Skip to main content
26 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 2, 2019 at 21:05 history protected user9969
Mar 21, 2018 at 17:55 vote accept CommunityBot moved from User.Id=9969 by developer User.Id=2710
Mar 21, 2018 at 17:54 comment added user9969 @TheLittleNaruto Okay Okay fine lol. Chill!
Mar 21, 2018 at 17:53 comment added TheLittleNaruto I'll tell you again this is not related to Hinduism.
Mar 21, 2018 at 16:54 comment added user9969 @TheLitteNaruto Actually people in coastal southern western Andhra consider fish as sea veggies.
Mar 21, 2018 at 16:52 comment added TheLittleNaruto This is only Bengali concept to say fish as vegetarian, nothing related to Hinduism. Please dont mind but do not ask such questions.
Mar 21, 2018 at 15:26 vote accept CommunityBot moved from User.Id=9969 by developer User.Id=2710
Mar 21, 2018 at 15:26
Mar 21, 2018 at 14:08 history edited user9969 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 57 characters in body; edited title
Jan 20, 2018 at 9:25 comment added Rickross The answer says plants and are tamasic. Its not me who says so it's Manu Smriti that says so. All immovable beings include all plants. If eating plants only make people Sattvik then animals like goats, elephants were to be sattvik. But they are not. Chk the Manu Smriti verse given.
Jan 19, 2018 at 6:59 answer added Dr. Vineet Aggarwal timeline score: 5
Jan 13, 2018 at 9:18 comment added user9969 Yeah, it seems cultural.
Jan 13, 2018 at 9:16 comment added Sarvabhouma It is a cultural and historical issue not religious one. There is also a historical story about this one. It would be better if it is in chat not comments.
Jan 13, 2018 at 9:14 comment added user9969 @Sarvabhouma I get your point but I am just checking why certain Hindu communities call fishes sea vegetables. Then, Vivekananda says Ramakrishna was a strict vegetarian but the biographies of the latter suggests He took fish. In Bengal, 99% Brahmins take fish if not meat. Why is there this divide? Thats why I wanna see whether fish is considered Satvik in any scripture.
Jan 13, 2018 at 6:02 comment added Sarvabhouma Fish is non-vegetarian only. Even the accepted answer doesn't says it is vegetarian. The answer says plants and are tamasic. They are satvic food. Satvic, tamasic , rajasic signifies the morality, violence and the effect it has on us. You should read Why can we eat 'living' plants but not 'living' animals?. Not everything should be seen from scriptures. For this case morality should be seen. I think your question is fish being vegetarian not allowed? Did that answer give that?
Jan 13, 2018 at 4:40 history edited user9969 CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 390 characters in body
Jan 13, 2018 at 4:38 vote accept CommunityBot moved from User.Id=9969 by developer User.Id=2710
Mar 21, 2018 at 14:26
Jan 13, 2018 at 4:37 comment added user9969 @Just_Do_It Well, certain communities call it sea vegetables. So its better to ask them.
Jan 11, 2018 at 15:51 review Close votes
Jan 12, 2018 at 2:23
Jan 11, 2018 at 15:06 comment added Just_Do_It @SuryaKantaBoseChowdhury Do you think anything which when cut out oozes blood is veg ?
Jan 11, 2018 at 6:47 answer added Rickross timeline score: 11
Jan 11, 2018 at 6:14 comment added user9969 @Sarvabhouma Idk. This is what they say...
Jan 11, 2018 at 6:12 comment added Sarvabhouma "Vegetable = a plant or part of a plant used as food, such as a cabbage, potato, turnip, or bean". Fish is not born of plants. It is not a vegetable or vegetarian. That is the literal definition of Vegetable. How can it be sea vegetable? Is fish born of aquatic plants?
Jan 11, 2018 at 6:07 history edited user9969 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 13 characters in body; edited title
Jan 11, 2018 at 6:00 history edited user9969 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 13 characters in body; edited title
Jan 11, 2018 at 5:53 history edited user9969 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 324 characters in body
Jan 11, 2018 at 5:47 history asked user9969 CC BY-SA 3.0