Mr Man wrote:Sometimes we make act violently or even feel it is appropriate to act violently. We may even think that we a doing it for the greater good but what we can never do is use the Buddha to justify or give legitimacy to our actions.
When using or supporting violence we may think that we are defending the Buddha Dhamma. But in reality we are defending our ego, our identities with the Buddha Dhamma, and our violent nature (which we still need to get rid of according to the Buddha's teachings). It may be possible to protect the cultures and identities by using violence, but then these cultures and identities are not the Buddha Dhamma which cannot be driectly protected by using or supporting violence at all. Buddha Dhamma can mainly be defended by the practice of Dhamma, and the very beginning of that practice necessarily includes non-violence. In fact, it is violence that is a reason of the decline of the Buddha Dhamma in its original form. Of course, defending cultures, identities and political boundaries
may perhaps become one of the indirect reasons (not the main reason) for a longer existence of the Buddha Dhamma, but then such defense (by using violence) is the job of the ruler and army of that area, not the job of Dhamma-followers and the monks.