Compassion, Self-Sacrifice, and Karma in Warfare: Buddhist Discourse on Warfare as an Ethical and Soteriological Instruction for Warriors
Sarah Shaw
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review for Religions
Compassion, Self-sacrifice, and Karma in Warfare
This article provides a thorough and thoughtful examination of the Buddhist ethics for kings engaged in warfare, especially as formulated in the Satyakaparivarta. This article stands out from previous studies on the same subject because it emphasizes the fact that such ethical principles are not merely an expedient justification for warfare, but rather represent a doctrinally sound and ethically coherent position on the role and duties of the righteous king, and on the conditions required to attain a happy rebirth despite engaging in the (normally reprehensible) act of killing enemies.
Some minor points for consideration:
There are three good articles on the tantric aspect of ‘compassionate killing’ (in addition to David Gray’s article mentioned in thebibliography) that it would be worth including in the present study:
Cantwell, Cathy. “To Meditate upon Consciousness as Vajra: Ritual ‘Killing and Liberation’ in the rNying-ma-pa Tradition.” In Tibetan Studies, Volume 1: Proceedings of the 7th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Graz 1995, edited by Helmut Krasser, et al., 107–117. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1997.
Meinert, Carmen. “Between the Profane and the Sacred? On the Context of the Rite of ‘Liberation’ (sgrol ba).” In Buddhism and Violence, edited by Michael Zimmermann, 99–130. Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2006.
Meinert, Carmen. “Assimilation and Transformation of Esoteric Buddhism in Tibet and China: A Case Study of the Adaptation Processes of Violence in a Ritual Context.” Zentralasiatische Studien 45 (2016): 341–360.
l.42: discourses of compassionate violence >> on
l.49: including explicit statement >> in that it explicitly states
l.59: attitude about warfare >> to
l.62: to involve >> to contextualize
l.86: Buddhist teachers such as >> delete
l.92: comparison to >> with
l.94: section >> delete
l.107: corresponding to >> in conformity with
n.12: timeless nirvana >> diacritics?
l.128: extended idea >> extended discussion
n.13: Here I suggest the following translation: “Even worldly people practising non-Buddhist traditions correctly accept and abide in the courses of the ten virtues.”
n.16: Is there a good reason why you do not here refer to the translation by Louis de la Vallée Poussin?
n.18: Brahman >> Brahmā (occurs repeatedly)
l.164: Brahman >> Brahmā
ll.178-185: Here you could emphasize more explicitly that there is a certain tension between the wheel-turner as ideal and the realities faced on the ground by historical Buddhist kings.
l.188: corresponding to >> in conformity with
l.193: realist >> realistic
l.209: an idea >> the idea
l.216: meant warriors >> insert ‘for’
n.32: The distinction articulated in this note seems to be of such importance that it would be worth putting it in the main text rather than in the note.
l.234, etc.: Here the text suddenly shifts to the past tense, which is stylistically inelegant.
l.241: while doing do so >> delete ‘do’
l.250: wealth), which >> wealth). This
l.272: The Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna >> Here it seems mentioning the Vajrayāna alone would be sufficient in this context.
l.279: innocent >> I wonder whether another word might not be better, such as ‘non-sinful’. Occurs repeatedly.
n.48: Indira’s >> Indra’s
n.49: Buddhism idea >> Buddhist idea
n.51: Seeing them being flaws >> as flaws
Satyaparivarta >> Satyakaparivarta
n.52: not acquired yet >> delete ‘yet’
even if [the wealth is] already acquired one >> even [the wealth he has] acquired
robber >> robbers
occur >> occurs
n.54: Suggestion: To have a thought… >> Abiding on the thought that…because of its cause, he removes that cause, and he also forms…
l.323: three as mentioned earlier >> three, as mentioned earlier
n.55: If [he] is able to achieve by >> achieve this by (occurs twice)
n.57: to protects the people >> to protect the people
time of the midst >> intermediate time
time of the last >> final time / or In the end (also on p.16)
the into inferior warriors >> it into inferior warriors
l.330: to carry out >> delete
As you discuss in l.352, the meaning of the Tibetan mi-btang-ba is somewhat unclear. You have proposed one interpretation, which seems possible. Another possibility, which might have the advantage of offering a simpler explanation, is ‘not abandoning [beings or enemies]’. In that case, I would suggest the translation for ll.338-339: “with a mind that is compassionate and that does not abandon [them].” Cf. also l.346.
