Buddhism before the Theravada: Notes

Basically whether he is prepared to talk about lay Westerners getting it done, and becoming arhats. Because from his positions it seems that logically it should be possible.

That would be a very interesting question to ask! I like it!

"Basically whether he is prepared to talk about lay Westerners getting it done, and becoming arhats. Because from his positions it seems that logically it should be possible."

He says very openly this is possible, and in one's lifetime. In fact, that's a major foundation to what he's saying throughout the talks. (I just finished listening to them all). For me listening to this was like reading MCTB but using a different set of words. His opinion is that the Pali Canon is about right now, this moment, and what happens right now, It's not about more than one lifetime. That's also the gist of his discussion and opinions on dependent origination, which I thought was very much like what I experience. And, also as I experience it, he says dependent origination is the literal crux and foundation of the Buddha's teaching. And it is as we all know because as folks here practice diligently, paying attention to their flow of experience right now and start to really grok it, they wake up, just like people have been doing for centuries.

I like that he is of the opinion that while interesting, the jhanas are not required for awakening, as awakening is about processing experience right now.

I like the fact that he says some of what's in the Pali Canon was "injected" later and is essentially a "sneaking back into the Canon" of then-current Hindu thinking (the multiple lives version of reincarnation, and so on).

I liked this set of talks a lot but I don't view them as materially different in any way from what we have always discussed here. He presents the Buddha in light of the times in which he lived and as a semi-romantic counter-culture hero

If we asked him the question I quoted above he would probably laugh and say "Did you listen to my talks at IMC in Redwood City? It's all in there."

I found it very much in line with pragmatic dharma. The main difference with MCTB is that he espouses what Ingram calls the "Emotion Model" of awakening which Ingram rejects.

I worry that the atheistic, completely demystified version of Buddha that makes him sound like a secular liberal democrat is wishful thinking. The problem is that, unlike the Gospels, we have almost no solid basis for textual analysis that would allow us to tell what's a redaction or not. That being said, Peacock's strategy of looking at what gets mentioned many times vs what gets said only once or twice is probably a good one, maybe the best we've got.

Peacock would say, I think, that he's not just looking at the frequency of the occurrence of things like the mention reincarnation over many lives, but the way they fit into the core of the teachings, or not. I personally believe that's a much more valid analysis, especially when coupled with the frequency analysis.

"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."

This is what I believe Peacock is saying. Stated otherwise, everything you experience is pleasant, unpleasant or neutral, and neutral is that which you experience that does not rise into conscious awareness, which things must do in order to be assigned a pleasant or unpleasant tone. If an experience remains below conscious awareness it can be nothing but neutral. There may be neutral experiences that rise into conscious awareness but I can't even think of one. In my experience everything I aware of gets a pleasant/unpleasant tone assignment, even if it's a miniscule one.

This also squares with my personal view of how attention works, because we have almost no control over it. Those experiences that draw our attention tend to be those things that stand out most from the background of unnoticed phenomena. Those experiences that end up rising into conscious awareness are those that have fairly marked feeling tones, which is why they arise into conscious awareness in the first place

That is probably what he would say. What I'm saying, though, is that there's no way to decide what the "core of the teachings" is - not in the way we can narrow down, for instance, what the historical Jesus was most likely teaching about. If you decide beforehand that the core is pragmatic and atheistic, that's going to color what you subsequently decide belongs and what is a redaction.

If dependent origination is not the core teaching then there is no such thing. It seems that way from both experience and reading the Pali Canon. Not sure how it could be argued otherwise but I'm open to listening....

I'm neither a Pali canon scholar nor a Buddhism scholar, so you'll see no argument of any sophistication from me. However, all you have to do is look at the 2,500 years of the Buddhist tradition to see that there have been plenty of disagreements (sometimes subtle or not) as to what constitutes the core teaching. I'm not questioning the superiority of making the doctrine of DO central and of dispensing with the doctrine of rebirth from a practical point of view. I just don't see on what grounds one can attribute that with any degree of assurance to the historical Buddha - other than Peacock's strategy of looking at what's repeatedly said. And that strategy - as compared with, say, Dominick Crossan's work on early Christianity - is relatively thin.

All I can say is that all of Buddhism falls apart if dependent origination isn't the core teaching. Without that, the rest becomes dogma and would deserve to be just like religions that, well, that rely on dogma. One doesn't need to be a scholar to see this. One needs only to practice and experience it. That's the larger point, I think.

