I don't like Sam Harris, he is an idiot. He likes to use Jainism as an example of a peaceful religion, but the pacifist attitude of Jainism has done India more harm than the aggression of Christianity and Islam combined. Jainism has weakened India's kshAtra dharma from the inside. He is like the many westerners who are into meditation, but don't understand the traditional purpose of the practice.
Saharanama, I am impressed that only you, it seems, knows what the traditional purpose of meditation is.
Nevertheless, I think you misunderstand Sam Harris' argument when he talks about Jainism. His point isn't that 'Jainism is good' - his underlying point is that overall when compared, Jainism is pacifist, as you agree, and therefore is unable to be violent in the same way as Christianity and Islam. Therefore the more fundamental you are as a Jain, the less likely you are to attack and kill anyone in the name of Jainism. He isn't arguing that any religion is good. The central theme of his books is that religion at its core is not good as it demands that we abandon thought in favour of belief.
I did not say that I am the only one who knows the traditional purpose. The traditional purpose of meditation in the Indic traditions has always been liberation from the cycles of birth and death. Modern atheists only use meditation for psychological reasons.Saharanama, I am impressed that only you, it seems, knows what the traditional purpose of meditation is.
Please stop talking out of your behind. Sam Harris has clearly stated that a spread of Jainism is beneficial. He says, "A rise of Jain fundamentalism would endanger no one. In fact, the uncontrollable spread of Jainism throughout the world would improve our situation immensely"Nevertheless, I think you misunderstand Sam Harris' argument when he talks about Jainism. His point isn't that 'Jainism is good' - his underlying point is that overall when compared, Jainism is pacifist, as you agree, and therefore is unable to be violent in the same way as Christianity and Islam. Therefore the more fundamental you are as a Jain, the less likely you are to attack and kill anyone in the name of Jainism. He isn't arguing that any religion is good. The central theme of his books is that religion at its core is not good as it demands that we abandon thought in favour of belief.
I'd have to argue that the resulting effect is psychological whether you're an atheist or not.
Please refrain from using gutter language - you don't have to reveal the level of your upbringing just because you're passionate about a topic. Secondly, your issue comes from 'quote mining'. Here again, the point he's referring to is the fact that fundamental Jainism is at it's core pacifist. Meaning that if everyone decided to become fundamentally non-violent to the extreme, overnight, of course the human condition would be improved dramatically. I'm not sure what issue any thinking human can have with that position.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks