Model Essay - Buddhist dialogues with ethics - "Buddhist ethics can be define as character-based." Critically examine and evaluate this statement.

 

Plan: ‘Buddhist ethics can be defined as character-based.’ Critically examine and evaluate this statement with reference to the dialogue between Buddhism and ethical studies. [25 marks - AQA]

Thesis statement: Buddhist Ethics may share the most similarities with Virtue Ethics, but that does not mean that it can be “defined as” character based, because ultimately the two are incompatible.

Buddhist Ethics AO1:

·        Samsara, Karma and Intention

·        Ahimsa

·        Magga and nirvana

·        Rules – Vinaya, 5 precepts, 6 perfections

Virtue Ethics AO1:

·        Brief context and historic society – lead to character-based ethic, “you are what you do”

·        Golden Mean – moderation between abstinence and excess, 12 virtuous characteristics.

·        Agent centred, but 3 deontological rules – no murder, theft or adultery.

·        Aim: Eudaimonia and Flourishing

AO2: Reasons why they are similar

Reasons why they are different

•         Focus on growing over time – e.g. magga flower analogy. •         Emphasis on teacher – fits with Theravada view of Gautama as a role model. •         Rebecoming/paticcasaumpadda – over time, Buddhists create what kind of person they are through their moral decisions, in the same way Aristotle argues they shape their character.

•         Buddhism has both teleological and deontological aspects as well. •         The goal is not to just grow as a person, the goal is supernatural in nature (nirvana). •         Different worldviews and contexts – Athenian gentleman’s society versus Ancient forest nomadic. •         Buddhist ethics depend on other moral authorities and have different goals, within the context of Samsara – Aristotle rejected the afterlife meaning their ideas do not fit together well.

Conclusion: Buddhism and Virtue Ethics have completely different contexts and worldviews, making them incompatible. It is inappropriate to try and define Buddhism in the framework of Virtue Ethics and they should be treated in separate ways.

Model Answer

In this answer, I will conclude that it is inappropriate to suggest that “Buddhist ethics can be defined as character-based”, due to the completely differing contexts and worldviews of Aristotle and Gautama and Buddhism. This question is asking for one to compare an Ancient Athenian moral philosophy with the ethical beliefs and practices of a major world religion, and I believe that it is disrespectful to try to force Buddhist ethics to confine to a Western understanding of ethics, suggesting that the only way that Buddhism can be understood is if it is seen through the lens of a Western ethical theory.

Buddhist Ethics stem from the religious philosophy of Siddhartha Gautama, and comprise many different aspects. There are deontological aspects, in the form of set rules and ethical opinions – for example, those contained within the Vinaya Pitaka (the discipline section of the Pali Canon containing rules for monk and nuns). Other deontological rules include the 5 moral precepts that all Buddhists, including lay people, are expected to follow – guidance includes abstaining from killing and false speech. The ‘sila’ section of Magga (the ‘Middle Way’/Noble Eightfold Path) also gives guidance for ethical behaviour, suggesting that one should have a right speech, action and livelihood. It is important to note that Buddhist ethics are governed by the rule of intention: one can only receive negative karmic effects for an akusala (unhealthy) action that one actually intended to do. This shows that as well as the deontological aspects of Buddhism, the intention formed within one’s character is important within ethics. The final goal of all sects Buddhism is nirvana (true understanding of the nature of things), which will lead to eventual escape from Samsara (the cycle of death and rebirth), either as an arhat or a future Buddha. For Buddhists, ethical behaviour is a key part of the practice that will eventually lead to nirvana.

Virtue Ethics, founded by Aristotle within the context of Ancient Greece, is heavily influenced by Greek mythological literature. Greek myths focus on a “heroic society” where one’s actions indicate the nature of one’s character – Greeks aspired to be Heroes like Hercules and Theseus, and did not want to be villains like Greek monsters, or known as having a hamartia like Icarus. Therefore, in Aristotle’s day, morally it could be said “you are what you do”, and your actions show if you are a good or bad person. This idea is evidenced in Aristotle’s theory, as Aristotle encouraged people to try and perfect their character over time, eventually aiming for Eudaimonia (ultimately happiness through doing good deeds). Aristotle, whilst providing some deontological guidance (for example, he outlawed the actions of murder, theft and adultery in any context), argued that a moral agent has a duty to try and become a better person through practising being virtues. He said a virtuous life is one of moderation between “abstinence” (having too little of a characteristic) and “excess” (having too much of a characteristic). A balanced character leads to Eudaimonia. For example, “courage” is an Aristotlian virtue, but “cowardice” is seen as the corresponding vice of abstinence and “rashness” is seen as the corresponding vice of success. For Aristotle, societies where all people are aiming for Eudaimonia can be described as “flourishing”, because all people are in such a society are reaching their full potential.

It could be said that when comparing Buddhist Ethics and Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics, that there are enough similarities which would make it appropriate to say that Buddhism can be defined in a character-based way. Perhaps the greatest similarity is the emphasis on living a life of moderation shared by Gautama and Aristotle. For Gautama, whose life of luxury and life of strict asceticism and self-mortification did not allow him to gain nirvana, magga became part of the truth that he realised: that a life of balance between two extremes was necessary to reach nirvana. For this reason, he preached non-attachment to worldly possessions balanced by the supplication of physical needs through eating alms donations and living in a monastery to his sangha. The parallels between Gautama’s “middle way” and Aristotle’s “Golden Mean” are striking – Aristotle argued that it is wrong to have too much of an emotional character, and that a balance of emotions behind one’s actions would lead to one having a truly good character. This could suggest that Buddhist ethics are best defined as character-based, because a life of moderation is seen to lead to a follower reaching the final goal in both cases.

In addition to the above point, it could also be said that the emphasis on learning and growing over time in Buddhism shows that Buddhist ethics can be best defined as character-based. Both Gautama and Aristotle recommend learning from a more moral teacher first: Gautama himself taught his followers to be arhats, and ordained the sangha to continue this teaching tradition after his death. Aristotle too recommended that one find a teacher who exhibits virtuous characteristics and first learn from them when trying to improve one’s character. Buddhists and Virtue Ethics also do not expect immediate moral perfection, but expect one to learn to exhibit sila or become virtuous over a lifetime of ethical practice, continually trying to put their intention towards the final goal. This also suggests that Buddhist ethics are best defined as character-based, due to the emphasis on development in both theories.

