Buddhists don't worship a creator God, but they have no trouble acknowledging there's an order to nature. They also believe there is karma, the results of intentional actions, which in their view is a natural moral law that has consequences beyond the individual's current existence. But there's no God in their belief system required to underwrite that. — Wayfarer

That seems to have slipped my mind. However, there is/has to be difference between answering the question, "whence this order?" with chance and simply refusing to answer the question (Noble Silence, the Buddha). The former is a knowledge claim while the latter is to either deny that the question is a sensible one or to avoid, as you put it, prapañca, getting entangled in thought or possibly because there was no point to knowing the answer or our priorities are messed up or...I'm out of ideas.

Buddhism's law of karma suggests that the Buddha did recognize the existence of laws in the universe, specifically laws concerning causality, karma being moral cause and effect. Rather, or for some, too scientific don't you think?

Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis). — Pierre-Simon Laplace

[...]divine principle of any sort dismissed as sheer imagination.
— Bhikkhu Bodhi — Wayfarer

Imagination, it seems, is the cornerstone of my argument. We have order. Ergo, theists claim, it could be God. Theists counter, it could also be Chance. It could be God or it could be Chance. The distinction between necessity and contingency is the difference between what is (the former) and what could be (the latter, imagination).

Is it,

1. God implies Order (God is a possibility - imagination)

Rain implies wet ground (Rain is one way the ground becomes wet but it could also be a leaking pipe)

OR

is it,

2. Order implies God (God is a necessity - not imagination)

Decapitation implies death (Death is a necessary outcome of decapitation)

That's still not a contradiction though — Philosophim

God exists & God doesn't exist, is not a contradiction???

That is a contradiction of beliefs, but not of facts — Philosophim

So, now, it's a contradiction!

As you can see, you're, like everyone else, is trying to make sense of a square circle and, intriguingly, you have resolved it employing the technique the Jains recommended - by shifting between different persepctives. I preach, you practice! Excellent!

First of all, I said that jokingly. (Didn't you see the laughing emoji?) Second, it's not that irrelevant as you say, since we are talking about order vs disorder. I remind you that your question was"What exactly is it that you find "debatable" about chaos and order?" Besides, it is you who brought up the concept of "God" in real terms (literally), based on Einstein's statement, altghough, as I mentioned, he used "God" metaphorically. — Alkis Piskas

Sorry, I'm bad at humor. I used to be a jolly chap until I discoverd fate had other plans for me. My bad!

Anyway, whether God is involved in the order of the universe or not, we have to bring in physics, and in particullar, quantum physics. So, regarding always my "debatable", here is something interesting from Prof. Alan Tennant, who has won the Europhysics Prize:

"Prof. Tennant remarks on the perfect harmony found in quantum uncertainty instead of disorder. ‘Such discoveries are leading physicists to speculate that the quantum, atomic scale world may have its own underlying order. Similar surprises may await researchers in other materials in the quantum critical state.'"
"If there’s an underlying order in the quantum world, that would be a rather significant philosophical shift. So I’m guessing this meaning of this result is going to be rather highly debated."
(https://entangledstates.org/2010/01/09/golden-ratio-observed-in-quantum-states/):

Do you see now what debate I am talking about? However, I can't go further than this, because as I already told you, I have little knowledge of physics. — Alkis Piskas

The "debate" is about whether the quantum world has order or not. However, my argument isn't about order/chaos (disorder) per se. Order insofar as my argument is concerned is only a representative of the category of evidence that makes theists go, God!

I picked order only because my moslem friend used it in his argument for Allah/God. A contingency rather than necessity i.e. what order/disorder is doesn't matter to the point I'm trying to get across. Any other piece of evidence to do with the existence of the universe that makes the God hypothesis plausible will also work in my argument. The atheistic response to such God arguments being it could be chance. For instance, the fine-tuning argument made by theists claims that the universe couldn't have been a chance occurrence - the probabilities involved are near zero. The response from atheists is that theists are talking out of their hats - people do win the lottery.

Ergo, you're barking up the wrong tree. :grin:

Physics is (becoming) a branch of mathematics.
— TheMadFool
Well, it's my turn now: "Irrelevant!"
(Really, how does this statement relate to anything else in here? Who has said anything about mathematics?) — Alkis Piskas

Physics is mathematics in action in the physical world. You seem to be enamored of physics as if physicists are privy to information mathematicians are not. False.

