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: 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.

Buddhist Attitudes to Use of Animals in Scientific Procedures - Creating a Dialogue - Buddhist Ethics and Animal Life and Death

 Author: Ruth Wood

Buddhism and Animal Testing (using animals in scientific procedures)

Arguments that oppose using animals in scientific procedures:

Buddhists try to do no harm (or as little harm as possible) to animals. This reflects the teachings of the first moral precept - to abstain from taking life, as well as the intention of the Buddhist path to reduce suffering. Buddhists believe that the actions one performs and the emotions one experiences when doing so can be carried across multiple lives, suggesting that harming animals (even with the good intention of helping humanity) may become a pattern of behaviour which can effect one's karma and lead to a negative cycle of emotions and rebirths that a being will have to work hard to break free from. This provides a warning for scientists and laboratory workers who are involved in the regular testing of animals.  

  Buddhists try to show loving-kindness to all beings, including animals. This is particularly true of Mahayana Buddhists who uphold the 6 Paramitas and the Bodhisattva goal of ultimate compassion for all beings. A Mahayana Buddhist would view the suffering of mammals in laboratories as being unacceptable, particularly when these tests often link to undesirable human traits, such as vanity (cosmetic testing) or craving for permanence in a world affected by anicca (for example, anti-aging products that are first tested on animals). 

 The doctrine of right livelihood teaches Buddhists to avoid any work connected with the killing of animals. This is a clear command to scientists and the medical profession that animals should not be killed during scientific testing. This would mean that certain research, for example where animals are infected with fatal diseases in order to try and research vaccines and cures, would be seen as unacceptable as the ultimate outcome will be the death of the animal. 

The doctrine of karma teaches that any wrong behaviour will have to be paid for in a future life - so cruel acts to animals should be avoided. One could argue that cosmetics testing is particularly pointless and cruel, and that animal suffering cannot be justified to support the development of makeup or bath products which link heavily with vanity, craving and sensual pleasure - all concepts that are affected by anicca and will cause further dukkha (suffering) when they stop working or no longer satisfy the user.

Buddhists treat the lives of human and non-human animals with equal respect

Buddhists see human and non-human animals as closely related:

·        both have Buddha-nature (the ability to become a Buddha in the future) - this is evidenced through the Jartaka Tales, the stories of the Buddha's past lives. These stories tell of when the Buddha was a monkey or a tiger or another being, and how in those forms he was still able to grow in wisdom, perform moral actions and progress on the path to enlightenment. 

·        both have the possibility of becoming perfectly enlightened - all beings are impermanent and their current form is not indicative of the form or experience they will have in the future.

·        a being may be reborn either in a human body or in the body of a non-human animal, therefore all beings are treated with the same basic respect because they are, in essence, equal. 

•          Buddhists believe that is wrong to hurt or kill animals, because all beings are afraid of injury and death. One who observes an animal before it is killed, or whilst it is undergoing animal testing, can see that those animals are not happy or fulfilled, and that they feel pain and fear. This emotion is bound to have negative karmic consequences and create patterns that could be carried across multiple lives due to the teachings on the Chain of Dependent Origination - traits and experiences can be repeated in multiple lives, meaning that animals who are tested upon could experience further fear or depression in the future. 

Arguments that supporting using animals in scientific procedures: Buddhist behaviour towards and thinking about animals is not always positive.

