Violence and Buddhist Ethics

                                      

Contents

1.     Introduction: Violence and Buddhist Ethics

2.     Buddhist observation on violence or justification of violence

ü Killing

ü Euthanasia (mercy killing)

ü Suicide (Ordinary human being)

ü Offering of life

3.     Violence are exculpated in Buddhism in different circumstance

ü Give-up lifespan(Ayusanskhara)(the person of Noble One)

ü Unknowing or without intention

ü Psychological disorder

4.     Personal views on Violence and Buddhist ethics

5.     Conclusion

6.     End Notes

7.     Bibliography

Introduction  Violence and Buddhist Ethics

Sabbe tasanti dandassa - sabbe bhayanti maccuno
Attanam upamam katva - na haneyya na ghataye.

All tremble at the rod (punishment). All fear death.  Comparing others with oneself, one should neither strike nor cause to strike.

Buddhism has never justified violence, war or killing but if you kill some beings without intentionally or accidently, there won’t be bad Kamma. It’s because Buddha has mentioned as

Cetanāhaṃ, bhikkhave, kammaṃ vadāmi. cetayitvā kammaṃ karoti — kāyena vācāya manasā.[1]

"O! Bhikkhu monks, it is volition - cetana that I call Kamma, -having willed one acts through body - kaya kamma, speech - vaci kamma, or mind - mano kamma.

Therefore, if you do something with purposely that earns Kamma. Concerning in the modern world, violence is major problem. Many people tried to justify the violence with their own perceptive. Example:

War is a major problem in the world today. Number of innocent people die due to the war. The people who starts war as groups or organizations are recognized as terrorist. Therefore, generally people believes that kill those terrorists are justified as one methods of solving problem. (ISIS, LTTE, AL-QAUDA etc.)

Concerning about this matter with Buddhist ethics, Buddhism neither accept the terrorists as well as to kill those terrorists. According to Buddhist ethics

Sabbe tasanti dandassa - Sabbesam jivitam piyam
Attanam upamam katva - na haneyya na ghataye.

All tremble at the rod (punishment). Life is dear to all. Comparing others with oneself, one should neither strike nor cause to strike.

Either they are terrorists or ascetic, all they love their life, therefore kill or violence is not accepted in Buddhism. Sometimes mercy killings are trying to be justified but in Buddhism mercy and kill cannot go together but there are few circumstance where Buddhism says, the actions of killing or violence are exculpated. Ex:

Arahant Cakkhupala Thero (the blind Arahant monk) while he was doing walking meditating number of insects were killed without intentionally. In this circumstance the action of killing (without intentionally) was exculpated.  

In Vinaya Pitaka as rules “Monks were even allowed to eat raw meat and drink blood (Vin.I, 202-3), which apparently was believed to cure possession by evil spirits.” It is only if you are sick.

And additional example is if the person is mad (Ummathaka) then he is out of his mind in this circumstances if any violence were happened by him/ her is justified. In the modern Law also if suspects are mental disorder then his action are justified and send his mental hospital not a jail.

Buddhist observation on violence or justification of violence

While many religions accepts that killing on the name of God (allah hu akbar) is justified as well as its doesn’t make any sin if it is Halal, Buddhism rejects and replied that,

Sukha kamani bhutani - yo dandena vihimsati
Attano sukham esano - pecca so na labhate sukham.

He who seeks his own happiness by harming others who also desire to have happiness will not find happiness hereafter.

There are number of violence which are justified in current society on the name of religion, culture, and their own benefits.

Killing animal with fulfilling five conditions (walking on the sword etc.) is accepted in Islam. As well as sacrifice animal on the name of God in Hindu culture is accepted.

In Buddhism never justified to kill animal with intentionally. Further, it says even you have intention of Killing is sin. Therefore Buddhism rejects the violence not merely by action but your thoughts too. It says reflect on yourself, if that violence happened with you, what would you feel? Therefore do not harm others.

ü Killing

The Five Precepts are the basis of Buddhist morality. The first precept is to avoid killing or harming living beings. Someone tries to justify to kill disease-spreading insects as well as someone who is going to kill you. But Buddhism response that it might be good for you but what about that thing or that person? They wish to live just as you do. When you decide to kill a disease-spreading insect, your intention is perhaps a mixture of self-concern (good) and revulsion (bad). The act will benefit yourself (good) but obviously it will not benefit that creature (bad). So at times it may be necessary to kill but it is never wholly good.

In the text “Compassionate Killing or Conflict Resolution? The Murder of King Langdarma according to Tibetan Buddhist Sources” written by Jens Schlieter concern that according to Salisbury’s classical definition, a tyrant is a ruler who does not bow to the laws of God kept by the priests. A king turns into a tyrant if he refuses to obey the divine laws of nature and instead makes use of his power for his own purposes. Violence against him is fully justified if, in the end, he “raises his sword.” Whereas the true emperor merely by acting conformably proves to be a legitimate king, he by violating the laws of nature turns into Lucifer and should thus be killed.

