What distinguishes food that 'has lost rasa' from food merely perceived as unpleasant — is rasa-loss an objective physical quality or a relational one (e.g., prasada vs. ordinary food)?

Food that is stale, putrid, left over from another's plate, or unfit for offering is what the tamasic person craves. See seven-school commentary at https://gita.ekrasworks.com/gita/17/10.

Shankara identifies amedhya as 'ayajnarha' (unfit for yajna) — does this mean the standard for food is ultimately sacrificial fitness rather than nutritional value, and what does that imply for modern food choices?

Food that is stale, putrid, left over from another's plate, or unfit for offering is what the tamasic person craves. See seven-school commentary at https://gita.ekrasworks.com/gita/17/10.

Ramanuja adds an active counsel ('sattvika ahara alone should be taken by those who wish the good') that Shankara does not — what does this difference in register reveal about jnana-marga versus bhakti-yoga pedagogy?

Food that is stale, putrid, left over from another's plate, or unfit for offering is what the tamasic person craves. See seven-school commentary at https://gita.ekrasworks.com/gita/17/10.

Madhusudan's three-column analysis maps each tamasic quality to its opposite sattvika quality — does this suggest that tamasic and sattvika food are not merely different but structurally contrary, making partial reform insufficient?

Food that is stale, putrid, left over from another's plate, or unfit for offering is what the tamasic person craves. See seven-school commentary at https://gita.ekrasworks.com/gita/17/10.

Sridhara includes kalanja (specific forbidden foods) in amedhya — to what extent is the tamasic food-classification a doctrinal-metaphysical category versus a context-specific cultural prohibition, and how should practitioners navigate this?

Food that is stale, putrid, left over from another's plate, or unfit for offering is what the tamasic person craves. See seven-school commentary at https://gita.ekrasworks.com/gita/17/10.

If the ucchishta of a guru or deity is mahaprasada (sacred) while ucchishta in 17.10 is tamasic, what principle determines when the 'leftover' of another is purifying versus polluting?

Food that is stale, putrid, left over from another's plate, or unfit for offering is what the tamasic person craves. See seven-school commentary at https://gita.ekrasworks.com/gita/17/10.

All schools agree on the list but diverge on the explanatory register (sacrificial fitness, gunavridhhi, prasada-logic, systematic opposition) — does the convergence on the phenomenon and divergence on explanation suggest that food classification is a shared observational baseline on which doctrinal differences are then projected?

Food that is stale, putrid, left over from another's plate, or unfit for offering is what the tamasic person craves. See seven-school commentary at https://gita.ekrasworks.com/gita/17/10.

BG 17.10 — Śraddhātraya-Vibhāga-Yoga

Bhagavad Gītā 17.10Chapter 17 · Śraddhātraya-Vibhāga-Yoga · Krishna → Arjuna · anuṣṭubh

यातयामं गतरसं पूति पर्युषितं च यत् ।

उच्छिष्टमपि चामेध्यं भोजनं तामसप्रियम् ॥

yāta-yāmaṃ gata-rasaṃ pūti paryuṣitaṃ ca yat

ucchiṣṭam api cāmedhyaṃ bhojanaṃ tāmasa-priyam

spokensingle-voice recital; rendered via IndicF5 conditioned on a Sanskrit reference clip

meaning

Food that is stale, putrid, left over from another's plate, or unfit for offering is what the tamasic person craves.

