Buddhism before the Theravada: Notes

I took detailed notes on the entirety of John Peacock's lecture, which you can d/l via this link:

docs.google.com/document/d/1aIY0NCqgbPb6...awyoTVzSUZ7SQo4/edit

The first part is historical, concerning the relationship between the Buddha and the society in which he lived. After that there is a discussion of the 5 khandhas/skandhas. Roughly the second half gives an outline of the Buddha's doctrine of paticcasamuppāda (dependent origination). Most of the discussion is historical or theoretical in nature, but there are points useful to practice, especially when Peacock discusses the weak links in the chain of dependent origination that can be exploited in insight practice.

I didn't edit the notes very much, so I can't vouch for the complete accuracy. But it should give you more than a general idea of what the talk was about.

Thank you! I listened to the whole thing and was going to listen again. Thanks for the notes.

It's really interesting from an intellectual perspective. I have very little experience reading the Pali canon, and I've done most of my meditation so far using very little theory. It's cool to circle back around and read about the origins of what I've been doing, though.

Did you listen to the lectures on metta? Those were actually really helpful.

Half way through those right now too. Very helpful, actually has made my day much better just listening to it. I am the same as you. I have read nothing on theory, etc...

"I took detailed notes on the entirety of John Peacock's lecture, which you can d/l via this link:

docs.google.com/document/d/1aIY0NCqgbPb6...awyoTVzSUZ7SQo4/edit
"

Wow! This are great notes (all 27 pages worth)! Thank you so much.

I'm about half-way through the lecture right now. This helps immensely.

Great notes on a truly noteworthy lecture series! Thanks.

I wanted to see what all the fuss was about, so I started listening yesterday. It's great! I am going to try to get myself along to one of his retreats at Gaia House soon.

What did people think about his points about ethics? That was the main bit so far (start of the second lecture) where he seems to diverge from pragmatic dharma. We tend to assume that ethics is separate from insight, even if we sometimes admit certain insights seems to make certain ethical practices easier.

Well, (a) Peacock doesn't seem to mean just one thing by "ethics", and (b) not everyone who hangs around here or DhO appears to have the same opinions regarding the relative worth of whatever falls under that heading.

Regarding (a) he seems to slip between two meanings of ethics:

1. Ethics as having to do with the here-and-now, i.e., ordinary lived existence. He contrasts this approach with the metaphysical point of view, the better-rebirth POV, but also the POV which lays what he seems to consider undue emphasis on altered states (he tends to dismiss jhana, for instance, though he says nothing about progress of insight or fruitions). Obviously you're going to find different people in pragmatic dharma who have different opinions about all these things.

2. Ethics as having to do with the elimination of greed, aversion, and delusion (GAD). He often speaks as though elimination of GAD is the goal or natural outcome of awakening, and from what I can tell, there's some textual support for it. This sounds like what Daniel Ingram calls the Emotional Model in MCTB. Ingram rejects that model, as do many people in pragmatic dharma.

I think the most useful things Peacock says about ethics are in the relation between metta and insight - metta as an insight practice. I have no idea if it's possible to get rid of GAD. But I know I can bring a spirit of friendliness and gentleness to my practice, and I know that doing so has been indispensable to my own progress. I also know that it has had positive results off the cushion, leading to (slightly) better treatment of myself and others in ordinary life.

I think metta forms almost automatically with vipassana, and I think that's kind of what he is saying near the end of the metta talks. He does talk about strict metta practice but he also talks about looking at all sensations as they are and feeling friendly to them, which to me is just vipassana for the most part. For me, I have had a strage welcoming friendliness towards the dukka nanas lately and it has helped a lot.

"I think metta forms almost automatically with vipassana, and I think that's kind of what he is saying near the end of the metta talks. He does talk about strict metta practice but he also talks about looking at all sensations as they are and feeling friendly to them, which to me is just vipassana for the most part. For me, I have had a strage welcoming friendliness towards the dukka nanas lately and it has helped a lot."

Right. You could do vipassana without what he calls "implicit metta", but I doubt you would make it through the dukkha nanas. I could be wrong, but at least in my case, Reobservation would not break until I surrendered and effectively "circled around" everything with stubborn acceptance, affirmation, and friendliness.

"Greetings, desire to drink whiskey and burn my meditation cushion!"

