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: "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: "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: "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.