Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[JayUtah]

Sorry, irrelevant ignored. I preferred to give a break to mend oddness in our mind..

Customarily when someone proposes to ignore something, he doesn't constantly post notices that he is doing so. Your behavior seems geared more toward generating drama than trying to contribute to the debate.

In any case, I don't agree that my post was irrelevant. Indeed, my post spoke right to the heart of why you seem to be having so much trouble having a civil debate. It was meant to explain how skeptics think and how understanding how they think would lead you to be more successful in engaging them. It seems you're more interested in being offended than in solving your problem.

Please explain why it was irrelevant.

 

[Kumar]

My mistake in courtesy. Henceforth shall take care.

Excesses are odd so become irrelevant. Saturation. Let it be diluted.

 

[JayUtah]

My mistake in courtesy. Henceforth shall take care.

Excesses are odd so become irrelevant. Saturation. Let it be diluted.

This doesn't make any sense.

 

[Kumar]

One should be well aware about following philosophy while arguing in forms described in Jainism and respected by many non Jain respected people. Non absolutism or non-A&F can attract MPOVs making anyone to argue on his non A&F point which can also look him/her true. But since non A&F arguments can become never ending. My mango tree example also descrive it. There is one more example, where few bilndpeople wrongly sense and perceive different parts of an element differently--one foot as a pole, tail as a cord etc. Hence we can try to be A&F and present A&F to avoid unnecessary arguments. If non A&F, every one should then accept that he can also be wrong and should also accept both win & defeat with equanimity due to non absolutism and should argue reasonably. Best luck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada

 

[JayUtah]

One should be well aware...

Once again you're just restating your position without addressing what anyone else has said. Do you care what other people say? Or, as you've suggested, are you interested only in having others validate your predetermined beliefs?

There is one more example, where few bilndpeople wrongly sense and perceive different parts of an element differently...

Yes, the blind people describing an elephant is an example commonly used even in the west. While each person's description is incomplete, it is nevertheless based on observation and not second-hand descriptions. As others have pointed out, your approach is like a blind man who refuses even to touch a part of the elephant but instead relies upon what his uncle told him an elephant looks like. That's even less reliable because there is no test of the uncle's testimony. But if that blind man has grown up with great love and respect for his uncle, he may be reluctant to accept that what his uncle has told him may be false, or that he has gotten the wrong impression from the description. The point remains that observation, deduction, and inference are more reliable, even if incomplete, than people clearly working from indirect sources that they are convinced by tradition or emotion cannot be false.

Where your analogy breaks down is where the blind men each believe their observations are individually complete. Science does not work that way. Science begins the investigation knowing that no one set of observations will be the whole story. If the blind men know ahead of time that they will be investigating something that none of them will experience wholly, they'll be inclined to compare notes afterwards and try to reconcile their different observations. That's how science works.

If non A&F, every one should then accept that he can also be wrong...

Do you accept that you may be wrong by believing in Jainism?

 

[bruto]

I think it quite amusing that the old story of the blind men and the elephant should come up here (we presume that Kumar's element is the big gray one with a trunk).

For those interested, the original of this, or at least the first instance I know of, is a poem by John Godfrey Saxe, and its main target is theology, and the futility of attempting to describe something that one cannot experience: (edit to add: I find as expected that this was a retelling of an old parable, but I still take it that this is essentially a critique of theological speculation, not of experience).....

The Blind Man And The Elephant


It was six men of Indostan, to learning much inclined,
who went to see the elephant (Though all of them were blind),
that each by observation, might satisfy his mind.

The first approached the elephant, and, happening to fall,
against his broad and sturdy side, at once began to bawl:
'God bless me! but the elephant, is nothing but a wall!'

The second feeling of the tusk, cried: 'Ho! what have we here,
so very round and smooth and sharp? To me tis mighty clear,
this wonder of an elephant, is very like a spear!'

The third approached the animal, and, happening to take,
the squirming trunk within his hands, 'I see,' quoth he,
the elephant is very like a snake!'

The fourth reached out his eager hand, and felt about the knee:
'What most this wondrous beast is like, is mighty plain,' quoth he;
'Tis clear enough the elephant is very like a tree.'

The fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said; 'E'en the blindest man
can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an elephant, is very like a fan!'

The sixth no sooner had begun, about the beast to grope,
than, seizing on the swinging tail, that fell within his scope,
'I see,' quothe he, 'the elephant is very like a rope!'

And so these men of Indostan, disputed loud and long,
each in his own opinion, exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right, and all were in the wrong!

So, oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween,
tread on in utter ignorance, of what each other mean,
and prate about the elephant, not one of them has seen!

John Godfrey Saxe

Our own friends in Indostan and elsewhere might well reconsider whether a critique of theological speculation is quite what they need to support their prideful insistence on theological "truth."

 

[Kumar]

I think it quite amusing that the old story of the blind men and the elephant should come up here (we presume that Kumar's element is the big gray one with a trunk).

For those interested, the original of this, or at least the first instance I know of, is a poem by John Godfrey Saxe, and its main target is theology, and the futility of attempting to describe something that one cannot experience: (edit to add: I find as expected that this was a retelling of an old parable, but I still take it that this is essentially a critique of theological speculation, not of experience).....



Our own friends in Indostan and elsewhere might well reconsider whether a critique of theological speculation is quite what they need to support their prideful insistence on theological "truth."

Yes thanks. It was also expressed in Jainism. Older shall be the creater of it. However, we can get three lessons ftom it. 1. Non absolutism can not express absolute truth. 2. Blind people can perceive wrongly. 3. There should be no arguments or fights on non absolutes and blinds.

 

[JayUtah]

Our own friends in Indostan and elsewhere might well reconsider whether a critique of theological speculation is quite what they need to support their prideful insistence on theological "truth."

The Jain version of the story is different. In the Jain version, each blind man offers up his opinion and then a wise man comes along and dispenses the wisdom I talk about above with respect to science: that multiple incomplete observations should be reconciled by collaboration and cooperation.

What's so terribly ironic is that this story is told in Jainism to encourage Jains not to be dogmatic, to learn to live with people who have different concepts of truth, and to avoid conflict. Kumar's behavior in this thread and others suggests he didn't learn that lesson.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes thanks. It was also expressed in Jainism. Older shall be the creater of it. However, we can get three lessons ftom it. 1. Non absolutism can not express absolute truth. 2. Blind people can perceive wrongly. 3. There should be no arguments or fights on non absolutes and blinds.

No.

In Jainism the story is told to instruct Jains not to be dogmatic about what they themselves believe, and to recognize that even if people disagree with us they may still be seeing a truth we don't. Jains are supposed to be tolerant of how other people approach and express truth. It is meant to encourage Jains to live in harmony with others.

I don't see where your approach in this thread or any of your other threads manifests any of those ideals. You simply declare you, and only you, are correct. You dismiss everything everyone else says because it is not absolute, regardless of whether it may have merit that should be paid attention to.

Several hours ago I posted a substantial post explaining how non-Jains approach knowledge. You dismissed it as irrelevant. That is exactly the behavior of one blind man telling the others they're wrong. You are missing the advice of the wise man who says to consider carefully what others experienced and what that led them to believe. You're using the story to beat your critics over the head, not to learn from it and adjust your own behavior.

 

[Kumar]

Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, "Hey, there is an elephant in the village today."

They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, "Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway." All of them went where the elephant was. Everyone of them touched the elephant.

"Hey, the elephant is a pillar," said the first man who touched his leg.

"Oh, no! it is like a rope," said the second man who touched the tail.

"Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree," said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.

"It is like a big hand fan" said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.

"It is like a huge wall," said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.

"It is like a solid pipe," Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.

They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the elephant is like." Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, "All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said."

"Oh!" everyone said. There was no more fight. They felt happy that they were all right.

