it then small (or yukta)
amount of it is not prohibited. Similarly more amount of pepper is
also prohibited. That means this sloka of Bhagavad-gita does not
prohibit eating chillies per se.

In your first post, you said that <a discussion came that chillies are not indian in origin and thus it is better that we avoid it.>. Does dharmaśāstra prohibits foods of foreign origin, may be yes. Reasons can be discussed. Considering the scholarly inputs in this thread, if you are convinced that chillies are of exotic origin, you may simply discard it from proposed menu, at the cost of compromising habitual taste. Ayurveda has no problem with exotic plants, as I said in one of my previous posts.

Food items cooked using marica or chilly, without cittaśuddhi of the cook, may cause inconvenience in the consumer. Also, to avoid dṛṣṭidoṣa we recite some verses that was cited in texts like kṣemakutūhalam. However, I agree that these are abstract feelings and beyond scientific observation.

Thanks

[Damodara Dasa]

Hare Krishna.

Ayurveda has no problem with exotic plants, as I said in one of my
previous posts.

Food items cooked using marica or chilly, without cittaśuddhi of the
cook, may cause inconvenience in the consumer. Also, to avoid
dṛṣṭidoṣa we recite some verses that was cited in texts like
kṣemakutūhalam.

I agree. Thankyou for this nice information. I shall consider these
points also, specifically that ayurveda has no problem with exotic
plants. Also I shall look deep into the reason of the emotion to avoid
non-indian things in food etc. (even in ancient temples). Is this
emotion vedic or traditional or is this coming from modern sources.
Also reasons why some persons are adamant over this?

Thankyou,
Damodara Das

On 9/29/15, Jsr Prasad <jsrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Namaste.
>
> So it is accepted that all 6-rasas are to be taken in balance (it may
>> need some survey of traditions all over India if this rule was
>> followed).
>>
>
> One man's food is another man's poison or one man's poison is another man's
> cure. What rasa should be given prominence is based on the prakṛti of an
> individual. In addition to Sushruta's explanation as cited by Prof.
> Subrahmanyam garu, Caraka offers the following as per 'doṣa.'
>

> 1. कटु, तिक्त and कषायs generate *वात*

> 2. मधुर, आम्ल and लवणs pacify the above

> 3. कटु, आम्ल and लवणs generate *पित्त*

> 4. मधुर, तिक्त and कषायs pacify the above

> 5. मधुर, अम्ल and लवणs generate *कफ*

> 6. कटु, तिक्त and कषायs pacify the above.
>
> So, based on the body constitution (predominance of certain doṣa), one may
> consider consuming appropriate rasas and avoid rasas that generate
> viruddhaguṇa. Otherwise, there might be a problem in achieving the
> 'धातु-साम्यक्रिया,' because, it is said that 'आहारसम्भवं वस्तु
> रोगाश्चाहारसम्भवाः ।' Again, one has to change food habits based on
> seasonal changes. Hence, food is the basis for either health or disease.
> Besides the above, Caraka says in mātrāśitīyādhyāya, 'उष्णमश्नीयात्,
> स्निग्धमश्नीयात्, मात्रावदश्नीयात्, जीर्णेश्नीयात्, वीर्याविरुद्धमश्नीयात्,
> इष्टे देशे इष्टसर्वोपकरणं चाश्नीयात्, नातिद्रुतमश्नीयात्,
> नातिविलम्बितमश्नीयात्, अजल्पन्नहसन्तन्मना भुञ्जीत ।' and so on and so
> forth. This is as part of dinacaryā. If these general parameters are not
> maintained, then there would be imbalance in health, in spite of following
> doṣa specific rasa consumption.
>
> Still katu (or tiksna) whatever may be the name, can be achieved from
>> pepper, etc. even without using chillies. So still it doesn't answer
>> the question fully. It does answer that if katu-ness (or tiksna-ness)
>> of chlli is the reason for not comsuming it then small (or yukta)
>> amount of it is not prohibited. Similarly more amount of pepper is
>> also prohibited. That means this sloka of Bhagavad-gita does not
>> prohibit eating chillies per se.
>>
>>

> In your first post, you said that <*a discussion came that chillies are not
> indian in origin and thus it is better that we avoid it*.>. Does

> dharmaśāstra prohibits foods of foreign origin, may be yes. Reasons can be
> discussed. Considering the scholarly inputs in this thread, if you are
> convinced that chillies are of exotic origin, you may simply discard it
> from proposed menu, at the cost of compromising habitual taste. Ayurveda
> has no problem with exotic plants, as I said in one of my previous posts.
>
> Food items cooked using marica or chilly, without cittaśuddhi of the cook,
> may cause inconvenience in the consumer. Also, to avoid dṛṣṭidoṣa we recite
> some verses that was cited in texts like kṣemakutūhalam. However, I agree
> that these are abstract feelings and beyond scientific observation.
>
> Thanks
>

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Vidwan Damodara Dasaji,

 

Before deciding your menu, please be sure of your criteria.

