Press: Is That Me Bleeding?

General Information: Overview: Press Clips: Is That Me Bleeding?

An interview with Roshi Bernie Glassman
by Andrew Cohen
What is Enlightenment?

ANDREW COHEN: This is a delicate moment in the history of planet earth. Overpopulation, environmental pollution, and modern technology's weapons of mass destruction threaten the survival not only of our own species but of all life on the planet. Duane Elgin, social scientist and evolutionary thinker, in this issue of WIE, states, "What we're really facing is the convergence of a number of powerful trends√ëclimate change, species extinction, the spread of poverty, and the growth of population. All these factors could develop individually, but what's unique about our time is that the world has become a closed system. There's no place to escape, and all of these powerful forces are beginning to impinge upon one another and reinforce one another. Our situation is something like a set of rubber bands that you stretch out and out and out until they reach the limit of their elasticity, which is the breaking point of the system. Something powerful is going to begin happening at that point, and while right now we can turn away from this, in another twenty years a systems crisis will be an unyielding reality that we will have to deal with." And cultural historian Thomas Berry, in his new book The Great Work, states, "We find ourselves ethically destitute just when, for the first time, we are faced with ultimacy, the irreversible closing down of the Earth's functioning and its major life systems. Our ethical traditions know how to deal with suicide, homicide, and even genocide; but these traditions collapse entirely when confronted with biocide, the extinction of the vulnerable life systems of the Earth, and geocide, the devastation of the Earth itself." Roshi Glassman, you're a Zen activist, a passionate Zen activist. For many years you have been responding in very practical ways to the immense suffering that you have seen in the world around you. Ethically and spiritually, how should we deal with this crisis? What, in your view, is the appropriate attitude for us to cultivate in order to come to terms with the ultimacy that Elgin and Berry so graphically describe?

BERNIE GLASSMAN: You know, Andrew, I'm basically a simple person. The way I look at the issues you're talking about, which are issues of the globe, is to bring it back to our own bodies. My understanding is that we are all interconnected. But it's not so easy to think that way√ëso I like to talk about it in terms of our own bodies. Because in a way, all those issues that you talked about for the planet are constantly happening within us, within our own bodies. I have diabetes and prostate conditions, and if I look at it, it could be extremely overwhelming. I mean, I could say, "Well, I can't do anything about it." And yet, if we don't do anything about it, we die. So the point is, we do do something about it! We do something to the extent that we can see clearly. If my hand is bleeding, I can't sit around watching it just bleed and say, "I don't know what the hell to do." If your hand is bleeding, you're going to do something about it. If you don't have a bandage, maybe you'll have to just suck the blood with your own mouth or tear off a piece of your shirt to use as a bandage. You're going to do something. You clearly don't just sit there and think, "Is that me bleeding?" You do something. So for example, if I see myself on the streets as a homeless person or as somebody who's defoliating the forest, I'll say, "That's me doing this, so what can I do about it?" I'll do what I can. That's my only answer. I don't have any solutions, because I don't know. That's the first tenet of our Peacemaker Community. We may have lots of tools√ëknowledge, languages, equipment, whatever√ëbut we approach every situation from the standpoint of not knowing. That means being completely open, listening. And then doing whatever we can do. Not saying, "I don't have enough money. I don't have enough knowledge. I don't have enough enlightenment. I don't have . . ." But saying, "Here's what I do have"√ëand then doing the best actions that we can. That's what drives me to keep working in all these arenas. When we step back, we can just say, "It's overwhelming, you know√ëit's all going to fall apart." Yes, it is all going to fall apart. But, in the meantime, this is what I'm going to do.

AC: So you would say, "Abide in a state of not knowing and do the best one can"?

BG: Yes, approach the situation in a state of not knowing. Then bear witness to it. Try to become it, and out of that, I believe, automatically will come the right actions. Those actions are loving actions just like the action of trying to stop our own hand from bleeding. That is, they will arise automatically.

AC: You're saying that if we bear witness, if we face the suffering, if we truly face it, then there's going to be a natural response?

BG: I'm sure of it. I've seen it happen over and over again. But if we're trying to solve issues, then we'll be trapped.

AC: Because we don't have the capacity to do that? activism. What I try to encourage folks to do is to do whatever they can with whatever they have at the moment.

AC: And how should we respond to the "ultimacy" that Berry mentioned, which is so overwhelming because it potentially implies the end of life as we know it?

BG: In some sense, it doesn't matter how big or how small it is. Those who can work on a larger scale are going to do so, and those who can work on a smaller scale will do what they can. I define enlightenment as the depth to which one sees the oneness of life, the interconnectedness of life. And the degree of your enlightenment can be measured by your actions.

AC: How can we remain attentive to the severity of the crisis without being so overwhelmed by it that we become completely paralyzed by fear and despair?

BG: I think we become overwhelmed only because of our expectations√ëour expectations that we are going to be able to resolve the problem.

AC: I see, so that's the key.

BG: Step by step, see it in its broadest perspective, and then do the things that you can do without any expectations.

AC: Without any expectations that you're going to solve the problem completely?

