Is violence justified in Theravada Buddhism?

   "From this deed arises no hindrance in thy way to heaven. Only one
   and a half human beings have been slain here by thee, O lord of men.
   The one had come unto the (three) refuges, the other had taken on
   himself the five precepts. Unbelievers and men of evil life were the
   rest, not more to be esteemed than beasts. But as for thee, thou
   wilt bring glory to the doctrine of the Buddha in manifold ways;
   therefore cast away care from thy heart, O ruler of men!" Thus
   exhorted by them the great king took comfort. (Mahavamsa 25:109-112)

As this Mahavamsa passage demonstrates, Dutthagamani's remorse is eliminated by being told that killing "evil unbelievers" carries no more weight than killing animals. As practitioners of "loving kindness" (metta), Buddhists have an obligation to protect all forms of life. It is important to note that killing not only human beings but even animals is not encouraged in Buddhism. (7) When contrasted with canonical doctrines and early Buddhist practices, the position of this 5th-century chronicle is rather controversial. This passage in the Mahavamsa seems to suggest that certain forms of violence such as killings during war can be allowed in certain circumstances such as in the case of threats to the survival of Buddhism in Sri Lanka during the time of Dutthagamani. However, it is hard to justify this Mahavamsa position either through Buddhist practice or doctrinal standpoint as found in the Pali Canon of the Theravada Buddhists.

Yet, an alternative explanation of this "rehabilitation strategy" is also possible. This unusual statement can be interpreted differently as an instance of a means to an end. In the long run, it would not help the Buddhist monastic community to keep the victorious king in remorse or in a depressed condition. Rather than aggravating the situation, as spiritual advisers the monastic community should have made every effort to console the king. Up to that moment, whatever bad actions the king had committed became his own karma. The monastic community as a group could not change his past karma, but as a community who believed in free will and individual effort it was possible for them to channel the king in a positive direction: their rehabilitation strategy was to identify that positive dimension, a sphere of potential growth and creativity. However, the unforeseen consequence of that strategy was a "gross calculation" of the victims of war as "only one and a half human beings" and "unbelievers and men of evil life".

Nevertheless, this reductionistic explanation is problematic for Theravada Buddhist teachings and traditions. Justifying that killing Tamils during the war is not a papa (i.e. sin, evil) is a grave mistake even if it was used in the Mahavamsa as a means to an end. Such violations of the tolerant sensibilities found within post-canonical Pali Chronicles cannot be justified since Buddhist scriptures do not maintain that the severity of one's negative acts varies depending on one's caste, race or ethnic group.