Is violence justified in Theravada Buddhism?

Ecumenical Review, The, April, 2003 by Mahinda Deegalle

Is there a place for violence in Theravada Buddhism? This question is often raised when various recent events are examined in relation to the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka and the genocide of 2-3 million Khmers (mostly Buddhists) between 1975 and 1979 by Poi Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. (1) Both Sri Lanka and Cambodia are primarily Theravada Buddhist societies and in the last three decades both countries have witnessed a great deal of physical violence and abuse of human rights. While the violence can be attributed to various political problems, civil unrest, growth of communist thinking and fanatical armed groups, corrupt politicians and poor economic infrastructures, at least in the case of Sri Lanka ethnic prejudices are the pre-eminent cause for the turmoil and recent violent struggle.

As a Buddhist, can one justify any form of violence, whether verbal or physical, whether directed towards the destruction of Buddhists or non-Buddhists? Is there a Theravada attitude towards violence? Either historically or socially, have Theravada Buddhists advocated violence? Is there anything within Theravada scriptures or practice advocating violence? How should Theravada Buddhists react in the face of violence in the modern world? Should they resort to violence? Or should they let others perpetuate violence themselves? All these are practical questions when Buddhists and Buddhist practices come to face to face with situations in today's world. The purpose of this paper is to examine these questions in light of doctrinal discussions and recent events in Buddhist history in Theravada Sri Lanka.

I will begin by addressing the three points mentioned by Hans Ucko in his invitation letter to the St Petersburg consultation in February 2002. For our reflections as a community of scholars and practitioners of interfaith dialogue, Ucko identified the following three issues: two are "universal" affirmations with regard to the broad category of "religion" and its relationship with "violence" in the modern world, and the third is a question for us to explore: (1) "Every religion is against violence", (2) "We live in a world of violence", and (3) "Is there a place for justifying violence in our religious traditions?" My main purpose here is to explore the last issue in relation to Buddhism in Sri Lanka.

Buddhism has studied the relative value of the use of force (2) in the case of a single parent, whose only concern is his or her child's future welfare. In moulding the character of the child to make him or her a civilized citizen, the parent would use a little force to discipline the naughty child if he is naughty, in the hope of achieving a higher and noble goal. What I am trying to convey is that a certain degree of mental and physical pain is inevitable and allowed in achieving a satisfactory goal for the welfare of everyone in society at large. If one has the best interests of a child at heart, one has to take measures to ensure that the child grows up in a conducive and positive environment. It does not mean necessarily that the parent should resort to corporal punishment from the very beginning in order to discipline the child. But the child's knowledge of the possibility of physical force, indeed, may prevent him or her from many misdeeds. For a well-behaved child, even verbal pressure would not be necessary. Nevertheless, the parent should keep in mind that one first has to establish what is proper (3) before guiding the child to the correct action.

At the outset, I should reiterate that there is no direct validation of violence, verbal or physical, within Theravada canonical scriptures. However, at least one post canonical work--the Mahavamsa of Mahanama, a Pali chronicle of the 5th century CE--contains a controversial reference to physical violence at times of civil war and conflict in Sri Lanka which will be discussed in detail later. Here, however, notwithstanding that controversial issue, it is important to emphasize that any resort to violence in Theravada communities is against the Theravada norm prescribed by the Buddha. Violence cannot be used either as a path or goal because of the Buddhist conviction, well expressed in the Dhammapada (v.5) that "hatred is never ceased by hatred". As demonstrated in this paper, thus, it is hard to attribute the slightest importance to violence, even as a means to an end.

In theory and in practice Theravada Buddhism does not and should not profess violence, since the basic tenets of Buddhism are completely against imposing pain on oneself or others. There is no room for violence in the doctrine. Whatever violence is found in so-called Buddhist societies is merely a deviation from the doctrine of the Buddha and a misinterpretation of the Buddha's valuable message or not leading one's life in accordance with the Buddha's teachings.

In this paper, I will use three types of examples to illustrate Buddhist attitudes towards violence: (1) The Pali Canon: This canon is more authentic for Theravada Buddhists than the following two resources since they believe that it contains the word(s) of the Buddha (Buddhavacana) and his message of human liberation from suffering as can be seen through the lives and practices of his noble disciples. (2) The Pali Chronicles, written in Sri Lanka from the 4th century CE onwards, are taken into consideration by scholars in reconstructing the history of Buddhism and the historical events of Sri Lanka. They are quasi historical since they are monastic chronicles highlighting sectarian conflicts among monastic fraternities and monastic achievements in other civil matters; as books of an influential literary corpus within Sri Lanka among Buddhists and outside Sri Lanka within Western scholarship on Buddhism, they focus on the role of Buddhism, Buddhist institutions, and monastic fraternities and their relationships with the king and the state of Sri Lanka. It is rather ironic that they were composed in Pali rather than in Sinhala, the vernacular language of most inhabitants in modern Sri Lanka. As I will illustrate below, certain violent narratives in the Pali Chronicles raise crucial moral dilemmas for readers, whether they are Buddhist or not. The issues they raise and focus on are practical and the solutions they suggest are also utilitarian and contextual. (3) Finally, the vast Sinhala Medieval Literature which was composed from the 13th century onward for the consumption of Sinhala speakers is religious and Buddhist in nature rather than being nationalistic.