The universe and the place of human beings — Buddhism

What the specification asks for

Paper 1, Section 1, 1.1 (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 arguments about looking after the planet end up sounding the same: we were given this place, so we ought not to wreck it. Buddhism cannot make that argument, because it does not say anybody gave us anything. And yet it ends up with one of the strongest environmental positions of any religion — which is worth explaining, because the route it takes is completely different from everybody else's.

What it means

Buddhism has no creation story and no creator. That is not an omission the tradition is embarrassed about; it holds that the universe has no beginning it claims to know, and that what exists is a process rather than a made object. The word for that is anicca — impermanence. Everything, without exception, is in the middle of changing into something else.

The second idea is the one that does the heavy lifting: paticcasamuppada, usually translated as dependent origination. It means that nothing exists on its own. Everything arises because of conditions, and if the conditions change, the thing changes. There are no separate items in the world that happen to be near each other; there are processes holding each other up.

From those two comes the claim that matters most for this unit, and it is the point where Buddhism differs most sharply from the other five religions on the specification: the commonality of all living beings. There is no divinely granted human dominion, because there is no divine grantor — and because rebirth crosses species, an animal is not a different category of thing. It is a being in a different form, caught in the same cycle, capable of suffering in the same way.

So responsibility for the world rests on two qualities rather than on a duty owed to an owner. Karuna is compassion, the wish that beings be free from suffering. Prajna is wisdom, seeing things as they actually are. Ahimsa — non-harming — is what the two produce when you put them together, and it is the principle behind the first of the five precepts.

Why believers hold it

Follow dependent origination and the environmental argument makes itself. If nothing exists independently, then you are not separate from the conditions you live in. Damaging a river is not damaging a thing over there; it is damaging part of what you are made of and depend on. The harm is self-harm as a matter of plain fact, not as a metaphor or a warning.

That is why Buddhism needs no steward, no owner and no account to be rendered. The other traditions get their environmental duty from a relationship: somebody entrusted this to you and will ask about it. Buddhism gets it from a description: this is what you are part of. It is a weaker sort of obligation in one way — nobody will call you to account — and a stronger one in another, because it does not depend on anybody watching or on the relationship being real.

The second strand runs through compassion. If suffering is bad, and animals suffer, then their suffering counts — and it counts directly, without needing to be routed through a human interest or a divine command. That reaches further than an argument from being made in God's image can, because it grounds the claim in the capacity to suffer rather than in a resemblance only humans have.

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: The three marks are where impermanence comes from — quote them when you need to establish that the universe is a process rather than a creation, which is the claim the whole unit stands on.

• 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.

  What it is doing here: The first precept is the practical form of the argument: it forbids harming living beings and does not restrict that category to humans, which is the commonality of beings stated as a rule someone actually keeps.

• 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 this for the compassion half — goodwill extended without limit is what replaces a duty owed upward, and it is where the motivation comes from once you have removed the creator.

Where it bites

It shows up in practices you can name, which is what turns a general claim into a developed answer. Vegetarianism is widespread among Buddhists though not universal. The monastic rules forbid damaging plants and polluting water — a striking place to find an environmental limit, since they were written long before anybody was worried about pollution. In Thailand there is a practice of ordaining trees, wrapping monks' robes around them so that felling them becomes an offence against the sangha rather than a matter of forestry.

Engaged Buddhist environmental movements argue directly from dependent origination rather than borrowing a secular case — which is worth saying, because it shows the doctrine still doing work rather than being decorated with modern concerns. Naming one of these is what a six-mark answer needs: the belief, the reason, and what somebody therefore does.

What people get wrong

People think: Buddhists believe God created the world, they just call God something else.

Actually: There is no creator in Buddhist teaching at all. This is not a translation problem and it is not a technicality — a great deal of what makes the Buddhist answer distinctive follows from the absence, and an answer that supplies a creator has described a different religion.

People think: Buddhists are stewards of the earth.

Actually: Stewardship is the Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh framework, and it needs an owner. Buddhism's argument is interdependence, which is a different shape: you are not looking after somebody else's property, you are part of what you would be damaging. Importing stewardship here loses the whole point.