l.349, l.457: innocence: cf. my comment above
l.377, l.442: innocent: see above
n.72: destroying physical organs and amputation seem to be rather close in meaning. Why list them separately?
different from the time >> unlike the time
for attack >> in attack
l.441: minds of compassion >> why plural?
l.442: This idea on warfare >> of
l.448: derived from outside >> external to
l.453: not to be determined to >> does not refer to the determination to
ll.466-467: review it only in terms of its potential to be applied >> restrict it to its potential application
l.467: justifications >> no plural needed
the use of >> delete
l.474: has negative effect on him >> would negatively effect him
l.478: the possibility exists >> this does not exclude the possibility
l.484: and wealth and compassion >> and wealth, as well as compassion
l.519, l.525, l.533: ), P ed., >> ). P ed.,
Author Response
Point 1:
This article provides a thorough and thoughtful examination of the Buddhist ethics for kings engaged in warfare, especially as formulated in the Satyakaparivarta. This article stands out from previous studies on the same subject because it emphasizes the fact that such ethical principles are not merely an expedient justification for warfare, but rather represent a doctrinally sound and ethically coherent position on the role and duties of the righteous king, and on the conditions required to attain a happy rebirth despite engaging in the (normally reprehensible) act of killing enemies.
Response 1:
Thank you so much for this encouraging comment. I will reply to all of your suggestions below.
Point2:
There are three good articles on the tantric aspect of ‘compassionate killing’ (in addition to David Gray’s article mentioned in thebibliography) that it would be worth including in the present study:
Cantwell, Cathy. “To Meditate upon Consciousness as Vajra: Ritual ‘Killing and Liberation’ in the rNying-ma-pa Tradition.” In Tibetan Studies, Volume 1: Proceedings of the 7th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Graz 1995, edited by Helmut Krasser, et al., 107–117. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1997.
Meinert, Carmen. “Between the Profane and the Sacred? On the Context of the Rite of ‘Liberation’ (sgrol ba).” In Buddhism and Violence, edited by Michael Zimmermann, 99–130. Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2006.
Meinert, Carmen. “Assimilation and Transformation of Esoteric Buddhism in Tibet and China: A Case Study of the Adaptation Processes of Violence in a Ritual Context.” Zentralasiatische Studien 45 (2016): 341–360.
Response 2:
As you say, they are good articles. I learned much from them. However, given this paper’s purpose, I was not able to mention them. These articles investigate the Tantric aspect of compassionate killing. My paper focuses on the tradition before Tantric Buddhism. (Indeed, I examined the Mahāvairocanasūtra, an early Tantric text. However, I dealt only with its Mahāyānist discourse of compassionate killing, which was based on the Mahāyāna Bodhisattvabhūmi.) For this reason, I did not mention previous studies whose concerns exist in Tantric violence. Prof. Gray’s paper, even though its concern is the Tantric aspect of compassionate killing, includes an analysis of the compassionate killing in the Upāyakauśalya, an early Mahāyāna text. Therefore, I mentioned his paper in footnote 34 as a previous study dealing with the Upāyakauśalya.
Indeed, the first paper (Dr. Cantwell’s paper) mentions a discourse of emptiness from the Mahāyāna Mahāratnakūṭasūtra, in which the concepts such as killer and the killed are relativized in terms of emptiness (footnote 26). However, in that discourse, as the Buddha himself explicitly states, Mañjuśrī’s act of holding up a sword to kill the Buddha is shown to be a mere metaphor to help his advanced bodhisattva audience understand emptiness (Chang 1983: 66). It is not primarily a teaching for warriors (or any others) to be released from the sin of actual killing by means of emptiness. This is also the reason I did not mention her paper as a previous study that deals with this sort of discourse before Tantric Buddhism in India.
Point3:
l.42: discourses of compassionate violence >> on
l.49: including explicit statement >> in that it explicitly states
l.59: attitude about warfare >> to
l.62: to involve >> to contextualize
l.86: Buddhist teachers such as >> delete
l.92: comparison to >> with
l.94: section >> delete
l.107: corresponding to >> in conformity with
n.12: timeless nirvana >> diacritics?
l.128: extended idea >> extended discussion
Response 3:
Thank you so much for your careful review of my English. I have corrected all these as you suggest. As for the “nirvana,” I have corrected it to “nibbāna (or nirvāṇa)” because in this footnote I am speaking of the Pali text.
