Customer Reviews

Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Masefield's book has many flaws. The most fundamental is that it treats the Pali Suttas as a complete, and entirely accurate account, of the teachings of the Buddha. This is a mistake as the suttas show clear evidence of editorial bias, additions, and possible subtractions. Clearly no text which was recorded only after several hundred years of oral tradition can be said to represent the definitive word of the anybody.

But even if we ignore this flaw and take the Pali Canon on face value, the sheer number of examples which directly contradict Masefield's quoted ones is staggering. (I can supply refs to anyone interested)

The argument that no one gained enlightenment without the direct intervention of the Buddha is clearly wrong - as the very well known cases of Sariputta, Moggallana and Ananda demonstrate. Masefield's basic problem is that he ignores anything which doesn't fit his thesis - and counter examples are by no means hard to find. The book is one-sided in the extreme.

One of the more ironic things Masefiled does to trip himself up is to cite Milarepa as someone who gained enlightenment after accumulating a lot of bad karma - but according to Masefiled Milarepa could not have been enlightened. Although that hardly compares with his redefinition of the word sotapanna to mean "one who has entered the ear" - I'm still laughing about that one.

Masefield characterises Arahants as passive recipients of a goal they could not pass on, but in only an hour or two of hunting around I found records of *hundreds* of examples of Arahants successfully teaching other people how to become Arahants. Masefield is just plain wrong.

Don't be fooled by the volume of quotes, nor by the attitude of absolute certainty of the author. The book is neither comprehensive with regard to the Pali scriptures, nor an accurate representation of the Dhamma.

In this book, Peter Masefield basically claims to be the first person in the past two millenia to understand correctly the Buddha's teaching; and sets out his arguments to that effect. I found that Masefield, though he presents his arguments intelligently (although rather pedantically), fell well short of establishing them by a preponderance of the evidence. He does make the occasional valid argument (such as that monks can be worldlings and that laypeople can be savakas, which would not be disputed by anyone familiar with Buddhism anyway), but in many cases I had no trouble refuting his arguments from the Nikayas themselves, upon a rather myopic reading of which Masefield bases his claims. No one who is familiar with the scriptures and history of Theravada Buddhism should find much trouble seeing through Masefield's radical reinterpretations of the Nikayas. The book's most patent flaw, however, is the title. The book simply does not deal with "divine revelation" in any meaningful sense, leading one to believe the title was chosen simply to attract attention to the book.

This groundbreaking work, in part, earned the author a PhD, which is terrifically more than than this review could do for anyone. But, I hope it serves to encourage brave and interested Buddhist readers to read it. Why brave? Because Masefield's analysis, as the title would suggest (though, despite one reviewer's assumption, it was not chosen by the author, who seems to somewhat regret its use), presents a different picture painted by the the Nikayas than we are used to getting from modern Theravadin outlets. If one can bring oneself to follow and agree with Masefield's main argument, then quite possibly their view of Buddhism will be turned upside down (rightside up?).

In this work, Masefield does not treat the Nikayas as the unmitigated Word of the Buddha but "a literary unit"(p.xvii) which presents "a doctrine, which, whilst clearly in transition, nonetheless remains sufficiently unified to distinguish it from ideas"(p.xvii) expressed in such as the Abhidhamma and Visuddhimagga. He qualifies this further: "I do not mean by this that there is no doubt as to the historicity of the Pali Nikayas nor do I wish to imply that these texts provide either the earliest, or the most authentic, account of the historical Buddha; and when I claim that such were the case 'in the Buddha's lifetime' I mean no more than in that mythological lifetime handed down to us in the Pali Nikayas."(p.xvii).

He also admits, in the conventional manner, that the work may have shortcomings, and contradictions which, at times reflect the contradictions which occur in the Nikayan account itself.

