In spite of knowing and understanding Yoga Science, very few do justice to the actual practice of Yoga.
Do you agree? If yes then what according to you would be the best launching ground for a Yoga Aspirant?
I think, the answer lies in FOOD.
I personally feel that since food contains aspects that influence the mind, the Yoga aspirant should start this journey by giving a serious thought to working out a [B]Yogic diet[/B] and then sticking to it, come what may.
anand
What would be a proper yogic diet for a yoga aspirant?
Yes Preciesxcly just hwat thinz sould the yOgi EaT?
Is there are universal rool on THis? Some kidn of secret cod
Yoga doesn’t warrant that the human being do justice to it. Yoga is there, in a myriad of ways, for the human being when the human being wants what Yoga has to offer. The human being may take up one tool or a thousand AND each human being will ultimately be served in a unique way by the practice whether they pick up one tool (the same or different) or a thousand.
However, when the practice that was a seedling blossoms and becomes pervasive in the living of the student, the student may be moved in greater measure toward the light within, depending on their intention and the practices employed.
Does it matter if one begins with chewing or speaking? Does it matter if one begins with contracting their quadriceps or balancing on their nose? Does it matter if one is embodying tapas or santosha first?
Yoga should be done in a systematic and step by step way just as Patanjali recommended or by doing all 7 limbs at once, but paying more attention to the earlier ones than the later ones if you are a beginner.
There is a reason Patanjali mentions them in order of yama, niyama, asana, pranayama, pratyhara, dharana and dhyana and finally samadhi, because each follows one from another.
First of all to do Yoga in the first place you require a yogic lifestyle as a foundation which means practicing mindfulness, reading Vedic literature, eating a sattvic diet. Then one has developed some degree of discipline, they can begin asana practice and learn to stabalize their body, synch the body with the breath and ground themselves. When one has learned to ground themselves they can learn to regulate their breath to gain control of prana and thereby learn to introvert within and focus the mind. Then meditate.
Traditionally this how Yoga was done. In fact no asana and pranayama practices were given to the student by the guru until several years of observing a yogic lifestyle. Most of us are very impatient though and nobody wants to just practice yamas and niyamas for 5 years before moving onto asanas and pranayama. Then another 5 years to move onto meditation. Thus, the best thing is to do all of them daily. The yogic daily lifestyle should be:
Early wake up at Brahmamahurta/Amrit vela at 4 am
Dinacharya(bathing, cleaning, evacuation)
Yoga asana, pranayama and meditation(2 hours)
Sattvic breakfast, biggest meal of the day
Work/daily chores/school and observing yamas in ones interaction with the world
Sattvic lunch, second biggest meal of the day
Resume work
Recreation time after end of work
Sattvic dinner, smallest meal of the day
Reading spiritual/inspiring literature
Meditation 1-2 hours
Sleep at 10pm for next day 4am rise
This is a similar time table to that used in many ashrams, but more suited to somebody who has a full-time job. Otherwise, one could fit in another 1-2 hours of meditation in the day.
This advice to eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a beggar has nothing to do with yoga, but got later association with it due to modern popular diet trends. Traditional advice on how to eat depends on your ashrama(your stage in life), your sampradaya and also your health. General advice is given for those on the pravritti marga should eat two meals a day and those on the nivritti marga should eat only one meal a day. Those who eat once a day are inline with the devas, those who eat twice a day with the manushyas (human beings), those who eat trice a day with the asuras and those who eat four times a day with the rakshasas. This applies to healthy and strong people, people who have ilness should eat according the physician’s advice. This advice also does not apply to children under the age of eight years old or people above the age of eighty.
This advice to eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a beggar has nothing to do with yoga, but got later association with it due to modern popular diet trends.
It is actually consistent with Ayurveda, which says during the day different periods of the day have different predominant doshas: vata, pitta, kahpa. This corresponds to modern nutritional science that our metabolism throughout the day is at its peak in the morning and at its lowest during the evening. Hence why people who eat during the night(which is considered asuric) end up converting most of what they eat to fat.
It sounds like nonsense that if you eat thrice a day you are an asura. I understand that if you are more developed spiritually you will have lesser need to eat, but to say that those eating three times a day are asuras is dogmatic and silly. Maybe less spiritually developed, but certainly not demons. In that case were all demons pretty much in this world, even me and my family 
It is symbolic for your progress and certain type of meal frequencies are more conducive to a spiritual lifestyle.
Eating at night is also not recommended indeed.
You can also look into the scientific research on intermittent fasting which shows that lower meal frequencies are beneficial to your health.
