<p>actually everything is in the suttas and for the purpose of the answer Buddhism i equate with Buddhadhamma, not sure what meaning the inquirer imparts it</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>And how, householders, are there three kinds of bodily conduct not in
  accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct? Here someone kills
  living beings; he is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and
  violence, merciless to living beings.</p>
  
  <p>So, householders, it is by reason of such conduct not in accordance
  with the Dhamma, by reason of such unrighteous conduct that some
  beings here on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in
  states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even
  in hell.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/en/mn41/10.1-10.198" rel="nofollow">Saleyyaka sutta (MN 41)</a></p>

<p>one could be a Buddhist who got caught up in unfortunate circumstances where they are forced to use violence or a deadly force which they wouldn't use otherwise, but they'll still have to experience kammic consequences, which is normally birth in hell</p>

<p>such a kamma i think to a certain degree can be alleviated if the mind isn't clouded and blinded with defilements, first of all with desire of killing, at the time of its (the kamma) creation</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Again, with sensual pleasures as the cause, sensual pleasures as the
  source, sensual pleasures as the basis, the cause being simply sensual
  pleasures, men take swords and shields and buckle on bows and quivers,
  and they charge into battle massed in double array with arrows and
  spears flying and swords flashing; and there they are wounded by
  arrows and spears, and their heads are cut off by swords, whereby they
  incur death or deadly suffering. </p>
  
  <p>Now this is a danger in the case of sensual pleasures, a mass of
  suffering visible here and now, having sensual pleasures as its cause,
  sensual pleasures as its source, sensual pleasures as its basis, the
  cause being simply sensual pleasures.</p>
  
  <p>Again, with sensual pleasures as the cause, sensual pleasures as the
  source, sensual pleasures as the basis, the cause being simply sensual
  pleasures, men take swords and shields and buckle on bows and quivers,
  and they charge slippery bastions, with arrows and spears flying and
  swords flashing; and there they are wounded by arrows and spears and
  splashed with boiling liquids and crushed under heavy weights, and
  their heads are cut off by swords, whereby they incur death or deadly
  suffering. </p>
  
  <p>Now this is a danger in the case of sensual pleasures, a mass of
  suffering visible here and now, having sensual pleasures as its cause,
  sensual pleasures as its source, sensual pleasures as its basis, the
  cause being simply sensual pleasures.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/en/mn13/13-14" rel="nofollow">Mahadukkhakkhandha sutta (MN 13)</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>When a warrior strives &amp; exerts himself in battle, his mind is already
  seized, debased, &amp; misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be
  struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not
  exist.' If others then strike him down &amp; slay him while he is thus
  striving &amp; exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the
  body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those
  slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior
  strives &amp; exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down &amp;
  slay him while he is striving &amp; exerting himself in battle, then with
  the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of
  devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two
  destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or
  the animal womb."</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.003.than.html" rel="nofollow">Yodhajiva sutta (SN 42.3)</a></p>

<p>one who is a Buddhist serving in a military during peace time with intent to slack on his duty at the high noon in favor of his obligations as a Buddhist, i think would be committing verbal misconduct of lying</p>

