WAR
The list of the laureates of the Nobel Peace Prize in the
twentieth century contains the names of two well-
known Buddhist activists: Tenzin Gyatso (b. 1935), the
fourteenth DALAILAMAof Tibet, and Myanmar’s Aung
San Suu Kyi (b. 1945). Both have been deeply influ-
enced by the rich traditions of Buddhist teachings and
values. Their individual traditions may differ consid-
erably, yet common to both figures is their rigorous
stand against the employment of any kind of physical
violence in pursuit of their aims for their people: reli-
gious freedom for the people of Tibet on the one hand
and democratic structures and dignity for the people
of Myanmar on the other. War as a legitimate means
of acting in or reacting to a particular situation would
not seem to harmonize with their understanding and
practice of the Buddhist teaching. Nevertheless, history
has known Buddhist kings and monks who engaged in
warfare and, what is more telling, the transmitted lit-
erature of Buddhism is not devoid of stories and scat-
tered textual passages that display a less vehement
opposition to violence. Even warfare can, under cer-
tain circumstances, become a necessity.
The early times: Political neutrality
Hints about the political climate during the lifetime of
the Buddha and a feel for his convictions may be found
in the Pali canon of the THERAVADAtradition of Bud-
dhism. The first of the five major PRECEPTStaught by
the Buddha, to refrain from injuring or killing any liv-
ing being, would imply strict abstention from engaging
in warfare, where the immediate practical aim usually
involves the injury or annihilation of an enemy force.
When asked by a military leader about the belief that a
soldier who dies on the battlefield goes to heaven, the
Buddha disappoints him with his response: Such a sol-
dier will go to a specially prepared hell, owing to his
evil state of mind, as manifested in his exerting himself
to injure or kill his enemies (Samyuttanikaya,Wood-
ward, vol. 4, pp. 216–219). This view must be judged
as in sharp opposition to the dominant view of the time,
according to which it was the particular duty of a
ksatriya, a member of the warrior caste, to fight and, if
at all possible, to die on the battlefield. This would guar-
antee him the best karmic outcome.This radical denial of the warrior ethic on an indi-
vidual basis does not imply, however, that the Buddha
necessarily tried to persuade rulers (in the main,
ksatriya kings) to refrain from all military activity, be
it in defense of their realm or, as was the rule through-
out India’s history, in a war of aggression aimed at ex-
tending their territory. This may simply have been a
pragmatic response to the realpolitik of those days. The
rulers described in classical Indian literature, Machi-
avellian as they were, would hardly have welcomed a
sermon on current power politics, much less advice on
actual military operations, from a wandering ascetic.
André Bareau describes this relationship between the
spiritual power of the Buddha and the worldly con-
cerns of contemporary sovereigns as an “equilibrium
of forces” (p. 39). The Buddha would have realized the
futility of interference in royal affairs. Moreover, wan-
dering around the Ganges plain with his followers, he
was mindful of the need to foster good relations with
the rulers of the various realms in order to be granted
entry and right of abode in their territories. Involve-
ment in the political affairs of a neighboring kingdom
could raise suspicion and might eventually put the
whole community of his followers at risk.893