John Peacock's Replies to our Questions

John Peacock was kind enough to take time to reply to our questions. Here are the questions and his answers:

Q: Why did it take so long for the Pali canon to be written down? The first texts of Christianity were produced very soon after Jesus' death, and all four canonical gospels were written by the end of the 1st century CE. In his book The Birth of Christianity, Dominick Crossan infers from this that early Christians had allies or members in the scribe class in ancient Palestine. Clearly such allies of Buddhism existed in the Asoka regime. So why don't we have written Buddhist texts until 300 years after the Buddha's death?

You have to remember that India was primarily an oral culture and there was a deep suspicion of writing. The earliest writing that we have is the Asokan edicts, which were either carved onto pillars or rock and have therefore survived because they were written on durable material. It is possible that there was writing before this, approximately 100 years after the Buddha's death, but, if so it was written on less durable material, such as palm leaves, and therefore have not survived. Those who were given the task of memorising the texts were professionals (they were called Bhanikas) and this was there sole task. Within Indian religion in general there a tremendous continuity to the oral tradition. The textual tradition starts to be corrupted when we get the texts written down because scribal errors start to occur and be incorporated into the texts. When the texts get written down towards the end of the 1st century BCE this purely pragmatic as the Sri Lankans are at war with the Tamils and there is a fear that if the monks are killed then the texts would be lost.

Q: Someone had a question about your interpretation of vedana. You say that adukkham-asukhā refers to things in our experience (particularly the body) that we "are not presently aware of". This seems to imply that those things we are aware of are always either pleasant or unpleasant. Is this a correct interpretation of what you're saying? This differs somewhat from the evidence of our practice, where we are accustomed to calling "neutral" that which we're aware of but which produces neither pleasant nor unpleasant feelings. (For instance, I might note "seeing pleasant" for a beautiful sight, "seeing unpleasant" for an ugly sight, and "seeing neutral" for something I see but don't care about.)

A: This is certainly the case with regard to bodily feeling - pleasant, unpleasant and the absence of either pleasant or unpleasant. The example that you give of 'seeing' is not physical but mental - seeing, or hearing something disagreeable, or agreeable are not 'bodily' feelings. In the Digha Nikaya (DN II 306) it states that bodily pain is produced through bodily contact; grief is an example of mental pain produced through mental contact (manosamphassajam) and therefore not bodily at all. It would be worth while to get clearer on this issue for you to look at the Vedana Samyutta in the Samyutta Nikaya.

Q: Someone had a question about gradualism in awakening and turning points. "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?" Another way to ask the question: Are there any particular maps of awakening you think describe the process particularly well? Do you have any opinion of the Theravada 4-path model (which many people on KFD are fond of)?

A: The path of the Buddha is certainly gradualist and I think the fourfold schema used in Theravada is a very useful map of the gradual path. Also Buddhaghosa's schema which is outlined in the Visuddhimagga is helpful as long you don't adhere to it too rigidly. Significant path moments are, for me, becoming increasingly aware of an ability to unbind from habitual conditioned behaviour. Each time that we manage to do this we are freed from compulsive behaviour.

Q: Is there a practical role to be played by sankharas in vipassana meditation? There's a stage in Mahasi Sayadaw's Progress of Insight called sankhar'upekkha-ñana, Knowledge of Equanimity about Formations. This stage is a big deal for meditators following the Mahasi path, since it marks the end of the so-called dukkha nanas and lays the foundation for fruition. Yet it's not at all clear what the connection is between the phenomenology of this stage and the description of sankharas as narrative structures or blueprints for experience. It's a somewhat technical question, but since you spent some time in the Burmese tradition, I wondered if you knew anything about this.

A: I wasn't involved in the Burmese tradition but in Sri Lankan Theravada. The sankharas are really the substance matter of vipassana meditation - and vipassana could be described as getting to know your sankharas so that we can more easily unbind from them. By close observation we can begin to observe how many of the sankharas are narrative structures that have 'already' interpreted experience i.e., they are past experience brought into the present moment of experience and become the interpretive grid through which we view experience. This is technically called sanna-sankhara.

"By close observation we can begin to observe how many of the sankharas are narrative structures that have 'already' interpreted experience i.e., they are past experience brought into the present moment of experience and become the interpretive grid through which we view experience."

This is an excellent way to think about the process.

I also like his description of path moments and their effects.

"Q: Is there a practical role to be played by sankharas in vipassana meditation? There's a stage in Mahasi Sayadaw's Progress of Insight called sankhar'upekkha-ñana, Knowledge of Equanimity about Formations. This stage is a big deal for meditators following the Mahasi path, since it marks the end of the so-called dukkha nanas and lays the foundation for fruition. Yet it's not at all clear what the connection is between the phenomenology of this stage and the description of sankharas as narrative structures or blueprints for experience. It's a somewhat technical question, but since you spent some time in the Burmese tradition, I wondered if you knew anything about this.

A: I wasn't involved in the Burmese tradition but in Sri Lankan Theravada. The sankharas are really the substance matter of vipassana meditation - and vipassana could be described as getting to know your sankharas so that we can more easily unbind from them. By close observation we can begin to observe how many of the sankharas are narrative structures that have 'already' interpreted experience i.e., they are past experience brought into the present moment of experience and become the interpretive grid through which we view experience. This is technically called sanna-sankhara."

I like this answer too and the compulsive answer as well. They have rung very true for my own practice.

Thanks apperception. Great to have his replies and to hear him talk about path moments with complete openness. I can't believe it's taken me this long to find out about him, considering I was looking for pragmatically-minded dharma teachers in the UK long before I started working with Kenneth and Beth. Will definitely try to go on retreat with him soon.

Thanks very much for this.