Point 4:
n.13: Here I suggest the following translation: “Even worldly people practising non-Buddhist traditions correctly accept and abide in the courses of the ten virtues.”
Response 4:
Your translation is better and clearer than mine. Based on your suggestion, I have corrected my translation as follows: “Even worldly people practicing non-Buddhist traditions correctly accept and abide in these courses of the Ten Good Deeds.” The last part, “in these courses of the Ten Good Deeds”, is slightly different from your suggestion. I have translated the text ’di rnams as “these.” In this paper I have used the term “Ten Good Deeds” instead of “ten virtues.” For this reason I have translated the text dge bdu’i las as “Ten Good Deeds.”
Point 5:
n.16: Is there a good reason why you do not here refer to the translation by Louis de la Vallée Poussin?
Response 5:
My French is not particularly strong; therefore, I did not refer to his French translation.
Point 6:
n.18: Brahman >> Brahmā (occurs repeatedly)
l.164: Brahman >> Brahmā
Response 6:
Thank you for the suggestion. However, I would like to keep the word “Brahman” because it is the basic form of this Sanskrit word. Brahmā is its nominative form. In this paper, when I mention Sanskrit proper nouns, I have used their basic forms.
Point 7:
ll.178-185: Here you could emphasize more explicitly that there is a certain tension between the wheel-turner as ideal and the realities faced on the ground by historical Buddhist kings.
Response 7:
As you suggest, it would be better here to emphasize the existence of such tension more explicitly. I consider mentioning and analyzing some examples (for example, the narrative of King Harṣa and historical Harṣa) being the best way to do so. However, I have neither collected nor studied Indian examples of such tension sufficiently. I wish to keep the sentences unchanged for this reason and to make this a task for my future research.
Point 8:
l.188: corresponding to >> in conformity with
l.193: realist >> realistic
l.209: an idea >> the idea
l.216: meant warriors >> insert ‘for’
Response 8:
I have corrected all these as you suggest.
Point 9:
n.32: The distinction articulated in this note seems to be of such importance that it would be worth putting it in the main text rather than in the note.
Response 9:
Although it might be important, I would like to keep it in the footnote so that the discussion might not be expanded. If it is put in the main text, readers may expect a more extensive explanation and argument on that distinction, which is not a main topic of this paper.
Point 10:
l.234, etc.: Here the text suddenly shifts to the past tense, which is stylistically inelegant.
Response 10:
Thank you for the suggestion. However, I think that, if not the best, this is better than changing all verbs and auxiliary verbs of the present tense before l.234 in this paragraph into the past tense and all verbs of the past tense after l.234 in this paragraph into some other tense. Although it is inelegant, this makes the meaning clear. Readers will not confuse the conditional with the subjunctive and will be able to understand that the captain, robber, and merchants have attained their respective happy destinations.
Point 11:
l.241: while doing do so >> delete ‘do’
l.250: wealth), which >> wealth). This
Response 11:
I have corrected all these as you suggest.
Point 12:
l.272: The Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna >> Here it seems mentioning the Vajrayāna alone would be sufficient in this context.
Response 12:
Based on your suggestion, I have changed the phrase to “The early Vajrayāna.”
Point 13:
l.279: innocent >> I wonder whether another word might not be better, such as ‘non-sinful’. Occurs repeatedly.
Response 13:
Based on your suggestion, I have corrected “an innocent” into “a non-sinful.”
Point 14:
n.48: Indira’s >> Indra’s
n.49: Buddhism idea >> Buddhist idea
n.51: Seeing them being flaws >> as flaws
Satyaparivarta >> Satyakaparivarta
n.52: not acquired yet >> delete ‘yet’
even if [the wealth is] already acquired one >> even [the wealth he has] acquired
robber >> robbers
occur >> occurs
Response 14:
I have corrected all these as you suggest. I should be ashamed of not having noticed the typo of “Indira” (for “Indra”).
