"Is violence justified in Theravada Buddhism?" by Mahinda Deegalle

I recently happened across the paper entitled Is violence justified in Theravada Buddhism? by Dr Mahinda Deegalle, Senior Lecturer: Study of Religions at Bath Spa University. In this paper he seeks to answer a number of questions regarding violence including "Is there anything within Theravada scriptures or practice advocating violence?" (He mentions that his main purpose is to explore these questions "in relation to Buddhism in Sri Lanka.")

He first brings up a good question: What exactly is meant by violence? As I've noted in previous blog entries, some people in the west have had a bit of a tendency to trivialize the definition of violence by declaring practically anything they don't like as "violence." Mahinda writes:

The first question is, what do we mean by violence? How should we define it? What are its boundaries? In particular, what does it mean in English? Is it something very vague? In modern usage "violence" is used very broadly to include a wide range of negative human actions harmful to other living beings, living organisms, ecosystems and environment. While physical assault can be taken as its primary meaning, it also includes minor violations such as verbal abuse. In texts, violence can be understood primarily as physical assault and killing.

So it's pretty clear here that we're talking about assault and killing, and not overuse of non-renewable resources or some other broad or trivial definition convenient to certain western writers intent on hyperbole.

So what do the texts actually say?

Though Pali canonical texts do not contain explicit evidence to support violence or remarks to justify violence, a certain genre of post-canonical literature, for example, one of the Pali Chronicles, the Mahavamsa of Mahanama, composed in Sri Lanka in the 5th century, unfortunately contains a narrative which disturbs the pacifist image of Theravada Buddhism. Though the intention of this particular monastic author is open to debate, this isolated reference is problematic when placed within the early Buddhist Pali canonical corpus of texts. This narrative gives the impression that, in certain circumstances when the ultimate end is noble, the use of a certain degree of violence will not harm the Buddha's doctrine of non-violence and the path of pacifism.

So to get right to the point, the part of the Mahavimsa that's most problematic is this:

The Mahavamsa states (25:104) that the arahants (i.e. the "worthy of reverence", people who have reached the stage before nirvana) in Piyangudipa, knowing Dutthagamani's remorse, sent a group of eight holy monks to comfort him; when Dutthagamani confessed that he had slaughtered millions, what they said to him to eliminate his remorse is highly problematic:

"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)

This is a rather shocking thing to have in any remotely "Buddhist" document. Even killing animals is considered to be killing in Buddhism, so it seems rather odd that this passage would, in addition to trying to liken people to animals, suggest that killing these animal-like people would somehow be without consequence.

This is also the first I've ever really heard of any Buddhist calling anyone an "unbeliever." In my view, people in Buddhism often believe some of it and don't believe some of it. People of other religions often have some degree of Right View even if they still believe many things that are Wrong View. So this idea of people either being "believers" or "unbelievers" is kind of bizarre to me.

Needless to say, I won't be looking to the Mahavimsa for any sort of inspiration or understanding of Dhamma.

Dr. Deegalle goes on to point out many examples of anti-violent messages in the Tipitaka. Finally he concludes with:

Through a close examination of three textual resources, we can see that a Buddhist cannot justify violence under any circumstance. Examining a pervasive myth used for violence, we perceive that the position of the Pali Chronicles, the Mahavamsa, is rather contradictory to the fundamental Buddhist teachings of the Pali Canon."

The only thing I really disagree with him on is that Buddhism is somehow about being able to or not being able to "justify" things. The idea of justification is more of a legal or social term in my mind. Dhamma talks about cause-and-effect. Whether you can think of some way to "justify" your violence, it's going to have some negative consequence that is highly unbeneficial to you. There's no way around it.

So though I'd say that a Buddhist could think of a way to "justify" violence, the "justification" couldn't be from Dhamma, and this person must experience the consequences of their act of violence according to the Dhamma. As Major General Ananda Weerasekera says:

However it should be stressed that a soldier like all others is subject to the law of Kamma and will not escape the Kammic fruits of "taking the Life" of a sentient being (panatipatha) even though he may have had the overall noble intention of protecting his country and his people.

So though I disagree with Dr. Deegalle's framing of things in terms of "justification," I completely agree that there's nothing in Dhamma that says that people will somehow avoid facing the negative consequences for acts of violence in certain situations.