<p>Here's how <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajahn_Sucitto" rel="nofollow">Ajahn Sucitto</a> of <a href="http://www.cittaviveka.org/" rel="nofollow">Cittaviveka Vihara</a> describes his encounter with road bandits while on a pilgrimage in India</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Then everything blew up. Nick turned round with a menacing expression
  on his face; someone was tugging my robe on one side while the ﬁrst
  man was hauling frantically at the mug on its strap on the other.<br>
  Three men charged at Nick who was crouched boxer-style; he wheeled and
  hit them with his backpack, then ran off with the three of them in hot
  pursuit. I was being lugged in two directions simultaneously by the
  strap on my water bottle and on my bag, I could only try to get the
  stuff off and let them have it, but their pulling on it made that
  impossible. We were going round in circles, with their excitement
  spinning into frenzy . I had to stop this. “Wait! Wait! Let me get
  this stuff off !” Momentarily they stood still. They all had axes and
  staves. The leader glared at me through twisted features and raised
  his axe.<br>
  Funny how your mind goes clear when the options disappear. Why
  struggle against the inevitable? The only freedom was to go without
  fear. I bowed my head and pointed the top of my skull toward him, drew
  the blade of my hand along it from the crown of my head to the brow.
  “Hit it right there.” Something shifted; he backed off, waving his axe
  and muttering angrily. I stepped forward and repeated the action. Give
  it away; let it all go.<br>
  Things settled. He lowered his axe. I slipped off the bag and the water 
  bottle and stepped back. The three of them began excitedly picking over
  the  treasure. I imagined that they’d rummage around, ﬁnd there was
  nothing there of any value, and run off. Two of them picked up the
  gear and scurried down the track away. I felt shaky and sat down.
  Better keep cool — I started chanting softly. Then Nick ambled along with a 
  smile but without his pack or assailants. “I’ve hidden the money;
  Bhante, are you all right?”<br>
  His return signalled further frenzy. As his assailants returned, the men
  charged at him with their sticks and began swinging blows; Nick caught
  most of them on his arms: “ All right, all right! I’ll show you
  where.” And the mob had streamed off into the forest by the time that
  I got to my feet, leaving me with one lad, who sullenly resisted my
  attempts to strike up a conversation. But he was mellow compared to
  the older men when they returned — without Nick or the bags. They
  jumped on me and pulled off the bag that I had around my neck
  containing the relics and Buddha image; they ripped off the waistband
  that was threaded through my pouch; they clawed under my sabong and
  dragged the passport out of another pouch that was hanging around my
  waist.<br>
  Then they were off with the loot tied up in bundles on their
  heads. The leader turned round and said “Your bags are over there,”
  pointing into the forest. “Fine, OK.” I said, in a vaguely warm way .
  The forest went back to silence as usual ... a sunny day, with the
  forested slopes on either side.  </p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://forestsangha.org/teachings/books/rude-awakenings?language=English" rel="nofollow">"Rude Awakenings"</a> (pp. 238-239)
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9YE1oP-qr0#t=1h1m15s" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9YE1oP-qr0#t=1h1m15s</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-21T11:57:16.810Z
There's a lot in the suttas that opposes violence and praises non-violence ... but that doesn't quite answer the question. Is there a sutta where the Buddha talks about the military, or talks to a soldier, for example? Given that Buddhist countries have soldiers, what doctrine[s] do they use to justify that?
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-21T15:15:12.997Z
they pervert the Dhamma or conveniently ignore its tenets just like Christians do with the message of Christ, some Burmese Buddhists do pogroms of muslims in the name of the Dhamma, how do they justify it? to be honest i don't care, i don't think searching for Dhammic justification for every obviously outlandish thing people do is a fruitful and sensible approach. It's been said the killing and violence are bodily misconduct, an activity discordant with the Dhamma, i think it's good enough and am uninterested in searching for contradictory statements, which there're none so far as i'm aware
Баян Купи-ка
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-21T15:21:21.700Z
i don't think Dhamma can be successfully married with the concept of state period... 
with suttas where the Buddha would give advise to soldiers i'm unfortunately unfamiliar, in one sutta the Buddha answers that warriors which kill on a battlefield are reborn either as animals or in hell, i added a quotation to my answer
Баян Купи-ка
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-22T12:00:09.407Z
Wonderful answer_/\_
Kaveenga Wijayasekara
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-21T11:26:02.010Z
2016-03-26T00:20:03.500Z
2016-03-26T00:20:03.500Z
Баян Купи-ка
<p>It's hard to prove a negative but in this article, <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/gettingmessage.html" rel="nofollow">Getting the Message</a>, Thanissaro Bhikkhu emphasizes "no killing":</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. <strong>In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all.</strong> When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This might answer your question about "violence", too: apparently "striking back in self-defense" might be OK (I guess that might be in the Vinaya rather than a sutta), but not killing.</p>

