The pattern of avoiding wars, however, can waver, similar to how the rule against murder

can be situational. One major case of a pro-war effort was that of Chinese Buddhist monks in the

1930’s. In this decade, these monks found their nation facing the threat of invasion by Japan, but

initially did not provide any support in the Chinese mobilization effort (Green 192). In July of

1937, the Second Sino-Japanese War began, but Buddhist monasteries had been supporting the

war effort for several months prior (e.g., by providing material resources to the effort). Before

the violence began, increased pressure at the national level had created a conflict between

religion and nation for Buddhist monks, and eventually they became more loyal to their nation

(Green 192). This led them to openly support the war effort after many years of the same

aggressive behavior by the Japanese.

One plausible reason as to why the monastery did not support their country in standing up

to the Japanese in the early 1930’s lies in the prior relationship between the government and the

monastery. Yu argues that the Buddhist institutions of the time were often persecuted by the

nationalist state, and were motivated for this reason to remain distant from the government until

pressure from the Japanese reached higher levels (Green 191). This suggests that the pressure of

a national war, when elevated to an intense degree, can motivate Buddhist institutions to support

violence. In this case, the action of providing resources to the war is in contradiction with not

only the monastic rule of being uninvolved in war, but also the reservations of a government that

treated the monastery unfairly.

There are other cases where the members of the institution agree upon supporting war

efforts. One of the earlier cases of this is described in a popular Buddhist chronicle taking place

in Sri Lanka at around 80 BCE. The native people of Sri Lanka, the Sinhalese people, were
majority Buddhist and faced years of invasion by the non-Buddhist Tamils. The Tamils, from the

mainland of South Asia, vastly outnumbered the Sinhalese in population and resources available

for the war effort, making this a very similar case of intense pressure facing a Buddhist nation

and monastery. The result was the militarization of Sinhalese monks, replacing their religious

robes with military gear (Premasiri 159). Here, the pressure of being overtaken by the invader,

both as a part of a nation and a religious institution, drove monks as far as engaging in violence

themselves. The ruler of the Sinhalese, King Dutthagamani, is glorified in the Buddhist chronicle

for protecting his nation and religion (Premasiri 154). He insisted that it was done not for the ‘joy

of sovereignty’ and only to protect the Buddhist belief, which suggests that the religion is the

primary concern (over that of the country) in the cases of dominantly Buddhist countries (Harvey

256). Making Buddhism the primary concern, as if it is a target being assaulted, makes the

ethical choice of violence more reasonable. The case of the Sinhalese people illustrates the extent

to which the monastery can respond to war; here they went to the extreme of transforming their

monks into soldiers.

Another case of the Buddhist support of wartime efforts was in Thailand during the time

of the Vietnam War. Being a majority Buddhist people, the Thai public was afraid that the

communists currently gaining power in Asia would find their way into Thailand and cause a

disruption of both the political and religious systems there (Harvey 260). This fear came from

how communist parties in the region took an anti-religious stance. Out of concern for both the

nation and the religion, the Thai government allowed the U.S. military to set up air force bases

on their soil; these led to more effective assaults on the supply lines of communist Vietnam

(Harvey 262). Although this is not a case of militarizing the monastery, it is one where a
Buddhist institution supported violent acts out of religio-nationalism. Note that it is unclear if

protecting the religion of Buddhism is prioritized over protecting the nation. Regardless, the

presence of a powerful anti-religious force provided sufficient pressure for Thai Buddhists to

turn on their ethical standard of choosing nonviolent routes to resolve conflict.

It is reasonable that the desire for Buddhist institutions to protect themselves can lead

them into supporting violence on occasions where it also benefits their nation. In China, Sri

Lanka, and Thailand, Buddhist institutions abandoned their non-violent principles due to the

pressures and fear that the religion and its practices were at risk. In China, years of aggression

from the Japanese led to this despite how the monastery had a problematic relationship with its

government. In Sri Lanka, a similar case of prolonged aggression led to major wartime sacrifices

by the monastery. Lastly, the Buddhist people of Thailand supported the war effort against the

rising communist power in the region. In each case, the integrity of the nation or state was

identified as necessary for the integrity or survival of the religious community.

 Bibliography

Publications

Harvey, Peter. ​An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics​. Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Green, Colin. “Book Review: Buddhism, War, and Nationalism: Chinese Monks in the

Struggle Against Japanese Aggressions, 1931-1945, Written by Xue Yu.” ​Journal

of Chinese Military History​, vol. 3, no. 2, 2014, pp. 191–194.,

doi:10.1163/22127453-12341270.

Premasiri, P. D. “The Place for a Righteous War in Buddhism.” ​Journal of Buddhist

Ethics​, vol. 10, 2003, pp. 153–166.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8623/0547897426938ccf56786fcadf0f590b567c.

pdf

Media

Harvey, Peter. ​An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics​. Cambridge University Press, 2000.

“Purpose & Vision.” ​Buddhist Peace Fellowship​,

www.buddhistpeacefellowship.org/welcome-to-40/.

NowThis World. “Can Buddhism Be Violent?” ​YouTube​, 6 June 2015,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6De3TwoOFo&frags=pl,wn.