Examples of Successful Undergraduate Papers

From THRS 112

Compiled by Louis Komjathy, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Theology and Religious Studies

University of San Diego

I have compiled the present handout for students who need guidance concerning the characteristics of a successful undergraduate research paper in my lower-division classes. I am grateful to my former THRS 112 students who gave permission to use their papers. I have omitted their names in order to avoid potential privacy issues. Please note that the samples are not necessarily “A” papers. Rather, they are generally well-written, well-researched, fulfill the requirements, and represent a more innovative approach to the assignment.

Paper Sample 1

Student Name

Professor Louis Komjathy

THRS 112

November 17, 2009

Religious Factions as Political Entities

Religious factions possess the dual ability to act as spiritual communities and political influences. Political factions, in terms of this paper, refer to groups of like-minded individuals who adhere to one of the two main religious factions of Islam and share the same goals of influence and power. These two main religious divisions, the Sunni and the Shi’a (Shiites), “center on issues of orthodoxy,” specifically with respect to whom Muhammad designated as his rightful successor.[1] This break in belief not only created two religious groups, but also two political entities locked in a constant struggle for power and control. Iraq’s government and social situation exemplifies the political struggle of these parties, and this paper will focus on the state of Iraq during the 2007 surge, including a brief explanation of the Iraqi political situation before the war began. These religious entities have both religious and political characteristics, which proves salient in the situation of the Sunni and Shi’ia communities in Iraq.

Muhammad’s death essentially “precipitated a crisis that grew into a permanent ideological rift” between the Sunni and Shi’a sects.[2] According to Vali Nasr, the United States government and military neglected the influence of such factionalism when they invaded Iraq in March 2003. Due to this oversight, a change became necessary in relation to the original goals of the so-called Operation Iraqi Freedom.[3]The United States’ original goal was essentially to remove Saddam Hussein’s (1937-2006) Sunni authoritarian regime and to implement a democratic system in Iraq and, hopefully, in the rest of the Middle East. However, the balance of power not only rested in the command of the regime but also within the “country’s major communities.”[4]

Before the war, Iraq was a Sunni-controlled state, dating back as far as the Ottoman Empire (1299-1922), which ruled Iraq with “governing, military, and administrative experience that would enable them to monopolize political power into the twentieth century.”[5] Although the Sunni orthodox division is the majority in Islam, the community only accounts for a mere fifteen percent of the population in Iraq.[6] Despite the Sunni sect’s minority status in Iraq, the ruling body utilized social connections to maintain power. Upon gaining control in 1979, Saddam Hussein“leaned on his own Sunni tribal networks to staff his security services, army leadership, and bureaucracy” and used these acquaintances to make up for the services that the Iraqi state lacked.[7] This clearly demonstrates the use of a religious community and faction as a political tool. Saddam Hussein also supported the idea of “retribalization” in which tribes were self-reliant rather than unifying as a single state; this was intended to keep rivalry high among the tribes.[8] This competition allowed the tribe with the most authority and monetary influence to remain in power, which, in this instance, was the Sunni community.

This technique was also used by the United States during the 2007 surge, in which a “grass-roots” campaign was implemented in order to reverse their “fatal flaw in the strategy” in ignoring the influence of deep-seated religious factions.[9] The United States sought to “help mend frayed relationships between tribal and religious groups” by taking a bottom-up approach that would “funnel” money and weaponry to the tribal leaders in order to prevent the disempowered Sunni tribe from striking alliances with al Qaeda, an insurgency group who also wanted to “reverse the triumph of the Shiites and restore the Sunnis to their lost position of power.”[10]The Sunnis acted as a political entity by forming an agreement with al Qaeda, who shared the same goal of uprooting the minority Shiite power and regaining control of the military. The United States made payments of “$360 per month per combatant in exchange for allegiance and cooperation” to Sunni factions in order to maintain a balance between the two Islamic factions, as the Shiite grew in strength.[11]

With the US toppling of Saddam Hussein’s authoritarian regime, the Shiite community, who “share a coherent religious view” about Muhammad’s successor and thus have a “distinct conception of Islamic laws and practices,” was given an “opportunity to redress injustices in the distribution of power among the country’s major communities”[12] Thus the Iraqi Shiite rise to power threatens to raise the tension between the two religious groups, thus weakening the stability of the region.[13]In their recent supremacy over the Sunnis, in size, political influence and military control, the Shiite community “requires compensation” for the past Sunni injustices against the community and upholds the necessity for the Sunni population to remain subordinate to the Shiites.[14] Contrastingly, the Sunnis seek to “regain control of the state” and, due to Washington’s financial backing, believe that it has Washington’s strategic support to regain political and military control of the state.[15] One also might argue that the US government’s support of the Sunni minority in Iraq is a direct response to the prevailing influence of hard-line Shi’a Muslims within the Iranian government.