BG: Yes, or even help it. You're going to do what you can do, and something's going to happen√ëwho the hell knows what.

AC: In your book In Bearing Witness, you say that "in Zen practice we . . . do our sitting meditation not for ourselves but for the world." Under the present circumstances, do you think it is still possible to do spiritual practice outside the context of this extraordinary crisis? In other words, is it still possible for an individual to pursue personal enlightenment or spiritual transformation only for his or her own sake? Or does it now no longer make sense for a sincere individual to pursue spiritual awakening without that search being the expression of a deeply committed and engaged relationship with life as a whole?

BG: We have many metaphors that show enlightenment as something that is only for one's self. I think those are old metaphors. I believe that in this day and age, we have evolved to the point where the oneness of life is part of our consciousness, independent of whether one is pursuing individual transformation. And if I use the monk as a metaphor√ëthese days I think that metaphor is about the pursuit of enlightenment for the transformation of the world, not merely of the individual self. Whether we realize it or not, I believe that we somehow have in our consciousness the knowledge that we are not only an individual, but we truly are the world√ëone piece of the whole. And practices for enlightenment, I feel, have to lead to action in the world.

AC: So you're saying it wouldn't be possible to pursue enlightenment only for oneself in this current context?

BG: I don't think so. And I think that those who are still caught in thinking that one can stay out of the world, so to speak, just wind up frustrated. I agree with what you mentioned before√ëthat the world is a closed system and that everything that happens affects the whole world. Yes, all of our actions are affecting all of the world, and we cannot do any actions, including practices for transformation or enlightenment, that are not affecting the whole world.

AC: In Bearing Witness, you describe the enlightened perspective as a state of unknowing. You say, "When we live in a state of knowing, rather than unknowing, we're living in a fixed state of being where . . . our notions of what should happen block us from seeing what actually does happen. We get upset because our expectations aren't met. . . . The truth is . . . no matter what we think, we are never in control and things will happen as they happen. But in a state of unknowing we actually live without attachment to preconceived ideas. There is no expectation of gain, no expectation of loss." So what I wanted to ask you is, What is the relationship between that state of unknowing, where there is no expectation of gain or loss, and the awakening of spiritual conscience, that conscience that compels us to transcend ego and selfishness and begin to live not only for our own sake but for the sake of others? How can we have no expectation that things will change for the better and yet still feel compelled to act, to respond to the ignorance and suffering that we see in the world around us?

BG: I think if we truly are in that state, that state of not knowing, we will do the best thing possible. And our actions will be "healing"√ëbut I'm not sure if that's the best word to describe it.

AC: But could you say a little bit more about the relationship between, on the one hand, not knowing and having no expectations and, on the other, the awakening of compassion, that passion to respond to the ignorance and suffering that we see in the world around us?

BG: I think that the desire to respond comes more passionately from the state of not knowing than from the state of knowing.

AC: Because?

BG: Because it's more immediate. In the state of not knowing, the suffering that's appearing becomes a part of me, and therefore I need to take care of that suffering. Because I'm suffering; it's not separate from me. But if I have some preconceived idea of how I'm supposed to respond, then I've created a separation from the experience itself, from the thing itself. And I get caught up then with the "dos" and "don'ts" of my understanding rather than with feeling that experience and then reacting directly to it.

AC: You've been saying, "The right response is going to happen"√ëand I believe you and I agree with you. But I still want to ask you, in terms of the dharma, what exactly is the relationship between that state of unknowing and the awakening of conscience that transcends ego?

BG: I think they're the same state. But it's not a passive state; it's very active. And that active state is bearing witness. That's, for me, the way to approach it. Instead of waiting for something else to happen, say, "Right now, I, to the best of my ability, will approach this situation from the state of not knowing." I think that gives you the best shot at doing something. It gives people permission to do something from their state of enlightenment. And it means bear witness to the suffering; don't run away from it. Bearing witness is really important. To bear witness is to sit with it√ëand by "sitting," I don't necessarily mean physically sitting√ëbut to sit with it, and try to simultaneously keep coming from that place of not knowing. Stay with it and bear witness to it√ëthen you can do something. Now, each one of us has got whatever attachments we have, and that's why I say that the degree of our enlightenment is the degree of passion that we will have for the whole world. That passion will arise. Stay with it. Bear witness to what's coming up. Out of that, action has to happen.

AC: You're a Zen master and a teacher of meditation. In Buddhist meditation, the goal is to realize and experience emptiness of self. What is the relationship between the realization of emptiness and the awakening of compassion?

BG: I look at compassion as the functioning of that empty state. So again, I use "not knowing" similarly to the term sunyata, or emptiness. And in Zen, we sort of force people toward what we call the root of emptiness, the essence of it, which really is the state of not knowing. Because once I even use the word sunyata, or emptiness, that's a√ë

AC: Concept.

BG: Something in the mind, yes. But the functioning of that state is what I would call compassion.

AC: Because?

BG: Because my understanding of it is that when one comes from that place of emptiness, then one is full of this passion for life and for the end of suffering. And the actions that arise out of that emptiness are going to be actions that are trying to reduce suffering.