But likeyou just said, isn't part of the surrendering process acceptance and friendliness? It's like "Hey old friend, I see you, you can't get me down. I'm just going to let you pass through here and do your thing"

I read the notes on the talk, and will listen to the talk when I have more time. It was quite interesting.

What intrigues me is why ethics tends to be a slightly fraught topic (per above posts). Say, for the sake of argument, that ethics is about a few general principles: not harming others, acting friendly and kind, acting generous, acting compassionate, for example. Nothing really specific or dogmatic like "though shalt not drink beer," just basic principles of interacting with others in a non-harmful way. Why on earth wouldn't you want to act that way and hope that others would act that way? It seems like the kind of thing that just makes everyone's life on earth a bit more pleasant. It seems like there's an implication in questioning the role of ethics that goes something like "I meditate 2 hours a day so I can get enlightened, but the rest of the day I reserve the right to be generally hateful and grumpy, thank you very much." Or is it more about not wanting to have to commit to specific rules from a specific tradition, like not drinking or not eating meat?

I mean, look. I'm not very advanced, but I managed to get stream-entry (rather swiftly, too) while eating meat (even steak!), drinking, and pirating music. There's no question in my mind that there's close to no connection between following those precepts and making progress.

But there are many, obvious connections between skillful behavior in general and attainment. What would your passage through dark night look like if you had terrible boundaries and thus were constantly distracted by interpersonal messes? How far would you get without basic virtues like openness and acceptance toward the absurd, bizarre phenomena that pop up in deep vipassana?

I completely agree with you giragirasol, and I imagine most people who get into pragmatic dharma would as well. But one of the things which I initially found so liberating about what Kenneth and Daniel were doing was that they were saying that meditation wouldn't make you into a saint. Being able to let go of the fantasy that all advanced meditators would be impeccable in their moral conduct was something I found enormously helpful. When I first got into meditation, I was fretting a lot about the environment (sadly, these days, I've become almost numb to the torrent of bad news about how we're making this planet uninhabitable for many species, including our own) and it confused me when I met dharma practitioners who just didn't seem to care about what I saw as a hugely important moral issue. I remember being really put out upon meeting a Zen practitioner who was also an atmospheric physicist, so he knew exactly how bad things were, who thought it okay to fly out to France as much as once a month to see his teacher. I also wasted lots of time worrying about meditation teachers with less-than-perfect and sometimes downright bad behaviour. I like that I'm now able to read Trunga Rinpoche's books, for example, appreciating his wisdom about the dharma and yet not condoning the rock star lifestyle he led.

I suspect this says more about my own hang-ups than it does about attitudes to ethics in the pragmatic dharma scene or Buddhism more widely, but I do think some separation between morality and insight avoids a lot of confusion.

"I read the notes on the talk, and will listen to the talk when I have more time. It was quite interesting.

What intrigues me is why ethics tends to be a slightly fraught topic (per above posts). Say, for the sake of argument, that ethics is about a few general principles: not harming others, acting friendly and kind, acting generous, acting compassionate, for example. Nothing really specific or dogmatic like "though shalt not drink beer," just basic principles of interacting with others in a non-harmful way. Why on earth wouldn't you want to act that way and hope that others would act that way? It seems like the kind of thing that just makes everyone's life on earth a bit more pleasant. It seems like there's an implication in questioning the role of ethics that goes something like "I meditate 2 hours a day so I can get enlightened, but the rest of the day I reserve the right to be generally hateful and grumpy, thank you very much." Or is it more about not wanting to have to commit to specific rules from a specific tradition, like not drinking or not eating meat? "

I reserve the right to commit murder and mayhem - but ever so mindfully and with attention to the 3 characteristics!

It probably has to do with the fact that ancient ethics is very different from modern ethics. Even people who have never read Kant still have basic Kantian intuitions about morality (either for or against). Yet it seems like most of those concerns were absent in the ancient world.

Andy, the priggishness of some people can be absolutely nauseating. I think it's telling that if you scratch the surface even a little with such people, their personal lives are often very messy.

@Andy, that makes sense, particularly "hey, I thought these people were supposed to be saints, but that doesn't look saintly to me, so what's the point of practice then?" part. And @both of you, it also makes sense to feel baffled about the diversity of rules for monks, rules for ancient cultures, and modern rules and so on.

