Have Buddhists ever went to war?

Tosh

I'm reading Awake Magazine, Jan 2011; it's a Jehovah's Witness publication (and this free magazine has the largest distribution in the World, so I'm told) and the first item is called, Is Religion a Force for Peace?

Well,on page 3 it says:

-----------------------------------------------
From Indonesia to Northern Ireland, the Middle East to Kashmir, India to Nigeria, the Balkans to Sri Lanka, Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs justify the use of violence on the grounds that they are protecting their religious identity and interests.
-----------------------------------------------

Now with regards to Buddhism, is it true that Buddhists have justified the use of violence on religious grounds?

I thought Buddhists have never participated in a religious war? I'm guessing the JWs either don't know, or wish to paint all other religions in a bad light, but I thought Buddhists had a pretty good 'score sheet' with regards Holy Wars.

Can I ask what are your views, if any?

caz

Oh yes Buddhists have gone to war, Although bear in mind Buddha doesnt justify war The Tibetan sects used to fight each other all the time the Dalai lamas lead armies to crush other sects etc. the Zen where big on killing each other.

Dharma doesnt justify this human delusion does though.

Tosh

Caz, that makes me smile. As an ex soldier myself, I can't imagine the modern HH sat on a horse with a sword in his hand about to charge an enemy.

I'd like to read about Buddhist wars though; purely out of interest; have you any recommended reading?

caz

Caz, that makes me smile. As an ex soldier myself, I can't imagine the modern HH sat on a horse with a sword in his hand about to charge an enemy.

I'd like to read about Buddhist wars though; purely out of interest; have you any recommended reading?

I wouldnt reconmend reading that at all the bloody history of delusion over the Dharma makes me cry.

Simonthepilgrim

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/buddhistethics/war.shtml

* in the 14th century Buddhist fighters led the uprising that evicted the Mongols from China
* in Japan, Buddhist monks trained Samurai warriors in meditation that made them better fighters

In the twentieth century Japanese Zen masters wrote in support of Japan's wars of aggression. For example, Sawaki Kodo (1880–1965) wrote this in 1942:

"It is just to punish those who disturb the public order. Whether one kills or does not kill, the precept forbidding killing [is preserved]. It is the precept forbidding killing that wields the sword. It is the precept that throws the bomb."
(Sawaki Kodo)

In Sri Lanka the 20th century civil war between the mostly Buddhist Sinhalese majority and the Hindu Tamil minority has cost 50,000 lives.

genkaku

Tosh -- You might try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War. I'm not sure where to read up on Tibetan Buddhists who took up arms either when the Chinese came in or before.

One way or another, those interested in prosecuting wars always seem to have a propaganda thread that asserts "God is on our side" ... if only to the extent that they claim with the utmost sincerity that they are "right."

Claiming that one religion or another has never gone to war is a risky business at best. Which is worse -- war on the ground or its precursor, war in the heart?

thickpaper

I know from personal experience that Sri Lanka has, though technically it's not a war of religion. But it had pretty much the full support of the sri lankan religious community, which is deeply conencted with the politics.

But as I often say, the Noble Dharma is not the organised Buddhism. (Actually that;s the first time I have ever said that, but the gist is clear)

Mountains

Right you are, thickpaper. The dharma stands on its own. The rest of it is man made 'stuff' piled on top. Call me a "fundamentalist Buddhist" if you will, but I see all the pomp, ceremony, and most of all the politics as clouding the essential nature of the dharma. If we had less of that, I think we'd all be better off.

karmadorje

Strictly speaking, the Dalai Lama never led any troops into battle. He did however forge alliances with military leaders. His title is not Tibetan, it was given to him by the Mongolian king Altan Khan. The Secret Lives of the Dalai Lama by Alex Norman is worth reading. There are a few other titles in English about Tibetan history but this is a good place to start.

Dazzle

History certainly indicates that Tibet had civil war between rival Buddhist sects. See "The Story of Tibet -Conversations with the Dalai Lama" for some interesting information about this.

and also :

"The fifth Dalai Lama is known for unifying the Tibetan heartland under the control of the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism, after defeating the rival Kagyu and Jonang sects and the secular ruler, the Tsangpa prince, in a prolonged civil war. His efforts were successful in part because of aid from Gushi Khan, a powerful Oirat military leader. The Jonang monasteries were either closed or forcibly converted, and that school remained in hiding until the latter part of the 20th century."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tibet

Vincenzi

as Zen Buddhist and practitioner of Samurai-based martial arts: "ahimsa doesn't imply not defending yourself"

Oh yes Buddhists have gone to war, Although bear in mind Buddha doesnt justify war The Tibetan sects used to fight each other all the time the Dalai lamas lead armies to crush other sects etc. the Zen where big on killing each other.

Dharma doesnt justify this human delusion does though.

{{quotation needed}}

Jason

Now with regards to Buddhism, is it true that Buddhists have justified the use of violence on religious grounds?

