SuttaCentral
I have not read that book, so I may be taking it out of context, but from the quote you provided it looks, to me, like he is saying that enlightenment exists, but you do not get to rest on your laurels. That does not seem so bad.
~Edit~ How bizarre… the post edited itself to remove the quote?
Yep, that’s a feature of the software to people from quoting the entire previous post. We can all know you are replying to the person above you unless you say otherwise.
Even the Buddha criticized a lazy stream enterer. However the texts are abundantly clear that in the Buddha’s teachings stages of enlightenment come about when specific fetters are removed. To say that the removed fetters can come back is to contradict core doctrine.
The whole “enlightenment is temporary” can be used by people making false claims of attainments to be able to explain away bad behaviour. “Oopse! My enlightenment must have temporarily slipped away when I did that. Don’t worry, now it’s back.”
If Kornfield wanted to say that spiritual progress in general can move in both directions, he could have just said that.
Is it possible that what he meant by enlightenment (by the looks of it seems to mean jhana) may not be the same as what is generally understood by that word (becoming Buddha / arahant)?
Not just possible, that’s exactly what he’s done. And after redefining the term (as I said in my first post), he goes on to say that real enlightenment (i.e. the permanent destruction of the afflictions) is impossible (“there is no”). That’s the problem. Not only has he moved the goalpost, he’s then declared the original goal out of bounds.
No disrespect, but if you still have laurels to rest on, that ain’t (full) enlightenment.
“Originally there is no mirror, no stand; So where could dust alight?”
I think you are on the right track in trying to understand what he meant. But I don’t think it is jhana but more something that correlates to Zen concepts like Satori/Kensho.
Yeah that quote on laurels seems to me like he might be talking about enlightenment as in the whole field of eastern spirituality and not necessarily nibbana.
If that is the case, then I get it, there’s a huge novelty effect when you first discover the dhamma and meditation, and this huge burst of motivation and energy definitely leads to “divine” experiences, but like any drug or high, it eventually wears off. This is what I think and also what I thought Jack was trying to convey in that quote, and not specifically enlightenment as in Arahantship/nibbana
As for OP’s Jack Kornfield question, I think he’s very commercial and there always seems to be a foreword or acknowledgement done by him in any big Buddhist book on the market. I don’t think he’s bad, but I think there’s better teachers out there, more who are not as popular and who have lived the ascetic life.
To name a few EBT centered monks:
Lord Buddha needed help from above not to retire, and Ajahn Chah never retired; they both kept on till their last breath and maybe, beyond …
I think there is mentioned in one sutta where Lord Buddha asks Sariputta something like this; Have you ever heard me say it like this? Sariputta says, no, and Lord Buddha replies, neither have I.
Learning and deepening never takes a rest.
Absolutely epic, and so right.
I never had interest in Jack or his contemporaries. Too many wellness tropes for me. I have read some of their work, and am always left trying to figure out what exactly they are saying. Honestly, Stephen Bachelor may be a person people on this forum find troubling, but his work was more helpful to me when I was exploring more “secular” approaches to the dhamma–once you accept his cherry-picking, and are willing to move outside of that box of course, at least I could understand what he was getting at.
I agree with the above posts. I started to read that book “After the Ecstasy, the Laundry” and had to put it away without finishing it. Enlightenment or any stage of it, is not something someone takes on temporarily. Even the lower stages are safe-havens, where one does not revert back downwards. If those people he referred to in the book claimed enlightenment and later had bad behaviors, then that means their so-called enlightenment was not real to begin with.
I remember reading in a Tricycle article or perhaps Lion’s Roar, that his favorite food is hamburger. I know that one can be Buddhist and eat meat, but I would have thought someone who is such a renowned Buddhist teacher, who has practiced for decades, would have been a little more advanced than that. I know a monk or nun receives food via the 3-fold rule, but he’s a layman and can choose at the grocery store or restaurant, without indulging his senses and taste buds so much.
edit: this might be the article I read:
Ann Gleig in From Theravada to tantra calls Jack Kornfield’s style of Buddhism ‘American tantra.’
I haven’t been able to verify a lot of details, but the impression I got from the monks at Wat Nanachat who had been there at the time was quite different from the public perception. Kornfield writes:
Working on rural health and medical teams in the provinces along the Mekong River, I heard about a meditation master, Ajahn Chah, who welcomed Western students. I was full of ideas and hopes that Buddhist teachings would help me, maybe even lead me to become enlightened. After months of visits to Ajahn Chah’s monastery, I took monk’s vows. Over the next three years I was introduced to the practices of mindfulness, generosity, loving-kindness, and integrity, which are at the heart of Buddhist training.
He doesn’t actually say where he ordained, or how long he spent with Ajahn Chah. I believe, however, that he ordained in Bangkok, probably at Wat Mahathat (?), which was teaching Mahasi technique. The monks at Nanachat said that he stayed for a few weeks, and was in and out.
