Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

I know this from personal experience; I'm still mastering the art of breeding apples.

Also, the notion of "passive" fruit is bogus. The pulp of the fruit is meant to nourish the seed. If you selfishly eat the pulp and throw just the seed, and trust to "nature" to provide, you've committed violence against the fruit. You robbed it of its naturally-intended nutrients.

Seeds of Fully ripened fruits need no further nourishment esp those fallen after ripening or are naturally dried. I have seen, plants come up from those seeds.

 

[Peregrinus]

Seeds of Fully ripened fruits need no further nourishment esp those fallen after ripening or are naturally dried. I have seen, plants come up from those seeds.

But not, as some have tried pointing out, from apples. (And not all other fruit seeds, either.)

 

[MRC_Hans]

Seeds of Fully ripened fruits need no further nourishment esp those fallen after ripening or are naturally dried. I have seen, plants come up from those seeds.

Yes, plants may come up. But they will not all bear the same fruit as the one the seeds came from.

But never mind. It is a nice thought doing that, but exactly how many people do you think the land could sustain, if this was our only way of getting food?

Hans

 

[JayUtah]

Ok, my religion is true religion in Jainism & other religions, to which I understand well.

No, you're teaching only Jainism here. We already showed -- and you already admitted -- that you didn't know much about other religions. You thought all other religions differed only superficially from Jainism. Your entire argument is based on a moral framework that exists only In Jainism, not some universal or natural principle. All you're doing is trying to get people to agree that your religion is true.

 

[JayUtah]

Seeds of Fully ripened fruits need no further nourishment esp those fallen after ripening or are naturally dried. I have seen, plants come up from those seeds.

No, the question is not whether some of the seeds will survive your violence anyway. The question is about what happens in nature and whether you're doing violence to it. In nature, the seed is either encased in fallen fruit, which nourishes the soil around it as it decays, or it is encased in the excrement of an animal that has eaten the fruit, which nourishes the soil where it falls. In nature, the animal does not separate the seeds before eating the fruit and leave the seeds to fend for themselves. Unless you are eating the seeds along with the fruit and defecating the seeds where you want the tree to grow, you are not obeying nature.

 

[sackett]

Given the frank manner in which working class* Indians dump their loads, defecatory seeding might work quite naturally. Thank you, Jay, for supplying my mind with an image of Kumar performing his reseeding puja.

* Lower caste, to be precise. Not to imply anything about a prominent forum member. Mahaharijan!

 

[JayUtah]

Thank you, Jay, for supplying my mind with an image...

It gets worse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopi_Luwak

 

[Kumar]

Yes, plants may come up. But they will not all bear the same fruit as the one the seeds came from.

But never mind. It is a nice thought doing that, but exactly how many people do you think the land could sustain, if this was our only way of getting food?

Hans

We shall just get the fruits of whatever quality.
Something is better than nothing.

 

[Kumar]

But not, as some have tried pointing out, from apples. (And not all other fruit seeds, either.)

No, many can come out from seeds esp in trophical climate fruits.

 

[Kumar]

No, you're teaching only Jainism here. We already showed -- and you already admitted -- that you didn't know much about other religions. You thought all other religions differed only superficially from Jainism. Your entire argument is based on a moral framework that exists only In Jainism, not some universal or natural principle. All you're doing is trying to get people to agree that your religion is true.

Hindu religions are many. I may not understand other well but it does not mean I do not understand true religion, of which I am making base.

 

[Kumar]

No, the question is not whether some of the seeds will survive your violence anyway. The question is about what happens in nature and whether you're doing violence to it. In nature, the seed is either encased in fallen fruit, which nourishes the soil around it as it decays, or it is encased in the excrement of an animal that has eaten the fruit, which nourishes the soil where it falls. In nature, the animal does not separate the seeds before eating the fruit and leave the seeds to fend for themselves. Unless you are eating the seeds along with the fruit and defecating the seeds where you want the tree to grow, you are not obeying nature.

