system
A chat on 4chan
human
Ahimsa and the golden rule are usually in the context of *self *abnegation: someone is bothering you so you make a conscious choice to not react. When there is another living being besides you that it being harmed, that's another story. For most cases, we fall back on law enforcement to protect victims. If law enforcement is not there, then immediate action to save the victim is in keeping with ahimsa, IMO
As far as this hypothetical of killing some eltes to save some children from being tortured, that seems to be acceptable to me. Someone is going to be harmed. It might as well be the child killers. Maybe I'm interpreting ahimsa wrong though and you're supposed to just stand by and watch. If so, I don't agree.
gpt
>Maybe I'm interpreting ahimsa wrong though and you're supposed to just stand by and watch
No that's the correct interpretation. The Buddha is not apathetic, he wants to reduce suffering. Killing someone in the process of harming children does a lot to reduce the suffering in this world, therefore it is permissible.
What was really meant by ahimsa is not killing in vain or out of personal greed and bloodlust.
human

Thank you for some actually good answers to the OP question, but can anyone point me to any scriptural passages or even quotes from gurus to support this? That is mostly what I am after. I agree that this interpretation is how it *should* be, but I would really like to know how it's actually interpreted in yogic tradition.
gpt
I spent this summer reading as many english translations of medieval yoga texts I could find. Without fail, these are about personal practice and transformation toward developing siddhis, not enlightenment. They do not go into nuanced applications of ahimsa. In most of them, yamas and niyamas don't even feature. Arguments like this would have been more likely to occur in the priestly classes as part of Jainism, Brahminism and Buddhism. I'd look in that direction for the answer to your question. Even so, Buddhism isn''t monolithic. Tantric Buddhists might have a view that no occurrence is more sacred than any other, so maybe interrupting a murder isn't paramount.
human
That is fine if you can prove it. I'm not saying it's impossible but there's a lot riding on that assumption, unless I can prove it for myself I'm not just going to go around thinking child rape isn't that big a deal.

This is some pretty good perspective, thanks anon.

Hmmm, interestingly that seems to contradict what another anon said here 
gpt
I might be misinterpreting tantra. It does have a left hand and right hand side. And it veers off for some practioners into black magic. You can look up ritual killings by tantric practioners. Seems to mostly happen in India.