Nietzsche,
It has been mentioned by the oldest written texts on medicine through Ayurveda, and has been mentioned in tantric texts such as the Damar Tantra, as well as the Hatha Yoga Pradikipa. Amongst tantrics it is well known as Shivambu, meaning the “nectar of Shiva”. But it does not matter who has spoken about it, just because it is mentioned by ancient sources does not mean anything whatsoever.
“This will definitely be something I will look into.”
If you really want to investigate into the matter, one will have to become involved in the practice, there is no other way. Everything else as to whether it is useful or not useful is entirely speculation.
"These substances are excreted once more, within hours. "
It is not a matter of excretion, most of it becomes absorbed into one’s system. At the level of the gross body, it becomes absorbed into the nervous system through the blood stream. At the the level of the subtle body, it has an impact upon different subtle energies, particularly prana and apana at the level of the chest and navel.
“And, how does this differ, from other forms of slavery?”
What is “slavery” has little to do with the actions that you are doing, and more to do with the spirit by which you are performing the actions. The right kind of practice is that kind of practice which can act, and yet which is absolutely unconcerned with the fruits of the action. Outwardly - the same action done with awareness look the same as the same action done out of unawareness. But they are totally different. Though the action is the same, one binds, the other liberates.
And to be in a state of slavery is needed in the beginning, because that is the space from which most people are, that is how one has been living for ages. The slavery will have to be used in the beginning and then transformed. The fact is that if you do nothing, nothing changes. A method is needed, not to come to one’s liberation, but to dissolve the psychological hindrances which are preventing oneself from coming to one’s liberation. These obstacles are not simply going to surrender on their own accord - they are a deep part of the programming of the mind and body. Like anything else in life, things will happen because you have created the possibility for it to happen.
This is still temporary, Amir.
So, what you are saying, is that you personally require such slavery, yet it is not necessary?
Since it is only the space in which ‘most’ people are, but not all?
[QUOTE=AmirMourad;60396]Nietzsche,
It has been mentioned by the oldest written texts on medicine through Ayurveda, and has been mentioned in tantric texts such as the Damar Tantra, as well as the Hatha Yoga Pradikipa. Amongst tantrics it is well known as Shivambu, meaning the “nectar of Shiva”. But it does not matter who has spoken about it, just because it is mentioned by ancient sources does not mean anything whatsoever.
“This will definitely be something I will look into.”
If you really want to investigate into the matter, one will have to become involved in the practice, there is no other way. Everything else as to whether it is useful or not useful is entirely speculation.[/QUOTE]
No, that isn’t what I meant when I said “this will definitely be something I will look into.”
[QUOTE=AmirMourad;59822]
There is nothing dirty about the kidneys, it is their function to filter and purify. Unless your kidneys are infected, provided you are living a healthy way of life and have been practicing sadhana, there is no possibility of getting an infection of any kind. Certainly it is “waste” if you consider the simple fact that it is being released from the body. But it is waste in the same way that a seed which falls from a fruit is waste. It is not waste in the same sense as feces, which is not a material which is filtered, nor is it the function of the intestines to filter it. [/QUOTE]
There is nothing “dirty” about the kidneys. It doesn’t have to do with “dirt.” The kidneys filter toxic substances - that is how they purify. They filter toxins (both toxic products of our own metabolism as well as environmental toxins) from the blood stream so that the body can get rid of them in the urine before they cause disease in the body. There’s a list of filtered toxins found in urine here.
The intestines do not need to “filter” because they are technically still outside of the body. Think of the entire tract from mouth to anus as external and as a barrier like the skin on our arms. It forms by a process of invagination embryonically. Urine and feces are both true waste. The distinction of one filtering and one not makes little sense. Once the toxin, or waste, is truly inside the human body within the tissues and blood, the only way to remove it is by filtration.
Infection is something else entirely. Amir is correct. It is highly unlikely that one would get an infection from drinking urine.
He is not correct about urine waste being like a seed. A seed is in no way waste for a tree! It is more correctly analogous to its ovum or its sperm. It is through the seed that a tree gets rebirth and extension of life of its species.