[QUOTE=InnerAthlete;61612]Yoga doesn’t warrant that the human being do justice to it. Yoga is there, in a myriad of ways, for the human being when the human being wants what Yoga has to offer. The human being may take up one tool or a thousand AND each human being will ultimately be served in a unique way by the practice whether they pick up one tool (the same or different) or a thousand.
However, when the practice that was a seedling blossoms and becomes pervasive in the living of the student, the student may be moved in greater measure toward the light within, depending on their intention and the practices employed.
Does it matter if one begins with chewing or speaking? Does it matter if one begins with contracting their quadriceps or balancing on their nose? Does it matter if one is embodying tapas or santosha first?[/QUOTE]
Dear friend:
I was saying that an aspirant should do justice to the yoga practice he/ she has taken up. I wonder if you took it in some other way.
Regarding “yogic diet” as the launching ground, you will appreciate that food ingrains into us, the subtle quality known as [I][B]“guna”[/B][/I] that conditions the general mind and I daresay, the “mind” of each and every cell in our body.
Tapas or Santosha will not manifest if the mind is rendered by food to be hyperactive in the senses or slothful or insensitive, etc.
regards, anand
Indeed Anand, you make several thoughtful points. Thank you.
[QUOTE=David;61576]What would be a proper yogic diet for a yoga aspirant?[/QUOTE]
Dear Friend:
Recognizing that the body, mind and spirit are interconnected leads to the understanding that what we do to one of these aspects of ourselves will undeniably impact the others.
Food thus, is not just a sustainer of the physical body. There is more to it than just fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals and proteins.
Yoga recognizes many more subtle aspects of food and accordingly considers various food items as virtuous or otherwise.
[I][B]“Ahara-suddhau sattva-suddhih, Sattva-suddhau dhruva-smritih, Smritilabhe sarvagranthinam vipramokshah”[/B][/I]. Meaning, by the purity of food, follows the purification of the inner nature; on the purity of the inner nature the memory (of the real self) becomes firm and on the strengthening of memory follows the loosening of all (karmic) ties and the wise get liberation thereby.
The first glaring question is, whether humans should or should not eat meat. To find the truth about this, let us at least observe some typical characteristics of other meat-eating and non meat-eating species.
[ol]
[li]Meat-eating animals (cat, tiger, dog, etc.) are born with their eyes closed, which open only after a few days, while non meat-eating animals (cow, deer, elephant) are born with eyes open.
[/li]
[li]Meat-eating animals have canine teeth to facilitate tearing of meat, while vegetarian animals do not have such canines.
[/li]
[li]While drinking liquids, meat-eaters have a tongue-lapping action, while the non meat-eaters have a sucking action.
[/li]
[li]Natural meat-eaters digest meat within just a few hours and have a short alimentary canal, whereas meat eaten by, or forced upon vegetarian animals remains undigested for so long that in fact, it serves as food for putrefactive germs in the long intestinal canal.
[/li][/ol]
[B]Clearly then, Man is a natural vegetarian and only an un-natural meat-eater.[/B]
Those on the spiritual path who have understood the [B]Doctrine of Karma[/B] will see another dimension to this issue viz., meat-eating amounts to causing serious disruption in the karmic journey of another soul, an act that would, by the universal principle of cause and effect, increase one?s own karmic bondage meaning that much distancing from attaining liberation or moksha.
The bottom line is, vegetarianism is good, but not everyone is spiritually evolved enough to embrace it.
Even in a vegetarian diet, one must pay attention to the most important aspect of food and that is its [B]innate nature or [I]“Guna”[/I][/B].
In the Order of Creation, the very first manifestation of The One Absolute are the three Gunas viz. [B][I]Raja, Sattwa and Tama[/I][/B] which incorporate the Creative, Operative and Dissolving forces respectively.
Needless to say, these three Gunas are innately present in food too. Just as a magnet imparts its magnetism to a piece of iron if brushed against it for some time, so also, a person acquires the innate nature of the food that is consumed.
Although at the divine, i.e. causal level, [I][B]Raja, Sattwa and Tama[/B][/I] are respectively associated with forces required in the cycle of creation, sustenance and dissolution of Nature, in creatures yet bonded by the law of karma, which most humans are, [I][B]Raja-Guna[/B][/I] results in passion, lust and greed in the mind. A Rajasic person would attempt to fulfill all desires (an endless process) by being continually and egoistically active. [I][B]Tama-Guna[/B][/I] represents inertia, ignorance, insensitivity and laziness. The ego of a Tamasic person would then prompt the mind to simply snatch away objects of desire from others, rather than engaging in any effort.
