Conflict and war — Buddhism

What the specification asks for

Paper 1, Section 3, 3.1 (Buddhism). Assessed on AO1 (knowledge and understanding) and AO2 (analysis and evaluation), weighted equally. Incandio is aligned to this specification. It is not published by, endorsed by or affiliated with Pearson, and it reproduces none of Pearson's indicative content — the point numbers are given so you can check every unit against your own copy.

1 · Understand it

Somebody is coming to burn your village. Most religions have worked out an answer to that — conditions under which fighting back is permitted, and rules for how it must be done. Buddhism never built one. It is the only tradition on this course with no machinery for justifying a war, and the interesting question is whether that makes it the most principled of the six or the least useful.

What it means

The first of the five undertakings is to refrain from harming living beings, and the thing to notice is what is missing from it. There is no clause about enemies. There is no clause about wartime. Every other tradition on this specification has, at some point, developed conditions under which force becomes permissible; this one did not.

So when the specification asks for Buddhist teachings on Just War, it is pointing at an absence rather than a doctrine. Saying that plainly is the correct answer. Attributing just-war conditions to Buddhism is a factual error and a recorded one.

The causes of conflict are traced to the three poisons: greed for resources, hatred between groups, and delusion about being separate from each other. Dosa — hatred, aversion — is the root the tradition identifies behind violence specifically.

Two passages the specification names carry the teaching. One concerns skilfulness — what makes an action wholesome or unwholesome. The other teaches that a follower should maintain goodwill even under extreme provocation, and it is worth saying that the standard set there is very demanding indeed rather than pretending it is comfortable.

Why believers hold it

Follow the reasoning and the absence stops looking like an oversight. Violence is rooted in hatred; hatred is one of the three poisons; and removing the poisons is what the entire path is for. So the tradition cannot straightforwardly authorise war without authorising the mental state that produces it. It is not that nobody got round to writing the just-war rules — the rules would have contradicted the diagnosis.

There is a second reason, and it is about what Buddhism does not have. There is no soul to be protected and no covenant to be defended, so the objection to violence is entirely about the mind of the person acting. That is a narrower foundation than other traditions use and it produces a stranger and stronger result.

Here is the result, and it is the best thing on the unit. Buddhism can say that an act was unavoidable AND unskilful — necessary and still carrying consequence. No just-war framework can say that without contradicting itself, because a just war is by definition a permitted one. It is possible here only because the moral weight sits on the state of mind rather than on a rule about permissibility.

That is harsher than any just-war theory rather than softer. A Buddhist soldier defending a village is not absolved by the justice of the cause. The tradition refuses to declare an act clean merely because it was needed — which is more honest about what violence does to the person committing it, and much less comfortable.

Where it comes from

• Buddhist practice — The Five Precepts (pañca-sīla) (translated)

  To refrain from harming living beings, from taking what is not given, from sexual misconduct, from false speech, and from intoxicants.

  The basic ethical undertakings of lay Buddhists. They are training rules taken on voluntarily, not commandments imposed.

  What it is doing here: Quote the first undertaking and then point at what is NOT in it — the absence of any exception for enemies or for war is the whole argument of the unit.

• Buddhist teaching — The three poisons (or three roots): greed, hatred and delusion (translated)

  Lobha, dosa, moha — greed, hatred and delusion.

  The three roots of unskilful action, depicted at the hub of the wheel of life as a cockerel, a snake and a pig.

  What it is doing here: Supplies the diagnosis: hatred is one of the roots the path exists to remove, which is why authorising war would mean authorising the mental state behind it.

• The Pali Canon — Metta Sutta (Sutta Nipata 1:8); the four brahmaviharas (translated)

  As a mother protects her only child, so let one cultivate boundless goodwill towards all beings.

  Metta — loving kindness — extended without limit, with compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity.

  What it is doing here: Boundless goodwill extended without preference is what makes the standard so demanding — it does not stop at people who are not attacking you.