Point 15:
n.54: Suggestion: To have a thought… >> Abiding on the thought that…because of its cause, he removes that cause, and he also forms…
Response 15:
It seems that my translation is somewhat confusing. Based on your suggestion, I have corrected the translation of the whole line as follows: “[A king should have] a thought that opponents have a reason for committing the fault [of hostility], and … Abiding on the ‘thought that opponents have a reason for committing the fault’ [means that] he removes that cause (reason), and he also forms …” The latter half of this line is a commentary on the former half. Therefore, I have supplemented “[means that].”
Point 16:
l.323: three as mentioned earlier >> three, as mentioned earlier
Response 16:
I have corrected this as you suggest.
Point 17:
n.55: If [he] is able to achieve by >> achieve this by (occurs twice)
Response 17:
I have corrected this as “achieve [this] by.” Because the text does not have a word indicating “this,” I have put it within square brackets.
Point 18:
n.57: to protects the people >> to protect the people
time of the midst >> intermediate time
time of the last >> final time / or In the end (also on p.16)
the into inferior warriors >> it into inferior warriors
l.330: to carry out >> delete
Response 18:
I have corrected all these as you suggest.
Point 19:
As you discuss in l.352, the meaning of the Tibetan mi-btang-ba is somewhat unclear. You have proposed one interpretation, which seems possible. Another possibility, which might have the advantage of offering a simpler explanation, is ‘not abandoning [beings or enemies]’. In that case, I would suggest the translation for ll.338-339: “with a mind that is compassionate and that does not abandon [them].” Cf. also l.346.
Response 19:
Thank you for the suggestion. Your interpretation may be right, but, respectfully, it is not certain. The king kills the enemies and, as I said in the paper, the text does not mention their salvation explicitly (although it does not exclude the possibility that their salvation is implied). Although I did not mention so in the paper, Zimmermann interprets that Tibetan mi-btang-ba to be not abandoning fighting or warfare, which is the kṣatriya’s duty. This is also another possibility. (However, which aspect of warfare does the king not abandon?) It is difficult to decide which possibility in the most likely. I would like to keep my interpretation.
Point 20:
l.349, l.457: innocence: cf. my comment above
l.377, l.442: innocent: see above
Response 20:
I have corrected all these as you suggest.
Point 21:
n.72: destroying physical organs and amputation seem to be rather close in meaning. Why list them separately?
Response 21:
The reason for listing them separately is that they are divided in the text (dbang po nyams par bgyid pa dang / yan lag gtub pa). For details, please see my forthcoming paper (2020), which I mention in footnote 72 of this paper.
Point 22:
different from the time >> unlike the time
for attack >> in attack
Response 22:
I have corrected all these as you suggest.
Point 23:
l.441: minds of compassion >> why plural?
Response 23:
It is because “minds” refers to a mind of compassion, a mind of never abandoning, and a mind of self-sacrifice. I was thinking rather literally when I chose the plural noun here, but I now see the virtue of using the singular case. Thus, I have changed it into the singular “mind.”
Point 24:
l.442: This idea on warfare >> of
l.448: derived from outside >> external to
l.453: not to be determined to >> does not refer to the determination to
ll.466-467: review it only in terms of its potential to be applied >> restrict it to its potential application
l.467: justifications >> no plural needed
the use of >> delete
l.474: has negative effect on him >> would negatively effect him
l.478: the possibility exists >> this does not exclude the possibility
Response 24:
I have corrected all these as you advise.
Point 25:
l.484: and wealth and compassion >> and wealth, as well as compassion
l.519, l.525, l.533: ), P ed., >> ). P ed.,
Response 25:
Thank you for the suggestion. I have corrected “wealth and” to “wealth, in addition to” because as well as statement here may be incorrectly read as a subordination of compassion to states of mind or intentions ... life and wealth.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a well-written (although it is neither engaging nor entertaining) article that demonstrates a strong grasp of both Sanskrit and Tibetan. It is on an important topic in the history of ethics. I think it should be published, but I wish it had some methodological or theoretical innovation or impact. It is a descriptive article that doesn’t much improve on previous scholarship. It simply expands and clarifies previous work. However, for students of Buddhist ethics, it will be a helpful addition to scholarship.
