Buddhism encourages non-violence, it's not strictly enforced, but there will be consequences when they die.
Then again, just because some people's doctrine does not encourage violence doesn't give others a free ticket to bash on them for doing so.
Again, this is incorrect. I have cited direct sources of Buddhist scripture that unequivocally denounce and condemn violence in all forms. Encourages is far too weak a word to describe Buddhist scripture on the topic, which uses strong language in every case. Prohibitions against violence are enforced by the Vinaya, which is the code of ethics all monks must follow.
I've noticed you repeatedly in this thread treating Buddhism with a kind of pure scripturalism and disregard for the actual expressions of faith by the community professing it that resembles the (relatively novel even within Christianity) approach of Fundamentalist Protestantism to the Christian Bible, and I wonder if there is any basis with Buddhism itself for this or...
Mahayana and Vajrayana are both branches of Buddhism that venerate texts most scholars of repute hold in very dubious regard. They came long after, and are stylistically distinct from, the Pali Canon.
> A. K. Warder notes that the Mahāyāna Sūtras are highly unlikely to have come from the teachings of the historical Buddha, since the language and style of every extant Mahāyāna Sūtra is comparable more to later Indian texts than to texts that could have circulated in the Buddha's putative lifetime. Warder also notes that the Tibetan historian Tāranātha (1575–1634) proclaimed that after the Buddha taught the sutras, they disappeared from the human world and circulated only in the world of the nagas. In Warder's view, "this is as good as an admission that no such texts existed until the 2nd century A.D."
I certainly do regard the actual expressions of faith by its many communities, but not all are correct, and one need look no further than to compare the actual root texts to the monstrous actions of people determined to burn the world down in its name. You are invited to do so for yourself, as the Buddha has always done, and compare the words to the actions of those who claim lineage.
> na haneyya na ghātaye
There is the Pali in a handful of words. Now you have the tools to discern for yourself: what does it tell us to do or not to do?
Not him, but you can look up what Theravada is.
Are you claiming that the sola scriptura-like approach is actually an element of Theravada Buddhism or that the positions being defended with that approach are actually the distinct tenants of Theravada Buddhism? (I mean, I get from the repeated references to the Pali Canon that the arguments—framed as general to Buddhism—are likely Theravada-focused, but that doesn't really answer the question I was asking.)
Yes, it goes as far as some Theravada traditions not giving much attention to Theravada's own commentary corpus, which was added centuries after the Buddha's life.
The "let's go back to origins" approach is not a Western invention, the existence of Chan/Zen proves it quite clearly.