<p>I think the Vinaya also recommends avoiding violence, by the way (e.g. avoid going to a place where there are known to be robbers).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-22T21:01:06.357Z
neither striking back is, the only viable behavior for a buddhist in response to violence is either non-violent attempt to stop the aggressor or flight, a more radical response would be passive endurance of the attack ... i welcome you to get more intimate with the suttas, because statements to this effect seem to betray a certain lack of knowledge in this province.... it's noteworthy that secondary opinion you seem to hold as more authoritative than the source Teaching...  Vinaya is of no use here because it only applies to monastics and adds rules on top of those which are universal....
Баян Купи-ка
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-22T21:01:31.420Z
for getting an illustration of dhammic reaction to violence you're also welcome to listen to Ajahn Sucitto account of his encounter with road bandits while on a pilgrimage in India https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9YE1oP-qr0#t=1h1m15s
Баян Купи-ка
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-22T21:15:22.343Z
A more primary source is referenced on page 398 of [this document](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1.pdf) (by the same author) -- "According to the Vibhanga, there is no offense for a bhikkhu
who, trapped in a difficult situation, gives a blow “desiring freedom.”"
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-22T22:10:17.657Z
there's no offence according to Vinaya, but this doesn't exempt one from bad kamma incurred as a result... Vinaya is only a set of mechanic rules majority of which have no moral significance being just safeguards and proactive measures, and to reiterate - it doesn't apply to laity and has never been taught to laity as opposed to 10 courses of skillful action, Vinaya is a legalistic system, not ethical
Баян Купи-ка
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-22T22:33:36.493Z
If trying to escape isn't "malevolent" nor "wrong view", then maybe it's not "opposed to" the 10 courses of skillful action. The OP asked whether there were "certain situations were violence might be appropriate" ... and this was mentioned as one (limited) situation where it might be permitted. The article I referenced follows that with a quote from MN 21, i.e. "Even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding.", and uncompromising "no room for exceptions" re. "no killing".
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-22T22:42:17.687Z
i base my argument on the Suttanta, not on articles, and see no reason or justification in referring to secondary material when the point is clearly and unambiguously expounded in the primary sources which are readily available, please read Kakacupama sutta (MN 21) in full, you will derive much benefit
Баян Купи-ка
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-22T23:03:21.363Z
The reason I quoted an article is because it's difficult to "prove a negative" i.e. to prove that there's no sutta where the Buddha says something permissive to a soldier (my personal opinion that it would be uncharacteristic doesn't count as evidence). And so I tried to do the next best thing i.e. quote someone (Thanissaro Bhikkhu) who has read more extensively and presumably discussed it and is willing to state that "In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all".
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-22T19:53:10.380Z
2016-03-22T19:53:10.380Z
ChrisW
<p>No matter what , violence is against Dhamma. Killing is Killing. Harming is Harming.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-22T17:16:41.047Z
Hi Saurabh, if the person who is asking the question is new to the teaching it would be very helpful to have a good explanation from answers. So think about it next time when you post your answer and generously share your knowledge.
Theravada
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-22T17:23:42.353Z
Thank you for your kind suggestion.Next time i will keep this in mind. :)
Saurabh Padwekar
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-22T17:24:47.397Z
Your'e welcome mate! see you soon with a long answer then ;-)
Theravada
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-22T11:22:04.313Z
2016-03-22T11:22:04.313Z
Saurabh Padwekar
<p>Your occupation doesn't determine.</p>

<p>But there are occupations that could fall you victim of bad karma.</p>

<p>You can compensate it through practicimg Dharma and helping others.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-21T19:58:12.017Z
2016-03-21T20:20:41.837Z
2016-03-21T20:20:41.837Z
Sea embraced moon
<p>There's a book titled, <em>In Defense of Dharma: Just-war Ideology in Buddhist Sri Lanka</em>.</p>

<p><a href="http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/files/2010/04/vroom-review.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This review of it</a> (by Annewieke Vroom in the Journal of Buddhist Ethics) includes,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>Nationalist stories</strong></p>
  
