Collective Violence and Religions

1. Collective Violence and Religions • Religions are about ethics and morality, peace and order • Religious persons often violate ethics and morality, undermine peace, and bring disorder • Religious identity is among one of many causes of violence and warfare—religious war • Is there any religion that clearly and unambiguously disapprove and condemn violence and war? • Buddhism is most likely the candidate

2. Violence and Buddhism • Theoretically, violence is not associated with Buddhism • Its “five precepts,” which all Buddhists, including monks, nuns, and lay Buddhists should observe, begins with “non-violence” or “not killing”—abstain from violence or killing. • The second precept: refrain from appropriating other’s property • The third precept: refrain from sexual misconduct • monks were expected to uphold these precepts, • In reality, they often participated in violent act, including war. • The problems: • Tension exists between values/norms and constraint of ordinary life or worldly aims • Idealism inherited in religious doctrines fails to help people deal with complex realities

3. Scriptures’ reference to non-killing • Buddhist Scriptures in Pali language have explicit reference to nonviolence and non-killing • monks should not only themselves abstain from killing but should also refrain from encouraging--even out of passion—other people to kill themselves (Vinayapitaka III:71-74) • They should not even drink or pour out water containing tiny animals (Vin IV:49) • They should not even destroy seeds or plants (Vin: IV:34)

4. Scripture reference to non-participation in war? • Pali scriptures less expressly prohibit monks from actively participating in war. • Partly because it is a matter of course for monks • But they do state that monks should not even watch military parades or maneuvers • Nor should they stay with an army beyond need, because doing so might have aroused suspicion of espionage (Vin IV:105-107)

5. Scriptures reference to lay followers’ violent behavior • Characterization of lay followers’ violent behavior: • Cruel, bloody, merciless habitual killing • Buddha’s denial of heroic death • A warrior dies a hero’s death won’t go to heaven, instead he will go to a special hell (for his mind is in an evil state) • Bad karma rises when one wishes that the enemies be killed • Regardless whether the killing is a result of defensive or offensive war • Killing is bad karma even in case of self-defense, or of defending friends

6. Is Buddha’s Teaching Pacificism? • Buddha’s kinsmen saw his teaching of not-killing as pacificism and preferred being massacred to breaking this Buddhist precept, when being attacked by furious king Virudhaka • Buddha stopped Virudhaka three times, but eventually let the attack on his hometown happen • Modern scholars think that the Buddha was rather reserved and ambiguous when asked question about whether attacking other people is practicable • King Ajatasatru attempted to attack Vrjis, the Buddha merely stated that it would not be successful • King Psenadi of Kosala did not get direct answer to questions about the implementation of bloody sacrifice and mass imprisonment

7. Non-killing and War • Buddha’s seeming ambiguity leaves a room for interpreting Buddha’s view as not necessary pacific • Strict application of the Buddhist ethical principle of not killing should lead to the rejection of war in any form • Prince Temia prefers to become an ascetic to holding kingship • King Mahasilavant refrains from defending himself by military force • Monks or lay followers tend to prefer flexible application of the principle

8. Ethics and Politics • Harmonization of Buddhist Ethics and Politics follows example of King Asoka, the universal monarch, who rules justly and without killing • uses force only against violent and wicked people • Is justified to use force defensively but not offensively • Or uses force but without killing • This harmonization/adjustment of ethical theory and political practice results in relativization of Buddhist norm

9. Relativizing Norm • Monks/Buddhists protect themselves when being attacked, but leave the job of killing to non-Buddhists • lay followers • should use weapons and fight to defend the Buddhist religion • Should use weapons to defend pure monks • killing icchantikas (persons who discard the Mahayana and who promulgate unwholesome doctrines) is less grave than killing of an animal • This killing is like felling trees, mowing grass, or dissecting a corpse and not at all a violation of the precept of not killing

10. Buddhist Justification of Violence • Similar relativization is also found in Vajrayana texts: • Discerning person can kill the following: • Those who hate the Three Jewels • Those who have wrong attitude toward Buddha’s teaching • Those who disparage the Vajrayana masters • A Bodhisattva king led his army to conquer and annihilate the Muslim forces (Kalacakratantra) and to reestablish Buddhism • A Budhisattva can Kill out of compassion, to save someone from being murdered by a dacoit

11. Use “Emptiness” to Justify Killing • Buddhist theory of emptiness • All dharmas are empty • All realities are empty • Perceived realty is transient. In such reality there is neither good conduct nor bad conduct, neither keeping nor breaking of the precepts • The theory can lead to the overemphasis on the relativity of conventional values and their opposites and its misuse, which leads to violence

12. Reasons for Explicit exceptions to norm • Buddhist institutions recognize the necessity of using force or justify the use of violence, because • They want to protect their properties and privileges • They want the force be used in their interest, such as the legitimation of their religious identity and status • They claim they enforce Buddha’s teaching that advise them to punish whoever subverts their religion