> But if evolution is a dynamic and continuous process, then our bodies can and will evolve to handle cooked food, no?

Yes, it is possible that they can, but the extent to which they do, we do not know. Obviously, our bodies have not rejected cooked foods outright. The question is which foods suit the body better taking into consideration all factors. Based on his study and anecdotal evidence collected from thousands of people, MSR claims that solar food is better. That claim makes logical and intuitive sense to me.

> Is there any proof that the health of humans (associated with uncooked food they ate) was excellent during pre-fire age, and then deteriorated post discovery of fire and consuming food cooked using fire?

I do not claim that Pre-fire humans who survived on raw foods were healthier than modern human. Comparing the health of pre-fire human with that of modern human would be an apples-to-oranges comparison because food is not the only factor governing one’s health. There are other important factors such as environmental quality, availability of medical knowledge, etc etc.

A more apples-to-apples comparison is to compare a modern human being on a raw food diet (vs) a modern human being on a standard modern diet comprising of cooked / processed food, ceteris peribus.

> The logic of this is not clear to me. Humans indulge in a lot of activities that other non-human animals do not – but that in and of itself is not a sufficiently logical reason to do something or avoid it.

Yes, it is not a sufficient reason. That is why i said, its a just “hint” . What i meant here implicitly is — nature has made available food for every other species on the planet in a ready made form. I don’t see
why humans should be an exception.

> Subsisting on 100% raw food will eliminate many delicious and healthy foods too ..

To be fair, it is MSR’s opinion too that 100% raw food is the ideal case, and he recognizes that it’s difficult for many people to implement it. That is why he advocates increasing solar food according to one’s ability, and advocates many changes in cooking practices (less oil, salt, sugar, avoid polished rice etc etc) to improve the health-quotient of cooked food.

I have some questions/thoughts though.

“Our bodies have evolved over millions of years, surviving directly on uncooked natural food.”

But if evolution is a dynamic and continuous process, then our bodies can and will evolve to handle cooked food, no? Subsisting on 100% raw food will eliminate many delicious and healthy foods too (not all cooked foods are unhealthy or un-nutritious), and make community dining more challenging, unless everyone you share food with, agrees to the same food philosophy and acts accordingly.

“Fire is a relatively recent discovery compared to the evolutionary history of our bodies, and having a large percentage of our diet as cooked food is an even more recent phenomenon. So, it makes great sense to me that food cooked by Sun is the most appropriate and natural for our bodies.”

Is there any proof that the health of humans (associated with uncooked food they ate) was excellent during pre-fire age, and then deteriorated post discovery of fire and consuming food cooked using fire?

“Also, Human being is the only species that cooks food on fire ! Another clear hint !”

The logic of this is not clear to me. Humans indulge in a lot of activities that other non-human animals do not – but that in and of itself is not a sufficiently logical reason to do something or avoid it.

MSR has simple take on this. Its not the body but the tongue that likes fast foods. Our bodies needs are not the same as tongue’s needs. So, one should differentiate between “listening to the body” and “listening to the tongue” .

An interesting assertion in the book is how deviant faiths actually disrupt brain chemistry. I couldnt help but
feel a jibe against i-slam.

final point is how the book was funded by a khalsa doler-of-funds, and the authors pretty much validated their paymasters threories.

Again, the knowledge to be acquired by the practice of Dhamma differs significantly from that sought by science in several major respects. Most importantly, the knowledge sought is not simply the acquisition of objective information about the constitution and operations of the physical world, but a deep personal insight into the real nature of one’s personal existence. The aim is not to understand reality from the outside, but from the inside, from the perspective of one’s own, living experience. One seeks not factual knowledge, but insight or wisdom, a personal knowledge, inescapably subjective, whose whole value lies in its transformative impact on one’s life. Concern with the outer world, as an object of knowledge, arises only insofar as the outer world is inextricably implicated in experience. As the Buddha says: “It is in this body, with its perception and thought, that I declare is the world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world, and the way to the cessation of the world.”