Hi all, I'm diving into the fascinating world of Indonesian history for a personal project of mine, and something struck me as odd while reading the wikipedia article about Srivijaya (and in extend, Mataram) kingdom.
As I understand correctly, Srivijayan kings were mostly Buddhist and were important for the spread of Buddhism in the region. They also ordered the construction of many Buddhist temples, like the famous Borobudur.

But Since its rise to power, Srivijayan thrived on conquest and expension through warfare. Take for example king Dharanindra, the king that started construction of Borobudur, he also had the title of Wairiwarawiramardana or "the slayer of courageous enemies." Srivijaya conquered kingdoms in Sumatra, Java and the Malay peninsula, as well as raided the coasts of Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam. I also read that Srivijaya raided Papua, Australia and even africa for more manpower to work their fields.

We seldom see Buddhist expensionist empires, for conquest clashes with core ideas like non-violence of Ahimsa. Even Ashoka, who was apparently a ruthless and succesfull conquerer before his conversion to Buddism, stopped his conquest when he started following Buddhist teachings. So, how can we treat the Srivijayan kings both as Buddhists as well as conquerors? And if the population was mostly Buddhist, how did they cope with this duality? Was it because Indonesian religion was more of an eclectic mix of Buddhist/ Hindu / native teachings and rulers only practiced elements of a religion that suited their rule, or is it something else?

Thanks in Advance!