![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wagingnonviolence.org\/forusa\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/08\/This-article-appears-in-the-in-the-Summer-2023-issue-of-Fellowship.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n\nBut while it has been emphasized by some religious scholars that the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, the foundations of Buddhism, do not support the cultivation of intimidation and violence, others insist that some traditional teachings have sought to identify exactly when the rule of nonviolence can be broken as a principled response to exceptional circumstances. Thus within the Pali Canon (or Tipitaka) of Theravada Buddhism, murder is regarded as one of the greatest sins (adhamma) a person can commit. Nevertheless, the Theravada texts provide exceptions to this prohibition on killing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
First, the intention behind such acts must be apropos. In this regard, a Sri Lankan monk involved in anti-government protests interviewed by sociologist Mark Juergensmeyer in 2000 justified his actions by arguing that there was no way to avoid violence in a time of \u201cdukkha\u201d \u2014 an age of suffering \u2014 especially when the Buddhist community as a whole was under threat. In such times, \u201cviolence naturally begets violence,\u201d but the intention \u2014 defense of the welfare of the community \u2014 rendered such actions justified. Moreover, armed with a defensible just cause, believers (at least in theory) can engage in violent activity with \u201ccool heads\u201d and without \u201cdebased thoughts of slaughtering and killing other people\u201d out of sheer bloodlust.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Second, tradition calls for careful discrimination in the targets of principled violence. In this respect, one popular mytho-historical Sinhala chronicle, the Mahavamsa, tells the story of how the Buddhist ruler Dutthagamani, following a brutal war with Tamil invaders, expressed anguish over of the numerous deaths and great destruction. Tradition holds that eight \u201cenlightened\u201d Buddhist monks comforted Dutthagamani, arguing that his actions were justified. Apart from his personal and sincere religiosity and his right intention in waging a defensive war, the deaths of non-Buddhist enemies were not important. This was because the latter were said to \u201cpossess such little virtue they are on par with animals.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Third, tradition stipulates that care must be taken in terms of the status of the perpetrator of violence. Many Buddhist canonical texts stress the intrinsic relationship between Buddhism and the state, and there is a widespread propensity amongst Buddhist-majority states to adopt Buddhism as the official religion. The consequent high status and prestige of Buddhist monks, certainly in Theravada Buddhist countries, speaks to the notion that the state is by definition Buddhist and exists to protect Buddhism. Hence, if a monk is attacked physically by non-Buddhists, or warns that a non-Buddhist threat to the intrinsically Buddhist state exists, a catalyst for out-group violence could be set in motion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Such an ethos is ripe for exploitation by extremists, as we shall see. But first, it is necessary to explicate what we mean by the term \u201cextremism.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n