Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

Special pleading does not excuse your willingness to abuse language

WHAT IS THE JAIN DHARMA OR JAINISM?

Before we understand the meaning of the Jain dharma, it is absolutely necessary that we should have a thorough knowledge of the word, dharma or religion because for thousands of years, innumerable wrong notions about dharma hace been nourished and held by people. Dharma or religion is neither a cult nor a creed; nor it is a reserved ystem of any community. Dharma is not entirely related either to an individual or to a society; nor is it confined to any area. Dharma is the essential nature of an individual or an object. Shramana Bhagawan Mahavir has explained the meaning of dharma clearly thus:-

"Vatthu Sahavo Dhammo"

Dharma is nothing but the real nature of an object. Just as the nature of fire is to burn and the nature of water is to produce a cooling effect, in the same manner, the essential nature of the soul is to seek self-realization and spiritual elevation.
http://jainworld.com/jainbooks/guideline/2.htm

Although I am not making base of specific religion but does above justify meaning of real/universal religion as concept not as entity?

 

[MikeG]

Do you mean they are A&F?

This idiotic question again. There is no such thing, Kumar. Endlessly repeating this bollocks is akin to trolling.

 

[MikeG]

Then we have to first decide who is the supreme authority whose telling can be universally accepted in a&f. If we can't then all or anyone can be possible.

More bollocks. There is no "supreme authority".

 

[Mojo]

Do you mean they are A&F?

Yes. Our understanding of them may not be, and almost certainly never will be, but the "rules of nature" are just how the universe operates. You don't get to change them or opt out of them.

 

[Mojo]

Just try to understand it by this example:

"King is dead long live the KING". Specific religion as an entity is different and religion as a concept is different alike Kings in this example.

Yes, we know religions are different from each other. They were made up by different people at different times. They make different and contradictory claims. That means that they can't all be true.

 

[Kumar]

Yes, we know religions are different from each other. They were made up by different people at different times. They make different and contradictory claims. That means that they can't all be true.

Yes, therefore I am trying to discuss religion as a concept or term not as a specific entity. But however, if tellings of some religion justyfy it, I also treat that as same. Those tellings apeared me this type only therefore put here for better understanding.

 

[Kumar]

Yes. Our understanding of them may not be, and almost certainly never will be, but the "rules of nature" are just how the universe operates. You don't get to change them or opt out of them.

Then what is change in everything and béing on change in conditions? Simply you have to take care in awnsering it, who is the real effector of changes not the tools.

 

[Kumar]

More bollocks. There is no "supreme authority".

Who made nature, nature rules and changes?

 

[Mojo]

Yes, therefore I am trying to discuss religion as a concept or term not as a specific entity.

But you refuse to accept the basic concept that religions, and their rules, are invented by people.

 

[Mojo]

Who made nature, nature rules and changes?

Nobody.

 

[Mojo]

Then what is change in everything and béing on change in conditions? Simply you have to take care in awnsering it, who is the real effector of changes not the tools.

Conditions can change, but not the rules.

 

[Kumar]

This idiotic question again. There is no such thing, Kumar. Endlessly repeating this bollocks is akin to trolling.

Sorry, it is just opposite. On one hand you claim nature rules always remain same but on other hand, hesitate to accept those as a&f.

 

[Pixel42]

Sorry, it is just opposite. On one hand you claim nature rules always remain same but on other hand, hesitate to accept those as a&f.

Nature's rules are what they are, always have been, and always will be.

Our understanding of those rules may not be complete.

These are not difficult concepts to grasp, Kumar. You are being deliberately obtuse.

 

[Kumar]

Nature's rules are what they are, always have been, and always will be.

Our understanding of those rules may not be complete.

These are not difficult concepts to grasp, Kumar. You are being deliberately obtuse.

Can you tell or give me some link, telling universal, eternal and a&f nature rules?

 

[Mojo]

Sorry, it is just opposite. On one hand you claim nature rules always remain same but on other hand, hesitate to accept those as a&f.

And you're still failing to understand. The "rules" don't change, but our understanding of them doesn't. The universe behaves consistently. Scientific theories are attempts at descriptions of its behaviour.

Newton revolutionised our understanding of gravitation. His theory of gravity makes predictions that are accurate for most purposes, but they are not completely correct. Three centuries later Einstein came up with a different theory, which made even more accurate predictions. We cannot be certain, though, that Einstein's theory is completely correct. And the way gravity actually works was not affected by the invention of either of these theories. It just carried on working in exactly the same way as it always has.

Our descriptions of how the universe works are subject to revision and change, but the way the universe actually works stays the same.

 

[Kumar]

But you refuse to accept the basic concept that religions, and their rules, are invented by people.

Still there should had been some universal nature rules basis to it. Can you tell or give some link, telling about universal, eternal and a&f nature rules?

 

[Mojo]

Can you tell or give me some link, telling universal, eternal and a&f nature rules?

No, because we don't know with absolute certainty what those "rules" are. We just have descriptions (many of them extremely accurate) of those "rules". And those descriptions cannot be "A&F"; they are subject to revision and correction.

Show me a description of the universe that is "A&F", and I will show you a description that is not only wrong, but that is incapable of being corrected.

A&F is a big M&W.

 

[Mojo]

Still there should had been some universal nature rules basis to it.

No, they are human inventions.

Can you tell or give some link, telling about universal, eternal and a&f nature rules?

No. If you want "A&F", you need to look at religions. And remember that they not only disagree about what is "A&F", but also keep changing it.

 

[Pixel42]

Can you tell or give me some link, telling universal, eternal and a&f nature rules?

No, I can only give you a link describing our best understanding of what they appear to be:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

 

[fagin]

What i posted in one of his other random threads.

I think Kumar is confusing what most people understand as 'natural laws' (physical or scientific laws) with philosophy. The twain never shall meet.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law

A physical law or scientific law is a theoretical statement "inferred from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Natural law (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature

Adding in a little bit of law of the jungle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_jungle

The law of the jungle" is an expression that means "every man for himself", "anything goes", "survival of the strongest", "survival of the fittest", "kill or be killed", "dog eat dog" and "eat or be eaten". The Oxford English Dictionary defines the Law of the Jungle as "the code of survival in jungle life, now usually with reference to the superiority of brute force or self-interest in the struggle for survival."[1] It is also known as jungle law or frontier justice.

The phrase was used in a poem by Rudyard Kipling to describe the obligations and behaviour of a wolf in a pack. However, this use of the term has been overtaken in popularity by the other interpretations above