However, there are also some clear differences between Virtue Ethics and Buddhism which show that the two cannot be combined. Perhaps most importantly, Aristotle’s atheist beliefs should be considered – it is likely that Aristotle would reject the Buddhist belief in karma and rebirth, as Aristotle did not believe in an afterlife. Buddhist ethics are in part informed by the belief that all begins are trapped within Samsara, and their status is impermanent in their current reborn form, with the final goal to escape the cycle of rebirth. It is hard to see how this is compatible with Aristotle. Also, Buddhist attitudes to being within Samsara are very different to Aristotle’s ideas – Aristotle upheld the ‘Hierarchy of Souls’, meaning that humans were above plants and animals within the moral order. Buddhist would disagree with this on two grounds – firstly due to anatta (not self) which rejects the existence of a soul, and secondly due to anicca (impermanence) which means that all beings within Samsara are seen as being equal, because their current state is impermanent and they could have a more positive rebirth in the future. Therefore, it is wrong to say that humans are above animals, as Aristotle does. This shows a huge difference in worldview, and begins to highlight why it is inappropriate to combine Virtue Ethics and Buddhist ethics, as their views of ultimate reality differ so greatly.

Finally, one must remember also that Buddhism could not be solely defined as a character-based theory, because it also has deontological and teleological aspects. This means that Buddhist ethics also share facets with teleological theories such as Bentham’s Utilitarianism, and deontological theories such as Kantian Ethics. The deontological focus on rules, evident in the Vinaya, could appeal more to other deontological theories, and the importance of moral consequences within karma also shows that Buddhist ethics are partly teleological. Therefore, it is difficult to say that Buddhist ethics are solely character-based, when similarities are evident with other ethical theories.

Overall, it seems impossible to me that Buddhism can be defined as being only “character-based” in nature. Despite having an emphasis on personal moral development when on the path of Magga, it cannot be denied that Buddhism also shares aspects with deontological and teleological ethical theories within Western ethics. This entire question seems to be asking for me to force Buddhism to fit the mould of a recognisable ethical theory in the West, rather than appreciating Buddhism in its own context, as having its own moral truths. For this reason, I do not think that Buddhist Ethics are compatible with Aristotle’s ethics, and it is therefore wrong to define Buddhist ethics in this way.

Model Essay: "Buddhism is a collection of traditions with little in common." Evaluate this statement.

 

1. “Buddhism is a collection of traditions with little in common.” Evaluate this statement [15 marks - AQA]

For	Against
·        There are many key differences in texts – e.g. Lotus Sutra vs Pali Canon. ·        Difference in the view of the Buddha himself – e.g. Trikaya vs Role Model. ·        Buddhism adapts to the culture and society it is a part of – e.g. Secular/Triratna/Engaged – this shows that Buddhism is culturally relative instead of one idea (focus on views of Batchelor)	·        The final goal is the same in both major traditions. ·        There is little animosity between sects of Buddhism. ·        Buddhists are peaceful and tolerant, e.g. the Dalai Lama campaigns for the protection and equal respect of all religions and diversity within religion. ·        The message remains the same, it is the practices that evolves in each culture.

In this answer I will conclude that Buddhism is not a collection of traditions with little in common, rather it is a religion with a variety of sects and approaches, which all focus on the same goal: enlightenment, in order to end dukkha (suffering). Therefore, “Buddhism” refers to an overall doctrine, which is then interpreted differently in different cultures and time periods.

Many people may disagree with my thesis statement because they believe that when examining the sects of Buddhism, there are too many key differences in essential aspects to be able to define Buddhism as one religion. For example, the key texts within Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism are different, with Theravada Buddhists prioritising the message of the Pali Canon, and Mahayana Buddhists preferring later Buddhist sutras, particularly the Lotus Sutra. Professor Ninian Smart’s 7 dimensions of religions suggest that a religion is centred around a scriptural text, so it is difficult that different sects of Buddhism follow different books. This could even lead people to question if Mahayana and Theravada traditions are two completely different religions, each with their own text. This becomes a more pertinent question when key parts of the text are studied – for example, the difference in goals between the bodhisattva (Mahayana) and arhat (Theravada) and the differences in the view of the Buddha as the Trikaya Doctrine (Mahayana) and a human role model (Theravada) lead to big differences in Buddhist traditions. Some may even suggest that these differences are so big that there is not one Buddhist tradition, but rather Buddhism is a collection of different traditions with their own distinct ideas about key doctrinal concepts.

Nevertheless, many have pointed to the fact that for Buddhists, the final goal of Buddhism remains the same, regardless of what tradition they adhere to. The final goal is nirvana (enlightenment) through the extinction of the three fires of hatred, greed and delusion, and the cessation of craving through non-attachment. This is the final goal for both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists, although the route there is different, with Theravadas aiming for personal enlightenment by becoming an arhat through following the Buddha’s teachings, and Mahayanas aiming to one day become Buddhas themselves by undertaking the bodhisattva vow. It can be argued that all of the Buddhist practices that seem to be completely “different”, are in fact all leading to this final goal. So, whilst Buddhism may be very diverse, all of its different sects in fact have a lot in common: that they are aiming for the cessation of suffering and the end of rebirth.

Stephen Batchelor strongly supports the idea that “Buddhism” does not refer to a specific religion with one set of doctrines and beliefs. As a champion of Secular Buddhism, he argues that Buddhism is an evolving concept that adapts to each culture and nation that it is brought to, producing a variety of different traditions with distinct views. The most contemporary view, that Buddhism is in fact not about “belief in” doctrines but rather in about “belief that” we should do something practical to overcome suffering is just one tradition in a long line of traditions to ensure that Buddhism has continued to survive. Nonetheless, each of these traditions are very different – for example, Secular Buddhism rejects the supernatural beliefs of Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism, in favour of focusing on the 4 Noble Truths as practical “tasks” to overcome suffering. The fact that many Buddhists today reject Secular Buddhism vehemently further cements these ideas that the traditions are different and do not share key ideas and practices, meaning that have little in common.

However, many Buddhists would point to the above argument that despite practices evolving in different cultures and time periods out of necessity (for example, Buddhism must be adapted to the political climate of England, where monks cannot go on alms rounds so must instead rely on online donations to their monasteries), the same key beliefs abound throughout the different sects of Buddhism. Furthermore, Buddhism is seen as a religion of peace due to its focus on ahimsa (non-violence), meaning that despite there being differences between Buddhist sects, there is very little animosity between Buddhist groups, and almost no violent schism between sects in Buddhist history. This is radically different to almost all other world religions, and suggests that there is common nature and ethics across different traditions within Buddhism, focusing on mutual respect for life and the prevention of harm.

Overall, despite differences in practices I believe that the message of the dharma is one of love and tolerance towards all beings, represented through the peacefulness that exits between the different sects of Buddhism. Furthermore, I am convinced by the argument that these sects all share a common goal (to end human suffering), despite having different practices. This is even true of the often-criticised Secular Buddhism, which focuses on the ending of suffering, just as all other sects do.

Model Essay: Examine Ashoka's view of other faiths with reference to his 12th Edict.

 

1. Examine Ashoka’s view of other faiths with reference to his 12^th Edict. [10 marks - AQA]

Plan:

·        Introduce Ashoka and explain his conversion/the role of edicts in his empire.

