Divorce and remarriage — Buddhism

What the specification asks for

Paper 1, Section 2, 2.6 (Buddhism). Assessed on AO1 (knowledge and understanding) and AO2 (analysis and evaluation), weighted equally. Incandio is aligned to this specification. It is not published by, endorsed by or affiliated with Pearson, and it reproduces none of Pearson's indicative content — the point numbers are given so you can check every unit against your own copy.

1 · Understand it

Most religious argument about the end of a marriage is about permission: may it happen, and under what conditions. Buddhism settled that question centuries ago by never making a marriage religious in the first place, and the interesting consequence is what it then had time to think about instead. It spends its moral attention almost entirely on how a separation is conducted — which is the part the permission arguments tend to skip.

What it means

Divorce is permitted, and there is no religious process for it. That is not a concession the tradition made reluctantly; it follows automatically from the previous unit. If nothing religious created the marriage, there is nothing religious to dissolve, and no penalty attaches to somebody who divorces.

Remarriage is equally unproblematic for the same reason. A first marriage created no religious status, so a second one is not competing with anything.

What the specification names as the governing principle is avoiding causes of suffering to others — and that is where the whole unit sits. The Buddhist question about a failing marriage is not whether the bond may be broken but which course produces less harm: for the couple, for any children, and in the state of mind of the people deciding.

Two things shape how that is done. Right speech — one of the eight factors — governs the conduct of a separation: truthful, not harsh, not divisive. And metta, loving kindness, is expected to continue towards a former partner rather than ending with the marriage, which is a demanding thing to ask and is asked anyway.

Why believers hold it

Impermanence does part of the work. The tradition expects everything to change, relationships included, so a marriage ending is not read as a broken promise to anybody except the partner. That is worth stating carefully, because it can be taken too far: teachers generally use impermanence as a reason to expect difficulty rather than as a reason to conclude that a relationship should end.

The harm criterion does the rest, and it decides who counts. The standard reading includes children, extended family and the wider community rather than the couple alone — which means a Buddhist assessment of a failing marriage is a wider calculation than it first appears.

Now the observation that carries the top band, because it is about structure rather than content. A tradition that has settled whether divorce is allowed can spend all of its moral attention on the conduct of it. The traditions still arguing about permissibility have less attention left for how people actually treat each other on the way out. Whether that reaches more real suffering than the prior question ever did is a genuine argument, and it can be run in either direction.

The honest cost is on the other side. A tradition that expects a relationship to change offers correspondingly little reason to persist through a difficult period — and the objection that a commitment which can be released is a weaker commitment is a fair one, answered rather than dismissed by pointing out that a marriage maintained by doctrine may be maintained without being meant.

Where it comes from

• Buddhist teaching — The three marks of existence: anicca, anatta, dukkha (translated)

  Anicca — impermanence; anatta — no fixed self; dukkha — unsatisfactoriness.

  Everything changes; there is no permanent, unchanging self; and clinging to what changes produces dissatisfaction.

  What it is doing here: Supplies the expectation that everything changes, which is why the ending of a marriage is not read here as a broken promise to anybody beyond the partner.

• Buddhist teaching — The Noble Eightfold Path; grouped as sila, samadhi and prajna (translated)

  Right view, intention, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness and concentration.

  The fourth Noble Truth in practice, grouped into ethics (sila), meditation (samadhi) and wisdom (prajna).

  What it is doing here: Right speech is the factor that governs a separation — quote it when you need to show that the tradition regulates the conduct rather than the permission.

• The Pali Canon — Metta Sutta (Sutta Nipata 1:8); the four brahmaviharas (translated)

  As a mother protects her only child, so let one cultivate boundless goodwill towards all beings.

  Metta — loving kindness — extended without limit, with compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity.

  What it is doing here: Use it for the demanding half: goodwill is expected to continue towards a former partner, which is what stops the permissive position collapsing into indifference.

Where it bites

In practice divorce is a civil matter. A temple may offer counselling and monks may be consulted, but there is no religious process to complete and no absolution to seek. Buddhist counselling in these situations tends to focus on right speech, on the wellbeing of children, and on examining one's own state of mind — anger, aversion, craving — rather than on adjudicating who was at fault.

That last point is a nameable difference from traditions that ask whether grounds exist. Fault is not the question here; the state of mind in which the decision is made is. Saying that turns a general claim about permissiveness into a specific and developed observation.

What people get wrong

People think: Buddhism must have some religious procedure for divorce.

Actually: There is none, and there was none for the marriage either. Describing a Buddhist religious divorce is a recorded error, and it reintroduces exactly the institution the tradition declined to create.

People think: Divorce is frowned on in Buddhist countries, so Buddhism disapproves of it.

Actually: Cultural attitudes in Buddhist-majority societies have often been severe, and that is social rather than doctrinal. Treating the stigma as the teaching is a specific error, and distinguishing the two is exactly the kind of accuracy examiners reward.

People think: All religions teach that marriage is for life.

Actually: They do not, and the differences are large even among those that hold it strongly — some permit divorce in limited circumstances, some permit divorce and remarriage freely. Attributing one tradition's position to religion in general is a recorded error, and this unit is well placed to correct it.

What the examiner expects you to understand

• Use the specification's own wording — avoiding causes of suffering to others — because that phrase IS the criterion and answers that omit it have left the required content out.
• Do not describe a religious divorce procedure, and do not present cultural stigma as teaching. Both are recorded errors.
• The sharpest comparison available on the whole course is between this position and a tradition holding marriage to be indissoluble, because the two follow from opposite answers to a prior question about what marriage IS.
• The Grade 9 move is structural: a tradition that has settled permissibility can spend its moral attention on conduct instead. Say that, and then argue whether it reaches more real suffering.
• Concede the objection rather than dodging it — a commitment that can be released is arguably weaker, and the answer is that one maintained by doctrine may be maintained without being meant.

2 · Grade 9 Notes

Core belief / issue

Buddhism permits divorce and has no religious mechanism for it, because it had none for marriage. The specification names the governing principle: avoiding causes of suffering to others. So the Buddhist question about a failing marriage is not whether a bond can be dissolved but which course produces less harm — for the couple, for any children, and in the state of mind of those deciding.

Key terminology

Incandio's mark schemes credit the religion's own vocabulary; spelling variants are accepted, a vague paraphrase is not.

Divorce

The ending of a marriage; a civil matter in Buddhism, with no religious status.

Dukkha

Suffering; the criterion by which the decision is assessed.

Metta

Loving kindness; expected to continue towards a former partner rather than ending with the marriage.

Right speech

The path factor governing how a separation is conducted — truthful, not harsh, not divisive.

Anicca

Impermanence; Buddhism's expectation that a relationship, like everything else, will change.

What Buddhism teaches

• shared — Divorce is permitted; there is no religious bond to dissolve and no penalty attaches to it.
• shared — The decision is assessed by the suffering it causes and prevents, for everyone affected rather than only for the couple.
• shared — Remarriage carries no religious difficulty, since the first marriage created no religious status.
• shared — Right speech governs the process: a separation conducted with harshness or deceit is unskilful whatever its outcome.

Why it teaches this

The reasoning follows from anicca and from the absence of a sacrament. Buddhism expects relationships to change, so it does not treat a marriage's ending as a broken promise to anyone but the partner. And because the criterion is suffering, the tradition's attention falls where a doctrine of indissolubility puts it least: on the manner of the separation and on the children, rather than on whether it may happen at all.

Sources of authority

• The Pali Canon — Metta Sutta (Sutta Nipata 1:8); the four brahmaviharas (translated)

  As a mother protects her only child, so let one cultivate boundless goodwill towards all beings.

  Metta — loving kindness — extended without limit, with compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity.

  How to use it: Metta is cultivated deliberately in meditation, so Buddhist compassion is a trained capacity rather than a feeling — which explains why meditation is an ethical practice and not just a calming one.

  What it does not settle: It does not by itself prescribe an action in any particular case.

• Buddhist practice — The Five Precepts (pañca-sīla) (translated)

  To refrain from harming living beings, from taking what is not given, from sexual misconduct, from false speech, and from intoxicants.

  The basic ethical undertakings of lay Buddhists. They are training rules taken on voluntarily, not commandments imposed.

  How to use it: Because they are undertakings rather than commands, breaking one is a failure of training rather than a sin against God — which is why Buddhist ethics has no concept of divine punishment.

  What it does not settle: They are not absolutes with fixed applications; intention matters, and Buddhists differ on abortion and on eating meat.

• Buddhist teaching — The Noble Eightfold Path; grouped as sila, samadhi and prajna (translated)

  Right view, intention, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness and concentration.

  The fourth Noble Truth in practice, grouped into ethics (sila), meditation (samadhi) and wisdom (prajna).

  How to use it: It is a path rather than a creed, so the Buddhist answer to 'what is the purpose of life?' is a practice and not a proposition.

  What it does not settle: Emphasis differs sharply between Theravada, Zen and Pure Land practice.

• Buddhist teaching — The three marks of existence: anicca, anatta, dukkha (translated)

  Anicca — impermanence; anatta — no fixed self; dukkha — unsatisfactoriness.

  Everything changes; there is no permanent, unchanging self; and clinging to what changes produces dissatisfaction.

  How to use it: Anatta is what makes Buddhism's answer on the soul genuinely different from every other religion on this specification, and it is the concept most often got wrong.

  What it does not settle: Anatta does NOT mean there is nothing at all, and rebirth without a permanent self is the hard part. A learner who writes 'Buddhists believe the soul is reborn' has contradicted anatta.