Where it bites

The specification names the expulsion of the Dalai Lama from Tibet as the case study, and it is a real one: he has consistently advocated non-violence since the Chinese occupation while seeking autonomy, and both a pacifist and a strategic reading of that are argued. Buddhist monks led non-violent protest in Myanmar in 2007. The Buddhist Peace Fellowship works from the same teaching.

And the other half has to be said. Buddhist-majority countries have fought wars. Buddhist nationalism has been implicated in persecution in Sri Lanka and in Myanmar. Japanese Zen institutions supported militarism in the twentieth century, a failure the tradition has since examined publicly. Naming that is not damaging your answer — the examiners reward it, and concealing it makes everything else you say less credible.

What people get wrong

People think: Buddhism has just-war conditions like other religions.

Actually: It does not, and this is a recorded error. There is no developed framework and no exception clause in the precept. The specification asks about Buddhist teachings on Just War precisely because the honest answer is that the machinery was never built.

People think: Buddhist countries have never gone to war.

Actually: They have, repeatedly, and the historical record is clear. Claiming otherwise is false and the examiners record candidates doing it. The defensible position is that this is a failure to observe the teaching rather than a feature of it — and Buddhist teachers have said so publicly.

People think: So Buddhism is simply against all violence and that is the end of it.

Actually: That loses the distinctive move. The tradition can hold that an act was necessary and still unskilful, which a framework of permissions cannot. Flattening it into blanket opposition throws away the one thing this tradition can say that none of the others can.

What the examiner expects you to understand

• Say explicitly that there is no just-war framework here, and say why the absence follows from the diagnosis. That is the answer to the specification's own wording.
• Writing about war in general with no Buddhist vocabulary is capped as generic however good the argument is. Use the precept, the poisons, and the named teaching on provocation.
• Name the record honestly — Buddhist states have fought, and Buddhist nationalism has been implicated in persecution. An answer that conceals it is less credible, not more devout.
• The Grade 9 move is necessary-and-unskilful: only a system where moral weight sits on the state of mind can hold both at once, and it is harsher than a just-war theory rather than softer.
• For the extended question — often that religion causes war — this tradition cuts against the statement and its own record complicates it, which makes a genuinely two-sided answer easy to build.

2 · Grade 9 Notes

Core belief / issue

Buddhism has the strongest anti-war teaching of the six religions on this specification and no developed just-war theory, which is exactly the tension the specification is pointing at when it asks for Buddhist teachings on Just War. The first precept forbids harming living beings without exception, Majjhima Nikaya 21 teaches patience even under extreme provocation, and the expulsion of the Dalai Lama is the named case study of a Buddhist response to invasion.

Key terminology

Incandio's mark schemes credit the religion's own vocabulary; spelling variants are accepted, a vague paraphrase is not.

Ahimsa (also avihimsa)

Non-harming; the principle behind the first precept and the strongest Buddhist argument against war.

First precept

The undertaking to refrain from harming living beings; stated without exception for enemies.

Kusala (also skilful action)

Skilful or wholesome; the specification's reference to skilfulness at Majjhima Nikaya 9.

Dosa (also dvesha)

Hatred or aversion; one of the three poisons, and the root Buddhism identifies behind conflict.

Just War

The theory that war can be justified under conditions; Buddhism has no developed version of it.

What Buddhism teaches

• shared — The first precept forbids harming living beings and is not qualified for enemies or for wartime.
• shared — Conflict arises from the three poisons: greed for resources, hatred between groups, and delusion about separateness.
• shared — Majjhima Nikaya 21 teaches that a follower should maintain goodwill even under extreme provocation, which is a very demanding standard.
• divided — Buddhists differ over whether defensive force can ever be skilful, and Buddhist-majority states have fought wars while their traditions taught non-harming.
  • Theravada — The precept is absolute in its formulation; some teachers hold that defensive force may be the least unskilful option while still carrying kammic consequence.
  • Mahayana — Some Mahayana texts discuss a bodhisattva acting forcefully out of compassion, which is the nearest Buddhism comes to a justification and is much argued about.

