Buddhism and War

[blackheart]

Spawn from another thread, this one will specifically deal with Buddhism and war. I would like to know, has Buddhism been the creator/ inducer/ progressor of religious wars such as crusades or jihads?

 

[blackheart]

Originally posted by Cierdan
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09744a.htm

There is not in the whole history of the Church a single people who can offer to the admiration of the Christian world annals as glorious, and a martyrology as lengthy, as those of the people of Japan. In January, 1552, St. Francis Xavier had remarked the proselytizing spirit of the early neophytes. "I saw them", he wrote, "rejoicing in our successes, manifesting an ardent zeal to spread the faith and to win over to baptism the pagans they conquered." He foresaw the obstacles that would block the progress of the faith in certain provinces, the absolutism of this or that daimyo, a class at that time very independent of the Mikado and in revolt against his supreme authority. As a matter of fact, in the province of Hirado, where he made a hundred converts, and where six years after him, 600 pagans were baptized in three days, a Christian woman (the proto-martyr) was beheaded for praying before a cross. In 1561 he diamyo forced the Christians to abjure their faith, "but they preferred to abandon all their possessions and live in the Bungo, poor with Christ, rather than rich without Him", wrote a missionary, 11 October, 1562. When, under the Shogunate of Yoshiaki, Ota Nobunaga, supported by Wada Koresama, a Christian, had subdued the greater part of the provinces and had restored monarchical unity, there came to pass what St. Francis Xavier had hoped for. At Miyako (the modern Kiyoto) the faith was recognized and a church built 15 Aug., 1576. Then the faith continued to spread without notable opposition, as the daimyos followed the lead of the Mikado (Ogimachi, 1558-1586) and Ota Nobunaga. The toleration or favor of the central authority brought about everywhere the extension of the Christian religion, and only a few isolated cases of martyrdom are known (Le Catholicisme au Japon, I, 173).

It was not until 1587, when there were 200,000 Christians in Japan, that an edict of persecution, or rather of prescription, was passed to the surprise of everyone, at the instigation of a bigoted bonze, Nichijoshonin [a Buddhist monk], zealous for the religion of his race. Twenty-six residences and 140 churches were destroyed; the missionaries were condemned to exile, but were clever enough to hide or scatter. They never doubted the constancy of their converts; they assisted them in secret and in ten years there were 100,000 other converts in Japan. We read of two martyrdoms, one at Takata, the other at Notsuhara; but very many Christians were dispossessed of their goods and reduced to poverty. The first bloody persecution dates from 1597. It is attributed to two causes: (1) Four years earlier some Castilian religious had come from the Philippines and, in spite of the decisions of the Holy See, had joined themselves to the 130 Jesuits who, on account of the delicate situation created by the edict were acting with great caution. In spite of every charitable advice given them, these men set to work in a very indiscreet manner, and violated the terms of the edict even in the capital itself; (2) a Castilian vessel cast by the storm on the coast of Japan was confiscated under the laws then in vigour. Some artillery was found on board, and Japanese susceptibililties were further excited by the lying tales of the pilot, so that the idea went abroad that the Castilians were thinking of annexing the country. A list of all the Christians in Miyado and Osaka was made out, and on 5 Feb., 1597, 26 Christians, among whom were 6 Fransciscan missionaries, were crucified at Nagasaki. Among the 20 native Christians there was one, a child of 13, and another of 12 years. "The astonishing fruit of the generous sacrifice of our 26 martyrs" (wrote a Jesuit missionary) "is that the Christians, recent converts and those of maturer faith, have been confirmed in the faith and hope of eternal salvation; they have firmly resolved to lay down their lives for the name of Christ. The very pagans who assisted at the martyrdom were struck at seeing the joy of the blessed ones as they suffered on their crosses and the courage with which they met death".

Ten years before this another missionary had foreseen and predicted that "from the courage of the Japanese, aided by the grace of God, it is to be expected that persecution will inaugurate a race for martyrdom". True it is that the national and religious customs of the people predisposed them to lay down their lives with singular fatalism; certain of their established usages, religious suicide, hara-kiri, had developed a contempt for death; but if grace does not destroy nature it exalts it, and their fervent charity and love for Christ led the Japanese neophytes to scourgings that the missionaries had to restrain. When this love for Christ had grown strong in the midst of suffering freely chosen, it became easier for the faithful to give the Saviour that greatest proof of love by laying down their lives in a cruel death for His name's sake. "The fifty crosses, ordered for the holy mountain of Nagasaki, multiplied ten or a hundred fold, would not have sufficed" (wrote one missionary) "for all the faithful who longed for martyrdom". Associations (Kumi) were formed under the patronage of the Blessed Virgin with the object of preparing the members by prayer and scourgings even to blood, to be ready to lay down their lives for the faith. After the persecution of 1597, there were isolated cases of martyrdom until 1614, in all about 70. The reigns of Ieyasu, who is better known in Christian annals by the name of Daifu Sama, and of his successors Hidetada and Iemitziu, were the more disastrous. We are not concerned now with the causes of that persecution, which lasted half a century with some brief intervals of peace. According to Mr. Ernest Satow (quoted by Thurston in "The Month", March, 1905, "Japan and Christianity"): "As the Jesuit missionaries conducted themselves with great tact, it is by no means improbable that they might have continued to make converts year by year until the great part of the nation had been brought over to the Catholic religion, had it not been for the rivalry of the missionaries of other orders." These were the Castilian religious; and hence the fear of seeing Spain spread its conquests from the Philippines to Japan. Furthermore the zeal of certain religious Franciscans and Dominicans was wanting in prudence, and led to the persecution.

