Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

Food for skepticism:

Right/Rational Knowledge, Right/Rational faith and Right/Rational conduct as per Jainism is very well interpreted here:

Right knowledge[edit]

Jain texts mention that knowledge is of five kinds – sensory knowledge, scriptural knowledge, clairvoyance, telepathy, and omniscience.[7] Out of these, sensory knowledge, scriptural knowledge and clairvoyance may also be erroneous knowledge.[8] Most of our knowledge is sensory-based (mati) and based on recorded knowledge developed by our ancestors in the form of books, articles, papers and other medium (sruta). Jain philosophers also include knowledge acquired directly without any medium. This is achieved by removing the karmic veil on the soul.
A person who sees objects illuminated by coloured light may not be able to judge the true colour of the objects. However, the same person viewing these objects illuminated by sunlight will see the true nature of their colours, without difficulty. Similarly, proper knowledge is essential to provide the right guidance to the soul in its journey towards spiritual uplifting.
The Jain theory of knowledge is a highly developed one based on comprehensive apprehension of reality in multitude of view points and relativity.[6]
Anekantavada, which literally means search of truth from different points of view, is the application of the principle of equality of souls in the sphere of thought. It is a jain philosophical standpoint just as there is the Advaitic standpoint of Sankara and the standpoint of the Middle Path of the Buddhists.[9] This search leads to understanding and toleration of different and even conflicting views. When this happens, prejudices subside and the tendency to accommodate increases. The theory of Anekanta is therefore a unique experiment of non-violence at the root.[5]
A derivation of this principle is the doctrine of Syadvada which highlights that every view is relative to its view point. For example, an object may seem heavy when carried on planet earth, yet lightweight when carried on the moon, where gravity is different. It is a matter of our daily experience that the same object which gives pleasure to us under certain circumstances becomes boring under different situations. Nonetheless relative truth is undoubtedly useful as it is a stepping stone to the ultimate realisation of reality. The theory of Syadvada is based on the premise that every proposition is only relatively true. It all depends on the particular aspect from which we approach that proposition. Jains therefore developed a logic that encompasses sevenfold predication so as to assist in the construction of proper judgement about any proposition.
Syadvada provides Jainas with a systematic methodology to explore the real nature of reality and consider the problem in a non-violent way from different perspectives. This process ensures that each statement is expressed from seven different conditional and relative viewpoints or propositions, and thus it is known as theory of conditioned predication. These seven propositions are described as follows:
1.Syād-asti — "in some ways it is"
2.Syād-nāsti — "in some ways it is not"
3.Syād-asti-nāsti — "in some ways it is and it is not"
4.Syād-asti-avaktavya — "in some ways it is and it is indescribable"
5.Syād-nāsti-avaktavya — "in some ways it is not and it is indescribable"
6.Syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavya — "in some ways it is, it is not and it is indescribable"
7.Syād-avaktavya — "in some ways it is indescribable"

This means, no model of reality is absolute including religious/spiritual/philosophical concepts. However, each model provides insight into the working of the universe that are useful within the bounds of its framework and therefore useful under certain conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratnatraya

Just to add one: "in some ways it is and it is not A&F"

Do we commonly use above in our discussions?

 

[JayUtah]

Simply Bhagchandra posted gross interpretation of science relevance with Jainism and you just gross refutation in irrational skepticism.

You haven't shown it's irrational. You were invited several times to answer the refutation, but you refused.

...but being science person you have not done your duty to present, also positive scientific side of Jainism.

Why would it be my duty to prove your case for you? You're the one claiming Jainism is a scientific religion. I don't believe it is. You presented an article from a scholar attempting to show that it is. I showed what's wrong with the article.

...facts to A&F level can not suggest one sidedness.

No, there's no guarantee the facts won't all lie on one side of a question. You seem to think the right answer to your religion-versus-science dilemma must lie somewhere in the middle. There's no rational reason to think that.

...duty as scientist and present positive scientific side of Jainsism.

Science has a duty to discover the truth. It has no duty to support your religion.

...but they just have life as humans have being beings.