Thanks for the link to a book on puzzles.

->
— TheMadFool

What's that? — Banno

Material implication.

Miracles are only ever relative, and have been far overblown: the recent apologetists have misled the public on this point among others. — Fine Doubter

If Jesus rising from the dead was actually him getting up from a dreamless sleep, Christianity is in trouble, big trouble.

psychopath — EricH

It isn't you!

Oh no no, my apologies then that I didn't get the deep meaning of your "wtf" argument! Now I do, and seems perfectly appropriate to use it now in what are you saying. You give me 2 choices for an issue that I don't doubt! — dimosthenis9

Thank you for humoring me and my quirks. :up:

I explain AGAIN that for me God and religions offer people a moral base as to act "good".Is it the best moral base? For sure no!
Of course throughout history mass murders happened in the name of God. I don't question that. But that is cause human interpretation of religions as to act evil! — dimosthenis9

This is all very convenient. The good you attribute to God, the evil to humans. You forget that humans are supposed to have done what God commanded be done - the genocide the Bible speaks of was God's will.

My wondering is what is the alternative?? What could replace that and in what way we could convince people to act good then? And I don't even say that I m right on that! Just my personal thoughts on that issue which bothers me. I was really careful with the wording of my questions. — dimosthenis9

That I have no alternative but to kill you in cold blood doesn't make it right to do so.

For the guy doing the torturing? — Pantagruel

I didn't ask you a question.

I can only surmise that, qua conscious beings, we are composed of experiences and beliefs. So perhaps experiencing the magnificent uncertainty of death is the key to spiritual evolution. Much of my own personal growth has been linked in one way or another to an immersive awareness of the profound finality of death. To quote one of my favourite movies (that I just watched again on the weekend as it happens): Death is the road to awe. — Pantagruel

Torture is the way to awesome — Some guy

:rofl:

Since 180proof got it and agreed on what you said. Can you explain that "wtf" to me also?
What I wrote comes to contradiction with the link that provides "possible explanations" for why the genocide occurred?
At which point of my previous posts I denied the massive killings that happened in the name of God?? I just say that they were cause of interpretations that people used for their evil. And not cause Christianity, for example, refers to "kill others". — dimosthenis9

First off, my apologies if you didn't like the way I phrased my response - WTF? The What The F**k expression carries a deep meaning for me. It represents WTFery - claims, attitudes, beliefs, emotions, whathaveyou, that make zero sense to the listener/reader but...take heed...not necessarily because the claims, attitudes, beliefs, emotions, etc. are inherently nonsensical.

You want to explain the genocide as chronicled in the Bible in a way that's coherent with our understanding of God and what morality is. Why else would you want to explain it?

If so, only two choices for you:

1. Show that the mass murders didn't actually occur. Hanover probably thinks its a metaphor.

2. Show that offing people en masse is good.

What's your move?

Short answer: Biblical literalism is a sine qua non for Christianity. Miracles, the smoking gun for God, don't mean anything otherwise.

Long answer: There's a dilemma for Christians which is that either the Bible is a metaphor or it's literal. If it's a metaphor, miracles are impotent. If it's literal, explain how genocide is good.

Well my point is that I (and no person in history, probably) have never seen an example of nothing before and I doubt that nothing ever existed - since it would need to exist to 'be' nothing, hence not nothing but something- hey, this sounds like one of your capers... For me the argument is this... something. The end. :joke: — Tom Storm

There's another principle in Buddhist philosophy, that of 'prapanca', meaning 'conceptual proliferation'. It is literally 'becoming entangled in thought.' — Wayfarer

Join the club! :joke:

But why to defend God especially since I don't believe in any God?

I don't doubt that many massive killings occurred in the "name" of religions. But that's what people did as to excuse their evil behavior and achieve their personal goals (greed etc).

