0 Votes
RE: Buddhism...is it really different from other organized religion?
They must have encounter some violence in the past, given that particular area has such a colorful religious history. The bitter battle between different religious groups continue today.
I’m not aware of it. Non-violence is really central to Jainism. They’ve got five “vows” (somewhat like the “noble eight-fold path” of Buddhism): non-violence, truthfulness, non-stealing, celibacy, and non-materialism. But non-violence takes precedence, so it’s permissible to lie if telling the truth would lead to violence — all of the other vows are considered to stem from non-violence, which is taken to mean, not just no physical harm, but no insults, no indirect harm, not even speech that might influence others to harm. It extends to all living beings, to Jains are, perforce, vegetarians, and wear no fur, silk, or feathers. Wearing leather is acceptable if the skins came from naturally dead animals, and is kept to a minimum.
Traditionally, they only eat during daylight because there’s too much risk of harming insects in cooking at night.
Self-defense is acceptable (except for Jain monks), if it’s unavoidable.
Non-violence is so central to the religion that it’s believable that they’ve never had any really notable examples.
What do they do to people who show even the slightest form of violent tendency?
Presumably they do something like shunning.
RE: Buddhism...is it really different from other organized religion? by EyeOfSage
Self-defense is acceptable (except for Jain monks), if it’s unavoidable.
Ok, I read something about that on wiki the other day.
wiki paragraph
In contrast, Jains agree with Hindus that violence in self-defense can be justified,71 and they agree that a soldier who kills enemies in combat is performing a legitimate duty.72 Jain communities accepted the use of military power for their defense, and there were Jain monarchs, military commanders, and soldiers.73
What is this “Legitimate duty”? Something the local government decides on? How far will they allow violence to escalate as justified self defense? In the past, various country used preemptive strike, is that allowed? Sounds to me they are indeed capable of violence….
Somehow, I think you found another Shangri La. There’s no perfect and peaceful religion because violence is a necessary part of life. Like I said before, violence is merely an action, a reaction, and a tool to achieve an end. How you use that tool, how much and when you are using that tool, that’s the practical question.