.

Ayurveda's listing in pathya can not be a criterion for a specific group with a specific worldview, or spiritual or religious sensitivity.

 

Ayurveda lists non-vegetarian food too as part of pathya. It addresses all social groups. But a vegetarian chooses only the vegetarian items of the pathya.

 

Commentaries according to the tradition followed by you to the relevant verses in the Bhagavadgita, can be a good guide.

 

For traditions having followers abroad, it may be a good idea not to be rigid about the Indian origin of the plant.

 

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Vidwan Damodara Dasaji,

 

Before deciding your menu, please be sure of your criteria.

.

If you ask Ayurvedic Physician, to get Vegetables for cooking, you will get only herbal medicines only for your food as all other vegetable people use will have one or more दोष-s he will find in them. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>

If you ask Ayurvedic Physician, to get Vegetables for cooking, you will get only herbal medicines only for your food as all other vegetable people use will have one or more दोष-s he will find in them. 

This is an exaggeration.

 

You seem to have a troublesome experience with some Ayurvedic doctor.

 

नास्ति मूल मनौषधम् is followed by Ayurveda.

 

In ऊर्ध्वं जिगातु भेषजं , भेषजं referrers to all plants.

 

In

पुष्णामि चौषधीः सर्वाः सोमो भूत्वा रसात्मकः ॥ 15\-13॥

also, ओषधीः refers to all plants.

In fact, Ayurvedic principle is that one 'dosha' balances the other (two). Hence all plants can become pathya for one or the other person.

For example if an Ayurvedic bhishak says this plant or plant-part or recipe has/causes this dosha, it does not mean it is not edible at all. vaatakaaraka food is pathya for paityakritarogapeeDita person. 

An Ayurvedic doctor wrote a book in Telugu by name bhojanabhogam  only to remove unnecessary fears about different food items.  

 

 

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Author of Bhojana Bhogam, is Dr. G. V. Purnachand.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 12:43:44 PM UTC+5:30, nagarajpaturi wrote:

>

If you ask Ayurvedic Physician, to get Vegetables for cooking, you will get only herbal medicines only for your food as all other vegetable people use will have one or more दोष-s he will find in them. 

This is an exaggeration.

 

You seem to have a troublesome experience with some Ayurvedic doctor.

 

Dr. Paturi,

I believe Dr. H N Bhat was joking. His comment seems to be more of a light-hearted banter about Ayurveda physicians than anything else.

Thanks, Nityanand

[Nityanand Misra]

Dr. Korada Ji

The terminology used in Ayurveda works to describe the six rasas or their 63 permutations may not necessarily be used outside of Ayurvedic works to describe them. Although Ayurveda is helpful in understanding the verses of Gita describing the three-fold classification of foods, ultimately the Gita is not an Ayurvedic work. Whether one takes six rasas or their sixty-three combinations as per Ayurveda, one a direct correspondence with the seven words kaṭu, amla, lavaṇa, uṣṇa, tīkṣṇa, rūkṣa, and vidāhin used in BG 17.9 may not exist. 

My humble opinion is that to rationally evaluate the pūrvapakṣa of the various commentators vis-a-vis your uttarapakṣa, we first need a fair representation and explanation of the pūrvapakṣa which I have not seen in your response. In addition we also need to explore the usage of the words ‘kaṭu,’ ‘tikta,’ and ’tīkṣṇa’ in non-Ayurvedic works. Is there an overlap in the meanings of these words when used outside an Ayurvedic context? If there is, then the commentators are perhaps justified in interpreting tīkṣṇa as kaṭu and kaṭu as tikta.

Thanks, Nityanand

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 9:32:11 AM UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

In addition we also need to explore the usage of the words ‘kaṭu,’ ‘tikta,’ and ’tīkṣṇa’ in non-Ayurvedic works. Is there an overlap in the meanings of these words when used outside an Ayurvedic context? If there is, then the commentators are perhaps justified in interpreting tīkṣṇa as kaṭu and kaṭu as tikta.

