Buddhism By The Sword?

[Rasseru]

Historically, have there been any cases where people have sought to spread belief in Buddhism through conquest and violence, in the way that Christians and Muslims have from time to time done with respect to their faiths? I am not seeking comments on the propriety of such activities or what it means for people to undertake them. I am just curious whether historically it has happened.

[jdinasia]

If you aren't looking for comments then perhaps Google would be a better resource?

[RY12]

The common statement is that there has never been bloodshed in the name of Buddhism... which is probably true, but I suspect it has been a rationale behind some conflicts, and has been per se imposed on conquered peoples. Besides the Crusades, I don't think Christians have had wars where the sole purpose was religion... even with the Muslims, I think the main reason for their fightings is usually land expansion but under the guise of religion. But the comparison here really isn't right in the first place, religion means such radically different things between East and West that Buddhism really isn't a religion... but probably more akin to a ritual tradition like all practices India and east, which is why there's more tolerance in that region with the other religions like Taoism, Hinduism, Confuciansim...

Maybe it's happened when the Thais fought with the animist hill tribesmen? I can imagine a king calling it an expansion of the Dhamma or something

Edited April 8, 2008 by RY12

[Ijustwannateach]

You should check out the whole history of Japan- lots of militant monks from different sects at different times sponsoring or sponsored by various emperors, generals, shoguns, and pretenders, fighting all the rest of them and other Buddhist sects.

Many temple buildings still standing today were huge military strongholds- some blatant fortresses, others centers of espionage and ninja-ry (to coin a phrase). There's a temple called "Ninja-Dera" because of the traps, false doors, hidden rooms and levels, and other equipment designed to look from the outside like a simple 2 or 3 story house.

Actually, though, I doubt most of them were trying to proselytise- most likely trying to gather power or simply earn the right to exist.

There was some attempt to wipe out Buddhism in Korea- there was only one Buddhist temple in Seoul (this was true about 10 years ago, anyway) because of some official purge in the past- don't know if the Buddhists tried to resist.

[Rasseru]

The common statement is that there has never been bloodshed in the name of Buddhism... which is probably true, but I suspect it has been a rationale behind some conflicts, and has been per se imposed on conquered peoples. . . . .

Maybe it's happened when the Thais fought with the animist hill tribesmen? . . .

You may be right in your suspicions and suppositions, but what I am interested in is actual examples, if any one knows of any.

You should check out the whole history of Japan- lots of militant monks from different sects at different times sponsoring or sponsored by various emperors, generals, shoguns, and pretenders, fighting all the rest of them and other Buddhist sects. . . . .

Actually, though, I doubt most of them were trying to proselytise . . . . .

I know something about the history of Japan. Based on what I know, you are right to doubt whether violence was used for the purpose of proselytising. I am not aware of any case where it was.

[Rasseru]

If you aren't looking for comments then perhaps Google would be a better resource?

Feel free to make any comments you like. I was just explaining where my interest lies. Also, I would be happy to consider any thoughts you have about how to structure a Google search to get an answer to my question. I was not successful in my own attempt.

[jdinasia]

I found this article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/bu...thics/war.shtml

with my first google search (religion war Buddhism)

[traveller5000]

King Asok the great conquerer of India, after he had conquered a vast area converted to Buddhism of his own volition, and it became the new religion of the area. In this way, somewhat indirectly through the sword, Buddhism was spread.

I think he was reborn as a snake.

[PeaceBlondie]

As a serious Christian non-violent pacifist and activist, I abhor (if possible, I condemn) the use of the sword by Christians, whether to expand empires, conquer heathen, or to impose the religion of Jesus (Prince of Peace) on anybody. What I see in history is 15 centuries of such crimes, either done in the name of Christianity, or blessed by the priests of that religion.

So, Rasseru's opening remark intrigues me. Did Buddhist armies conquer in the name of Buddha, or at least with the understanding that they were not sinning (whatever you call it) in doing so?

[Brucenkhamen]

Did Buddhist armies conquer in the name of Buddha, or at least with the understanding that they were not sinning (whatever you call it) in doing so?