It can be argued that the United States’ bottom-up approach “enabled” the Sunni and Shiite factions to compete with each other for local control.[16]The fact that Iraq is heterogeneous and highly diverse in its religious factions was neglected by Washington’s initial plan to bring democracy to the Middle East. For either faction to have control of Iraq is “unacceptable” and both parties realize that the United States will no longer financially support them after the completion of the surge.[17] It was argued throughout the surge that the United States would leave Iraq more divided than when the American military first arrived. This is largely due to the fact that the war and corresponding social strategy“nourished domestic rivalries in order to maintain an illusory short-term stability.”[18] Nonetheless, the Sunnis and Shiites both profited from the United States’ invasion of Iraq: the Sunnis received monetary and military compensation for cooperation, while the Shiites gained control of the Iraqi government and military. Both of the religious factions behave like political entities in that they organize themselves in order to gain and maintain power and form alliances with other parties in order to do such.

The most pressing political issue that these religious entities face is the creation of a mutual constitution that negotiates the questions of federalism and the fate of oil distribution in the state of Iraq and throughout the world.[19] The negotiations display two religious groups acting as political parties in that the situation requires a delicate balance in allocating power equally between two feuding groups. The United States acted as the third party to engage the two factions in negotiations after the surge. The US political negotiators and military advisersin turn had to take account of the internal political challenges in order to persuade the two groups to cooperate and create a common constitution to which each party would agree to adhere. For example, the United States had to recognize that the Sunnis could “abandon the political process” and rely on funding from both insurgents and the US.[20] Likewise, in response to Washington’s “mutual” support of both parties and favoritism towards the Sunnis,the Shiites could rely on their great numbers in Iraq to lead an uprising rather than depend on the political process.[21] The Shiites’ vast population in Iraq has the potential to upset the balance of power in Iraq. In addition, a large portion of the Shiite population lived in Iran throughout Saddam Hussein’s authoritarian rule and returned to Iraq during the Shiite revival in which they wielded the power that the Sunnis lost.[22] Consequently, these Shiites felt increasing nationalism with respect to Iran and were likely to bring Iranian alliances into Iraqi politics.[23] In negotiating the mutual constitution, the United States must be prepared to consider these communities as political divisions with ties and alliances with insurgency groups and looming countries.

The Sunnis and Shiites began not only as religious divisions but also as political networks. As seen in the competition for power, wealth and influence both monetarily and military, these two political units have the ability to determine if Iraq will become a unified democratic state or plagued by civil war. Religious factions possess the ability to frame politics in ways that reflect their own beliefs, alliances, and interests.

Paper Sample 2

Student Name

Professor Louis Komjathy

THRS 112

November 17, 2009

A Stepping Stone: Samatha Bhavana

From a traditional perspective, Buddhism as a religious tradition and path to liberation began with the life, teachings and experiences of Siddhartha Gautama (ca. 563-ca. 483 BCE). Siddhartha Gautama, honorifically referred to as Śākyamuni (Sage of the Śākya Clan)Buddha, became enlightened while meditating under a Pipal tree at the age of thirty-five.[1] Since then, meditation has been a central practice of both Buddhist monastics and laypeople. It may be the most important and representative practice of the Buddhist religious tradition (Komjathy). Although there are many different types of Buddhist meditation, they usually fall into three broad categories: samatha(Skt.: śamatha; “calmness”), vipassana (Skt.: vipaśyanā; “mindfulness”/”insight”), and metta (“loving-kindness”). Samatha meditation focuses on tranquility and forty meditative objects as a means for attaining liberation and enlightenment. This paper provides an overview of Buddhist samathameditation.

Buddhaghosa (fl. 5th c. CE), an Indian Theravada Buddhist monk and scholar, helped to establish and develop the practice of meditation in South Asian, or Theravada, Buddhism: “Not a great deal of biographical detail is known about him except that he was a brilliant brahmin scholar, was born in Magadha in India, moved to Sri Lanka and stayed for some time at the great temple, Mahavihara, at Anuradhapura” (Shaw 67). Buddhaghosa was an early commentator on Buddhist meditation; he also introduced the practice of meditation on forty objects, which were derived from the Pali Canon. “Buddhaghosa’s forty objects are intended primarily for the cultivation of calm (samatha) but many, such as the meditation on the stages of decomposition of the body, breathing mindfulness and the defining of the four elements, may also be used as insight (vipassana)” (ibid. 69). Samatha meditation is considered to be a central part of South Asian Buddhism because its practice dates back to the earliest moments of the Buddhist tradition. In fact, “the Buddha himself is reported to have attained liberation using this very method [samatha and vipassana meditation]” (Buddhadasa ii). In addition, the object-based practice is primarily based on items found in either the Pali Canon itself or Buddhist commentary literature. Samatha meditation is used in conjunction with vipassana in order to attain liberation; however, practitioners of samatha pass through various stages of absorption (Pali: jhana; Skt.: dhyana) before attaining complete liberation (Pali: nibbana; Skt.: nirvana). Jhana is “peering, contemplation, absorption, meditation: one-pointed focus of the mind on an object, for the purpose of developing insight.” Moreover, it is “understood as both an activity of the mind and the results of that activity” (Buddhadasa 149). Samatha meditation is located in a Buddhist soteriological system because it represents a stepping-stone for reaching liberation—without it, liberation cannot be attained.

