[Buddha-l] Compassionate Violence?

[Dan Lusthaus]

> Thank you, Dan.  Maybe my difficulty is in this being a Yogacara
> innovation, one that I at a least do not see a source of in earlier
> Buddhism.

It is there -- the literature it is drawing from has not been sufficiently 
discussed yet in the general scholarly literature, but that is changing.


>  But the other misgiving is the grounds for the
> justification.

The Bodhisattvabhumi is quite clear:

If a Bodhisattva is living according to the Pure Bodhisattva's precepts and 
rules (śīla-saṃvara), should some minor ‘crime against nature’[1] 
(prakṛti-sāvadya) occur, because he is performing skillful means 
(upāya-kauśalya) in order to benefit others, for that reason nothing is 
transgressed, but, instead, numerous merits issue forth from the 
Bodhisattva's moral discipline.

For example, a Bodhisattva sees that it is an era of thieves and robbers 
who, because they crave wealth, desire to kill many beings; or again, [these 
thieves] desire to harm great worthies such as Śrāvakas, Pratyekabuddhas and 
Bodhisattvas; or again, they desire to commit numerous Heinous Crimes[3] 
(lit. "interminable karma," ānantarya-karma). Seeing such things, and having 
given rise to the aspiration for Awakening (bodhicitta), he thinks:

“If I extinguish the life of that evil sentient being I will fall into 
hell; if I don’t extinguish [his life], numerous heinous crimes will be 
committed (by him) so he will experience great suffering (in the future in 
recompense). I will kill him and fall into hell so that in the end he won't 
have to experience interminable (ānantara) suffering.”

The Bodhisattva deeply ponders whether his intention toward that sentient 
being is with a karmically-wholesome mind (kuśala citta) or a karmically 
neutral mind (avyākṛta-citta). Knowing what the future [consequences] of 
this affair will be, he feels profound shame; with a sympathetic mind 
(anukaṃpā-citta) he extinguishes that one’s life. For that reason nothing 
is transgressed, but, instead, numerous merits issue forth from the 
Bodhisattva's moral discipline.

   Further, the Bodhisattva sees there is a ruler or vicious tyrant lacking 
in any kindness toward sentient beings, who only harasses and oppresses 
them. The Bodhisattva, seeing that he (himself) has already given rise to a 
caring mind/heart (anukaṃpā-citta), and wishing to benefit and comfort the 
others (oppressed by this ruler), he removes that ruler from his position by 
whatever means he is capable of (including assassination). For that reason 
nothing is transgressed, but, instead, numerous merits issue forth from the 
Bodhisattva's moral discipline.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Buddhism distinguishes between (1) prakṛti sāvadya (lit. "blameworthy by 
nature"), i.e., wrongdoing that is a violation of basic human or natural 
laws, regardless of one's affiliation with Buddhism, such as murder; and (2) 
pratikṣepaṇa sāvadya (lit. "blameworthy for contradicting [the precepts]"), 
i.e., wrongdoing that violates a Buddhist precept or rule. The latter is 
something generally not forbidden to humans per se (such as licit sex or 
alcohol), but something specifically prohibited to Buddhists or Buddhist 
clerics. Asaṅga is here relying on that distinction to say that a 
Bodhisattva who is scrupulous in following all Buddhist regulations, should 
he, while in the performance of his compassionate mission to benefit others, 
commit some minor violation of the "natural" laws, the good he is doing 
nullifies the transgression and, instead, "numerous merits will issue 
forth." Asaṅga has reversed an otherwise mainstream Buddhist opinion by 
which natural law is more universally binding. Here, religious authority 
trumps "natural" law, rendering secular transgressions done during the 
positive commission of a religious act devoid of transgressive significance. 
Violent acts done with good intentions are good—Augustine was mounting a 
similar argument in Egypt during roughly the same time-frame.

[3] The Sanskrit and Chinese word for these types of crimes literally means 
"uninterrupted karma" (ānantarya-karma), since they are so heinous that 
excruciating, torturous punishments in the hells continue "uninterruptedly" 
for many eons. Unlike many other religions, however, Buddhist hells are not 
eternal, so even these "uninterrupted" or, perhaps better, seemingly 
interminable punishments do eventually come to an end and the rounds of 
rebirth continue. A typical list of Five Heinous Crimes is: (1) matricide; 
(2) patricide; (3) killing a saint; (4) wounding the body of a Buddha; and 
(5) destroying the harmony of the saṃgha, i.e., the Buddhist community or 
monastic order.



For further explanation, see Kuiji's discussion in A Comprehensive 
Commentary on the Heart Sūtra (2001) tr. by Heng-ching Shih in collaboration 
with Dan Lusthaus, Berkeley: Numata Center, pp. 65-67, which is quite 
illuminating.


>> When the US entered Afghanistan in response to 9/11,
>> chasing out the Taliban that been persecuting non-Muslims and
>> oppressing Muslims not adhering to the standards they insisted upon,
>> Tibetans supported the US actions by alluding to the
>> Bodhisattvabhumi's doctrine, equating the Taliban with tyrants. Check
>> the buddha-l archives -- I have spelled it out here a number of times
>> in the past.
> Which Tibetans?  I must have missed the citation.

Public statements -- not something published by Snow Lion.

>> I have a piece coming out in a book on Levinas and Asian Thought that
>> cites the key passages, etc.
>
> Is that the title of the forthcoming work?  I look forward to getting a
> copy.

That is the book title, coming out from Duquesne University Press. My essay 
in it is titled ""Acting toward the Other with/out violence in (Levinas and) 
Buddhism".

> I have read Tatz's book.  The upaya question comes up again, and maybe
> this is where my question lies.  If a tyrant is overthrown, especially
> by violent means, is the motivation to save the tyrant from the karmic
> consequences of their own actions (with the bodhisattva taking the hit
> altruistically), or is it to prevent the harm in a more general sense,
> a matter of collective karma?

Alleviate suffering -- prevent the tyrant from accruing bad karma, and 
alleviate the multitudes of sentient beings suffering from his tyranny.

Dan