Why it teaches this

The reasoning is that violence is rooted in hatred, and hatred is one of the three poisons the whole path is designed to remove. So Buddhism cannot straightforwardly authorise war without authorising the mental state that produces it. But it also has no doctrine of a soul to be protected or a covenant to be defended, so its objection is entirely about the mind of the actor — which is why Buddhist teaching can say that an act is unavoidable and still unskilful.

Sources of authority

• Buddhist practice — The Five Precepts (pañca-sīla) (translated)

  To refrain from harming living beings, from taking what is not given, from sexual misconduct, from false speech, and from intoxicants.

  The basic ethical undertakings of lay Buddhists. They are training rules taken on voluntarily, not commandments imposed.

  How to use it: Because they are undertakings rather than commands, breaking one is a failure of training rather than a sin against God — which is why Buddhist ethics has no concept of divine punishment.

  What it does not settle: They are not absolutes with fixed applications; intention matters, and Buddhists differ on abortion and on eating meat.

• Buddhist teaching — The three poisons (or three roots): greed, hatred and delusion (translated)

  Lobha, dosa, moha — greed, hatred and delusion.

  The three roots of unskilful action, depicted at the hub of the wheel of life as a cockerel, a snake and a pig.

  How to use it: Naming delusion as a root, rather than only greed and hatred, is what makes the Buddhist answer distinctive: wrongdoing is a mistake about reality before it is a moral failure.

  What it does not settle: There is no concept of sin against a deity here. Writing 'sin' without qualification misrepresents the tradition, and the specification's own wording invites exactly that error.

• The Pali Canon — Metta Sutta (Sutta Nipata 1:8); the four brahmaviharas (translated)

  As a mother protects her only child, so let one cultivate boundless goodwill towards all beings.

  Metta — loving kindness — extended without limit, with compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity.

  How to use it: Metta is cultivated deliberately in meditation, so Buddhist compassion is a trained capacity rather than a feeling — which explains why meditation is an ethical practice and not just a calming one.

  What it does not settle: It does not by itself prescribe an action in any particular case.

• The Pali Canon — Khuddaka Nikaya — Dhammapada, verse 1 (translated)

  Mind precedes all things; all things are made by mind.

  Mental states shape action and therefore experience. The opening of the most widely read Buddhist text.

  How to use it: It puts intention at the origin of everything ethical, which is why Buddhist practice works on the mind rather than on rules.

  What it does not settle: A single verse of a poetic collection; it states a principle rather than settling a case.

Different interpretations

• The precept read as absolute and read as an undertaking one may fail; the second is the more accurate account of what a precept is, and it explains how Buddhists have gone to war without ceasing to be Buddhist.
• The Dalai Lama's response to the invasion of Tibet read as pacifism and read as strategy; he has consistently advocated non-violence while seeking autonomy, and both readings are argued.
• Buddhist-majority countries' wars read as hypocrisy and read as evidence that religion rarely determines state behaviour; the second is fairer and more interesting.

Differences within Buddhism

The teaching against violence is shared. The genuine disagreement is whether force can ever be skilful, and the historical record of Buddhist states is a real problem the tradition acknowledges.

• Theravada — The precept stated without exception; violence carries kammic consequence whatever the justification.
• Mahayana — Some texts consider compassionate forceful action by a bodhisattva, a much-disputed category.
• Zen — Japanese Zen's institutional support for militarism in the twentieth century is a documented failure the tradition has since examined publicly.

Application to the issue

It shows in the Dalai Lama's advocacy of non-violence after the Chinese occupation of Tibet and his own exile; in Buddhist monks' non-violent protest in Myanmar in 2007; in the Buddhist Peace Fellowship; and, honestly, in the record of Buddhist nationalism in Sri Lanka and Myanmar, which an answer should not conceal.

Arguments supporting

• Buddhism's teaching against violence is the most consistent of the six. — The first precept has no exception clause and there is no just-war framework to authorise anything. (buddhism)
  Answered by: A teaching with no provision for defence leaves the attacked without guidance, which is a practical failure rather than a purity.
• Identifying hatred as the root goes deeper than regulating conduct. — A rule about when to fight leaves the mental state that produces fighting untouched. (shared)
  Answered by: Wars are also caused by resource competition and political structures that no amount of individual mental training addresses.

