[Buddha-l] Dharmapala

[L.S. Cousins]

Dan Lusthaus wrote:

> Still in those early pages of the Jenkins essay, he writes, referring to
> Michael Zimmermann's study of the Sanskrit version of the title sutra and
> its Chinese translations:
>
> "Zimmermann notes that the king is described as ruling according to 
> dharma,
> even though he is also seen as dangerously violent. This illustrates the
> usual Buddhist attitude of ambiguity toward kings. Āśoka, according to
> Buddhist legend, slaughtered 18,000 Jains, among other atrocities, well
> after he became 'Dharma-Āśoka.' Some note that he remounces such violence
> after this pogrom tales the life of his own brother; nevertheless, Āśoka
> continues to commit horrible acts of violence even after this episode. In
> the literary accounts, dangerous Buddhist kings have a disturbing 
> tendency
> for mass violence against non-Buddhists. The Buddhist historian Tāranātha
> records, for instance, that the great King Harṣa trapped and burned alive
> '12,000 experts of the doctrine of the mlecchas [foreigners].' " (p. 63)
>
It is clear that there is a tendency to invent such stories in the 
literature. But they do not accord well with contemporary evidence when 
we have it.

> He segues into "The war dead, physically absent from the sermon at the
> temple, call to mind the
>
> Yodhājīvasutta..." (Samyutta 42.3) in which a warrior asks the Buddha 
> three
> times whether it is possible for soldiers to go to heaven. On the third
> asking (afraid his head might split? or do we take the admonition 
> literally
> that that only happens to those who refuse to reply to a Tathagata?), he
> says no way, since "those who die on the battlefield are inevitably 
> overcome
> with hatred and pain and are born, according to those feelings, in a hell
> realm." (Kent, p. 158).
>

Not a very accurate summary of what is said. It is in fact refers to the 
prior intention to harm and subsequent actual killing. And also to 
holding the view that killing will lead to a good rebirth. There is no 
mention of 'dying on the battlefield'.

> "Soldiers and monks may be united in their use of cetanā and karma to
> evaluate the actions of a soldier on the battlefield, but 
> disagreements are
> also very common among monks and soldiers regarding cetanā and the karmic
> consequences of acts of killing. Of the twenty monks interviewed over the
> course of my research, eleven believed that firing a weapon on the
> battlefield produced negative karma; nine believed it did not.
>
I need to see this in detail, but this may be because the question is 
misconceived. In itself, firing a weapon is not negative kamma. There 
has to be the intention to kill. Or, subsequent approval of the deaths.
>
>
> This monk, ven. Vimaladhajja, explains further "that stories of 
> Duṭugāmuṇu
> [ = Duṭṭhagāmaṇī] the second-century BCE Sinhalese king who conquered the
> ancient capital of Anurādhapura from the South Indian king Eḷāra, are the
> most appropriate for soldiers. Duṭugāmuṇu, whose name literally means
> "Gāmuṇu the Fierce," is said to have led his armies carrying a spear
> festooned with a relic of the Buddha. [In a note Kent cites Gethin to the
> effect that the word translated as "spear", kunta, "probably referred 
> to a
> banner and not to a weapon at all." p. 175 n.7) Am I the only one for 
> whom
> this evokes images of Constantine?
>
'Images of Constantine' are precisely the problem here. People are so 
fixed on them that they seem unable to read the text in any other way.
Even when careful reading of the text demonstrates beyond any possible 
doubt that they are plain wrong.
>
> Kent then fills in some story details
> already discussed by Lance and Artur, including Duṭṭhagāmaṇī being 
> told that
> he is only responsible for killing one-and-a-half "human beings," "one 
> who
> had taken the five precepts and another who had taken refuge in the 
> triple
> gem." – pace Lance, like Artur I take this as claiming that only 
> Buddhists
> are "human" in the sense of makinig one responsible for their death if 
> one
> kills them, so killing non-Buddhists is like killing animals; the king is
> not encouraged to feel guilty about killing the "cattle," on the contrary
> the dehumanization is made to alleviate his guilt.]
>
Guilt is an immoral act. It merely generates more hatred. It's almost as 
disgusting as satire and mocking.
>
> The Mahāvaṃsa records
> that, after his death, Duṭugāmuṇu was reborn in heaven to await 
> rebirth as
> the chief disciple of the future Buddha Mettaya (Maitreya). Duṭugāmuṇu is
> said to have explained his motives, declaring, 'Not for the joy of
> sovereignty is this toil of mine, my striving [has been] ever to 
> establish
> the doctrine of the Sambuddha.'" (pp. 166-7)
>
> So grab your AK-47s and wipe out a regiment in the name of the Sambuddha,
> and not only will you not go to hell, you will not only go to a 
> heaven, but
> could get to be Maitreya's right-hand man (not sure anyone is born 
> female in
> Tusita).
>
As you know very well, the rebirth in Tusita is not the result of the 
killing. It is the result of the large number of good deeds performed as 
king.

Lance