Thanks Doc. Of course, the counter argument that is indoubtedly forthcoming is that one who practices clean ingesting, as in true yogic diet, will have pure urine free of toxins. Your sound clarification will fall on deafened ears.
[QUOTE=theYogadr.;60420]There is nothing “dirty” about the kidneys. It doesn’t have to do with “dirt.” The kidneys filter toxic substances - that is how they purify. They filter toxins (both toxic products of our own metabolism as well as environmental toxins) from the blood stream so that the body can get rid of them in the urine before they cause disease in the body. There’s a list of filtered toxins found in urine here.
The intestines do not need to “filter” because they are technically still outside of the body. Think of the entire tract from mouth to anus as external and as a barrier like the skin on our arms. It forms by a process of invagination embryonically. Urine and feces are both true waste. The distinction of one filtering and one not makes little sense. Once the toxin, or waste, is truly inside the human body within the tissues and blood, the only way to remove it is by filtration.
Infection is something else entirely. Amir is correct. It is highly unlikely that one would get an infection from drinking urine.
He is not correct about urine waste being like a seed. A seed is in no way waste for a tree! It is more correctly analogous to its ovum or its sperm. It is through the seed that a tree gets rebirth and extension of life of its species.[/QUOTE]
Well said doc.
I trust you and not the pseudo-intellectuals here.
At least you have a degree. The other people here are only well-versed in pseudo-science.
Thank you Dr. Summers, for sharing this useful information, particularly the list of toxins.
It is well appreciated.
[QUOTE=FlexPenguin;60440]Thanks Doc. Of course, the counter argument that is indoubtedly forthcoming is that one who practices clean ingesting, as in true yogic diet, will have pure urine free of toxins. Your sound clarification will fall on deafened ears.[/QUOTE]
Yep, for those who have chosen to believe that urine has magical powers - and that purifiying the nadis makes them free of the toxic effects of chemicals - an expression of common sense and logic falls on deaf ears. It’s the ones who are still in the contemplation stage, the ones trying to figure out what to believe, that I’m trying to reach.
Nadis are subtle energy channels beyond the measure or understanding of modern science. There’s nothing subtle about toxic chemicals. They are on the physical body level, the annamayakosha. Transmutation of physical energy is no small feat.
Just because one adheres to a Yoga life and “practices clean ingesting, as in true yogic diet” does not mean they can magically transmute physical energy. Yes, the koshas are interconnected, and cleansing one certainly helps to cleanse the others, but there are limits set by physics. Operating on the quantum physical level is impossible for just about everybody ? if not everybody.
“Clean ingesting, as in a pure yogic diet” does not prevent anyone from having toxic chemical substances in their bodies. For sure it helps ? a lot! But toxic substances are in the air we breathe no matter where we live. They are in the food we eat, even with primarily organic choices of only natural, non-processed foods. They off-gas from furniture, computers, and carpets. Even our own bodies make toxic chemical metabolites that need to be excreted before they build up and cause harm.
Anyway ? maybe enough said! Thank you to everyone for their comments and for the lively discussion!
Hi Kathleen,
I’d have a question about the toxins. You say they’re in the urine, so they had been filtered out of the blood-stream. And said toxins are a reason why drinking urine would be a bad idea. Right?
But these toxins had been in the body anyway, before they are filtered, so how exactly would this be a problem? Will the body not simply filter them out again? And where do these toxics come from? From something we eat or breathe in or drink, I’d think. Isn’t it then somewhat a questionable approach to fight drinking urine, instead of fighting the actual source of these substances? Because from your argumentation it sounds somewhat like urine would be the source.
