Compassion, Self-Sacrifice, and Karma in Warfare: Buddhist Discourse on Warfare as an Ethical and Soteriological Instruction for Warriors

Abstract

In premodern warrior societies, religions often provided the institutional basis for an ethics and soteriology for warriors, for whom fighting was a social role. This paper examines a Buddhist case in ancient India. I focus particularly on the discourse related to warfare in the middle-late period Mahāyāna scripture, the Satyakaparivarta, and elucidate its ethics and soteriology for kings. In the Satyakaparivarta, a king is encouraged to be a bodhisattva, who is mindful of impermanence and compassionate, who is not greedy, hateful, or delusional, and who protects sentient beings in conformity with the Ten Good Deeds. The text also teaches how a righteous king such as this, who employs warfare as a last resort to protect his people, can be saved from rebirth in hell, which occurs as a karmic retribution for his engagement in warfare. This discourse consists of elements such as compassion, self-sacrifice, and karma, which are derived from traditions both within and outside Buddhism and arranged so as to allow a king to play his role and still attain salvation. Buddhist discourse on warfare has multiple aspects. Exploring its ethical and soteriological aspect will be conducive to clarifying a form of Buddhism as a redemptive institution for warriors, which previous studies did not conduct sufficiently.

1. Introduction

One would suppose that an important function of religions is to teach their followers not to kill or injure others intentionally. However, in premodern warrior societies, where war was often a method for solving problems and warriors were required to fight, it was also an important function of religions to develop an ethics and soteriology for warriors, who may have had to kill opponents or might have been killed in battle. What do religious scriptures say in situations where their followers must fight on a battlefield?

Ancient Buddhist scriptures from India include discourses, such as instructions to warriors and narratives of exemplary Buddhist kings, that directly address issues related to warfare. This paper presents an examination of the discourse on warfare found in the Satyakaparivarta (“Chapter of Satyaka”),1 a Mahāyāna scripture compiled sometime between the fourth and sixth centuries CE,2 and elucidates its ethics and soteriology for a king.3 Satyaka is the protagonist and preacher in this discourse. He teaches a king’s ethics of rule from a Buddhist perspective, which contains a discourse on warfare, to his interlocutor, Caṇḍapradyota, a king of Ujjainī.4 Some other ancient South Asian texts are also examined, such as Buddhist discourses on the cakravartin, or “wheel-turner,” a theological paradigm of ideal kingship, Buddhist discourses on compassionate violence, and Brahmanical discourses on the dharma of the kṣatriyas (warrior-class men), in order to understand the ideological context in which the discourse in the Satyakaparivarta was developed. The Pāli scriptures used below were composed sometime between the third century BCE and the fifth century CE, and the Mahāyāna and early Vajrayāna scriptures were between roughly the first and the seventh centuries CE.

The discourse related to warfare in the Satyakaparivarta is one of the most elaborate Buddhist discourses dealing with this topic. It is also a rare text in that it explicitly states that a king who engaged in warfare in a righteous way from the Buddhist perspective expressed in the text does not acquire the negative karmic potential that a killer generally acquires through murder.5 It therefore deserves careful attention. The discourse in the Satyakaparivarta mainly deals with a war against a foreign army and not a war to put down a domestic rebellion. A king fights to protect his people from a foreign army, rather than to protect Buddhism from non-Buddhists who violate it. He consults both learned Brahmins and Buddhist ascetics to ascertain what is right. Thus, the text does not necessarily address a situation in which two opposing groups are connected with two religions in some way.

Some important aspects of the discourse on warfare in the Satyakaparivarta were clarified by Schmithausen, Zimmermann, and Jenkins.6 Although his discussion is concise, Schmithausen is the first to introduce this discourse to clarify an aspect of Buddhism’s attitude to warfare.7 Zimmermann presented an investigation of the entire discourse, analyzed its attempt to harmonize Buddhist ethics with politics, and pointed out several elements that are derived from the Brahmanical ethics of the kṣatriyas.8 Jenkins analyzed the discourse to contextualize the Mahāyāna idea of compassionate violence found in Asaṅga’s Bodhisattvabhūmi and some other texts.9

All these studies are significant but insufficient. Previous studies did not review important differences between the discourses in the Satyakaparivarta and the discourse on compassionate violence in the Bodhisattvabhūmi and other texts. Understanding the differences between these discourses is vital to understanding the discourse in the Satyakaparivarta correctly. The purpose of the discourse in the Satyakavarta should also be reconsidered. In connection with these concerns, it is also necessary to further investigate those elements of the discourse that were derived from both inside and outside Buddhism.

