(March 19, 2019 at 3:15 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:(March 19, 2019 at 3:07 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Again, this is the difference between 'a religion of peace' and 'peaceful religionists'. A believer violating the tenets of a religion doesn't change what those tenets are.
Boru
They weren't violating the terms of their religion. The jain religion doesn't prevent killing, as so many believe. It asserts responsibility for killing in service with pretext.
That's exactly what the jain emperors did, offered pretext, and in that event it was the non murdery jains who were violating their religious tenets. They were supposed to "defend" the good and righteous people against "evil". It just spo happened that those infant princes and their competing kingdoms were evil..so obviously they had to strike first.
(and, you know, "liberate" the inhabitants and their resources to live under the benevolent and enlightened jain dictatorship, lol)
-for completeness of thought,that the modern incarnation of the religion emphasizes those peaceful aspects over the less-than-peaceful is a product of subsumation into latter islamic and hindu authority that didn't exactly treat them well.
It has nothing to do with jainism being a religion of peace, which it isn't..even when the religion -is- full of peaceful religionists, as it largely is today.
Isn't funny how every religion has a concept of defending good and righteous against evil?
