John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
Post Reply
befriend
Posts: 2284
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:39 am

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by befriend »

the rhinocerous sutta says to go alone if one does not find an equal or better practitioner to travel with.
Take care of mindfulness and mindfulness will take care of you.
User avatar
Way~Farer
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:38 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by Way~Farer »

I started reading Peacock's interview, didn't much care for it, really. He says that the Buddha was trying to break away from the religion of his day - I'm sure that is true - but he says he was an atheist - and I don't think that is true at all. Certainly he didn't 'believe in God', and he certainly didn't worship any of the Vedic deities. After all, in the context, if you did affirm 'belief in God' the question would follow: which one?

But the word 'atheist' carries a lot of meanings which I am sure are wrong to attribute to the Buddha. Even if we don't really know 'the original and authentic word' the tradition was well aware of, and quite opposed to, 'materialists' (carvakas) who believed that the body only consisted of material elements, very early in the piece. These were all classed with nihilists. On the other hand, I'm sure that he didn't advocate 'belief in an eternal God' - or belief at all, in the sense that modern Christians understand it. He wasn't about believing, but about seeing and knowing. But what he saw and knew cannot, I am quite sure, be understood in purely 'naturalistic' terms. The kind of knowledge he communicates is jnana, which is clearly related, in more than simply etymological terms, to 'gnosis'. And in that, he was in almost complete accord with the Upanisads. He agreed with the idea of 'mukti', or liberation from samsara. Where he parted company was with their ritualism, dogmatic belief, the association with the class system, and so on.

From what little I read of Peacock he is something like Bachelor. A pragmatic, sensible man who wishes to portray 'the real Buddha' in terms acceptable to humanism. Again we see that there are many different 'readings' possible, depending on how key terms are interpreted. I think a lot of people are looking for ways not to have to believe that the Buddha taught something truly 'world-transcending', lokuttara, and basically humanist and naturalist. There may not be too much wrong with that, but it is only one amongst other interpretations.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by daverupa »

:goodpost:
sunyavadin wrote:I think a lot of people are looking for ways not to have to believe that the Buddha taught something truly 'world-transcending', lokuttara, and basically humanist and naturalist. There may not be too much wrong with that, but it is only one amongst other interpretations.
This really seems to be the notable the way the West in general handles Buddhism. It's gone through some aggressively arrogant phases, with the current narrative version being the supremacy of philology & history, et al over national tradition and lived heritage.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
C J
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:37 pm
Location: Sri Lanka

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by C J »

Hi,

Is there any Arahat today? I haven't came across anyone.

If there are not, then can it be because we have messed up real Buddhist teachings somewhere, somehow?

Can it be that because people are practicing on inaccurate teachings they are not attaining Arahat(-ship)?

I had posted following question on the Lounge section before coming here; Hope someone can help me with it.
Does anyone know a forum/website where I can ask few questions from John Peacock. I searched the web but could not find any such place. So I thought about asking this community where I learned about him.

As he is neutral about reincarnation, I want to know his opinion on Dr. Ian Stevenson's research and about Edgar Cayce life readings.

If any of you have any opinion about above I like to see them all.

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 58#p217958" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks
Digity
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:13 am

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by Digity »

I don't mind what John brings to the table...whether I agree or not. I think it's good that people like him make us at least question our assumptions about Buddhism.

I found more talks fom him here:
http://dharmaseed.org/teacher/91/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've listened to one talk so far, but he seems to have a good understanding of the Dhamma.
User avatar
IanAnd
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:19 am
Location: the deserts of Arizona

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by IanAnd »

Ñāṇa wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote: I haven't (yet) heard or read Peacock but (FWIW) this is close to my own view of the Buddha.
And it presents a plausible (though probably unprovable) reason for the "lack of systematic doctrinal formulation" (to borrow Nana's phrase) in the earliest teachings. That is, any teacher worth listening to will gradually clarify and refine his/her teaching approach in light of further realisations and (just as importantly) difficulties his/her students have with the material and the most effective ways of making it clearer and more approachable.
Any teacher wants their students to grasp their teachings as quickly and accurately as possible. In time, s/he learns what gives the students trouble and improves the explanation. We know the Buddha was teaching constantly for forty years. That is a lot of time to develop and refine his presentation, and I can't imagine that he was unwilling or unable to improve on his first, reluctant, foray into teaching the dhamma.

Nevertheless, there are many other good reasons to cherish the Suttanipāta.
suttametta wrote:We sometimes, perhaps because we are projecting, but perhaps because we are seeing clearly, see a Buddha who was 2500 years ahead of his time, almost a man of today's way of thinking, a skeptic, a realist, a pragmatist and an egalitarian social reformist.