The moral of the story is that there may be some truth to what someone says. Sometimes we can see that truth and sometimes not because they may have different perspective which we may not agree too. So, rather than arguing like the blind men, we should say, "Maybe you have your reasons." This way we don’t get in arguments. In Jainism, it is explained that truth can be stated in seven different ways. So, you can see how broad our religion is. It teaches us to be tolerant towards others for their viewpoints. This allows us to live in harmony with the people of different thinking. This is known as the Syadvada, Anekantvad, or the theory of Manifold Predictions.
https://www.jainworld.com/literature/story25.htm
he parable[edit]
The earliest versions of the parable of blind men and elephant is found in Buddhist, Hindu and Jain texts, as they discuss the limits of perception and the importance of complete context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

It is beautifully and clearly defined above. One thing is odd perception on deficiency of any sense as weak perception. It can also happen due to dim light as misinterpretation . It can also be done consciously in selfish interests(lie). However, we can even do such odd, when we can properly see or sense, as indicated in My Mango Tree example, due to expression of partial truth or non-absolutism or MPovs and conditional prediction.

We can take care it. Best luck.

 

[JayUtah]

It is beautifully and clearly defined above.

Agreed, but the issue is not so much with the telling of the story as with what lesson you're supposed to be learning from it.

One thing is odd perception on deficiency of any sense as weak perception.

Yes, the premise of the story is that no one approach to the data will likely be absolutely correct. But what does it say about how a Jain should deal with others who express a perception different than his? Should he be dogmatic and insist that only his view is correct? Or should he try to see wherein his own view may be incomplete, incorrect, or simplistic?

One way the story doesn't fit the real world explicitly is in the presumption that everyone is equally blind. It's easy to tell the story about people who are all entirely blind. It's more difficult when the story involves people of varying blindness such that they aren't limited to just what they can feel with their hands. In the real world, some people make better use of their faculties and train themselves to observe systematically. Their view will still be incomplete, but more complete than others. And they will be less likely to wrongly assume they have a complete answer.

It can also happen due to dim light as misinterpretation.

Yes, that's embodied in the blind men who jump to conclusions based not only on an incomplete examination of the subject but also a limited knowledge of the world. Do you agree that Bhagchandra Jain's misinterpretation of scientific findings could be described in this way? Do you agree it is possible you are misinterpreting the subjects of agriculture and animal husbandry?

In the real world, a conscientious person knows he cannot rely entirely on his own interpretation of events. He seeks out others to hear their interpretations, not with the goal of debunking it, but to legitimately hear others' interpretations. It may happen either way that he decides his own interpretation is still the best, or he may be persuaded by other's wisdom. The point is that he consents to the test.

It can also be done consciously in selfish interests(lie).

Yes it can, although that's not part of the story. Each of the blind men is presumed to act sincerely if rashly. Would you consider that selfish interests might include promulgating one's own religion, so as to make one's subjective beliefs seem more objectively justified than the facts would allow?

However, we can even do such odd, when we can properly see or sense, as indicated in My Mango Tree example, due to expression of partial truth or non-absolutism or MPovs and conditional prediction.

The problem is that you're casting yourself as the wise man in this story. The wise man can see the elephant for what it really is, of course, and can guide the blind men in a more equitable search for truth. You're the one insisting that your "tellings" are, in some cases, "A&F." You missed the very obvious point, which is that Jains tell each other this story to remind themselves that they are the blind men in it. The story is meant to remind Jains not to be dogmatic, not to pursue selfish interests, not to dismiss the viewpoints of others, etc. -- all the things you're doing here on this forum in your various threads. On more than one occasion you've dismissed your critics as selfish, greedy, and uninformed when they have simply and honestly reported the results of their research. In the context of the elephant story, that's akin to one blind man insisting that only he must be correct and accusing all the other blind men of various vices for having arrived at a different conclusion. You've been given ample opportunity to persuade the other blind men that you have the most accurate idea of what the elephant looks like. But you're not listening to what they also have observed. You're simply insisting that your small part of the elephant is "A&F."

 

[Kumar]

In the above example, simple telling, that it is an elephant to a blind person who previously know what an elephant is, would had been A&F. That blind person could had understood all features of elephant from this simple one word without explaining in detail. This is the beauty of A&F, therefore I mention constantly.

 

[JayUtah]

In the above example, simple telling, that it is an elephant to a blind person who previously know what an elephant is...

No, that's not the point of the story.

...would had been A&F.