By exploring the kingly ethics and soteriology in the Satyakaparivarta, this paper clarifies an aspect of Buddhism that enabled the tradition to serve as a redemptive institution for warriors, which is also a challenge to previous studies and conducive to clarifying the purpose of the discourse. Many papers on the subject of Indian Buddhism dealt with discourses primarily taught to renouncers, for whom fighting in battle was not a social role. Warriors’ Buddhism has not been a major research topic. Some papers investigated Buddhist discourses on warfare (including the discourse in the Satyakaparivarta), but they tended to treat the discourses as presenting Buddhist justifications or sanction for the use of warfare.10 However, Buddhist discourses on warfare have multiple aspects. The ethical rules in these discourses teach warriors how to attain salvation and do not simply explain the morality or righteousness of particular forms of warfare.

Warriors or kings played certain roles in making and ruling societies in ancient India. Warfare, as well as punishment, was a social role given to them. However, according to the general Buddhist view of karmic law, killing intentionally creates negative karma, and therefore a killer suffers its negative karmic retribution. Is it possible to save warriors, who cannot observe the precept against killing because of their social role, from suffering unhappy karmic retribution? That is a key concern (if not the sole key concern) for the authors of the Satyakaparivarta, who developed Buddhist ethical discourses on warfare.

The sections that follow in this paper are organized as follows. Section 2 investigates some Buddhist discourses on the wheel-turner and considers how those discourses are similar to and different from the Satyakaparivarta’s discourse. Section 3 examines and compares three discourses of compassionate violence found in Mahāyāna and early Vajrayāna scriptures. Section 4 analyzes and elucidates the kingly ethics and soteriology of the Satyakaparivarta, drawing a comparison with the discourses on compassionate violence discussed in Section 3. These sections also include consideration of elements derived from the Brahmanical ethics for warriors. The conclusion summarizes the discussion and clarifies how the discourse in the Satyakaparivarta is an ethical instruction on how a king may play his role and attain rebirth in heaven.

2. The Wheel-Turner’s Conquest in the Golden Age of Dharma

In the Pāli sutta (“scripture”) entitled Rajja (“Kingdom”), the Buddha (Siddhattha) reflects on whether it is possible to exercise kingship in accordance with dhamma (dharma in Sanskrit, “righteousness”) without killing and without instigating others to kill.11 The idea of the “wheel-turner” (cakkavatti in Pāli and cakravartin in Sanskrit) seems to have some connection with this Buddhist ideal of kingship. The wheel-turner is an ideal model of a king in Buddhism and is often regarded as a lay counterpart of the Buddha. He is also called “righteous dhamma/dharma king” (dhammiko dhammarājā in Pāli and dhārmiko dharmarājā in Sanskrit). The Cakkavattisīhanāda (“Lion’s Roar of the Wheel-turner”) describes the wheel-turner as follows.12

The wheel-turner, the righteous dhamma king, honors the dhamma and protects people and animals in conformity with it. The Buddhist standards of conduct, such as the Five Precepts (viz., not to kill, not to take what is not given, not to commit sexual misconduct, not to tell a lie, and not to drink liquor) and to avoid the Ten Bad Deeds (viz., to kill, to take what is not given, to commit sexual misconduct, to tell a lie, to speak malicious words, to speak harsh words, to speak idle talk, to be covetous, to be malicious, and to have wrong views), constitute the dhamma that he relies on. These good acts or attitudes, which are conceptualized as the Five Precepts or the Ten Good Deeds (opposites of the Ten Bad Deeds), are not exclusively Buddhist but are common among religious texts and traditions, such as the Mahābhārata in Brahmanism, in ancient India.13 The wheel-turner’s dhamma is therefore not exclusively sectarian. He consults learned Brahmins as well as ascetics as to what is right to do.

The wheel-turner conquers foreign countries in the following way. First, his thousand-spoked wheel rolls to somewhere in the eastern continent and stops there. The wheel-turner takes up residence there with his fourfold army. Then, with no resistance, the rival kings in the eastern continent willingly come and surrender to him. He commands the rival kings to observe the Five Precepts and to continue to be governors of their territories.14 They then accept his command and become local rulers, acknowledging allegiance to him in the form of observing the Five Precepts. The same process is repeated in the southern, western, and northerrn continents. In this way, the purpose of his conquest is to make local rulers in all four continents observe the dhamma. As Schmithausen put it,15 although a wheel-turner moves his army to unconquered people, he conquers them without waging war and without killing anyone.

Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośa (“Treasury of Abhidharma,” both its kārikā, “verses,” and bhāṣya, “commentary,” which dates to between the fourth and fifth centuries CE) includes an extended discussion regarding a wheel-turner's conquest. According to this text, there are four types of wheel-turner, viz., wheel-turners possessing wheels made of (1) gold (suvarṇa), (2) silver (rūpya), (3) copper (tāmra), and (4) iron (ayas) or weapons (śastra). A wheel-turner with a golden wheel conquers all four continents. Rival kings willingly come to him and become his followers. The wheel-turner in the Cakkavattisīhanāda roughly corresponds to this type. A wheel-turner with a silver wheel conquers three of the four continents. He himself comes to rival kings, and then the rival kings become his followers. A wheel-turner with a copper wheel conquers two of the four continents. He comes to rival kings, quarrels with them, and then the rival kings become his followers. A wheel-turner with an iron wheel conquers only one continent. He comes to rival kings, and a fight with weapons breaks out between him and the rival kings, by which the rival kings become his followers. Like the wheel-turner in the Cakkavattisīhanāda, wheel-turners (including the fourth type, who uses weapons) do not kill anyone in battle whilst in conquest, and they induce the conquered people to observe the Ten Good Deeds.16

In the Cakkavattisīhanāda and some other ancient texts dealing with a wheel-turner, one can find a somewhat pessimistic view about warriors in the actual world. This is represented by two elements that characterize discourses on wheel-turners. The first element pertains to the moral status of the world where a wheel-turner can appear. According to the Cakkavattisīhanāda, a king can become a wheel-turner only in an age when all people, if not perfect, voluntarily conduct themselves righteously and, as a result, are able to live to be 80,000 years old.17 The Mahāsudassanasutta (abbreviated to Mahāsudassana) includes the story of a wheel-turner named Mahāsudassana, who lived for hundreds of thousands of years.18 The Abhidharmakośa teaches that none of the four types of wheel-turner appears in any age when people’s duration of life is less than 80,000 years old.19 As Strong says, the function of a wheel-turner is to ensure and maintain the moral status of a world that is already moral.20 According to the Cakkavattisīhanāda, such a moral age is not realized rapidly. It comes after many successive ages when more and more people gradually reflect on their deeds and come to act righteously and, as a consequence, their lifespan gradually increases.21 One can speculate that this is a good explanation of why the wheel-turner can conquer foreign powers without killing: As kings in foreign countries also conduct themselves righteously, they do not aspire to kill in battle and instead accept the commands, indeed the guidance, of the wheel-turner as the most righteous ruler.22

The second element pertains to a king’s salvation after death. In the Cakkavattisīhanāda, every wheel-turner upon retirement abandons lay life and becomes a homeless renouncer to attain heavenly pleasure after death.23 In the Mahāsudassana, the wheel-turner Mahāsudassana is not stated explicitly to have become a renouncer. Instead, in the last 84,000 years of his life, he was intent on the practice of the Four Immeasurables (viz., to develop a mind of immeasurable mercy, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity) and attained rebirth in the world of Brahman (brahmaloka).24 The wheel-turners were born in the golden age of dhamma and were hence able to rule others and live their lives in accordane with dhamma. Even such morally flawless kings needed to become renouncers or to be intent on practicing the Four Immeasurables for long years to realize rebirth in heaven.

However, ancient India was not so morally utopian. People often did not act righteously, and armed conflicts frequently broke out among different groups. The authors of the Aśokāvadāna (“Aśoka’s Legend”), which is a narrative of the life of King Aśoka (third century BCE) of the Maurya Dynasty, were fully aware of it. The Aśokāvadāna presents a somewhat different idea of a wheel-turner. In this narrative Aśoka is called balacakravartin (“armed wheel-turner”), caturbhāgacakravartin (“wheel-turner [who conquers only] one of the four [continents]”), and dhārmiko dharmarājā (“righteous dharma king”). He has some aspects in common with the wheel-turner with an iron wheel in the Abhidharmakośa mentioned earlier, but they are different in the following two respects: (i) Aśoka, an armed wheel-turner, was born in the ancient age in India, when people were not always moral. (ii) He had to kill opponents on some occasions to attain his sovereignty over one continent.25 The authors assigned the title “wheel-turner” (with the term bala, or “armed” in this context) to the historical king perhaps to emphasize his greatness and morality as an exemplary Buddhist king. However, they could not depict him as the one who could conquer the whole continent without killing anyone in war. (In fact, historical Aśoka killed many especially before conversion, as is well known from his inscriptions.) Interestingly, the Aśokāvadāna does not articulate whether Aśoka could attain rebirth in heaven or any other happy destination after death. (The term “wheel-turner” below in this paper indicates the wheel-turner in the golden age of dharma and not the armed wheel-turner depicted in the Aśokāvadāna.)

In the Satyakaparivarta, a king is never called “wheel-turner” (nor “armed wheel-turner”). As examined in Section 4 below, the Satyakaparivarta teaches that a king in the actual world (ancient India) should observe and rule in conformity with the Ten Good Deeds and consult learned Brahmins and Buddhist ascetics for moral advice. The attitudes that a king should adopt, according to the Satyakaparivarta, are similar to elements of the wheel-turner’s rule mentioned above. However, a king’s attitude about warfare in the Satyakaparivarta is different from the wheel-turner’s: The latter’s conquest without killing could not fully be a model for a king’s conquest in the actual world, which had morally degenerated. Thus, from a realistic viewpoint, ancient Buddhist scriptures (including the Satyakaparivarta) needed to include teachings to save warriors. What do Buddhist scriptures teach about saving them?

