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: "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.

Buddhism and the challenges of secularisation: Is Buddhism a religion? Batchelor Vs Brazier

 

Buddhism and the Challenges of Secularisation

·        Society in Britain has become increasingly secular (not associated with faith) – fewer people worship or claim to have beliefs; the Church in Britain/religious institutions have less say over people’s lives. Secularisation has roots in the Enlightenment, as people began to accept scientific rationalism/empiricism rather than religion.

·        One challenge to religion is that moral truths and values have been replaced (for British Buddhists, with science and rationalism). If people feel that they already have answers to ultimate questions, they are less likely to turn to religion. Buddhism relies on belief in the supernatural but science is based in evidence. The view of Humanism suggests people can live good lives without religious belief.

·        Another challenge is that religion has been relegated to the personal sphere. In 1555, it was agreed that the English King could decide on the religion of his whole state; in 1648, it was decreed that if one’s religion was different to the state religion you could practice it in private. In today’s society, British people have a right to decide if they want to belong to a religion.

·        Religion has become consumeristic: people choose to follow it based on personal benefits.

·        A final challenge of secularization on religion is the rise of militant atheism. They are very hostile to religion and see it as something that they must fight against. It is irrational to believe in supernatural religious claims. Richard Dawkins views religious claims as equivalent to a belief in fairies or Santa. They blame religion for wars and for making humanity believe the ridiculous.

·        A new form of Buddhism is Triratna Buddhism. Established in the UK in 1967, it considers contemporary ideals. It is not identified with any particular strand or school of Buddhism; there is an underlying unity to all schools (hence, it is ecumenical). The aims of the movement include: upholding traditional practices such as meditation (samatha), and the “metta bhavana,” translated from Pali as “the cultivation of loving kindness.” It fits with modern society because it considers contemporary ideas including Western philosophy, psychotherapy and art. More than 100 groups worldwide are affiliated with the community. The London Buddhist Centre helps the local community by hosting activities such as drop-in lunchtime meditation centers, and it runs addiction counselling and yoga. Someone who regularly attends community activities is considered to be a “friend” (who can be of any faith), whereas a “mitra” is a “friend” (in Sanskrit) who considers themselves Buddhist. Those who wish to join the order must request this in writing: they therefore show a welcoming attitude to people of other faiths.

·        Another form of Buddhism is Secular Buddhism. The 14^th Dalai Lama says, “Do not try to use what you learn from Buddhism to be a Buddhist, use it to be a better whatever-you-already-are.” Secular Buddhism focuses on discovering personal truths and using Eastern Buddhist practices to help those living in Western societies. Focused mostly on meditation, stress reduction, mindfulness. It is not seen as a religion, but as a philosophy. Noah Rasheta (a Secular Buddhist scholar) says that Buddhist teachings are something we DO; the implication is important because believers should focus on themselves. Thich Nhat Hanh says, “The secret of Buddhism is to remove all ideas, all concepts, in order for the truth to have a chance to penetrate, to reveal itself.”

·        Stephen Batchelor is a supporter of Secular Buddhism – he disrobed from the Sangha in 1985 after becoming disillusioned with the supernatural aspects of Buddhism. He considers Buddhism as a constantly evolving culture of awakening. He rejects karma and rebirth because it is not intrinsic to the Buddha’s teachings. He says in “Buddhism without Beliefs” that the Buddha was not a mystic but a man who challenged us to acknowledge and then overcome anguish. Buddhism has survived for the past 2500 years as it is capable of adapting and reinventing itself. Batchelor argues that the 4NT are not something to have a belief in; instead, they are the 4 tasks which were lost over time as mystical and supernatural aspects became more of a priority. “Dharma practice” suggests a course of action; they are “challenges to act.” We should treat the 4NT as injunctions to act upon “before habitual reactions incapacitate us.”

·        For Batchelor, Buddhism becomes about action, rather than supernatural spiritual beliefs. He advises people to take from Buddhism what works and use that. It is important to see the value in mythic material in Buddhism (such as the story of the Buddha’s upbringing and seeing the Four Sights) without taking these ideas as history. Myths are valuable as they allow people to imaginatively engage with the dharma.

·        Meanwhile, David Brazier is a Cyprus-born Buddhist follower. Despite practicing a mix of Zen and Pureland (Mahayana) Buddhism, he refers to himself only as "a Buddhist." He is the founder of Buddhist spiritual community Amida Shu, which focuses on perfecting a consciousness of spiritual love and truth – Amida is a spiritual presence that binds people together. He rejects secular Buddhism.

·        In his work “The New Buddhism” - a more active, compassionate manifesto - asserts that the Buddha was a radical critic of society, and that his vision of a new social order transcended racial and economic divisions. Brazier takes a new look at the many aspects of Buddhism and re-interprets them in light of the Buddha’s social aims. He clearly states that Buddhism should be – and originally was – about engagement with the world. In “Buddhism is a Religion: You Can Believe It,” Brazier warns that we are in danger of gravely misunderstanding the Buddha when we overlook the metaphysical, religious foundations of his teachings.

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY: Batchelor vs Brazier
Reasons why Batchelor says Buddhism is secular	Reasons why Brazier says Buddhism is a religion
·        Buddhism should be about “belief that” we should do something practical rather than “belief in” spiritual doctrines. ·        The practical thing that we should strive for is the ending of suffering, which is key in Secular Buddhism – this is shown by his view that the 4 Noble Truths were originally meant to be seen as 4 tasks which people must do to overcome suffering in their lives. ·        He removes the supernatural parts of the religion, seeing them as stemming from the context of the time rather than the Buddha himself. ·        Buddhism is also an evolving tradition, so in his view it is completely acceptable to evolve to be non-supernatural in the C21st. ·        His book, “Buddhism without beliefs”, argues that Buddhism is a moral philosophy, not a religion. ·        He still upholds some practices, such as meditation and mindfulness, for their practical benefits, however he does not see this as being connected to supernatural experiences.	·        Buddhism is a religion, and to get rid of spiritual aspects is to remove its “heart”. ·        Brazier views the texts of Buddhism to contain true doctrines that one should have “belief in”. ·        His book “Buddhism is a religion: you can believe it!” counters the view of Secular Buddhism that Buddhism is not a religion. ·        However, he argues that Buddhism should still be focused on practical action – he is an Engaged Buddhist, and believes that it is possible to care for the world and strive to end suffering whilst simultaneously believing in the supernatural aspects of Buddhism. ·        He is a member of the Mahayana tradition.