Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied, but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare. In many Jātaka tales, such as that of Prince Temiya, as well as some historical documents, the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war, both offensive and defensive. At the same time, though, the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures. Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy, and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead. He may have believed such involvement to be futile, or detrimental to Buddhism. Nevertheless, at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha, that is King Pasenadi (). The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though. In some later Mahāyāna texts, such as in the writings of Asaṅga, examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists. In these examples, killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts. Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī, who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle. In the chronicle, the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war, but comforted by a Buddhist monk, who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway. Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence.
Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare In many Jātaka tales such as that of Prince Temiya as well as some historical documents the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war both offensive and defensive At the same time though the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead He may have believed such involvement to be futile or detrimental to Buddhism Nevertheless at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha that is King Pasenadi () The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though In some later Mahāyāna texts such as in the writings of Asaṅga examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists In these examples killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle In the chronicle the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war but comforted by a Buddhist monk who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence