Skip to main content
ScotlandReligious, Moral & Philosophical StudiesSyllabus dot point

What does your chosen world religion teach about the human condition, the problem or predicament that human beings face?

The religion's analysis of the human condition: the fundamental problem facing human beings, its causes, and why the religion sees it as the starting point for the spiritual life.

An SQA Higher RMPS answer on the human condition in World Religion, explaining how a chosen religion (with Buddhism as the worked example) diagnoses the fundamental problem facing humanity, its causes such as ignorance, craving or sin, and why this diagnosis is the starting point for the goal and the means.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.812 min answer

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page

Jump to a section
  1. What this dot point is asking
  2. The problem the religion identifies
  3. The causes of the condition
  4. Why the diagnosis matters
  5. How other religions frame the condition
  6. Try this

What this dot point is asking

Every SQA Higher RMPS candidate studies one world religion in depth, and the first thing the specification asks you to understand is that religion's account of the human condition: the fundamental problem or predicament that human beings are in. This is the diagnosis that the rest of the religion answers. Get the diagnosis right and the goal (where the religion says we should be heading) and the means (how to get there) fall into place. This page uses Buddhism as the worked example, because it is the most widely taught option, but the same three-part structure (condition, goal, means) is exactly how the SQA frames whichever religion you study, whether that is Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or Sikhism.

The problem the religion identifies

The starting point of any World Religion answer is a clear statement of what the religion says is wrong. A religion is, in part, a diagnosis of the human predicament and a prescription for it.

  • Buddhism teaches that life as ordinarily lived is dukkha: unsatisfactory, incomplete, marked by suffering. This is not pessimism for its own sake; it is a clear-eyed observation that nothing impermanent can give lasting satisfaction.
  • The diagnosis is one of three marks of existence (tilakkhana): dukkha (unsatisfactoriness), anicca (impermanence, that nothing stays the same) and anatta (no fixed self or soul). Seeing all three clearly is part of waking up to reality.
  • Because there is no permanent, unchanging self, clinging to "me and mine" is a mistake built into the way unenlightened beings see the world.

The causes of the condition

The SQA rewards you for explaining why the condition exists, not just stating it.

  • The Second Noble Truth names the cause: tanha, craving or thirst. Beings crave pleasant experiences, crave existence, and crave to avoid what they dislike. This craving is never finally satisfied, so it keeps generating dissatisfaction.
  • Behind craving lies avidya, ignorance: not knowing the true nature of reality (the three marks). Ignorance, craving and aversion are the three poisons (or three fires) that drive unskilful action.
  • Action driven by the poisons creates karma, and karma keeps beings bound to samsara, the round of rebirth. The human condition is therefore not a one-off problem but a self-perpetuating cycle.

Why the diagnosis matters

The whole of the religion follows from the diagnosis. If the problem is craving rooted in ignorance, then the goal must be the end of craving and the uprooting of ignorance (nibbana), and the means must be a path that trains the mind to see clearly and let go (the Noble Eightfold Path). When you answer a World Religion question, always connect the condition forward to the goal and the means, because the SQA marks knowledge of the religion as a coherent whole.

How other religions frame the condition

You only study one religion, but it helps to see that the SQA structure is general. Christianity frames the human condition through sin: human beings are separated from God by sin, a condition often traced to the Fall, and need salvation through Christ. Islam sees humans as forgetful of God (ghafla) and prone to wrongdoing, needing guidance and submission. Hinduism speaks of the atman bound in samsara by karma and avidya. Whatever your religion, the examinable move is the same: identify the problem, explain its cause, and link it to the religion's goal.

Try this

Q1. Name the three marks of existence in Buddhism. [3 marks]

  • Cue. Dukkha (unsatisfactoriness), anicca (impermanence), anatta (no fixed self).

Q2. What does Buddhism say is the cause of dukkha? [2 marks]

  • Cue. Tanha (craving), which is rooted in avidya (ignorance) of the true nature of reality.

Exam-style practice questions

Practice questions written in the style of SQA exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.

SQA Higher specimen8 marksDescribe the religion's teaching about the human condition.
Show worked answer →

A "describe" question worth 8 marks rewards accurate, detailed knowledge and understanding, not evaluation. The marker is looking for a developed account of the problem the religion identifies and its causes, with relevant terms used correctly.

For Buddhism, set out the three marks of existence: dukkha (unsatisfactoriness or suffering), anicca (impermanence) and anatta (no fixed self). Explain that life as ordinarily lived is marked by dukkha, that the cause is tanha (craving or thirst) rooted in ignorance (avidya), and that clinging to impermanent things and to a fixed self keeps beings bound to samsara, the cycle of rebirth. Develop each point with an example, for instance that even pleasant experiences are dukkha because they do not last. Eight marks need roughly four to five developed points, each going beyond a bare statement.

SQA Higher specimen10 marksTo what extent is the religion's analysis of the human condition convincing?
Show worked answer →

A 10-mark "to what extent" question is an evaluation: it rewards a line of argument with reasons on both sides and a supported judgement, not just description.

Build the case: the diagnosis of dukkha is convincing because it matches everyday experience, that nothing material fully satisfies and that loss and change cause distress; it is also psychologically realistic about craving. Then weigh the other side: critics argue it is too pessimistic, that it underplays genuine human happiness and meaning, or that the claim of no fixed self is hard to reconcile with personal identity and moral responsibility. Bring in a non-religious or alternative viewpoint, for instance a humanist who accepts impermanence but rejects rebirth. Conclude with a judgement you have argued for, such as that the analysis is convincing as a description of suffering even if its metaphysics is contested.

Related dot points

Sources & how we know this