• The doctrine of karma implies that souls are reborn as animals because of past misdeeds. Being reborn as an animal is a serious spiritual setback. It could therefore be argued that due to their inferior karmic form, it could be for the greater good that humans use these animals to further their own lifespans. This is particularly true of medical animal testing for the sake of developing new treatments to preserve human life. It could even be argued to be a worthy reason for the animal to suffer, as their suffering leads to a reduction is suffering for a large number of humans, for example through developing treatments such as chemotherapy to treat cancer. 
•  Because non-human animals can't engage in conscious acts of self-improvement they can't improve their karmic status, and their souls must continue to be reborn as animals until their bad karma is exhausted. Only when they are reborn as human beings can they resume the quest for nirvana. Therefore, it could be argued that animal testing can be justified due to their lower karmic forms.
• This bad karma, and the animal's inability to do much to improve it, led Buddhists in the past to think that non-human animals were inferior to human beings and so were entitled to fewer rights than human beings. If animals are below humans in the spiritual hierarchy, it could be argued to be morally right for humans to use them for their purposes. 
• Early Buddhists (but not the Buddha himself) used the idea that animals were spiritually inferior as a justification for the exploitation and mistreatment of animals. This shows that some Buddhists may take andro-centric teachings around the importance of the human form to justify the use of animals to further human life and experience. 

Experimenting on animals – moral conditions

Buddhists say that this is morally wrong if the animal concerned might come to any harm. However, Buddhists also acknowledge the value that animal experiments may have for human health.

So perhaps a Buddhist approach to experiments on animals might require the experimenter to:

·        accept the karma of carrying out the experiment

·        the experimenter will acquire bad karma through experimenting on an animal

·        experiment only for a good purpose

·        experiment only on animals where there is no alternative

·        design the experiment to do as little harm as possible

·        avoid killing the animal unless it is absolutely necessary

·        treat the animals concerned kindly and respectfully

The bad karmic consequences for the experimenter seem to demand a high level of altruistic behaviour in research laboratories.

Buddhism and Animal Cloning

Buddhist doctrines could be argued to both support and reject the matter of animal cloning for reproductive purposes and medical experimentation. 

There is no stated position among Buddhists on cloning, so scholars like Campbell are left only to interpret the tradition's precepts on their own.

Arguments in favour of animal cloning: Buddhism might be willing to accept cloning,  C Campbell (Director of Philosophy and Ethics at Oregon State University) said, because it represents a leap in modern science and self-understanding that could be considered a path to enlightenment. The Dalai Lama and Thitch Nhat Hanh are both in favour of the links between Buddhism and science, so may allow animal testing if it allowed for great scientific breakthroughs.

Damien Keown (Buddhism, A Very Short Introduction, 1996) argues that unlike other religions that as there is no divine creator in Buddhism, Buddhists do not see the creation of a new animal (or even human) life as playing God. This is because it is impossible to "play God" when an omnipotent divine creator with a plan for humanity does not exist. Buddhism and science are therefore argued to be more compatible, because Buddhists do not see themselves as usurping the role of an omnipotent God when they reproduce animals via artificial methods. 

Arguments against animal cloning: 

However, Keown  does raise the question of what creating copies of beings will do within the context of Samsara: negative personality traits passed on through paticcasamuppada could be multiplied in animals that are cloned, leading to more karmic suffering of multiple beings. Do they carry the same karmic traits as the animal they were cloned from? Does this create a new being within Samsara? Is this being entirely new? These questions remain unanswered and of course cannot be answered via Buddhists scriptures, due to the contemporary nature of cloning technologies.

The  Eightfold Path prohibits harm to any sentient beings, which could be seen in the destruction of cells necessary to perform cloning research. Many embryos are destroyed in the process, or cloning gone wrong means that living beings are born incompatible with life - this could be argued to be tantamount to murder, depending on the attitude to the embryo that the Buddhist has taken. Peter Harvey (An Introduction to Buddhism, 1990) argues that Buddhists believe life begins at conception, so the ending of cloned lives is the destruction of a living being. On more practical grounds, Buddhism promotes ultimate respect to every sentient being, and that generally includes cells born out of research. Destroying such cells, even in research on animal cloning, runs contrary to Buddhist teaching.

"It is hard to see what purposes—scientific or otherwise—can justify the dehumanization that results when life is created and manipulated for other ends," Keown said. "We should not forget that Ian Wilmut, the creator of Dolly [the cloned sheep], failed 276 times before Dolly was conceived."