No, it simply would have been more comprehensive observation. Would looking at or feeling the skin of an elephant teach you about its internal anatomy? Would a brief encounter with an elephant teach you about its long-term behavior? Would being familiar with only one elephant teach you about its social behavior? If not, then better observation does not result in absolute-and-final proof. What you're proposing as an analogy to "A&F" proof is actually a better argument in favor of the scientific method.

This is the beauty of A&F, therefore I mention constantly.

The purported beauty of absolute proof is not the issue. The question is whether it can be attained. It cannot, neither secularly nor in Jainism, so it's irrelevant whether it would be beautiful or not. The point of the elephant story then is to teach us how we should behave in the face of the inescapable limit of our ability to learn. In contrast, you're simply declaring portions of your claims to be absolute proof or absolute knowledge and demanding it be take as such. An important element of the story is that each blind man believes his knowledge to be perfect, but that each blind man is wrong. Thus, emphasizing the fervency of one's belief doesn't suffice to convince others.

I have written twice now on how the story is used in Jainism and I have noted twice that it seems to discourage exactly the approach you're taking in this thread. If you're going to be so enthusiastic about what the elephant story teaches us, why are you so carefully avoiding its real meaning in Jainism? Again, you seem to be using this story not to reign in your own arrogance as it was intended, but rather to try to prove to your critics that they can't possibly know what they claim to know because they, and only they, are the blind men.

 

[Peregrinus]

This is the beauty of A&F, therefore I mention constantly.

Then why, pray tell, is there none of it discernible in reality? (And in the confines of your mind/philosophy does not constitute reality - possibly a minuscule facet of it.)

 

[Kumar]

Then why, pray tell, is there none of it discernible in reality? (And in the confines of your mind/philosophy does not constitute reality - possibly a minuscule facet of it.)

If you simply tell, kumar, people hear with immediately understand all my interactions here but if you tell, a poster, no one will understand anything. This is beauty of A&F telling, which I point out.

 

[Peregrinus]

If you simply tell, kumar, people hear with immediately understand all my interactions here but if you tell, a poster, no one will understand anything. This is beauty of A&F telling, which I point out.

Kumar, what's it like living in an echo chamber?

 

[ferd burfle]

One should be well aware about following philosophy while arguing in forms described in Jainism and respected by many non Jain respected people. Non absolutism or non-A&F can attract MPOVs making anyone to argue on his non A&F point which can also look him/her true. But since non A&F arguments can become never ending.

In the absence of evidence, people can hold different opinions on a subject. But the amount and quality of evidence for a particular opinion is the rational basis for determining its merit. You fail to understand the nature of quality evidence in spite of our many attempts to teach you. So you fail to support your opinions and they no longer deserve equal regard.

Please stop preaching the falsehood that because we don’t know everything we can’t know anything.

 

[Kumar]

Simply we can follow this moral/lesson from Blind men & elephant story:

The moral of the story is that there may be some truth to what someone says. Sometimes we can see that truth and sometimes not because they may have different perspective which we may not agree too. So, rather than arguing like the blind men, we should say, "Maybe you have your reasons."This way we don’t get in arguments.

 

[Kumar]

In the absence of evidence, people can hold different opinions on a subject. But the amount and quality of evidence for a particular opinion is the rational basis for determining its merit. You fail to understand the nature of quality evidence in spite of our many attempts to teach you. So you fail to support your opinions and they no longer deserve equal regard.

Please stop preaching the falsehood that because we don’t know everything we can’t know anything.

Overshoot & Idiocy.Do not teach me. Simply get, give, share or discuss with me. I am not your student not you are my teacher unless I specifically request.

This is religion forum and all are open to discuss or tell it, here.

Do not discuss or base SCIENCE here. If you want to discuss science, you should discuss in Science forum specifically allotted to it. It is dishonesty or irregularity with this Religion forum to discuss or base Science in this forum. Take a note.

 

[Mojo]

This is religion forum and all are open to discuss or tell it, here.

Do not discuss or base SCIENCE here. If you want to discuss science, you should discuss in Science forum specifically allotted to it. It is dishonesty or irregularity with this Religion forum to discuss or base Science in this forum. Take a note.

Seriously, Kumar, this is tantamount to an admission that your fantasies don't stand up to scrutiny. You don't get to avoid having your claims examined because you declare that they are "A&F".