Also, I think that many “toxins” are only toxic if they appear in a minimal concentration, while your list says nothing about concentration. I totally randomly picked one toxin from your list, Molybdenum, and quick-read the corresponding Wikipedia-article. There is says
The human body contains about 0.07 mg of molybdenum per kilogram of weight.[54] It occurs in higher concentrations in the liver and kidneys and in lower concentrations in the vertebrae.[5] Molybdenum is also present within human tooth enamel and may help prevent its decay.[55] Pork, lamb and beef liver each have approximately 1.5 parts per million of molybdenum. Other significant dietary sources include green beans, eggs, sunflower seeds, wheat flour, lentils, cucumbers and cereal grain.[6]
The average daily intake of molybdenum varies between 0.12 and 0.24 mg, but it depends on the molybdenum content of the food.[56] Acute toxicity has not been seen in humans, and the toxicity depends strongly on the chemical state. Studies on rats show a median lethal dose (LD50) as low as 180 mg/kg for some Mo compounds.[57] Although human toxicity data is unavailable, animal studies have shown that chronic ingestion of more than 10 mg/day of molybdenum can cause diarrhea, growth retardation, infertility, low birth weight and gout; it can also affect the lungs, kidneys and liver.[56][58] Sodium tungstate is a competitive inhibitor of molybdenum. Dietary tungsten reduces the concentration of molybdenum in tissues.[5]
So it’s perfectly normal to have Molybdenum in one’s body. There even is a Molybdenum deficiency.
I didn’t check the other toxics, of some I know they are indeed simply toxic (like cadmium), but still it’d be relevant what the concentration is and in that case it makes no sense in my perception to blame urine and declare urine dangerous, instead of the original source of (for example) cadmium.
So the questions unanswered here are: Are the toxins in urine so far not yet toxic? Would, by drinking urine, the concentration of these not-yet-toxic toxins be raised so they actually become toxic? Is there any data on that, a study, research? Wouldn’t these toxins just be filtered out again?
[QUOTE=Quetzalcoatl;60637]Hi Kathleen,
I’d have a question about the toxins. You say they’re in the urine, so they had been filtered out of the blood-stream. And said toxins are a reason why drinking urine would be a bad idea. Right?
But these toxins had been in the body anyway, before they are filtered, so how exactly would this be a problem? Will the body not simply filter them out again? And where do these toxics come from? From something we eat or breathe in or drink, I’d think. Isn’t it then somewhat a questionable approach to fight drinking urine, instead of fighting the actual source of these substances?[/QUOTE]
My highly unqualified guess would be that while the kidneys do filter out the toxins, if we keep putting them back in by drinking urine, the concentrations will rise until we might finally reach dangerous levels. Urine of day 1 + toxins of day 1 = urine of day 2 + toxins of day 2, and so on.
As far as I know there is a lot of research going on right now to figure out how much damage all of the man-made nanoparticles we are exposed to might do to our bodies. Sun screens, deodorants, paints, dyes, plastics, light weight composite materials, tooth paste, self cleaning windows, non-smelly socks, smoke, traffic exhaust pollutants… Not to mention the non-nano particle crap, such as preservatives or by-products from the oil industry, that we come in contact with on a daily basis.
Eliminating all of the crap from our lives might work, but it it possible? Where on Earth would we not encounter the pollutants we have produced?
Hi Nila,
I’m not a urine user myself, so I wouldn’t know, but if this would be going on:
My highly unqualified guess would be that while the kidneys do filter out the toxins, if we keep putting them back in by drinking urine, the concentrations will rise until we might finally reach dangerous levels. Urine of day 1 + toxins of day 1 = urine of day 2 + toxins of day 2, and so on.
yeah, I had suggested this problem… But then again, one would actually drop dead after some time or be highyl intoxicated. Has this been observed? On the other hand, if this was the problem, one could just not drink all their urine, for example could one drink only the morning-urine, which is, afaik, the suggestion anyway. Then the toxics would be filtered out over the day and go with the urine. And if the toxin still was the problem coming over night, the whole problem could again be resolved by drinking urine only every 2nd day.
As far as I know there is a lot of research going on right now to figure out how much damage all of the man-made nanoparticles we are exposed to might do to our bodies. Sun screens, deodorants, paints, dyes, plastics, light weight composite materials, tooth paste, self cleaning windows, non-smelly socks, smoke, traffic exhaust pollutants… Not to mention the non-nano particle crap, such as preservatives or by-products from the oil industry, that we come in contact with on a daily basis.