For my view, chief among the contradictions and the book's most vulnerable weakness is the contradictory view on the Buddha's attitude toward vanna (varna: color, social function), purity of genetic lineage, and caste. He seems to vacillate between the view that the Buddha largely endorsed notions of racial--or at least vanna-based-- purity in lineage and the view that distinctions of purity were entirely spiritual, based on conduct and wisdom, and had no connection with race, vanna, or genetic lineage. The main text used to support the purity of lineage view is the Ambattha Sutta of the Dighanikaya in which the Buddha censures a brahmin on the account that his lineage is impure (based on the offspring of an indigenous slave girl) while the man claims exclusive purity for brahmins. The Buddha goes on to praise the khattiyas, for they would rather resort to incest than risk impurity of lineage. The Sutta need not be interpreted this way, and Masefields's section "The True Brahmin" suffers from his conclusion (most of the section I can agree with and is excellently discussed). Alternative to his conclusion, one might say that the Buddha is merely exposing a hypocrisy in the brahmin, turning the man's view against him. It is also barely necessary to mention that that the conclusion of the sutta itself contradicts the apparent endorsement of the purity of lineage view: "'In the supreme perfection in wisdom and righteousness, AmbaÂÂha, there is no reference to the question either of birth, or of lineage, or of the pride which says: "You are held as worthy as I," or "You are not. held as worthy as I." It is where the talk is of marrying, or of giving in marriage, that reference is made to such things as that. For whosoever, AmbaÂÂha, are in bondage to the notions of birth or of lineage, or to the pride of social position, or of connection by marriage, they are far from the best wisdom and righteousness. It is only by having got rid of all such bondage that one can realise for himself [100] that supreme perfection in wisdom and in conduct.'" Masefield is given to quote only the first half (the 'praise' of Kshatriya) of the verse: ""The Kshatriya is the best of those among this folk who put their trust in lineage. But he who is perfect in wisdom and righteousness, he is the best among gods and men."

Another contradiction, though slightly smoothed over, is admitted directly: That the main premise of sotapanna* and nibbana being only given by the Buddha (and not his arhat) is contradicted here and there by cases which state or suggest it was given by certain of the arhats. Probably the strongest statements he makes on this issue are that it is "unclear"(p.139) and "if in fact they did do this they were very much the exception and that in general this was not the case."(p.142)

Also admitted is the shifting meanings of the different types of savakas.

Despite these contradictions, Masefield has offered a serious and heavily supported look at the beliefs of the early Buddhists (in using this term I, like Masefield, stress that we do no presume the Nikayas to be the unaltered Word of the Buddha). Highly recommended as an invitation to study the Nikayas in a deeper way which goes beyond browsing through the usual much-quoted material.

*it is important to note that Masefied does _not_ render the term "sotapanna" as "one who has entered the ear" (to say so would be an ill-intended misquotation) but rather "one who has come into contact with (or undergone) the hearing"(p.134) of the "sound of the Deathless" further qualified by such commentarial glosses on "ariyasavaka" as "one who has...attained the Dhamma-ear" (p. 135). These renderings follow from a lengthy argument regarding the symbollism of the stream as craving for sense-objects, and the suggestion that Parato Ghosa does not merely mean listening to another's discourse but a transcendental sound of Dhamma. Masefield's glossary is less fanciful: "Identified with the ekabihin, kolankola and sattakhattuparama but originally perhaps a general term for the converted"

I would have to disagree with one reviewer who claims that Masefield's main point is that the eightfold (tenfold) path begins with "right view". Although this is an important point, it is but a side issue of the actual crux of Masefield's study, which is to suggest that the Doctrine of the Buddha is a transcendental revelation possible only by a specific act of grace by which the savaka has been converted through seeing/hearing the Deathless through being spoken to by the Tathagata.

It should be clear why this runs contrary to most or all of contemporary sects and indeed the ancient ones too, for it aims to render them all moot and struggling to follow an eightfold path which they neither understand nor are established on. He even goes so far as to include in this thesis the suggestion that the only meaningful (in light of this thesis) Buddhist practice available is the merit-accumulation which Sinhalese Buddhists take up with the intent to be reborn when and where Maitreya (the upcoming tathagata) arises so that they may benefit from hearing the Deathless from him. After having established this with a thorough and knowledgable yet--I am afraid to venture--problematic (in terms of interpretation and in certain contradictions) analysis, Masefield goes on to summarize the transition through early vedic ideas through the rise and defamation of the Brahmins to the re-establishment of those early ideals which Buddhism posits, finishing quite interestingly with a poem by Rudyard Kipling which suggests in its own context and especially in this one that buddhism is, alas, only a myth which has been taken up in vain hope by so many millions:
"The old lost road through the woods...
But there is no road through the woods"