Most of the anecdotes he tells about Ajahn Chah are from books; or so it would seem from the basic search I did. However, in the introduction to the chapter on Ajahn Chah in Living Buddhist Masters (his first book, in 1977), he says:
As a new monk at his monastery I became frustrated by the difficulties of practice and the seeming arbitrary rules of conduct I had to follow. I began to criticize other monks for sloppy practice, and to doubt the wisdom of Ajahn Chah’s teaching. At one point I went to him and complained, noting that even he was inconsistent and seemed to be contradicting himself often in an unenlightened way. He laughed and pointed out how much I was suffering by trying to judge the others around me. Then he explained that in fact his teaching was just a balance.
I can only imagine what Ajahn Chah thought of this young American guy showing up and accusing him of being inconsistent!
You have to understand, there were hundreds of monks there, and Ajahn Chah had little time for personal instructions. Kornfield spent some time near Ajahn Chah, mostly staying at the nearby Wat Nanachat, and probably meeting Ajahn Chah on occasion together with other monks. To say he “trained under Ajahn Chah” is probably not technically incorrect, but I don’t think it really gives the right impression.
When I was around, years later, Ajahn Chah was dead and Luang Po Liem was the big boss. I met him on a number of occasions, and had some Dhamma discussion. But I’d never say I “trained under” him.
As for Jack’s teachings, many years ago I read something where he said that even if you’re enlightened you still need therapy. I lost interest after that.
That is hilariously accurate.
Just to be clear, I wasn’t trying to say that Kornfield was one of them.
I’ve always found it difficult to take western lay teachers seriously, especially those who are well-known. “American tantra” really does sum it up.
Could someone explain why “American tantra” is an apt name? I realize that’s getting away from the OP, but I’m really not sure why that term is accurate. Because it’s about transforming a poison into medicine?
Re: why “American tantra” is an apt name.
I had a conversation with a full blown practitioner of Kashmiri Shaivism i.e. an actual Tantrika.
Two seconds into the conversation, she was like, “Yeah, it is a non-dual householder’s path.” (I.e. probably not something that she thought I would be interested in.)
Anyway, some description of this school of Tantra, for comparison.
"The philosophy of Recognition, as outlined by thinkers like Utpaladeva, teaches that though the identity of all souls is one with God (Isvara) or Shiva (which is the single reality, Being and absolute consciousness), they have forgotten this due to Maya or ignorance. However, through knowledge one can recognize one’s authentic divine nature and become a liberated being.[59]
Another important element of Trika theology is the active and dynamic nature of consciousness, which is described as the spontaneous vibration or pulsation (spanda) of universal consciousness, which is an expression of its freedom (svātāntrya) and power (Śakti).[60] Because of this, though this philosophy is idealist, it affirms the reality of the world and everyday life, as a real transformation (parinama), manifestation or appearance (ābhāsa) of the absolute consciousness.[61] The Absolute is also explained through the metaphor of light (prakasha) and reflective awareness (vimarsha).[62]"
I can see some resemblance, especially with the language of “oneness”, “the divine”, and “grace”, monistic philosophy, and emphasis on householder and everyday life.
Hmmm that’s interesting. I always connected these resonances more with the Alan Watts’ philosophical neovedantism, as (to me) Tantra is more about visualization practices… 
But I can see it. Especially, the focus on “actualization”
For this book alone I will have great gratitude to Jack Kornfield. There was nothing like it at the time - An introduction to teachers who were actually living and teaching. It made the potential for the practice of Theravada Buddhism real.
Wasn’t Kornfield’s time with Ajahn Chah before Wat Pah Nanachat came into being?
From Stillness Flowing (the Ajahn Chah biography):
“the other was Jack Kornfield (Ven. Santidhammo) who, after practising in monasteries throughout Thailand and Burma, was to return to lay life and become one of the most influential teachers in the American vipassanā movement. Neither monk stayed at Wat Pah Pong very long…”
And
“In the months that Jack Kornfield was with Luang Por, he made assiduous notes of the teachings that he received and later printed them…”
There’s a misunderstanding of what retirement means.
@Khemarato.bhikkhu is saying retirement as in done what has to be done, there’s nothing else to do for the sake of liberation, the holy life has been lived, rebirth is ended. There’s no need for arahants to do restraint in morality (but to try to not break the 227 rules is still a thing, arahants might still break the minor ones) because the roots of unwholesomeness are eradicated, there’s no possibility for arahants to transgress the fundamental precepts of the holy life. There’s no more mental displeasure for the arahants.
@awarewolf notion of retirement is retirement from teaching the Dhamma. Of course we would like the arahants to keep on teaching as long as life lasts.
Jack Kornfield’s notion of retirement is the first one, where he seems to say that there’s work to be done still, and no sight of arahanthood is seen for him. So it’s safe to say that him and most if not all of the people he interviewed for the book “After the Ecstasy, the Laundry” are not taking arahanthood as what they mean by enlightenment, but a much lower level.