AC: Would you say the reason is that in that emptiness there is freedom from ego or self-concern, and when we're in a state of egolessness, or freedom from self-concern, there will be a spontaneous arising of compassion?

BG: Yes. But you know, "ego" is a tricky term. I tend to use the word "ego" to refer to the set of conditioning arising from our concept of who we are. I'll put it this way: I haven't met anyone√ëwhatever degree of enlightenment they say they have or the world says they have√ëwho doesn't have some set of conditioning or some ego structure.

AC: But what if we refer to ego strictly as being pride or arrogant self-importance or the deeply conditioned need to see one's self as standing apart from or separate from the whole?

BG: With that definition, I can agree with you. Ego will fall away then.

AC: So would you say then that emptiness would be synonymous with, or not separate from, that falling away and that, as a result of that falling away, compassion would spontaneously arise?

BG: Yes.

AC: And that that would be part of the miracle of who we really are and of awakening itself?

BG: Yes. And I personally am moved toward the word "love" rather than "compassion." Because compassion, for me, has a little bit of a judgmental sense. For each of us, what we see as compassion and noncompassion is different. I see the state of love arising out of that egoless state, and that's generally looked on as compassion√ëbut not always.

AC: So would you say that love, in the way you're using it, is not personal?

BG: Yes. In our three tenets of the Peacemaker Community, the first is not knowing, the second is bearing witness, and for the third I use the word "healing," which again, I don't like so much. That word could have been compassion; I think compassion is the more typical Buddhist term to use. These are just semantics in some sense, but my own inclination is to talk about the healing of one's self and the world as that third tenet that arises naturally out of the first two. That's really a state of love, and out of that love, action arises. And I guess the actions themselves, which are the function of that love, we could call compassion. I call it "healing." The love arises and compassionate actions happen. But it doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to fix the situation. Because my feeling is that the world at every moment is the perfect world as it is. It's not like something is broken that I'm going to put together. But I'm going to work toward making a more loving situation.

AC: That's a very delicate distinction you're making.

BG: It is.

AC: Because that is the challenge of enlightenment. On one hand, everything is already full and perfect and inherently free as it is, and yet at the same time√ë

BG: Yes, but if you're attached to that√ëthen you may not act.

AC: But aren't both true? Isn't everything already full and complete and already free, and at the same time, isn't there an overwhelming amount of suffering that urgently needs to be responded to in every moment?

BG: Exactly. Some people experience that first stage and get caught there. They think, "There's nothing to do."

AC: Yes. And may even use it as an excuse not to have to do anything. That's how many people actually squelch the expression of their own conscience, their own humanity. That's a pretty bad place to be.

BG: That's sort of where I started√ëtrying to encourage people not to remain in that place. There's a state in Japanese Zen that's called the "Cave of Satan." It's that place where you just stay√ëbecause there's nothing to do. And you can get in that state and it can be an overwhelming experience. But the point is to kick the person out of that cave.

AC: It's a place of complacency and self-satisfaction.

BG: Yes. I had that experience once in 1969 in a sesshin, a meditation retreat. I was working with a teacher; Koryu Roshi was his name. He was one of Maezumi Roshi's teachers. I was working on my first koan with Koryu Roshi, and I got into a very, very deep state. I got into this place where I didn't want to leave, and Maezumi Roshi pushed me out of it.

AC: Was it a very blissful place?

BG: Very blissful.

AC: Was there anything specific that he said to you about why you had to get out?

BG: No, when he saw me, somehow he knew. Of course, he was talking with Koryu Roshi so he had a sense of where I was at, and he also could tell by my movements or whatever. He just broke me out of it. He stood behind me when I was in meditation and in that state, and just screamed in a way that pushed me right out of that place into a much deeper space, a space of acting.

AC: We could probably find a contrast there with some interpretations of Vedanta, where it could seem like the whole goal was to√ë

BG: Get into a deep trance.

AC: Yes. To get out of here.

BG: Sometimes we've used the expression "samadhi freaks" for people who want to get to that place because it can be very beautiful. But for others it can be very terrifying.

AC: Because it's too much?

BG: Yeah.

AC: If the Buddha were alive today, do you think he would no longer advocate the intense practice of meditation and renunciation of the world in order to experience transcendence and nirvana? In light of the present crisis, do you think he would instead advocate the practice of meditation in service of passionate and committed social activism, as you do?

BG: Well, you know, from an egocentric standpoint, I would say sure. The one thing we know about him√ëor at least that we get from the texts√ëis that he was certainly very broad. So he would incorporate all of the things going on in his time and all of the traditions.

AC: But there seemed to be a big emphasis in his teaching on leaving the world.

BG: Well, that was part of the Indian culture of that time. My sense√ëand I can only say this because of who I am√ëis that he would be moving in the bigger world. Like His Holiness the Dalai Lama√ëI think he's a beautiful example.

AC: What's the source of the extraordinary love, passion, courage, and profound commitment that you have to alleviate the suffering of others?

BG: I don't see them as others. It's pretty egocentric√ëI want to have less suffering!