Buddhism and Using Animals in Organ Donation

In favour: Organ donation is giving an organ to help someone who needs a transplant. There are no injunctions in Buddhism for or against organ donation. Central to Buddhism is a wish to relieve suffering and there may be circumstances where organ donation may be seen as an act of generosity. It could be argued that an animal would receive good karma in a future life if its organs were used to relieve suffering after death.

Against: However, as karma is governed by the rule of intention, can this be the case? An animal cannot consent to giving up an organ so it would be difficult to argue that it would be helpful to an animal to use their organs after death.

Because of the moral precepts, it would be wrong for a Buddhist to kill an animal in order to use its organs, as this would be harming a sentient being who could be reborn as a human in the future and should be treated with respect. Animals cannot give informed consent so it could be seen as wrong to take their organs. In order for animal donations to be successful there has been a lot of animal testing which causes dukkha.

Students - Now Try This:

Create a concluding paragraph on Buddhist attitudes to the above issues: Animal testing, Animal Cloning and Organ Donation. Make sure to conclude your own overall opinion on how most Buddhists would interpret these actions. 

Buddhist Attitudes to Food and Farming, Blood Sports - Buddhist Ethics and Animal Life and Death - Creating a Dialogue

Author: Ruth Wood

Buddhism and animal life and death

Use of Animals As Food

Arguments in Favour:

•        Not all Buddhists choose to be vegetarian: Monks will often accept meat if it is donated by the laity. According to Theravada, the Buddha allowed his monks to eat pork, chicken and fish if the monk was aware that the animal was not killed on their behalf.

•        The Buddha himself was said to eat donated meat. There is a suggestion that the last meal he ate before his sudden death could have been a meat meal.

•        In some Northern Buddhist countries there is a very cold climate so vegetarianism is seen as being impractical (e.g. Nepal). This is because it is very difficult to eat a plant based diet with snow on the ground for so much of the year, for the means of practical survival, Buddhists in Nepal may need to eat meat.

•        Most Buddhists do not have concerns about eating eggs and dairy, suggesting that it is possible to eat animal by-products that do not involve animal death, and that animals can be kept for the purpose of providing some food an sustenance to humans.

•        In terms of karmic status, and the fact that Buddhism has an andro-centric nature in the sense that humans are the highest form of rebirth, it could be remarked logically that Buddhists can use animals for their own food and sustenance, this is because they are higher karmic forms and are therefore more precious. It could be argued that eating animals to fuel one’s human life may help a Buddhist to progress on the path to enlightenment.  

Arguments Against:

•        However, it would be wrong to kill an animal for its meat: Buddhists must not hunt or be butchers. This comes under the category of “Right Livelihood” in the Moral Precepts for the laity and monastics. One’s profession and the time one spends in daily life should not be dedicated to harm. Hunting and butchery would both be extremely frowned upon in Buddhist countries, and to a lesser extent meat farming. Buddhists believe that those who raise animals for meat, hunt animals, or slaughter them for food (e.g. abattoir workers) would experience negative karmic consequences in Samsara, either in the hell realms or even being born as animals who are then slaughtered and tortured.

•        Despite the andro-centric argument that the human form is the highest karmic forms, Buddhists also remember that the doctrine of anicca (impermanence) states that all non-enlightened beings are impermanent, and therefore a human now will not always be born in this form. It is for this reason that Buddhists largely choose to observe a vegetarian or vegan diet, as they see themselves in the lives of animals and understand that all sentient beings exist in a state of anicca in Samsara.

•        Southern Buddhists are said to greatly admire those who choose to be vegetarians, suggesting that there is a cultural value for those who choose this lifestyle. There is also suggestions that in certain countries, meat eating communities may be frowned upon for the harm that is done to animals. For example, in lands where Buddhists and Muslims live side-by-side, there may be a degree of societal judgement for Muslims who eat within halal laws.  

•        In China, culturally Buddhists choose to be vegetarian as this is their interpretation of the first precept, showing that vegetarianism is the standard for some Buddhist cultures.