3. Compassionate and Self-sacrificial Killing

Several answers to the question presented above can be found in Buddhist scriptures.26 One answer is that warriors with an evil intention to kill opponents in battle are reborn in hell. The Brahmanical Smṛti literature, such as the Mahābhārata, includes the teaching that a warrior who is killed on a battlefield while struggling in battle is reborn in heaven.27 Opposing this, in the Pāli scripture entitled Yodhājīva (name of a warrior), the Buddha teaches that a warrior who is killed while struggling in battle is reborn in hell, not in heaven, because of his “inferior, depraved, and misdirected intention” (cittam … hīnaṃ duggatam duppaṇihitam) to kill his enemy in battle.28 The bad intention to kill is the determinative factor for the warrior’s unfavorable circumstances of rebirth after death. Is it then possible for a warrior to kill in battle while maintaining a good state of mind, and in so doing, to attain a good rebirth? Gethin says that according to the Pāli Abhidhamma scriptures, it is impossible for anyone to kill a living being with a good state of mind. The intention to kill a living being invariably involves some form of hatred––a bad state of mind.29

However, in Buddhism, there is also the idea that one can kill others while maintaining a good or neutral state of mind. Such a killer is not reborn in hell if he also satisfies the other prescribed requirements. Some Buddhist scriptures in the Mahāyāna tradition address a bodhisattva’s (or Mahāyāna practitioner’s) compassionate and self-sacrificial killing as a skill in means,30 which is carried out as the last resort to benefit others and which ultimately benefits both oneself and others. In this paper, that is designated as “compassionate and self-sacrificial killing.”31 This is a form of Buddhist compassionate violence,32 and such compassionate and self-sacrificial killing takes different forms, not all of which are meant for warriors and the roles they must play.

As is well-known, the oldest and most influential discourse addressing compassionate and self-sacrificial killing is the narrative of a ship captain named Greatly Compassionate (snying rje chen po dang ldan pa, who is a one of the Buddha’s past lives)33 found in the Upāyakauśalyasūtra (abbreviated to Upāyakauśalya, “Skill in Means,” one of the earliest Mahāyāna scriptures). The outline is as follows.34

Once upon a time, five hundred merchants set sail on the sea in search of wealth. Among the passengers was a robber, who intended to kill the merchants and steal their wealth. The captain of the ship, Greatly Compassionate, is informed of this by the sea gods in a dream. He is also told that because the merchants are all bodhisattvas progressing toward enlightenment, the robber will be reborn and remain in the great hell until they all attain enlightenment, as karmic retribution for killing them. Captain Greatly Compassionate considers the matter for seven days and reaches the conclusion that he should kill the robber: It is the only way to save them all. He realizes that if he informs the merchants of the robber, they will kill him with bad states of mind and will themselves be reborn in hell for that deed, but if he himself kills the robber, although he will be reborn in the great hell repeatedly for one hundred thousand kalpa (“eons”), he can prevent the merchants from being murdered and prevent both the robber and merchants from committing a murder that will earn them all rebirth in hell. Consequently, out of compassion for both the robber and the merchants, the Captain intentionally (ched du bsams te)35 killed the robber with a short spear. Because of his great compassion and his skill with the means of killing with a spear (snying rje chen po de dang thabs mkhas pa des),36 the round of rebirths for the Captain was curtailed by one hundred thousand kalpa, and the robber was reborn in heaven. The five hundred merchants became Buddhas in the auspicious kalpa.

In his Bodhisattvabhūmi (“Bodhisattva Stage,” composed in the fourth century CE), Asaṅga explains particular cases in which a bodhisattva is neither sinful nor transgressive (anāpattiko) but rather quite meritorious (bahu puṇyaṃ) for having transgressed the first seven of the Ten Good Deeds with the skill in means to benefit others while doing so.37 In order to explicate a case in which the precept against killing has been transgressed with skill in means, Asaṅga analyzes the structure of a narrative, which seems to be some version of the narrative of Captain Greatly Compassionate described above, as follows in the next paragraph.38 The bold text respresents the core elements of Asaṅga’s theory of compassionate and self-sacrificial killing: the last two elements, “not sinful” and “much merit,” are effects of that killing, and the others are the conditions required for a bodhisattva to carry out that killing successfully.

