1. In what sense, according to the first noble truth, is "All existence suffering (dukhka)," -- where, according to the second noble truth, "All suffering is caused by craving (trishna)"? (Fenton 134)
The ambitious will refer to "The Four Signs" (Beyer, 165ff.) as a source for illustrating these concepts.
2. Using lecture notes and references to Fenton, ch. 7, summarize the major differences between especially early (Theravada) Buddhism and Western (especially Christian) religiosity. Be sure to touch on the following points:
|
Buddha as the "Silent Sage" |
Emphasis on preserving the words of Jesus; emphasis on the Word of God ("In the beginning was the Word [Logos], etc. -- John 1.1] |
|
Buddha as physician; the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism as diagnosis and therapy for a central, "existential" problem in human existence |
Jesus as both human and divine; his teachings as a revealed truth about God's will |
|
The eight-fold path and the 5/10 precepts as guidelines based on "what works" in experience, and as applicable in different ways for different individuals |
Moral rules (e.g., the Ten Commandments) as absolutes, deriving from and enforced by the ultimate power of God |
|
The goal of Nirvana as the "blown-out" self, as the extinction of ego-delusion |
Insistence on the ultimate reality of self, especially as preserved eternally in an afterlife |
|
The goal of "correct understanding," of direct experience of Enlightenment |
Emphasis on creeds, theology -- on "capturing" the truth in an intellectual system |
|
Focus on "right concentration," of attaining through one's own effort the goal of enlightenment |
Salvation by grace, not by works |
|
[Cosmology/Metaphysics] No thing has independent being; all things are interdependent |
Creator God exists independently of dependent Creation |
3. We have spent some time examining the process of acculturation,first in Christianity, and then in the development from Theravada to Mahayana Buddhism.
A. Summarize this process in as much detail as you can -- first, with regard to Christianity. Be sure to explain here as fully as you can the particular views and positions held in early Christianity, insofar as these views are clearly countercultural. Point out as carefully as you can how these views are modified, or even rejected, through the acculturation process of the first four centuries.
B. Summarize this process in still greater detail (relying primarily on Fenton) for the transitions from Theravada to Hinayana to Mahayana Buddhism. The ambitious will also comment here on the parallels between the views represented in the Theravada / Hinayana / Mahayana lines and the views represented in the Zen / Pure Land lines of Japanese Buddhism.
As you do so, be sure to point out the particular views and positions held in early Buddhism, insofar as these views are clearly countercultural. As you then describe the three or four major doctrinal shifts which mark the transition from Theravada to Hinayana, and then from Hinayana to Mahayana, be sure to further comment on these shifts in terms of:
i) whether -- and if so, how -- such a shift works to render Buddhism more "popular" or more likely to be accepted by a larger culture -- in particular, if a particular doctrinal shift modifies Buddhism so it more closely resembles rather than contrasts with the larger culture; and,
ii) (where appropriate) how this doctrinal shift parallels a shift in Christianity which you have described.
C. In a summary paragraph, explain what these two histories (i.e., of early Christianity and of Buddhism) suggest about the development of religions as they move from minority, "countercultural" sects to mainstream dimensions of a culture?
4. Review "A Vision of Hell" (pp. 29-33), "The Fruits of Worship" (pp. 46-55), the descriptions of meditation (including Chinese Zen) in ch. 7 (pp. 154-164), and "The Way Out of the World" (pp. 200-206).
Using these texts as a basis, how would you explain Buddhism to a Westerner?
You may answer this question in a number of ways. The easiest I can think of would be to summarize each reading, and then to describe what particular Buddhist belief(s) each reading illustrates. This approach would include a judicious use of direct quotes from the readings which support and illustrate major points.
Somewhat more creatively -- can you use these Scriptures to develop a "tract" or summary of Buddhism which a Westerner could understand?
If other approaches occur to you, please discuss them with me.