surroundings, while still basing his actions on Buddhist
ethical foundations, which for pragmatic reasons had
come to accommodate the needs of Indian realpolitik.
The first precept against killing mentioned above
emphatically rejects the notion that somebody could
become actively involved in a war without violating ba-
sic Buddhist tenets. This category tends to orthodoxy,
and would not sanction compromises in the form of
mechanisms undermining the precept of nonviolence
for the sake of success in mundane affairs. Typically,
compassion too is considered important, yet its in-
compatibility with violent actions is taken for granted.
Buddhist royal politics that included guidelines for
warfare could not evolve from this first position, as it
could under the second pragmatic approach outlined
above. In the final analysis, to be a Buddhist meant to
refrain from any responsibilities or actions involving
violence, let alone warfare.
CANDRAKIRTI, a seventh-century Buddhist philoso-
pher, consequently judges a king’s presence on the bat-
tlefield as highly untoward, given that he “rushes
around with rage and without affection, raising the
weapon directed to the enemy’s head in order to kill
without any affection towards the other men” (Zim-
mermann, pp. 207–208). And a commentary on the
ABHIDHARMAKOS ́ABHASYA, an extremely influential
Buddhist treatise of the fifth century C.E., states that
even a soldier who has not killed anybody in a war is
guilty, since he and his comrades have been inciting
each other, and it would not matter who, in the last
instance, has killed the enemy (Harvey, p. 254).
An even more orthodox approach is found in the
FANWANG JING(BRAHMA’SNETSUTRA), a sutra most
probably composed in Central or East Asia, which ex-
pounds the bodhisattva ideal. This text categorically
forbids killing, ordering others to kill, and, with great
forethought, the possession of weapons, contact with
armies, and the instigation to war (Heinemann, pp.
114–123).
Compassionate killing
Given the plurality of positions described above, it is
not surprising that Asia has experienced wars that have
been fought on the basis of Buddhist arguments. It
must be said, however, that these wars reached a de-
gree of intensity and extent far lower than those wit-
nessed by Christianity or Islam. Similarly, history
knows of no ruler who engaged in war on the pretext
of spreading Buddhism into non-Buddhist regions.
However, one should not ignore the fact that Buddhist
texts can be interpreted so as to serve as a reservoir of
arguments for the justification of territorial expansion
or economic and nation-building ambitions. Like most
religious doctrines, Buddhist teachings can be turned
into effective instruments in pursuit of highly mun-
dane interests.
In Zen at War(1997), Brian Victoria demonstrates
how the leaders and chief ideologists of Japan’s Bud-
dhist denominations hoped to gain the military gov-
ernment’s sympathy before and during World War II
by providing them with interpretations of scriptures
that supported the country’s war of expansion (pp.
79–94). The notion of a “war of compassion” appears
frequently in their arguments. Such a “war which also
benefits one’s enemy” (pp. 86–91) was supposed to
put an end to injustice and lawlessness and promote
the advancement of society. One was not to go off and
fight out of hatred or anger but—like a father pun-
ishing his child—out of compassion. To fight for a
good reason would thus be in accord with the “great
benevolence and compassion of Buddhism” (p. 87).
The war’s purpose would determine its rightfulness.
In practice, however, this “just war” theory, based on
Buddhist arguments, could easily be used to justify any
armed conflict.Other examples from the history of Buddhist coun-
tries that engaged in warfare might be added. Yet it
must not be forgotten that besides the two Nobel lau-
reates mentioned earlier, there is an incalculable num-
ber of individuals and organizations worldwide who,
inspired by living Buddhist masters and the whole of
the Buddhist tradition, take a clear stand in favor of a
peace policy that advocates strict nonviolence as the
only noble path.See also: Colonialism and Buddhism; Kingship;
Modernity and Buddhism; Monastic Militias; Na-
tionalism and Buddhism; Politics and BuddhismBibliography
Bareau, André. “Le Bouddha et les rois.” Bulletin de l’École
Française d’Extrême-Orient80, no. 1 (1993): 15–39.
Collins, Steven. Nirvana and Other Buddhist Felicities: Utopias
of the Pali Imaginaire.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1998.
Cowell, Edward B., ed. The Jataka: Or, Stories of the Buddha’s
Former Births,6 vols., 1895–1907. Vol. 5 tr. Robert Chalmers.
London: Pali Text Society, 1906.
Demiéville, Paul. “Le Bouddhisme et la guerre.” In Choix d’
Études Bouddhiques.Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1973.WAR