@Green
Please try to stay on topic- I.e ‘Jack Kornfield’.
I think you spent a lot of time here
on the Nibbana topic.
9 Likes
I agree but my understanding is that Anjan Chah is Theravada and so endorses mirror polishing.
Do you mean literally polishing mirrors? If so, why? If not, what does that mean?
1 Like
So it’s hard to explain outside of the context of “No mirror, no stand” but essentially the Zen idea is that refining behavior or consciousness is of ultimately of little use because enlightenment in all cases comes from the realization that there is nothing to refine.
Theravada reject this interpretation.
Refinements are referred to as mirror polishing and so by implication Theravada rejects the idea that mirror polishing is useless. Said another way, it endorses mirror polishing.
Theravada endorses the development of behaviour and awareness, because they are important to achieve the goal. I wouldn’t say it endorses the view that these activities are mirror polishing.
I feel like it’s worth making a few points:
Firstly there has ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE been more lay followers than monastics, I suppose with the exception of the wheel turning sutta when there where 5 monastics and 0 lay followers. This is because the monastics depend on lay followers not to starve. So the idea that somehow lay followers are less important or that teachings that focus on them are somehow less important is wrong headed.
Secondly while it does appear in the EBT’s that the Buddha states (can’t remember where) that a lay follower cannot achieve nibbana in this life, whilst a monastic can, the Buddha ALSO says that it is entirely possible for a lay follower to reach the status of “non-returner” and with the breaking up of the body be reborn in a heaven from which they achieve nibbana. So even in the EBT’s lay followers can definitely achieve a lot, AND they do NOT need to become a monastic to achieve enlightenment (just a god).
Thirdly, The EBT’s are full of lay people who are wise, generous, kind and destined for enlightenment and also full of monks who are stupid, obnoxious and destined for hell, there is no reason to think that there is some inherent difference in “levels” that make one group definitionally more advanced in their spiritual practice or attainments than the other.
Fourth Therevada, with its obsession with “levels” and convoluted metaphysics of mind-moments, textual conservatism, fabulous material wealth and extravagance in its material culture is just as far from the wandering ascetic movement of the Buddhas time as any of the other groups claiming to continue the Buddhas teaching, be they Mahayana, Western, or whathaveyou, what would the Buddha, or even better Maha Kassapa have made of the the Shwedagon in Yangon?
Fifth, the EBT’s and Therevada are NOT THE SAME THING, as has been amply pointed out here by Bhante @sujato and others.
Sixth, Jack Kornfield (and Goldstien, and Kabot Zinn and Sharon Salzbeg, and so on and so forth) have spent DECADES of their lives trying to spread what they understand of Buddhism to the world and worked tirelessly to promote mindfulness, peace, and dhamma, the dismissive tone and frankly condescending attitude of many of the posts on this thread is frankly staggering coming from people, many of whom may never even have heard of Buddhism where it not for the work of Kornfield and others who are now being mocked with labels like “upper middle Buddhists” and so on.
I love this forum and am excited to discuss the EBT’s but I have to say that the number of threads that seem to me to be much more focused on defending Therevadan orthodoxies and denigrating so called “secular” buddhists really does detract from the quality of the discussion here. How often do we have threads up questioning the timelines of Ajhan Brahm’s ordination? Never. It would be considered deeply rude. because it is. Perhaps we should give Kornfield the same respect or at least acknowledge that we are not in any position to know the true spiritual attainments in another’s heart.
Metta.
4 Likes
Definitely lots here to consider, but I would like to point out that John Kabat Zinn defended against this
at least acknowledge that we are not in any position to know the true spiritual attainments in another’s heart.
specifically, by saying, roughly, yeh no, people who do horrible things aren’t enlightened. With Buddhism, the rubber hits the road where it’s there to see. I think it’s a really critical point. Definitely, he’s speaking to doctors, right, in relation to their profound ethics of do no harm. (my sister’s a doctor, I have a lot of respect for her, so please excuse me if I gush.)
1 Like
Minor correction: there were two lay followers before this, the merchants Tapussa and Bhallika. Interestingly, because there was no mendicant Saṅgha at that time, they took “two-fold” refuge in only the Buddha and Dhamma: The Great Chapter - The First Teachings becoming the very first “secular” Buddhists 
7 Likes
I think that’s a fair point @Meggers , I guess we CAN say that Hitler was not a good guy, but it seems to me that Jack Kornfield at least isn’t out there doing “very bad things” he just has an approach to Buddhism that some on here find too “secular”
Hey Joseph,
Oh. I was thinking about my renovictioner landlord in the Lower Mainland who I discovered was an associate of “the Scarface of Canada.” (Sorry, are you from Florida? Kind of cheesy, hey, but that’s what that particular horrible mobster was called. And he met a similar fate.) Definitely not a good guy. Neither of them.
It could be that the complaint against Kornfield et al is that they are “too secular.” I haven’t been following that closely. But, you presented a lot for consideration, and there’s definitely no need to be nasty about that bunch. The American eastern seaboard is a really great place for so many of its people’s forays into eastern thought, culture, etc. And the Peace Corp. Americans believe in service. We know this.
That being said, I know that in my own work, I went out of my way to find East Asian abstract expressionists (yes, influenced by Buddhism, of course, DT Suzuki specifically) who had been overlooked by the big art critics who put that most impressive American art movement onto the international scene, and appreciated the quiet, largely unrecognized work of others who allowed me to create some much needed depth in my own.
Ya’ll definitely have lots of riches to be proud of. Enjoy it. For sure.
3 Likes
Yes, I think the confusion is just because the person I was replying to referenced a very widely quoted Zen anecdote and I responded in kind. I appologize.
For more detail on the Zen use of the “mirror polishing” reference this is a nice little blog post.
As I am the individual who put in the “Upper Middle Way” comment I would just like to clarify, it may seem to be a pejorative, but really it is only an observation of something that does, indeed, exist: a stream of wealthy, mostly white, upper middle class individuals who practice x-buddhism.
Personally, I take issue with anybody who tries to turn Buddhism into therapy, so yeah, some of them do that in the IMS circle. Neuroscience and Buddhism are irreconcilable in my opinion. Which I believe here we are able to discuss our personal opinions at times.
I think if anything this thread moved to appreciate them with many comments stating the importance of how some of us found the suttas or a deeper understanding of Buddhism through “Barnes & Noble Buddhism” and maybe even by following, even if briefly, the “Upper Middle Way.”
You are certainly right that lay followers are extremely important, and this is recognized both in the suttas and by many monastics.
1 Like
Actually, a lay person can attain full enlightenment. It is just that once they do, then they ordain within 7 days or pass away (according to Theravada).
Milindapanha III.19
“You say that if a layman attains arahantship he must either enter the Order that very day or die and attainparinibbàna. Yet if he is unable to find a robe and bowl and preceptor then that exalted condition of arahantship is a waste, for destruction of life is involved in it.”
“The fault does not lie with arahantship but with the state of a layman, because it is too weak to support arahantship. Just as, O king, although food protects the life of beings it will take away the life of one whose digestion is weak; so too, if a layman attains arahantship he must, because of the weakness of that condition, enter the Order that very day or die.”
I don’t think anyone questioned Kornfield’s “level” they were just referring to his approach and teachings and how it is not their cup of tea and how he has added modern trends of self-help, therapy and other things with the Dhamma. It certainly might be good for some people and get their interest into delving more into Dhamma practice and study. Not everyone will like his approach, but that doesn’t mean they are judging his “level” in any way.
1 Like
Must have been grumpy yesterday- still think the circling of wagons around these westerners, done mostly it seems from a Therevadan perspective is uncharitable, but looking back at my post so was I so pot kettle and all that.
9 Likes
Excuse the oversimplification but, for me, it comes down to the fact that if the four assemblies are practicing the eightfold path, then we’re all good. If any part of that assembly is not supported and allowed to flourish, Buddhism suffers, whether it be the de-emphasis of monasticism in some lay communities or the lack of support for bhikkhunis in other contexts.
7 Likes
FYI Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote a book about the subject. ‘Buddhist Romanticism’.
This is the link
Here are a couple short exerpts from the introduction that give a good summary.
“Many Westerners, when new to Buddhism, are struck by the
uncanny familiarity of what seem to be its central concepts:
interconnectedness, wholeness, spontaneity, ego-transcendence,
non-judgmentalism, and integration of the personality. They tend not
to realize that the concepts sound familiar because they are familiar.
To a large extent, they come not from the Buddha’s teachings but
from their hidden roots in Western culture: the thought of the early
German Romantics.”
…
“If the influence of early Romanticism on modern Buddhism went
no further than a few isolated concepts, it would not be much of a
problem—simply a matter of mapping familiar Western terms onto
unfamiliar Buddhist terms so that Buddhist concepts would make
intuitive sense to people with a Western background. The only issue
would be determining whether the terms were properly applied, and
tweaking any that were off the mark. And it might be argued that
fitting Romantic concepts into a Buddhist framework automatically
changes those concepts in a Buddhist direction. But the situation is
the other way around. The influence of Romanticism on modern
Buddhism has penetrated through the surface and into the bone,
shaping not only isolated concepts but also the underlying structures
of thought from which those concepts take their meaning. In other
words, Romanticism has provided the framework into which
Buddhist concepts have been placed, reshaping those concepts
toward Romantic ends.”