In Buddhist perceptive killing or harming any being with action or thoughts are not accepted as well as not justified. Sabbesam Jivitam Piyam all they love to live.

ü Euthanasia ( Mercy killing)

Another name for Euthanasia is mercy killing which means people kill their pets on the grounds that they do not like to see the pets suffer. Buddhism does not support to the mercy killing and it doesn’t justified because Mercy and killing can never go together. When some people see their dogs or cats suffer from some skin disease, they arrange to kill those poor animals. They call this action, mercy killing. Actually it is not that they have mercy towards those animals, but they kill them for their own precaution and to get rid of an awful sight. And even if they do have real mercy towards a suffering animal, they still have no right to take away its life. No matter how sincere one may be, mercy killing, is not the correct approach. The consequences of this killing, however, are different from killing with hatred towards the animal. Buddhists have no grounds to say that any kind of killing is justified.

Some people try to justify mercy killing with the misconception that if the motive or reason is good, then the act itself is good. They then claim that by killing their pet, they have the intention to relieve the unhappy animal from its suffering and so the action is good. No doubt their original intention or motive is good. But the evil act of killing which occurs through a later thought, will certainly bring about unwholesome results.[2]

Keeping away from mercy killing can become a nuisance to many. Nevertheless, the Buddhist religion cannot justify mercy killing as completely free from bad reaction. However, to kill out of necessity and without any anger or hatred has less bad reaction than to kill out of intense anger or jealousy.

On the other hand, a being (man or animal) may suffer owing to his bad kamma. If By mercy killing, we prevent the working out of one's bad kamma, the debt will have to be paid in another existence. As Buddhists, all that we can do is to help to reduce the pain of suffering in others.[3]

ü Suicide (Ordinary human being)

When suffering seems unbearable thoughts of suicide commonly arise, and some of us will attempt to take our own lives. According to the Buddhist ethics suicide is extremely rejected. If someone suicide, it might be cause for the re-birth hell or lower place than human life. As one of the Parajika the prohibition against harming life, one that will result in automatic expulsion from Sangha.

On the moment of committing suicide the last thought (cuti citta) is effects for re-birth. It is clear that person who is committing suicide would not have good thoughts therefore his/her next life will be bad. Therefore concerning these matter suicide is not accepted or justified in Buddhism.  

ü Offering of life

Offering of life on the name of religion or person is one of popular aspects in modern world. I have seen as well as read that person burns himself as a “Jeevitha Pooja”. In this matter numbers of views as well as debates were accompanied.

In my personal view that although offering life with the good purpose that does not earn good merits or it is not justified in Buddhism. In the incidence of burn and offer his life, the person who burns feels unbearable pain. Buddhism has mentioned Dullabhan ca manussatham to get born as human being is difficult therefore destroy that life in any manner is useless.   

Violence are exculpated in Buddhism in different circumstance

Observing in Pali canon Numbers of Suttas could be found that mentioned some violence are exculpated in certain cases. In the matter of Uammathaka (Mental disorder) without intentionally (Cetana).

I am not saying with these example are leads to justified the violence in Buddhism but there are certain situation in early Buddhism that Buddha Himself exculpated these actions. Such as:  

     

ü Give-up lifespan(Ayusanskhara)(the person of Noble One)

In Pali canon, there we find some incidence that His (Buddha’s) followers came to get permission for Anupadhisesa Parinibbana. Generally it’s famous as giving up their life or in another word Ayesanskhara. Ex. Venerable Godhaka

 “That, bhikkhus, is Mara the Evil One searching for the consciousness of the clansman Godhika, wondering: ‘Where now has the consciousness of the clansman Godhika been established?’ However, bhikkhus, with consciousness unestablished, the clansman Godhika has attained final Nibbāna.”

Then Mara the Evil One, taking a lute of yellow vilva-wood, approached the Blessed One and addressed him in verse:

“Above, below, and across,
In the four quarters and in between,
I have been searching but do not find
Where Godhika has gone.”

The Blessed One:

“That steadfast man was resolute,
A meditator always rejoicing in meditation,
Applying himself day and night
Without attachment even to life.

“Having conquered the army of Death,
Not returning to renewed existence,
Having drawn out craving with its root,
Godhika has attained final Nibbāna.”