•        The Mahayana schools generally recommend a vegetarian diet, as some believe that the Buddha insisted that his followers should not eat the flesh of any sentient being. Monks of the Mahayana traditions that follow some specific vows are forbidden by their vows from eating flesh of any kind.

•        The Jartaka Tales are stories of the Buddha’s past lives. In these stories, there are times where the Buddha took on the form of an animal, but was still able to grow in wisdom whilst taking on this form. This suggests that it is wrong to kill animals because they could progress towards nirvana in their current form, and potentially even earn good karma. Buddhists may interpret these stories to support their view that it is wrong to use animals for food.

•        In the Anguilmala Sutta the Buddha told monks that it is wrong to consume the flesh of animals because of the Tathagata-garba or “Buddha nature” – the belief that all beings have the potential to gain enlightenment in their current life form. “Therefore, one’s own flesh and the flesh of another are a single flesh, so Buddhas do not eat meat”.

Students - Now Try This:

Create your own concluding paragraph for the statement "Buddhists should not eat animals."

Buddhism and intensive farming

Arguments against intensive/factory farming:  

·        Factory farming causes a lot of harm to both animals and the environment. It also is a breeding ground for diseases amongst animals, like mad cow disease and chicken flu. Compassion is central in Buddhist practice, so this should not be allowed from the Buddhist perspective.

·        The external environment is seriously polluted because the internal environment in the mind is seriously damaged. Bottomless greed has pushed mankind to satisfy excessive and unnecessary demands, and take them into endless competitions, leading to self-destruction and environmental damage. Contrasting to the unwholesome and greedy mind is the spirit of simple living and contentment by those who practise the Buddha's teaching.

·    Humans should not crave so heavily, if they reduced their craving, the need to farm intensively would go down and the suffering of animals would be drastically reduced. Intensive farming is characterised by high levels of input and output per agricultural land unit, with a focus on making profit. It could be argued that these farming practices reduce animal welfare in the name of human greed. Therefore it is wrong to intensively farm animals for meat, because this represents the craving for riches that Buddhists renounce when they become monastics.

·        The Middle Way demands that Buddhists take an approach to life that is not extreme- it can be argued that intensive farming is an extreme practise, not a natural one. Free range and organic farming would strike a better middle ground from Buddhist perspective, but it would still be wrong to kill and animals and farming often requires this.

·        Buddhists should live in harmony with all beings and with nature. On that basis, those who understand the Buddha's teaching will limit their selfishness, to live in harmony with nature, without harming the environment. They will see what should be explored and to what level, what should be protected for future use by the next generations and other beings. Excessive greed to possess everything for themselves, or for their own group, has make men becoming blind. By all means, they try to maximise their profits, without being concerned of the negative impact of unplanned exploitation leading to depletion of natural resources, discharge toxics into the air, water, earth, leading to environmental pollution, destroying the ecological balance.

Students - Now Try This:

Create your own concluding paragraph for the statement "Buddhists should not practice intensive farming."

 Buddhism and Blood Sports: Against blood sports

The Buddha said that monks and nuns should not watch animal fights because they were considered a vulgar entertainment and because they involved cruelty. For monastics and lay people, participation in blood sports would be against the first Precept which requires that we have 'care, kindness and compassion to all living beings'.

Buddha rejected this on grounds of the fact that these sports are often associated with gambling and craving. In addition, he recognised that they encouraged people to take joy in violence and enjoy pain being inflicted on other beings. This exemplifies the 3 fires of hatred, greed and delusion. 

The Buddha said that monks and nuns should not watch animal fights because they were considered a vulgar entertainment and because they involved cruelty For monastics and lay people, participation in blood sports would be against the first Precept which requires that we have `care, kindness and compassion to all living beings'

There is no tradition of blood sports in Sri Lanka, Tibet, Korea or amongst Chinese Buddhists either, probably because of the influence of Buddhism. Cockfighting ending in death is popular in Burma, Cambodia and Thailand.

Students - Now Try This:

Explain why Buddhists oppose blood sports