·        View of 12^th edict – contact between religions is good and helps people to understand their own dharma.

·        All religions are equally worthy of respect and equal protection.

The Emperor Ashoka ruled almost the entire Indian subcontinent from 268-232BCE, and is regarded as the first Buddhist ruler of India who used his beliefs in his political policies. Ashoka’s conversion is recorded in edicts that he published throughout his kingdom, and he professed to have converted to following the Buddhist dharma after seeing huge amounts of bloodshed and suffering in the Kalinga war, which he waged to occupy territory. It is suggested that after seeing and causing so much suffering, Ashoka had a change of heart and began to seek the end of suffering, leading him to the spiritual dharma (truths or teachings) of Siddhartha Gautama, which were growing increasingly popular within India at this time. This then led Ashoka to radically change his policy and leadership style, embracing ahimsa through vegetarianism in his palaces, and bringing an end to his political control being achieved through violent military conquests. Ashoka made his beliefs and the laws he passed known throughout his kingdom by having huge rock edicts transcribed and erected throughout his kingdom, in order to spread his wishes to those under his command, the 12^th edict deals with his attitudes to other religions.

Ashoka, in the 12^th Edict, suggests that other faiths are worthy of respect and tolerance, and encourages contact between different religions in his kingdom. His reasoning for this is that one’s own understanding of their dharma can be aided by hearing about the truth claims of other religions. He professes that his greatest desire for the “growth in essential of all religions” within his kingdom, suggesting that he wants all faiths to be able to flourish in India. He also suggests that those of different religions can learn from one another, stating plainly that “contact between religions is good.” It is evident that Ashoka has taken some time to consider and compare similarities between different religions, identifying in the edict that many share the same moral practices, for example Ashoka suggests that rejecting false speech is a common moral standard in all religions. It seems that Ashoka is providing common ground to start interfaith dialogues within his kingdom, and that he wanted his followers to discuss with each other and find further similarities between their religions to help them gain a better understanding of both others and themselves.

Ashoka does also seem to recognise that there may be times when religions may not agree, but his edict gives guidance over how to deal with this criticism. Ashoka commands in his Edict that those who want to criticise another’s faith should only do so “mildly”, which could be seen to link to the Buddha’s sila teachings about right speech and right action. This shows that Ashoka did not encourage disparagement or rejection of other faiths, but wanted open discussions between these religions in his kingdom. Overall, it appears that Ashoka is very tolerant of the variety of religions within India at this time, and that he encouraged contact between the religions to help people become wiser in their own faith and matters of other faiths, likely as a way of maintaining peace and harmony within his kingdom.

 

 

 

 

Model Essay: "The Thai Forest Tradition is the most appealing form of Buddhism in today's world." Evaluate this statement.

 

1. “The Thai Forest Tradition is the most appealing form of Buddhism in today’s world.” Evaluate this statement [15 marks - AQA]

For	Against
·        Seen to be accurate to the Buddha’s original teachings. ·        In Thailand many people have commented that the sangha has become corrupted with desire for status so this way is better. ·        Helps with craving and getting to final goal, likely to help people leave Samsara faster.	·        Takes an anti-textual stance, which many may disagree with. ·        Other forms may be more appealing: e.g. Triratna or Secular are more modern/work better in C21st. ·        Unrealistic to expect lots of people to renounce like this. ·        Could be criticised by traditional Thai sangha.

 

In this answer I will conclude that the Thai Forest Tradition is not in fact the most appealing form of Buddhism in today’s world, as I think that contemporary society better fits with the teachings of Secular Buddhism, particularly in the West. This is because Secular Buddhism fits better with modern science, rationalism and the Verification and Falsification Principles, which have become key to academia today.

Some may disagree with me as the Thai Forest Tradition responds to specific needs within Thailand and was founded with the intention of improving the Thai Sangha. This is because many believers in the 1900s and into today have begun to feel that the Thai sangha was straying from its original intentions and structure as set up by Gautama. Many people have commented that the Thai sangha, due to political ties and the capitalistic nature of the world today, has become focused on status and reputation, meaning that those who join the sangha may not be doing so with entirely spiritual intentions. As a result, the Thai Forest Tradition was founded to help the sangha get back to its original structure and intentions by being based on the lifestyle of Gautama in Ancient India: living the life of a wandering ascetic, sleeping in the forest, teaching those one comes across. Therefore it could be concluded that the Thai Forest Tradition is an important modern movement in Thailand designed specifically to improve the Buddhist sangha there, although this does beg the question whether or not this is true for the world as a whole, or just this specific country.

Many would argue that other forms of Buddhism that have developed in the contemporary period are more appealing that the Thai Forest movement, particularly because in many countries of the world life as a wandering ascetic would be almost impossible. For example, the climate (both physical and political) in Britain would make it almost impossible for someone to renounce, wandering in forests, relying on alms donations and not sleeping in a building. In this sense, the movement could be seen as unrealistic and impractical outside of Thailand, requiring practical developments to work in different places (hence the founding of the Amaravarti Tradition, the British adaptation of the Thai Forest Tradition in Hertfordshire). Therefore, people may prefer other movements, such as Triratna Buddhism – which is welcoming, ecumenical, and practical in regards to the modern lifestyle. It does not renunciation as a wandering ascetic, but inviting people to participate with as much commitment as they personally are able to give, suggesting that Triratna is a more realistic way to practice Buddhism in the C21st.

Many would argue nonetheless that the Thai Forest Tradition is most accurate to the Buddha’s original teachings, and emulates that way that he himself lived. This could be argued to be the best way of practising Buddhism in the C21st as it most closely relates to the earliest form of Buddhism, and could perhaps represent the lifestyle that Gautama envisaged all his followers adopting. Certainly, the founders and followers of the Thai Forest Tradition see themselves as taking on the most accurate form of Buddhism in today’s world. However, this could be criticised due to the generally anti-textual view that the Thai Forest Movement undertakes, whilst the monks are guided by the Vinaya (discipline) rules of the Pali Canon, strict deontological adherence to these rules is not done by the letter of the scriptures, and there is room for moral interpretation within the tradition, which may lead others to reject it.

Overall, I believe that Secular Buddhism is the most appealing form of Buddhism in today’s world. This is because Secular Buddhism, or “Buddhism without beliefs” (Stephen Batchelor) does not require unrealistic renunciation practices, rather it is designed to fit Buddhism within one’s contemporary lifestyle. Batchelor suggests that Buddhists in today’s world are free to undertake the practices that help them overcome suffering, without being forced to hold doctrinal beliefs or belief in the supernatural aspects of Buddhism which appear to by mythical when looked at through the lens of science and empiricism. I believe that this is much more universally applicable to the rational worldview and the lifestyles of those alive today, and that Buddhism is much more likely to thrive in this environment, as not many people will be up to the high practical demands of the Thai Forest Tradition. Secular Buddhism is more realistic, whilst continuing to uphold Gautama’s beliefs about ending suffering.