Chris, I don't mean any disrespect when I say this, but what does it matter if you think Buddhism falls apart if dependent origination (or anything else) is taken out of it? People have been having disagreements about the essence of Buddhism for 2,500 years, and it hasn't managed to fall apart in all that time. Just because John Peacock or Stephen Batchelor comes along in the 21st century and says "this is what Buddhism is really about" has no effect on that. That's just two interpretations amongst many.

Don't get me wrong. You and I both probably agree on the relative worth of these doctrines from a practical point of view. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about what the historical Buddha actually taught. From what I can tell, DO was almost certainly part of that original teaching. It is necessary. But is it sufficient? Did the Buddha also consider the doctrine of rebirth essential? I think Peacock raises a good point about that (re: how often it's mentioned), but I don't think the evidence is solid enough that I'd hang my hat on that claim.

Let's agree to disagree as we're pretty clearly talking past each other. I had no idea we were supposed to confine ourselves here to discussing just the historical Buddha. That seems like an arbitrary bound on the conversation when Buddhism and dependent origination are the topics. When I listened to the Peacock podcasts he was not doing that and I feel un-inclined to do that, too. The nice thing about this practice is that it lives, now. Right now. It is experienced right now just as it was 2,500 years ago. To speak of it as a dead, locked up thing makes no sense at all to me, so to argue about it from that perspective makes no sense. That's what I get from listening to Peacock, frankly. Yes, he talks about the historical Buddha in some sense but it is done all the while he is focused much more on the relevance of this interpretation of the Pali Canon to a living, breathing, modern practice.

I've been trying to convey what I see as the irrelevance of thinking of, analyzing, agonizing over the historical arguments about "what is Buddhism?" It does not matter to me. What matters is how I experience the practice, and that appears to me to agree with what Peacock is saying.

JMHO, YMMV

"
Let's agree to disagree as we're pretty clearly talking past each other. I had no idea we were supposed to confine ourselves here to discussing just the historical Buddha. That seems like an arbitrary bound on the conversation when Buddhism and dependent origination are the topics. When I listened to the Peacock podcasts he was not doing that and I feel un-inclined to do that, too. The nice thing about this practice is that it lives, now. Right now. It is experienced right now just as it was 2,500 years ago. To speak of it as a dead, locked up thing makes no sense at all to me, so to argue about it from that perspective makes no sense. That's what I get from listening to Peacock, frankly. Yes, he talks about the historical Buddha in some sense but it is done all the while he is focused much more on the relevance of this interpretation of the Pali Canon to a living, breathing, modern practice.

I've been trying to convey what I see as the irrelevance of thinking of, analyzing, agonizing over the historical arguments about "what is Buddhism?" It does not matter to me. What matters is how I experience the practice, and that appears to me to agree with what Peacock is saying.

JMHO, YMMV


"

It seems to me that all Buddhist teachers should open their talks with something that captures the spirit of what you have just written Chris...

"I've been trying to convey what I see as the irrelevance of thinking of, analyzing, agonizing over the historical arguments about "what is Buddhism?" It does not matter to me. What matters is how I experience the practice, and that appears to me to agree with what Peacock is saying.

JMHO, YMMV


"

If it's irrelevant to you, then why did you just listen to an 8 hour lecture on that subject and follow it up with 3 back-and-forths with Joe Internet Guy [me]? You're either incredibly generous with your time, or you're a masochist.

Why did I listen and post here? Isn't that obvious, apperception? I think It's obvious from listening to Peacock and from reading what I wrote about what he says - once again this is not about history, scholarship or deciding who to believe among thousands of "experts." It's alive. Now. You and I and everyone who is alive and curious can figure this out. And it was made manifest 2,500+ years ago. That's amazing, right?

I'm also incredibly generous with my time when it comes to meditation practice.

For those interested in a counterpoint to Peacock's claims about the Buddha's views on rebirth, check out the free ebook on rebirth by Thanissaro Bikkhu (about 2/3s down): www.dhammatalks.org/ebook_index.html

His argument is text-based and historical, like Peacock's. He argues that rebirth was a central teaching - persuasively I think - without arguing the fact of rebirth per se. That's a whole other debate.

"For those interested in a counterpoint to Peacock's claims about the Buddha's views on rebirth, check out the free ebook on rebirth by Thanissaro Bikkhu (about 2/3s down): www.dhammatalks.org/ebook_index.html

"

I think a beneficial way of looking at this is to take on the view and then actually see in realtime how 'rebirth' is occurring from moment to moment in the mind/body organism.

