Cooking?

[Kumar]

The act of being deceitful:

How? Avoid Wrong preceptions.

 

[Kumar]

Oh noes, it's TEH POSTMODERNISM!

???

 

[Kumar]

It still does not make your ideas and unsupportable belief and deceitfulness look good, nor any better.

Avoid wrong preceptions.

 

[Mojo]

???

Exactly.

 

[pakeha]

Thanks.

Something is mentioned about Jainist approach to food but becoming dificult to strictly followed due to modernization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism

But I feel religious practices should be based on improving physical & mental health & health of soul(?) not otherwise.

I'm a bit confused here, Kumar.
On the one hand you embrace Jainist precepts and on the other you say the dietary precepts are not practical in your case?
Why not?

...

Anasan-
Complete abstinence of eating any food for certain time. Intake of boiled water is optional.

Alpähära or Unodary-
Reduction in the quantity of food one normally eats

Ichhanirodha or Vritti_sankshep-
Limiting the number of food items to eat and material things for use

Rasatyäga-
Complete abstinence of eating or drinking juicy and tasty foods such as butter, yogurt, milk, tea, sweets, fried foods, snacks, spicy foods, juice etc. (no attachments to the taste of the foods)

from:
http://www.jainbelief.com/intro_jainism.htm...

Which of these precepts isn't practical for you?

 

[Daylightstar]

How? Avoid Wrong preceptions.

By you persistently acting in contravention of the religious principles of which you want to create the impression that you adhere to them.

But you evidently don't.

You appear to be intolerant to criticism based on these religious principles which, evidently, you yourself effectively do not even follow.
Effectively, because you appear to want to create the impression that you do.
See above.
In reality, you persistently insist (force onto others) on your own approach, in this case acting in contravention of your presented rule# 1.

...
To be Anekäntvädi: 1) Do not insist on your own approach, ...

Anekäntvädi, you are most definitely not.

Your religion based intolerance to criticism looks a little like religious fanaticism.

 

[Daylightstar]

If nothing is absolute or can't be absolute, all should accept it and do not ask for absolutes. If one side ask for absolute other side can also ask.

Please don't force your religion onto others.

 

[Daylightstar]

Avoid wrong preceptions.

Preceptions are not involved, you probably meant perceptions.
In this case, perceptions are dependent on your actions.

You project a form of religious fanaticism and religion based intolerance to criticism.

 

[Daylightstar]

NO. It can be teaching a lesson by brainshaking. If one demad for absolute like he/she should also present absolute like.

= religious fanaticism, religion based intolerance to criticism and acting in contravention of rule# 1, as presented by you.

...
To be Anekäntvädi: 1) Do not insist on your own approach, 2) ...

Anekäntvädi, you most certainly are not.

 

[Kumar]

Ultimate to all religion should be to seek truth by developing strong urge to seek truth and ignoring TTTT.

 

[Mashuna]

Ultimate to all religion should be to seek truth by developing strong urge to seek truth and ignoring TTTT.

An interesting paradox. If you develop a strong urge to seek truth, you move away from all religion.

 

[Kumar]

An interesting paradox. If you develop a strong urge to seek truth, you move away from all religion.

How??

 

[Mashuna]

How??

Give it a try, you might find out.

 

[Kumar]

Give it a try, you might find out.

Sorry it is difficult for me. Pls tell.

 

[Mashuna]

Sorry it is difficult for me. Pls tell.

An urge to seek truth is difficult for you?

 

[Daylightstar]

Ultimate to all religion should be to seek truth by developing strong urge to seek truth and ignoring TTTT.

Religion is not seekeing truth, you are not seeking truth, you are ignoring what others try to teach you. You do this based on mangling and abuse of the religious principles you yourself presented here.
Principles, which you yourself do not even follow.

Your religion based "nothing is A&F" gambit is meant not to seek truth but to try to advance your entirely unsupportable ideas relative to science by devalueing vetted scientific findings.

It's fraudulent in nature as well.

 

[Kumar]

That principle suggest we should advance to seek the truth even from multiplicity in POVs, conditional truth and partial truth but certainly not reject these on ground that these are not absolute truth.You can learn full cooking even from partial cooking.

 

[Daylightstar]

No Kumar, you want meaningfulness assigned to your unsupportable ideas as a matter of course. You attempt to do this by forcing your religion onto others.

A religion which' principles you yourself do not even adhere to.

 

[Mojo]

That principle suggest we should advance to seek the truth even from multiplicity in POVs, conditional truth and partial truth but certainly not reject these on ground that these are not absolute truth.

You persistently reject the scientific view of your ideas on the grounds that science is not "A&F".

 

[Kumar]

No Kumar, you want meaningfulness assigned to your unsupportable ideas as a matter of course. You attempt to do this by forcing your religion onto others.

A religion which' principles you yourself do not even adhere to.

Anything which explain the logic or science behind anything should be respected. Avoid pulling skin from hair.