[I][B]Sattwa-Guna[/B][/I] endows a person with the nature of discriminative intellect, a yearning for knowledge and experience of truth.
For a spiritual aspirant, who in fact is a seeker of increasing levels of truth, the importance of [I][B]Sattvic[/B][/I] diet cannot be over-emphasized.
Thus, Gheranda Samhita, the classic Yoga text has very explicitly directed the aspirant to discard.
Swami Sivananda has stated: "Highly seasoned dishes, hot curries, chutnies, meat, fishes, chillies, sour articles, tamarind, mustard, all kinds of oil, asafetida, salt, garlic, onions, urad-ki-dal (black gram), all bitter things, dry foods, black sugar, vinegar, alcohol, sour curd, stale foods, acids, astringents, pungent stuff, roasted things, heavy vegetables, over-ripe or unripe fruits, pumpkins, etc., [B]must be avoided[/B].
Meat can make man a scientist, but rarely a Philosopher, Yogi or a Tattva Jnani. [B]Onions and garlic are worse than meat[/B]. All food-stuffs contain a small quantity of salt. So, even if you do not add salt separately, the system will derive the necessary quantity of salt from other food-stuffs. The giving up of salt will not produce deficiency of hydrochloric acid and dyspepsia as allopathic doctors foolishly imagine. Salt excites passion. No ill-effects are produced by the giving up of salt. Mahatma Gandhi and Swami Yogananda had given up salt for over thirteen years. Giving up salt helps you in controlling the tongue and thereby the mind also and in developing will-power too. You will have good health."
Yoga Aspirants should themselves study the Yoga texts for exhaustive lists of allowed and disallowed foods for their benefit.
Moderation in eating is most important. Never stuff yourself with food. The rule is: Take wholesome [B][I]Sattvic[/I][/B] food half stomachful. Fill a quarter with pure water. Allow the remaining quarter free for expansion of gas and for propitiating the Lord.
[B]The least one should observe is to avoid Alcohol, Onion, Garlic, Hinga (asafetida), mustard, excessive salt and chilies.
[/B]
Even those aspirants on the path of Kundalini Yoga in any of its variations including [I]Shaktipaat Siddha Kundalini Mahayoga[/I] must strictly adhere to food discipline, as eating the disallowed foods would be akin to swimming with a boulder tied to the chest.
It is now easy to understand why many religions around the world have ancient laws forbidding certain foods or combinations of foods as unholy or unclean, contaminating to spirit.
At more subtle levels, consideration is given to even the nature of the person cooking the food and hence restrictions as arise in this regard too. These are just the first logical steps that will affect the way we think and support our spiritual growth.
regards, anand
[QUOTE=InnerAthlete;61659]Indeed Anand, you make several thoughtful points. Thank you.[/QUOTE]
Dear Friend:
I have made some more points in the post no.11 just before this. Hope they are useful too.
regards, anand
I thought I had a relatively decent understanding of a yogi’s diet, mainly through ahimsa. However, I’m fascinated by the in depth layers of what you’ve detailed Anand. It certainly goes way beyond my elementary grasp of veganism. It’s very interesting, and I’m thankful for the information. I wonder, however, in today’s modern world, how feasible it is to stick to such a regimented diet. Does anyone in this forum follow such a strict diet?
[QUOTE=StudioLiveTV;61675]I thought I had a relatively decent understanding of a yogi’s diet, mainly through ahimsa. However, I’m fascinated by the in depth layers of what you’ve detailed Anand. It certainly goes way beyond my elementary grasp of veganism. It’s very interesting, and I’m thankful for the information. I wonder, however, in today’s modern world, how feasible it is to stick to such a regimented diet. Does anyone in this forum follow such a strict diet?[/QUOTE]
dear friend:
Sticking to a [I][B]yogic diet[/B][/I] may at first seem intimidating. Soon however, these rules look like facilitators, rather than a hurdle to be overcome.
Our entire family has received spiritual initiation by the [I][B]“shaktipaat”[/B][/I] way. In our house we all automatically follow the diet aspects. Once in a while, like while travelling, all aspects may not be possibly taken care of, but that’s more of an exception.
regards, anand
Thank you for that Anand, it is greatly appreciated 
I was very interested until I got to this bit:
[QUOTE=Anand Kulkarni;61663][B]Clearly then, Man is a natural vegetarian and only an un-natural meat-eater.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
According to your own definition, meat eaters have canines. I have canines -upper and lower. Granted, they are less pronounced than my primate cousins, but they are there nonetheless. Anthropological studies have also indicated that our ancestors’ canines were much larger than ours today. Surely that was not to tear apart tough mangoes or breadfruit.