Model Essay: Examine Buddhist views of wealth.

 

1. Examine Buddhist views of wealth. [10 marks - AQA]

Plan:

·        Wealth is not an inherently bad thing, but can lead to craving which is bad.

·        Wealth is useful as it helps us to practise generosity (Mahayana)

·        Wealth should be used properly – Ven Payatto (right consumption)

·        Right livelihood as a part of sila can be related to wealth.

The view of wealth within Buddhism depends on a variety of factors, but perhaps most importantly, on one’s ordination status. The Buddha set up the sangha after gaining enlightenment, and taught that realising nirvana would only be possible for those who renounced their lives to become ascetics. Part of the renunciation involves giving up one’s former name, status and previous possessions, this is based on the Buddha’s own experience of renouncing his throne as the prince of the Shakya clan in order to pursue the end of dukkha. The Buddha offered clear teachings on wealth to monastics: monks and nuns are forbidden from having their own possessions beyond their robe and begging bowl, and their reliance on alms signifies this. Furthermore, monks and nuns are not even aloud to touch money, and would not accept monetary donations from the laity. This is because owning property and amassing wealth leads to inevitable craving, which causes suffering and dissatisfaction with one’s life. Further dukkha is also caused by any loss of wealth, and anxieties about money. The ultimate goal of Buddhism (nirvana, enlightenment) requires total non-attachment, so for monks and nuns, wealth is seen as vice that must be given up.

However, it could be argued that this view of wealth has developed somewhat in the 21^st Century. A good example is the Wat Phra Dhammakaya movement in Thailand, where monetary donations are accepted to advance the life of the sangha and help others. Other modern movements, such as Triratna Buddhism (the largest Buddhist centre of this kind being based in London) also handle money and may have business-aspects to their daily life. This shows that that Buddha’s teachings on wealth do not apply to all sangha. The laity within Buddhism are also not forbidden from amassing wealth, unlike other world religions (for example, the Bible suggests that “money is the root of all evil” and Jesus instructed his followers to practice radical and voluntary poverty). Wealth is in fact seen as a good thing for lay people, provided it is used with kusala (selfless) intentions. Those who do have wealth are in a privileged position of sharing it with others, and gaining good karmic consequences as a result. This is particularly important for Mahayana Buddhists, who are required to practice both karuna (compassion) and generosity via the 6 perfections for moral behaviour.

Ven. Payatto has commented that Buddhists should be mindful of how they use their money, particularly within the trappings of a capitalist society. He suggests that “right consumption” is important in today’s world, and that Buddhists should avoid businesses and lifestyles that lead to the suffering of others. Buddhists are likely to therefore support Fair Trade and often boycott businesses related to human and animal suffering, such as butchery and fur. There are also actions within sila that help guide Buddhists on how to use their wealth: right intention and right livelihood show that wealth should be used to help others and not just privilege oneself (this would be an akusala intention which would lead to bad karma, delaying the acquisition of nirvana). Therefore, those lay people who are allowed to save up their wealth must still use their money morally.

 

 

 

 

Model Essay: "Buddhists are supportive of freedom of religion in Britain today." Evaluate this statement.

 

“Buddhists are supportive of freedom of religion in Britain today.” Evaluate this statement. [15 marks - AQA]

Religious pluralisation has led to most people in Britain holding the view that all religions are equally valid, and that they should all be respected and valued. There is much debate in Buddhism as to whether religious pluralism is a good thing, leading many to believe that Buddhists may not support pluralisation of religions in society. In this essay I will conclude that Buddhism’s peaceful outlook would not lead the majority of Buddhists to repress freedom of religion in British society, therefore accepting religious pluralism within Britain.

The Buddha, regarded as the founder and first proponent of the dharma, appears to offer many teachings that suggest that Buddhists would support the freedom of religious expression in society. For example, his teachings on ahimsa (peace) and karuna (compassion) suggest that Buddhists oppose conflict, and moral precepts such as right speech and right action show that Buddhists are unlikely to condemn those who follow other religions. Historically, there has been little conflict between Buddhist traditions, despite them upholding different goals (such as the Theravada arhat path and the Mahayana bodhisattva path). Therefore, Buddhists may support the freedom of religious expression out of a desire for peace and morality (sila).

However, this view was opposed in the 13^th Century by Japanese Buddhist Nichiren. Nichiren vehemently rejected other forms of Buddhism and other religions alike, suggesting that they were contributing to the “age of mappo” (the end times), leading to the perversion of the Buddha dharma and natural disasters such as earthquakes. He argued that the only right form of Buddhism is Nichiren Buddhism, a form of Mahayana Buddhism that sees the Lotus Sutra as the only authoritative text – leading him to describe it as the Latter Day of the Law. Nichiren’s struggles against the Japanese ruling classes and his rejection of other forms of Buddhism show that he would not support the freedom of religious expression in society today, further evidenced through the fact that he believed that those who followed texts other than the Lotus Sutra would go to hell. In Nichiren’s eyes, the only religion that should be allowed in society was his own tradition.

Prior to the work of Nichiren, Ashoka the Great, an Emperor who died in 232BCE, was well known for his conversion to Buddhism and transformation of the laws of his kingdom to reflect the dharma. Ashoka’s edicts show a vastly different view of other religions – his 12^th Edict promoted contact between different religions, encouraging all people not to condemn other religions, and if criticism was necessary, to only do this “mildly”. Ashoka argued that all religions had the common root of right speech, and suggested that it could actually harm one’s religion to compare it to others. Instead, he encouraged people to learn the teachings of other religions to better themselves. It is therefore obvious that Ashoka supported people freely expressing their beliefs, and this can also be applied to the context of British society today.

Furthermore, the 14^th Dalai Lama, an authority for many of the world’s Mahayana Buddhists, is well-known for his advocating of religious freedom, particularly in relation to Tibet. He sees all beings as being equal in their right to pursue happiness and end suffering, and has stressed in his work the equality of all people – rich and poor, educated and uneducated, and religious and non-religious. Whilst Buddhists may view other religions as only having a partial grasp of the dharma, it is evident that Buddhists see value in all beings having their own views. Therefore, Buddhists appear to support the pluralisation of religion and the freedom of religious expression in today’s society.

In conclusion, I believe that Buddhists believe that peace and tolerance are so important that they generally support the freedom of religious expression in today’s society. This is evidenced through Ashoka’s belief that other religions can help people have a greater understanding of the Buddha’s dharma, and the Dalai Lama’s contentions that all beings should be equally allowed to pursue happiness, regardless of their religious beliefs. However, it is important to remember that this is not a unified view in Buddhism, and would be rejected by Nichiren Buddhists who uphold only their own tradition.

