Jainism

[Brian37]

Jainism is certainly not the worst of all religions. (In my opinion, it's the least bad of all religions).

However, can anybody else make sense of this?

The Saptabhangivada, the seven predicate theory may be summarized as follows:

The seven predicate theory consists in the use of seven claims about sentences, each preceded by "arguably" or "conditionally" (syat), concerning a single object and its particular properties, composed of assertions and denials, either simultaneously or successively, and without contradiction. These seven claims are the following.

Arguably, it (that is, some object) exists (syad asty eva).
Arguably, it does not exist (syan nasty eva).
Arguably, it exists; arguably, it doesn't exist (syad asty eva syan nasty eva).
Arguably, it is non-assertible (syad avaktavyam eva).
Arguably, it exists; arguably, it is non-assertible (syad asty eva syad avaktavyam eva).
Arguably, it doesn't exist; arguably, it is non-assertible (syan nasty eva syad avaktavyam eva).
Arguably, it exists; arguably, it doesn't exist; arguably it is non-assertible (syad asty eva syan nasty eva syad avaktavyam eva).

There are three basic truth values, namely, true (t), false (f) and unassertible (u). These are combined to produce four more truth values, namely, tf, tu, fu, and tfu(Three-valued logic). Though, superficially, it appears that there are only three distinct truth values a deeper analysis of the Jaina system reveals that the seven truth values are indeed distinct. This is a consequence of the conditionalising operator "arguably" denoted in Sanskrit by the word syat. This Sanskrit word has the literal meaning of "perhaps it is", and it is used to mean "from a certain standpoint" or "within a particular philosophical perspective".

In this discussion the term "standpoint" has been used in a technical sense. Consider a situation in which a globally inconsistent set of propositions, the totality of philosophical discourse, is divided into sub-sets, each of which is internally consistent. Any proposition might be supported by others from within the same sub-set. At the same time, the negation of that proposition might occur in a distinct, though possibly overlapping subset, and be supported by other propositions within it. Each such consistent sub-set of a globally inconsistent discourse, is what the Jainas call a "standpoint" (naya). A standpoint corresponds to a particular philosophical perspective.

In this terminology, it can be seen that the seven predicates get translated to the following seven possibilities. Each proposition p has the following seven states:
p is a member of every standpoint in S.
Not-p is a member of every standpoint in S.
p is a member of some standpoints, and Not-p is a member of the rest.
p is a member of some standpoints, the rest being neutral.
Not-p is a member of some standpoints, the rest being neutral.
p is neutral with respect to every standpoint.
p is a member of some standpoints and Not-p is a member of some other standpoints, and the rest are neutral.

Perhaps those who are partial to Dialectalism will find it less nonsensical than I do. Or at least those who think that the non-assertability of a proposition can count as a truth value. Or at least those who think that a proposition can be neither true nor false. Or at least those who think that something can not exist.

But, I guess, even if this is terrible logic ... at least it's still logic, terrible or otherwise, which is more than can be said for most---or maybe even all---other religions.

Honestly, coming from a religion I still find this mightly impressive. Comparatively-speaking. Incoherent or otherwise ... you gotta admit it's a huge step up from at least most religions. I know that's not saying much, but still. It seems to even outdo Buddhism.

The problem with every religion, past and present, worldwide, are that they are nothing but our species excuses to lay claim to morality. 

The truth of our species is that there will always be good and bad people.  Religion is nothing but a human invented concept to justify social pecking orders. There is not one nation, friend or foe that does not have hospitals AND prisons. 

Give any group a majority and unfettered power, any group can become abusive.  

There has never been a period in our species history where there has not been competition and tribalism. Asia is no different. 



I wouldn't look to the east or any religion  thereof and falsely presume one is more peaceful than another.  

The only argument to be had about religion or politics to be had is context of time in history and geography. 

Ultimately all 7 billion humans, regardless of our personal positions, can lead to compassion or cruelty.  It all depends on individuals holding leadership regardless of beliefs to account.