Different interpretations

• Impermanence read as making divorce unremarkable and read as a reason to expect difficulty without concluding that a relationship should end; both are argued and the second is closer to how teachers actually counsel.
• The harm criterion read as concerning only the couple and read as including children, extended family and the wider community; the second is standard.
• Remarriage read as neutral, which it is in doctrine, and read as culturally complicated in traditional Buddhist societies; the distinction between religion and culture matters here.

Differences within Buddhism

All Buddhist traditions permit divorce and none attaches a religious penalty. Cultural attitudes in Buddhist-majority countries vary considerably, and that variation is social rather than doctrinal.

The traditions broadly agree here. Saying so is a stronger answer than inventing a division.

Application to the issue

In practice divorce is a civil matter; a temple may offer counselling and monks may be consulted, but there is no religious process to complete. Buddhist counselling in these situations tends to focus on right speech, on the wellbeing of children, and on examining one's own state of mind — anger, aversion and craving — rather than on adjudicating fault.

Arguments supporting

• Judging by harm rather than by rule handles marriage breakdown better. — The question of whether to stay depends on facts about the particular family, which no general rule can know. (buddhism)
  Answered by: People assess harm badly under emotional pressure, which is exactly when a rule is most useful.
• The absence of stigma spares the people least able to bear it. — No religious penalty attaches to a divorced Buddhist. (shared)
  Answered by: Cultural stigma in Buddhist societies has often been substantial regardless of doctrine.

Arguments challenging

• Permitting divorce easily weakens marriage. — A commitment that can be released is a weaker commitment. (catholic)
  Answered by: Buddhism answers that a commitment enforced by doctrine may be maintained without being meant, and that the suffering caused by a trapped marriage is real.
• A harm calculation cannot be made reliably by the people involved. — Those deciding are the least neutral. (non-religious)
  Answered by: That is precisely why Buddhism asks about the state of mind in which the decision is made, and why counsel from outside the marriage is valued.

Secular / non-religious perspective

Humanists hold that divorce should be available without fault or stigma, with protections for children and for the financially weaker partner. This is close to the Buddhist position in conclusion; the difference is that Buddhism adds a concern with the mental states of those separating, which secular ethics treats as a private matter rather than a moral one.

Examinable throughout Paper 1. Nothing here earns a mark on Paper 2.

Evaluation

The hinge: Whether the rules about divorce should protect the institution or the people. Buddhism, having no institution to protect, answers the second by default.

Defensible conclusions

• Buddhism's position is the most consistent of the six, because it follows directly from having no sacrament rather than from a separate judgement about divorce.
• It provides the least support, and a tradition that expects a relationship to change offers little reason to persist through difficulty.
• Its distinctive contribution is the attention to HOW a separation is conducted, which the traditions arguing about whether it may happen tend to neglect.

Not defensible

• Saying Buddhism forbids divorce, or that a religious process is required.
• Treating cultural stigma in Buddhist countries as Buddhist teaching.

Exam use

• Identify · 3 marks — Three Buddhist beliefs about divorce.
• Outline · 4 marks — Two developed. 'Buddhists permit divorce (1) — since marriage is not a religious bond, the question is only which course causes less suffering (1).'
• Explain · 6 marks — Explain Buddhist attitudes to divorce and remarriage: the absence of a sacrament, the harm criterion, right speech, and the concern for children.
• Evaluate · 12 marks — 'Marriage should be for life.' The contrast between Buddhism and Catholic indissolubility is the sharpest available.

Common mistakes

• Saying Buddhism has a religious divorce procedure.
• Confusing cultural attitudes with Buddhist teaching.
• Omitting the harm criterion, which is the specification's own wording.

“Christians believe divorce is always wrong.” — That is the Catholic position. Orthodox Christianity permits divorce in limited circumstances, and most Protestant churches permit divorce and remarriage.

Write instead: Name the tradition. 'Catholic teaching holds marriage indissoluble, so the Church annuls rather than divorces' is accurate and scores; 'Christians believe' on a divided question is not. Do not over-correct. Many claims genuinely ARE shared — the Trinity, the resurrection, the authority of the Bible — and hedging those makes an answer weaker, not more careful. (Named in the 2025 examiner report for Paper 1.)

Grade 9 insight

Buddhism's attention in a marriage breakdown falls on HOW the separation happens rather than on WHETHER it may — right speech, honesty, and the state of mind of those involved. A Level 4 answer notices that this is the reverse of the traditions that debate permissibility, and argues the consequence: a religion that has settled whether divorce is allowed can spend all its moral attention on the conduct of it, which may reach more actual suffering than the prior question ever did.

Carry on through Buddhism

• Previous unit: 2.5 · Marriage and partnership
• Next unit: 2.7 · Family structures and responsibilities
• Divorce and remarriage in the other religions: Christianity · Hinduism · Islam · Judaism · Sikhism
• All of Buddhism · Incandio Religious Studies · The 4RS1 specification