365bet娱乐

I turn to rajas in 腻测耻谤惫别诲补. Do 膩yurvedic sources prefigure the 础尘峁泃补蝉颈诲诲丑颈 model of rajas occurring within the body of the male practitioner? I found no evidence of the latter. There does appear to be continuity between 腻测耻谤惫别诲补 and 丑补峁环补 yoga though there are no textual parallels. 膧yurvedic sources predate 丑补峁环补 developing from a 鈥榗lassical鈥� period in the second century BCE to the seventh century CE (Cerulli 2010:267). I draw on classical 腻测耻谤惫别诲补, the 颁补谤补办补蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 (c. first -second century CE) and 厂耻艣谤耻迟补蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 (c. third century CE), to clarify the nature of rajas. I do not compare these historical discourses with contemporary biomedical understandings of menstruation and embryology.

膧测耻谤惫别诲补 sets out a physiology based on fundamental essences (诲丑腻迟耻s) which pertain to the nature of rajas. 膧测耻谤惫别诲补 privileges processes of substance and a substance-oriented understanding of the body. Zimmerman addresses the epistemological position of anatomical knowledge, and the images underlying the doctrine of the humours, especially concerning unctuosity or oiliness. Zimmermann claims, 鈥榯here is no real anatomy; the humours are vital fluids, and the frame of the body is a network of channels through which vital fluids must be kept flowing in the right direction鈥� (Zimmermann 1979:11). Instead of organs, Zimmermann highlights the humours and in particular 鈥榯he state of intimate fluidity and sneha-tva, 鈥渦nctuousness鈥�, of the living body, and the process of over-activating and over-refining vital substances through internal coctions鈥� (Zimmermann 1979:11). Coction, boiling or digestion, was the subject of the last chapter. Zimmermann notes the importance of the combination and cooking of medicinal plants for modern medical practitioners basing their craft on the 础峁ａ弓腻峁単补丑峁沝补测补蝉补峁僪颈迟腻. He sees images from the vegetable kingdom, such as the network of veins in a green leaf and the rising of sap, as providing models for the image of the body: 鈥楾he idea prevails of a continuity from plants to men; saps (rasa), medicinal properties (补耻峁�a诲丑补驳耻峁嘺) and processes of cooking and coction鈥攂y the sun, on the kitchen fire and through the seven organic fires transforming chyle into blood, blood into flesh, etc.鈥攔emain the same all along the chain of living beings鈥� (Zimmermann 1979:14). 贬补峁环补 yoga departs from 腻测耻谤惫别诲补 in the practitioner rather than the physician effecting bodily transformation鈥攆or example through cooking himself as we saw in the last chapter.

In 腻测耻谤惫别诲补, semen and female menstrual blood are the seventh of the seven 诲丑腻迟耻s (颁补谤补办补蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 艢腻谤墨谤补蝉迟丑腻苍补 2.4) (Wujastyk 2003a:154鈥�55). The 诲丑腻迟耻s, elements or essences of the body, are formed in a process of successive transformation due to the breaking down of food. Das鈥檚 extensive study, The Origin of the Life of a Human Being: Conception and the female according to ancient Indian medical and sexological literature (2003) acknowledges that we do not have a clear idea of the character of these female fluids and his study leaves open many questions. He defines rajas as 鈥榩rocreatory-menstrual fluid鈥� which he identifies as different from blood (2003:489) and different from female semen (艣耻办谤补, retas) the nature of which 鈥榮eems to be one of the most problematic subjects of ancient Indian medical theory鈥� (2003:492). Where 鈥榩rocreatory-menstrual fluid鈥� is red, female semen is clear, like rajas and bindu respectively. This appears to be distinguished from the semen common to men and women which is the last 诲丑腻迟耻 in the chain of alimentary transformation beginning with rasa. Das, drawing on 础谤耻峁嘺诲补迟迟补鈥檚 commentary on the 础峁ａ弓腻峁単补丑峁沝补测补, argues that the 鈥榗lassical鈥� texts derive 鈥榩rocreatory-menstrual fluid鈥� not from blood but from (腻谤腻谤补)rasa, which is not part of the 诲丑腻迟耻 chain proper but a separate development from a member of this chain (Das 2003:259, 489). Das鈥檚 study does not elucidate whether rajas can arise in men.