That's not what Bhagchandra claimed. Nor is it what he claimed Chandra Bose had confirmed. The claim was that plants have emotional responses the same as humans. That is neither true nor is it anything Bhagchandra's named source discovered. Bhagchandra misrepresented his source.

...rational unbiased attitude, I shall not get initiation to take your post very seriously.

You're not asking for rational, unbiased commentary. You're literally asking me, as a scientist, to help prove your religion true from a scientific perspective. I don't believe your religion is based on fact. I cannot, in good conscience as a scientist, endorse your religion.

This is a debate. Your position has been stated, and it is being challenged. You seem to have no interest in addressing that challenge, and you seem to believe your critics have some duty to relax their position and adopt yours. That's really delusional.

 

[JayUtah]

Do we commonly use above in our discussions?

There is no reason for skeptics to embrace religious modes of developing knowledge. If your argument requires us to accept the Jain religion as a premise to your point, then your argument fails.

 

[Kumar]

You haven't shown it's irrational. You were invited several times to answer the refutation, but you refused.

Continued avoidance.

Why would it be my duty to prove your case for you? You're the one claiming Jainism is a scientific religion. I don't believe it is. You presented an article from a scholar attempting to show that it is. I showed what's wrong with the article.
Science has a duty to discover the truth. It has no duty to support your religion.




No, there's no guarantee the facts won't all lie on one side of a question. You seem to think the right answer to your religion-versus-science dilemma must lie somewhere in the middle. There's no rational reason to think that.







That's not what Bhagchandra claimed. Nor is it what he claimed Chandra Bose had confirmed. The claim was that plants have emotional responses the same as humans. That is neither true nor is it anything Bhagchandra's named source discovered. Bhagchandra misrepresented his source.



You're not asking for rational, unbiased commentary. You're literally asking me, as a scientist, to help prove your religion true from a scientific perspective. I don't believe your religion is based on fact. I cannot, in good conscience as a scientist, endorse your religion.

This is a debate. Your position has been stated, and it is being challenged. You seem to have no interest in addressing that challenge, and you seem to believe your critics have some duty to relax their position and adopt yours. That's really delusional.

It is basic duty of science person to tell both positives & negatives in anything. Govt has allotted major public money & means for it meant for public interests. Alike a doctor has prime duty/ethic to treat a sick person, may he be his enemy. Moreover it is a debate witch should be with equanimity to get and give knowledge. One sided debate in perception, ego or self interests can never be maintainable. Anytime, I may post a topic on "Rational Skepticism and Belief". These should be meant to add belief not to deduct or destruct it. Placebo effect is must for all and more the belief more should be the placebo self healing reward expectation dopamine release in brain, motivational affect.

 

[JayUtah]

Continued avoidance.

On your part, yes. I've presented my rebuttal of Bhagchandra. You keep making excuses for not addressing it.

It is basic duty of science person to tell both positives & negatives in anything.

No, it is a scientist's duty to uphold the truth. You beg the question that your religion is true. And since you're not a scientist, I wonder by what authority you claim to say what scientists' duties are. You have demonstrated you have no clue what science is or what scientists actually do.

One sided debate in perception, ego or self interests can never be maintainable.

First, debates are not required to remain in the middle ground. You seem to maintain the delusion that your claims have any merit at all. Second, you are the one clearly arguing from ego and personal perception. You admitted yourself that you filter facts based on whether they agree with your religion. Don't project your own egregious faults onto your critics.

None of your response addresses what I wrote. This is a chronic problem for you. You pontificate at length without actually paying any attention to what was said to you.

 

[Kumar]

There is no reason for skeptics to embrace religious modes of developing knowledge. If your argument requires us to accept the Jain religion as a premise to your point, then your argument fails.

Skeptics, scientists, doctors etc. duties can be similar i.e. to add, whatever positive to beliefs & healing with equanimity & rationals not to deduct or destroy these due to some negatives. I do felt some equanimity and rationality in you initially, but now appear lost in routines here. Moreover if you are not bothered about religion, Jainism, me, or science of these, then why you are discussing and making odd remarks on them. If so, discontinue odd discussions and remarks on these. Follow single standard. Sorry.

