The Times of India rejected my comment, because I took exception to one of their "sainted" Buddhists (Thich Nhat Hanh) claiming, ''Non-violence can never be absolute." He's wrong. He's spreading falsehood. Non-violence can be absolute. They didn't like that I said it. He's making excuses (loopholes). I'm closing them. That offends them.
Is Thich Nhat Hanh saying that Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha whom he claims to follow) is being violent right now? I'm not staking out a position on that here. I'm saying though that Thich Nhat Hanh can't very well be consistent with the views promoted generally by Buddhism and be also maintaining that non-violence can never be absolute.
Thich Nhat Hanh has a great deal of qualifying to do to put his statement into any context that would be seen as consistent even by the most mundane mind. Regardless, it's a bad thing to be stating without such qualification.
Furthermore, I state that any such qualification would come as an afterthought and would not have been built into his overarching philosophy, which is in error, obviously.