Selfishness, greed, ignorance and sin — Buddhism

What the specification asks for

Paper 1, Section 1, 1.3 (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

Somebody does something cruel. Ask why, and most traditions eventually answer either that they chose badly or that something in them is bent. Buddhism gives a third answer that sounds strange at first and gets more convincing the longer you look at it: they had the facts wrong. Not the facts about right and wrong — the facts about what things are. And if that is the diagnosis, then the cure is not punishment or forgiveness. It is understanding.

What it means

Start with a word Buddhism does not have, because the specification's own heading invites the mistake. There is no sin in Buddhism. Sin means an offence against God, and there is no God to offend. Actions are described instead as skilful or unskilful — akusala is the term where another tradition would say sinful — and the difference is not politeness. An unskilful act is one that produces suffering, including for the person who does it.

What Buddhism has instead is a mechanism with three roots, called the three poisons: greed (lobha), hatred (dosa) and delusion (moha). They are pictured at the hub of the wheel of life as a cockerel, a snake and a pig. Underneath them sits avijja — ignorance, meaning not knowing things as they are. And kilesa is the general word for the defilements, the mental states that cloud the mind and drive unwholesome action.

Kamma is intentional action and its results. Two things about it are constantly got wrong. It is not fate, and it is not administered: nobody weighs the evidence, nobody passes sentence, and there is no judge. The action itself conditions what follows, the way a habit conditions a character.

Put together: ignorance is the ground, the three poisons grow out of it, unskilful action grows out of them, and kamma is the name for the consequences running forward. There is no lawgiver anywhere in that chain.

Why believers hold it

Buddhism's reasoning is worth setting against the alternatives, because that is what makes it visible. If wrongdoing came from a corrupted nature, it could not be repaired by understanding — you would need something from outside. If it came from disobedience, it would need forgiveness, which means it would need somebody with standing to forgive. Buddhism accepts neither diagnosis, so it needs neither remedy.

Its diagnosis is that unwholesome action follows from misperceiving how things are. You are greedy for something because you have misperceived it as capable of satisfying you. You hate something because you have misperceived it as a threat to a self that is not there. Both are errors, and errors are correctable by seeing clearly. That is why the path is training in ethics, meditation and wisdom rather than confession — and why the poisons are described as removable rather than merely restrainable.

The ordering is the part most answers miss and the part that carries the top band. The three poisons are not three equal faults sitting side by side. Delusion is the root and the other two grow from it. Once you say that, the Buddhist remedy stops looking soft and starts looking necessary: you cannot simply decide to stop wanting something you still believe will make you happy. Willpower is the wrong tool. Insight is the right one.

Where it comes from

• Buddhist teaching — The three poisons (or three roots): greed, hatred and delusion (translated)

  Lobha, dosa, moha — greed, hatred and delusion.

  The three roots of unskilful action, depicted at the hub of the wheel of life as a cockerel, a snake and a pig.

  What it is doing here: The core mechanism, and the place to be careful — this source's own note warns that writing 'sin' unqualified misrepresents the tradition, and the specification's heading invites exactly that.

• Buddhist teaching — Kamma and samsara; taught throughout the Pali Canon (translated)

  Kamma — intentional action and its results; samsara — the round of rebirth.

  Intentional actions condition future experience within the cycle of rebirth, which ends with nibbana.

  What it is doing here: Use it to establish that consequences are impersonal. Kamma is neither fate nor divine reward, and saying which two things it is not is often clearer than defining what it is.

• The Pali Canon — Khuddaka Nikaya — Dhammapada, verse 1 (translated)

  Mind precedes all things; all things are made by mind.

  Mental states shape action and therefore experience. The opening of the most widely read Buddhist text.

  What it is doing here: The best single line for the claim that mind comes first — which is precisely why a cognitive error, rather than a moral failure, can be the root of unskilful action.