  <p>In chapter two, "Just-war Thinking in Texts and Contexts,"
  Bartholomeusz describes what narratives are used to justify Buddhist
  violence. The major culprit here is the post-canonical scripture the
  Mahavamsa (Great History). In this text kings and forefathers defend the
  country from "external influences" after the Buddha himself makes three
  magical trips to Sri Lanka, which he prepares to be the dharmadwipa (island
  of the dharma). "[T]he Mahavamsa occupies the same position in Sinhala
  society that the Ramayana holds in Indian society." Bartholomeusz quotes
  Steven Kemper on the importance of this text: "As children, they hear
  shreds and patches of the tradition recited, they see temple paintings
  evoking it, or they follow cartoons in Sinhala newspapers representing the
  lives of righteous kings." (pp. 20-21) Thus Bartholomeusz portrays the
  background of the Sri Lankan Buddhist perception of the island: stories that
  present the island as destined to be Buddhist.</p>
  
  <p><strong>Really Buddhist</strong></p>
  
  <p>Sri Lankan Buddhist religio-nationalism is supported by the monks who
  are understood to have the task to safeguard the "Dharma-Island" from
  threat by "foreign influences" such as the Tamils. In support of this
  nationalist worldview, many texts are quoted that paint the history of the
  island as one of heroic warrior kings who (violently) "defend" the country
  from damilas (now read as Tamils) (chapter three: "Dharma yuddhaya and
  Dharma Warriors in Sri Lanka"). Even though most of the quoted texts are
  post-canonical, Bartholomeusz stresses as in earlier publications that it is
  naive to explain dharma yuddhaya (religious/dharma-war) thinking as a
  post-Theravāda development, a Sri Lankan aberration, or for other reasons
  not "truly Buddhist." (p. 66) She locates the seeds for violence in canonical
  Buddhist texts such as the Dhammapada, that are "replete with military
  metaphors." (p. 41)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In summary, "The major culprit here is the post-canonical scripture the
Mahavamsa (Great History)."</p>

<p>I don't have the book, so I can't tell you what it's citing from canonical literature. One of the "military metaphors in the Dhammapada" might be <a href="http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=320" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the first verse of Chapter 23</a> (though in my opinion using that to justify war would be taking it out of context).</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Verse 320: As an elephant in battlefield withstands the arrow shot from a bow, so shall I endure abuse. Indeed, many people are without morality.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>See also, <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/3497/254">What does Buddha and Buddhism say about fighting against enemy of dharma?</a></p>

<hr>

<p>You might be more interested in Thailand. There's a book <em>Buddhist Fury: Religion and Violence in Southern Thailand</em>, which is <a href="http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2012/11/13/review-of-buddhist-fury-tlc-nmrev-xlvi/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">reviewed here</a>, and which is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence#Thailand" rel="nofollow noreferrer">quoted on Wikipedia</a> as saying that,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In the 1970s, nationalist Buddhist monks like Phra Kittiwuttho argued that killing Communists did not violate any of the Buddhist precepts. The militant side of Thai Buddhism became prominent again in 2004 when a Malay Muslim insurgency renewed in Thailand's deep south. Since January 2004, the Thai government has converted Buddhist monasteries into military outposts, commissioned Buddhist military monks and given support to Buddhist vigilante squads.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The review (I haven't read the book) suggests that the justification or reasoning for this is identification with nationalism (e.g. "Thailand is Buddhist").</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-22T17:32:27.623Z
Good observations Chris. You see sometimes we have a choice to just die or fight to last. If you come to Sri Lanka and ask from a good Buddhist "What would you fight to protect, Your teaching or your country" the answer is a very simple "For the teaching". Any Buddhist here would gladly leave all behind and go anywhere it needs to keep the teaching alive for a few more generations. Whether the approaches towards such acts always end up in the right side or not is another topic. I guess this is what happens when learning & practicing is surpassed by recognition.
Theravada
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-21T15:47:29.093Z
2016-03-21T15:58:21.793Z
2017-04-13T12:51:06.270Z
ChrisW
<p>  Is a strictly pacifist Buddhism exactly correct or are there certain situations were violence or war might be appropriate according to the Buddha's teaching?</p>

