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