If you aren't taken by the 'belief' that rebirth occurs in some distant future when the body dies, then this view point should inform your practice as then dependent origination will make more sense and one can gain insight into it from moment to moment.

If one is pulled to 'believe' that rebirth will actually occur when the body dies, then one should still gain insight into how rebirth is actually happening from moment to moment as one will then gain insight into the theory behind the lighting of the next candle for the next rebirth as it would be the same process as what is occurring from moment to moment right now.

Whatever 'belief' you gain motivation from (as they are still just beliefs as there is no way to truly know, even when one might have mental projections of some 'past life', how does one know they actually are truly 'past lives and not simple mental projections'), either believing in rebirth in the future or not, your practice should still be aimed at gaining insight into how rebirth is actually occurring right now from moment to moment. I think, from my own experience, it is this knowledge and insight which liberates, not believing in some future rebirth in some deva realm (I kid you not, a residual belief I had born of being a hardcore Goenka yogi)

Just my 2 cents

"I think a beneficial way of looking at this is to take on the view and then actually see in realtime how 'rebirth' is occurring from moment to moment in the mind/body organism. "

I'm sure that's true, and I don't really have a horse in the race. But there are several vocal teachers around telling us loudly that the Buddha didn't really believe in - or teach - rebirth. Since "Buddhism before the Theravada" is a historical discussion, I thought it might be interesting to have another interpretation. The fact that so many find Peacock's talk relevant to practice suggests such analyses can be useful, I think. The Bikkhu's take is that the question is relevant to practice, or that it was for the Buddha. Having the discussion isn't preventing me from practicing.

"I'm sure that's true, and I don't really have a horse in the race. But there are several vocal teachers around telling us loudly that the Buddha didn't really believe in - or teach - rebirth. Since "Buddhism before the Theravada" is a historical discussion, I thought it might be interesting to have another interpretation. The fact that so many find Peacock's talk relevant to practice suggests such analyses can be useful, I think. The Bikkhu's take is that the question is relevant to practice, or that it was for the Buddha. Having the discussion isn't preventing me from practicing. "

Each person (Bhikkhu and 'vocal' teacher alike as well as internet dharma fiends like myself) will have their own nama rupa (manner of interpreting and reacting to the world within and around) to contend with; their own means of motivating their practice, fabricating their path; some relying on 'historical analyzed' angles, some relying on culturally engrained religiosity and belief in future births, some relying on the purely moment to moment experience, some relying on none of it at all getting motivation to practice from elsewhere.

It is relevant to the Bhikkhu because of the context in which his practice is motivated. Having been like that myself and now not so much, I can see that it is still possible to continue doing the same very [practice (and even more determined than before as there is no 'belief' that I can catch up in the next future birth or hang around for metteya to be born) and progress beyond what I thought possible. The actually moment to moment awareness of DO in action is relevant for me.

Each with his own nama and rupa to contend with, shape and direct in the desired direction.

Cool discussion.

Nick

Though on second thought, having the belief in future rebirths fueling one's practice could lead one into investigating aspects of experience that others without such a belief may not. Such as why are there texts ( such as the metta sutta, check access to insight) that speak of the taking rebirth in the brahma realms due to developing the brahma viharas.

Although the brahma viharas can be seen as important qualities to cultivate on one's path, if the 'objective' is to end 'becoming' (bhava), to end the cycle of birth and death, to end the cycle of rebirth, then perhaps looking into why one is theoretically reborn into these 'realms' due to cultivating uppekha, karuna, mudita and metta may trigger more curiosity and discernment than if not informed by such 'belief'. Perhaps it also can lead one to actually considering that these qualities when cultivated are actually fabrications, that even equanimity can be fabricated. This can have quite an influence on the way one views their practice and thus ultimately how they practice.

But I guess even not having a strong belief in 'future rebirth', one could still get curious into how these fabricated brahma viharas lead to rebirth in the very moment, from moment to moment. So perhaps considering why 'future rebirths' is talked of in the pali texts, regardless of whether you believe or not, can lead to looking at things in one's ongoing experience that were maybe not looked at previously.

Depends on objective of practice as well and what one thinks possible and desirable no doubt.

Edited x a few times

Thanks! I listened to the talk today and scratched down a few notes and then found this when I got home from work. Very helpful. A great way to look back at what I just took in, so that I can look further.