Year by year after 1614 the number of marytrdoms was 55, 15, 25, 62, 88, 15, 20. The year 1622 was particularly fruitful in Christian heroes. The Japanese martyrology counts 128 with name, Christian name and place of execution. Before this the four religious orders, Dominicans, Franciscans, Augustinians and Jesuits, had had their martyrs, but on 10 Sept., 1622, 9 Jesuits, 6 Dominicans, 4 Franciscans, and 6 lay Christians were put to death at the stake after witnessing the beheading of about 30 of the faithful. From December until the end of September, 1624, there were 285 martyrs. The English captain, Richard ***** (Calendar of State Papers: Colonial East Indies, 1617-1621, p. 357) "saw 55 martyred at Miako at one time. . .and among them little children 5 or 6 years old burned in their mother's arms, crying out: 'Jesus receive our souls'. Many more are in prison who look hourly when they shall die, for very few turn pagans". We cannot go into the details of these horrible slaughters, the skilful tortures of Mount Unaen, the refined cruelty of the trench. After 1627 death grew more and more terrible for the Christians; in 1627, 123 died, during the years that followed, 65, 79, and 198. Persecution went on unceasingly as long as there were missionaries, and the last of whom we learn were 5 Jesuits and 3 seculars, who suffered the torture of the trench from 25 to 31 March, 1643. The list of martyrs we know of (name, Christian name, and place of execution) has 1648 names. If we add to this group the groups we learn of from the missionaries, or later from the Dutch travellers between 1649 and 1660, the total goes to 3125, and this does not include Christians who were banished, whose property was confiscated, or who died in poverty. A Japanese judge, Arai Hakuseki, bore witness about 1710, that at the close of the reign of Iemitzu (1650) "it was ordered that the converts should all lean on their own staff". At that time an immense number, from 200,000 to 300,000 perished. Without counting the members of Third Orders and Congregations, the Jesuits had, according to the martyrology (Delplace, II, 181-195; 263-275), 55 martyrs, the Franciscans 36, the Dominicans 38, the Augustinians 20. Pius IX and Leo XIII declared worthy of public cult 36 Jesuit martyrs, 25 Franciscans, 21 Dominicans, 5 Augustinians and 107 lay victims. After 1632 it ceased to be possible to obtain reliable data or information which would lead to canonical beatification. When in 1854, Commodore Perry forced an entry to Japan, it was learned that the Christian faith, after two centuries of intolerance, was not dead. In 1865, priests of the foreign Missions found 20,000 Christians practising their religion in secret at Kiushu. Religious liberty was not granted them by Japanese law until 1873. Up to that time in 20 provinces, 3404 had suffered for the faith in exile or in prison; 660 of these had died, and 1981 returned to their homes. In 1858, 112 Christians, among whom were two chief-baptizers, were put to death by torture. One missionary calculates that in all 1200 died for the faith.

 

[blackheart]

As pointed out above, Japanese warlords massacred Christian converts because they were pledging their loyalties to the Church instead of their lieges. I would like to point out though, that 50% of Japan is Shinto, and the other half Buddhist. So this case cannot be counted as a Buddhist "Holy War".

 

[Rambuchan]

I'm not aware of any Buddhist Holy Wars, even after all the above. Sounds like war to me and that some religion was rolled up in it, but not to the extent that such that would merit such a label.

 

[Keirador]

Look into Sinhalese Buddhists on the island of Sri Lanka. They have been at war with each other, the Tamil Hindus, or both each and the Tamils on and off for about a millenium.

 

[Rambuchan]

Look into Sinhalese Buddhists on the island of Sri Lanka. They have been at war with each other, the Tamil Hindus, or both each and the Tamils on and off for about a millenium.

You are making me pretty angry again Keirador.

Again - as with all the falsehoods and BS you guys are slinging around in the Free Islamic States thread - the war in Sri Lanka has nothing to do with religion at all. It is about land. Not every darky has to be a religious fanatic you know.

 

[Keirador]

You are making me pretty angry again Keirador.

