Something I’ve noticed since I’ve been doing the Buddhist thing is that Buddhist people (at least in the US) are very fond of saying that there has never been a Buddhist war. To what extent is that true?
I understand that the answer is pretty complicated - to start with, you could write several books on exactly how Buddhist Japan is and how to approach the actions of Japanese Buddhist priests in World War II, I suspect - but in the broadest terms, is it true?
I guess we need two answers -
Has there ever been a war specifically of Buddhist ideology, like the Crusades or various ethnic cleansing conflicts?
Has a country characterized by its Buddhism ever gone to war? (What about wars of independence? What about Tibet? Is that a religious war?)
The first thing that comes to mind were the Ikko Ikki revolts. They were a religious/political movement in the 1400s-1500s Japan that basically seized various important parts of Japan in revolt against the samurai, and even managed to overthrow one daimyo. They were eventually put down by various daimyo. Beyond that, most Buddhist sects and temples in Japan had warrior monks attached to them and were constantly fighting each other over matters of doctrine and territory. Here’s Wikipedia’s article about the Sohei.
Well, in addition to Japan, which was constantly in civil war, Burma and Thailand/Siam were pretty constantly fighting each other, Siam fought a few wars with Vietnam, and so on. There’s been a lot of war in Southeast Asia, regardless of the Buddhist population. I don’t think that, historically, Buddhist countries have been on average any more peaceful than non-Buddhist countries.
In addition to Captain Amazing’s examples, different Tibetan sects struggled violently for control at times ( i.e. Gelugpa vs. Kagyu ). The history here is rather complicated because secular and religious struggles intersected between various parties. In particular during the 16th-18th centuries different Buddhist Mongol groups acted as outside power-brokers, dominating Tibet and backing different rival sects.
As the Captain noted, Southeastern Asia is overwhelmingly Buddhist ( Theravada for the most part ) and the various nations of that region have been happily butchering each other both before and after the advent of Buddhism in the region. Human nature never changes.
Burma is particularly interesting in one regard, as the founder of the highly aggressive and expansionistic Konbaung dynasty, Alaungpaya, took the name ‘Embryo Buddha’ and proclaimed that his struggle with Siam in particular was in part an attempt to purify Buddhism.
Wasn’t the Empire of Tibet brought down (or at least weakened) by sectarian violence between the native Bon religion and the newer Buddhist converts? It seems like religious civil war that included Buddhist monks assassinating the Bon emperor would count.
Siam/Thailand has certainly been active militarily over the years, but I’m not sure they can be classified as religious wars. They were always simply to expand the territory, or even all about personal grudges, especially with the Burmese kings. (Wars with Vietnam have been mentioned in this thread a couple of times, but Burma is the traditional archenemy. Vietnam has never sacked the Siamese capital like the Burmese did twice.)
After living in a Buddhist society for so long, I’m always bemused by this Western misperception that they’re peaceful people , although I’ll grant they’re probably a bit more so than others.
Most of East Asia has been largely Buddhist for quite some time, and East Asia has had no problem going to war. China, for example, has had a pretty turbulent and violent history.
I read an interesting biography of Pol Pot that posited that Cambodia’s traditional Buddhism may have actually increased the atrocities that happened there. Basically it says Buddhism’s ideas about suffering allowed people to distance themselves enough to commit and accept really horrific acts. After all, if all life is suffering, what does it matter if you are making people suffer a bit more? According to Buddhism it’s all an illusion they ought to be working past anyway.
Another one is Sri Lanka. A Buddhism-Hinduism divide has played out as a minor theme in the greater overarching Sinhalese-Tamil divide. That is to say many Tamils ( largely Hindu ) have complained of religious persecution by the majority Buddhist Sinhalese government.
Viet Nam. The north south divide was exacerbated by buddhist - catholic conflicts.
I personally would NOT argue that Han China is a buddhist country. Tibet most certainly is today and I don’t know enough about Inner and Outer Mongolia to make a call on if they are buddhist or nominally buddhist. Mongols certainly don’t have a peaceful reputation.
Tibet had as noted quite big violence between the rise of buddhism and the indigenous Bon religion. There was also the warlike period that ended in the Tang dynasty ea. Also, as noted above there were religious battles if not wars between the Gelupa, NyingmaM Karpa and other sects. The Bon religion survived by adopting many nominally buddhist trappings and are still extant in border ares such as Jiuzhaigou.
It seems to me that Buddhism blends so easily with local religions and power structures that it’s hard to argue that anyplace is really a Buddhist country. Even places with clearly Buddhist power structures like Tibet are pretty deeply influenced by the local practices that thrived there before. Anyway, I think the best we can talk about is Buddhist influenced countries.
That’s certainly the case in Thailand. The native animism that predates Buddhism prevails. Thai Buddhists live in a world of spirits and good-luck amulets and the like.
yep. Check out the wrathful incarnations of Tibetan buhhist dieties. If that ain’t ancient nomadic voodoo nightmare shit, I don’t know what is. I reallly like it though and have a few really stunning thankas featuring wrathful depictions.
To be fair, only a few Buddhists I’ve met over the years like to go on like that, but those that do really, really love to feel superior to “freaky Middle-Eastern death cults” and the like. (Look, nobody cares that you went to Catholic school.)
Another example is not only Thailand against it’s neighbors, but Thailand against itself! Long before Siam became a unified whole, it was divided into separate Buddhist kingdoms. Ayutthaya in present-day central Thailand, Sukhothai and Lan Na in the North, Luang Prabang and Vientiane in present-day Laos. They slaughtered each other incessantly, including during their own version of the Hundred Years’ War around the 15th century.
Certainly not to the same extent. Even though some pagan elements have been retained in the early stages of Christianity (saints, places of worship, festivals…), you don’t make sacrifices to Belenus in France, to the spirits of the rivers in Russia, etc… after going to mass.
There are many tribes and races, like the Sami (LapLanders) who claim never to have been to war with anyone. They tend to be Animist, although their religion can’t be a factor given the number of warlike animist tribes.
It sounds as though there are two questions being answered:
1 - Do predominately Buddhist countries go to war?
2 - Do Buddhists go to war over Buddhism, that is, wars the parallel the Catholics and Protestants, Catholics and Heretics, Crusades and such. I think the Tibetan and Vietnamese examples might fall into this bin.
, although I’ll grant they’re probably a bit more so than others.