People think: A religion that wants to escape the world cannot care much about improving it.

Actually: Compassion is a required part of the path rather than an optional extra, and the bodhisattva ideal explicitly postpones one's own liberation for the sake of others. The objection is a real one and the tradition has an answer to it — so make the objection and then answer it, rather than pretending it was never raised.

What the examiner expects you to understand

• Use the Pali terms and explain them: anicca, paticcasamuppada, karuna, prajna, ahimsa. The mark schemes credit the tradition's own vocabulary and a general paragraph about nature does not score the same.
• Naming impermanence without saying what follows from it is a recorded failing. The follow-through is the mark.
• The strongest available Grade 9 point is that Buddhism holds BOTH that all beings are equally caught in the cycle AND that a human birth is exceptionally fortunate, because only a human is placed to practise the path. That gives special human responsibility with no hierarchy of worth at all — a third option beside dominion and flat equality.
• For the twelve-mark question the hinge is usually whether a religion needs a creator to ground environmental duty. Buddhism is the test case that shows it does not, which makes it valuable even in an answer mostly about another religion.
• Do not invent a division between Theravada and Mahayana here. They agree on impermanence, dependent origination and the commonality of beings; Mahayana emphasises compassion to all beings most explicitly, and emphasis is not disagreement.

2 · Grade 9 Notes

Core belief / issue

Buddhism has no creation account and no creator, and the specification asks for exactly what it has instead: a universe in constant process, human responsibility grounded in compassion and wisdom, and the commonality of all living beings. That last point is where Buddhism differs most sharply from the other five religions on this specification — there is no divinely granted human dominion, because all beings are in the same cycle.

Key terminology

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

Anicca (also anitya)

Impermanence; everything that exists is in process and nothing stays as it is.

Paticcasamuppada (also pratityasamutpada, dependent arising)

Dependent origination; everything arises in dependence on conditions rather than independently.

Karuna

Compassion; the wish that beings be free from suffering.

Prajna (also panna)

Wisdom; seeing things as they actually are.

Ahimsa (also avihimsa)

Non-harming; the principle behind the first precept.

What Buddhism teaches

• shared — The universe has no creator and no beginning that Buddhism claims to know; it is a process in constant change rather than a made object.
• shared — Everything arises in dependence on conditions, so nothing exists independently of anything else.
• shared — All living beings share the same condition — they suffer, and they are in the same cycle of rebirth — so human beings have no separate status above them.
• shared — Responsibility for the planet follows from compassion and wisdom rather than from a duty owed to a creator.

Why it teaches this

The reasoning runs through dependent origination. If nothing exists independently, then damaging the environment is damaging the conditions on which one's own existence depends — the harm is not to a separate thing. And since rebirth crosses species, an animal is not a different category of being but a being in a different form. That is why the Buddhist environmental argument does not need a steward, an owner or an account to be rendered.

Sources of authority

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

Different interpretations

• Impermanence read as a reason for detachment from the world and read as a reason for care of it; both are argued, and the second is dominant in engaged Buddhism.
• The commonality of beings read as strict equality and read as recognising that a human birth is uniquely favourable for practice; the tradition holds both, which is a genuine tension worth naming.
• Environmental responsibility read as a modern application of old principles and read as continuous with the monastic rules on not harming plants and water; the second is better supported by the Vinaya.

Differences within Buddhism

Theravada, Mahayana, Pure Land and Zen all hold impermanence, dependent origination and the commonality of beings. Mahayana traditions extend compassion most explicitly to all beings through the bodhisattva ideal, but this is emphasis inside a shared account.

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

Application to the issue

It shows in vegetarianism, widespread though not universal among Buddhists; in the monastic rules against damaging plants and polluting water; in the Thai practice of ordaining trees — wrapping robes around them to prevent logging; in animal release at Wesak; and in engaged Buddhist environmental movements that argue directly from dependent origination.