Now, X (a robber) is about to kill Ys (many living beings as well as those who are of high moral quality such as the bodhisattva merchants) for the sake of his desire for a small thing (the merchants’ wealth). This is regarded as equal to one of the ānantarya (“immediate [retribution]”), the gravest sins (viz., patricide, matricide, killing Arhats, injuring the Buddha and causing him to bleed, and splitting the Saṅgha),39 the immediate retribution for which is rebirth in hell. In other words, X is about to commit ānantarya. If X kills Ys, then X will be reborn in hell as karmic retribution for having done so. A bodhisattva (who seems to be Captain Greatly Compassionate) knows this and upon reflection reasons that if he kills X, he can save X from being reborn in hell and Ys from being killed. He is convinced that there is no other way to save them than this (last resort), is determined to suffer the bad karmic retribution (rebirth in hell) that his killing X causes him (self-sacrifice), and ascertains that his state of mind is good or neutral (kuśalacitto 'vyākṛtacitto vā) (1).40 Then, being reluctant [in doing so] (ṛtīyamānaḥ) (2), he kills X purely out of compassion for both X and Ys. In doing so, he is not sinful (anāpattika); indeed, much merit (bahu puṇyaṃ) is brought to him and others. He has undertaken the act with skill in the means [of doing so] (upāyakauśalya), as explained.

In the Upāyakauśalya and Bodhisattvabhūmi, a bodhisattva makes a decision and intentionally kills the target. However, if the intention of killing is compassionate and self-sacrificial, and if the killing is the last resort to save the target and others from the gravest sin and from hell, then it is not sinful but meritorious. The two processes of reflection delineated in the Bodhisattvabhūmi marked as (1) and (2) (viz., to ascertain that his state of mind is good or neutral, and to be reluctant in killing), which are not described in the Upāyakauśalya, help a bodhisattva killer to retain the state of mind that is appropriate for fulfilling compassionate and self-sacrificial killing.

Was that theory of compassionate and self-sacrificial killing used as a soteriology for warriors? Were the required conditions represented in that theory too strict to fulfill for warriors engaged in actual warfare? The two scriptures do not give a clear prescription regarding who among the bodhisattvas (such as kings) were permitted to carry this out.41 The early Vajrayāna Mahāvairocanābhisaṃbodhivikurvitādhiṣṭhānasūtra (abbreviated to Mahāvairocana, “Great Vairocana,” seventh century CE), which concisely summarizes the theory of compassionate and self-sacrificial killing taught in the Bodhisattvabhūmi (but omitting the two processes of reflection previously marked as (1) and (2)),42 counts a king as among the practitioners who are permitted to practice it.43 However, the Mahāvairocana does not relate in which situations (such as battle) a king may practice it. Examples of the use of elements of the theory of compassionate and self-sacrificial killing can be found in theorizing a non-sinful and meritorious form of warfare in the Satyakaparivarta, which is discussed below.

4. A Discourse on Warfare in the Satyakaparivarta

Chapter 6 of the Satyakaparivarta expounds upon a king’s ethics of rule from a Buddhist perspective.44 It contains a discourse related to warfare. This chapter states that there are four classes of king: wheel-turners ('khor los sgyur ba rnams), great kings (rgyal po chen po rnams), regional kings (khams kyi rgyal po rnams), and vassal kings (rgyal phran rnams). The first class of king, wheel-turner, also called “righteous dharma king” (chos dang ldan pa chos kyi rgyal po), corresponds to the wheel-turner in the Cakkavattisīhanāda and the wheel-turner with a golden wheel in the Abhidharmakośa discussed in Section 2 above, who rules moral people in the golden age of dharma.45 The other three classes of king are kings in the actual world (ancient India), where people were not morally perfect and armed conflicts frequently occurred. Great kings govern regional kings and vassal kings. The king’s ethics of rule are presented to the kings in the actual world. A king who rules according to these ethics is called a “righteous king” (chos dang ldan pa'i rgyal po).46 The text teaches the following.

A king protects the people and other sentient beings (deities and beasts) in conformity with the Ten Good Deeds.47 The Ten Good Deeds constitute an important aspect of the dharma. The text reiterates that the effect of observing the Ten Good Deeds is to attain rebirth in heaven (mtho ris or the like).48 A king also relies on treatises (bstan bcos) that include teachings to overcome the “three poisons,” or three unwholesome states of mind, namely, desire (chags pa), hatred (zhe sdang), and delusion (gti mug). To not have the three poisons is the psychological foundation for fulfilling the Ten Good Deeds.49 In order to overcome the three poisons, a king must be heedful and compassionate: Heedfulness (bag mchis pa or bag yod) and compassion (snying rje) are the fundamentally important factors undergirding the king’s righteous rule by the Ten Good Deeds.50 Heedfulness means to be mindful that his wealth and he himself are impermanent and faulty by nature and to wish to renounce attachment to them.51 Compassion is based on heedfulness and, hence, is dispassionate. Compassion takes the form of implementing appropriate measures to “protect the people” (skye dgu rnams kyi skyabs bgyid pa) using his wealth and power to, for example, help his people when any “foreign troops” (pha rol gyi dmag tshogs) harm them, to give foods and other property to those in need, or to punish criminals moderately.52 To do all of the above correctly, a king occasionally seeks advice from learned Brahmins and Buddhist renouncers about what is right.53

