Posted by Savaka (126.96.36.199) on September 12, 2000 at 22:41:33:
In Reply to: Re: Hold on there, Susan. posted by Susan S on September 12, 2000 at 16:36:43:
Okay. I obviously misinterpreted what you said and I humbly apologise for that, Susan. :o)
I suppose, meat could be generalised as edible body tissues of all living organisms that cannot be called plants. I understand that some Christian groups avoid meat at certain seasons in the name of their religion, but this does not include seafood. Buddhism deems creatures of the sea as living organisms, right?
Vegetable protein from all types of beans and beans products and also certain types of cereals could substitute meat protein. But I read somewhere that protein compounds that humans need is made up of 13 amino acids. Vegetable proteins only supply 11 amino acids. Not sure how vegetarians account for the other two acids.
Cholestrol (we do need a little bit of it) is found in certain fruits.
I have no idea how iodine can be found in vegetables.
These are the three vital nutrients we need from meat that I can think of right now.
It seems that certain Mahayana monks (in my country) suffer from ailments like diabetes and low blood pressure as a result of their meatless diet. Not all, but some.
Yet, since vegetarian monks have lived to ripe old ages way before vitamin supplements were created, it must mean that nutrients found mainly in meat can be gotten from plants.
I'm not sure why I suddenly got all excited about this meat-eating discussion. I normally like to sit back and read the wisdom of others while contributing occasionally.
Maybe it's because I love lamb chops. *laugh*
Lamas eating meat? Sounds fair. Although the story would be different if they actually requested for meat to be offered.
Post a Followup