BUDDHIST MOTIVATION TO SUPPORT IHL, FROM CONCERN TO MINIMISE HARMS INFLICTED BY MILITARY ACTION TO BOTH THOSE WHO SUFFER THEM AND THOSE WHO INFLICT THEM

ABSTRACT

This article focuses on how Buddhist ethics contains ideas and principles that would urge those in a combat situation to minimise the harm they do to others, within the requirements of their military goal. This international humanitarian law principle is in line with both compassion for others and a concern to limit the bad karmic results to the combatant of their intentional killing and maiming. The motive for an act of killing can worsen or lessen its karmic results, and non-combat actions such as helping the wounded can generate good karmic results which can dilute, though not cancel, the bad karma of killing. Harm to both humans and non-humans is to be avoided wherever possible, but killing a human is worse than killing an animal. The Mahāvaṃsa passage on combatants killed by King Duṭṭhagāmaṇi’s army as mostly being less than human, such that killing them produced little or no bad karma, is a totally implausible statement to put in the mouths of monks whom the text says were Arahats, spiritually enlightened ones.

KEYWORDS:

• animals and humans
• compassion
• killing
• karmic results
• intention
• motive
• Mahāvaṃsa
• Vinaya
• Yodhājīva Sutta
• international humanitarian law

Abbreviations

Table

Disclosure statement

This article has been supported by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Notes

1. For a brief introduction to IHL, see the introduction to this volume.

2. See Premasiri in this volume and cf. Dhp-a.I.279, Jat.I.202–03.

3. Yodhājiva Sutta, S.V.308–09. The Buddha then says the same when questioned by an elephant warrior (hattāroha) and a cavalry warrior (assāroha).

4. Nikam and McKeon (1959), 27–30.

5. For a different perspective on this passage, see Tilakaratne in this volume. See also the discussion in Premasiri.

6. Pasu generally means cattle.

7. See Deegalle (2002); Gombrich (1971, 257–258) discusses the views of some Sri Lankan village monks on this passage.

8. Though they might have the meditative power to be able to know the degree of virtue of each member of a defeated army!

9. 律二十二明了論 (Treatise on the Elucidation of 22[Verses] on Vinaya), T24 no. 1461.

10. An offence that, in Vinaya terms, is never as serious as killing a human.

11. The terrible results of killing a parent do not occur if the act was unintentional (Kv.593), but Theravādin texts (Vin-a.444–445 and Upj.315; Harvey 1999, 275) hold that the result is entailed even if the intended victim was an animal or another person (the Sārvāstivādin AKB.iv.103d differs on this), or if the parent is not known to be a parent (the Mahāyāna Uss.179 differs on this). Vin-a.444–445 explains this as being because of the intention to kill; that there was ignorance of what kind of being would be the victim is seen as irrelevant.

12. That is, a person who has not attained any of the levels of enlightenment: as a Stream-enterer, Once-returner, Non-returner, or a fully enlightened person, an Arahat, or one firmly established on the path to any of these four states.

13. ICRC (2014, 6–7, 46–49).

14. ICRC (2014, 6).

15. ICRC (2014, 47).

16. ICRC (2014, 48).

17. As, in Theravāda Abhidhamma theory, mindfulness is only present in wholesome mind-states (Bodhi 1993, 83–86), there can be no actual mindfulness at the moment of firing. Some other Buddhist traditions have lower standards for true mindfulness, such that it can occur in unwholesome mind states. The Theravāda sees reference to ‘wrong mindfulness’ in the suttas as really a form of misremembering or calling to mind in a wrong way (As.250; Gethin 2001, 42–44).

18. No. 546, Jat.VI.329–478, also known as the Mahosadha Jātaka; newly translated in Appleton and Shaw (2012, 187–333). See Premasiri in this volume.

19. Kāya – literally, simply ‘body’, but explained in the commentary (A-a.II.361) as mindful contemplation of the body.

20. GCI Art 50: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949: Commentary of 2016, Article 50: Grave Breaches: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Comment.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=21B052420B219A72C1257F7D00587FC3

GCII Art 51: Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949: Commentary of 2017, Article 51: Grave Breaches: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Comment.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=51B3435E776E06CEC1258115003EC277

GCIII 130: Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949: Commentary of 2020 Article 130: Grave Breaches: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Comment.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=B0BAF7DBF7E5B3FAC1258584004494BF

21. Harvey (1995, 2010, and 2000, 42–43, 46–49).

22. John Dunne, ‘Precept Keeping’ posting to ‘Buddha-L’ Internet discussion forum, 26 July 1995, and ‘Killing Hitler’ posting, 21 March 1996.

23. There is debate over whether this means the mind of the killer or killed; either is plausible, but Jenkins favours the view of the commentator Jinaputra that it concerns the mind of the killer (Jenkins [2010] 2011, 303–304).

24. Demiéville (1957, 379), citing Taishō (156, vii, 161b–162a).

25. Specifically cited examples of unwholesome mental action are covetousness, ill will and wrong view (M.I.47). Heim (2014, 72, 41) explains that such mental actions are fully developed active mind states, which go beyond the general motivational roots of greed, hatred and delusion, with the covetousness and ill will actually planning a specific future action. Similarly, As.77 explains that there is a mental act of giving when one resolves to make a particular gift in the future.

26. Vasubandhu, giving the Sarvāstivāda view, says that if a person is conscripted into an army, then unless he has previously resolved ‘Even in order to save my life, I shall not kill a living being’, he will share in the guilt of any killing done by others in the army, as all members share a common goal, and thus mutually incite one another (AKB.iv 72c–d).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Peter Harvey

Peter Harvey is Emeritus Professor of Buddhist studies at the University of Sunderland, UK. He co-founded, with Ian Harris, the UK Association for Buddhist Studies (1996). His books include The Selfless Mind: Personality, Consciousness and Nirvana in Early Buddhism (1995), An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices (1990, 2^nd ed. 2013) and An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics: Foundations, Values and Issues (2000). The Thai Buddhist Trust gave him a Golden Buddha award (2003). Mahachulalongkorn-rajavidyalaya University granted him an honorary doctorate in Buddhist studies (2018).