In the discourse related to warfare, a king’s compassion is primarily directed toward his people (his subject) and therefore takes the form of implementing measures to protect his people as mentioned above. No word for “compassion” is explicitly used to describe a king’s feeling toward opponents who have been armed to fight against him. Nevertheless, it is possible to interpret that a king has some form of compassion for armed opponents. The text says this (summarized): A king should consider that something has caused the opponents to engage in the faulty act of hostility. He should therefore strive to remove that cause and form friendships with them.54 However, while the text always portrays a king’s compassion for his people as constantly present, its portrayal of his compassionate attitude toward armed opponents is obscured in a particular situation during a time of war as mentioned below. The discourse related to warfare is as follows.

If an enemy army from a foreign country is approaching for battle, then the first thing a king should do is to avoid a war. He should implement the three diplomatic policies separately or in combination to make the enemy army abandon fighting, i.e., forming friendships with it, giving gifts or assistance to it, or intimidating it with allied countries.55 The first strategy, forming friendships with the enemy, seems to be most recommended among the three, as mentioned earlier. However, if all of these strategies are unsuccessful, then the king should engage in war as a last resort, with three thoughts in mind: that he completely protects his people, that he defeats the enemy, and that he captures the enemy warriors alive.56 He is required to try to win the war without killing the enemy. Subsequently, he deploys his fourfold army.57 All of the king’s actions mentioned above, namely the three diplomatic policies to avoid a war, warfare as a last resort with the three thoughts in mind, and military deployment are his “skill in means” (thabs la mkhas pa or thabs mkhas pa).58

However, it does not seem to be always easy to capture alive the enemy warriors, who rush at him with weapons in hands. What happens to him if he has wounded or killed the enemy in battle? The text runs as follows:

Even if the king, [who] is skillful in means and [who] has a thorough knowledge of warfare, kills or wounds the [warriors of the] foreign army, by that, for the king, there is little fault (kha na ma tho ba chung), there is little vice (bsod nams ma lags pa chung ba), and receiving the [karmic] consequence [of it] also becomes uncertain ('bras bu myong ba yang nges pa ma mchis par 'gyur). Why is this? [It is] because in this way he has performed that task with compassion and never abandoning in mind. As he has performed that task by completely abandoning himself and [his] wealth for the sake of thorough protection of the people and [for the sake of his] son, wife, and clan, immeasurable merit (bsod nams tshad ma mchis pa) will also grow.59

The term “skillful in means” in the above passage seems to indicate not only the king’s actions in the three diplomatic policies, warfare as a last resort, and military deployment but also killing the enemy in battle. The king will not suffer the bad karmic result for killing or wounding because he has done it with compassion and never abandoning in mind. There is immeasurable merit because he has done this while completely abandoning himself and his wealth to protect his people and for the sake of his son, wife, and clan. As Jenkins pointed out,60 this passage explaining the fighting king’s innocence and merit-producing power consists of elements derived from the theory of compassionate and self-sacrificial killing (which is also non-sinful and meritorious) examined in Section 3 above. However, there are some important differences between them, which will be discussed in detail below. The meaning of the phrase “never abandoning” (mi gtang ba) is obscure. I consider that it means to not abandon the first two of the three thoughts that the king must have in mind in war, namely, that he completely protect his people and that he defeat the enemy because he has abandoned the final thought that he capture the enemy alive.

Which form of warfare is addressed in this discourse? Previous studies have attempted to descibe it by using the dichotomy of aggression versus defense without elaborating definitions of these two concepts. Schmithausen interprets the Satyakaparivarta as dealing only with a purely defensive war against invaders.61 However, Zimmermann argues that the text does not explicitly limit the situation to a purely defensive war.62 The abovementioned fourfold diplomatic policy of friendship, gifts, intimidation, and warfare as a last resort, which are defined as the king’s skill in means, is, as Zimmermann pointed out, derived from the fourfold diplomatic policy (upāya) of the sāman (“conciliation”), the dāna (“gift”), the bheda (“separation”), and warfare as a last resort found in the Brahmanical books of dharma.63 It should also be noted that this fourfold policy is taught to enable military expeditions to conquer foreign countries (viz., for aggressive wars) in the Manusmṛti, a representative Brahmanical book of dharma.64 (Although he does not kill anyone, a wheel-turner’s conquest examined in Section 2 above may also be seen as somewhat aggressive because his wheel rolls from his location to the rival king’s territory to start his conquest.) However, the Satyakaparivarta presents only a simple statement regarding how military conflict starts: “if [the enemy] army for battle is arrayed near [to the king].”65 In addition, the text does not use either “aggressive” or “defensive,” which is the fundamental problem in explaining this form of warfare in these terms. The best interpretation seems to be that warfare in the Satyakaparivarta deals with a king’s “protection” of his people, which might take the form of either defense or attack, according to the situation. Jenkins says that all prescribed activities of kings for his people are regarded and referred to as “protection” in the Brahmanical books of dharma.66 I stress that the dichotomy of aggression and defense is not always a useful framework for understanding Buddhist attitudes about war in ancient India.

