"Is it possible to exercise rulership... righteously?"

The Raja Sutta (SN 4.20) is interesting, because therein the Buddha asks a question yet doesn't seem to provide the direct answer.

Now, I haven't read the entire Pali Canon, but I have read much of the Sutta Pitaka, and this seems to be a rather rare occurrence.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Kosalans in a wilderness hut in a Himalayan district. Then, as he was alone in seclusion, this train of thought arose in his awareness: "Is it possible to exercise rulership without killing or causing others to kill, without confiscating or causing others to confiscate, without sorrowing or causing others sorrow — righteously?"

So, is it possible to rule without killing or confiscating, not even causing others to sorrow? Buddhism mostly avoids political directives or implications, which makes this an interesting question.

Just off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure that the answer is generally "no." Governments basically exist to physically defend people from harm, and it somehow seems inevitable that at some point this will involve killing. Certainly a government could refrain from military conquest, but it seems unlikely that a country could defend itself from an invasion without the intent to kill.

In Getting the Message, Ajahn Geoff (Thanissaro Bhikkhu) mentions:

"If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill."
...
"In no recorded instance did [the Buddha] approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone."

I trust Ajahn Geoff's scholarship on this issue. It can never be skillful to kill, but it is implied that self-defense might be permissible if there's no intention to kill involved. Sadly, it's hard for me to realistically imagine any sort of military situation, even a defensive one, without the intent to kill. Perhaps you might have an army (as a wheel-turning monarch is known to have) for the sake of deterrence, but ultimately I don't know that it could be employed without the intention to kill. Avoiding intentional killing here would have to depend on deterring attack and maintaining peaceful relations with other nations. Since the later is not always possible due to one's inability to control others, the former is likely critical. And if you find yourself unsure whether a larger army is a better deterrent or just encourages conflict, the suttas won't help you there.

Additionally you have the case where the police in your country may need to deal with someone on a murderous rampage, and it may be difficult or impossible to do so without killing. The police might use non-lethal weapons, but these are often not feasible. Therefore, here again it seems like the only way to deal with this righteously is to prevent such situations from happening in the first place. This is perhaps impossible on a national level. Simply ignoring the rampaging murderer is not likely to work either, as the citizens will certainly demand a government that deals with such situations somehow.

Regarding confiscation, it could be argued that any taxation is a form of confiscation. One might try to resolve this issue by requiring all citizens to formally agree to contribute their tax money, or face imprisonment. You might also argue that tax laws constitute an implicit agreement on the part of all citizens to pay their taxes. Overall this strikes me as a civil issue, not something that Buddhism addresses. Ultimately the main thing I see suggested here is that property can't be taken without some form of agreement, but it is not clear whether someone might be imprisoned until they agree, or whether the person has some right to participation in government (such as via a democratic process). In any case, it seems possible to meet this requirement somehow. Of course, however that is done might be said to cause sorrow. Overall the situation isn't looking very hopeful for our righteous rule.

Continuing with the sutta:

Then Mara, the Evil One, knowing with his awareness the train of thought in the Blessed One's awareness, went to him and on arrival said to him: "Exercise rulership, Blessed One! Exercise rulership, O One Well-gone! — without killing or causing others to kill, without confiscating or causing others to confiscate, without sorrowing or causing others sorrow — righteously!"

At this point we should be getting suspicious, because Mara says this idea makes sense.

"But what do you see in me, Evil One, that you say to me, 'Exercise rulership, Blessed One! Exercise rulership, O One Well-gone! — without killing or causing others to kill, without confiscating or causing others to confiscate, without sorrowing or causing others sorrow — righteously!'?"

"Lord, the Blessed One has developed the four bases of power, pursued them, handed them the reins and taken them as a basis, given them a grounding, steadied them, consolidated them, and undertaken them well. If he wanted to, he could resolve on the Himalayas, king of mountains, as gold, and it would become a mountain of gold."

Of course. All we need is a mountain of gold, then everyone will be happy. Nobody will have hatred or desire to kill, and it won't be necessary to confiscate or collect taxes. Greed will be eliminated. After all, we have a mountain of gold, right? Furthermore, how could there be any sorrow like this?

So, will a mountain of gold make this righteous rule possible?

[The Buddha:]

The entirety
of a mountain of gold,
of solid bullion:
even twice that
wouldn't suffice
for one person.
Knowing this,
live evenly,
in tune with the contemplative life.

When you see stress,
and from where it comes,
how can you incline
to sensual pleasures?
Knowing acquisition
to be a bond in the world,
train for
its subduing.

Then Mara the Evil One — sad & dejected at realizing, "The Blessed One knows me; the One Well-gone knows me" — vanished right there.

The rest of this sutta seems clear to me. Mara is trying to suggest that a mountain of gold would allow one to rule without killing, without taking, and without sorrow. The Buddha wisely points out that even twice a mountain per person wouldn't eliminate the greed, hatred, and delusion needed to rule in such a righteous manner. True liberation lies not in power, wealth, or politics, but in individually understanding the Four Noble Truths.

Though the Buddha may still have been able to resolve these political problems better than I, we are exceedingly fortunate that he decided to become a Buddha and not a king.