Eliminating all of the crap from our lives might work, but it it possible? Where on Earth would we not encounter the pollutants we have produced?
Here I have no doubt. That’s why I find it somewhat nonsensic to worry about a practice that takes in what one takes in anyway and brand that as dangerous. Also, the point of a healthy yogic diet kicks in. If one takes far more care about what one eats and drinks, one would end up with far less toxins in their urine than these “most people”.
Bottom line: I think that the toxins found in urine are in no way an argument not to drink it. After all, it seems that this urine-drinking has a long history. And it does make sense, insofar that the intake of substances that are not waste in terms of being substances the body can’t use, but substances the body can use, but did not need at some particular point. I still wouldn’t understand it enough myself, but let’s think of a simply wound, some scratch. To heal that wound the body needs substances that “make body”, that can create skin. Simply speaking. And if you applied such substances to a wound, you would add more of them to where they are needed and sped the process up. The same thing - I’m no Dr., though - is what’s done with medicine. If you add a salve to a wound, you provide substances that can be used to build skin or whatever.
Then I wouldn’t know, but do think that at least some of the substances that come with urine could/should be already tailor-made for the own body. Hormones for example are produced by one’s own body. I don’t know if there are particular differences, but there are differences in blood and if you get a new organ, it is a problem that the body… rejects it, other than, obviously, one’s own organs. So urine could might should be somewhat a juice particularly for oneself.
The more I think about this, the more it makes sense, and since urine is even sterile and it’s suggested and practiced that people who are cut off water supply drink their own urine, at least it can’t be harmful. Not to forget all those “anecdotes”, people who actually did or do it and have success with it. What they oppose are just theories, and so far, from my perspective, insufficient theories.
Q,
Yeah, the theories are for someone else to defend or explain.
Supposedly there are women eating their placentas after giving birth as well. Probably highly nutritious, and probably as with urine fairly easy to digest/make use of as it does come from the top of the food chain. I do however not see how anyone who is not malnourished would need to do it. 
“The dose makes the poison.” Paracelcus
Paracelsus, a doc and occultist from the early 1500s, is considered the father of toxicology. He knew back then what we know in greater detail now. Basically, substances we consider toxic are harmless in small doses, and substances we consider harmless can become toxic if consumed if too high a quantity.
Salt, for instance, everyone knows is essential for life. But too much salt can make you acutely ill to the point your brain swells and you die within a few days. Chronic high consumption leads to diseases like high blood pressure and stroke.
If you don’t drink enough water, you will die. If you drink too much all at one time, you will die. If you don’t get enough vitamin A, it’s bad. If you get too much vitamin A, that’s bad, too – even fatal. And so on.
For many of the natural potential toxins, this is the case, molybdenum included. For synthetic substances, none is essential and it’s anybody’s guess just how much we need to be toxic. Toxicology is a lot of educated guessing and averages and statistics. We aren’t statistics, we are individuals with differing genetics that lead to differing abilities to protect ourselves from various toxic substances.
The human body does an amazing job at that. What a gift of nature are our livers and kidneys. We’ve been designed – or evolved (um, or both) to be able to clear our systems of things that are toxic in high enough levels. Often it is a race to see which will happen first. Will the body be able to modify the toxin in the liver before it finds a target to destroy? Will the kidneys be able to filter out the toxin before it finds a target to manipulate and cause malfunction that may lead to disease and death?
So, yes, “these toxins had been the body anyway, before they are filtered,” and that’s exactly how this is a problem. It’s a race against time and the buildup of a sufficient quantity to cause disease and even death. If you are lucky, the body will simply filter them out again. If not, then there’s the trouble. And the trouble is slow and subtle. It takes a long time for the initial nidus of cancer to grow to a size that causes symptoms to let you know it’s there - and eventually cause death.