Here are some examples from lexicons and commentaries on them where the words ‘kaṭu,’ ‘tikta,’ and ‘tīkṣṇa’ are listed as synonyms or used synonymously.

1) The विश्वप्रकाशः, टद्विकम्, verses ११ and १२ lists ‘tīkṣṇa’ as one of the meanings of ‘kaṭu.’ 

कटुः सुगन्धे तीक्ष्णे स्यादकार्ये मक्षरे रसे

कटुः प्रियङ्गुकटुका राजिकास्वथ दूषणे

कटु प्रोक्तं

2) The हैमः, as cited in व्याख्यासुधा on कटुः in अमरकोषः १.५.९, lists ‘tikta’ as one of the meanings of ‘kaṭu’

कट्वकार्ये मत्सरे च दूषणे च कटू रसे

तिक्ते प्रियङ्गुसुरभौ कटुका राजिकास्वपि

 

3) The व्याख्यासुधा on कटुः in अमरकोषः १.५.९ explains the word कटुः as कटत्यावृणोति तीक्ष्णतया मुखम्. The use of तीक्ष्णतया in the explanation shows that the commentator understood the word तीक्ष्णता to be a synonym of कटुता.

4) The हलायुधकोशः (edited Jaishankar Joshi, third edition 1993, p. 195) on कटुः – कटति तीक्ष्णतया रसनां मुखं वा आवृणोति। The explanation is similar to that offered in the व्याख्यासुधा, and uses the word तीक्ष्णता to describe the quality of something that is कटु.

5) हैमः, as cited in व्याख्यासुधा on तिक्तः in अमरकोषः १.५.९, says that तिक्ता is a synonym for the herb कटुरोहिणी.

तिक्तस्तु सुरभौ रसे

तिक्ता तु कटुरोहिण्यां तिक्तं पर्पटकौषधे

 

 

  

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Vidvan Nityananda Misra---

In addition we also need to explore the usage of the words ‘kaṭu,’ ‘tikta,’ and ’tīkṣṇa’ in non-Ayurvedic works. Is there an overlap in the meanings of these words when used outside an Ayurvedic context? If there is, then the commentators are perhaps justified in interpreting tīkṣṇa as kaṭu and kaṭu as tikta.

Here the problem is this -- there are 6 रसs and 63 उपरसs ( I coined this word) . They have their meanings clearly described in वैद्यशास्त्रम् ।

1. In such a situation one need not go for taking उपरस for रस --

this is called श्रुतहानिः अश्रुतकल्पना च (ब्रह्मसूत्रशांकरभाष्यम्) - what is clearly understood is being given up and what is clearly not said is being taken up as प्रमाणम् - it is a दोष ।

2.You have quoted निघण्टुs to exhibit that कटु and तीक्ष्ण are synonyms . Let me also quote the following --

अमरकोशः (कालवर्गः) - तिग्मं तीक्ष्णं खरं तद्वत्  ( तीक्ष्णं means अत्युष्णम्)

मेदिनीकोशः -- तीक्ष्णं सामुद्रलवणे विषलोहाजिमुष्कके---- (तीक्ष्ण means sea-salt)

नानार्थरत्नमाला --तीक्ष्णं क्लीबे विषे युद्धे समुद्रलवणायसोः।

त्रिषु तिग्मे क्षुते क्षारे शोणस्त्वरळुपादपे ॥  ( तीक्ष्ण means poison / sea-salt / too hot / क्षार)

So , which meaning to take - if the commentators have taken तीक्ष्ण for कटु  , then what is the विनिगमकम् (एकपक्षयुक्तिसाधकम्) ? - any norm/ न्याय in saying - this is only correct and not the other.

You may take usages from different sources - 

महाभाष्यम् (समर्थः पदविधिः 2-1-1) --

यो ब्रूयात् - पुरस्तात् आदित्य उदेति , पश्चादस्तं गच्छति , मधुरो गुडः , कटुकं शृङ्गवेरम् इति , किं तेन कृतं स्यात् ?

यद्यपि अभ्यन्तरः , न तु गम्यते । नहि गुड इत्युक्ते मधुरत्वं गम्यते , शृङ्गवेरमिति वा कटुकत्वम् !