<p>  What did the Buddha say about the Military? </p>

<p>  Given that Buddhist countries have soldiers, what doctrine[s] do they use to justify having a military to defend the people and the Dharma?</p>

<p>  Is there anything in the Tipitaka to support the idea that a soldier  who selflessly tries to defend others and/or the Dharma by violent means, makes good karma?  </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-22T10:46:04.653Z
do you equate the term Buddhism with Buddhadhamma?
Баян Купи-ка
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-04T00:16:03.563Z
@Баян Купи-ка  In my opinion it seems that Buddha's teaching  is Buddhism and Buddhism is Buddha's teaching + different culture's interpretations. There has to be interpretations otherwise it would be difficult to understand the Buddha's Teaching just from the Pali Suttas. They are incredibly profound hidden underneath magical stories-Metta
Lowbrow
<reality><truth><non-violence>
Was the Buddha against violence in all situations?
# Was the Buddha against violence in all situations?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-03-21)

Is a strictly pacifist Buddhism exactly correct or are there certain situations were violence or war might be appropriate according to the Buddha's teaching?

  What did the Buddha say about the Military?

  Given that Buddhist countries have soldiers, what doctrine[s] do they use to justify having a military to defend the people and the Dharma?

  Is there anything in the Tipitaka to support the idea that a soldier  who selflessly tries to defend others and/or the Dharma by violent means, makes good karma?

**Tags:** reality, truth, non-violence

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: do you equate the term Buddhism with Buddhadhamma?  
> **username_0**: @username_1  In my opinion it seems that Buddha's teaching  is Buddhism and Buddhism is Buddha's teaching + different culture's interpretations. There has to be interpretations otherwise it would be difficult to understand the Buddha's Teaching just from the Pali Suttas. They are incredibly profound hidden underneath magical stories-Metta  

---

## 5 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-03-21. Score: 2

actually everything is in the suttas and for the purpose of the answer Buddhism i equate with Buddhadhamma, not sure what meaning the inquirer imparts it

> And how, householders, are there three kinds of bodily conduct not in
> accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct? Here someone kills
> living beings; he is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and
> violence, merciless to living beings.
>
> So, householders, it is by reason of such conduct not in accordance
> with the Dhamma, by reason of such unrighteous conduct that some
> beings here on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in
> states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even
> in hell.

[Saleyyaka sutta (MN 41)](https://suttacentral.net/en/mn41/10.1-10.198)

one could be a Buddhist who got caught up in unfortunate circumstances where they are forced to use violence or a deadly force which they wouldn't use otherwise, but they'll still have to experience kammic consequences, which is normally birth in hell

such a kamma i think to a certain degree can be alleviated if the mind isn't clouded and blinded with defilements, first of all with desire of killing, at the time of its (the kamma) creation

> Again, with sensual pleasures as the cause, sensual pleasures as the
> source, sensual pleasures as the basis, the cause being simply sensual
> pleasures, men take swords and shields and buckle on bows and quivers,
> and they charge into battle massed in double array with arrows and
> spears flying and swords flashing; and there they are wounded by
> arrows and spears, and their heads are cut off by swords, whereby they
> incur death or deadly suffering.
>
> Now this is a danger in the case of sensual pleasures, a mass of
> suffering visible here and now, having sensual pleasures as its cause,
> sensual pleasures as its source, sensual pleasures as its basis, the
> cause being simply sensual pleasures.
>
> Again, with sensual pleasures as the cause, sensual pleasures as the
> source, sensual pleasures as the basis, the cause being simply sensual
> pleasures, men take swords and shields and buckle on bows and quivers,
> and they charge slippery bastions, with arrows and spears flying and
> swords flashing; and there they are wounded by arrows and spears and
> splashed with boiling liquids and crushed under heavy weights, and
> their heads are cut off by swords, whereby they incur death or deadly
> suffering.
>
> Now this is a danger in the case of sensual pleasures, a mass of
> suffering visible here and now, having sensual pleasures as its cause,
> sensual pleasures as its source, sensual pleasures as its basis, the
> cause being simply sensual pleasures.