“And where do these toxins come from?” I’ve answered this repeatedly. It doesn’t matter where you live and how pure you try to be, you will still have toxins in your body from the surrounding environment – food, water, air, clothing, etc. Of course, you want to limit exposure as much as possible. You also want to work with nature, work with the body, to detoxify and to rid itself of anything that gets in. Re-drinking the toxins in urine is self defeating and against the course of nature.
“So the questions unanswered here are: Are the toxins in urine so far not yet toxic? Would, by drinking urine, the concentration of these not-yet-toxic toxins be raised so they actually become toxic? Is there any data on that, a study, research? Wouldn’t these toxins just be filtered out again?”
I think I’ve answered most of that. There’s lots of research about toxins, but none specifically about the toxic effects of drinking urine. (Try to get that study protocol passed by any reputable academic institution’s oversight board! It’s not happening.) You have to use some logical reasoning. If you are really interested, I suggest you read the chapter about principles of toxicology in Casarett & Doull’s Toxicology.
So, yes, molybdenum is necessary for life and deficiency states can occur. Molybdenum in higher concentrations is toxic. Synthetic chemicals are potentially toxic in all concentrations. Every one of us is filtering toxins right at this very moment, no matter how pure we attempt to be. We have to breathe, drink, and eat. The fact that many trace vitamins and minerals are in urine, molybdenum included, is why I’ve said that it made sense for yogis years ago to drink their urine when access to adequate nutrition was more difficult as it was for someone living the mendicant life style. Our world is not theirs. We have fortunate access to good nutrition and unfortunate access to environmental toxins.
“The fact that many trace vitamins and minerals are in urine, molybdenum included, is why I’ve said that it made sense for yogis years ago to drink their urine when access to adequate nutrition was more difficult as it was for someone living the mendicant life style.”
It has nothing whatsoever to do with not being supplied with adequate nutrition, that is not the reason why it has been used. Nor do you have to live as an ascetic to make use of amaroli, or any of the countless methods of yoga which have come into being. In fact, amaroli has been one of the common techniques in the tantric sciences - which has not emphasized renunciation of the world as an ascetic but has in fact placed tremendous importance on integration in the world. The simple fact is that if you practice the methods of yoga, not casually, but as a systematic technology for the expansion of consciousness, and come to a direct experience of the transitions which your system goes through as a result of the practice - then you will immediately understand why such methods have been spoken of. Scholarly knowledge may help to a certain extent, beyond which it is fruitless. If you want to know how amaroli works on your system - you will have to practice it. Not just practice it - but you will have to practice it in a particular way and in combination with other methods. Amaroli in particular is one of those techniques which has been transmitted secretly from master to disciple for centuries, and much of what one knows about it is just scratching the surface, there are other dimensions involved which are either known to those who are initiated, or to those who have taken the time and effort to explore into the method in a scientific way.
“Our world is not theirs. We have fortunate access to good nutrition and unfortunate access to environmental toxins”
More ignorance. The practice of amaroli was not something that had come into being as a social convenience, or as a manifestation of a particular cultural attitude. It has come into being because of how it works upon the mind and body when done in a particular way. And the “environmental toxins” make very little difference to a yogi who is well established in practice.
[QUOTE=AmirMourad;60896]“Our world is not theirs. We have fortunate access to good nutrition and unfortunate access to environmental toxins”
More ignorance. [/QUOTE]
Kathleen Summers, MD, PhD
Board Certified Internal Medicine
Doctorate Neuropharmacology
or
Amir Mourad, MD, PhD
Certified in Delusions of Enlightenment
Doctorate Egotism
I think I pick the Doctor.
[B]*** Member was confined to the religion forum for this post - admin edit - 12:47am central 05/20/11[/B]
I sometimes take a good snort of urine up my nostrils in the shower and find it quite invigorating. I don’t swallow much just kind of blow it out again just blowing, cleaning my nose purposes more than anything.
Do you think some of this is about getting high? I mean I’ve read stories of tribes drink the urine of their leader after he has eaten a flyagaric mushroom, and then they all start tripping of his urine. Just food for thought.