I have understood that one can use violence if needed but should do so without anger?

Lama Ole’s answer:

Yes, that’s right. For example, if people are severely disturbing my lectures, then I sometimes carry them out personally. As long as one isn’t angry but does what is needed, then it is completely all right.

Sometimes it is simply important to take drastic measures. If we only have shirkers—who don’t risk anything, look away, and don’t take any responsibility—then our culture will disappear after a while.

If one must use violence, it should be without emotion. Rather, it is imperative that it be done with compassion. One should work like a doctor who knows, “If I don’t operate now, then there will be more suffering and difficulties afterwards.” The purpose must be to benefit others and ultimately to help them on their way.

Here is a funny example. My mother was about five feet tall and was from the pre-vitamin generation, but she was also a physical education teacher. We had a summer cottage in Denmark close to a meadow where horses used to graze. As a five-year-old boy, I once stood there with my back to the fence lost in thought, petting a horse that had its mouth above my shoulder. My mother saw that the horse suddenly flattened its ears; it somehow became aggressive and showed its teeth. My mother jumped over a fence that was as high as she was and drove her head against the horse’s belly with full power—just as the horse wanted to bite. The horse jumped three feet in the air. My mother had nothing against the horse but wanted me to continue on in life with two arms.

In situations like this, one experiences a completely new dimension, as if in slow motion. One acts very precisely, and most of the time one succeeds without harming the opponent too much.