faith's view on issues

How should we respond to terrorism?

My thoughts (after a good enough debate with my sister) -
As little violence as possible should be used. If terrorism reaches the point where many are threatened, then violence used to end it is acceptable because the intent is to bring peace to many. Jains believe that a small act of violence intended to avert a much greater violence is a form of nonviolence. Self-defense is acceptable. That doesn't propose going to war, as there are no just wars, but I guess its okay to be prepared to avert a threat.

Reply from Mohit @ orkut:
In past acharyas were closely realted to kings and even helped establish many kingdoms, no doubt there must have been fights involved.

Personally even I dont mind a war as long as it is intended for the betterment of human beings. By passively watching the terrorism override us, its better we get up and counteract. (I also feel that it was our passsiveness to good extent that have caused a huge loss of our old literature etc)

But it should only be used if that becomes necessary and should be used only to its minimum.

Reply from Abhishek @ orkut:
terrorosm + language
I would just like to make ur views little technical. Jain Ahinsa is not the same as gandhian ahinsa that is to forward ur cheek when hit. Ahinsa is divided in four parts, Sankalpi, udyogi, Aarambhi, Virodhi. The first three mean dont kill the innocent even in thought or due to lazyness.
As tatvartha sutra says "prammata yogat pran vyapropanam hinsa" Hinsa caused due to negligence(though for real translation u have to understand 15 parts of Pramad).
Then hinsa in business and homely work are the other two. Last one is hinsa for self defence. Now for shravak if he is not negligent only first one is a taboo. The classification into four Itself gives u an answer. So as for the terrorist and so for the doctor(death on operation table) the motive behind killing would decide the fairness. Sidharth please dont call Jainism passive. Our acharyas have long supported and guided great kings like Chamundarai(Though they were not allowed to be physically present in the palace which has probably caused misconception). Its only that Jains ceased being a Kshatriya community and other communities overstressed our Non-Voilence as our passivity that now we also beleive. Its only that we read great kings like Kharvel and understand the thought.
As for the last post on language. we must know translations but original is original. reading Bhaktamar in sanskrit is altogether a different experience. Tramslations are meant to initiate us to the original. As for the underlying science of mantras and temples read B T bajavats article published in tirthankar. It is also reproduced in Jin pooja booklet of maitri samooh.

My views again:
I also had a similar classification of himsa (not Gandhian) as per Jain scriptures.
1. Aarambhi himsa (Violence involved in fullfiling daily needs)(includes udyogi)
2. Virodhi himsa (violence against injustice)
3. Sankalpi himsa (violence with determination)
(in different order for ease)

In Jain scriptures its clearly written that for a lay person/ householders first two types of violence (aarambhi himsa and virodhi himsa) are pardonble.

In first category (aarambhi himsa) - violence involved in preparing food, cleaning and all other activity which are essential for a householder comes in this category.

In second category (virodhi himsa) - its a duty of a householder to protect his country or village or family. If somebody attacks on this its justifiable to fight for protecting above mentioned cause.

But third type of violence (sankali himsa) is not justifiable for a lay person in which military expansionism and terrorism come.

So we were effectively talking about virodhi himsa and to emphasize that we are not passive - but have a no-first-use policy.

Reply from Siddhi @ Orkut:
Utilitarian View
Jainism follows the Utilirarian View (not sure about the spelling hehe)

Firstly we belive in non voilence.
But when the choice is bad vs worst, we should opt the bad.
What i mean by the above sentence is...
whatever proves to be the larger good of the society (though it might be voilence to some extent) we should do that.

For this topic, I feel we should actively work hard to end terrorism (but not like Mr Bush), as it would further make the world a better place for everyone.

Reply from Kinjal @ Orkt:
I disagree....you can't really destroy terrorism, some factions of terrorism is always going to be here...so whether if its good for the society is very much questionable and mostly biased....who is going to really benefit to get rid of terrorism? what society? The World as a society?

I feel that the universe tends to unfold on its own...why should we intervene? The cosmic laws are placed in motion for a reason therefore I believe why waste more human life on such matters.

Note this: United states has a military cost that beats any other worlds military. United States funds more militaristic operations then any other country, and might i add this is all over the world. Now if we really want to do something useful for the Human kind, we should all just join together and put all that money, energy, work force into science. That is truly the betterment of Humans.

Reply from Nilesh @ Orkut:
violence in jainism
I think what you guys are saying is correct on practical point of view.. Is the violence in self-defence is justified??? answer is yes in today's practical scenario.. but not according to fundamentals of jainism.. It is based on self-denial......

If a man is killing an innocent dear.. Your job is to save the dear without hurting the man.. you may get yourself injured.. but still do not hurt the man.

