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 warfarereligious 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
  killingabstain from violence or killing.
• The second precept refrain from appropriating
  others 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 passionother people to
  kill themselves (Vinayapitaka III71-74)
• They should not even drink or pour out water
  containing tiny animals (Vin IV49)
• They should not even destroy seeds or plants
  (Vin IV34)

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 IV105-107)

5
Scriptures reference to lay followers violent
behavior

• Characterization of lay followers violent
  behavior
• Cruel, bloody, merciless habitual killing
• Buddhas denial of heroic death
• A warrior dies a heros death wont 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 Buddhas Teaching Pacificism?

• Buddhas 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

• Buddhas seeming ambiguity leaves a room for
  interpreting Buddhas 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 Buddhas
  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 Buddhas teaching that
  advise them to punish whoever subverts their
  religion