As promoted by Buddhaghosa and as practiced within Theravada Buddhism, samatha meditation employs forty objects in order to focus one’s consciousness and develop calmness. These objects—mentioned in Sarah Shaw’s Introduction to Buddhist Meditation(2008)—range from earth and water to bloody corpses, breath awareness, and the recollection of peace. The first ten objects are called kasina, or the ten devices. Kasina consists of focusing on earth, water, fire, air, dark blue/black, yellow, red, white, light, and limited space. The next ten objects are called asubha, or the ten “foul” meditations. The objects are a bloated corpse, blue-black corpse, festering corpse, corpse-with-cracked-skin, corpse-gnawed-and-mangled, corpse-cut-to-pieces, corpse-mutilated-and-cut-to-pieces, bloody corpse, corpse-infested-with-worms, and a skeleton. These objects are the most gruesome objects one will have to meditate on while practicing samatha meditation. The next ten are called anussati, or the ten recollections. These include recollections on the Buddha, dhamma, sangha, good conduct (sila), generosity, devas, mindfulness of death, mindfulness of body, breathing mindfulness, and peace. The four divine abidings (brahma-vihara) and the immeasurables (appamana)—loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity—make up objects thirty-one through thirty-four. Objects thirty-five through thirty-eight are the four formless spheres, or arupa. The formless spheres are the sphere of infinite space, infinite consciousness, nothingness, and neither identification nor non-identification. The thirty-ninth object is the “perception of loathsomeness in food” (ahare patikkulasanna) and the fortieth is the “defining of the four elements” (catudhatuvavatthanam) that occur within the body: earth, water, fire, and air (Shaw 70).

Before meditating, one is advised to a “good friend” or a teacher of meditation with whom to practice samatha meditation. In practice, these teachers are actually referred to as friends (Buddhadasa 45). Teachers can provide advice when the student needs guidance. For instance, “this can happen at any time, and the meditation can become boring or hard if advice is not sought: sometimes people make too much effort, sometimes the attention is too slack” (Shaw 18). Furthermore, these teachers are here for guidance alone, not for help. “The basic principle [is] that no one can directly help someone else” (Buddhadasa 45). While meditating, it is important to be constantly “exploring the object, say the breath, if there is an excess of doubt, or allowing the mind to rest in contentment of the breath if there is worry” (Shaw 71-72). Doing so, will help the practitioner move in the direction towards liberation.

The first step in samatha meditation is to develop a mental image, or nimitta. Buddhaghosa compares the development of the nimitta to a child learning to walk. The child tries again and again “until the supporting factors are strong enough for him to walk unaided.” He then explains,

This momentary access to jhanic meditation is access (upacara) concentration, a non-canonical term that denotes a ‘half-way’ house, before the jhana factors are fully developed, to the complete settling of the mind. Sometimes the movement to jhana will happen soon, if the factors are strong, but more often the nimittaneeds ‘guarding’. (Shaw 72)

There are seven factors for “guarding the nimitta,” which are lodgings, resort, speech, person, food, climate, and postures. “Lodgings” suggests moving from one place to another, if possible, and especially if the current surroundings prove to be detrimental to meditation. For “resort” it is stated that a village should not “impinge too much on the activities of the meditator” (ibid.). Buddhaghosa explicitly named “thirty-two kinds of directionless talk which lead to the loss of the nimitta,” which makes up the “speech” factor (ibid.). “Person” suggests the meditator should associate him- or herself with appropriate people who understand, practice and support the practice of meditation. For example, the teacher should not be a hindrance to the practitioner. The last three deal with personal preferences and how one should yield to those preferences in order to be content when they meditate.

Once jhana has been attained, the samatha practitioner’s undertaking is not over—one must go on to further meditations. For instance,

Following the spirit of the canonical texts, the meditator is instructed to retain mindfulness and clear comprehension. He [sic] is instructed to practice the five ‘masteries’ of meditation: the ability to advert, to enter, to sustain, to emerge and, finally, to remember any meditative state (Shaw 73).

It should be noted that Buddhaghosa—and the Buddha himself—mentioned that after jhana has been attained, psychic powers and the five forms of direct knowledge may be accessed by the meditator. The psychic powers consist of such things as “being able to multiply oneself from one to being many, and from many becoming one again, becoming visible or invisible at will, traveling over water as if over earth, touching and stroking the sun and moon with the hand”, etc. (Shaw 86). The five forms of direct knowledge include having the divine ear, knowing the minds of others, recollecting past lives, and having the divine eye (86-87). Basically, in a sense, the practitioner becomes omnipotent and omniscient—god-like, essentially. Unlocking psychic abilities and the five forms of direct knowledge leads the practitioner in the right direction towards liberation and enlightenment.