Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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. (...)”