Best for you will be to understand, seed dispersal by animals. Yes but in case of humans they also seprate the seeds from fruits and enable their dispersal in nature.

 

[JayUtah]

Hindu religions are many.

And Jainism differs from them in ways I have already explained. Further, not all religions are similar to the dharmic religions. You have already learned that lesson the hard way.

I may not understand other well but it does not mean I do not understand true religion, of which I am making base.

That's exactly what it means. You know only Jainism well enough to speak about it semi-intelligently, and in your ignorance you think you can preach Jainism and make the case that it's some universal religion, or some non-religious moral framework.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes but in case of humans they also seprate the seeds from fruits and enable their dispersal in nature.

No, that's not what happens in nature.

 

[Peregrinus]

So, then. We've migrated (or have the goalposts moved yet again?) from a terrible misunderstanding of animal husbandry to a terrible misunderstanding of the difference between naturally-occurring seed dispersal and agriculture.* And it only took 60 pages to get there.

*Didn't really want to use the term "natural" but in this case couldn't see any way around it without imitating Kumar's word salads.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

This thread was a bait and switch all along, expose the brutality of meat and root-veg eating and then hit the unbelievers with the divine truth of Jainism.

Well done, Kumar, how many converts did you win? Or is it like the Jehovah's Witnesses* and you'll receive a karma purge just for your duplicity?


*another religion that you will be ignorant of

 

[sackett]

First it's pooping seeds for holiness, and now it's a karma purge -- from 'tother end, of course. I surely hope so, anyway.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

This thread was a bait and switch all along, expose the brutality of meat and root-veg eating and then hit the unbelievers with the divine truth of Jainism.

And he would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for his grasp of English and basic rhetorical skills!

 

[Dancing David]

Seeds of Fully ripened fruits need no further nourishment esp those fallen after ripening or are naturally dried. I have seen, plants come up from those seeds.

That does not mean they would not benefit from fertilization from the body of the fruit

 

[JayUtah]

So, then. We've migrated ... to a terrible misunderstanding of the difference between naturally-occurring seed dispersal and agriculture. And it only took 60 pages to get there.

But certainly this is not the final destination. Kumar fully believes his religion derives from nature, and there's still an awful lot of nature left for him to misquote and misinterpret. We can see even at the highest level that Jain scholars argue the appeal of their religion to secular interests by lying about secular knowledge and practice. They seem to spend a lot of time issuing edicts about how nature "must" work rather than observing how it does work.

This thread was a bait and switch all along, expose the brutality of meat and root-veg eating and then hit the unbelievers with the divine truth of Jainism.

There is certainly no question that Kumar holds his critics in low regard for the "greed" and "violence" he says they exhibit. It's very much trying to be a holier-than-thou thread, but since -- as someone put it -- Kumar comes across as "the world's worst Jain," it's more amusing for its display of hypocrisy.

...a karma purge just for your duplicity?

And as ad hominem as it might sound, I think this bears emphasis. I have previously had little problem believing that part of the appeal of dharmic religions to Westerners is the perception that they focused more on pure humanistic themes and not the sort of culty, dogmatic, judgmental, and ultimately irrelevant machinations we sadly see from the dregs of the Abrahamists. There's a Hindu "healing center" in my neighborhood. Its owners and residents are universally pleasant, discreet, accepting folks. I gather most of the residents are trying in some way to get their lives back to where they want them to be, and that the dharmic philosophy has been helpful.

But then again as I drove through the American South I've seen Fundamentalist churches in rural areas, little more than mobile homes with crude signs out front promoting Bible literalism and narrow social and cultural norms. And I see the kind of person that produces: judgmental, narrow-minded, ignorant, presumptuous, and hateful. This is how Kumar comes across to me, and it's very off-putting and hypocritical. It seems like he's preaching a sort of backwoods Arkansas version of dharmism which he's never really questioned himself.

 

[MRC_Hans]

We shall just get the fruits of whatever quality.
Something is better than nothing.

Again you didn't answer my question.

NO surprise there.....

Hans