[Mahadukkhakkhandha sutta (MN 13)](https://suttacentral.net/en/mn13/13-14)

> When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already
> seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be
> struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not
> exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus
> striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the
> body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those
> slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior
> strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down &
> slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with
> the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of
> devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two
> destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or
> the animal womb."

[Yodhajiva sutta (SN 42.3)](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.003.than.html)

one who is a Buddhist serving in a military during peace time with intent to slack on his duty at the high noon in favor of his obligations as a Buddhist, i think would be committing verbal misconduct of lying

Here's how [Ajahn Sucitto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajahn_Sucitto) of [Cittaviveka Vihara](http://www.cittaviveka.org/) describes his encounter with road bandits while on a pilgrimage in India

> Then everything blew up. Nick turned round with a menacing expression
> on his face; someone was tugging my robe on one side while the ﬁrst
> man was hauling frantically at the mug on its strap on the other.  
> Three men charged at Nick who was crouched boxer-style; he wheeled and
> hit them with his backpack, then ran off with the three of them in hot
> pursuit. I was being lugged in two directions simultaneously by the
> strap on my water bottle and on my bag, I could only try to get the
> stuff off and let them have it, but their pulling on it made that
> impossible. We were going round in circles, with their excitement
> spinning into frenzy . I had to stop this. “Wait! Wait! Let me get
> this stuff off !” Momentarily they stood still. They all had axes and
> staves. The leader glared at me through twisted features and raised
> his axe.  
> Funny how your mind goes clear when the options disappear. Why
> struggle against the inevitable? The only freedom was to go without
> fear. I bowed my head and pointed the top of my skull toward him, drew
> the blade of my hand along it from the crown of my head to the brow.
> “Hit it right there.” Something shifted; he backed off, waving his axe
> and muttering angrily. I stepped forward and repeated the action. Give
> it away; let it all go.  
> Things settled. He lowered his axe. I slipped off the bag and the water
> bottle and stepped back. The three of them began excitedly picking over
> the treasure. I imagined that they’d rummage around, ﬁnd there was
> nothing there of any value, and run off. Two of them picked up the
> gear and scurried down the track away. I felt shaky and sat down.
> Better keep cool — I started chanting softly. Then Nick ambled along with a
> smile but without his pack or assailants. “I’ve hidden the money;
> Bhante, are you all right?”  
> His return signalled further frenzy. As his assailants returned, the men
> charged at him with their sticks and began swinging blows; Nick caught
> most of them on his arms: “ All right, all right! I’ll show you
> where.” And the mob had streamed off into the forest by the time that
> I got to my feet, leaving me with one lad, who sullenly resisted my
> attempts to strike up a conversation. But he was mellow compared to
> the older men when they returned — without Nick or the bags. They
> jumped on me and pulled off the bag that I had around my neck
> containing the relics and Buddha image; they ripped off the waistband
> that was threaded through my pouch; they clawed under my sabong and
> dragged the passport out of another pouch that was hanging around my
> waist.  
> Then they were off with the loot tied up in bundles on their
> heads. The leader turned round and said “Your bags are over there,”
> pointing into the forest. “Fine, OK.” I said, in a vaguely warm way .
> The forest went back to silence as usual ... a sunny day, with the
> forested slopes on either side.

["Rude Awakenings"](https://forestsangha.org/teachings/books/rude-awakenings?language=English) (pp. 238-239)
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9YE1oP-qr0#t=1h1m15s>