Model Essay: "It is better to say that Buddhism is about belief that we should do something, rather than belief in a set of doctrines." Evaluate this statement.

 

"It is better to say that Buddhism is about belief that we should do something, rather than belief in a set of doctrines.” Evaluate this statement [15 marks - AQA]

In this essay I will conclude that it is not better to say that Buddhism is about the belief that we should do something, rather than belief in a set of doctrines. This is because the ‘belief that’ viewpoint comes from Secular Buddhism, which is strongly believe is not an appropriate development of Siddhartha Gautama’s original teachings, taught 2,500 years ago. I therefore reject the teachings of Secular Buddhism in favour of traditional Buddhism, and the view of scholars such as David Brazier.

Secular Buddhists disagree with my viewpoint, as they view Buddhism as not being a religion with supernatural and metaphysical truths, but rather as a moral philosophy which provides people with a way of life that overcomes suffering. Stephen Batchelor, one of the proponents of the Secular Buddhist movement, argues that the supernatural aspects of Buddhism should be understood as coming from the time period of Ancient India, rather than from the Buddha himself. He therefore suggests that when studying Buddhism, one should disregard supernatural teachings, for example on karma and samsara, as these were included in scriptures because they were common beliefs at the time, rather than coming from Gautama himself. Batchelor therefore rejects the idea that Buddhism contains supernatural doctrines.

Rather, Batchelor re-interprets Buddhist doctrine in a way that applies to contemporary society. He does not view Buddhism as a set of doctrines that have remained the same for the last 2,500 Years. Rather, he sees Buddhism as being a constantly evolving phenomena related to awakening, particularly focused on how to overcome suffering. He therefore suggests that in the modern age, ancient supernatural doctrines can be forgotten about, and the doctrines of Buddhism can be re-interpreted. He re-interprets the 4 Noble Truths as being “4 tasks”, giving practical instruction to overcome suffering, rather than 4 metaphysical truths that have some sort of spiritual significance. This challenges the traditional view of Buddhism that one should have “belief in” the dharma, suggesting instead that the dharma is about “belief that” we should overcome suffering.

However, this view is rejected by scholars such as David Brazier. Brazier is a traditional Buddhist who upholds the supernatural and metaphysical aspects of Buddhism in the contemporary age. In his work “Buddhism is a religion: You can believe it!” he criticises Batchelor’s view that the Four Noble Truths should be interpreted as “4 tasks”, warning against Buddhism being reduced to mere “techniques.” Brazier argues that when taking away the supernatural parts of Buddhism, Secular Buddhists are actually losing the essence of the religion, and undermining the authority of Gautama as a semi-divine being (this is the Mahayana view that Brazier shares). Therefore, Brazier would reject the view that Buddhism should be about “belief that” we should do something, in favour of the traditional view that Buddhism is about “belief in” the dharma.

Brazier also argues that the origins of these doctrines are important, and that it is inappropriate for Secular Buddhists to overlook these. He points out that the Buddha did teach supernatural ideas such as karma, Samsara and the Bodhisattva Path, and this is recorded in the scriptures (which, as a traditionalist, Brazier would view as being reliable). He also rejects the idea that “belief in” doctrines doesn’t lead to actions, criticising another aspect of the Secular Buddhist view. As a Socially Engaged Buddhist, Brazier suggests that the Buddhist faith actually leads people to social action. He would therefore argue against the statement because of the implication that “belief in” the dharma and “belief that” we should do something are mutually exclusive. Instead, he suggests that it is precisely “belief in” Buddhist doctrines such as the Four Noble Truths that we are lead to “belief that” we should perform social action.

In conclusion, I believe that it is inappropriate to reduce Buddhism to a moral philosophy whilst divorcing it from its religious roots. I am more persuaded by the work of Brazier, who suggests that Buddhism is a religion that was originally taught with social aspects that still apply to Buddhists today. I see no evidence for why Batchelor wants to rid Buddhism of its secular aspects other than his own lack of faith, and would challenge him by saying that his version of Buddhism is not representative of the supernatural aspects of the dharma at all.

Model Essay: Examine the influence of the belief in rebirth on Buddhist individuals and communities

 

Model Answer: Examine the influence of belief in rebirth on Buddhist individuals and communities (10 marks - AQA)

In his first sermon after gaining enlightenment Gautama, the Buddha, taught his followers the way to escape from suffering. This was through perfecting Magga, the Noble Eightfold Path, which will eventually lead a follower to arhatship (enlightenment with the help of the Buddha’s teachings) and achieving nirvana – a realisation of the true nature of things. Whilst the Buddha was alive, he taught all Buddhists to strive for Nirvana, so it is the final goal in Theravada Buddhism, even if this takes many lifetimes for a follower to achieve. The Buddha taught people to eventually escape Samsara through an understanding of the consequences of their actions, and trying to minimise negative consequences and maximise morality in their everyday lives. This is because one day they hope not to be reborn again, to escape the constant dukkha that existence causes through attachment to impermanent aspects of life.  

The Buddha taught all Buddhists that life if governed by karma, which literally means ‘action’, but refers to the universal law of cause and effect. This means that all Buddhists, whether Mahayana or Theravada, strive to perform actions that have good karmic consequences, and work hard to avoid immoral actions with bad karmic consequences. Theravada follow 5 moral precepts that govern their daily life, for example they vow to abstain from killing animals, which means that they will work hard to respect human and animal life and not cause physical harm. Even though some Buddhists eat meat, none would choose to be butchers or hunters as their profession, as their livelihoods must be morally correct to reflect their commitment to Buddhism. Mahayana Buddhists also work to create good karma over many lifetimes, this is because their final goal is to become a Buddha for the benefit of all beings. This is known as the ‘Bodhisattva goal’. Mahayana Buddhists also follow 6 perfections of ‘paramitas’ which help them to become compassionate for all beings, therefore a Mahayana Buddhist’s life is governed by being compassionate to others. Creating bad karma could lead in a negative rebirth in a hell or animal realm, which would in turn incur more negative karma, which it may take a being many lifetimes to overcome. Therefore even lay Buddhists would aim to perform karmically good actions so that they could be reborn in a heavenly realm or again as a human where they could continue to practise Buddhism. Gautama taught that the best possible rebirth is a human rebirth because only as a human can humans escape Samsara.

Buddhist communities often work together to help Buddhists in their eventual goal of becoming arhats or bodhisattvas. For example, joining the Buddhist sangha shows that an individual is committed to this eventual goal, and may even want to achieve it within their current lifetime. Monks will live austere lives that focus on study, meditation and mindfulness to minimise the bad karma that they create. The Buddha demonstrated that mediation is a way for Buddhists to gain Bodhi, so often communities will meditate together to help Buddhists progress through the 4 jhanas (stages of meditation). For example, the Wat Phra Dhammakaya movement is a modern Thai movement that encourages corporate meditation.

