Reader Report ‑‑‑ RST 001Joe Lockard"Buddhisim: The Monks Role"
Anonymous
A paper that opens with one spelling mistake and another punctuation mistake within a four‑word title is off to a terrible start. If you cannot spell Buddhism in the title, what chance do you have of persuading a reader that you know enough about the topic to bother reading further?
This paper attempts to review the functions of Buddhist monks in terms of the religion's central precepts. The paper's problem is that it reviews in the most literal sense. Most of this appears to be repetition of class material, often paragraph by paragraph. On page 2, for example, the writer cites Reader page 35 twice, Dictionary pages 140‑141 three times, and Dictionary page 163 another three times.
An interesting essay represents more than boiled‑down synthesis. It advances an argument, an attempt to rise above literalism and recapitulation of someone else's information. This essay does not meet that standard.
The last paragraph on page 4 is very unfortunate in its conversionary and triumphalist zeal. This writer might consider the possibility that a reader is interested in learning about Buddhism, but not in becoming a Buddhist. Aside from some of its starryeyed ahistoricism (have all Buddhist societies been societies of peace, as claimed?), the closing paragraph offers a gratuitous insult: "Monks foster an ideal of generosity, one that is lacking in many other cultures of the world." Is there any evidence for this statement? There is an implicit assertion here that the human quality of generosity is present in one religious culture and notably lacking in others. Why are non‑Buddhists inherently less generous than Buddhists? Because other cultures do not have Buddhist monks to teach them generosity? Such thinking is confused, and itself not very generous.
The Pull of Dharma: Motivations for Renunciation in the Hindu World
Anonymous
The first paragraph of this paper tells readers "The dharma of the renunciate is to let go of the little reality of society and enter the ultimate reality of truth." What are the 'little realities' of society and "the ultimate reality of truth"? This indulgence in ungrounded phrase‑making characterizes the paper. To invoke the "ultimate reality of truth" is really not to say much, is it? Theology, meet Hallmark greeting cards.
Most of the paper is a travelogue of the Himalayas and Benares. The writer centers discussion on a couple experiences, and entirely loses sight of the paper's original announced goal of writing about renunciation and dharma. By the conclusion we have learned something of the writer, but little or nothing of these two ideas. In short, the writer substitutes personal narrative for an engagement with the topics at hand. That quality of intense engagement and exploration of an idea distinguishes good writing.
This is meander and blah, viz "He lived for the burning freedom experienced in those who let go of their thoughts and simply see the world as it is." (3) Or those concluding sentences, ""It is always difficult to let go of things you love, but when your dharma calls, you have little choice but to answer. Then you realize that by letting go you did not lose anything, you just gained a larger world." (4) An uninformed reader might confuse dharma with sententious gobbledegook. Reliance on such formulations entirely obscures the concept that this paper set out to elucidate.