Where it bites

There is a practice that looks like confession and is not, and explaining the difference shows real understanding. Monastics acknowledge breaches of the training rules to the sangha — but the point is acknowledging a lapse in training rather than seeking forgiveness from anybody, because there is nobody whose forgiveness is required.

Specific meditations are aimed at specific poisons: metta practice against hatred, contemplation of impermanence against greed. And Buddhist ethics assesses an act by its intention, which is why kamma attaches to willed action and not to accidents — a rule with real consequences for how a Buddhist judges what they did.

What people get wrong

People think: Buddhists believe sin is disobeying God.

Actually: The examiners name this exact error. There is no creator God in Buddhism to disobey. Unskilful action harms the person who does it and others through kamma; it is a mistake rooted in greed, hatred and delusion, not an offence against a deity.

People think: Karma is God punishing you for what you did wrong.

Actually: Karma is cause and effect, not a verdict. Nobody weighs the evidence and nobody sentences you — the action itself conditions what follows. This is also a recorded examiner error, so it is worth a sentence of your own to rule out.

People think: If wrongdoing is really just ignorance, then nobody is ever to blame.

Actually: This is the strongest objection to the Buddhist account rather than a misreading, and it deserves an answer rather than a denial. People do often act wrongly while knowing perfectly well it is wrong, and the ignorance account has to explain that. Buddhism's reply is that knowing a rule and seeing the situation truly are different things — but say the objection first, because an answer that never states it looks like it has not noticed.

What the examiner expects you to understand

• Say why 'sin' does not fit before you use the word at all. The specification's own heading uses it, and an answer that follows the heading uncritically has misdescribed the religion.
• List the three poisons and then rank them: delusion is the root and greed and hatred grow from it. The ranking is what separates a Level 4 answer from a list.
• Kamma is impersonal. Saying so explicitly — nobody administers it — is worth doing even when the question has not asked, because it is the recorded error.
• For the extended question the hinge is whether wrongdoing is a fault of the will or an error of perception. Buddhism is the strongest case for the second, and the doctrines of inherited corruption and of the yetzer hara are the strongest cases against it.
• The kamma-blames-the-victim objection is real and the Buddha explicitly rejected the view that everything experienced is caused by past kamma. Knowing that lets you concede the misuse without conceding the doctrine.

2 · Grade 9 Notes

Core belief / issue

Buddhism has no concept of sin, because sin means an offence against God and there is no God to offend. The specification names what Buddhism has instead: kamma, avijja — ignorance — kilesa, the defilements, and the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. Wrongdoing in Buddhism is a mistake with consequences rather than a crime against a lawgiver, and that changes what the remedy is.

Key terminology

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

Avijja (also avidya)

Ignorance; not knowing things as they are, and the root of the whole process.

Kilesa (also klesha)

Defilements; the mental states that cloud the mind and drive unwholesome action.

Three poisons (also three roots, lobha dosa moha)

Greed (lobha), hatred (dosa) and delusion (moha) — the roots of unwholesome action.

Kamma (also karma)

Intentional action and its consequences; not reward and punishment by anyone.

Akusala (also akushala)

Unskilful or unwholesome; the Buddhist term where other traditions would say sinful.

What Buddhism teaches

• shared — There is no sin in Buddhism, because there is no God against whom to sin; actions are skilful or unskilful and they have consequences.
• shared — The three poisons — greed, hatred and delusion — are the roots from which unwholesome action grows.
• shared — Ignorance is the deepest root: not knowing things as they are is what makes greed and hatred seem reasonable.
• shared — Kamma is intentional action and its results, operating impersonally — nobody administers it.

Why it teaches this

The reasoning is that if wrongdoing came from a corrupt nature it could not be repaired by understanding, and if it came from disobedience it would need forgiveness. Buddhism's diagnosis is different: unwholesome action follows from misperceiving how things are, so the remedy is seeing clearly. That is why the Buddhist path is training in ethics, meditation and wisdom rather than confession, and why the poisons are described as removable.