Author Response
Point 1:
This is a well-written (although it is neither engaging nor entertaining) article that demonstrates a strong grasp of both Sanskrit and Tibetan. It is on an important topic in the history of ethics. I think it should be published, but I wish it had some methodological or theoretical innovation or impact. It is a descriptive article that doesn’t much improve on previous scholarship. It simply expands and clarifies previous work. However, for students of Buddhist ethics, it will be a helpful addition to scholarship.
Response 1:
Thank you so much for your helpful assessment. As you point out, my paper is not so ambitious in terms of methodology or theory. If my paper could have any methodological innovation or impact, it would perhaps be better and more beneficial for students. However, I was not able to include such argument. I respectfully suggest that I would require more time to study and consider it and so would like to make this a task for my future research. I would like to keep my present paper unchanged.
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an arresting topic, very well addressed. The subject is one that exercises a particular and unfortunate interest at the outset of the twenty-first century. The author addresses the texts and issues involved with care, precision and a clear-sighted ability to encompass the subtleties of the material without partiality. All aspects of scholarly procedures are well observed; possible objections and qualifications are all considered with care. This is particularly evident in the way the author scrutinises so finely the historical context and the applicability of each text involved. There is good and apt recourse to primary and secondary sources to substantiate the argument and the conclusions are nuanced and measured.
The topic of the paper will have particular significance and interest during a period when the subject of ethical warfare and procedures for defining and evaluating military action are being so widely debated. Its potential readership is large, both amongst Buddhist scholars, and also amongst general readers, including scholars in other disciplines who wish to engage in the debate concerning the ethics, doctrinal justification and implementation of warfare in any context, secular or religious. The argumentation is sound, careful and convincing. One does hear any axes being ground; all aspects of the role of the military and its connection with good governance in the material under discussion are thoroughly and carefully examined within the context both of the Buddhist traditions, and the Indic traditions in general. The account of the famous 'Flight 93' Buddhist story is one of the best I have read: the author does not take any easy options in examining all the motives involved. The article is also particularly well annotated and referenced, with all sources carefully cited and explained. The style is clear, accessible and fluent.
I feel this paper is of very high quality indeed. It offers an extremely important contribution to an unfortunately somewhat live debate, and I have no criticisms.
It should be published.
I have one, sadly necessary, quibble!
Page 1, l.28; Is this always true? Should one say ‘One would suppose that….’?
Author Response
Point 1:
This is an arresting topic, very well addressed. The subject is one that exercises a particular and unfortunate interest at the outset of the twenty-first century. The author addresses the texts and issues involved with care, precision and a clear-sighted ability to encompass the subtleties of the material without partiality. All aspects of scholarly procedures are well observed; possible objections and qualifications are all considered with care. This is particularly evident in the way the author scrutinises so finely the historical context and the applicability of each text involved. There is good and apt recourse to primary and secondary sources to substantiate the argument and the conclusions are nuanced and measured.
The topic of the paper will have particular significance and interest during a period when the subject of ethical warfare and procedures for defining and evaluating military action are being so widely debated. Its potential readership is large, both amongst Buddhist scholars, and also amongst general readers, including scholars in other disciplines who wish to engage in the debate concerning the ethics, doctrinal justification and implementation of warfare in any context, secular or religious. The argumentation is sound, careful and convincing. One does hear any axes being ground; all aspects of the role of the military and its connection with good governance in the material under discussion are thoroughly and carefully examined within the context both of the Buddhist traditions, and the Indic traditions in general. The account of the famous 'Flight 93' Buddhist story is one of the best I have read: the author does not take any easy options in examining all the motives involved. The article is also particularly well annotated and referenced, with all sources carefully cited and explained. The style is clear, accessible and fluent.
I feel this paper is of very high quality indeed. It offers an extremely important contribution to an unfortunately somewhat live debate, and I have no criticisms.
It should be published.
I have one, sadly necessary, quibble!
Page 1, l.28; Is this always true? Should one say ‘One would suppose that….’?
Response 1:
Thank you so much for your warm and encouraging comment. It also includes a hint to make my research more open to other scholars of different disciplines. Thank you also for your suggestion concerning l. 28. I agree with you: This is not always true. I have revised the line in accordance with your suggestion.
Reviewer 4 Report
This is significant contribuition and I recommend publication.
Author Response
Point 1:
This is significant contribuition and I recommend publication.
Response 1:
Thank you so much for your warm and encouraging comment.