 

[Kumar]

On your part, yes. I've presented my rebuttal of Bhagchandra. You keep making excuses for not addressing it.

From your side.

No, it is a scientist's duty to uphold the truth. You beg the question that your religion is true. And since you're not a scientist, I wonder by what authority you claim to say what scientists' duties are. You have demonstrated you have no clue what science is or what scientists actually do.

Because they claim & hypnotize so much and because most public money and means are allotted to them i.e. for science. This make all public authority for it. somewhat "Public interest by public servant".

First, debates are not required to remain in the middle ground. You seem to maintain the delusion that your claims have any merit at all. Second, you are the one clearly arguing from ego and personal perception. You admitted yourself that you filter facts based on whether they agree with your religion. Don't project your own egregious faults onto your critics.

None of your response addresses what I wrote. This is a chronic problem for you. You pontificate at length without actually paying any attention to what was said to you.

I simply support equanimity(evenness on both sides) and rationality. If not so at any point, I loose me serious interest. First try to acquire it. Nothing can be without positives & negatives even absolute truth.

 

[JayUtah]

I do felt some equanimity and rationality in you initially, but now appear lost in routines here.

It's a good thing my sense of well-being doesn't rely upon your approval.

Moreover if you are not bothered about religion, Jainism, me, or science of these, then why you are discussing and making odd remarks on them. If so, discontinue odd discussions and remarks on these. Follow single standard. Sorry.

This is a skeptics forum. It exists to apply the rational principles of skepticism toward various questions that others choose to pose. You have posed a question regarding your religion, specifically its ideas about the ethical treatment of animals and plants. That question has been addressed according to skeptical principals because that's what this forum is about. If you don't want your religion commented upon by skeptics according to rational skepticism, you should really go elsewhere.

You have absolutely no prerogative to tell me to stop criticizing your religion according to the facts. You seem to have a very wrong idea about what this forum is about. This is not a safe space for your religion. As long as you keep trying to prove that it's true -- by rational or scientific standards -- those attempts will be met by stiff scrutiny. You have no right to expect anything else.

 

[JayUtah]

From your side.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Because they claim & hypnotize so much...

No, scientists do not brainwash the public.

I simply support equanimity(evenness on both sides)...

As far as facts are concerned, the sides are not even.

 

[Kumar]

I have no idea what you mean by this.



No, scientists do not brainwash the public.



As far as facts are concerned, the sides are not even.

Brainwash or brainwashed can be related words.

It should be even like neutral pH of water which is neither 1 nor 14.

 

[JayUtah]

Brainwash or brainwashed can be related words.

Please take your baseless accusations elsewhere.

It should be even like neutral pH of water which is neither 1 nor 14.

No. The facts are not guaranteed to lie right in the middle of some controversy. You haven't figured out that, according to the facts, you aren't guaranteed to be right.

 

[Kumar]

It's a good thing my sense of well-being doesn't rely upon your approval.



This is a skeptics forum. It exists to apply the rational principles of skepticism toward various questions that others choose to pose. You have posed a question regarding your religion, specifically its ideas about the ethical treatment of animals and plants. That question has been addressed according to skeptical principals because that's what this forum is about. If you don't want your religion commented upon by skeptics according to rational skepticism, you should really go elsewhere.

You have absolutely no prerogative to tell me to stop criticizing your religion according to the facts. You seem to have a very wrong idea about what this forum is about. This is not a safe space for your religion. As long as you keep trying to prove that it's true -- by rational or scientific standards -- those attempts will be met by stiff scrutiny. You have no right to expect anything else.

Any time, I shall discuss "Rational skepticism & Rational belief". Excess exposure can deviate any person from it due to Current Human nature.
Basically, nothing is A&F fact here, not it can be but it should be elsewhere. Due to it nothing can harmonize or resolve. First all has to opt equanimious & rational both sided approach. I am diabetic, I want to take sugar, I say sugar is nutrient for me. Though I am correct, but not rational for me. Rational skepticism do not suggest nil belief but suggest try 100%belief. Likewise "Belief" do not suggest 100% belief but suggest & rational belief after rational skepticism. Both sides maximum Belief is common.

