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.