In In Defense of Dharma, the scholar Tessa Bartholomeusz challenges the popular belief that nonviolence in Buddhism is absolute, arguing that while it is a core principle, it is not without exceptions. “Some Buddhists asserted that, though a Buddhist king should be committed to non-violence, he might be called upon to cancel his commitment under certain conditions. Such is his duty and … such is his karma – to engage in violence and war.”
Several Sri Lankan monks Bartholomeusz met during her travels – including in the civil war years – invoked a similar rationale to justify their embrace of violence. Their defence rested on a story from Buddhist mythology. In the time of the Buddha, two kings – Ajatasattu and Pasenadi – were locked in a fight for supremacy that Ajatasattu ultimately won. “The Buddha assesses the character of the two kings: King Ajatasattu, who initiates the attacks, emerges as the king who is ‘a friend of evil (papa), an acquaintance of evil, intimate with evil.’ On the other hand, King Pasenadi, even though he also armed himself, is considered by the Buddha to be ‘a friend of virtue (kalyana), an acquaintance of virtue, intimate with virtue,’” Bartholomeusz writes.
In defending himself against...
from Scroll.in https://scroll.in/article/1089733/militant-buddhism-a-long-history-of-how-sri-lankan-buddhist-monks-treated-non-practitioners?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=public https://sc0.blr1.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/article/211289-szbpjzzpkr-1767426469.jpg
via
0 Comments