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: There's a lot in the suttas that opposes violence and praises non-violence ... but that doesn't quite answer the question. Is there a sutta where the Buddha talks about the military, or talks to a soldier, for example? Given that Buddhist countries have soldiers, what doctrine[s] do they use to justify that?  
> **username_1**: they pervert the Dhamma or conveniently ignore its tenets just like Christians do with the message of Christ, some Burmese Buddhists do pogroms of muslims in the name of the Dhamma, how do they justify it? to be honest i don't care, i don't think searching for Dhammic justification for every obviously outlandish thing people do is a fruitful and sensible approach. It's been said the killing and violence are bodily misconduct, an activity discordant with the Dhamma, i think it's good enough and am uninterested in searching for contradictory statements, which there're none so far as i'm aware  
> **username_1**: i don't think Dhamma can be successfully married with the concept of state period...  with suttas where the Buddha would give advise to soldiers i'm unfortunately unfamiliar, in one sutta the Buddha answers that warriors which kill on a battlefield are reborn either as animals or in hell, i added a quotation to my answer  
> **username_3**: Wonderful answer_/\_  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2016-03-22. Score: 1

It's hard to prove a negative but in this article, [Getting the Message](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/gettingmessage.html), Thanissaro Bhikkhu emphasizes "no killing":

> When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. **In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all.** When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill.

This might answer your question about "violence", too: apparently "striking back in self-defense" might be OK (I guess that might be in the Vinaya rather than a sutta), but not killing.

I think the Vinaya also recommends avoiding violence, by the way (e.g. avoid going to a place where there are known to be robbers).

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: neither striking back is, the only viable behavior for a buddhist in response to violence is either non-violent attempt to stop the aggressor or flight, a more radical response would be passive endurance of the attack ... i welcome you to get more intimate with the suttas, because statements to this effect seem to betray a certain lack of knowledge in this province.... it's noteworthy that secondary opinion you seem to hold as more authoritative than the source Teaching...  Vinaya is of no use here because it only applies to monastics and adds rules on top of those which are universal....  
> **username_1**: for getting an illustration of dhammic reaction to violence you're also welcome to listen to Ajahn Sucitto account of his encounter with road bandits while on a pilgrimage in India https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9YE1oP-qr0#t=1h1m15s  
> **username_2**: A more primary source is referenced on page 398 of [this document](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1.pdf) (by the same author) -- "According to the Vibhanga, there is no offense for a bhikkhu who, trapped in a difficult situation, gives a blow “desiring freedom.”"  
> **username_1**: there's no offence according to Vinaya, but this doesn't exempt one from bad kamma incurred as a result... Vinaya is only a set of mechanic rules majority of which have no moral significance being just safeguards and proactive measures, and to reiterate - it doesn't apply to laity and has never been taught to laity as opposed to 10 courses of skillful action, Vinaya is a legalistic system, not ethical  
> **username_2**: If trying to escape isn't "malevolent" nor "wrong view", then maybe it's not "opposed to" the 10 courses of skillful action. The OP asked whether there were "certain situations were violence might be appropriate" ... and this was mentioned as one (limited) situation where it might be permitted. The article I referenced follows that with a quote from MN 21, i.e. "Even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding.", and uncompromising "no room for exceptions" re. "no killing".  
> **username_1**: i base my argument on the Suttanta, not on articles, and see no reason or justification in referring to secondary material when the point is clearly and unambiguously expounded in the primary sources which are readily available, please read Kakacupama sutta (MN 21) in full, you will derive much benefit  
> **username_2**: The reason I quoted an article is because it's difficult to "prove a negative" i.e. to prove that there's no sutta where the Buddha says something permissive to a soldier (my personal opinion that it would be uncharacteristic doesn't count as evidence). And so I tried to do the next best thing i.e. quote someone (Thanissaro Bhikkhu) who has read more extensively and presumably discussed it and is willing to state that "In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all".  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2016-03-22. Score: 0

No matter what , violence is against Dhamma. Killing is Killing. Harming is Harming.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: Hi Saurabh, if the person who is asking the question is new to the teaching it would be very helpful to have a good explanation from answers. So think about it next time when you post your answer and generously share your knowledge.  
> **username_4**: Thank you for your kind suggestion.Next time i will keep this in mind. :)  
> **username_5**: Your'e welcome mate! see you soon with a long answer then ;-)  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2016-03-21. Score: 0

Your occupation doesn't determine.

But there are occupations that could fall you victim of bad karma.