As mentioned above, the king’s non-sinful and meritorious killing in battle in the Satyakaparivarta translated above has some elements of compassionate and self-sacrificial killing taught in the three scriptures examined in Section 3 above: “bodhisattva,” “skill in means,” “the last resort,” “compassion,” “self-sacrifice,” “not/little sinful,” and “much/immeasurable merit.” However, differences can be found between them, which previous studies have not reviewed effectively. We can examine three major differences.

(1) Which Aspects of Himself a Killer Sacrifices and for Whom He Sacrifices Himself:

In the Upāyakauśalya, Bodhisattvabhūmi, and Mahāvairocana, the bodhisattva killer’s self-sacrifice refers to suffering rebirth in hell for the sake of both the target and those who are about to be killed by the target. However, in the Satyakaparivarta, the king’s self-sacrifice signifies abandoning himself (viz., his life)67 and his wealth for the sake of his people, family, and clan members. The text does not state that the king is determined to suffer rebirth in hell or that he sacrifices himself for the opponents whom he kills. This is not strange. Being determined to abandon his life and wealth in battle for the sake of his people, family, and clan members is an element of the Brahmanical ethics of the kṣatriyas68 and seems to be an attitude more common among kings than being determined to suffer rebirth in hell for the sake of his opponents. The authors of the text seem to have changed the meaning of self-sacrifice in order to make it more acceptable for kings. Furthermore, the king’s willingness to abandon his life and wealth is also Buddhist: It can be regarded as being psychologically rooted in his heedfulness (indicating the need to be mindful of the impermanence of himself and his wealth). Heedfulness is the essential factor underlying a king’s rule from a Buddhist perspective, as explained earlier. Therefore, it brings much merit. Thus, the element of self-sacrifice is modified into a more Brahmanical and realistic one while retaining a Buddhist nature.

(2) Why the Victims are Killed:

In the Upāyakauśalya, Bodhisattvabhūmi, and Mahāvairocana, the bodhisattva killer has compassion for the target. Therefore, he kills the target for the sake of the target himself (i.e., to save him from committing ānantarya, the gravest sin). However, the Satyakaparivarta says that the king kills enemy warriors as a last resort to win the war to protect his people. It does not say explicitly that he kills the opponents for the sake of the opponents themselves. It is also obscure whether the opponents are about to commit ānantarya. Instead, the Satyakaparivarta teaches that the death of enemy warriors is ultimately a karmic effect of their intention to harm the king, a righteous one. The text says that “those opponents with a mind of harming him (viz., the king) will be destroyed and cease to exist due to the fault [of theirs that is] each one’s karmic maturation.”69 The king has some form of compassion for the opponents as discussed earlier and tries to capture them alive, but he unavoidably kills them, which is an effect of the enemy warriors’ own karma. The logic that explains the plausibility of a king’s killing of opponents in battle taught in the Satyakaparivarta is similar to the logic that the Buddha used to explain why the Śākyas, the Buddha’s kinsmen, were destroyed by Virūḍhaka’s army: unavoidable karmic retribution for their evil deed in the past.70 In actual wars, it does not always happen that enemy warriors are about to commit ānantarya such as killing Arhats or those equivalent to Arhats. However, it happens more often that enemy warriors have intentions to harm in battle their opponent king, who is righteous from the Buddhist viewpoint. The authors of the Satyakaparivarta seem to have arranged the theory to be more suitable to actual warfare by shifting the interpretation of the enemy’s flaw from committing ānantarya to having an intention to harm a righteous king.

(3) Whose Benifit is the Main Concern:

Chapter 6 of the Satyakaparivarta, the main chapter on royal ethics which deals with the ethics of war I examine here, closes with words saying that such a righteous king who protects his people will be “reborn among gods in heaven, the happy state of existence.”71 The Satyakaparivarta states that there is “immeasurable merit” through that warfare, but it is not clear whether anything very positive occurs to the opponents who were killed, such as being reborn in heaven as taught in the Upāyakauśalya. In the Satyakaparivarta, as described above, the king neither sacrifices his life and wealth nor kills his opponents for the sake of the opponents themselves. A possibility cannot be ruled out that the killed opponents’ happy destination is implied by the words “immeasurable merit.” However, whichever the authors’ implication might be, what can be safely said is that the authors of this discourse were mainly concerned with how a king should protect his people,72 and how he should attain a happy rebirth in heaven. The authors’ concern mentioned here is in line with the idea traditional both in Brahmanism and Buddhism since the age of Aśoka, that one of the most important functions of a king is to protect his people.73 Such a king, according to the Satyakaparivarta, is reborn in heaven after death, as mentioned earlier.

