Self-defense is acceptable (except for Jain monks), if it’s unavoidable.
Ok, I read something about that on wiki the other day.
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.
Somehow, I think you found another Shangri La.
Nope. I’m not in any way advocating Jainism. It’s just another set of bad superstitions. I only pointed it out as an example of a religion that seems very benign. You pointed out some faults to be found in world Buddhism, but left it as if Buddhism were the least offensive of religions — I offered Jainism as a counterexample, one for which I haven’t (at least on relatively short search) found those sorts of problems.
I agree that violence is a tool — a very difficult tool to use wisely, but rejecting it entirely is foolish.
Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.