I thought Buddhists have never participated in a religious war?

While there have certainly been cases where Buddhists have attempted to legitimize their violent behavior, such as many Japanese Buddhists during WWII, an objective look at the Buddha's discourses in the Pali Canon shows that there's absolutely no scriptural basis for violence or violent behavior whatsoever, and most of the justifications for the use of violence are either secular in nature or influenced by ideas foreign to Buddhism proper.

Buddhism, as with Jainism, is founded on the principle of ahimsa or harmlessness and non-violence.T he Buddha never condoned violence, going so far as to lay down rules expelling monks and nuns who even spoke in favour of killing. For example, from the Vinita Vatthu:

A bhikkhu [i.e., Buddhist monk] advises an executioner to kill his victims mercifully with a single blow, rather than torturing them. The executioner follows his advice, and the bhikkhu incurs a parajika [i.e., 'defeat,' expelled from the Sangha]. This judgment indicates that a bhikkhu should not involve himself in matters of this sort, no matter how humane his intentions.

Another example of the his teachings on non-violence from the discourses; although, in context, it's exaggerated example used illustrate the correct way to develop patience and maintain the five aspects of right speech even under trying conditions (MN 21):

Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves.

Of course, being human, 'Buddhists' are just as likely to commit acts of violence as anyone else, but I don't think their violent acts can be attributed to the Buddha's teachings or to Buddhism in general, and much of the collective use of violence by Buddhists hasn't historically been religiously motivated.

The recent war in Sri Lanka, for example, was an ethnic civil war between the predominately Sinhalese government and predominately Tamil separatist militant organization. This was a conflict that had its roots in the British colonization of Sri Lanka (Ceylon) and their importation of Tamil labourers from southern India to work in tea, coffee and coconut plantations (see Sri Lanka time line).

In regards to the corrupt military junta that rules Burma (Myanmar) with an iron fist, many of which are Buddhist, it's been the Buddhist monks in Burma who've actually lead the largest non-violent protests against the brutal and corrupt regime to date (see Saffron Revolution).

As for the abuse of Burmese refugees by Thai authorities, there's simply no excuse for that, but I think it stems more from Thailand's fears of Burma's military and their reliance on shared gas pipelines than anything else. The Thai authorities simply don't want to do anything that might antagonize Burma's ruling junta, which is a shame since this lack of compassion is directly opposed to the Buddha's teachings.

In the case of the Japanese Buddhists during WWII, much of their pro-nationalistic and pro-militaristic stance was influence by Japan's samurai warrior culture, which, taking elements of their native Shinto religion and Zen, and combining them with bushido (way of the warrior), lead to a religious philosophy that was able to justify (and even glorify) the use of violence.

That said, it's often assumed that Buddhists must be strict pacifists, but the Buddha never forbade kings or soldiers, even those actively engaged in warfare, from becoming lay-followers, so it certainly wasn't a requirement (although he certainly didn't approve of their actions, either). He also didn't say that one shouldn't defend oneself when necessary. Nevertheless, pacifism is definitely inline with the first precept and the principle of harmlessness. In fact, I think Thanissaro Bhikkhu makes a pretty good case for this in his essay "Getting the Message." Matthew Kosuta also makes a good case for this in his paper, "The Buddha and the Four-Limbed Army: The Military in the Pali Canon".

Tosh

Hey, thanks for the replies; it's intersting and I'll certainly check out those links now.

Thanks.

being

Of course, being human, 'Buddhists' are just as likely to commit acts of violence as anyone else, but I don't think their violent acts can be attributed to the Buddha's teachings or to Buddhism in general, and much of the collective use of violence by Buddhists hasn't historically been religiously motivated.

This pretty much sums up my understanding. There are many people who claim to be Buddhist, but have no clue of the teaching (born into it for example). And also there are many people, who can perceive violent acts as Buddhist, when in reality they have nothing to do with Buddhism.
I don't think it's anything to worry about, tho.

footiam

Buddhists wars, if there is any, is not like the Crusades where it is all done in the name of religion. If there is a war involving the Buddhists in China and Japan for example, it is in the name of the country and the race, which is why I think the magazine is just being ignorant and this of course, is not surprising.

Ficus_religiosa

@footiam

You are wrong. Several times during the rise of Mahayana did different clans try to take over large/r areas through violence - a war in the name of Mahayana.
Other examples have been given above.

I agree that the Dharma shouldn't be blamed

Roger

Read the Dharma and find the passages which advise Buddhists to exclude, eliminate, convert, proselytize, or intimidate different races, creeds or religions.

My guess there's nothing. Other religious texts are not so lucky.

Of course such negative thinking, even if it's subtle, can be more readily interpreted to incite followers to organized killing and war.

My $0.02. :coffee:

Simonthepilgrim

I think that we should not be too ready to absolve Buddhists from using their beliefs to justify warfare. Let us admit that Buddhism, like any other -ism, can be twisted into more or less any shape. Our brothers and sisters in the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), in the UK, are 'institutionally' pacifist and have opposed the two current wars, whereas I understand that the US branches of the same belief family do not necessarily take the same position.

