Jack Kornfield may be a secular Buddhist, but his book “A Path with Heart” introduced me to to the Buddha’s teachings, and for that I’ll always be grateful.
11 Likes
We all have to start somewhere, my first intro to Buddhism was Mindfulness in Plain English by Bhante Gunaratana. I got to that book after reading a new age book, that the CEO of my company was bragging about, which repackaged no-self, so I then looked up no-self and discovered jhana and then picked up Ven Gunaratana’s book.
From that point on I went in all sorts of directions like Zen, Vipassana, Vissudhimagga, other Buddhist texts, etc… and through the process of elimination, practice, online discussions and reasoning things out, I arrived at EBT.
9 Likes
Oke, many practices, methods, may not be in EBT, not taught by the Buddha, but what does that mean? That it is worthless, unfit? I think we must be real and see that the charactertype that the Buddha describes in EBT as fit for practicing Dhamma, is the character of very few people.
I am glad that later buddhist have not given up those with other characters. People who just are not fit to live in an isolated way. Who are passionate persons. Who are not dried up. Not introvert people. People who like company, etc.
I believe other practices, other tools, other ideas are developed not to decline from a one and only real Dhamma but to support others.
I don’t think that anyone is arguing that there is only one right way to be a Buddhist (at least I hope not!). The issue is when you change doctrine to suit the audience. And when you equate two types of practice that are not on the same level. Moreover, you will find many examples of teachers disparaging the monastic path as “taking the easy way out”. I think that is what people have an issue with.
8 Likes
Has Kornfield had that rhetoric?
I wouldn’t know, I have never read any of his books
I don’t think it’s fair to imply that the teachings found in the EBTs have done so. A good example being AN10.75 where the Buddha clearly demonstrates that the characteristics of people are complex; and we can’t make judgements based on a single trait. In that sutta, there is an example of a woman who is surprised that both her celibate and non-celibate uncle were declared once-returners by the Buddha after they died. And the Buddha criticizes her for judging them based on that single trait, saying they each had different strengths/weaknesses she couldn’t see.
The Buddha in the EBTs also famously frames his teachings to suit the audience he’s speaking to. The difference is, he didn’t change the content of the teachings. He simply chose the depth and framing to offer most benefit to that specific audience. Kornfield has changed the meaning of the teachings themselves, as mentioned earlier in this thread. So that’s what the issue is.
10 Likes
I think the difference between the two groups is that the earlier group understood that at some point in this life or the next that they would have to let go of the world to finish the path.
2 Likes
I can’t find his book A Path with Heart in my library right now, but recall him saying something like “being a monk is not the way to teach Buddhism in the modern world, in a nation like the U.S. and if I want to teach Buddhism in the West, I’ll need to do it as a layman.” (or words to that effect)
It was the early 1970s so Buddhism was still new in America, but as we can see today, there are many good monks and nuns in the U.S. and it is flourishing well with the monastic tradition here. Perhaps in the 1970s that would have been hard to the predict.
1 Like
I do not know the teachings of Kornfield but i saw that he recognised that people have issues which are not dealt with in Dhamma, also not taken into account. I think this is true. Many people attracted to Dhamma, or in general, have probably some mental healthcare issue: autism, personality disorder, anxiety disorder, depression, unsafe attachments, trauma’s etc.
This is important because it also means that instructions that are healthy for healthy persons can be very bad for those people. One cannot say that all those instructions in texst are always good and wholesome. It very much depends. There is also a sutta that describes this. Monks committed suicide as a result of practicng disgust with the body. The idea that all these practices and lessons in the scriptures are always wholesome is not true. It is also not true that if those lessons and practices do not work out well for oneself, that one practices wrong.
It looked for me like Kornfield was concerned about this and i feel that is great. That is real care for others well-being. Maybe it is not that bad to change instructions and teachings a bit to adress particular issues of persons. I prefer that above teaching a pure EBT based Dhamma that will only lead to misery to people.