Also, I have 3 children, and was present in the room when all of them were born. None of them came out with their eyes open and didn’t really open them for days. Even then, their eyesight was considerably restricted to my wife’s nipple.
[B]So, even by your own definition we are clearly meat-eating AND plant-eating animals[/B].
Otherwise, I appreciate your other notes, but will take them with a grain of salt (figuratively speaking).
I do not view one thing as good or bad, but over-indulgence, abuse, and ignorance as culprits. To say that meat-eaters may produce good scientists but never philosophers is to reduce many philosophers to hacks - from Thales to Russell. I doubt many of these men were wholly vegetarian, but may have been moderate in their consumtion of meat - who knows.
To be totally vegetarian requires much diligence as this could lead to physical issues related to lack of certain nutrients. Although I would love to be wholly vegan, I do not trust my ability to be that diligent.
I understand that this is contentious within the discipline of traditional yoga. Personally I have learned a lot about myself in this journey. I have always had a restless and provocative mind. My energy level is such that I do not need caffeine to stimulate me in the least - I bounce out of bed, much to the irritation of my wife and kids. But, I have come to understand that my restlessness may be tied to diet as I do have a typical western diet of meat, eggs, dairy, etc. I enjoy spicy foods, having grown up in Trinidad where pepper is a staple. Garlic and onions garnish most recipes. So, in becoming more aware of what I eat I am resolved to remove eggs from my diet, and reduce my consumption of meats, garlic and onions.
But I have to say that I am a bit confused. Garlic and onions have many curative qualities. So do some peppers, like cayenne. In India, curry and other spices are used frequently (as is garlic and onions). Alcohol, when taken in moderation, has many benefits.
Because of the mixed messages, I am prone to adopt the philosophy of ‘everything in moderation’ and not over-indulge. Also, each of us have entirely different makeups. I am hyperactive and should be aware of foods that may create an aggravation to the hyperactivity. Another may be listless and require foods that enhance energy.
I do very much appreciate the doctrines you cite and will continue to use them as a guide, but not as a rule.
Should eat for health.
The end.
Some good points Anand. However, it is not realistic to expect everyone to be disciplined enough to follow the path of strict vegetarianism. That is why it was never “imposed” on anyone in India/Hinduism.
Some overzealous newly-converted vegetarians, especially in the west, automatically assume that is the “only” proper diet and thus start looking ‘down’ on those who eat meat.
Indulgence in anything is adharmic, however, depending on one’s svadharma, meat eating in and of itself is not dissuaded. Case in point; kSatriyAs, sUdrAs, and some sects of vaISyAs. Brahmins, given their austere lifestyle and sattvic nature, don’t eat meat but the same cannot be expected of others.
The sad part is that those who are not disciplined enough to be vegetarian, turn the tables on those who are and make up some silly arguments and accusations. Indian food is primarily vegetarian and sattvic; that is because India is a civilized country. We cannot expect mlecchas (barbarians) to follow a similar civilized lifestyle; they do not have the self-discipline nor the predisposition to sattva.
What I find hilarious is the hypocrisy of the west who murder animals in the millions, are so concerned about certain animals.
Are westerners dog worshipers?
So to anyone who eats meat, how come you don’t eat dogs and cats? In that regard, the Chinese are at least uniform in their meat eating habits.
Perhaps it’s time to open up a real hot-“dog” stand? 
Puppy milkshake anyone?
According to your own definition, meat eaters have canines. I have canines -upper and lower. Granted, they are less pronounced than my primate cousins, but they are there nonetheless. Anthropological studies have also indicated that our ancestors’ canines were much larger than ours today. Surely that was not to tear apart tough mangoes or breadfruit.
Also, I have 3 children, and was present in the room when all of them were born. None of them came out with their eyes open and didn’t really open them for days. Even then, their eyesight was considerably restricted to my wife’s nipple.
So, even by your own definition we are clearly meat-eating AND plant-eating animals.
In fact this proves that the human being is naturally a vegetarian, because evolution is moving in that direction. Originally, he had bigger canines for meat eating, but now that has has left his animal past, his canines have all but gone. As Yoga is all about making the human - human - it makes sense why it advocates vegetarianism.
Everything in moderation is a cop out to me. Should we also take poison in moderation? Gradually, the yogi realises that previous things he consumed with his sense organs were actually poisoning his being, and he stop doing them. Yoga testifies to the tamasic qualities of meat and this is why the formal practice of Yoga prohibits it, and does not say, “Do it in moderation” If one is serious about being a yogi they need to renounce their previous lifestyle and adopt the yogic one - which means vegetarianism as well.