Again - as with all the falsehoods and BS you guys are slinging around in the Free Islamic States thread - the war in Sri Lanka has nothing to do with religion at all. It is about land. Not every darky has to be a religious fanatic you know.

At several points, wars were launched in the name of religion. Chinese admiral Zen He interrupted one during the 15th century that was being fought on the pretext that one Sinhalese Buddhist sect was heretical. I will completely agree that the real motivation was secular (trading opportunies in addition to land) but such is the case with many wars when leaders co-opt religion to justify their aggression or atrocity.

 

[Rambuchan]

At several points, wars were launched in the name of religion. Chinese admiral Zen He interrupted one during the 15th century that was being fought on the pretext that one Sinhalese Buddhist sect was heretical. I will completely agree that the real motivation was secular (trading opportunies in addition to land) but such is the case with many wars when leaders co-opt religion to justify their aggression or atrocity.

Why didn't you say that in the first place then, instead of alluding to the religious/jihad style war ('going on for 1000 years'), which the thread asks about? I'm sorry but I just take exception to the trend going on atm in OT, trying to work out which countries may or may not be on the axis of fundamentalism. It's just prejudiced and creates and spreads misconception.

See the thread asked: "I would like to know, has Buddhism been the creator/ inducer/ progressor of religious wars such as crusades or jihads?"

Clearly the answer is no it hasn't. And neither has Hinduism.

 

[Keirador]

Well, it specifically mentioned Crusades, which weren't motivated primarily by religion, and jihad, which is a much more general term than Crusades, but in many instances Islamic leaders co-opted the term to fulfill materialist or nationalist goals.

 

[Rambuchan]

Well, it specifically mentioned Crusades, which weren't motivated primarily by religion, and jihad, which is a much more general term than Crusades, but in many instances Islamic leaders co-opted the term to fulfill materialist or nationalist goals.

What's that got to do with Buddhism?

 

[blackheart]

Well, it specifically mentioned Crusades, which weren't motivated primarily by religion, and jihad, which is a much more general term than Crusades, but in many instances Islamic leaders co-opted the term to fulfill materialist or nationalist goals.

This is true, but the religious leaders of said religions did join together and declare a war in the name of God/Allah, which in context would define it as a Holy (religious) war. I don't believe anything like that has ever happened with Buddhism.

 

[Cuivienen]

Buddhism also, with the exception of Tibetan Lamaists, has no centralized authority. Christianity has the Papacy and Islam has the Caliphate, making it easier to label a war a "Holy War" or "not a Holy War" as the Pope or Caliph declares Holy War in those religions. That doesn't mean that no Buddhists (particularly in Sri Lanka) ever waged a Holy War.

 

[Keirador]

What's that got to do with Buddhism?

Buddhism HAS been a cause of war in the same way that the Crusades and certain jihads have been a cause of war. Not really the actual, underlying cause, but the reason that was espoused for moral justification. There really haven't been that many wars (massacres, yes, wars, not as much) that had religion as a basic, underlying cause. If Crusades and jihads are the kind of wars the OP is looking for, then what the Sinhalese Buddhists have been doing should count. Do you disagree?

 

[Keirador]

This is true, but the religious leaders of said religions did join together and declare a war in the name of God/Allah, which in context would define it as a Holy (religious) war. I don't believe anything like that has ever happened with Buddhism.

Because, as Cuivienen so aptly pointed out, Buddhism is decentralized. Sinhalese Buddhist leaders, generally political, did incite war using religion as a justification.

 

[Rambuchan]

Buddhism HAS been a cause of war in the same way that the Crusades and certain jihads have been a cause of war. Not really the actual, underlying cause, but the reason that was espoused for moral justification. There really haven't been that many wars (massacres, yes, wars, not as much) that had religion as a basic, underlying cause. If Crusades and jihads are the kind of wars the OP is looking for, then what the Sinhalese Buddhists have been doing should count. Do you disagree?

Yes of course I disagree and I do it strongly.

If we take your justification forward then of course every war in the world between nations has been a religious war, and therefore a crusade. They all use religion as a recruiter, justifier and motivator. You are stretching the definition of crusade a bit far IMO. And the decentralised nature of Buddhism that you are claiming in support does not assist, given my refutation.

I'm sorry Keirador but it just upsets me that we discuss these issues so openly and freely, taking pride in our great knowledge base and broad scope of discussion (do it myself). We do so and we simply keep forgetting that we never define the terms and then progress on into a discussion riddled with falsehoods, which in turn create misconceptions and prejudices. I cite the Free Islamic States thread again.

Just know that the wars in Ceylon have been about land and economics. Religion has been used to justify, recruit and motivate but that's really it.

Now while I go to bed you can all discuss the definition of 'a crusade' and create lots more misunderstanding and ill feeling about other nations.