We do not need to twist facts or become defensive to uphold the Dharma and the principle of harmlessness.

[DeletedUser]

Violent never would bring peace and it creates future karmic of violence.

It reminded a story about the massacre of the Sakya clansmen by the Crystal King (Virudhaka). Before the advent of Sakyamuni Buddha, there was near Kapila town a village inhabited by fishermen, and in it was a big pond. It happened that because of a great drought, the pond ran dry and all the fish were caught and eaten by the villagers. The last fish taken was a big one and before it was killed, a boy who never ate fish, played with it and thrice knocked its head. Later, after Sakyamuni Buddha's appearance in this world, King Prasenajit who believed in the Buddha-dharma, married a Sakya girl who then gave birth to a prince called Crsytal. When he was young, Crystal had his schooling in Kapila which was then inhabited by the Sakya clansmen. One day while playing, the boy ascended to the Buddha's seat and was reprimanded by others who dragged him down. The boy cherished a grudge against the men and when he became king, he led his soldiers to attack Kapila, killing all its inhabitants. At the same time, the Buddha suffered from a headache which lasted three days. When His disciples asked Him to rescue the poor inhabitants, the Buddha replied that a fixed Karma could not be changed. By means of his miraculous powers, Maudgalyayana rescued five hundred Sakya clansmen and thought he could give them refuge in his own bowl which was raised up in the air. When the bowl was brought down, all the men had been turned into blood. When asked by His chief disciples, the Buddha related the story (kung an) of the villagers who in days gone by had killed all the fish (in their pond); King Crystal had been the big fish and his soldiers the other fish in the pond; the inhabitants of Kapila who were now killed had been those who ate the fish; and the Buddha Himself had been the boy who thrice knocked the head of the big fish. (Karma was) now causing Him to suffer from a headache for three days in retribution for his previous act. Since there colud be no escape from the effects of a fixed Karma, the five hundred Sakya clansmen, although rescued by Maudgalyayana, shared the same fate. Later, King Crystal was reborn in a hell. (As cause produces effect which in turn becomes a new cause) the retribution (theory) is inexhaustible. The law of causality is really very dreadful.

footiam

@footiam

You are wrong. Several times during the rise of Mahayana did different clans try to take over large/r areas through violence - a war in the name of Mahayana.
Other examples have been given above.

I agree that the Dharma shouldn't be blamed

That's news! Haven't heard or read this stuff before. Care to tell more like where and when it happened. Anyway, in a case like this, the basic precepts of thou should not kill has clearly been broken. The war, seemingly is not fought for Buddhism in general but Mahayana Buddhism, which at that time must be something new. Even then, since it is the different clans that were fighiting, it sounds more like a clanish kind of thing, all done in the name of religion. Even then, when it has violated the basic precept, it is clearly isn't a very Buddhist thing to do. That probably too is the dark and decaying age of Buddhism that one often read about.

CoffeeBean

That's the first I heard of anyone going to war in the name of Mahayana Buddhism.
The closest that comes to mind as far as any warring Buddhists go, involves practitioners of Bushido.

havamar

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/buddhism_criticism.html

Kartari

In the twentieth century Japanese Zen masters wrote in support of Japan's wars of aggression. For example, Sawaki Kodo (1880–1965) wrote this in 1942:

"It is just to punish those who disturb the public order. Whether one kills or does not kill, the precept forbidding killing [is preserved]. It is the precept forbidding killing that wields the sword. It is the precept that throws the bomb."
(Sawaki Kodo)

Japan during the Meiji restoration was a very dark time for Buddhism. Buddhism was condemned and persecuted. Those "Buddhists" who survived did so by condemning traditional Zen as "backwards" and adopting westernization, emperor worship, and nationalism as their real philosophy. After WW2, Zen was revived to its original tradition.

Kartari

Though there are examples of warfare conducted in the name of Buddhism, they are relatively few and far in between as compared to most other religions. Christianity and Islam together would certainly share the first place award for most people murdered in the name of religion. Tibet had its more warrior-like past, but then again, for centuries they maintained more benevolent aims and shrank their military dramatically in time... which became the main problem when China invaded and conquered Tibet in the early 1950's.

havamar

Buddhists are completely pacifist when not at war.

Tekchef

Always keep this in mind-
No matter how great a teaching of any sort can be, someone can warp/twist what is said and justify their actions. EVERY faith sometime in their past when such people did this, usually for their own gain of money or power.
This is why Gautama gave us a warning about following blindly. Even as Buddhists, we should question when a leader starts doing things that are questionable..even if the person in question is highly respected. In our case, if a "Buddhist" leader starts beating the drums of war, for example, we need to ask ourselves "Is this the way of the 8 fold path and the Four Noble Truths?"