For Buddhists, good karma creates punya, which means ‘merit’. Merit is somewhat like a currency that helps people to improve their rebirth in Samsara. It is common in some South Asian Buddhist countries for people to transfer their merit to others, for example young children may join the sangha as novice monks as a way of transferring punya to a recently deceased relative. This is to help them in their future life. Buddhists also perform puja, which is worship of the image of the Buddha or Bodhisattva’s such as Avalokiteshvara. Mahayana Buddhists in particular will worship images of Avalokiteshvara and ask for his help in difficult situations, because they believe that he has unlimited punya to transfer to others to help them in following the Buddhist path. This shows that Buddhists actions are always mindful of the teachings on rebirth – striving for a better rebirth to help them as they follow Buddhist morals.

Model Essay: "Worship is more important in Mahayana traditions than it is in Theravada Buddhism." Evaluate this statement.

 

Model Answer: “Worship is more important in Mahayana traditions than it is in Theravada Buddhism.” Evaluate this statement [15 marks - AQA]

In this essay I will conclude that worship (puja) is more important for Mahayana Buddhists than it is for Theravada Buddhists. This is because there is a greater emphasis on gaining punya (merit) within the Mahayana tradition, via the worship of bodhisattvas and the Buddha himself. Therefore, they have a greater emphasis on worship and acts of devotion than the Theravada sect.

One may disagree with my conclusion due to the emphasis on the person of the Buddha within the Theravada tradition, particularly the fact that he was the first being to gain enlightenment and preach the dharma for the sake of all others. Theravada Buddhists do worship and venerate the Buddha, for example they may have a shrine to him in their homes which they use as a focus for their meditation. The Buddha is seen as an inspiring role model and paying respect to him is seen as a way of gaining good punya which yields good karmic consequences. Therefore, worship could be said to be of significant importance within the Theravada tradition.

Despite this, most would agree that worship is more important within the Mahayana tradition, due to the sheer volume of beings that can be worshipped. An example of a bodhisattva who is worshipped within the Mahayana tradition is Avalokiteshvara, the ‘Bodhisattva of Compassion’. Buddhists believe that in chapter 25 of the Lotus Sutra the heavenly form of the Buddha actually recommended that people worship Avalokiteshvara in order to benefit from his unlimited punya, as he is right at the end of his bodhisattva career. People will worship Avalokiteshvara through giving offerings to his image, and by venerating his name and his great characteristics verbally. This is integral to Mahayana worship, particularly for the people of Tibet who link Avalokiteshvara with the Dalai Lama, their spiritual leader. Therefore the Buddha himself recommended that Mahayana Buddhists prioritise worship.

However, there is also a history of worship within Theravada communities. For example, the Wat Phra Dhammakaya movement, a modern Theravada movement in Northern Thailand, holds a monthly ceremony of ‘Honouring the Buddha by Food’, where a great feast is offered up to Siddhartha Gautama in Pari-Nirvana through Buddhist meditation. This is an important practice within the movement, suggesting that worship plays an equal role in Theravada sanghas.

It is also important to remember that the Buddha did not recommend excessive worship and veneration of himself when he was alive. He cautioned his followers that overly emotional worship causes attachment, which ultimately leads to dukkha (suffering) and contributes to people being trapped in the cycle of Samsara. Nyaponika Thera has commented that this makes it less likely that Theravada Buddhists would see worship as a first priority, they should instead focus on perfecting Magga. This is not true for Mahayana Buddhists, who believe that they have a personal relationship with the Buddha himself via the Trikaya Doctrine. Because the Buddha can still appear in Samsara via his heavenly form, it is believed that he can hear worship and prayers directed at him, and he returns punya to his followers. Therefore, puja is much more important within the Mahayana tradition.

Overal, puja is more important for Mahayana than Theravada Buddhists, as there are more beings that can worshipped, and a culture of making merit is essential to the Mahayana way of life. This is less true for Theravada Buddhists, who avoid personal attachment to the Buddha and instead see him as an inspiring role model.

Model Essay: Examine key features of the Buddhist sangha in Thailand and how these have changed in the 21st Century.

 

“Examine key features of the Buddhist Sangha in Thailand and how these have changed in the 21^st Century.” (10 marks - AQA)

Traditionally, the sangha in countries where there are many Buddhists is responsible for social order for local communities. This traces back to the original sangha as set up by Siddhartha Gautama. After gaining enlightenment, Gautama ordained the first monks, and this the lineage of Buddhist monks traces back to the Buddha himself. The Buddha created the sangha to be responsible for ‘spreading the dharma’ (Cush). Within Thailand, monks and nuns who join the sangha are therefore responsible for preserving and transmitting the message of Buddhism.

Within the traditional Thai sangha, much as the Buddha intended, life revolved around the Theravada goal – gaining nirvana. This may be pursued through Samatha and Vipassana meditation, and through the study of Buddhist texts such as the Milindapanda of the Pali Canon. The sangha relied on the laity for survival – as monks and nuns may not handle money and property becomes communal after renunciation, the monks and nuns daily beg for alms in the local community. In return, they offer the laity opportunities to learn the dharma and will offer services such as birth and death rites.

The rural sangha in Thailand plays a similar role in the C21st to the traditional sangha envisions by the Buddha. For example, monks will educate local children – providing a service similar to primary school. However, in the cities, the sangha has changed somewhat as general Thai culture and attitudes have developed. It has been suggested that the West has influenced Thai society, making it increasingly capitalistic. Despite having a Buddhist monarchy, Thailand is not a formally Buddhist country. Therefore society is becoming increasingly influenced by capitalism – concerned with wealth and status. This has an effect on the Thai sangha, as people are less invested in Buddhist ideals, which reject reliance on worldly possessions. This decreasing focus on religion and increasing focus on personal gain can lead to monks in C21st Thailand straying from the path of Buddhism – there are suggestions that some monks in urban areas join the sangha in order to be highly respected in society. This may change the integrity of the sangha itself. A lack of religious focus also may lead to less support for the sangha, with less Thailanders attending the temple or supporting the laity with alms, particularly in urban areas.

Politically, there are difference in Thailand today – the country has been a democracy for the past 20 years. The generally positive view of the sangha, particularly in rural areas, has led to political campaigners using the sangha to gain more votes, by associating themselves with local communities and publicly showing themselves to observe Buddhist traditions. This illustrates that the Thai sangha still plays an essential role in Thailand, as it is viewed as an important political vehicle. Democracy has also affected the sangha’s structure – it is now a top-down hierarchy with elected officials in charge of the chief council.