The warrior monk monasteries in Japan mentioned earlier aren't really an example of this, I may be wrong but I think they were more an extension of the martial arts tradition.

I'm not aware of any war ever fought where the main or stated purpose was to try to convert people to Buddhism.

[traveller5000]

I have heard monks have burned themselves for their belief (political I think). It is a form of (self) violence.

Perhaps some laypeople observing this felt some solidarity with their cause, and with Buddhism in general as a result of this apparently "noble self sacrifice".

[Brucenkhamen]

I have heard monks have burned themselves for their belief (political I think). It is a form of (self) violence.

Perhaps some laypeople observing this felt some solidarity with their cause, and with Buddhism in general as a result of this apparently "noble self sacrifice".

Another example that has nothing much to do with "people have sought to spread belief in Buddhism through conquest and violence" requested.

[traveller5000]

I have heard monks have burned themselves for their belief (political I think). It is a form of (self) violence.

Perhaps some laypeople observing this felt some solidarity with their cause, and with Buddhism in general as a result of this apparently "noble self sacrifice".

Another example that has nothing much to do with "people have sought to spread belief in Buddhism through conquest and violence" requested.

Not exactly. Although there may not have been any intent or conquest, there was (self) violence. Did this act of violence (self immolation) have the effect of increasing the lay persons belief in Buddhism? Quite possibly.

Take the situation in Burma for example. The monks, through their actions, have arguably gained a measure of solidarity with their people. The people have probably felt like the monks are heros, and have felt closer to them and therefore with Buddhism.

The same could be said of the self immolation example, where the monks were making a statement to the goverment of the time, the people thinking the monks are heros and feeling closer to them and Buddhism.

It is just another angle on the question for the OP to consider.

[Brucenkhamen]

Not exactly. Although there may not have been any intent or conquest, there was (self) violence. Did this act of violence (self immolation) have the effect of increasing the lay persons belief in Buddhism? Quite possibly.

Take the situation in Burma for example. The monks, through their actions, have arguably gained a measure of solidarity with their people. The people have probably felt like the monks are heros, and have felt closer to them and therefore with Buddhism.

The same could be said of the self immolation example, where the monks were making a statement to the goverment of the time, the people thinking the monks are heros and feeling closer to them and Buddhism.

It is just another angle on the question for the OP to consider.

Another angle, fair enough, interesting though that nobody has found an example of the angle the poster was asking for which I read as a Buddhist version of a crusade or jihad.

As for the self immolation here is an interesting article http://www.angelfire.com/nb/protest/viet.html my understanding is the government of the day favoured the catholic minority over the buddhist majority as a divide and rule tactic, this was a protest againt that.

[Rasseru]

I found this article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/bu...thics/war.shtml

with my first google search (religion war Buddhism)

Thank you. I read the article, but didn't find that it answers my question. Do you think it does? If so, I am sorry to be so slow, but could you please explain what answer it gives to my question?

[Rasseru]

King Asok the great conquerer of India, after he had conquered a vast area converted to Buddhism of his own volition, and it became the new religion of the area. In this way, somewhat indirectly through the sword, Buddhism was spread.

That is an interesting point, but the indirectness of it makes it different from what I am interested in. The conquering by sword came first, done by King Asok before he was a Buddhist, and was not done for the purpose of spreading Buddhism, which came later.

[Brucenkhamen]

That is an interesting point, but the indirectness of it makes it different from what I am interested in. The conquering by sword came first, done by King Asok before he was a Buddhist, and was not done for the purpose of spreading Buddhism, which came later.

Yes, and more to the point it was the conversion to Buddhism that directly led to King Asok changing his warlike ways into pacifism. There are also examples of this happening also in the wars between the Khmer and Cham.

[Rasseru]

So, it would seem that in all likelihood Buddhism has not been spread by the sword. How interesting (as well as appropriate).

Edited April 16, 2008 by Rasseru

[Xangsamhua]

I'm not sure to what extent Christianity has been directly propagated by the sword either.

The Constantinian church grew because it was in people's interest to sign up.

In the period from the sack of Rome to the Crusades, aggressive missionaries would burn down pagan temples, chop up sacred groves, etc, but they were clerics, not soldiers.

In the period from the 8th to the 11th century battles were usually fought between Christian (e.g. Frankish) armies and Muslim ones over territory.

The Crusades were a bizarre series of expeditions to retrieve Jerusalem and other territory and then defend it from the Muslims.

Ferdinand and Isabella's reconquest of Granada in the late 15th century was territorial, though Isabella was a bit of a religious fanatic as well.

The wars of religion after the Protestant Reformation were politico-religious conflicts among rival state powers.

The cross followed the sword in the New World and indigenous people were given no choice but to announce themselves Catholic. That would probably be the best example of forced conversion; however, it was on the coat tails of the military conquest. In many cases (such as the Jesuits in Paraguay and Bishop Las Casas in Cuba) the clergy strongly defended the indigenous people from the depredations of the colonizers.

I don't think there is evidence that the British tried to convert the locals in India by the sword.

I don't know about the Portuguese record in Goa or Africa.

I don't think the Dutch or British used the sword to convert in Southern Africa.

That's enough examples for now.

[Brucenkhamen]

I'm not sure to what extent Christianity has been directly propagated by the sword either.

You are forgetting the numerous crusades inside Europe to remove heretics, such as the Albigensian Crusade or the Spanish Inquisition.

I agree with you though that most so called religious wars primarily have a territorial or economic focus rather than the conversion of non-believers.

I'm not sure, but all the examples so far appear to be conversion to Catholicism rather that conversion to Christianity, other denominations don't appear to have been involved in this kind of activity. I wouldn't want this thread to digress away from Buddhism though.

Edited April 16, 2008 by Brucenkhamen

[mike_rad]

I'm not sure to what extent Christianity has been directly propagated by the sword either.

I'm not sure about Islam either:

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/opinion/?id=17579

----

[suegha]

Interesting that Chrstianity has been brought into this thread. Anything that has had violence involved in it is not TRUE Christianity! Many words of scripture apply: turn the other cheek, love thine enemies, he who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword, etc. True Christianity would only try to spread itself through love and good works. Everything else is abomination, and certainly not Christian!

The nail has been firmly hit on the head in previous posts. The wars fought in the name of any religion are about power and wealth and ownership of land, etc, not religion!

[Brucenkhamen]

Interesting that Chrstianity has been brought into this thread. Anything that has had violence involved in it is not TRUE Christianity! Many words of scripture apply: turn the other cheek, love thine enemies, he who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword, etc. True Christianity would only try to spread itself through love and good works. Everything else is abomination, and certainly not Christian!

The nail has been firmly hit on the head in previous posts. The wars fought in the name of any religion are about power and wealth and ownership of land, etc, not religion!

I agree with you that anything that has had violence involved in it is not TRUE Christianity.

Trouble is, where there's smoke there's fire.

If Buddhism appears to have gone through a 2500 year history of not spreading through violence what went wrong with Christianity that people moved so far away from this important part of it's teaching?

Whereas Buddhists have moved away from many aspects of the original teaching now and in the past it appears to have never moved away from non-violence.

[PeaceBlondie]

Answering the last question (what went wrong with Christianity?) is inviting, but off topic.

I am a fanatic about pacifism. I say that if Buddhists conquer by the sword, they are following a belief system that they think permits them to do so, even if they are fatally mistaken. They may be just as mistaken as the Christians (I agree with Suegha's view of the Christian faith in this matter), but they conquer as Buddhists, nonetheless. Or am I missing something? Are conquering Asians not Buddhists if they conquer by the sword? Are they just not good Buddhists? Is it okay for Thai Buddhists to kill invading Burmese Buddhists?

[slept]

Why so many people are searching answers for non-sense questions?

They want to look smart?

[Brucenkhamen]

Answering the last question (what went wrong with Christianity?) is inviting, but off topic.

I am a fanatic about pacifism. I say that if Buddhists conquer by the sword, they are following a belief system that they think permits them to do so, even if they are fatally mistaken. They may be just as mistaken as the Christians (I agree with Suegha's view of the Christian faith in this matter), but they conquer as Buddhists, nonetheless. Or am I missing something? Are conquering Asians not Buddhists if they conquer by the sword? Are they just not good Buddhists? Is it okay for Thai Buddhists to kill invading Burmese Buddhists?

As far as we are aware Buddhists have never used conversion of non-Buddhists as an excuse for war.

The fact the countries that are supposed to be Buddhist have engaged in war might say the leadership were bad Buddhists, maybe they were nominal Buddhists. Maybe they were just like 90% of Buddhists in Thailand today who might respect the path, might try to be good most of the time (well some of them), but aren't really travelling the path themselves.

Whether it's okay for Thai Buddhists to kill invading Burmese Buddhists is another question, at least as far as we know they weren't so hypocrital as to do it in the name of Buddhism.

[Brucenkhamen]

Why so many people are searching answers for non-sense questions?

They want to look smart?

I may be wrong but I got the impression that Rasseru asked this question because he was researching this topic, maybe he is writing a thesis or something. Obviously it's not going to help anyone walk the Buddhas path.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think his question is nonsense.

[Xangsamhua]

I'm not sure to what extent Christianity has been directly propagated by the sword either.

You are forgetting the numerous crusades inside Europe to remove heretics, such as the Albigensian Crusade or the Spanish Inquisition.

I agree with you though that most so called religious wars primarily have a territorial or economic focus rather than the conversion of non-believers.

I'm not sure, but all the examples so far appear to be conversion to Catholicism rather that conversion to Christianity, other denominations don't appear to have been involved in this kind of activity. I wouldn't want this thread to digress away from Buddhism though.

Yes, you're quite right. I did forget the Albigensian crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, both of which were ghastly. In fact, even in the context of the times, the Spanish Inquisition was seen by many outside Spain as extreme and excessive. Its linkage to the heartless expulsion of the Jews in 1492 has to be noted, too, as well as the attempts by the much maligned pope Alexander VI to help the Jews where he could (he welcomed them into Italy). (Actually, Alexander VI wasn't really interested in "heresy" unless it threatened the temporal authority of the Church.)

It would be good if this sub-forum could focus on Buddhism and the formation of its members in good practice. However, it seems that many who post in have a background of some kind in Christianity and make frequent reference to it. Hence there are responses. It might be good if there were a "Christianity" sub-forum, but I suspect the current state of "Christianity" is such that it just wouldn't work. There'd be too much ill-natured and ill-informed bickering, proselytising and so on. In fact, I don't think there's any harm in this forum taking up issues to do with non-Buddhist religions, as long as the Buddhist perspective is presented and a respectful discussion environment is maintained. My own interests are in both Buddhism and Christianity. Like Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh ("Living Buddha; Living Christ) I think we have much to gain from dialogue with and reflection on both traditions.

[PhilHarries]

My 25 satangs worth is not to do with the spread of Buddhism by the sword (violence) but it's spread by totally non-violent means. I read many years ago (please don't ask for references as it was a book (a book?) and a long time past) that the only instances of violence in Thai Buddhist culture were the sacrifices made at the gate of new temples. Apparently the victims were laid in a trench across the temple gateways and crushed to death by a large slab of stone. I can't remember if this was a general thing or confined to one particular area of the country.

Anyway that is what stuck in my mind from what I read and any comments etc will be most welcome.

[Xangsamhua]

My 25 satangs worth is not to do with the spread of Buddhism by the sword (violence) but it's spread by totally non-violent means. I read many years ago (please don't ask for references as it was a book (a book?) and a long time past) that the only instances of violence in Thai Buddhist culture were the sacrifices made at the gate of new temples. Apparently the victims were laid in a trench across the temple gateways and crushed to death by a large slab of stone. I can't remember if this was a general thing or confined to one particular area of the country.

Anyway that is what stuck in my mind from what I read and any comments etc will be most welcome.

I think you'll find that the sacrifice of (usually) young men and maidens at sacred sites and buildings was a practice in primitive religion. If my memory serves me correctly there's quite a bit about it in Fraser's "Golden Bough", with reference to the Corn Gods and Goddesses (the sacrificial victims were supposed to ensure a bountiful corn harvest). There's much of primitive religion still mixed in with Thai Buddhism, so I suppose this kind of practice may have continued into Buddhist times here.