You can compensate it through practicimg Dharma and helping others.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2016-03-21. Score: 0

There's a book titled, *In Defense of Dharma: Just-war Ideology in Buddhist Sri Lanka*.

[This review of it](http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/files/2010/04/vroom-review.pdf) (by Annewieke Vroom in the Journal of Buddhist Ethics) includes,

> **Nationalist stories**
>
> In chapter two, "Just-war Thinking in Texts and Contexts,"
> Bartholomeusz describes what narratives are used to justify Buddhist
> violence. The major culprit here is the post-canonical scripture the
> Mahavamsa (Great History). In this text kings and forefathers defend the
> country from "external influences" after the Buddha himself makes three
> magical trips to Sri Lanka, which he prepares to be the dharmadwipa (island
> of the dharma). "[T]he Mahavamsa occupies the same position in Sinhala
> society that the Ramayana holds in Indian society." Bartholomeusz quotes
> Steven Kemper on the importance of this text: "As children, they hear
> shreds and patches of the tradition recited, they see temple paintings
> evoking it, or they follow cartoons in Sinhala newspapers representing the
> lives of righteous kings." (pp. 20-21) Thus Bartholomeusz portrays the
> background of the Sri Lankan Buddhist perception of the island: stories that
> present the island as destined to be Buddhist.
>
> **Really Buddhist**
>
> Sri Lankan Buddhist religio-nationalism is supported by the monks who
> are understood to have the task to safeguard the "Dharma-Island" from
> threat by "foreign influences" such as the Tamils. In support of this
> nationalist worldview, many texts are quoted that paint the history of the
> island as one of heroic warrior kings who (violently) "defend" the country
> from damilas (now read as Tamils) (chapter three: "Dharma yuddhaya and
> Dharma Warriors in Sri Lanka"). Even though most of the quoted texts are
> post-canonical, Bartholomeusz stresses as in earlier publications that it is
> naive to explain dharma yuddhaya (religious/dharma-war) thinking as a
> post-Theravāda development, a Sri Lankan aberration, or for other reasons
> not "truly Buddhist." (p. 66) She locates the seeds for violence in canonical
> Buddhist texts such as the Dhammapada, that are "replete with military
> metaphors." (p. 41)

In summary, "The major culprit here is the post-canonical scripture the
Mahavamsa (Great History)."

I don't have the book, so I can't tell you what it's citing from canonical literature. One of the "military metaphors in the Dhammapada" might be [the first verse of Chapter 23](http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=320) (though in my opinion using that to justify war would be taking it out of context).

> Verse 320: As an elephant in battlefield withstands the arrow shot from a bow, so shall I endure abuse. Indeed, many people are without morality.

See also, [What does Buddha and Buddhism say about fighting against enemy of dharma?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/3497/254)

---

You might be more interested in Thailand. There's a book *Buddhist Fury: Religion and Violence in Southern Thailand*, which is [reviewed here](http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2012/11/13/review-of-buddhist-fury-tlc-nmrev-xlvi/), and which is [quoted on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence#Thailand) as saying that,

> In the 1970s, nationalist Buddhist monks like Phra Kittiwuttho argued that killing Communists did not violate any of the Buddhist precepts. The militant side of Thai Buddhism became prominent again in 2004 when a Malay Muslim insurgency renewed in Thailand's deep south. Since January 2004, the Thai government has converted Buddhist monasteries into military outposts, commissioned Buddhist military monks and given support to Buddhist vigilante squads.

The review (I haven't read the book) suggests that the justification or reasoning for this is identification with nationalism (e.g. "Thailand is Buddhist").

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: Good observations Chris. You see sometimes we have a choice to just die or fight to last. If you come to Sri Lanka and ask from a good Buddhist "What would you fight to protect, Your teaching or your country" the answer is a very simple "For the teaching". Any Buddhist here would gladly leave all behind and go anywhere it needs to keep the teaching alive for a few more generations. Whether the approaches towards such acts always end up in the right side or not is another topic. I guess this is what happens when learning & practicing is surpassed by recognition.  

---

