Download Violent Protectors

South Asian Studies/Speaker 4
Violent Protectors? On War and Non-Violence in the Buddhist Traditions
Ulrike Roesler
One of the fundamental rules of Buddhism, attested from the earliest sources onwards, is the
rule against killing other living beings. Taking another being’s life is forbidden categorically
both for monks and for lay Buddhists. Nevertheless, the Buddhist traditions acknowledge that
there may be situations in which this strict and clearly defined rule conflicts with other
Buddhist values. This becomes most obvious in the case of kingship since some of the royal
duties contradict Buddhist ethics. Some prototypical dilemmas are the following:
1. In Ancient India a king had the duty of protecting his subjects in order to provide
happiness and security for his country. The pan-Indian concept of the dharmaraja, the just
king, is adopted by the Buddhists in the sense of a king who rules in accordance with secular
and with Buddhist law. However, some of the royal duties necessarily contradict the Buddhist
imperative to avoid violence. For example, the king acted as a judge, and as such he had to
pronounce death penalties. Moreover, the king had the duty to protect his subjects against
neighbouring countries and therefore could not always avoid war.
2. Mahayana Buddhism, the “Great Vehicle”, has two basic values: compassion with
all living beings, and wisdom. Some Buddhist texts suggest that in certain cases a Buddhist
may have to kill out of compassion. According to some passages, a murderer who is about to
kill many other people may and even should be killed; it is even for the benefit of the
murderer himself that he is killed because this saves him from committing a crime that would
cause a rebirth in hell for many lifetimes. Is it then possible to claim that Buddhism admits,
for instance, the possibility of a “just war”? Moreover, according to the view of Mahayana
Buddhism the phenonema of our world are illusory products of our mind that do not really
exist: they are “void” or “empty”. Does this mean that killing too does not “really” take place,
and if so, what consequences does this have?
The scenarios outlined above are not mere speculations. In history there have been cases in
which Buddhists had to deal with these dilemmas. The Indian emperor Ashoka (3rd century
BCE) converted to Buddhism and came to be regarded as an ideal Buddhist dharmaraja
whose model was emulated by later Buddhist rulers of Asia. Some of Ashoka’s edicts explain
his attitude towards violence and war. Cut into rocks and addressed to the public in his empire
and in neighbouring countries, these edicts provide interesting insights into both the rhetoric
of self-presentation and the historical reality of kingship. In a famous rock edict Ashoka, the
“Beloved of the Gods” as he is labelled in the edicts, describes himself as a powerful ruler
who was successful and relentless at war, but then felt remorse, is now trying to avoid
violence, advocates law and rightfulness, and considers the “conquest through the dharma” to
be the only legitimate kind of conquest. The edict exhibits an interesting blend of an
apologetic sentiment and a demonstration of power and creates a delicate balance between
being an ideal king and being a good Buddhist. Moreover, Ashoka expressly sets the
standards for future generations of kings: like him, they should strive for dharma conquests
instead of military conquests.
Nevertheless, literature and history show that Ashoka’s solution has not been accepted by all
Buddhists. In countries like Sri Lanka there have been martial conflicts in the name of
Buddhism, quite contrary to the spirit of Ashoka’s edicts. As a consequence of the dilemmas
of kingship some Buddhist philosophers have stated that since a king cannot avoid violence, it
is better not to be a king at all; as the famous philosopher Aryadeva has put it: “Someone who
is not a fool does not become king”.
SOURCE MATERIAL FOR
“VIOLENT PROTECTORS? ON WAR AND NON-VIOLENCE IN THE BUDDHIST TRADITIONS”
EMPEROR ASHOKA (3RD CENTURY BCE), ROCK EDICT XIII
“The country of the Kalingas was conquered for (...) the Beloved of the Gods eighty years
after his coronation. One hundred and fifty thousands of beings were deported, one hundred
thousand were killed, and many times that number perished.
After that, now that the country of the Kalingas has been conquered, the Beloved of
the Gods is devoted to a thorough consideration of the dharma, to a longing for the dharma,
and to the instruction in the dharma. Now, this is due to the regret of the Beloved of the Gods
about having conquered the Kalingas.
Verily, the slaughter, death and deportation of men, which take place in the course of
the conquest of an unconquered country, are now considered extremely painful and deplorable
by the Beloved of the Gods. But what is considered even more deplorable by the Beloved of
the Gods is the fact that injury or slaughter or deportation has happened to Brahmins, ascetics,
the adherents of other religious groups and the householders who live in that country and
among whom are established such virtues as obedience to their superiors, obedience to mother
and father, obedience to elders, and courtesy and firm devotion to friends, acquaintances,
companions and relatives as well as to the slaves and servants. (...)
Now the Beloved of the Gods thinks that even if someone should wrong him that
would be forgiven if it is possible to forgive it. And even the forest-people living in the
dominion of the Beloved of the Gods he entreats and exhorts (to respect the law). It is hereby
explained that, in spite of his repentance, the Beloved of the Gods possesses power (to punish
them), so that they should turn away (from evil deeds) and not be killed (for their offences).
Verily, the Beloved of the Gods desires non-violence, restraint, impartiality and
mildness towards all creatures. So the conquest through dharma is now considered to be the
best conquest. (...)
And this record relating to dharma has been written for the following purpose: that my
sons and great-grandsons should not think of any fresh conquest as something worth of
achieving, that they should adopt forbearance and light punishment when they achieve a
conquest, and that they should regard the conquest through dharma as the true conquest. (...)”