All I'm saying is that God and religions offer a "moral" base which is still necessary to societies. Despite all the bad things happened from people who use them for evil,still the good things that brought to human societies overcome the bad ones.
And without any God-ish moral system things would might be worse. I m not even sure about it. Just saying my opinion.
It is as simple as that. Just many atheists turn into bulls when they hear anything about "God and religions" and accuse them for every human harm that show up throughout history. I have met many of them in my real life so their stubbornness doesn't surprise me. It's the new trend to be Atheist nowadays and just make fun and accuse others who believe. — dimosthenis9

https://www.bethinking.org/bible/old-testament-mass-killings

And you support that these aren't interpretations? It gives all kind of alternative explanations and you present them as facts of urging to kill others. Ok. — dimosthenis9

WTF? :chin:

Gilgamesh joins the immortal pantheon after he dies....kind of fits with something I've recently been toying with, are we spiritual beings "in-training"? Perhaps what is traditionally called the soul has its material birth.... — Pantagruel

Leave me guessing, huh?

Your words has all the hallmarks of an artist, in the making or already in full bloom, which?, however, I can't tell.

He was a trainwreck, this guy - his family had abandoned him, his friends deserted him, a mountain of debt to pay off, unrequited love, and now the proverbial cherry on top, the icing on the cake, was a diagnosis of terminal cancer. I went to see him, he wasn't sad and that made me ask myself, "did I go to see him or did he come to see me?" — Some Guy

There are two ways you can defend God:

1. Prove that the genocide recorded in the Bible didn't occur at all. Finish the opponent before fae even starts :chin:

2. Prove that the mass murder was justified in the sense good.

I'd like to see which you pick and how might you furnish the relevant proof.

Whether Einstein, eh, I mean God, plays dice or not! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

Irrelevant!

Note: Maybe physicists know better? I am not good in Physics ... so I can't take part in the debate! — Alkis Piskas

Physics is (becoming) a branch of mathematics.

I am an atheist but I don't tend to trade in answers. And I don't buy the question: why is there something rather than nothing? It's not a question I have ever asked or have ever thought would be worth asking — Tom Storm

Well, the question is about you unless you're nothing! Nevertheless, anekantavada - different strokes for different folks.

Good that you're an atheist but remember, from a certain point of view, you do have a God although you may not think so or worship faer. This God is Chance.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves shall we. What about our world suggests if not proves God? It appears, God started off as a creator deity.

Why have atheists rejected a creator? My best guess is that they've got an alternate answer for the fundamental question of metaphysics: why is there something rather than nothing? The short answer: Chance. The long answer: Epistemic/Innate Chance.

Ergo, Chance has replaced God in the mind of atheists.

:point: God does not play dice.

All this is very nice and I found a lot of good arguments. However, the subject of order vs. randomity in the universe seems quite debatable, as well as how someone perceives one or the other. So I am not going to get involved in it, but only remind us that Einstein has also stated that "God Plays Dice with the Universe" in a letter regading his issues with quantum theory. The context and conditions in which these statements were made were different, of course. But they show the debatability of the subject — Alkis Piskas

Thanks for that tidbit!

What exactly is it that you find "debatable" about chaos and order?

My logic is simple.

Who would benefit if the USA continued on in the land of the Afghans?

Women, children, atheists, moderate muslims, secularists, and so on.

Who would gain if the USA hightailed it out of Afghanistan?

Extremists, the Taliban and other radical Islamists who'll find safe haven there.

Who made the decision to pull out American troops from Afghan territory?

USA.

Ergo,

The USA isn't interested in the welfare of women, children, atheists, moderate muslims, secularists, etc. OR, this is scary shit, the USA wants the Taliban back at the helm of Afghan affairs.

:chin:

That reasoning does not work. — Cuthbert

Can I tell, from the broken window, who broke it? Was it your brother or was it you? I can't and in that blind spot, both you and your brother are identical.

Tell me what the definition of identical means. If A is identical to B, it means, given a set of propositions about A and B, I can't tell them apart, no? Take that and see where it leads to.

This is a romanticism that someone living in the real world wouldn't indulge in. — baker

It's romanticism that has brought about change in this world, a change for the better. All the good there was/is/will ever be was born in the minds of dreamers.

Ah yes. So when the Nazis come to take me to the gas chambers I should try to see things from their point of view. — EricH

The horror, suffering, and anguish of a situation is all the more reason to invoke anekantavada. One party involved has failed to give the other's point of view the attention it deserves.