So much was he stricken with sorrow
That his lute dropped from his armpit.
Thereupon that disappointed spirit
Disappeared right on the spot. [4]

In fact there are only two cases in the canon which give any reason at all for thinking that suicide may be condoned, those of Channa and Vakkali. In the third case that of Godhika the Buddha voices no opinion at all on the monk's suicide. Even in the case of Vakkali the Buddha simply predicts that Vakkali's death will not be "ill" (apaapika)  a statement which could be interpreted in a variety of ways. Only in one case-- that of Channa is anything resembling exoneration given after the event.

ü Unknowing or without intention

According to Buddhism, if accidently or without intentionally happened any action that doesn’t earn bad kamma. Ex:

Venerable Chakkhupala was an Arahant monk who was doing walking meditations, while he was doing meditation numbers of incest were killed without intentionally.

ü Psychological disorder

If someone is with mentally disorder and he/she committed murder or violence, according to Law he is free from punishment because of his mentality. As we have learned in general Law, if mother killed her new born baby, she will not be subjected of punishment only after checking her mentality. (It could be happened because of pain and turn into mentality disorder). In Buddhism also, it is exculpated that if someone is with mentally disorder, he/she is exculpated.

    

Personal views on Violence and Buddhist ethics

According to my personal view that violence in Buddhist ethics doesn’t justified expect in certain situation. As I have mentioned that if only he/she is mentally disorder, without intentionally and in the case of Arahant. In this matter what I am trying to say that Violence is justified merely in that matter for them. It doesn’t mean that Buddhism accept those actions as justified.

Conclusion

According to the Buddhist ethics, Violence are not justified either it might be mercy killing or harm to evil one for benefits of rest people. These are valid for all normal people but in the matter of abnormal people such as mad, mental disorder violence are exculpated in different corner in Buddhist ethics.   There are few circumstances where violence are justified by Buddha Himself. In the case of 

ü  Give-up lifespan(Ayusanskhara)(the person of Noble One)

ü  Unknowing or without intention

ü  Psychological disorder

It doesn’t mean that Buddhism allows to violence but if the person is psychological disorder as well as if that violence is done without intentionally, in these circumstances Buddhism concern differently rather than concerning a violence.

Non-violence is embedded in the heart of Buddhist thinking it will forbid killing even if one’s own life is at risk of dying. The Kamcupamasutta Sutta clearly demonstrates the need to love your enemy no matter how cruelly he treats you; “Even if thieves carve you limb from limb with a double-handed saw, if you make your mind hostile you are not following my teaching”

Moreover, in Maha Nidhana Sutta Buddha clearly states how the thoughts of greed and possession lead to the creation of acts of aggression;

“Ananda, I have said that because of watchful guarding (of possessions) there arise many wicked demeritorious acts, such as hitting with sticks, wounding with weapons, fighting, quarrelling, contentiously disputing, using unbearable expressions, backbiting and telling lies …”

Buddhist scripture quoted above proves that Buddhism being an essentially a peaceful tradition leaves no room for the use of violence under any circumstances. The world needs Buddhist ethics in the struggle to create peace, and not only among human beings, but also with nature.

Bibliography

Primary sources

ü  Anguttara Nikāya.iii.p.415. Atthasālini.p.88.

ü  Akusalasutta AN 3.147

ü  Anguttara Nikāya 8.40 Duccaritavipākasutta

ü  Nibbhedika sutta

ü  Cullakammavibhanga Sutta

ü  Achinteyya Sutta

ü  Mahakammavibhnaga Sutta

ü  Samyutta Nikāya, Vedana Samyutta, Rahogata-vagga Sutta

ü  Dhammapada Danda Vagga 1,2,3, Stanzas

ü   

Secondary Sources

ü  Bhikkhu Nyanamoli, Buddhist Publication Society, 1979.

ü  The Buddha and His Teaching, Narada Thera, Publication of Buddhist Missionary, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1964.

ü  Essential Themes of Buddhist Lectures, Ashin Thittila, Department of Religious Affairs, Yangon, Myanmar, 1992.

ü  What the Buddha Taught, Walpola Rahula, Buddhist Cultural Center, Colombo, Sri lanka, 1996.

ü  Fundamentals of Buddhism, Nyanatiloka Mahathera, Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy, Sri lanka, 1994.

ü  Only we can help ourselves, Dhammavudho Thero, Inward Path, Pinang, Malaysia, 1997.

ü  Khantipalo, Bhikkhu (1982, 1995). Lay Buddhist Practice: The Shrine Room, Uposatha Day, Rains Residence (The Wheel No. 206/207). Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society. Retrieved 5 Jul 2007 from "Access to Insight" at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khantipalo/wheel206.html.

---

[1] Nibbhedika sutta of aṇguttara nikāya

[2] What Buddhists Believe Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera page no. 1

[3] What Buddhists Believe Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera page no. 1

[4] Samyutta Nikaya Mara Samyutta Godhaka Sutta