REL 1300 Spring 2010, Comments on Paper 2

Use of Sources:

Many of you are quoting far too much from the text-book. Here is an example:

Moreover, Buddhism also appeals to Confucians with the "performance of funeral and memorial services for the dead" (Molloy, 158), which is what Confucians consider as "Xiao", filial piety. One of the ideas that I agree with of the author, Michael Molloy, is that Buddhism became popular and accepted by most Chinese because it "helped those monks and nuns to have a secure life and they don't pay taxes." (Molloy, 252)

Moreover, Mahayana which is one of the Buddhist schools most accepted in China because of it's belief in resisting to enter nirvana. "The Mahayana tradition maintains that a person must save himself by saving others." (Molloy 150)

Direct quotation should be used when presenting important evidence from a primary text, or some particularly memorable or pithy remark from a secondary text, or when you want to demonstrate an accurate knowledge of someone you disagree with. It should not be used to present basic information that comes straight from the text-book: you should paraphrase - like this:

According to Molloy, one reason Buddhism was attractive to Confucians was that it provided rituals that could be performed for deceased relatives, an act of filial piety (Xio). (Molloy 158) A further incentive was that life in a monastery is secure and tax free. (Molloy 252)

I cite the source of the information, but the wording is changed. Too many direct quotations make me wonder whether you have understood the material and have the ability to explain it well in good English. That's why direct quotations should be used only when really necessary.

Here is a good example:

Both Zen Buddhists and Confucians believe that there should be no prejudice concerning who has the right to be educated. In the Sutra of Hui Neng the scripture states: "Although there are nothern men and southen men, north and south make no difference to their Buddha nature. A barbarian is different from your holiness physically, but there is no difference in our Buddha nature". Similarly in the Analects 15:38 "...in education there should be no class distinction."

Here we have a point about the similarity between two religions, backed up by appropriate reference to the primary sources. 

Another example:

One difference was the view about the family. We must remember that in China filial piety was one of the most important aspects of life and even if people were Taoist or Confucian it didn't matter, both religions promoted family values.
He who loves his parents does not dare to do evil unto othersl he who respects his parents does not dare to be arrogant to others. Love and respect are exerted to the utmost in serving the parents, and this virtue and teaching is extended to the people; the example is shown to the whole world beyond China (Xiao Jing, Filial Piety in the Son of Heaven)

So it is no surprise that when Buddhism spread throughout China, many of the sacred Chinese Buddhist texts talked about the love of parents towards their children,
How heavy is parental kindness and emotional concern!
Their kindness is difficult to repay.
Willingly they undergo suffering on their child's behalf. (Filial Piety Sutra)

Once again, a point is made about how one religion influenced the other, supported by evidence from primary texts. Later in the same paper, the student indicates that Buddhists were not happy with all aspects of the Chinese approach to filial piety:

But what did original Buddhism think of this? (When speaking of 'original' Buddhism I refer to the Indian Buddhism also known as the first Buddhism practiced). "The Chinese in the olden days had the tradition of burning white silk when praying to their ancestors. They burned the silk so the ancestors may use it. They were then replaced by paper, as it is more economical. Later they used paper to make money, ingots, notes and even houses and cars, and burn they for their ancestors. These are generated from the traditional customs of the olden days. They are not the teachings of the Buddha."  (Teachings in Chinese Buddhism, Translations of Miao Yun).
Original Buddhism saw their ancestors as something unimportant; first of all it was something temporary because they were going to be reborn, so it made no sense to honor their dead. And also they did not pay reverence to anything, not even to Buddha himself as a person, but rather to his teachings and his way of life. So if they did not worship Buddha or any other god, it was less likely for them to honor their ancestors.

Together, these two passages give a balanced picture: we see that Buddhism adopted Chinese ideas about filial piety, but  that this creates a tension, because Buddhists realize this is taking the religion away from its roots.  It shows an understanding of the fact that changes to a religion can create tension.

Concluding a paper:

Here is a bland conclusion:

These two religions seem to be both suited for anyone. The effect on makind is huge and makes you wonder beyond a text or a teaching. These religions are all about the personal preferences that you choose to take....Anyone can agree to disagree to tell which one is better but it is all a matter of personal preferences or opinions. The two offer a great deal of teaching to offer and both are very historic.

They "...offer a great deal of teaching to offer". Doesn't the repetition of "offer" sound bad? More importantly, think how little this says. The effect is huge. They are very historic. I would hardly ask you to write an essay about something unimportant, and you could write this about almost any topic.

In conclusion, the topic I was asked to write about was very important, and interesting, and historical, and significant.

You could include that sentence in the concluding paragraph for any essay on a historical subject - which is a good reason for not including it in any. It tells me nothing specific. Also, saying that anyone can agree to disagree and that it is all a matter of opinion is just a way of avoiding saying anything controversial, and so avoids saying anything at all.

Lots of people think different things and I'm not going to say which of them I think is right.

Again, you could say that about any subject, so it isn't worth saying.

Back to REL 1300 Home.