Bhāṣyakāra purports

Śaṅkaraadvaita
Food that is yata-yama (half-cooked or stale, having lost its potency), gata-rasa (drained of juice and vitality), puti (putrid in smell), paryusita (kept overnight after cooking), ucchishta (the leavings of another's meal), and amedhya (unfit for sacrifice) — such food is dear to the tamasic person. Shankara identifies yata-yama as food whose virya (potency) has gone, gata-rasa as separately indicating the loss of rasa itself, and amedhya as ayajnarha (unworthy of yajna). The tamasic person's preference for such food sustains the tamas that veils discriminative knowledge (viveka), thereby perpetuating bondage and obstructing the jnana-marga.
divergence: Shankara: ‘yatayamam mandapakva... nirviyasya gatarasashabdena uktatvat... amedhyam ayajnarham'
Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita
Food long-standing (cirakalavasthita), stripped of its natural rasa, foul-smelling, transformed by the passage of time (kalatipattya rasantarapanna), left over from the meals of those other than one's guru and superiors (gurvadibyah anyesham bhuktashishtam), and unworthy of yajna-offering — such tamo-maya food is dear to the tamasic and further increases tamas. Ramanuja adds the practical soteriological counsel: therefore, those who wish the good of the jiva should cultivate sattvika-ahara for the increase of sattva. Food is not mere sustenance but a constitutive condition of the bhakti-yoga preparation that enables kainkarya (loving service) to Bhagavan.
divergence: Ramanuja: ‘kalatipattya rasantarapanna... hitaishibhih sattvavriddhaye sattvikahara eva sevyah'
Madhvadvaita
Reconstructed from the dvaita school's doctrine, not translated from Madhva's commentary at this verse.
Yāta-yāma (food whose time has passed), gata-rasa (food drained of taste and vitality), pūti (putrid), paryuṣita (stale from overnight storage), ucchiṣṭa (leavings from another's meal), and amedhya (ritually impure) — such food is tāmasa-priya, the preference of the tāmasika jīva. Tamas binds the paratantra jīva most heavily, pulling it away from the sattva required for steady bhakti to the svatantra Hari. The pañca-bheda between Hari and jīva, and between jīva and matter, is not suspended by a degraded āhāra (food-regimen); rather, the jīva‘s constitutional dependence on Hari becomes practically inoperative when tamas is fed and thickened. Food that is pūti and amedhya does not merely displease the senses — it consolidates the jīva‘s gravitational pull toward adho-gati (downward movement), making bhagavad-bhakti inaccessible rather than merely difficult. The taratamya among jīvas is expressed partly through the mode of food they choose: the lowest jīvas, most deeply enmeshed in tamas, incline by nature to yāta-yāma and ucchiṣṭa, confirming the graded ontological hierarchy the Lord names here.
divergence: Madhva and Jayatīrtha are silent on this verse; the rendering voices Dvaita siddhānta — paratantra jīva, pañca-bheda, taratamya — directly off the mūla.
Vallabhaśuddhādvaita
That which has stood long (cirakalavasthita) and is thus bereft of the freshness and fragrance that mark Krsna's prasada — stale, putrid, leftover, sacrificially unworthy food — is dear to the tamasic. In the Pushti-marga, food derives its purifying potency only as prasada, the overflow of Krsna's own ananda-lila; food that has lost rasa has, in the most literal sense, lost the divine rasa itself. The tamasic person's preference for ucchishta and amedhya reflects an inversion of the Pushti ideal: instead of receiving Krsna's leavings (maha-prasada) one consumes the leavings of ignorance.
divergence: Vallabha: ‘cirakalavasthitam tamasapriyam' — minimal; rendering extended from Shuddhadvaita prasada-doctrine.
Śrīdharabhakti
Food cooked a full prahara (watch) ago and now cold (yata-yama = yatr praharo yasya pakvasya, shaitya-avastha-prapta), from which the sap has been pressed out (nishipitasara), foul-smelling, cooked the previous day (dinantar-apakva), left over from another's eating, and amedhya — that is, abhakshya such as kalanja (forbidden foods) — such food is dear to the tamasic person. Sridhara's bhakti-philological reading carefully unpacks each compound against the lived experience of food preparation, grounding the classification in observable, practical distinctions rather than purely metaphysical ones, so that the devotee can make concrete choices.
divergence: Sridhara: ‘yato yamah praharo yasya pakvasya odanades tad yatayamam... amedhyam abhakshyam kalanjadi'
Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti
Yata-yama is food half-cooked (ardhapakva), or, as the bhashya (Shankara) specifies, food already covered by gata-rasa; Madhusudan extends this: cooked rice and the like that have become cold after a prahara, drained of their extract, while paryushita is that which has been kept overnight and, he notes, includes dhattura (intoxicants) that produce mental disturbance. Ucchishta is the residue of another's eating; amedhya is the impure including mamsa (meat). Madhusudan then provides a systematic three-column analysis showing how the tamasic food-group opposes the sattvika point by point — gatarasatva opposes rasya, yatayamatva opposes snigdha, paryushitatva opposes sthira — while the tamasic group carries both the seen (drshta) and unseen (adrshta) harm that the rajasic carries only in the seen dimension. The synthesis: even the physician's ayurvedic apathya is subsumed here by the particle api-ca, yoking vaidyaka-shastra to the Gita's threefold classification.
divergence: Madhusudan: ‘nirviyasya gatarasapadena uktatvad iti bhashyam... tattvika-varge drishta-adrshta-virodha iti atishayah'

