The Buddha and War
In this thoughtful exploration, Bhante Bodhidhamma examines the Buddha's relationship with warfare through three significant historical encounters. He begins by distinguishing between pacifism as an ideology and non-violence as an attitude—a crucial difference that frames the Buddha's pragmatic approach to conflict.
The talk recounts three key episodes: the Buddha's intervention in a water rights dispute between the Sakyas and Koliyans, his attempts to dissuade Viḍūḍabha from attacking Kapilavatthu (the Buddha's birthplace), and his indirect counsel regarding Ajātasattu's planned conquest of the Vajji Confederacy. Through these accounts, Bhante reveals how the Buddha never directly told people what to do regarding war, but rather pointed to fundamental principles about karma and the consequences of acting from aversion.
The discussion extends to examining defensive warfare and the development of martial arts in Buddhist contexts, including the Shaolin monks' approach to fighting without hatred. Bhante emphasizes that the Buddha's primary concern was always the cessation of suffering, noting the difficulty of killing without aversion in one's heart and the karmic consequences that follow. This nuanced presentation offers practitioners a framework for understanding Buddhist ethics in relation to conflict, self-defense, and the complex realities of protecting family and community.
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhasa. Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhasa. Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhasa. Homage to the Buddha, the blessed, noble and fully self-awakened one.
I'm going to start off with a little talk about the Buddha and war. The first thing is to make a distinction between pacifism and non-violence. Pacifism is an ideology, and ideologies like communism and neoliberalism always work on some sort of idea of how things ought to be. Therefore, they lose connection with what's actually happening. And as Marx said about capitalism, it has the seeds of its own destruction—so you can say that of any ideology. Non-violence is an attitude, a way of relating to all beings.
There are various stories that have been told about the Buddha who came into contact with war. The first one is an argument between the Sakyans, his own people, and the people on the other side of the river, the Koḷiyans. This argument over water rights was moving towards a war between the two tribes. So the Buddha heard about it and went up there to try and help with the dispute over the water. He asked them what was more precious, the water in the river or the blood in their veins? This made them decide to sit around a table to discuss.
Now there was a more serious situation with Viḍūḍabha. He was the son of Pasenadi, and Pasenadi was a very committed supporter of the Buddha. Viḍūḍabha wanted to marry into the Sakya clan. The Sakyans were already vassals to the king of Kosala—they were subjects. And so he married one of the Sakyan princesses. However, he came to know that in fact she wasn't a princess at all, but belonged to the lowest of all the castes.
Well, he was very angry, so he got his army together to go and destroy the Sakyans. He had his elephants and his cavalry, his chariots and his infantry. When the Buddha heard this, he went to see him. Now, we don't know what the Buddha said to him, but I would think it was along the lines of "this is not going to create good kamma for you." So Viḍūḍabha took his advice and went home.
No sooner had he got home than he got angry again and got back on his elephant. So the Buddha appeared again and seemed to have convinced him to turn back. As soon as he got back he got angry and he got back on his elephant. Again the Buddha came and again convinced him that this was not a good idea, so he went back home. But unfortunately, as soon as he got home he got angry and he got back on his elephant. This time, when they asked the Buddha to go again, he said, "It's not going to work, he's committed."
So it would seem that he destroyed the capital of the Sakyans, Kapilavatthu. Probably the Sakyans ran off into the jungle for a while and they set up another capital city. Seemingly, you can actually visit them—one is in India and one is in Nepal.
The final example is to do with Ajātasattu. Ajātasattu was the son of Bimbisāra, the king of Magadha. In the same way, Bimbisāra had been a very good supporter of the Buddha, but his son just didn't have the same commitment. In fact, Ajātasattu starved his poor old father to death. He locked him in a little room, which they say you can still see in Rājgir. It was a small building away from the palace.
Now, he wanted to conquer the Vajji Confederacy. And the peculiar thing is that he sent his chief minister to ask the Buddha whether it was the best time to do so. Now the Buddha, of course, won't tell anybody what to do. All he does is point to principles and you are left to make the decision. What he did was to describe the qualities of a strong community—the qualities that keep a community strong. And he was really talking about the monastics, the monks and nuns. So Vassākāra and the king presumed that he was hinting that the Vajjis were a strong people.
So he didn't attack them. He sent in the equivalent of the CIA in order to bribe and set one people against another. And when the time was right, he went in with his army to keep the peace—the war that he had himself created.
So some writers say that the Buddha would support a defensive war. But there's no indication in the scriptures that he either encouraged or discouraged anybody from war as such. He was in a tricky position because the monks and nuns had spread throughout the whole of northern India. If he had supported one king against the other, then you can imagine all the monks and nuns in the territory of the king he did not support would be kicked out.
Now, this does make the Buddha sound a little cynical. But he was grounded in reality, realpolitik. So there must have been some concern about the monks and nuns. But I think the main thing is that he never told people what to do. He was only concerned with getting across those principles that are necessary to bring suffering to an end. What really interested him was to communicate those principles that could allow suffering to cease.
So I can only presume that when the question of war came up, it was always pointing to that person and saying, "If you go to war, you will create bad kamma for yourself," because it's very difficult to kill another human being unless you have aversion in the heart.
Now we have the example of the Shaolin Kung Fu monks in China. What happened in China was that if an emperor did not favour the monks, the Buddhists would be persecuted, while perhaps a subsequent sovereign would support them. So the Shaolin monks began to develop a form of fighting which was defensive, so that they could not be overwhelmed by aversion towards the enemy. This type of ethics was then passed on to Japan from China and became part of the samurai code.
So the samurai were warriors. And there is a story where a samurai had beaten his opponent, had lifted the sword to cut him in two, and then walked away. And when they asked him why he'd walked away, he said, "I was angry."
So when it comes to considering what our personal relationship is to war, remember that it is our personal relationship to war—it's not the Buddha's. And all the Buddha would say to you if you were to ask him is, "Can you kill somebody without aversion in your heart?" And if you do kill someone with aversion in your heart, then that will bring unwholesome results for yourself.
So of course, this is not a very straightforward decision between black and white. If you're defending your family, defending the country, then of course that particular motivation may be greater than getting rid of the aversion in your heart. Certainly, if you find yourself having to defend your family or your country, it's left to the individual to decide how they feel or understand they ought to behave.
I can only hope my words have been of some assistance, that I have not caused greater confusion, and that by careful decision-making you will find your way to complete liberation from suffering.