Me: "I'm sorry, honey."
Wife: "You love me, so I know you're sorry. That's not the point, though..."She's certainly right and sometimes a little too succinct. It saves time for sure, but there are very few people left who will indulge my fluff and bullshit. We talked about it and I shared with her my thoughts about what she said yesterday before heading into class and together we ended up having a great conversation on wisdom, knowledge and how we can grow together.
Towards the end of the conversation, we started discussing the source of what we know to be right and wrong or, simply, where wisdom originates. I am firmly in the camp that believes we know what is right and wrong only if we detach ourselves from the stereotypes of ourselves, gender, race, family, religion, society, culture and country. My wife, however, prefers to believe that wisdom is found in the Christian idea of God and teachings of Christ. Luckily, she's flexible on this a little and can listen to others.
I tried to explain what Jains think about the idea of a creator and creation. It's hard to articulate, though.
"Some foolish men declare that a creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill advised and should be rejected. If God created the world, where was he before the creation? If you say he was transcendent then and needed no support, where is he now? How could God have made this world without any raw material? If you say that he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression."Interesting point, but one that a stoned high school student could and has made tons of time. It's a chicken and egg argument essentially. Was raw material first or Earth? It continues:
If you declare that the raw material arose naturally you fall into another fallacy, for the whole universe might thus have been its own creator, and have risen equally naturally. If god created the world by an act of will, without any raw material, then it is just his will made nothing else and who will believe this silly stuff?I think that's what's called "faith".
If he is ever perfect, and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him? If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could. If he is formless, actionless, and all-embracing, how could he have created the world?Here's where it gets really Indian.
Such a soul, devoid of all modality, would have no desire to create anything. If you say that he created to no purpose, because it was his nature to do so then god is pointless. If he created in some kind of sport, it was the sport of a foolish child, leading to trouble. If he created out of love for living things and need of them he made the world; why did he not make creation wholly blissful, free from misfortune? Thus the doctrine that the world was created by god makes no sense at all.Nothing like a discussion on the logics behind a creator, right?. Nothing is ever solved nor does anyone win. It's a waste of time, but interesting nonetheless. This is what time (related to the universe) looks like to the Jain.