i think the fasting until completion is basically a myth. in nature, organisms do not fast until completion, they fast until a return of food sources is available or illness runs its cycle. it seems to me a priveledge of man that we may choose to abstain from food in full knowledge that food is available any time we want to resume eating. it further seems to me a conceit of man that we know better than nature in how long a fast should take, and what "real" signs we should follow.
sidhwa is a follower of shelton's among others. he reiterates the studies of Shelton and his contemporaries, and takes it as accepted fact. then others repeat it ad infinitum. this is the dogma i mentioned to beware of in an earlier post. or as my mother put it "there's more than one way to skin a cat."
really my point is that it makes little difference what food one breaks fast with, as long it is wholesome and not too much. the temptation to overeat must be vigilantly guarded against. on this we surely agree.
otherwise, people can argue the day is long about what is "wholesome" and vegans have strong views on that with which i do not agree.
thanks for the intellectual challenge- i really need it!