Arguments supporting

• Dependent origination gives a stronger environmental argument than stewardship does. — There is no separation between the damager and the damaged, so environmental harm is self-harm as a matter of fact rather than of metaphor. (buddhism)
  Answered by: It is also less directive: recognising interdependence does not by itself say what to do about a specific development decision.
• Treating animals as beings in the same cycle removes the hierarchy that licenses exploitation. — The first precept forbids harming living beings without restricting the category to humans. (shared)
  Answered by: Buddhist practice has nonetheless included meat-eating in many cultures, so the principle has not always determined the behaviour.

Arguments challenging

• A religion focused on escaping the cycle has weak reasons to improve the world. — If the goal is liberation from rebirth, the world's condition is a distraction. (non-religious)
  Answered by: Compassion is a required component of the path, not an optional extra, and the bodhisattva ideal explicitly postpones liberation for the sake of others.
• Without a creator there is no reason the universe should be respected. — Value is usually derived from a valuer. (christianity)
  Answered by: Buddhism locates value in the capacity to suffer rather than in an act of creation, which reaches animals more directly than the image-of-God argument does.

Secular / non-religious perspective

Non-religious accounts agree with Buddhism that the universe has no creator and that humans are one species among many. Where they differ is in the interpretation: Humanists generally see no cycle of rebirth and locate responsibility in the interests of present and future people and sentient animals. Buddhism and secular environmentalism reach very similar conclusions from very different premises.

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

Evaluation

The hinge: Whether a religion needs a creator to ground environmental responsibility. Buddhism is the test case that shows it does not, which makes it valuable for a synoptic answer.

Defensible conclusions

• Buddhism's account is the most naturally environmental of the six, because interdependence makes environmental harm a form of self-harm rather than a breach of duty.
• It is also the least directive, since compassion and wisdom do not settle a planning decision the way a rule can.
• Buddhism agrees with the non-religious position about creation and disagrees about what follows, which makes it the most interesting comparison available in this unit.

Not defensible

• Saying Buddhists believe God created the world; there is no creator in Buddhist teaching.
• Claiming Buddhism is indifferent to the world because it aims at liberation; compassion is part of the path, not a departure from it.

Exam use

• Identify · 3 marks — Three ways religious people can care for the planet, or three Buddhist beliefs about the universe. Short phrases only.
• Outline · 4 marks — Two beliefs developed. 'Buddhists believe everything is impermanent (1) — the universe is a process in constant change rather than something made by a creator (1).'
• Explain · 6 marks — Explain why Buddhists believe they should care for the environment: dependent origination, the first precept, compassion and wisdom, and the commonality of beings.
• Evaluate · 12 marks — 'The world would be a better place without humans.' Buddhism's answer is unusual — a human birth is the one from which the cycle can be ended.

Common mistakes

• Writing about a Buddhist creator or creation account; there is neither.
• Treating Buddhist environmental ethics as stewardship, which imports the wrong framework.
• Naming impermanence without saying what follows from it.

“Buddhists worship the Buddha as their god.” — The Buddha is a human being who became awakened. Buddhist teaching does not present him as a creator or as a god who answers prayer.

Write instead: Buddhists show reverence to the Buddha as teacher and example — bowing, offerings, and taking refuge — without regarding him as a god. Offerings before a Buddha rupa express gratitude and aspiration, not petition. Devotional practice is real and extensive, especially in Mahayana and Pure Land Buddhism where Amitabha is the object of profound devotion. 'Buddhists do not worship' is an over-correction; 'the Buddha is not a god' is the accurate claim.

Grade 9 insight

Buddhism holds both that all beings are equally caught in the cycle AND that human birth is exceptionally fortunate — because only a human being is placed to practise the path. A Level 4 answer keeps both. Humans are not superior in worth and they are uniquely positioned in opportunity, which gives Buddhism a way of grounding special human responsibility without any hierarchy of value at all. That is a distinct third option beside dominion and flat equality.

Carry on through Buddhism

• Next unit: 1.2 · Human nature and the human condition
• The universe and the place of human beings in the other religions: Christianity · Hinduism · Islam · Judaism · Sikhism
• All of Buddhism · Incandio Religious Studies · The 4RS1 specification