Jainism

[Porcupine]

I read "non-assertible" as unfalsifiable. I.e. a statement (in logic) that can't be proven or disproven.

I also noticed that it could be read that way but I actually didn't read it that way in order to be charitable because I think that's even worse as that makes the mistake of conflating truth with knowledge.

---

---

Then they weren't practicing Jainism. The fundamental rule in Jainism is "Don't be violent" ... so when a person who self-identifies as a Jain ends up being violent ... it's because they're human and humans can be violent. There's nothing in Jainism that says "Sometimes it's okay to be violent." Even self-defense is said to hurt oneself and be a bad thing, in Jainism.

So, yes. Their magic book told them to do something and they failed to do it. So, silly or not, magic or not, they still were failing to practice Jainism while they were being violent.

Negatron.  Ahimsa is not non violence in the sense that you're thinking of, and as a doctrine was formed by their historic interactions with other cultures.  Killing enemies in combat is a-okay with ahimsa.  Just as it's a-okay with our own non-violence™.  Jain monarchs and soldiers weren't doing jainism wrong.

Isn't Ashima also in Hinduism and self-defence is acceptable in Hinduism but not in Jainism?

I think you're getting a bit mixed up. It may be acceptable for lay practitioners but to be a Jain to a full---a Jain monk, say---even self-defence is absolutely ruled out. There is no part of the Jain principle of non-violence that includes violence, as far as I can tell.

The point being that the less violent you are the more you are successfully practicing Jainist Ashima.