( गम्यते = प्रकारतया गम्यते);  शृङ्गवेरम् = आर्द्रकम् / ginger

I am not going deep into the details - some scholars opined that द्रव्यम् is important whereas others held it is रस and so on . Then also there will be problem.

Please note whatever is discussed by Patanjali in terms of द्रव्यम् and गुण , in the same सूत्रम् , is very much in line with वैद्यकम् ।

Here is वाक्यपदीयम् (वाक्यकाण्डः - वृत्तिसमुद्देशः - 100) --

यथौषधिरसाः सर्वे मधुन्याहितशक्तयः।

अविभागेन वर्तन्ते तां संख्यां तादृशीं विदुः ॥ 

what does this mean ?

Finally , one , as per the tradition , should follow पदवाक्यप्रमाणशास्त्राणि for preparing a commentary / translation .

At the end of 16 th अध्याय it is clearly stated that one should follow the शास्त्रम् -

यः शास्त्रविधिमुत्सृज्य वर्तते कामचारतः ।

न स सिद्धिमवाप्नोति न सुखं न परां गतिम् ॥ 23

तस्मात् शास्त्रं प्रमाणं ते कार्याकार्यव्यवस्थितौ ।

ज्ञात्वा शास्त्रविधानोक्तं कर्म कर्तुमिहार्हसि ॥ 24

Then there is the question by Arjuna in the present अध्याय - ये शास्त्रविधिमुत्सृज्य ...

So there is beautiful सङ्गति ।

Here I have followed the मीमांसान्याय (शाबरभाष्यम् - हेतुवन्निगदाधिकरणम् 1-2-13-29) in deciding the meaning of this वाक्यम् -

न विधौ परः शब्दार्थः 

(विधायके शब्दे परः लक्ष्यः शब्दार्थः न भवति इत्यर्थः)

So let us take the वाच्यार्थ of (अति) कटु ।

Let us see the very purpose - menu is to be prescribed for the people in three Vedic villages - they may not like all this discussion . 

They want सुखदुःखे हिताहिते ( सुश्रुतम्) ।

If a गर्भिणी asks me something I shall refer to गर्भिणीव्याकरणम् , rather than रसोत्पत्ति । 

Let us call it a day .

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

 

 

  

--

[Nityanand Misra]

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 8:36:01 PM UTC+5:30, korada wrote:

 

2.You have quoted निघण्टुs to exhibit that कटु and तीक्ष्ण are synonyms . Let me also quote the following --

अमरकोशः (कालवर्गः) - तिग्मं तीक्ष्णं खरं तद्वत्  ( तीक्ष्णं means अत्युष्णम्)

Dear Prof. Korada Ji

I have not said that the interpretation of the commentators (including stalwarts like Vedāntadeśika and Madhusūdana Sarasvatī) is the only correct interpretation. I have only tried to justify their interpretation of words in BG 17.9 in a specific way by providing certain citations from koṣa-s (not nighaṇṭu-s) and commentaries on koṣa-s. The learned commentators may not have felt the need to interpret words strictly from the lens of the terminology used in Āyurveda. 

I am afraid I respect your opinion but disagree with it. You have suggested to stop the discussion, and I agree that there is no use continuing this on the current thread. 

Thanks, Nityānanda

[Damodara Dasa]

Hare Krishna.
Respected Vidvajjanas,

>> You have suggested to stop the discussion, and I agree that there is no use continuing this on the current thread.

Yes, the discussion on the meaning of words 'katu' and 'tiksna' may be
stopped on this thread, but I suggest that the discussion on the main
issue of the thread - "Are chillies originally Indian in use" can be
carried on.

So far in our discussion, it is evident that chillies are not Indian
in origin. Some conclusion can be arrived soon.

Regarding our project members using it in menu or not, there are a few
more factors that will decide the outcome. But as this is one of the
factors I wanted to get clear picture of it. I thank all vidvaj-janas
for their participation.