9 Likes
My comment addressed your implication that EBT teachings only suit a very narrow character type. My point was that the EBTs don’t prescribe a one-size-fits-all approach, and acknowledge differences in character.
To which I added that Kornfield is different because he changed the meaning not just the approach. For example, when he claimed enlightenment to be temporary. That’s what I meant by “as mentioned earlier in this thread”.
If I understand correctly, you’re explaining that people have different needs. Which I not only agree with, but argued that the EBTs support, too. I’m sorry, but I don’t understand which part of your response addresses what I said.
1 Like
I appreciate the discussion on Kornfield, as I’ve heard his name but never explored his writings. Does Joseph Goldstein hold similar views?
2 Likes
Perhaps a new thread for this?
5 Likes
Will do (20 characters)
1 Like
I would be interested in reading that sutta if you could link to it.
I agree with you and I have seen the advice in Buddhist forums a number of times that if a Buddhist practice is disturbing a person then that Buddhist practice isn’t right for that person, at least not right now. Better for that person to switch to another Buddhist practice, at least for awhile.
Suggestions to include non-Buddhist means of solving problems beyond the scope of Buddhism can be included in books about Buddhism. I think readers would find those books additionally helpful if the authors explained why those non-Buddhist approaches were included.
I refered to practices and schools in which it not seen as essential that one fears sensual pleasures, sees no delight in the entire world, practices with the goal to go out like a flame without nothing remaining, lives secluded and isolated, avoids amusement, dance, art, creativity, music, etc.
Lets be real, it is all very sober in the whole Pali Canon. That does not suit so many people.
Can one also be a real buddhist when one is life-affirming and has not any motive to go out like a flame without nothing remaining?
Have you asked him what he means and why he, probably very well acquainted with the EBT, has different ideas about this? Or do you only want to judge him as a bad teacher and person?
Fantastic.
I added it to my notes.
Thank you.
If you are hungry and want to enjoy excellent foods but go to a pharmacy searching for them, you will be disappointed to see that it does not offer many kind of pizzas, barbecue, soups for you. Picking up a box of Pepto-Bismol, following exactly the instructions on the box, you find out that it does not work well for you. Therefore, you think that you did follow correctly the instructions, but it does not work as you expected, so you think it is not good for everybody.
If you are suffering with diarrhea, want to be free from it but go to a barbecue site which has a lot of yummy meats, fatty drinks, you will be disappointed to see that it does not offer many kind of medicines that can help you to relieve your problem. Picking up some pieces of fatty meat, eat them as the chef’s instruction, you find out that it does not work well for you. Therefore, you think that you did follow correctly the chef’s instructions, but it does not work as you expected, so you think it is not good for everybody.
If you are searching for the enjoyment of the “I, my” but go to the doctrine that advocates for the cessation of them, you will be disappointed to see that it does not offer what you are looking for. Imaging the total disappearing of the “I, my” that you are so identified with, the only things that you can cling to, you feel totally lost, you have nothing to cling to. Without them, how can “I” enjoy? How can “I” feel? How can other people know “me”? What is good with that? You are confused and doubt. You find out that it does not work well for you. Therefore, you think that it is not good for everybody.
If you are suffering or see the sufferings because of the “I, my” or you fully understand the origin, the ending, the gratification, the drawback, and the escape when it comes to the five clinging aggregates and want to make a permanent end to the sufferings then you will see the doctrine that advocates for the cessation of the “I, my” is perfectly fit for you. Fully understand the doctrine, you practice it and actually experience it. Once you actually experience the Dhamma, there is no more doubt. You know that you are free from that “I, my”, so you are so happy because you completed a task that so incredibly hard to understand and to do.
The Buddha’s Dhamma is for the wise persons, not for the unwise. There are people who cannot see no matter what you do, some can see after a lot of instructions, some can see after a short introduction. We cannot expect the Buddha’s Dhamma is for everybody. One who is drowned in cravings cannot see the true Buddha’s Dhamma, he will see the Dhamma through his own filter and interpretation, not by his actual experiences because he cannot experience the Dhamma that he cannot understand and cannot see.