 

[Keirador]

Rambuchan: Not all wars use religion as a direct pretext, not to the degree that the Crusades or the Sinhalese wars did. Neither World War was touted as a Holy War. The Punic Wars were blatantly about nationalism and trade. The wars of Mongolian expansion were not wars of religion, though some of their enemies tried to paint it in that light (they were clearly wrong, the Mongols were suprisingly religiously tolerant). Some wars DO use religion as a direct pretext.

I don't think I'm stretching the definition of "crusade", because I referred to the actual Crusades, not an abstract which I am free to define. With the exception of the Albigensian Crusade, the Crusades were not about religion. The Northern Crusades were about simple territorial expansion and control over trade routes. The Crusades against Islam were motivated by a reaction to a perceived outside threat, the presence of a bloated and bored warrior class, and the personal ambitions of charismatic and powerful leaders. Religion was used to galvanize and motivate the common people unto unifiying toward a common goal. The Sinhalese Buddhists of Sri Lanka did the same thing. Nationalist groups vied with each other for territory and possesion of lucrative trade routes. Ambitious leaders exhorted the common people to coalesce and work towards a common goal under the pretext of punishing heretics (other Buddhists) or infidels (the Hindu Tamils) in the name of their particular version of Buddhism. You don't think the two situations are similar?

 

[Rambuchan]

Keirador: I accept that you were not freely stretching the definition. But I do take exception to you drawing such close parallels. I don't believe Buddhists have been ignited into action with terms like 'infidel' for it's enemies. Can you provide harder proof that such terms were used?

I also accept that many wars were not fought upon religious ideology as the prime motivator. I would say that the case you are talkng about in Sri Lanka (and which period of their history are we talking about here? It's kind of braod atm) falls into this category. In the same sense that the Crusading situation you describe can't be classed as a crusade either. So where does that leave us?

There is always more to say of course. But you've caught me in a late night situation again. I keep trying to go to bed, it's nearly 2am here. So I will have to take this up tmrw. Hope you understand.

 

[Keirador]

I'm thinking specifically of the situation in Sri Lanka in the early 15th century, as seen and described by sailors in Zheng He's fleet.

The Crusading situation I describe can't be classed as a Crusade? But what I described were the actual Crusades, the ones Europe undertook at the behest of the Byzantine Emperor and the Catholic Pope, the guys who used the symbol of the cross in their martial decoration, called themselves Crusaders, and called the wars they embarked on Crusades. How can the Crusades not be considered crusades? If they're not crusades, what is?

Or do you consider "crusades" to be wars fought solely for the sake of religion? If that's the definition you're using, then A) you become the one taking liberties with what a crusade is B) have there been any wars motivated solely by religion?

Sure, go to bed, but (as you know) I won't be able to reply to what you write tomorrow until the end of the month.

 

[Rambuchan]

I'm thinking specifically of the situation in Sri Lanka in the early 15th century, as seen and described by sailors in Zheng He's fleet.

The Crusading situation I describe can't be classed as a Crusade? But what I described were the actual Crusades, the ones Europe undertook at the behest of the Byzantine Emperor and the Catholic Pope, the guys who used the symbol of the cross in their martial decoration, called themselves Crusaders, and called the wars they embarked on Crusades. How can the Crusades not be considered crusades? If they're not crusades, what is?

I shall just reiterate what you said yourself, as I was merely agreeing with it:

"With the exception of the Albigensian Crusade, the Crusades were not about religion. The Northern Crusades were about simple territorial expansion and control over trade routes. The Crusades against Islam were motivated by a reaction to a perceived outside threat, the presence of a bloated and bored warrior class, and the personal ambitions of charismatic and powerful leaders. Religion was used to galvanize and motivate the common people unto unifiying toward a common goal."

Or do you consider "crusades" to be wars fought solely for the sake of religion? If that's the definition you're using, then A) you become the one taking liberties with what a crusade is B) have there been any wars motivated solely by religion?

Sure, go to bed, but (as you know) I won't be able to reply to what you write tomorrow until the end of the month.

I don't know right now man, I'm definitely going to bed now. I'm sorry that I will have to wait for a month to pick it up but quite frankly my dear, I don't really give a .

I'm more interested in other topics like: saving people's lives with new drugs, eradicating poverty, spreading education and health facilities to deprived communities, preparing for climate change and so on. These are the issues I hope young leaders will focus their minds on - not the definitions of a religious war.

EDIT - Have a great trip!

 

[Keirador]

but quite frankly my dear, I don't really give a .

Not sure if I should applaud a good literary quote, or take offense.

At any rate, I wouldn't be that interested in this thread had someone not challenged me. I'm more interested in education reform, global wealth distribution through capitalist means, the proliferation of freedom, creating a more effective global community, and Modest Mouse. What? Modest Mouse rocks, OK?