Now in your case of perspective, you're introducing a 3D object. But that does not fit the original definition's tie to reality, that it is only a 2D object. Could we call your 3D object's perspective a "square circle"? Sure, we can call anything, anything within a context. But is that the same as the context of the philosophical square circle argument in 2D geometry? No. — Philosophim

Yes, you're right a square circle is about the 2D world. However,

The finger (square circle) pointing at the moon (contradiction) is not the moon (contradiction). — Thich Nhat Hanh

Suppose there's a truth regarding, say, God in a 3D world. Call this G. We, in our 2D world, can only see shadows of G. Theists believe God exists (square shadow) and atheists believe God doesn't exist (circle shadow). Put the two parties on the same stage and we have a contradiction: God exists & God doesn't exist (square circle).

The point is, if both theists and atheists are true (a contradiction), we have to accept the reality of a square circle. But, we can't, a square circle makes zero sense. The immediate reaction is, as per recommendations of classical logic, is to declare one side as wrong/false.

However, there's another way - anekantavada (not-one-sidedness or many-sidedness) in which both theists are true and atheists are true but since they're from different points of view, there's no contradiction, no square circle.

I guess what I want to get across is there are many alleged square circles out there (theism-atheism, physicalism-nonphysicalism, realism-antirealism, etc.) but these aren't real/true contradictions, they only appear to be, their resolution achieved with the aid of anekantavada (many-sidedness).

So, yeah, I couldn't draw you a 2D square circle but that wasn't what I intended to do. You're supposed to have paid attention to thesis-antithesis pairs, some of which I mentioned above, the very essence of disagreement, discord, strife, and chaos which are, all said and done, square circles, no?

Perception itself is existence — Corvus

Category error? Perception is something done by that which exists. It's like saying rotation itself is earth. Try again.

In logic, the sentence "x exists" is ill-formed as the existential quantifier is missing qualification. x is defined by predication. If there is a term like "green(House)" this means being green (likely among others) defines/identifies the house. As far as such primarily sensual constructs go it might seem justified to eliminate the object altogether. However speaking of "senses" or preception can be suspected of being a reification: It makes no sense to say one could see if all one can see is "nothing" (sense without object): Just as "x exists" is ill-formed, so is the term "green" if it does not predicate something.
As far as logical judgement goes a green world cannot as well be blue as being green defines it's identity. It cannot even turn blue as then it would be something completely different. — Heiko

God exists = (Ex)(Gx)

Doesn't the fact of an observer presuppose reality? If so, then the OP doesn't make sense. If not, then the observer is imaginary, which doesn't make sense either in this context. — 180 Proof

Excellent observation!

For Berkeley, as perceiving beings, we do not require to be perceived to exist — jkg20

This may appear to have solved the problem but it actually doesn't. If the observer can exist without being perceived, why does reality need to be observed to exist? It never pays to use double standards.

In my humble opinion, we should frame death and most other things I suppose within the context of necessity (inevitable) and contingency (not inevitable).

Back then, Zhuangtsu's time, death was unavoidable - it was an absolute, inviolable law of nature, set in stone as it were like gravity itself. Zhunagtsu's views, in your beautiful translation, reflects this understanding of the world, life, death as part of nature's order.

It bears mentioning here that people, even a thousand years before Zhungtsu, were already ideating about immortality - the epic of Gilgamesh is, I'm told, a story of a man seeking eternal life. Gilgamesh fails of course and that was the core message of this work, congruent with Zhunagtsu's own take on death.

However, Gilgamesh (the hero) epitomizes the growing doubt in people's minds - is death necessary or is it...contingent?

Fast forward to the 21st century and we've learned a great deal about how our body works, knowledge that could be/is being used in all and sundry ways to...cheat death in all its terrifying manifestations. Doubt is being slowly but steadily being replaced with certainty that morte isn't some hard and fast rule that people have to obey willingly/unwillingly.

This is nothing less than what people might refer to as a paradigm shift - aging and mortality are both diseases in transhumanism I believe. This rather simple recategorization radically transforms our attitude towards quietus, crossing the river Styx. At the very least, it provides a strong impetus to look for a cure and that, in my humble opinion, is a move in the right direction.

Zhuangtsu, nonetheless, is still relevant; after all, no major breakthroughs have been reported by the scientific community. For how long?, is the million dollar question.