Thankyou,
Damodara Das

On 10/4/15, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 8:36:01 PM UTC+5:30, korada wrote:
>
>
>> 2.You have quoted निघण्टुs to exhibit that कटु and तीक्ष्ण are synonyms .
>>
>> Let me also quote the following --
>>

>> *अमरकोशः (कालवर्गः*) - तिग्मं तीक्ष्णं खरं तद्वत् (* तीक्ष्णं means
>> अत्युष्णम्*)

>>
>>
> Dear Prof. Korada Ji
>
> I have not said that the interpretation of the commentators (including
> stalwarts like Vedāntadeśika and Madhusūdana Sarasvatī) is the only correct
>
> interpretation. I have only tried to justify their interpretation of words
> in BG 17.9 in a specific way by providing certain citations from koṣa-s
> (not nighaṇṭu-s) and commentaries on koṣa-s. The learned commentators may
> not have felt the need to interpret words strictly from the lens of the
> terminology used in Āyurveda.
>
> I am afraid I respect your opinion but disagree with it. You have suggested
>
> to stop the discussion, and I agree that there is no use continuing this on
>
> the current thread.
>
> Thanks, Nityānanda
>

> --
> निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

--
+91 9737475085
www.bvks.com

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

I think we can close this thread we have been discussing Chilies from more than a month. Thanks to all those who have posted

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Ashok Aklujkar]

Should chillies be used in the food to be given to guru-kula students? As I recall, the following points have not been made in the discussion:

1. Ancient Indians do not seem have shunned something because of a thing’s known or probable foreign origin (recall: Yavana-jātaka or -siddhānta, praising Mlecchas for their skill in making yantras, pronouncements like ā no bhadrāḥ kratavo yantu viśvataḥ).

2. Āyurveda is a smṛti. Smṛtis change according to deśa and kāla. What is more important for smṛti acceptance is not the origin of a thing but what the learned and insightful, having no vested interest, the śiṣṭas, conclude about possible effects, relative to the time, region and measure and way of acceptance (in this case, consumption).

3. Many, if not all, religions of India have two main types of fasting: (a) that in which nothing is put into the body and (b) that in which only specific eatables and drinkables are consumed. Of (a), nirjala is more severe, with non-swallowing of even saliva as a still more severe form. It is (b) that concerns the present discussion. In it, eatables like tapioca, potatoes, and foreign varieties of certain fruits like banana are routinely consumed over a large area of India. A guru-kula following a narrower understanding of what its students should eat will have much explaining to do, probably frequently. It may even need the services of a specialist devoted to the historical study of food items.( In noting this, I am not suggesting that more work should be viewed negatively. More work is good for scholarship. Here, I am just pointing out a practical difficulty. How many specialists of food history are there in contemporary India?)

4. Attaching greater importance to (a) timeless or non-diachronic principles and (b) conclusions drawn by contemporary unselfish scholars is the strength of dharmic traditions. It is what allows them to see no conflict between science and religiosity and to change as objective knowledge changes (although they too are at present under pressure to become organized religions). If greater importance is attached to historicity, the Indian dharma traditions will suffer from the same logical and social weaknesses as the exclusivistic religions do (rigidity of dogma, naive insistence on only one name, one scripture etc.). History is important, but it should not be the sole or most dominant arbiter of how life is led.

5. In my experience, Indian restaurants are serving more and more hot/sharp food, which has been scientifically proved to be bad for health. (Eating at a Dasaprakāśa hotel is no longer as sāttvic an experience as it used to be.) If chillies are accepted in guru-kulas, care should be taken to ensure moderate use.

a.a.

[K S Kannan]

1. Ancient Indians do not seem have shunned something because of a thing’s known or probable foreign origin (recall: Yavana-jātaka or -siddhānta, praising Mlecchas for their skill in making yantras, pronouncements like ā no bhadrāḥ kratavo yantu viśvataḥ). - AA.

Indeed so. 

Was it S'abara who said the mleccha-s were better skilled in taking care of birds ?

KSKannan

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Dr. K.S.Kannan

Professor, 

Centre for Ancient History and Culture,

Jain University

319, 17th Cross, 25th Main,

6th Phase, J P Nagar, Bangalore - 560 078

(Ex-Director, Karnataka Samskrit University)

[Ganesh R]

Dear Sri aklujkar sir,

Thanks a lot for the timely all-time guidelines.

Regards

Ganesh

[K S Kannan]

abhiyuktatarAH paks"iNAm pos"aNe bandhane  ca mlecchAH
- acknowledges S'abara in his mImAmsA bhAs"ya.

"The mleccha-s are better versed in catching birds and rearing them".

Due credit was thus given even to non-Aryans (not in the racial sense, of course) by our tradition.

-KSKannan

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Can we Please close this thread if all issues have been discussed. This thread has been on for a month for now

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Ganesh R <avadhan...@gmail.com> wrote: