Editing Nonviolence (section)

=====War=====
Violent ways of punishing criminals and prisoners of war was not explicitly condemned in Buddhism,<ref>Sarao p. 53; Tähtinen pp. 95, 102.</ref> but peaceful ways of conflict resolution and punishment with the least amount of injury were encouraged.<ref>Tähtinen pp. 95, 102–103.</ref><ref>Kurt A. Raaflaub, [https://books.google.com/books?id=FMxgef2VJEwC&pg=PA61 ''War and Peace in the Ancient World.''] Blackwell Publishing, 2007, p. 61.</ref> The early texts condemn the mental states that lead to violent behavior.<ref>Bartholomeusz, p. 52.</ref>

Nonviolence is an overriding theme within the [[Pali Canon]].<ref>Bartholomeusz, p. 111.</ref> While the early texts condemn killing in the strongest terms, and portray the ideal king as a pacifist, such a king is nonetheless flanked by an army.<ref name="Tessa Bartholomeusz 2002, page 41">Bartholomeusz, p. 41.</ref> It seems that the Buddha's teaching on nonviolence was not interpreted or put into practice in an uncompromisingly pacifist or anti-military-service way by early Buddhists.<ref name="Tessa Bartholomeusz 2002, page 41"/> The early texts assume war to be a fact of life, and well-skilled warriors are viewed as necessary for defensive warfare.<ref>Bartholomeusz, p. 50.</ref> In Pali texts, injunctions to abstain from violence and involvement with military affairs are directed at members of the [[Sangha (Buddhism)|sangha]]; later Mahayana texts, which often generalise monastic norms to laity, require this of lay people as well.<ref>Stewart McFarlane in Peter Harvey, ed., ''Buddhism.'' Continuum, 2001, pages 195–196.</ref>

The early texts do not contain just-war ideology as such.<ref>Bartholomeusz, p. 40.</ref> Some argue that a [[suttas|sutta]] in the ''Gamani Samyuttam'' rules out all military service. In this passage, a soldier asks the Buddha if it is true that, as he has been told, soldiers slain in battle are reborn in a heavenly realm. The Buddha reluctantly replies that if he is killed in battle while his mind is seized with the intention to kill, he will undergo an unpleasant rebirth.<ref>Bartholomeusz, pp. 125–126. Full texts of the sutta:[http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.003.than.html] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090609110531/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.003.than.html|date=2009-06-09}}.</ref> In the early texts, a person's mental state at the time of death is generally viewed as having a great impact on the next birth.<ref>Rune E.A. Johansson, ''The Dynamic Psychology of Early Buddhism.'' Curzon Press 1979, page 33.</ref>

Some Buddhists point to other early texts as justifying defensive war.<ref>Bartholomeusz, pp. 40–53. Some examples are the ''Cakkavati Sihanada Sutta'', the ''Kosala Samyutta'', the ''Ratthapala Sutta'', and the ''Sinha Sutta''. See also page 125. See also Trevor Ling, ''Buddhism, Imperialism, and War.'' George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1979, pages 136–137.</ref> One example is the ''Kosala Samyutta'', in which King [[Pasenadi]] of [[Kosala]], a righteous king favored by the Buddha, learns of an impending attack on his kingdom. He arms himself in defence, and leads his army into battle to protect his kingdom from attack. He lost this battle but won the war. King Pasenadi eventually defeated Emperor [[Ajatashatru]] of [[Magadha (Mahajanapada)|Magadha]] and captured him alive. He thought that, although this Emperor of Magadha has transgressed against his kingdom, he had not transgressed against him personally, and Ajatashatru was still his nephew. He released Ajatashatru and did not harm him.<ref>Bodhi, Bhikkhu (trans.) (2000). ''The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya''. Boston: Wisdom Publications. {{ISBN|0-86171-331-1}}.</ref> Upon his return, the Buddha said (among other things) that Pasenadi "is a friend of virtue, acquainted with virtue, intimate with virtue", while the opposite is said of the aggressor, Emperor Ajatashatru.<ref>Bartholomeusz, pp. 49, 52–53.</ref>

According to Theravada commentaries, there are five requisite factors that must all be fulfilled for an act to be both an act of killing and to be karmically negative. These are: (1) the presence of a living being, human or animal; (2) the knowledge that the being is a living being; (3) the intent to kill; (4) the act of killing by some means; and (5) the resulting death.<ref>Hammalawa Saddhatissa, ''Buddhist Ethics.'' Wisdom Publications, 1997, pages 60, 159, see also Bartholomeusz page 121.</ref> Some Buddhists have argued on this basis that the act of killing is complicated, and its ethicization is predicated upon intent.<ref>Bartholomeusz, p. 121.</ref> Some have argued that in defensive postures, for example, the primary intention of a soldier is not to kill, but to defend against aggression, and the act of killing in that situation would have minimal negative karmic repercussions.<ref>Bartholomeusz, pp. 44, 121–122, 124.</ref>

According to [[Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar]], there is circumstantial evidence encouraging Ahimsa, from the Buddha's doctrine, ''"Love all, so that you may not wish to kill any."'' Gautama Buddha distinguished between a principle and a rule. He did not make Ahimsa a matter of rule, but suggested it as a matter of principle. This gives Buddhists freedom to act.<ref>[http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_buddha/04_02.html#03_02 The Buddha and His Dhamma] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200222081349/http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_buddha/04_02.html#03_02 |date=2020-02-22 }}. Columbia.edu. accessed 2011-06-15.</ref>