ekras · bhāṣya

Yata-yamam — past its hour, stale-cooked; gata-rasam — drained of taste; puti — putrid; paryushitam — kept overnight; uchchhishtam — leavings of others' meals; amedhyam — ritually unfit. Such bhojanam is tamasa-priyam — dear to the tamasika.

Krishna names six categories of tamasic food. Each is a precise food-pathology. The bhakta who finds himself drawn to these foods has located the guna operating in him.

Shankara reads yata-yama as half-cooked or stale food whose virya — potency — has gone. Gata-rasa — drained of juice and vitality. Puti — putrid in smell. Paryushita — kept overnight after cooking. Ucchhishta — the leavings of another's meal. Amedhya — unfit for sacrifice. Such food is dear to the tamasika. The six categories together describe a dietary profile that produces tamasic effects on body and mind.

Madhusudana extends Shankara's reading: yata-yama is food half-cooked — ardhapakva — or, as Shankara specifies, food already covered by gata-rasa. Cooked rice and the like that have become cold after a prahara, drained of their extract. Paryushita is kept overnight and, Madhusudana adds, includes dhattura — intoxicants that produce mental disturbance. Uchchhishta is what remains in another's plate. Amedhya is what is structurally unfit for offering. Six concrete categories; tamasic life is recognizable by its food-shape.

Ramanuja reads food long-standing — chirakala-avasthita; stripped of natural rasa; foul-smelling; transformed by passage of time — kalatipattya rasantarapanna; left over from those other than guru and superiors — gurv-adibhyah anyesham bhukta-shishtam; and unworthy of yajna-offering. Such tamomaya food is dear to the tamasika and further increases tamas.

Ramanuja adds the relational element: leftovers from gurus or superiors are themselves prasada and not in this category; only leftovers from peers and below count as tamasic.

Madhva reads each term on the bheda-frame: yata-yama, gata-rasa, puti, paryushita, ucchhishta, amedhya — all tamasa-priya, the preference of the tamasika-jiva. Tamas binds the paratantra-jiva most heavily, pulling it away from the sattvika orientation that would align it correctly with svatantra Hari. The food is real, the binding is real, the tamasika's preference is real.

Vallabha reads chirakala-avasthita food — bereft of the freshness and fragrance that mark Krishna's prasada — as stale, putrid, leftover, sacrificially unworthy and dear to the tamasika. In pushti-marga, food derives its purifying potency only as prasada — overflow of Krishna's ananda-lila. Food that has lost rasa has, in the most literal sense, lost the relational substance that pushti-marga prizes.

Shridhara reads food cooked a full prahara ago and now cold — yata-yama as prahara-yasya pakvasya, shaitya-avastha-prapta. Food from which the sap has been pressed out — nishipita-sara. Foul-smelling. Cooked the previous day — dinantara-apakva. Left over from another's eating. Amedhya — abhakshya — forbidden foods like kalanja. Such food is dear to the tamasika person. The chapter's diagnostic now reaches into the tamasic palate with full operational specificity.

Context

where

Chapter 17 · Śraddhātraya-Vibhāga-Yoga · meter anuṣṭubh

who speaks

Krishna → Arjuna

preceded by — BG 17.9

Foods that are excessively bitter, sour, salty, scalding, sharp, dry, and burning are what the rajasic person loves, and they bring pain, sorrow, and disease.