Sources of authority

• Buddhist teaching — The three poisons (or three roots): greed, hatred and delusion (translated)

  Lobha, dosa, moha — greed, hatred and delusion.

  The three roots of unskilful action, depicted at the hub of the wheel of life as a cockerel, a snake and a pig.

  How to use it: Naming delusion as a root, rather than only greed and hatred, is what makes the Buddhist answer distinctive: wrongdoing is a mistake about reality before it is a moral failure.

  What it does not settle: There is no concept of sin against a deity here. Writing 'sin' without qualification misrepresents the tradition, and the specification's own wording invites exactly that error.

• The Pali Canon — the Buddha's first sermon — The Four Noble Truths; Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya 56:11) (translated)

  Dukkha; its cause is tanha; it can cease; the Eightfold Path is the way.

  The Buddha's diagnosis: existence is unsatisfactory, craving causes it, the cause can be removed, and there is a method.

  How to use it: It is a diagnosis and a treatment rather than a set of beliefs, which is why Buddhism can answer the problem of suffering without needing a God to defend.

  What it does not settle: It explains suffering's cause without invoking evil or judgement, so it does not answer the theodicy question — it dissolves it. Say that rather than forcing it into a Christian frame.

• Buddhist teaching — Kamma and samsara; taught throughout the Pali Canon (translated)

  Kamma — intentional action and its results; samsara — the round of rebirth.

  Intentional actions condition future experience within the cycle of rebirth, which ends with nibbana.

  How to use it: In Buddhism kamma turns on INTENTION, which is why the same outward act can have different consequences — a distinction Hindu karma does not stress in the same way.

  What it does not settle: Kamma is not fate and not divine reward. And nibbana is NOT moksha — the reports record that confusion.

• The Pali Canon — Khuddaka Nikaya — Dhammapada, verse 1 (translated)

  Mind precedes all things; all things are made by mind.

  Mental states shape action and therefore experience. The opening of the most widely read Buddhist text.

  How to use it: It puts intention at the origin of everything ethical, which is why Buddhist practice works on the mind rather than on rules.

  What it does not settle: A single verse of a poetic collection; it states a principle rather than settling a case.

Different interpretations

• Kamma read as a moral law of the universe and read as a description of how intention shapes character and circumstance; both are held and the second travels better into secular contexts.
• The poisons read as three separate faults and read as one process — delusion producing greed and hatred; the second is the classical analysis.
• Wrongdoing read as fully removable, which the tradition claims for an enlightened person, and read as reducible in practice; answers should be careful which claim they are making.

Differences within Buddhism

The absence of sin, the three poisons, avijja and kamma are held across all Buddhist traditions. Mahayana adds an emphasis on the bodhisattva working for others' liberation, which extends the account rather than disputing it.

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

Application to the issue

It shows in confession within the monastic sangha, which is about acknowledging a breach of training rather than seeking forgiveness; in meditation practices aimed specifically at the poisons — metta against hatred, contemplation of impermanence against greed; and in the way Buddhist ethics assesses an act by its intention, which is why kamma attaches to willed action rather than to accidents.

Arguments supporting

• Diagnosing wrongdoing as ignorance makes it tractable. — A mistake can be corrected by understanding in a way that a corrupt nature cannot. (buddhism)
  Answered by: People often do wrong while knowing perfectly well that it is wrong, which the ignorance account has to explain away.
• Kamma without a judge is more coherent than punishment by a deity. — It requires no explanation of why the punisher is also loving. (shared)
  Answered by: It also implies that present suffering follows from past action, which is difficult to say to a suffering person.

Arguments challenging

• Human beings will always do wrong, whatever the diagnosis. — No society has eliminated cruelty. (catholic)
  Answered by: Buddhism claims the poisons are removable in an individual and does not claim they will be removed in everyone, so the historical record does not refute it.
• Kamma can be used to blame the suffering for their own condition. — If circumstances follow from past action, poverty and disability look deserved. (non-religious)
  Answered by: The Buddha explicitly rejected the view that everything experienced is caused by past kamma, and compassion is required regardless of cause — but the objection describes a real misuse.

