Question

In the story ‘Three Questions’, the king did not know that his enemy came to kill him but he

saved his enemy without knowing him. Suppose the king knew that the injured man was his

enemy. Should he have saved him?​

Answer 1

Answer:

Of course Yes!He would have saved him because he is kind in nature and he is clever enough to know what to do.

He has also learnt about the Dharma and he will be following it.

Answer 2

Answer:

Yes, the king should have saved the enemy because before being the king he was a human being and it's the king's responsibility that he should care for and save the life of every people of his citizen. Since Humanity is greater than anything.

Explanation:

• The king ought to have saved the foe because before the king, he was a person and as the king's liability that he ought to mind and save the existence of every single individual in his residence. The ruler was caring since he was preserved for his resident.

• It can be considered as the ruler saving his adversary however exclusively by his demonstration he changes his foe into his faithful companion for eternity.

• The king was extremely kind as he didn't have any awareness of his foe and he saved him later realizing that he is his foe he had no lament since he ( the king) saved a life.

• Another side his enemy has culpability so why did he come here to kill such a respectable individual. After his care for the adversary became unwavering for a full life. It was the king's insight or wisdom that reflected that he had no regret for saving his foe.

#SPJ2