What's going on

Food that is stale, putrid, left over from another's plate, or unfit for offering is what the tamasic person craves.

Vyavahāra · try it in your life

Advaita

Notice which foods in your daily meals have lost vitality — refrigerated leftovers eaten two days later, reheated food that has 'died' — and treat the pattern as a diagnostic of how much tamas you are inadvertently feeding. The point is not dietary purity as an end but as a condition for viveka (discriminative clarity); if your reasoning feels slow or heavy after habitual tamasic eating, that is the signal the shastra is pointing at.

Viśiṣṭādvaita

Before eating, consider whether the food could, in principle, be offered to Bhagavan — not as a ritual formality but as a genuine criterion: would you place this day-old, odorous, leftover food before the Lord? The Ramanuja counsel ('those who wish the jiva's good cultivate sattvika ahara') is practical: choose fresh, wholesome food as an act of sattva-cultivation that makes bhakti-yoga more available, not as self-discipline for its own sake.

show all 6

Dvaita

The jiva's dependence on Hari is total; even the body through which one attempts bhagavad-bhakti must be maintained in a mode conducive to that worship. Eating tamasic food is a form of practical denial of paratantratva (dependence) — it treats the body as if its quality does not matter to the Lord. A Madhva practitioner should understand that choosing wholesome, sattvika food is itself an act of deference to Hari's design for the jiva-sharira.

Śuddhādvaita

In the Pushti household, food is received as prasada — the grace-overflow of Krsna's own abundance. Stale, odorous, leftover food that was never offered cannot carry that grace; eating it is not a neutral act but an absence of the divine rasa that Krsna alone bestows. The practical implication: cook fresh, offer before eating, and understand that maha-prasada (Krsna's own ucchishta) is not the same category as the ucchishta condemned here — one is rasa received, the other is rasa abandoned.

Bhakti

Sridhara's precise, philological naming — cold cooked rice past a prahara, pressed-out ingredients, yesterday's cooking, forbidden-category foods like kalanja — gives practitioners a concrete checklist rather than a vague principle. Apply it: when planning meals, ask whether the food was cooked freshly, whether its natural essence is still present, and whether it belongs to a category your tradition marks as amedhya. The bhakti application is not asceticism but attentiveness: fresh food prepared with care is itself a form of reverence.

Advaita-Bhakti

Madhusudan's insight that the tamasic food group carries both seen (drshta) harm — physical illness, heaviness, mental dullness — and unseen (adrshta) harm — obstruction of the subtle channels through which jnana and bhakti flow — means the stakes are higher than mere health. His inclusion of vaidyaka-shastra (medical science) via api-ca suggests that modern nutritional awareness and the Gita's classification are not competitors but parallel witnesses to the same reality. Eat as if both your physician and your acharya are watching: freshness, purity, and the absence of intoxicants are the common ground.

Adhiṣṭhāna · substrate signature

substratev2.6-frozen

parserByT5-Sanskrit-multitask (Nehrdich/Hellwig/Keutzer EMNLP 2024)

mūlaGRETIL e-text of the Bhagavadgītā with Śaṅkara's commentary (data entry: Gaudiya Grantha Mandira) for chapters 1-17; sanskritdocuments.org sd_bgnew.itx for chapter 18; ingested via a local Ambuda TEI build; per-verse repairs logged in post_generation_repairs

show all metadata

weightsa=1 · b=0.01 · e_v=0.005 · z=0.2 · h=0 · th=0.01

anchorfit on Ramsukhdas's Sādhak Sañjīvanī (1980), frozen across the eight-commentator panel; cross-validated R@4 = 71.6% on Śaṅkara

extracted2026-04-21

methodPaper 1, Section II.B

↓ view raw per-verse object (JSON)↗ per-verse-object schema ↗ substrate code (MIT) + data (CC-BY 4.0)

The schema generalizes to any bounded-polysemy corpus with discrete primary text units, attested witness traditions, identifiable schools, and formal substrate. Port the per-verse object; refit weights on a domain-appropriate Layer-3 anchor; ship.

Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 17, Verse 10: Krishna to Arjuna — Śraddhātraya-Vibhāga-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports