God and Dhamma coinciding in Jordan Peterson's new book

The Watercooler
1

I am reading We who wrestle with God, Dr Jordan Peterson’s latest book. Whilst not a fan of his, as I am not particularly impressed by his infatuation with fame and money (how can someone as intelligent as he is give importance to owning a Rolex or dressing in expensive clothes?!) I still have enormous respect for many aspects of his work and his personality.

The book was reviewed by a previous Archbishop of Canterbury in the Guardian and the review was very negative. I was initially puzzled by this, but I now think that the main reason (apart from political disagreements) is the fact that the Anglican Church puts the accent on a personal God and on Jesus sacrifice for our salvation (‘accepting Jesus’ in our lives, whaterever that means, as they say).

In contrast, upon reflection, I realised that the concept of God in Peterson’s work is ineffable and can be never be reduced to a personal, loving Father. It is instead to be understood as a calling (as in Noah or Abraham) or the voice of conscience (as in Eliah). So this amouts to aiming upwads, always telling the truth and thus acting in accordance to the fabric of reality, and then living in the present. In this sense this is very close to Dhamma and I now realise why, in spite of many disagreements on the conceptual level, Peterson has been a long time friend with Sam Harris and recently described their disagreements as existing at the level of semantics, and not being substantial.

Have you read the book and would you agree with this analysis?

2

I have not read the book but i have seen that for christians God has many meanings.
Did Buddha feel a calling? I think so. That is why his search was, i believe, so genuine, heartfelt and farreaching.

I believe that Buddha shares the same message as Jesus, in the core, namely: real wealth, real virtue, nobiltiy, real love, wisdom, compassion can only arise in a mind without any conceit. Real wisdom, real love, real compassion is never someones possession.

Buddha called this state: empty of self and possession of self. One must go beyond all knowledge and vision and not cling to anything. So, real richness, real wealth lies in an ultimate poverty, being simple and poor of heart and mind. Totally being without any conceit and ideas like ‘I possess a lot of wisdom, love, compassion, i have walked the Path, i have experienced this and that etc’.

All teachings have only that one goal, free of clinging. And when people start to feel rich because they have had this or that spiritual experience, seen this or that, know this or that, it is very easy to see that is only conceit growing.

Also, the idea of the soul is not really different from the supramundane.
It says; there is already something not of this world, and when one enters in this stream, one can also say that one has found ones true calling. A calling to be God-like, or in terms of Dhamma, as noble as possible, leavings all defilements behind. A calling by what is already pure, dispassionate ,empty of self and possessions of self.
This can also be seen as being inspired by the holy ghost.

I like this very much. I feel it also shows that we do not even need a Buddha of flesh and blood to hear the teachings and know what we have to do. The supra mundane is not buddist. It is just universal.

2 Likes
3

I Took Bhante Sujato’s advice to disengage from all Jordan Peterson content. It took about 2 years until his voice stopped playing in my head (Jordan Peterson’s voice)- one particular thing he said paraphrasing; if you are 40, dont have a job with people you like, an intimate partner “you’re done”. Possibly if i had believed him at that stage when I was in that situation I might have been less likely to put effort into anything.
The Buddha praised one of his disciples when they said that they did not believe what the Buddha had said. The disciple had not experienced it for themselves.
I hope that if you test out the path of Jordan Peterson you can firstly, as the disciple above did test the teaching out in your experience. I hope that your efforts in applying the teachings of Jordan Peterson lead to your long term happiness.
For now I might stick to the EBT’s.
Sahdu!

6 Likes
4

Peterson is a bigot and I believe an American right winger. Personally, I will never give him my money or attention.

4 Likes
5

What exactly did you find persuasive in that advice? I remember him criticising Peterson because he was influenced by René Girard, Jung etc and not as great as them: this seemed to me not to make much sense because it’s like saying that if you’re an economist and you derive most of your ideas by Keynes then it’s not worth listening to you, or if you are a scientist and you get a lot of your ideas from Einstein then you are not a true scientist. Or further criticism was based on Guardian articles (which of course would be critical for political reasons) or the opinion of some judge.

I find that many highly respected intellectuals (for example Dr Iain McGuilchrist, who is certainly a very intelligent and good man) respect Peterson, whilst not necessarily sharing all his political ideas, and have talked to him multiple times on his podcast. And top academics now teach at Peterson Academy, and I think it’s unlikely they do it just for the money.

I personally don’t understand his infatuation with worldly fame and wealth but I do find what he writes in his books largely in agreement with dhamma. And I empathise with him because he seems to have suffered so much slandering and stood up to it (wouldn’t it have been so much easier just to do a bit of virtue signalling instead of speaking his mind?), I like how Peterson treats his wife and daughter.

He is just one of the people I started reading to expand my horizons though, certainly not a guru for me and I probably disagree with half of what he says :sweat_smile:

6

The irony in the statement. :smiley:

I agree that Jordan Peterson is a nuanced character, and while I disagree vastly with most of his opinions, I believe he’s sincere in his perspective, and it’s sometimes an interesting time to hear him talk.

However, to say that his books are largely in agreement with dhamma is a bit of a weird angle, and allow me to elaborate:

I haven’t read his other books, but both his 12 Rules books are written with an almost Nietzschean übermensch mentality.

Particularly this quote:

It’s all very well to think the meaning of life is happiness, but what happens when you’re unhappy? Happiness is a great side effect. When it comes, accept it gratefully. But it’s fleeting and unpredictable. It’s not something to aim at – because it’s not an aim. And if happiness is the purpose of life, what happens when you’re unhappy? Then you’re a failure.

Puts his perspective completely at odds with Dhamma, which is focused on eliminating dukkha, and achieving sukha (we might apply happiness in here). Our whole practice is to aim at happiness.

There’s few rules in his in total 24 rules that are directly at odds with Dhamma, and they’re broad and pop-sci enough to apply to a vast general population But how those things are applied is the key difference.

Peterson seeks meaning whereas Dhamma is wholly unconcerned with such a concept. Dhamma de facto assumes “Sukha = good, Dukkha = bad” without trying to get into intellectual debates about it.

Peterson’s mentality is about achieving, while Dhamma is about letting go. Peterson is a sisyphean fighter; Buddha is a victor.

Yes, there’s a few rules of his that I enjoy. Some in particular:

Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping.
Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world.
Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t.
Be precise in your speech.
Do not bother children when they are skateboarding.
Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street.
Do not allow yourself to become resentful, deceitful, or arrogant.
Be grateful in spite of your suffering.

Alright; those are some kusala dhamma I can get behind. But it’s often lurking in the details why he says a particular thing.

And if we symplify dhamma to self-help rules like this and say “Yeah, that fits with Dhamma!” then I fear we’re losing out on what makes Dhamma special: A mundane right view, about the virtues of letting go and benevolence; A supramundane right view about rebirth and the operation of sankharas.

The problem is he and Buddha see the fabric of reality as completely different. Peterson treats life as a sacred gift to be cherished and can get Machiavellian in pursuit of survival; Buddha sees life as a prison and something to be abandoned. Two, wildly different perspectives.

Again, Peterson is someone I both disagree heavily with and also have a pure, personal love towards. I think his greatest motivation is anger and he doesn’t seem to take his own advice very well. I hope the best for him, and I hope his ideas serve him well.

But just because some of his rules (that are meant to be as marketable to the widest public) are not in direct opposition to Dhamma, shouldn’t mean that Peterson is generally in line with Dhamma. I can only see his pursuit towards power & acquisition as directly antithetical to Dhamma. :slight_smile:

7 Likes
7

Wow thank you for sharing your thoughts! This is so interesting because the passage you quote is one of the reasons I was attracted to his thought. Basically I do not succeed in being happy so if the aim of life is being happy then I am a total failure but it teaches you how life can still loving meaning even if you are very ill or unhappy. But I remember even Ajahn Chah that buddhism is about eliminating suffering But at first you would probably suffer more than people who do not practice.

And concerning Nietzsche I think Jordan Peterson is very different because he always insists that you cannot create your own values (but you discover them indeed from the Bible.)

2 Likes
8

I think there’s a difference between “Aim of life is being happy (and you’re a failure if you are not happy)” and saying that “You can aim for happiness in life and here’s the tools to do that”.

In the first instance, in a kind of theistic fashion, The aim of life is predetermined, and your value is determined by how well you achieve it. In the second case, it’s a discovered reality - why choose unhappiness when you can find happiness, and even such a happiness that is largely unaffected by external events?

If such an happiness is possible, isn’t it worth striving towards? Ultimately, what else is worth striving towards?

Thus there’s no judgment on not being happy - being malcontent with Samsara is only natural. If you’ve had trouble being happy in life - that’s a great thing actually! It means you’re unaffected by the superficial excitements of life.

So, Peterson teaches not to depend on happiness as you move through the world. Buddha teaches a happiness that doesn’t depend on the world.

I don’t think Peterson thinks such a state is possible and/or moral (though he does sometimes speak highly of some buddhist ideas); and that’s where I mostly disagree with him. :slight_smile:

Also, in a very Peterson fashion - just because you’ve failed at being happy until now, is that enough reason to give up and resign to stoic depression? :wink:

Also, for this discussion sake I kind of meld together equanimity - sukha - absence of dukkha as “happiness”. Let’s say “being at peace and content”.

2 Likes
9

I think a key point to consider is that Jordan Peterson is by all accounts a deeply unhappy person. He is actually the kind of person one should avoid listening to on the question of happiness. His commitment to culture war nonsense, his deep and everlasting dedication to acquiring the plumage and markings of financial flourishing, and his dedication to helping young males climb the rungs of material success show any sense of happiness he might have stolen from Dostoevsky or the Bible is a paraphrased, confused echo of it. The Dhamma is not about any financial flourishing, or material success, but real in-this-moment flourishing, no matter how the wheel of Fortuna spins.