It seems to me that what really happened was that the traditions that arose in the name of the Buddha actually broke the tradition the Buddha was trying to create and we modern newcomers to Buddhism are trying to figure out what tradition that might have been. In a sense, the modern Buddhist is trying to get at the more ancient and more traditional buddhism [or more correctly, Dhamma], and what we are finding is a Buddha who looks a lot more like a modern scientist.
Dmytro wrote:On the other hand, the aspects mentioned - "noble truths, dependent origination, three characteristics" are the pillars of rationalistic and doctrinal Western Buddhism, and the expression "Noble Truth" a Western invention. These aspects were selected to represent a "doctrine" of the Buddha's Teaching, while there's really no doctrine. Instead, there's a roadmap for practice. So searching for the doctrines in the Canon would at best produce apparitions of them.
I'm a late arrival to this thread, but from the opinions presented thus far that I have read, I'm on the same page with Kim, Ñāṇa, suttametta, and Dmytro. :thumbsup:
"The gift of truth exceeds all other gifts" — Dhammapada, v. 354 Craving XXIV
User avatar
IanAnd
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:19 am
Location: the deserts of Arizona

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by IanAnd »

Ñāṇa wrote: This is why a useful distinction can be made between Original Buddhism and Early Buddhism. Original Buddhism refers to the actual oral teachings of the historical Gotama and his immediate disciples. Early Buddhism refers to the early formative pre-sectarian period of Indian Buddhism and the extant textual documents which claim to be records of the Buddha's teachings as remembered by his immediate disciples after his death.

I'm not sure, I could be wrong here, however, was the term "Buddhism" ever mentioned in the suttas in reference to the Dhamma that Gotama taught? Did he ever refer to it as "Buddhism?" I don't recall ever having seen such a reference.

If not, then to refer to it as "original Buddhism" would be a misnomer, if not misleading to those of us who are purists. Better might be "the original Dhamma" as opposed to labeling the Dhamma as "Buddhism." I say this to indicate a separation between what Gotama is said to have taught (meaning the [or his] Dhamma) and what those who followed him after his demise turned what he taught into, namely the so-called religion of "Buddhism." (BTW, this comment isn't mentioned in order to be knit picky here about the usage of this term, within the context that Ñāṇa meant it. Just saying. . . that's all.)

Religions are political tools, devised by fallible men in order to control the hearts and minds of other men (and women).

I'm okay with the term "early Buddhism" because that is exactly what it was (after the original sangha died out and others got hold of the teachings and began proliferating them). Apparently, they needed a label to identify themselves as distinct from, for example, the Brahmanical tradition or the Jains or what eventually became known as Hinduism. It helped ease the socialization of the Dhamma in succeeding generations. I can imagine someone saying, "What do we call ourselves, Dhammaists?" And someone else answering, "No. We follow the teacher we recognize as the Buddha. We're Buddhists."
Ñāṇa wrote: What is clearly evident, however, is that the vast majority of discourses which survive share common doctrines and practices which are original and unique in the history of ancient Indian thought, and are therefore likely rooted in the ideas and practices developed and taught by one remarkable historical person, namely the samaṇa Gotama.
"Ideas and practices" which, of course, according to "Buddhology," we are told, pre-dated Gotama by several generations of previous "Buddhas." That's not to take anything away from what the "remarkable historical person" Gotama realized and spent a lifetime teaching, for which many of us here are reverentially grateful.
"The gift of truth exceeds all other gifts" — Dhammapada, v. 354 Craving XXIV
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by Nyana »

IanAnd wrote:If not, then to refer to it as "original Buddhism" would be a misnomer, if not misleading to those of us who are purists. Better might be "the original Dhamma" as opposed to labeling the Dhamma as "Buddhism."
Point taken. "Original Buddhism" is merely a modern designation referring to the dhammavinaya taught and practiced by the Buddha and his followers during his lifetime.
IanAnd wrote:Religions are political tools, devised by fallible men in order to control the hearts and minds of other men (and women).
Depends on how you want to define "religion." It's a rather slippery term.
User avatar
IanAnd
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:19 am
Location: the deserts of Arizona

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by IanAnd »

Ñāṇa wrote:
IanAnd wrote:If not, then to refer to it as "original Buddhism" would be a misnomer, if not misleading to those of us who are purists. Better might be "the original Dhamma" as opposed to labeling the Dhamma as "Buddhism."
Point taken. "Original Buddhism" is merely a modern designation referring to the dhammavinaya taught and practiced by the Buddha and his followers during his lifetime.
Yes, I know that's what you meant. That is why I put in the disclaimer: "BTW, this comment isn't mentioned in order to be knit picky here about the usage of this term, within the context that Ñāṇa meant it."