…
“When we compare the Dhamma—the teachings of the Buddha—to
the religious thought of the early Romantics, we see that they differ
radically on a structural level in how they define all the important
questions concerning the purpose of religion, the nature of the basic
spiritual problem, the cure to that problem, how the cure can be
effected, and the effect of that cure on the person cured.
• For the Romantics, religion is concerned with establishing a right
relationship between human beings and the universe. For the
Dhamma, religion is concerned with gaining total freedom from
suffering and stress, beyond “human being,” “universe,” or any
relationship at all.
• For the Romantics, the basic spiritual problem is ignorance of
human identity—that each person is an integral part of the infinite
organic unity of the cosmos. This ignorance, in turn, leads to an
alienating sense of separation: within oneself, between oneself and
other human beings, and between oneself and nature at large. For the
Dhamma, the basic spiritual problem is ignorance of what suffering
is, how it’s caused, and how it can be ended. In fact, the Dhamma lists
among the causes of suffering the attempt even to define what a
human being is or a human being’s place within the universe.
• For the Romantics, the basic spiritual cure lies in gaining an
immediate felt sense of unity within oneself and between oneself and
the universe. For the Dhamma, a felt sense of unified awareness is
part of the path to a cure, but the ultimate cure involves going beyond
feelings—and everything else with which one builds a sense of
identity—to a direct realization of nibbāna (nirvāṇa): a dimension
beyond Oneness and multiplicity, beyond the universe, beyond causal
relationships, and beyond the dimensions of time and space.
• For the Romantics, there are many ways to induce a spiritual cure,
but they all involve inducing a sense of receptivity to all things as they
are. For the Dhamma, there is only one way to nibbāna—the path of
skills called the noble eightfold path—against which all mental states
are judged as skillful and unskillful, with skillful states to be fostered
and unskillful ones to be abandoned in whatever way is effective.”
…
"When we examine the way Buddhism is currently being taught in
the West—and, in some cases, in Asia to people with a Western
education—we find that it often sides with the Romantic position and
against the Dhamma on all five of these questions. And because questions shape the structures that give concepts their meaning and
purpose, the result is that modern Buddhism is Romantic in its body,
and Buddhist only in its outer garb. Or to use another analogy,
modern Buddhism is like a building whose structure is fully
Romantic, with Buddhist elements used as decorations, reshaped to
fit into the confines of that structure. This is why this trend in modern
Buddhism is best referred to as Buddhist Romanticism, rather than
Romantic Buddhism.
From a Romantic point of view, even a structural change in the
Dhamma is no serious problem, for such a change would simply fall
in line with the Romantic notion that all paths of open receptivity lead
to the goal, so that replacing one path with another would make no
practical difference. But from the point of view of the Dhamma, the
Romantic goal offers only a limited possibility of freedom. If the
Romantic goal is regarded as the one and only aim of spiritual life, it
stands in the way of the further goal of total freedom."
Just some food for thought 
13 Likes
An absolute must read book imo. Thanks for sharing.
3 Likes
See Personal Empowerment: How to Live a Successful Life with Jack Kornfield - Salesforce Live
I certainly won’t take this moment to knock Jack Kornfield in so far as, as others have put it, he was kind of the gateway drug that got me slightly deeper into the weeds of Theravada Buddhism. His book" a path with heart" struck a chord with me and of course over the next many years I started to dig deeper into the suttas and to eventually connect with the Buddhist Society of Western Australia.
The stuff I see on Salesforce with Jack and Deepak Chopra makes me vomit in my mouth just a little bit, but at the end of the day I’m sitting here now in Chiang Mai Thailand very much immersed in a somewhat solid practice and grateful that this path with mind and heart has taken me to this place. Jack of course at this point is a multi-millionaire, and like most of us here the people that I revere and respect the most are the monastics who have renounced all attributes of mundane human wealth and teach the Buddha’s Dhamma with a measure of authenticity and conviction. But Jack has at least served for many a useful function and I’ll always hold a small place of gratitude in my heart for some of his earliest work which also introduced me to the community with Ajahn Chah and the understanding that really can be in communities of monastics who practice with the authenticity that the Buddha required
5 Likes