Arguments challenging

• Refusing all violence leaves the innocent undefended. — Someone has to stop an aggressor. (non-religious)
  Answered by: Buddhism's honest answer is that defence may be necessary and still carries consequence — it refuses to declare an act clean because it was needed.
• The record of Buddhist states contradicts the teaching. — Buddhist-majority countries have fought wars and Buddhist nationalism has been implicated in persecution. (non-religious)
  Answered by: That is a real failure and it is a failure to observe the teaching rather than a feature of it — Buddhist teachers have said so publicly.

Secular / non-religious perspective

Atheist and Humanist attitudes assess war consequentially: justified where it prevents greater suffering, and weapons of mass destruction almost never, because their effects cannot be confined. Humanists would agree with Buddhism's diagnosis of hatred while insisting that defence against atrocity is sometimes obligatory rather than merely permitted.

Examinable throughout Paper 1. Nothing here earns a mark on Paper 2.

Evaluation

The hinge: Whether an ethic that cannot justify defence is more principled or less useful. Buddhism is the clearest test case on this specification, precisely because it never developed the just-war machinery the others did.

Defensible conclusions

• Buddhism's teaching is the most demanding of the six and the least practically guiding, and those are the same fact rather than two.
• The tradition's honesty is a strength: it can say an act was necessary and unskilful, which a just-war framework cannot say without contradiction.
• The gap between teaching and the behaviour of Buddhist states is real and an answer should name it, because concealing it makes the whole account less credible.

Not defensible

• Claiming Buddhists have never fought wars; the historical record is clear and the examiners reward honesty here.
• Attributing a developed just-war theory to Buddhism, which it does not have.

Exam use

• Identify · 3 marks — Three causes of conflict, or three Buddhist beliefs about war. Short phrases only.
• Outline · 4 marks — Two beliefs developed. 'The first precept forbids harming living beings (1) — and unlike other traditions it carries no exception for enemies or for wartime (1).'
• Explain · 6 marks — Explain Buddhist attitudes to war: the first precept, the three poisons as causes, the teaching on patience, and the absence of a just-war framework.
• Evaluate · 12 marks — 'Religion causes war.' Buddhism's teaching cuts against the statement and the record of Buddhist states complicates it, which makes for a strong two-sided answer.

Common mistakes

• Claiming Buddhist countries have never gone to war.
• Attributing just-war conditions to Buddhism.
• Writing about war generally with no Buddhist vocabulary, which the grid caps as generic.

“Buddhists believe sin is disobeying God.” — Buddhism has no creator God to disobey. Unskilful action (akusala) harms the person who does it and others through kamma; it is a mistake rooted in greed, hatred and delusion, not an offence against a deity.

Write instead: Buddhists speak of unskilful action rooted in the three poisons — greed, hatred and delusion — and of akusala kamma, which brings unwelcome results. The specification's own Buddhist wording for 1.3 names avijja, kilesa and the three poisons. The specification titles 1.3 'Selfishness, greed, ignorance and sin', which invites the error. A learner writing on Buddhism should use the tradition's own vocabulary and say why 'sin' does not fit.

Grade 9 insight

Buddhism can say something no just-war tradition can: that an act was unavoidable AND unskilful, necessary AND kammically consequential. A Level 4 answer sees why that is possible only in a system where the moral weight attaches to the state of mind rather than to a rule about permissibility. It means a Buddhist soldier defending a village is not absolved by the justice of the cause — which is harsher than any just-war theory and more honest about what violence does to the person committing it.

Carry on through Buddhism

• Previous unit: 2.8 · Childlessness and celibacy
• Next unit: 3.2 · Peace, reconciliation and forgiveness
• Conflict and war in the other religions: Christianity · Hinduism · Islam · Judaism · Sikhism
• Side by side: Sanctity of life, abortion and euthanasia across the six religions — Is human life sacred, and may it ever be deliberately ended?
• Side by side: Conflict and war across the six religions — May a believer fight?
• All of Buddhism · Incandio Religious Studies · The 4RS1 specification