3 ms·
I was in the process of making a longer comment, but I think I will leave it at this one: Non-Violence or 'Ahmisa' being a core tenant of Buddhism (and many ot
by latency-guy2 4y ago
I was in the process of making a longer comment, but I think I will leave it at this one:
Non-Violence or 'Ahmisa' being a core tenant of Buddhism (and many other religions), is the one I would pick as a more apt comparison. I don't think it is reasonable to commit no violence, especially if you consider all life precious - even if you restrict to only humans. Not all people think the same, in fact some people are far more willing to enact violence to reach their goals.
Is protecting yourself and your community not included in the definition of 'violence'? If 'Ahmisa' is to be understood as, yes all forms of violence are sinful - then I outright reject that idea. You must be willing to protect other people, and you must be willing to enforce, and further able to enforce that.
I don't think I have to enumerate all the ways history has proven that violence in the protection of others (and self) was/is necessary.
- etchalon 4y agoI'm not arguing for or against any specific precept. I'm not a Buddhist. My analogy was meant to out point that the argument, "I believe everything you believe, except for this one thing" is sophomoric, as the number of things we agree on matters less than the weight of what we disagree on – and vice versa.
- lazyeye 4y agoAnd of course we always assign a very, very heavy weight to anyone not adhering to the narrow railroad tracks of our particular ideology. Cult-like. Honestly, the people here so desperate to find an argument for rigid ideological adherence just kind of prove my point.