[HedgeYourBets]

So fully putting that Buddists and Jains are responsible is not fully supported by History.

All orthodox Jains are very strictly vegetarian. As far as buddhism goes, there was historically a split between Mahayana (which urged vegetarianism) and Hinayana / Theravada (which permitted meat eating). Mahayana was far more influential in India than Hinayana.

Secondly Buddhism and Jainism are not Different Religions to say. They are Developments of Reformations, as a branch of Hinduism, as Protestants to Christinaity. 20th Century Cunning Missionary Minded Indologists divide and called it that way.

It depends on how you define Hinduism, I think. Traditionally, both Buddhism and Jainism were considered nastika, and therefore were beyond the pale as far as orthodox Hindus were concerned. This was in particular caused by the way they expressly - and agressively - denied the sanctity of the vedas. This is as close to heresy as you can get in Hinduism.

I think we need to draw a distinction between religions which belong to the same tradition, and between sects of one religion. Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism belong to the same tradition but are not the same religion, largely because Buddhist and Jain doctrine is heretical from the perspective of Hindu orthodoxy. Their relationship is therefore more analogous to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam than to Protestantism and Catholicism.

For Rrk- friend Vupanishads have Argued all positions including Atheistic

Which of the 108 upanishads accepted by orthodox Hinduism (and considered part of the vedas) espouses an atheistic position (as distinct from describing it in the course of purvapaksha)? Please don't drag in non-vedic "upanishads" like the shvasanaveda upanishad (or, for that matter, Dara Shikoh's so-called "Allah upanishad").

Personally I believe more Agnostic, and with Para Sciences proving Repeated Births, I Trust Karma Theory is scientific.

Could you please elaborate on the "scientific" basis of the theory of karma?

Man as a Mammal was made Vegetarian

The situation is a little trickier than that. Scientists agree that we are not designed to be carnivores exclusively, but that doesn't mean we were "made vegetarian." The scientific consensus is actually that man is designed to be an omnivore. The evidence for this is, in brief:
- our closest genetic relatives, the chimpanzees, are omnivores.
- we lack bodily organs to break down cellulose, which herbivores generally have in one form or another
- our molars resemble those of ominvores (such as pigs) very closely. The fact that our canines are short is irrelevant - gorillas and baboons have extremely long canines, and they are almost exclusively vegetarian. The fossil record from australopithecus to homo erectus appears, on the contrary, to indicate an evolution away from a diet based primarily on fruit.
- our intestinal tract, in terms of surface area, is almost midway between those of carnivores and herbivores, particularly when one takes into account the quality of the tract surface, in terms of relative numbers and distribution of the various types of cells.

Hence Vegetarian is not only Theistic, but Scientific

I think the primary argument in favour of vegetarianism is not moral or scientific, but ethical. Vegetarianism represents a more demanding ethic, one which has progressed from "do not harm other people" to "minimise the harm you cause other living things". The ethical argument is an extremely strong one, in my opinion.