I wasn't endeavoring to make a point with you (because I know you understand it), but rather with other readers of the thread, in order to inspire further thought and discernment. Of course, that further thought and discernment would depend upon how well read and how well understood (in regard to the discourses) said readers are.

The point being that, from my reading and understanding of the discourses, Gotama never meant to found a "religion" in the popular sense that that term is interpreted by people of less than discerning ability. That point seems to be made clear in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya when Gotama disdains anyone taking over leadership of the Sangha after his departure. "Therefore, Ananda, you should live as islands unto yourselves, being your own refuge, with no one else as your refuge, with the Dhamma as an island, with the Dhamma as your refuge, with no other refuge." It seems quite clear that he did not want what he started to be turned into a ritual of personality worship. I take Gotama at his exact word in this passage. Of course, that is just my personal opinion and view based on the integrity of the man that is portrayed in the discourses.
Ñāṇa wrote:
IanAnd wrote:Religions are political tools, devised by fallible men in order to control the hearts and minds of other men (and women).
Depends on how you want to define "religion." It's a rather slippery term.
Well, there is religion (as the ordinary untaught worldling might understand and interpret it) and then there is religion (as the more discerning sincere seeker of a process that is meant, as the Latin term religare intends to mean, to "bind back together," might understand and interpret it). To "bind back together" in the sense of binding disparate parts of a whole back together into one united whole, which is what a true religion (such as the Dhamma, or original Christianity, if you can find and discern it) attempts to undertake.

The ordinary untaught worldling, I'm thinking, might hold the popular view, based on cultural conditioning, that like the Old French definition of "religion" (based as it was on the word "religio") meant "reverence for the gods, holiness." My dictionary defines it (in the first and second entries) as: "1 a) belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe b) expression of such a belief in conduct and ritual. 2 a) any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy (the Christian religion, the Buddhist religion etc.) b) any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values , etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system (humanism as a religion)."

It is a small step, indeed, from belief in the divinity of some "superhuman power or powers" to this same kind of respect and reverence for some undeserving, fallible human being (say in the form of a king or queen or some other type of worldly governor of a nation) who makes claims to be one's ruler, president, or prime minister. As Yeshua is said to have said (and which Gotama might also agree) "The Kingdom of heaven (nibbana) lies within you." Which has the meaning or implication of taking responsibility for self-governance over one's emotions and actions.

All through history, one can see how the former definition of "religion" has been used by despotic personalities to wreak tyranny on mankind, all in the pursuit of power and greed, using delusion (in the form of corrupting forms of "religion") as their tool.
"The gift of truth exceeds all other gifts" — Dhammapada, v. 354 Craving XXIV
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by Alex123 »

Ñāṇa wrote:Depends on how you want to define "religion." It's a rather slippery term.

I take it to mean an unjustifiable set of beliefs or faith. It includes ritualistic practices, and its own clergy.

It is an excellent tool to control the masses and set one nation against another nation.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Alex123 wrote:I take it to mean an unjustifiable set of beliefs or faith.
That's a pretty unfair description that I don't think anyone would sign up to.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by Alex123 »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
Alex123 wrote:I take it to mean an unjustifiable set of beliefs or faith.
That's a pretty unfair description that I don't think anyone would sign up to.

Metta,
Retro. :)
What do you mean unfair? Religion is a set of beliefs on faith. It is not philosophy (where reason is used rather than blind faith) or when you yourself seek the truth.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Alex,

It was the "unjustifiable" bit that I found problematic. Are Buddhist beliefs "unjustifiable", for example?

It seems you're taking an unnecessarily narrow and patronizing view of "religion".

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
appicchato
Posts: 1602
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:47 am
Location: Bridge on the River Kwae

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by appicchato »

..."The Kingdom of heaven (nibbana)..."...(and which Gotama might also agree)...
To conflate 'The Kingdom of heaven' and Nibbana, and to suggest that the Buddha 'might' also agree is, well, very far removed from this wanderer's understanding of his (the Buddha's) teaching...
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by tiltbillings »

appicchato wrote:
..."The Kingdom of heaven (nibbana)..."...(and which Gotama might also agree)...
To conflate 'The Kingdom of heaven' and Nibbana, and to suggest that the Buddha 'might' also agree is, well, very far removed from this wanderer's understanding of his (the Buddha's) teaching...
But it feels good.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Post Reply