REL 1300 Fall 2009, Paper 2, Highlights and Lowlights

Composition and Grammar:

Throughout, when I need to correct grammer  [grammar] or spelling when quoting from your papers, I strike-through the incorrect version and use brackets to indicate what should have been written.

Remember, you are writing about the history of Buddhism in China, not your autobiography. Please omit irrelevant information. For example:

Immediately after opening my university text book, I found information that confirmed Daoism had a profound affect into [effect on] the establishment of Zen Buddhism. This information affirmed that there was some sort of alteration when Buddhism reached China. The initial passage that I began reading states, "the native Chinese religious and philosophical movement called Daoism undoubtedly paved the way for Chan Buddhism and influenced it"; (Molloy, p.168) the question I now wanted to ask was how? So I kept on reading.

This sounds like a Dan Brown adventure story, as we follow the intrepid researcher on the trail. But it wastes time. The essential information here is that, according to Molloy, it is certainly true that Daoism influenced Chan Buddhism. That's all that needs to be said. If you quote the text-book, I can figure out for myself that you must have read the passage in question.

Sources:

Always be thinking about how to back up what you say with evidence from primary sources. You are not limited to the primary sources found in the folder, but these do at least provide a good start. Consider the following:

There was some definite tension between the two religions during the introduction. One, monks practiced celibacy, whereas the Chinese stressed continuing the family line, to not [not to] deprive their ancestors of worship. (Peter Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhism, p.149). Buddhists believed that class differences were of little significance, and social hierarchy was the basis for Confucianism.

Harvey's book is an excellent secondary source, and I'm glad students are making use of it. But the point about celibacy could be supported by quoting from the "Disposition of Error" by Mou Tzu, and the point about social hierarchy could be supported by The Platform Sutra, where the Abbot jokes about Hui Neng being a witty native. You would need, of course, to explain the context in the story: it seems that the Abbot is prejudiced against 'barbarians', but in fact, he is recognizing Hui Neng's great abilities, and at the same time hiding his special status from jealous monks for his own protection. What is important is that you demonstrate you can go from one source to another, seeing whether they match up.

A really sophisticated response to the passage from Harvey would be to include also the passages from the Analects where Confucius speaks against prejudice based on someone's background: he is willing to teach anyone, even someone who only brings a bundle of dried flesh. If the off-spring of a brindled cow is healthy, the spirits of nature will not reject it (meaning we should judge someone on their merits, not their parentage). This conflicts with the idea that Confucianism is all about  maintaining strict social boundaries. So is Harvey wrong? Probably not: he is an expert in the field. But we might want to qualify what he says, by adding that Confucius himself seems to have believed that social mobility was possible and sometimes desirable, even though this idea may have been lost as Confucianism developed. Show me that when you read a secondary source, you check it against primrary sources and reach a judgement of your own - although you should be careful about jumping to conclusions.

Consider the following:

So Confucianism changed as well, it had to change, because it had to compete with the fast growing philosophy of Buddhism. But once again, I believe that these conflicts are due to misinterpretations.

This is certainly an interesting claim, and a bold one too. To back it up, one needs to show that a text written in Pali was misinterpreted by speakers of Mandarin. If you are fluent in both languages, that shouldn't be a problem. More realistically, you need to rely on expert interpreters to point out where misunderstandings arose - this is a case where there is a need for careful study of secondary sources. In any case, the theory needs to be backed up by some sort of evidence, specific examples of misunderstandings.

Here is how to do it:

He [Zhi Dun, the aristocratic Buddhist monk] also differed from certain aspects of Taoism, for example: Taoists avoid having learning because they think that they may mislead the inner nature of humans which is good and that is why they shouldn't be taught anything else, but Zhi Dun also  admits that it can be evil and it 'has to be fought to attain purity'.

Someone asked, 'Should everyone who follows inner nature be considered a free and easy wanderer?' Zhi Dun replied, 'Not so. The inner nature of [the tyrant] Jie and of [the robber] Zhi consisted of destruction and harm. To take following inner nature for realization means that they too were free and easy wanderers. (Extract from the Gaoseng zhuan cited by Livia Kohn in her Early Chinese Mysticism and Soteriology in the Taoist Tradition, (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992) pp. 118-119)

Here, the quotation from the primary text is taken from a citation by a secondary text. Livia Kohn is here demonstrating how to be a good scholar - she backs up what she says with quotations from a primary text, and you are entitled to make use of her work, provided that her work is properly acknowledged, as in this case.  (I haven't checked, but I suspect that the translation is by her).

Thanks to all of you who were willing to allow extracts from your papers to be used. Once again, even the papers that I used to demonstrate errors contained some good work - I hope you will all benefit from seeing some common mistakes, as well as examples of how things should be done.

Back to REL 1300