5. Conclusions

The Satyakaparivarta provides ethical instruction to a king to achieve his role of fighting in battle without creating the negative karma that killing generally produces. If a king has killed the enemy in war to protect people as a last resort with a mind of compassion, never abandoning, and self-sacrifice, he is not sinful and is meritorious. This idea of warfare consists of elements derived from the theory of compassionate and self-sacrificial killing, a form of Mahāyānist compassionate violence carried out as a form of skill in means, which is what the Buddha did in his past life according to the Upāyakauśalya and which was presented for a bodhisattva as a case of exception in observing the precept against killing according to Asaṅga and the Mahāvairocana. However, significant differences can be found between the king’s killing in war in the Satyakaparivarta and the theory of compassionate and self-sacrificial killing. In the Satyakaparivarta, combined with ideas external to Buddhism, both the elements of compassion and self-sacrifice are modified into ones that seem to be more realistic and acceptable for kings while retaining a Buddhist nature: In the Satyakaparivarta, a king’s compassion for opponents becomes obscure in a particular situation during a time of war; his self-sacrifice means to renounce attachment to his life and wealth for the sake of his people and kinsmen and does not refer to the determination to suffer rebirth in hell for the sake of his opponents; the opponents are killed as a karmic retribution for their intention to harm the righteous king rather than because of their committing ānantarya; and heedfulness (meaning being mindful of impermanence) and compassion, which are principal Buddhist virtues, are the psychological bases for these actions.

Meanwhile, in order to achieve innocence and merit in warfare, a king must be righteous, must firmly observe the dharma, (the framework of which is formed by the Ten Good Deeds), must not have the three poisons (which is the foundation for the Ten Good Deeds), and must have heedfulness and compassion (which are the bases for not having the three poisons). Therefore, the Satyakaparivarta’s discourse on warfare is also presented to encourage a king, whose role includes taking others’ lives, to be a firm observer of the dharma. A king is also required to have some form of compassion to armed foreign opponents and attempt to form a friendship with them. A righteous king such as this never kills anyone in battle until it becomes unavoidable to protect his people, and even when he does kill, he never does it in such an unwholesome state of mind as hatred.

Buddhist discourse on warfare has multiple aspects. One should not restrict it to its potential application as justification or empowerment for warfare. The discourse in the Satyakaparivarta does not acknowledge all forms of warfare: It sets several conditions on killing in battle. One can interpret these conditions as producing the effect of limiting permissible forms of warfare to a certain degree. However, many of these conditions, such as what the karmic status or moral quality of the king is, to what degree he is mindful of impermanence, whether he is determined to sacrifice his life and wealth, and to what extent he is compassionate, are internal and hence difficult for others to check objectively. In a sense, those conditions were set for an individual king to avoid acquiring the karmic potential that would negatively affect him. It is only after death that he knows whether he did these successfully. The discourse in the Satyakaparivarta should not be entirely equated with the just war theories, which are presented to judge whether a particular war satisfies the conditions required for being just,74 or with mere justification or empowerment concerning the use of warfare. However, this does not exclude the possibility that they may be interpreted in this way.

What are the factors, or doctrinal concepts, that constitute the discourse related to warfare in the Satyakaparivarta? They are the social status of a king; the idea that warfare is the last resort; having a mind to protect the people; having a mind to benefit one’s family and clan members; conceptions of the dharma, such as the precept against killing; the idea of karma; the moral qualities of participants; being mindful of the impermanence of one’s existence and wealth; and states of mind or intentions, such as the mind to sacrifice one’s life and wealth, in addition to compassion. These factors, aside from the first three, are not necessarily or exclusively associated with a king’s duty including warfare. Originally, most of them are components of discourses on spiritual paths to attain a happy next life or Nirvāṇa. Thus, the Satyakaparivarta’s discourse on tolerating warfare partially comprises the same factors as those constituting peaceful discourse. However, because of those factors, its discourse can be a guide for a king to attain salvation.

The Satyakaparivarta’s treatment of enemy warriors, who may be killed in war because of their own karma and whose salvation after death is not explicitly mentioned, may not be fully satisfying for some. Although it mentions a wheel-turner, the Satyakaparivarta does not describe how a moral and peaceful world can be realized in which (a king can become a wheel-turner and) warriors never have such ill intentions as harming the righteous and so are never destroyed. According to the Cakkavattisīhanāda discussed in Section 2 above, such a world is realized after many successive ages of grassroots endeavor: First, each individual reflects on his or her own deeds, then more individuals come to reflect on their deeds, and in the end, the world becomes reflective and acts righteously in accordance with dharma. This sort of instruction is not included in the Satyakaparivarta, because the text’s main concern is to teach how a king should protect his people and how he might attain a happy rebirth in heaven while being active during an age of moral depravity.