I give the book four stars for its scholastic rigor (thoroughly footnoted and abundant in supported refutations of contrary scholarship) and for the simple interest with which I read it. however I think it need by read by serious buddhists with a heavy grain of salt; for although I am not aware of Masefield's own religious inclinations, and it may be my own personal bias which I bring to the reading, I cannot bring myself to see this as a Buddhist book but rather a book on Buddhism which seeks through its scholarship to convince people that there is no true Buddhism as is thought to be; that Buddhism is not unlike other revealed religions which deal only in the distant past and distant future, in which salvation is, in practice, certainly unavailable for any living in the present day.

Peter Masefield book penetrates to the very core of the historical and spiritual roots of Buddhism (and the noble eightfold path) that will shock those embracing a traditional understanding of Buddhism to the point of trembling in their shoes. His vast and scholarly approach and textual support his arguments of the role of divine revelation ( personally by the Buddha) for the historical attainment of "right view" is an essential consideration which challenges contemporary practicing buddhist who presume to accomplish the buddhist goal and final condition (sotapatti-fruits) via their un-aided efforts to engaged the eight fold path. It is a marvelous revelation of how Buddhism is rooted in the same universal "dynamics" that underlies many of the world great mystic traditions such as Natha and shabd yoga. His rescue, and defense of the original "form" of the Dhamma as not being its exposition in the form of suttas, but rather as a "transcendental" sound ( shabd, nam,nada,etc), gives new ( and much deeper) meaning to the tathagata emphasis on "hearing the Dharma" as the primary ( and only) means for bringing suffering to an end. I cannot recommend his book enough to all serious ( and courageous) seekers of nirvana.

as a devout fundamentalist Buddhist monk and having a library of the finest books (and the worst books as well) ever written on Buddhism in its various faces i can say that aside from the holly writting from the Buddhas disciples themselves THIS book holds highest reagards. And coming from someone (myself) that has trashed inumerable so called books on Buddhism this means a great deal indeed.If Masefield was before me now i would bow in honorific reverence for his outstanding work not only to set straight the record about the genuine Buddhism of ancient times and to cast dispare on the pathetic cults that permeate America and other places putting forth what they call Buddhism; Masefield deserves no less that highest regard for this efffort. I own two copies of this book..have recomended it to literally no less than 300 peoples as highest of high regard to read to come to terms with the real Buddhism as taught by the Deathless Master himself to his Ariyan Disciples. Although quite hard to read for any layperson not familiar with Buddhism, it can be quickly grasped if read intently. for every book ive got and praised to be the real thing regarding Fundamental Buddhism there are 40 books unworthy even of toilet tissue in my Buddhist Library. THIS is how profound and real and genuine this book by Masefield is. His book has sadly recieved much hate from PseudoBuddhists saying it goes against their cultish beliefs but Masefields book has more cross reference to the Scripture than any other. NOONE can or ever will be able to scratch the diamond validity of this, the most incredible book on True Buddhism ever written.BRAVO to Masefield and may he never stop in this endeavor!

This book is a fantastic reversal of all the sectarian trash out there that is inaccurate as to the Nikayas. Peter masefields translations are better than average. I myself also translate Pali as Mr. Masefield does.

It is the irrefutable conclusions that Mr. Masefield makes in his book that has shocked so many revisionist pseudo-Buddhists that is so perfect. Masefield is more interested in what the Buddha said than what he didnt say and all his writtings in this book are backed up by NIkayan Sutric evidence which no one can refute him on.

Except for the fact that Masefield is working from a false assumtion that the Noble Eightfold Path (Ariya Atthangika Magga) translates as SAMMADITTHI "RIGHT VIEW" ..etc etc SAMMASAMADHI "RIGHT CONCENTRATION", his book (outside of the Sutras themself) is the most important book out of 2000+ i own on Buddhism.