- “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.
No comments:
Post a Comment