Fool, you're going have to ask a primatologist. :monkey: — 180 Proof

I don't understand the question. — 180 Proof

Is it that an adult chimp losing faer self-awareness because of the extra burden it involves in re thanatophobia (amplified fear of death that comes with self-awareness) has a similarity to those who engage in extreme sports (risk of death)? After all, in both cases, death is key. One, the chimp, switches off metacognition (its easier to face death) and the other, extreme sports enthusiasts essentially downplaying the value of life (death's ok). In one case you turn off metacognition (lose self-awareness) to make death less painful and in the other case you devalue metacognition by taking wild risks.

g/G is the dice — 180 Proof

Bingo!

'Order' is in the eye of the beholder, that is, an aspect of disorder (chaos) we happen to be 'mapping' – like 'seeing' faces in clouds – just as a 'whirlpool' is an emergent aspect of a storming sea. — 180 Proof

I concur. Order is a phase in Chaos. It appears that time plays a big role in our perception of order and chaos. A video on youtube reports that the solar system is unstable - the earth is drifting, only by a few centimeters every million years or so, away from the sun and our dear ol' moon is doing the same, inching away from the earth. If we could record all that, speed it up like in timelapse photography, gone is the order! :chin:

If perception itself is existence, then it doesn't need the conditions for existing. — Corvus

I find that hard to make sense of.

Let's keep it simple. I suppose the issue is idealism, not sure. If it is, great! If not, too bad.

Esse est percipi — George Berkeley

Translartion: To exist is to be perceived.

What about when it all began? Imagine nothing and then, through perception (observation), the universe and all in it came to be. Who did/is doing/will do the perceiving? Suppose X is the perceives the universe. Thus, the universe exists because X perceives it.

What about X itself?

1. X exists (we know that because the universe exists). How did X come to exist? Suppose there's a Y that perceives X. Then, how did Y come to exist? A Z perceives Y, and so on ad nauseum. Infinite regress.

2. X perceives itself. That's how X exists. However, X must fist exist to perceive itself but to perceive itself it must first exist. Infinite loop.

3. X exists because Y perceives X and Y exists because X perceives Y. A loop of causation. However, X exists because Y perceives it implies Y came first. If so, how did Y come into existence (see 1 and 2). If, on the other hand, Y exists because X perceives it, the same problem arises.

Something doesn't add up! I can't quite put my finger on it though.

@Pinprick

You're on the right track.

A few points:

1. Rules, their raison de'tre, is to achieve some kind of order and one requirement for that is a rule must either apply across the board or to the majority. Let's keep it real and ignore the rare/impossible - the former - and focus our energies on the latter (rules must apply and make sense to the majority).

If so, given the majority seems to express identical or very similar likes/dislikes, formulating a rule seems feasible.

That, however, isn't what I want to discuss. Once we concentrate our efforts on a (moral) rule for the majority, the minority is being deliberately sidelined, ignored i.e. the few oddballs that exist in every group, community, or society are to be taken out of the moral equation. Ergo, trying to critique/fault the golden rule or the diamond rule using masochism and narcissism respectively is to misunderstand the rationale behind such rules. They were never designed for ALL, they were crafted for the MAJORITY, the underlying assumption being most people have a good handle on morality. To hell with the minority, they don't matter! seems to be the rather rude sentiment being expressed herein.

Given what I said above, which of the two rules (the golden rule/the diamond rule) is the better?

The golden rule presupposes that

1. A person X belong to the majority and possesses an adequate understanding of right and wrong

2. The person X is dealing with another person Y who too is in the majority and has knowledge of good and evil that deserves a passing grade.

Isn't that why X decides how to act towards Y based on X's own feelings/beliefs/etc.? This is the essence of the golden rule.

So far so good.

Let's see how the diamond rule fares.

2. The diamond rule, at the very least, makes no assumptions about ourselves. Indeed, you maybe the most erudite moral theorist in the whole god damn world but all that means zero for the diamond rule. What matters is how other people want done unto them.

At this juncture, it must be pointed out that the diamond rule is the mirror image of the golden rule; one treats the self as the benchmark of conduct, the other considers others as the same. Insofar as the majority and how that notion is based on identity/similarity of those in that section of the population is concerned, there's no difference between someone using the golden rule and another person adhering to the diamond rule.

3. However, what's special about the diamond rule is it acknolwedges the minority - the oddities, the quirks that define minorities. For instance, a person who's following the diamond rule is making the statement "you may be different" when fae meets a masochist/narcissist; after all, the diamond rule is about how others may want to be treated.

