Is it possible to commit violence without accumulating bad karma?
Reclining Buddha, Bago city, Myanmar / Facebook.com
CONSCIOUSNESS AS A WEAPON AND THE BUDDHIST «JIHAD»
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world; it is appeased only by non-hatred.
This is the eternal law
Dhammapada (a central text of Buddhism)
The Buddhist religion is a symbol of peace, tolerance, and non-violence. But how closely does the myth of radical pacifism in Buddhism align with reality? This question is especially relevant today not only for Buddhists but also for followers of all world religions. How can adherence to moral principles, mindfulness, and non-violence be reconciled with a reality that includes political rivalry, wars, and killings?
DID THE BUDDHA JUSTIFY VIOLENCE?
From the perspective of followers of most world religions, Buddhism is not quite a religion — or perhaps not a religion at all — since it lacks the concept of God. Rather, it is a system of philosophical beliefs, social structures, and psychological practices aimed at freeing one from suffering through the transformation of individual and collective consciousness.
In Buddhism, violence and killing are actions that lead to the maximization of suffering, both for the victim and for the perpetrator. Killing, by multiplying suffering in the world, carries perhaps the most dreadful consequences for a person’s fate after death.
There is no direct evidence anywhere that the Buddha ever justified violence in any way. In Buddhism, there is a categorical prohibition against killing another living being.
But as we know from the histories of Christianity and Islam, the original ideas of their founders can differ greatly from how those ideas are later interpreted by their followers. Something similar has happened with Buddhism.
THE ENEMY WITHIN, NOT WITHOUT
The «holy wars» of Christianity and the Islamic jihad have their Buddhist counterparts. The Apostle Paul emphasized that «our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms», and the Prophet Muhammad placed the focus on the «inner jihad», not on suicide bombings in crowded places. Yet over time, this «spiritual struggle» began to spill into the physical world, where preaching goodness turned into its opposite.
As a result, we witness witch hunts, crusades, terrorist attacks, and genocide. The central mission of life becomes not so much the inner transformation of the individual as the battle for a just world order. And when it comes to justice, there are as many versions of what is just and unjust as there are people, states, ideas, and opinions.
Thus, the priority shifts to defeating external evil, not the enemy within — that is, one’s own vices and sins. There emerges a constant need to draw boundaries between good and evil «on this side» of reality, which naturally creates fertile ground for the multiplication of suffering in the world.
THE BUDDHA’S HOLY WAR
Shakyamuni Buddha was born into the Indian warrior caste, meaning his close relatives most likely had to kill people in the real world. Yet the Buddha used the image of battle to describe an inner struggle. He triumphs over the demonic forces of ignorance, distorted views, disturbing emotions, and impulsive karmic behavior.
His followers also emphasized that the true enemies to be defeated lie within. These are the disturbing emotions and mental states hidden deep in consciousness. It is no coincidence that in Tibet, the Sanskrit word arhat, used to describe a saint, is translated as «liberated one», «destroyer of hostile forces», the one who has vanquished the enemy within.
However, the history of religions shows that for every rule set by a spiritual founder, people tend to seek exceptions. And then to justify those exceptions in ways that appear consistent with the original teachings. And here it is, time to ask the next uncomfortable question.
If a person is a Christian or a Muslim, then by definition, they regard the teachings of Christ or Muhammad as universal. This means they accept them fully — without omissions, censorship, exceptions, or adjustments. Otherwise, they can only be considered followers in name.
The same applies to Buddhism. The Buddha taught that not only the act of a crime, but also the incitement to it and complicity in it, carry the same karmic weight. From this perspective, any justification for the permissibility of killing may be viewed as an incitement to it — and thus, as a mortal sin equivalent to murder.
THE FIVE BUDDHIST PRECEPTS
The foundation of the Buddha’s teaching is moral discipline, expressed through the Five Precepts: not to kill, not to steal, not to lie, not to engage in sexual misconduct, and not to consume intoxicants. For monks, the expectations regarding these rules are even more rigorous than for laypeople.
Now imagine questioning the absoluteness and universality of these precepts.
If there are exceptional contexts in which killing is not considered a sin, then by analogy, could there also be situations where stealing, adultery, and intoxication are permissible? And if we are consistent in making such exceptions, then what would ultimately remain of the teachings of the Buddha, Christ, or Muhammad?
In early Buddhism — the tradition most closely preserved today by Theravāda Buddhism — this was well understood.
TWO PATHS: TO SAVE ONESELF OR OTHERS?
However, throughout history, Buddhist views on the permissibility of killing have been reconsidered depending on the specific socio-cultural context. Like Christianity and Islam, Buddhism is neither unified nor homogeneous. As it spread beyond India to Central and Inner Asia, Nepal and Tibet, Mongolia and China, Korea and Japan, Thailand and Burma, it underwent transformations shaped by local historical and cultural realities.
Broadly speaking, Buddhism split into two major currents: Theravāda and Mahāyāna. The first is the «narrow» path, which requires participation in a monastic community. The second is the «wide» path, where even laypeople can attain enlightenment (the state of a bodhisattva).
In the latter case, the state of a bodhisattva is not an end in itself, but a means to help others attain liberation. And it is precisely here that a loophole first appears—one that allows, depending on the context, for killing not to be considered an absolute evil, if it serves the purpose of «salvation».
VIOLENCE MULTIPLIES VIOLENCE
Non-resistance to evil is, of course, one of the fundamental ethical principles of Buddhism. External evil and injustice cannot be fought with force. The reason is simple — all violence provokes counterviolence, because everything in the universe is interconnected.
Killing, even in the name of goodness, compassion, or salvation, remains killing — an unwholesome act that multiplies suffering. Nevertheless, Theravāda Buddhists were realists, not utopians. Had they ignored the harsh realities of history and life, it is unlikely that the Buddha’s teaching would today have over 700 million adherents worldwide.
By contrast, Jainism — once Buddhism’s main rival — now has only about 5 million followers. Perhaps this is because in their commitment to ahimsa, the principle of non-harming, the Jains were even more radical than the Buddhists.
For them, even killing a mosquito is a serious karmic offense. With such convictions, engaging in proselytism — converting others to the faith — becomes quite a challenge.
CONSCIOUSNESS — THE BUDDHIST’S WEAPON
Compared to Jainism, historical Buddhism proved to be much more accommodating toward the powers that be. Theravāda does not prohibit military service as a profession or occupation, and it acknowledges the state’s right to maintain an army, police, and courts — that is, it permits violence in a broad sense, but solely for the protection of society’s members. And still, no matter how noble the goal used to justify killing — whether in wartime or peacetime — it is strictly forbidden for monks.
Only laypeople may serve in the army or carry out executions, with the caveat that tolerance for such actions is unwholesome but unavoidable. Furthermore, if killing cannot be avoided, one must by no means harbor hatred toward the enemy and should maintain a compassionate state of mind.
In the 5th century AD, a Chinese emperor asked a Buddhist sage who had come from India: «Enemies are approaching my country — what should I do?» The monk advised him to go to the battlefield — for that is indeed the dharmic duty of a sovereign — but to do so while maintaining a compassionate state of mind.
The advice worked miraculously: the enemies came to the battlefield, stood across from the emperor’s army for a while, then turned around and left without a fight.
When copying materials, please place an active link to www.huxley.media
Select the text and press Ctrl + Enter