Secular / non-religious perspective

Non-religious accounts explain wrongdoing through evolution, upbringing, incentive and situation, and reject sin while retaining harm. Many find the Buddhist analysis congenial because it is psychological rather than theological, which is why the three poisons appear in secular therapeutic contexts stripped of the rebirth framework.

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

Evaluation

The hinge: Whether wrongdoing is a fault of the will or an error of perception. Buddhism answers the second, and everything about its remedy follows from that.

Defensible conclusions

• The Buddhist account is the most psychologically detailed on this specification, and it is the only one that makes wrongdoing a cognitive problem rather than a moral one.
• It struggles with the case of clear-eyed wrongdoing, which is where the doctrines of inherited corruption and of the yetzer hara look stronger.
• Kamma without an administrator is genuinely elegant, and its cost is the implication about deserved suffering that Buddhism itself has had to qualify.

Not defensible

• Saying Buddhists believe sin is disobeying God — the examiners name this exact error.
• Describing kamma as God punishing you, which the examiners also record; nobody administers kamma.

Exam use

• Identify · 3 marks — Three causes of human wrongdoing in Buddhism — greed, hatred, delusion, ignorance. Short phrases only.
• Outline · 4 marks — Two developed. 'Buddhists identify three poisons (1) — greed, hatred and delusion, which are the roots from which unskilful action grows (1).'
• Explain · 6 marks — Explain Buddhist beliefs about the causes of wrongdoing: the three poisons, avijja as the deepest root, kamma, and the absence of sin.
• Evaluate · 12 marks — 'Humans will always sin.' Buddhism's answer is that the word does not apply and the mechanism is removable, which is a strong two-part reply.

Common mistakes

• Using 'sin' of Buddhism without saying why the word does not fit — the examiners record this.
• Describing kamma as punishment administered by a god.
• Listing the three poisons without saying how delusion produces the other two.

“Buddhists believe sin is disobeying God.” — Buddhism has no creator God to disobey. Unskilful action (akusala) harms the person who does it and others through kamma; it is a mistake rooted in greed, hatred and delusion, not an offence against a deity.

Write instead: Buddhists speak of unskilful action rooted in the three poisons — greed, hatred and delusion — and of akusala kamma, which brings unwelcome results. The specification's own Buddhist wording for 1.3 names avijja, kilesa and the three poisons. The specification titles 1.3 'Selfishness, greed, ignorance and sin', which invites the error. A learner writing on Buddhism should use the tradition's own vocabulary and say why 'sin' does not fit.

“Karma is God punishing you for what you did wrong.” — Karma is a law of cause and effect, not a verdict. No one weighs the evidence and no one sentences you; the action itself conditions what follows.

Write instead: Karma is the principle that intentional action produces consequences which shape future experience. In Buddhism it turns on intention specifically. Sikh teaching holds karma alongside God's hukam and God's grace. Sikhism is the genuine middle case: karma operates, and liberation comes by God's grace rather than by accumulated merit. Saying so is a strong distinction.

Grade 9 insight

The three poisons are not three equal faults. Delusion is the root and the other two grow from it: you are greedy for something because you misperceive it as able to satisfy you, and you hate something because you misperceive it as a threat to a self that is not there. A Level 4 answer states that ordering, because it explains why the Buddhist remedy is insight rather than willpower — you cannot decide to stop wanting what you still believe will make you happy.

Carry on through Buddhism

• Previous unit: 1.2 · Human nature and the human condition
• Next unit: 1.4 · Free will, determinism and predestination
• Selfishness, greed, ignorance and sin in the other religions: Christianity · Hinduism · Islam · Judaism · Sikhism
• All of Buddhism · Incandio Religious Studies · The 4RS1 specification