The Buddha’s Dhamma is for the liberation, not for clinging to what I know. The more we think we know, the more we cling to what we think we know. If we think “I know better,” we strengthen our conceit and ignorance. If we think “I don’t know,” then we are in doubt or uncertain. This is why it is so incredibly hard to understand and to do.
8 Likes
I find this very interesting. It was the exact opposite for myself. After practicing in the field for a significant time and finding that theories and interventions of psychology did not lead to an end of suffering in samsara, but only offered band-aid solutions, I turned to Buddhism and left psychology behind. I have found the answers in the Buddhas teachings that do lead to an end of suffering.
The problem is that with Buddhism to get the results one has to practice the Noble 8 fold Path, and it is not easy (especially if one wants to practice to the end) - one has to go against the stream. Sitting in therapy once a week or doing some CBT (embryonic version of dependent arising) etc. to ease some surface problem is very easy, and may be like taking a tonic - but it only lasts a short time as one does not understand the actual mechanics of how Mind works. Even if one ‘problem’ gets fixed - the cause for the problems arising is not addressed, and it is only a matter of time before problems re-appear.
Of course if the conditions in which one lives are favourable, it is possible not to be aware of the First Noble Truth, and it may give the impression that the problem has been fixed and one can can continue to live a happy lay life.
It is the degree of dissatisfaction with ones circumstances that gives the impetus and motivation to look for a solution. If one is satisfied, or mostly satisfied with life as it is - then there is no motivation or perceived need to give up the perceived pleasures of life (chasing craving, and enjoyment of sensual pleasures).
If one is not aware of the First Noble Truth, then I can see that the interest in practicing, thinking that one will gain even greater pleasures (Nibbana or Tantric experiences, or to be a beautiful Buddha in the future) can be a motivator for practice, but this is totally coming at it from the wrong end of the stick… The practice is for letting go not for getting and accumulating.
It is of no surprise what-so-ever that people coming from this perspective find the idea of no self to be unacceptable, horrifying and one akin to annihilation or self-killing, can’t accept it, and work (either on a conscious or unconscious level) to alter the doctrine to something more palatable.
I don’t think the deeper practice of Buddhism is for everyone. I can’t see why one would want to be an evangelical in this regard. In this case the teachings on the many benefits benefits of an ethical life, here and now, are probably completely sufficient.
As long as everyone is aware and can differentiate what the Buddha taught from all these other ‘adapted’ versions, then that is fine… but then again this is human nature - to want ones cake and to eat it too …
Metta to all Beings
26 Likes
I don’t see this conversation going anywhere, so this will be my last reply to you in this thread. But I wanted to briefly point out a couple of things.
It seems to me that perception can be tricky to navigate. We all have distorted perception so long as the hindrances are there. But it also means it can be nearly impossible to communicate effectively at times. For example, you said:
As I perceive it, this is verifiably false. There are plenty of suttas addressed to lay people who are not practicing for cessation. And the Canon contains plenty of humour, poetry and delightful stories about devas. So from my perspective, it’s impossible to view the canon as “all very sober” and “not suitable for everyone”.
My perception won’t bend that way. We’re looking at the same thing, and seeing two completely different things. All we can do is state why we perceive the way we do. But it leads nowhere after a certain point. As Ajahn Brahm says, it’s just comparing thought patterns.
Add to that the limits of online communication. For example, when you said
it sounds like you perceived my tone as hostile towards Kornfield. And I apologise if I gave any reason for that. But it wasn’t my intention at all. I simply pointed out that something he said differs from what the EBTs say. This is not a character judgement, but an observation.
The limitation of my own perception is why I think the distinction between what the EBTs say and what they don’t say is so important. I will never truly see clearly until the hindrances are completely supressed. But without any guidance on what the Buddha taught, and didn’t teach, I’d be entirely at the mercy of my own preferences. Knowing that my preferences don’t belong to me, that’s scary!
I wish you well.
7 Likes