veg vs non-veg - Page 4

Originally posted by: Rehanism

😆😆
That article was not written by me though, but I suggest you go through these articles and  discussions to know how much Vedas and Upanishads are rich in science or are more advanced than modern science..

http://nirmukta.net/Thread-The-Science-of-Hindu-Cosmology
http://nirmukta.net/Thread-The-pseudo-science-of-Gayatri-Mantra
http://nirmukta.net/Thread-Vedic-ritual-Athirathram-in-Panjal-Kerala-Pseudoscientific-claims
http://nirmukta.net/Thread-Absurd-claims-of-Ayurveda
http://nirmukta.net/Thread-The-Fraud-of-Vedic-Maths
http://nirmukta.com/2008/11/25/vibhuti-rudraksha-mahatmayam-a-wellness-guide-from-times-of-india/
http://www.carvaka4india.com/2012/05/were-our-ancient-ancestors.html
https://twitscope.wordpress.com/2008/07/12/evidence-of-nuclear-explosion-in-ancient-india/
http://inversesquared.blogspot.in/2011/02/primitive-science-of-vedas-introduction.html
http://inversesquared.blogspot.in/2011/02/primitive-science-of-vedas-garbha.html

havent gone through all those links but on going through the -absurd ayurveda claims-  thread I  couldnt help noticing that the posters did not mention the source of those claims. I mean there is a lot of heresay but were those claims from some auhenticated book of ayurveda or just Granny's nuskas:

Is eating meat considered as a sin? 

Originally posted by: -Aarya-

Is eating meat considered as a sin? 

I suppose so but let the veggies answer that 😆

There are two theories. One, that non-veg is blood, bones and flesh of a body that was alive, and is now killed for your pleasure. So basically you are eating a 'dead body' and your own body is nothing less than a burial ground.

second theory is that logically it makes sense to have non-veg if it is required for health reasons, or if you are at a place where vegetarian food is not available or not sufficient due to climatic conditions etc. It is also logical to say that if poultry is not consumed by humans, its number will rise to proportionate levels, which again is not good.

So, suit yourself.

Edited by -Naiina- - 11 years ago

Originally posted by: rayo

There are two theories. One, that non-veg is blood, bones and flesh of a body that was alive, and is now killed for your pleasure. So basically you are eating a 'dead body' and your own body is nothing less than a burial ground.

Blood, bones, flesh are all tissues and so are stem, leaves and roots. Is eating them live any better than eating them dead?

second theory is that logically it makes sense to have non-veg if it is required for health reasons, or if you are at a place where vegetarian food is not available or not sufficient due to climatic conditions etc. It is also logical to say that if poultry is not consumed by humans, its number will rise to proportionate levels, which again is not good.

So, suit yourself.

Yes that sounds logical