Jainism

[Porcupine]

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

From what little I've read, it appears that Jainism isn't monolithic. 

There are adherents who take ashima to be absolute -- to the point of denying any just war or self-defense. But others justify some violence. 

I don't know if this has to do with differences between northern and southern traditions, or whether it's just a general disagreement.

I know that self-defense can be justified in Jainism but the overarching purpose is still about good and bad karma and although you don't receive bad karma for defending yourself I don't think I'm mistaken that if one doesn't defend oneself then one may get extra good karma and that Jain monks are perhaps supposed to not fight back even in self-defence.

I mean, even if Jainism does allow violence in some instances ... the point is that it allows it far less than any other religion or, indeed, any other ideology.

It's why I would never simply become a Vegan. I'd sooner become a secular Jain. Because from the POV of the Jainist principle of non-violence Vegans look very much like Vegetarians do to Vegans.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if even the self-defence exceptions specify that one has to defend oneself with the minimum force---and that if your defense uses as much or more force as your attacker then it is unacceptable. That would make sense if the whole purpose is to reduce bad karma and if hurting others is said to hurt oneself, no? It seems to me that if violence in Jainism is to ever make sense it's only to make sense in situations where it actually does make sense.