[Buddha-l] Buddhism and forced conversion

[L.S. Cousins]

As regards forced conversion, there is a major difference between 
Buddhism on the one hand and the Christian or Islamic religions on the 
other. Similarly between Buddhism and such religions as Marxism. For 
Christianity and Islam forced conversion has played a very major role in 
their history, although other means of conversion have also played their 
part. For Buddhism it has played only a minor role. It is essentially 
sporadic and atypical. There certainly are examples. Indeed it would be 
surprising if there were not, given the vast history of Buddhism and the 
great variety of ideas and practices subsumed under that heading.

Inevitably those who would like to tar all 'religions' with the same 
brush want now to argue that somehow forced conversion is a part of 
Buddhism from the start. One technique for doing so is to extend the 
meaning of the term 'forced conversion'.

They have a problem with the earlier Buddhist literature because despite 
the large size of the literature and its very varied content there is 
very little to support such an idea. So we see the story of the yakkha 
with the vajira weapon cited as some kind of example of forced 
conversion. This is really quite peculiar. Even if it were, we should 
note that this occurs in one passage (pericope) found only in two suttas 
in Pali and in parallel versions in other languages. In other words, it 
is something very rare and quite possibly a rather late addition.

How this passage (or others) are (mis)interpreted in later times is of 
course quite irrelevant to the question as to whether there is any kind 
of forced conversion in /early/ Buddhism.

But in any case can we view the episode of the yakkha with the vajira in 
his hand as any kind of forced conversion. ? This has to be interpreted 
in the same way as the appearance of devas to make some reinforcing 
point that is found commonly in the suttas. So too in later Buddhist 
works where sometimes Buddhas or bodhisattvas play a similar role. It 
seems rather naive to take this kind of thing literally.

The idea that someone who behaves badly to or in debate with a spiritual 
teacher might find his head split into a number of pieces is part of 
pan-Indian ideas concerning religious truth and religious debate. It 
needs to be analysed in such a context. In essence, it seems a way of 
saying that setting oneself in conflict with dharma is self-divisive and 
self-destructive.

To forcibly convert these episodes into some kind of forced conversion 
seems to me to be way over the top.

Lance Cousins