9 Likes
10

He’s Canadian, although I believe he’s recently moved to the USA

11

I think what brought him fame and success is the way he reacted to the trans pronouns issue at the university years back, when he came across as authentic and standing for his beliefs. The problem with publicity is its corrupting nature. Creating idols and destroying them is what people do since ancient times.

1 Like
12

Hello, Thank you for the question. Bhikku Sujato is not my Guru or my direct teacher. Bhikku Sujato, it seems has a level of commitment to the path. Oh yeah and my most favorite thing, it seems Bhikku Sujato helps the Bhikkhunis.

It’s my subjective opinion also that Bhikku Sujato Consistently Applies his intelligence to alleviating suffering.

Bhikkhu Sujato; paraphrasing; I struggle to be a half decent human on a good day (could be fake humility however maybe he was being honest).

I am biased, And I’ve never met Bhante in person or spent extended periods of time with him However when I assess the best evidence I can access I take Bhante Sujato to have a level of trustworthyness. Many people in the world are forced to take the advice of people far less trustworthy than, In my opinion, Bhante Sujato.

I took what Bhante said as a Ehipassiko teaching ( Rendered as for investigation, i like; come and look come and see). I applied the Teaching Bhante gave; simply “disengage”. Because the seed of Peterson’s teachings Had already been sown I use the Buddhist teachings from MN 18, 19 and 20 when Peterson’s voice keeps me up at night.

More often than not at this stage with these conditions For me Attempting to refer back to Buddha Dhamma When the vicissitudes of Life arise Seems to be more beneficial Than referring back to The teachings of Jordan Peterson. Having said that I may actually change my mind In the next 5 minutes, Log on and order myself a lobster necktie And decide that I want to place myself in a dominance hierarchy.

Sahdu!

13

That was a comment Gabor Maté also made I believe. I’d link the YouTube video, but I’m abstaining from visiting YouTube for a month due to aggressive advertising. If I were in a suspicious mood, I’d wonder if this thread is some sneaky advertising.

1 Like
14

Thank you for sharing. This is quite interesting because we seem to come from opposite directions, you seem to have been familiar with Jordan Peterson’s work and now moving towards Buddhism whereas I am discovering it now and I appreciate his courage and integrity whilst disagreeing with a lot of his attitudes and some of the things he says.
I also find myself exactly in the opposite situation as you concerning trustworthiness as I think that Jordan Peterson is not a happy person and often angry (although he uses his anger in the service of good causes say for example in the Piers Morgan interview that only just came out he shows a lot of anger because of the scandals erupting in the UK on what has happened to adolescent working class women and has been covered up for many years) but I think he’s definitely trustworthy and reliable (again I don’t share all his beliefs or values but I do think that he is authentic and I admire his courage).
Concerning lobsters and the dominance hierarchy I don’t think it’s a beautiful truth but unfortunately hierarchies exist everywhere including in monasteries, as they are manifest for example on how you stand in line when you go to lunch.
Anyway I think that it’s good if you find that Bhante Sujato is intelligent and reliable.

1 Like
15

Buy the Lobster necktie!

1 Like
16

No, hierarchies don’t exist everywhere.

Can you share citations where he is “moving towards Buddhism”? The man continually cites his readings of Solzhenitsyn and Dostoevsky as his inspiration and writes long commentaries on the Bible, so I don’t see it. Where is he ‘Buddhist’?

17

Hello, I did not read the book. Your analysis is correct, virtue (sila) is close to the Dhamma. But, virtue is also close to others religions too, it’s not a buddhist only thing.

1 Like
19

Isn’t this the genetic logical fallacy?

20

Believing in God is a personal choice… it takes a lot of effort to keep up the belief too.

Now in Theravada/Early Buddhism I know we have many Devas and Gods who are considered both very Spiritually Advanced, yet sometimes fallible.

There is even one Sutta where Buddha mentions that He has smashed and gutted the idea of becoming a God, human, or Deva, and returned instead as a Buddha. Yet is it possible that Devas like Indra and Shiva which Buddha is shown to respect deeply have also attained Enlightenment, like many of the Buddha’s Disciples? So this is one question.

Then the question of an All-Pervading Entity, similar to the Dharmakaya in Mahayana Buddhism, being there as some Omniscient or Omnipotent Force that can help us understand Dhamma/come to Enlightenment/help us in life, in a good, useful, and helpful way.

But I think that if one truly gives respect to the question of Devas and God(s), then one would either have to heavily study the issue within the Pali Suttas, if that is one’s field of study, or if one decides to understand the matter from many other points of view, then one could turn to reading the Scriptures of the World.

I personally think that whether you believe God exists or not is not unimportant, and not unimportant towards the search for Enlightenment, because though there may not be a clear answer to this question, all the while understanding all things like the Buddha understood them, to return as a Buddha from deep Meditation towards Enlightenment, it is important in order to achieve Omniscience like He did. Buddha knows all about the concept or reality of God, and what that/it is, so I think to some degree it’s important to study the idea, at least in the Pali Suttas and what they can give us, maybe it will help one understand even the Buddha’s state of mind.