The golden rule fails in this respect.

del

It appears that the matter is more complex than I thought. When is it not? Anyway, there's a right perspective i.e. though everyone is entitled to an opinion, we can still get to what might be called an objective truth (see addendum 2 in my OP) which no one in faer right mind can/would deny. This however doesn't imply that two parties in a dispute, philosophical or otherwise, are wrong though. All it means is the real (?), the whole truth is more intricate, thus more beautiful even if also exasperating, than we imagine it to be.

As for 'fear of reality', that's (almost) a cognitive bias, artifact of an enlarged forebrain that makes awareness of mortality inescapable and pressing. — 180 Proof

I read somewhere that chimps develop a sense of self-awareness (forebrain) in their adolescent period (passing the mirror test) but then later on in adulthood lose it. Why? Self-awareness comes with accompanying baggage - thanatophobia (fear of death) - and so, some researchers say, it's better for some, not all, animals to switch off metacognition. I'm not sure how far this is true though. Do you suppose there's anything interesting going on with extreme sports vis-a-vis what I said about chimps, self-awareness and thanatophobia?

"Boredom", as you say, merely sublimates our congenital onto/vera-phobia by way of socialized distractions which include occasional, prolonged intervals during which distractions themselves seem interminably tedious and routine. Ennui (like anomie & acedia) belongs to the decadence / idleness of "overdevelopment" and is, therefore, a kind of learned helplessness, IMO, rather than a biological trait / reflex like fear. — 180 Proof

Yep! Fully agree!

Your words.

Anekantavada takes into account all parties involved, favoring none over the other. My views are the same as anyone elses, including yours.
That is your view. Surely you're aware that other people don't think this way. It's safe to say that most people don't believe that your views are the same as theirs, and certainly not as relevant as theirs. — baker

You've, I'm afraid, missed the point of anekantavada which is to point out that there are no real contradictions but only apparent contradictions. Your whole argument is predicated on the former. In true anekantavada spirit, my response would be you're right but, for better or worse, I'm not wrong. Let's just leave it at that. Feel free to disagree though.

Underneath your optimism, idealism, egalitarianism burns a fire of supremacism — baker

From a certain perspective that could be true and I feel sorry that I could be read that way:

After all your speeches and posturing you're nothing but a common thief. — (Die Hard)

All I can say is I'm just an African ape, like Richard Dawkins takes great pains to point out when referring to h. sapiens, trying to make sense of faer world.

No doubt a 'first world problem'. How sublimating and bourgeois ... (vide Zapffe) — 180 Proof

Not impossible. The 3rd world folks are have little time to ponder upon such matters as where to get the next adrenaline rush from, they remain fully occupied with matters more pressing - staying alive!

It's amazing how far ahead the West is, in terms of living standards, health, wealth even accounting for centuries of slavery and colonization - it takes brains and heart to use use resources, ill-gotten as they maybe, in ways that have such wide-ranging positive effects.

The gap between the 1st world and the 3rd world will take another coupla centuries to close. I hope it can be done smoothly and peacefully. Fingers crossed!

the human is a way in which the Universe comes to realise its own nature. — Wayfarer

:up: Resonates with me at a deep level although I don't fancy myself as capable of contributing to the effort. I hope someone in my lifetime, what's left of it, has that Eureka moment ASAP and then...

While all along, you get to be the arbiter of truth, eh? — baker

Where did you get that from? Anekantavada takes into account all parties involved, favoring none over the other. My views are the same as anyone elses, including yours.

However, that we disagree, a contradiction threatening to rear its ugly head unless it hasn't already, suggests a higher truth who's projections are the two of us. Don't you wanna what that truth is? I want to.

Why should they?? They are your enemies. Why should they care about seeing things the way you see them? — baker

If they want the truth, they should care but,

Ok, I believe you but there are those who are not interested in the truth, or in justice. It (death) won't come swiftly. — Abu Hirawa (The Misfits)

I always thought of suicide as better than murder. I guess Sallekhana brings to the fore the dilemma that's been bothering me for ages: Die or Murder (innocent animals, people, plants to live). Some have made the right choice to my reckoning. I'm deeply privileged then to have met some Jains in my life.