I wanted to ask a question about something that Peacock said a few times in the lecture. He seems to really know his stuff, and I am not sure if I understand what he is saying in this particular part. Relating to the skandha "vedana" or "feeling"

He comments several times in the lecture series that "neutral" feeling as it relates to the touch sensation is "all the parts of the body that you are not presently aware of..."

When I heard that I was like wtf?? Doesn't him saying that open an impossible can of worms? Doesn't that also mean every sound in the universe that is not within earshot is "neutral" too, and that every conceivable thought that is not presently passing through my mind is "neutral"

Also doesn't that imply that only sensations you are not currently aware of can be neutral, and that *any* sensation currently in awareness is either positive or negitive, but not neutral?

I'm really not buying that interpraturtion of vedana. Maybe I am minunderstanding what he's saying. What do you all think of what he said?

@Mark, yes I thought he struck a slightly wrong note with that. In my understanding, you might not normally notice neutral feelings because you're caught up in the pleasant and unpleasant, but simply remembering that they exist means we notice them. For example, now I am keenly aware of my thoughts in writing this post, which are pleasant and interesting to me, and in the pain in my lower back which is unpleasant. But I need to direct attention towards the feeling of - say - my trousers touching my knees, which feel neutral and uninteresting.

"When I heard that I was like wtf?? Doesn't him saying that open an impossible can of worms? Doesn't that also mean every sound in the universe that is not within earshot is "neutral" too, and that every conceivable thought that is not presently passing through my mind is "neutral"

Also doesn't that imply that only sensations you are not currently aware of can be neutral, and that *any* sensation currently in awareness is either positive or negitive, but not neutral?"

The way I interpreted this, because vedana comes between contact (phasa) and craving (tanha), he's talking about sense experience. So that would rule out the sound of a rock falling on an uninhabited planet around Vega or whatever. We're really talking here about things that arise for a sentient being.

As for this particular understanding of adukkham-asukhā, I'm with you. It confuses me, too. When I look at my own experience, it seems like there are many things I'm cognizant of but which I feel neither pleasant nor unpleasant affect toward. In fact, I note these things all the time in my practice.

So maybe "neutral" means something other than what I think it means. Or maybe it means something other than what Peacock thinks it means. Or maybe I'm just wrong about my experience! The last possibility is the most intriguing.

I actually have a lot of questions for Peacock about these lectures, but I can't find an e-mail address for him anywhere. I'm tempted to contact Gaia House and see if I can get a contact for him.

Thanks for the responses. I guess the "neutral" aspect of feeling has always been a tricky one for me, and uncharacteristically for Peacock's teachings his take on it has made it more confusing rather than clearing it up.

The questions is this: when contact occurs can a neutral feeling be identified, or as Peacock seems to be saying, is it only that which goes unnoticed / unexamined which is neutral?

I had an interesting example of this the other day. A few hours after I came back from meditating out in the woods I looked down and noticed that I had a wood tick attached to me. As soon as I saw it a wave of physical pain suddenly eminated from the area, even though the tick had been there all along and I hadn't felt any pain whatsoever before I'd noticed it. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that it was neutral and became unpleasent once it was examined / noticed.

"I had an interesting example of this the other day. A few hours after I came back from meditating out in the woods I looked down and noticed that I had a wood tick attached to me. As soon as I saw it a wave of physical pain suddenly eminated from the area, even though the tick had been there all along and I hadn't felt any pain whatsoever before I'd noticed it. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that it was neutral and became unpleasent once it was examined / noticed."

Great example! Like when you notice you've been been bleeding for several minutes and then suddenly you feel the sting...

I managed to get in touch with him and was going to ask him the question about vedana and a few of my own. Are there any other questions people would like me to ask?

Well here's the $1 million pragmatic dharma syllogism...

1. He believes the Buddha's teachings should be understood as applicable to this current life.
2. He doesn't see much of a future for monasticism in the west.
3, Therefore, he should accept that lay Westerners should be able to become arhats, with appropriate attitude and effort.

Okay, so the syllogism is missing a few steps, but you get what I mean. Also, I'd like to know if despite his gradualist view of awakening he recognises certain turning points (perhaps path moments) in a yogi's career?

Andy, I understand the second question re: turning points, but what exactly is the first question?