Sources to note: 衣川　仁　「強訴考」（史林）八五―五 久野　修義　「日本中世の寺院と社会」 平　雅行　「中世寺院の暴力とその正当化」九州史学 江上　琢成　「覚一本「平家物語」が語る暴力と宗教」佛教史学会学術大会報告資料 苅米　一志　「荘園社会における宗教構造」

In terms of `military power`, the temples of the medieval period kept and stored weapons on their property, and secular authorities acknowledged a certain level of military power on the part of temples. Whilst edicts banning military action might have been issued against the temples, these amounted to little more that appeals for greater self control or a temporary suspension of hostilities. No where did such edicts demand that the temples relinquish their arms altogether. In addition, the fact that there does not appear to be any distinct difference in military power between either warrior families or temples has suggested that temples did not possess an effective means to concentrate their authority to rule over their acolytes. As a result of the rise of large scale groups of believers (the Sanga, or the Monseki), both the authority to direct military operations and embark on reprisals was not centered on the head figure of the temple. Instead real power lay within the lower levels of the temple organization, thus making them sort of anarchic. The methods for controlling decisions on the use of military power were not complete, which was combined with an under-developed fealty system which had not undergone any improvements during the age in question.(166)

As for `religious violence`, both ancient and medieval Japanese society were aware that curses or spells could result in physical harm, thus commandments (戒律 kairitsu), zen edicts (禅定 zentei) and `edicts on wisdom and actions` (智慧 – chikei, or `prajna` ) could be utilized as weapons for either attack or defence. For samurai, they were the warriors of the physical world, whereas `protector` monks were the warriors of `the next world, the world beyond`. One could thus say that `the state within the medieval world was ruled by two forms of violence – militaristic violence and religious violence`. Religious violence was not only used during periods of political unrest and civil conflict or in the expulsion of foreigners, yet it was also used on a daily basis against the commoners through reinforcement of the spectre of hell and the torments therein. The basic characteristic of this behaviour was `violence from compassion`, or `violence for the sake of salvation`. To justify the use of military violence and war, the common practice was to perceive one`s enemy as motivated by `evil`, that the enemy was in fact a `devil`, `an enemy of the Buddha`, and that to slay and destroy such evil was to bring peace to the realm and the contentedness of the masses. Thus violence of the medieval era should be divided into two halves, that of `militaristic, physical violence` and `religious violence in the form of prayers, incantations, and curses`.(166-167)

Yet what is violence? According to the Nippon Kokugo Daijiten, violence is defined as being 1.A form of chaotic, destructive power, strength (power) devoid of rules, the manifestation of gratuitous power, or 2.The use of a physical system of power by means of anarchic, gratuitous methods. This somewhat vague (and contradictory) definition is echoed in other languages. In German, the word `gewalt` implies `the limit of authority`, `the efficacy of power`, which is similar in meaning to the Japanese `権限`. In contrast, both English and French make use of `violence`, a word derived from the Latin `vis` meaning `strong power`, and has its origins in the idea that a powerful force could transcend human attempts to contain it. `権力` is usually translated as `power`, and `武力` as `force`, yet `force` is not only confined to the physical world, for `psychological force` and `will` are also contained within the overall definition of `force`.(167-168)

The tale of Prince Shōtoku and his destruction of `物部守屋` (Monobe Moriya) through the use of weapons in order to protect Buddhism has often been cited as an example of the justification of the use of violence for religious purposes. In the late 10th century and early 11th century, the `四天王寺御手印録記` states that certain persons `invaded and disrupted` the lands of temples as part of the `changes enacted by the Moriya`, hence in order to preserve the existence of the harmony between secular and religious laws, Prince Shōtoku decided to eliminate the Moriya before they could rise again. Both Ijiō and Enjōji were cursed by Prince Shōtoku, whilst the record of Kongō Hōji (金剛峯寺) states that `The decision of Prince Shōtoku to destroy councilor Moriya was encouraged by the actions of the Boddhisatva of great suffering, for this single act of destruction would result in the manifestation of many forms of life`. Hence an attack on the enemy of the temples was explained as being in accordance to the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism. This particular explanation is no more that an attempt by the priesthood to justify the expulsion of `enemies of the Buddha`, yet as it touches upon the use of military force and the destruction of one`s enemy, this particular tale can be regarded as one form of religious violence (there follows further examples taken from the Mongol invasions, in which prayers and invocations are made for the expulsion of the Mongols, for Japan is a sacred land into which bestial forms of life, Mongol dogs, had appeared. This ideology was carried on for use in the Chosen peninsula and again during the Pacific War). Hence one needs to be aware that the priesthood of the medieval era were not adverse to including examples within their lectures of violence against living creatures if that violence was directed towards the establishment of greater harmony and the elimination of evils.(171)

It is quite commonly known that Buddhism forbids the destruction of humans and animals in its edicts against the taking of life, and indeed this ideology is reflected in the practices of shrines and temples. Within Hachiman shrines, the destruction of life is absolved through the ceremonies in celebration of the release of life. The `Hachiman Gudōkun` (八幡愚童訓) states that in ancient times, whenever the court gave orders for the suppression of 隼人 within Ōsumi and Hyuga provinces, prayers were made to Usa Hachiman, for the `god`s army` would `pacify` the 隼人. In the record for September of Yōrō 4, the imperial decree states 「合戦の間、多く殺生を致す。宜しく放生を修して彼の罪業を謝すべし」. Thus 「網に懸かる魚を放ち、ワナに入る獣を赦して、最勝王経を講読して、放生会と名付ける」. (172) (there also follows examples taken from Suwa shrine and its rites before the use of the hunt as a means of apology for the destruction of life) (173)

Whichever way one reviews the situation, the points put forward for the `righteousness` of the destruction of life are not merely echoed in the records for Suwa, Ikutsukujima, and Kamo shrines, yet described in equal measure by the priests of Kenmitsujiin. If killing and eating an animal is done for its benefit, then soon it becomes acceptable to kill many animals, which in turn leads to the elimination of laws against killing animals, which leads to permission to exercise violence. In spite of their use of an edict against the taking of life, there were people forced into taking life in order to live. Hence differences emerged in where life was to be taken and the manner in which it was taken, (177)