Model Essay: Explain the nature of the Pali Canon and its authority for Buddhists

 

Examine the nature of the Pali Canon and its authority for Buddhists. [10 marks - AQA]

The Pali Canon is a central sacred texts for Theravada Buddhists, which is said to trace back to the Buddha himself. The Pali Canon was originally recorded through recitation, and the sangha (community of monks and nuna) passed it down to each generation of Buddhists orally, as paper could not survive in the climate of ancient India. The Pali Canon is recited regularly, for example the rules for monks and nuns are recited fortnightly at the Uposatha Ceremony by monastics in the sangha. Monks and nuns may dedicate their whole lives to the Pali Canon, for example by copying it out as an act of meditation. The Pali Canon is divided into 3 sections, and is known as the Tipitaka (3 baskets). This is because, when written, the scrolls of the Pali Canon were divided into three sections: the discipline section, the stories section, and the philosophy section.

The Vinaya (Discipline section) of the Pali Canon contains rules of conduct for members of the sangha – there are traditionally 227 rules for monks, and 311 rules for nuns. The Vinaya is very important as it teaches monks and nuns how they must live in order to follow the Eightfold Path. It also has rules for taking refuge in the sangha, and explains what property a monk or nun may own (a simple robe, and an alms bowl only). The Sutta Pitaka contains stories of the Buddha’s life that people can learn from, for example the stories of his renunciation and asceticism before he gained nirvana. The Abhidharma (philosophy) is the most complex section, and is likely to be only studied by monks and nuns seeking prajna (wisdom) – it discusses complex Buddhist doctrines such as anicca (impermanence), and the nature of karma and rebirth. Lay people may not read the Pali Canon themselves, but instead will go to the temple to be taught by monks and nuns about the contents.

The Pali Canon is an authority for Buddhists because it traces back to the Buddha himself, who is a role model and teacher. It also contains crucial information about how to behave morally and what doctrines one must understand to gain enlightenment (true understanding of the nature of things). However, not all Buddhists would regard it as an authority – Mahayana Buddhists accept the authority of other texts over that of the Pali Canon, such as the Lotus Sutra. This is because they believe in the bodhisattva goal as the final goal of life (becoming a future Buddha to save others) so they do not uphold the Pali Canon as a text with the most authority. There are also some debates about the accuracy of the Pali Canon that make it less of an authority – because it is very old and was transmitted orally, there may be some errors in the text that cannot be known today. Nevertheless, it is still the central authority for Theravada Buddhists who uphold the dharma (truth) of Siddhartha Gautama.

Model Essay: "Buddhism is a pessimistic religion." Evaluate this statement

 

“Buddhism is a pessimistic religion.” Evaluate this statement. [15 marks - AQA]

In this essay I will conclude that Buddhism is neither a pessimistic nor an optimistic religion, it is a realistic one. This is because Siddhartha Gautama (the current Buddha) taught the dharma (truth) about the reality of the world. However, there are some disagreements to this conclusion, with others suggesting Buddhism is an overly pessimistic religion.

One reason that some may argue that Buddhism is pessimistic is because of the content of the teachings in the 4 Noble Truths (the first sermon the Buddha gave after enlightenment). This first truth argues that life is full of dukkha (suffering), caused by tanha (craving). The Buddha illustrated this point by giving examples of the inevitable suffering that humans experience – pain, decay and death. As these are inescapable, all humans have unavoidable suffering in their lives. Therefore, some may argue Buddhism is pessimistic, because it is overly focused on suffering.

However, the 4^th Noble Truth teaches the way of Magga (Middle way/Eightfold path). This tells everyone that despite life being full of suffering, it is possible to overcome dukkha by practising the way of Buddhism. Ultimately, those who perfect Magga become arhats (being enlightened through hearing the Buddha’s teachings), and arhats do not experience the suffering of rebirth any longer. Therefore, Buddhism is not a pessimistic religion because it offers a way to overcome suffering.

However, others would disagree with the above argument, because the Buddha was so preoccupied with the concept of impermanence. This suggests that humans constantly crave for things in life to stay the same, but permanence is ultimately impossible. The Buddha gave examples of impermanence that everyone experience – the end of relationships, ageing (leaving youth behind) and eventually, the end of life itself. It causes humans to crave permanence, leading to more suffering. Therefore, the Buddha appears to have a very negative worldview, arguing that any pleasure we have will come to an end.

Nevertheless, Denis Cush argues that the Buddha’s Noble Truths ‘function like a doctor’s diagnosis for the human condition,’ and, ultimately, the Buddha provides a cure to dukkha that is permanent – the goal of enlightenment (nirvana). This shows that Buddhism has positive aspects, because there is a way out of suffering. Furthermore, Dhammananda Maha Thera, a Buddhist monk who has discussed this topic, argues that the character of the Buddha himself shows that the Buddha cannot be viewed in a wholly negative light. He was described by his followers as being joyful, with a wonderful sense of humour that even convinced his enemies to listen to him. This shows that Buddhism is not pessimistic, because the Buddha himself was a joyful character, who strove to help others escape suffering.

In conclusion, I believe that the 4 Noble Truths are designed to give humans insight into the reality of the world. It is, in my opinion, inappropriate to suggest that Buddhism is overly pessimistic or optimistic. In reality, it is a religious belief that tries to help other people understand what the world is really life. Whilst it might not be completely positive, I do think that it is a realistic teaching, and it gives people a way to understand dukkha exists, with a way to overcome it.

Buddhism, Migration and Pluralism: The Basics

 

Buddhism, Migration & Pluralisation

·        Multiculturalism is where societies are made up of many different cultures, which include different nationalities, beliefs, values and social customs. They should be equally respected and seen as valuable. Religious pluralism is just like this but refers to the co-existence of various religions. Migration is the idea of people moving from one country to the next. A secular state is a country where the government, legislature and society are not controlled by or dependent on the teachings of a religion.

·        Religious tolerance has two meanings: one definition is that all religions should be accepted as equally valid and true, meanwhile the other definition suggests that, though one might not agree with someone else's religious beliefs, one must avoid oppressing or discriminating the other person's religious beliefs.

·        Laws that support the freedom of religion include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18 and the Equality Act 2010. Article 18 explicitly states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (this is part of European Law); this means that Buddhists are free to practice their religion, either publicly (in community with others) or privately. The Equality Act 2010 states that it is against the law to prohibit or restrict the practice of religion in Britain. The law protects people in the workplace; anti-religion is a hate crime. Thus, Buddhists are protected because discrimination against religious groups is a criminal act.

·        Migration has contributed to the creation of pluralised Britain through several instances, primarily in the second half of the C20th. Following WW2, Eastern Europeans migrated. As a result of labour shortages in Britain, the 1950s government encouraged immigration from Caribbean communities and Hong Kong. The Indian Independence of 1947 peaked in 1972 when Idi Amin expelled Indians and Pakistanis from Uganda. Buddhist communities also migrated during the Chinese invasion of Tibet (1950): this eventually led to the exodus of Tibetans with the Dalai Lama in 1959. This brought immigration to the West.

·        Migration can also explain the creation of Buddhist communities in Britain: many Buddhists settled in Western communities. Manchester's Chinatown began in C20th as a home for laundry workers who emigrated from China after the invasion of Tibet.

·        Other reasons why Buddhist communities have developed in Britain: the academic interest of the C19th whereby Buddhist scriptures began to be translated to English and circulated amongst academics/the upper classes; in 1879, Sir Edwin Arnold published “The Light of Asia”, a poem about the Buddha's life which sparked interest in Buddhism; in 1898, Allan Bennet travelled to Sri Lanka to be ordained as the first British Theravada Monk, and returned to England to practice his religion; and in 1907, the Buddhist society of Great Britain & Ireland was formed, becoming the London Buddhist society in 1924 – it is a platform for all to come together.

·        There is diversity of Buddhist traditions in Britain. The Amaravati Buddhist Monastery, (Herts) was founded in 1979 by Ajahn Sumedho, an American-born Theravada monk of the Thai Forest Tradition. Housing both monks and nuns, it has a retreat center for laypeople, a library, and is open to visitors for occasional talks. The Jamyang Buddhist Centre (London) is a Tibetan organisation of the Gelupga tradition, under the direction of Geshe Tashi Tsering. Courses of study and practice are taught at all levels. Lastly, the Throssel Hole Buddhist Abbey (Northumberland) is a training monastery of the Japanese Soto Zen tradition, founded in 1972 by an Englishwoman, the late Rev. Jiyu-Kennett, and now under the direction of Rev. Daishin Morgan.

·        These three Buddhist centers show that there is diversity within British Buddhism because these centers are ecumenical and generally inclusive. Multiculturalism may be helpful to the development of Buddhism in Britain because of the role of popularity, leading to a pluralised society where there are more followers and a greater understanding of other traditions.

 

Buddhism is a collection of traditions with little in common
For	Against
·        They both have varied views - Theravada is a lineage whilst Mahayana is a movement. ·        The key doctrinal text of Theravadas is the Pali Canon, written in Pali. Meanwhile, Mahayanas accept sutras; these texts were written in Sanskrit. ·        Theravadas solely worship the Buddha and focuses on the arhat goal, whereas Mahayanas focus on the Buddha-nature, and becoming a Bodhisattva.	·        There has been no historical antagonism between sects; i.e. the 1996 Theravada nun re-ordination took place at a Mahayana ceremony. ·        The core teachings of the Buddha have remained the same, although delivered in a different way to accommodate changing contexts. ·        Bodhi (enlightenment) will produce the same understanding of ultimate reality in both sects.

 

·        One Buddhist response to pluralisation is from Ashoka, an Indian emperor of the Maurya Dynasty. He ruled almost all of the Indian subcontinent from C.268 to his death (232 BCE). In about 260 BCE, Ashoka waged a destructive war against the state of Kalinga. He converted to Buddhism after he witnessed and ordered over 200,000 deaths. He changed his policies to reflect the dharma – e.g. teaching ahimsa, and converting his palace to vegetarianism – becoming a peaceful ruler.

·        Ashoka created edict pillars (laws inscribed on rocks), distributed throughout his kingdom. In his 12^th Edict, Ashoka suggests that all religions are equally worthy of respect. He hopes for “growth in the essentials of all religions”: in this, he appears to be suggesting that all religions have a common value – to practice right speech. It is harmful to boast that one's religion is better – contact (between religions) is a good thing. Ashoka says that if any criticisms are raised, it should be discussed “in a mild way.” He wanted all religions to learn the doctrines of others, thus highlighting support for a pluralised view of Buddhism.

·        However, this differs from the response of Nichiren Buddhism, a branch of Mahayana Buddhism based on C13th teachings of the Buddhist priest Nichiren (1222-1282) – it is one of the “Kamakura Buddhism” schools. Nichiren Buddhism focuses on the Lotus Sutra doctrine, that all people have an innate Buddha-nature. The Lotus Sutra is the only valid text, containing the “Latter Day of the Law.” Nichiren Buddhism views itself as the only correct tradition, referring to the Lotus Sutra as a “supremely authoritative scripture.” Those religions which do not follow this contribute to the age of “mappo” - the eschatological definition of the “end times”.

·        Therefore, this branch rejects pluralisation because those who don't believe in the authority of the Lotus Sutra are scapegoated as responsible for the evils and sufferings in the world today. We should even consider that Nichiren is very unpopular with other Buddhists, often disparaging rival Buddhist views, warning others that they'd go to hell. Nichiren rebuked the rulers of Japan for allowing rival Buddhist sects to engage in “erroneous thinking.” He was also exiled twice by the government (some of his disciples even executed), refusing to compromise.

·        The Dalai Lama and Freedom: he advocates democracy as a positive system of government. He encourages people to campaign for the freedom of Tibet, allowing Tibetan religious believers to freely practise their religion outside of communist rule. He suggests that, regardless of “whether we are rich or poor, educated or uneducated … each of us is just a human being like everyone else.” He concludes that it is human nature to avoid suffering and seek happiness; thus, if people want to seek happiness through religious expression, they should have the right to.

 

Buddhism and the support of diversity between religions
For	Against
·        The Buddha is not a divine figure; he found the truth of the dharma and shared it with others – he views other religions as discovering other parts of truth, but not all ·        Buddhism is not seen as an absolute doctrine; it is a spiritual journey ·        Buddhism is peaceful and there is no animosity between believers and other religions ·        Buddhism wouldn't have grown popular without multiculturalism, pluralism and globalisation – the existence of the religion in the West today is down to growing acceptance of other viewpoints ·        It is possible to be secular-Buddhist and part of another faith ·        Ashoka's 12th Edict	·        The Buddha's teachings reject some religious ideas outright – many other religions encourage attachment and craving ·        Contradicting doctrines with other religions: i.e. rebirth vs heaven ·        Buddhism may view itself as having the most direct path to enlightenment – more dominant than other religions ·        Pluralisation has damaged Buddhism – Brazier rejects Batchelor's idea that Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion ·        Nichiren Buddhism teaches that the authority of the Lotus Sutra takes precedence over other religious beliefs – diversity between religions is contributing to mappo
Buddhism and the support of diversity between traditions in Buddhism
For	Against
·        Ashoka's 12th Edict ·        The Buddha taught respect for others and peace – preventing conflict between traditions ·        The Dalai Lama promotes religious freedom and democracy – he campaigns for the freedom of Tibet and for human happiness in today's world ·        London Buddhist center is ecumenical	·        Nichiren Buddhism teaches that the authority of the Lotus Sutra takes precedence over other religious beliefs – diversity between traditions is contributing to mappo ·        Some sects view themselves as greater ·        Contradictory teachings between traditions