Rajas is vital to the generation of an embryo and its procreative nature is 鈥榯he same as or very closely linked to milk鈥� (Das 2003:489) where milk is also a vital fluid.^[1] It is connected with the heart and nourishes the foetus. The foetus is created from the joining together of male semen (艣耻办谤补), female seed (艣辞峁噄迟补), and the descending spirit (箩墨惫补) (颁补谤补办补蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 艢腻谤墨谤补蝉迟丑腻苍补 4.5) (Leslie 1996:92). Here female seed is red (艣辞峁噄迟补) rather than the clear (艣耻办谤补) female semen referred to above. Elsewhere the 颁补谤补办补蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 prefers the term rajas to 艣辞峁噄迟补 (颁补谤补办补蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 艢腻谤墨谤补蝉迟丑腻苍补 2.34). 膧谤迟补惫补 enters the uterus during pregnancy to nourish the foetus, and its downward flow is halted by the growing embryo, causing the collection of milk at the heart (厂耻艣谤耻迟补蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 3.4.24) (Das 2003:491; Leslie 1996:94). Leslie emphasizes that, 鈥榃hat in religious and mythic contexts is seen as the most polluting of all substances (i.e. menstrual blood) is transformed into what in those same contexts is one of the purest (i.e. breast-milk)鈥� (1996:94). The locale of the heart as the collection site for milk is inconclusive (Das 2003:487鈥�88), but as a physiological and yogic body structure the heart is important in 丑补峁环补 yoga and Daoism.

To what extent does an 膩yurvedic understanding of rajas inform 丑补峁环补 yoga? Maas finds that the system of medical knowledge with which 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈 was acquainted is 腻测耻谤惫别诲补 of an early classical style (2008:153). Birch finds that 鈥榯extual evidence from the classical period of India鈥檚 history suggests that some kind of relationship dates back to the beginning of the first millennium鈥� (Birch 2018:3). However, he argues that yogis had a more general knowledge of healing disease, found in earlier tantras and brahmanical texts, without adopting in any significant way teachings from classical 腻测耻谤惫别诲补 (Birch 2018:5).

There are parallels, though scant, between 腻测耻谤惫别诲补 and 丑补峁环补, with 膩yurvedic terminology becoming more frequent from the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries in 丑补峁环补 yoga sources (Mallinson and Singleton 2017:488n2). 膧测耻谤惫别诲补 has a system of channels including 苍腻岣嵞� and 蝉颈谤腻, two of which are within the yoni, the left carrying 鈥榮emen鈥� (艣耻办谤补) and the right 鈥榖lood鈥� (rakta).^[2] Dagmar Wujastyk notes that there are importance differences in the conceptions of the yogic body between 腻测耻谤惫别诲补 and 丑补峁环补: 膩yurvedic literature does not mention the cakras, nor the channels 颈岣嵞�, 辫颈峁単补濒腻 and 蝉耻峁�u尘峁嚹� (2018).

Perhaps there is continuity from 腻测耻谤惫别诲补 to 丑补峁环补 in the interconnected nature of rajas as menstrual blood and generative vital fluid. However, there is no evidence for the siting of rajas within male practitioners as deriving from 腻测耻谤惫别诲补. 贬补峁环补 does continue the micromacrocosmic correlations of the individual and the universal evident in 腻测耻谤惫别诲补 (Cerulli 2010:277). 膧测耻谤惫别诲补 accounts for the body or self as having 鈥榮ubstance codes鈥� (a term developed by Marriott) transferable on the mental, emotional and material level (Zubko 2010:722; Marriott 1990), framing an identity of body and cosmos and the transferability or manipulation of sexual fluids within a body and worldview that incorporates affect.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Doniger, in an insightful though at times perhaps too strongly psychoanalytical analysis of the vedic lexicon, discusses the correlation between blood and milk鈥�payas has the primary meaning of 鈥榤ilk鈥�, the secondary meaning of 鈥榚xpressed fluid鈥� and the tertiary meaning of 鈥榮emen鈥欌�攁nd the potential for association between penis and breast (1980:18鈥�21).

[2]:

厂补峁僾补谤辞诲补测补迟补苍迟谤补 2.23 始dve n膩dyau yonimadhye tu v膩madak峁�i峁嘺yos tath膩 莯 惫腻峁侥 艣耻办谤补峁� vij膩n墨y膩d dak峁�i峁噀 raktam eva ca || (Das 2003:452鈥�53n1549)