Staff Legends 91
vealing their familiarity with its etiological myth. On another level, martial dei-
ties such as Vajrapâÿi exonerated the monks from their responsibility for the
creation of military techniques. In this respect their legends could be read as
Buddhist apologies for the monastic exercise of violence.
As Paul Demiéville has shown, Buddhists, like other people, have found
ways to justify violating their own principles.^30 Even though the religion up-
holds peace, its vast literature contains an entire arsenal of justifications for
war. One sutra tells how the Buddha in a previous life killed several Brah-
mins who were slandering Mahâyâna teachings. The text explains that in any
case they were each an icchântika—one incapable of salvation.^31 Another
sutra has the Bodhisattva Mañjušrî lift his spear against the Buddha to dem-
onstrate the illusory nature of all things. Since everything is emptiness,
Mañjušrî and the Buddha are equally unreal, and neither crime, nor perpe-
trator, nor victim could exist.^32 Another ingenious excuse is “compassionate
killing.” When no other way to prevent a crime is available, it is permissible to
kill the would-be criminal, relieving him of bad karma and punishment in
the afterlife. Two sutras have the Buddha in a previous life kill a bandit who
is about to commit murder. Instead of enduring tortures in hell, the bandit is
then reborn in heaven. Such “compassionate killing” is acceptable only when
it is motivated by pure intentions, namely when one knowingly shoulders
upon himself the future punishment that awaited the would-be sinner, as
Asaæga (fourth or fifth century) emphasizes in his Bodhisattva-bhûmi:
“If I take the life of this sentient being, I myself may be reborn as one of
the creatures of hell. Better that I be reborn a creature of hell than that
this living being having committed a deed of immediate retribution,
should go straight to hell.” With such an attitude, the Bodhisattva
ascertains that the thought is virtuous or indeterminate and then,
feeling constrained, with only a thought of mercy for the consequence,
he takes the life of that living being. There is no fault, but a spread of
much merit.^33These excuses for violence did not emerge in the ephemeral world of Buddhist
ethical discourse, but in response to historical conditions of warfare that em-
broiled the monastic community. When pacifism was deemed impractical,
Buddhist authors found ways to condone war. Medieval Indian Buddhists re-
sponded to interstate violence by endorsing the king’s duty to wage war in de-
fense of his subjects,^34 and as recently as World War II, “compassionate killing”
was invoked by the rival Asian powers. The Japanese employed the Buddhist
concept to justify their invasion of China, and the Chinese used it to sanction
their resistance. Chinese monks who had been trained as martial artists even
joined the guerrillas that fought the Japanese aggressors.^35
Drawing on mythology rather than philosophy, Shaolin’s justification of
violence is different. Instead of hair-splitting arguments, it is a martial god’s