All the sutra in pratikamn has three terms..
" Karyu (to do), Karavyu (to get it done through some one else) or Karta Pratye Anumodhyu (to appreciate a crime) " are all same. If you can not stop violence that is fine but you can try to justify any type of violence..

Reply from Vineet @ Orkut:
In my opinions, Ahimsa and non-voilence are not exactly two identical things.
Although these two things overlap more area than not but there are some places where the two ideologies do not shawod each other word by word. Self defence involving voilence is a part of ahimsa, but at the same time it is exactly opposite of non-violence. On the other hand, for example negligience for others being tortured, without helping them just because it may involve voilence against the attacker, supports non-violence but it does not fall in the set of ahimsa.
Back to original debate of the theme, countering terrorism, I feel that ahimsa is better way to see this situation depleting rather than indifferently adhering to non-violence blindly.

Reply from Kinjal @ Orkut:
But Who is it really benefiting? ;)

Reply from Mohit @ Orkut:
I agree with you kinjal that we can not destroy terrorism but that really does not help. We might not be able to destroy terrorism but atleast we can help it stay in the limits, an active participation is needed to keep a watch on it.

And regarding nature laws and all, what would you do if there is an expected tornado in your town, stay there coz its nature or make yourself safe. Same things apply here. Respecting the universal laws is really good but there is someone at other end trying to destroy the universe we need to take some steps.

And no doubt, even if 50% of that money is used for human welfare, that would be betterment for a huge section of society.

Reply from Kinjal @ Orkut:
Fight terrorism? Why? I mean okay I understand your points but who will benefit if we surpress terrorism? Suppose that you do succeed, what gaurantees are there for another person? What rights will we give up if we try to surpress terrorism? Are you ready to give up all the control that you have to do it? What happens to the people that do it? Do we kill them? How do we exactly as a jainism go against terrorism? And when you answer these questions put this question in all thoughts: WHO IS IT BENEFITING...

Reply from Siddharth @ Orkut:
Mankind and humanity as a whole would benefit by suppressing terrorism. Just cause we don't directly come across terrorist acts on an individual basis, doesn't mean that we don't need to do anything about them.

Fighting terrorism doesn't neccessarily mean, that you need to pick up a rifle, and head to the frontline.... there's a lot more to it. Even vocal support helps, and condemning such acts are the first step in helping root terrorism out.

Reply from Kinjal @ Orkut:
It is a never ending battle then...

We would all love to have some part on anti-terrorism, but has anyone asked how do they become terrorist? Are they born as cold blooded murders? Is there any validation to what they say?

Example: Castro was put in power by the United States in effort to condemn communism. Saddam was put in also power to fight against Russia, same with afghanistan....All the major terrorists out there have been trained and used by US.

Simple is this, Why create a monster if you can't be responsible enough to handle it, take care of it...

I mean okay we say we want anti terrorism, we go out and protest, vocal and what not, the fact is that most of those people were mistreated by US..yes i do know that some terrorist are not in that area. However majority are, so If you would like to do anything in the first place, would be the government policies,regulations, and what not.

My views again:
We never doubted the patriotism of the krantikaris, but it was proved that it was possible to gain independence using non-violence. The point here is the freedom fighters were not passive and they took some action. (Quote kinjal: I feel that the universe tends to unfold on its own...why should we intervene? The cosmic laws are placed in motion for a reason therefore I believe why waste more human life on such matters.) The fact that the British brought substantial new technology to our country didn’t overweigh the fact that we were oppressed and hence the revolution was necessary. Just like that we can’t aim for improvement of science & technology only when the society is in a chaos.

I was just pondering over the necessity of our action against terrorism (many other issues – like protecting our old temples are also important and we need to act before it’s too late).

(I used "terrorism" in a broad sense to include - guerrilla warfare, subversion, criminal violence, paramilitarism, communal violence or banditry.)

Remember the Naxalites (People's War Group) or LTTE or Maoists in Nepal. We may say the Extremists are there only fighting State terrorism. But is that justified?! Perspectives do differ. These people are wedded to a philosophy. They are also prepared to die to defend that philosophy. I never suggested that anyone had the right to annihilate them nor did I say that anybody is happy to be a terrorist. But we know that Ends & Means both matter.

As for your example is concerned - Saddam is a criminal, but America is a bigger criminal. That’s not the point. But the least we could do is avoid those conflicts and try to resolve the matter for the BETTERMENT of the society.

Note (for Kinjal): By society I intend to represent the same society that kinjal meant when he wrote the following:
[Quote: Now if we really want to do something useful for the Human kind, we should all just join together and put all that money, energy, work force into science. That is truly the betterment of Humans.]

Remember I am not talking about the American war on Terrorism... I am concerned about the situation closer to our home.

---

"It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion."
"Noncooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good."

- Gandhi