 

[Kumar]

Please take your baseless accusations elsewhere.



No. The facts are not guaranteed to lie right in the middle of some controversy. You haven't figured out that, according to the facts, you aren't guaranteed to be right.

Simply please answer these two questions, in Yes or no ONLY:

1.Does Jainism bring faith in its followers? (Let it be of any type faith).

2. Does Jainism suggest some physical, mental and spiritual exercises?

 

[JayUtah]

Basically, nothing is A&F fact here...

No one anywhere actually has absolute knowledge, even those who arrogantly say they do. You continue to propose an absurd, one-sided standard of proof that serves only to excuse yourself from any intellectual responsibility. Absent absolute proof, there are standards of proof that are nevertheless practical and reliable, and we all use them -- even you. But you refuse to apply them where they most matter.

Due to it nothing can harmonize or resolve.

No. The lack of resolution here is due entirely to your stubbornness and arrogance. You think you're right, and you refuse -- at all costs -- to admit error even when the facts are staring you right in the face.

First all has to opt equanimious & rational both sided approach.

One side of this debate has been rigorously rational. You, on the other hand, have simply demanded that your religion be taken at face value, facts be damned. You haven't figured out that you aren't guaranteed to win. You aren't guaranteed to be right according to the facts. Now your feebly demanding that people meet you halfway, when there is no rational reason for them to do so.

 

[JayUtah]

Simply please answer these two questions, in Yes or no ONLY:

Withdraw your baseless accusation that science brainwashes the public. Then I will answer your questions, including addressing the premises you're trying to hide by demanding only yes-or-no answers.

 

[Kumar]

Withdraw your baseless accusation that science brainwashes the public. Then I will answer your questions, including addressing the premises you're trying to hide by demanding only yes-or-no answers.

I know your avoidance in replying my most simple questions. Now it is proved, you are opting one sided approach and specific avoidance. So all your refutations & claims about Jainism, about me and about all religions are dashed into sewage. Earlier also avoided. Hence these discussions are over after landing in my equanimious & rational side. Sorry, thanks and good luck. I now, need to attend other topics, other threads & other posters--who should be feeling bit odd.

 

[Kumar]

Simply please answer these two questions, in Yes or no ONLY:

1.Does Jainism bring faith in its followers? (Let it be of any type faith).

2. Does Jainism suggest some[Diet control], physical, mental and spiritual exercises?

Since Jay has avoided to reply above simple questions, I invite all others members to reply above.

 

[fagin]

Are you an ostrich Kumar?

 

[JayUtah]

I know your avoidance in replying my most simple questions. Now it is proved, you are opting one sided approach and specific avoidance. So all your refutations & claims about Jainism, about me and about all religions are dashed into sewage. Earlier also avoided. Hence these discussions are over after landing in my equanimious & rational side. Sorry, thanks and good luck. I now, need to attend other topics, other threads & other posters--who should be feeling bit odd.

You mean your clumsily loaded questions? And your thinly-veiled emotional tantrum against science? The issue here isn't whether religion makes people feel good or gives them a sense of purpose or makes them feel important. The issue is whether your religion is supported by fact, which it isn't. It's whether your claims that Jainism is a scientific religion are supported by fact, which they aren't.

Yeah, good luck convincing anyone but yourself that I'm being evasive. Good luck convincing them that everything I've said is "sewage." Do you really think you've earned that degree of credibility? I'm perfectly willing to talk about your loaded, irrelevant questions. All you have to do is retract your accusation that science brainwashes the public. But you can't do even that one simple thing.

 

[JayUtah]

Since Jay has avoided to reply above simple questions, I invite all others members to reply above.

I didn't avoid it. I simply put a condition on it. Your "simple" questions are obviously loaded to conflate subjective approval with correctness. I'm willing to put all that on the table if you simply retract your accusation that science brainwashes people. Would you care to explain why that's not an equitable deal?