[music]

[music]

So I was like at the of the year to do a

couple of episodes that are around

things that I am working on in my own

life. Resolutions episodes you might

say. And something I've been working on

over these past [music] months, years,

is being able to sit with doubt. Not

just doubt, being able to sit in the

wonder of uncertainty.

Because the first person we believe our

own easiest marks are ourselves. the

stories we tell, the things we think we

already know. So maintaining a an

openness, a curiosity, I think it's

important politically. I think it's very

important in my work as a podcast host,

but it is as much as it is anything a

spiritual practice, a practice of

remaining present in the fundamental

unknowability

of this life and and this earth. And my

guest today has helped me with those

practices in in ways that that maybe he

would not have known. Steven Bachelor is

the author of many books on Buddhism and

meditation including this book he wrote

with his wife Martine Bachelor called

what is this? which is from a

meditation retreat, a son meditation

retreat that that they held some time

ago. And son meditation works around the

question of what is this just asking it

again and again and allowing it to arise

in you this feeling of doubt and then to

sit with that and to see what that might

reveal. Bachelor's latest book is Buddha

Socrates and us ethical living in

uncertain times. there he draws on a

different tradition of doubt, Socratic

questioning, [music] and explores kind

of the wisdom that that Buddhist and

hellenistic philosophy might offer us

today. So I want to invite him on the

show to talk about doubt as a practice

[music] and what it could open for us

personally and even politically right

now. As always, my email esc.com.

[music]

>> Steven Bachelor, welcome to the show.

>> Thank you, Ezra. So from the age of 27

to 31 you say you sat facing a wall for

10 to 12 hours a day asking the question

what is this repeatedly.

So I guess the obvious first question is

why did you do that? Um well I became a

Buddhist monk when I was 21 years old

and I was involved uh with a Tibetan

tradition that put a great deal of

emphasis on on studying the texts uh

studying logic epistemology and really

trying to get a a clear conceptual

understanding of what Buddhist

philosophy was really about.

At a certain point, I found that this

kind of inquiry, as fulfilling as it

was, did not really delve deep enough

into my existential experience, as it

were. And I felt an increasing longing

to be able to actually put all the books

aside, all the things I'd learned, all

of my knowledge about Buddhism, and go

to a place where I could just go back to

the primary questions of what it means

to be human basically. And I went to

South Korea and there I entered a Zen

monastery. Um, the teacher had one

simple instruction. Ask yourself this

question. what is this and nothing else.

Just get to grips with that primary

question of your life. [snorts]

And initially, of course, the mind comes

up with all kinds of clever answers. But

after a while, you know, hour after hour

after hour after hour, the mind kind of

gives up and you find yourself actually

in a state of puzzlement, curiosity,

wonder, perplexity in which a lot of my

knowledge of Buddhism was just gently

put to one side. A very good um way of

summing this all up is an apherism that

we find in Zen Buddhism.

Great doubt, great awakening. Little

doubt, little awakening, no doubt, no

awakening.

>> So, drop me then more into the

existential experience of of doing that.

>> Okay.

>> What is it like to sit staring at a wall

for 10 to 12 hours a day asking the the

question,

>> what is this?

>> What is this?

Well, initially when you start then

these retreats are three months, right?

N 90 days in the summer, 90 days in the

winter. It's a long period of time. But

what happens is that in the first couple

of weeks, the mind still keeps coming up

with all these clever answers and

theories and uh maybe even little

enigmatic little zenish kind of poetry

or whatever comes up. But a certain

point that sort of quietens down and you

just come to rest in that quality of

amazement, astonishment that you're here

at all and you're in this moment. It's

not that the wonder or the questioning

is just going on between your ears. It's

not an intellectual question. It might

start out in that way, but a certain

point you can actually let go of the

words altogether. You don't need to keep

repeating what is this, what is this,

but you begin to discover what they call

the sensation of doubt, an actual

physical feeling as it were that extends

right down into your belly. And that

quality, that embodied quality of wonder

or questioning then begins to actually

infuse your dayto-day consciousness more

and more. It becomes part and parcel of

your fundamental experience of being

conscious. The world is not something

you just take for granted so much

anymore or meeting another person is not

just a sort of social interaction but

underlying that encounter with the

nature or or people or animals. You

begin to be more and more attuned to the

sheer strangeness that this is all going

on at all. the world, other people, my

cat, whatever it is. And uh that opens

up a quality of relationship with life

itself that I found deeply nurturing. It

somehow reconnected me with the organic

foundations of my life, but not in a way

that they I just let go or stop

thinking. I mean as a human being you're

always thinking in a way but this

provides a framework an embodied frame

in which to maybe think from your belly

rather than think from your head.

>> I worry that somebody listening can

think I'm asking this from a a point of

gentle making fun. So I want to say that

that what is this the book that tracks a

retreat you and your wife Martin did is

>> one of my very favorite books on

meditation and I reread it every couple

of years. M

>> and so I've spent a lot of time doing

this practice

>> and one of the reasons I want to have

you on is that I've been doing it a lot

lately

>> my experience of it is right at the

beginning when I start doing it again

>> Mhm. I get that sensation of doubt,

>> that sensation of freshness in looking

at the world

>> and then fairly quickly my mind becomes

dulled

>> to the question.

>> So I guess I'm curious if you're talking

to somebody whose experience with

meditation is, you know, counting their

breath, you know, restarting every time

they lose track,

>> what is the actual instruction of of

this? How do you do it? But also how do

you keep it from

>> just becoming a repetitive?

>> Yeah. Just becoming a chant.

>> What is important is to drop the

question in to the meditation at the

point where the mind has already

stabilized either through observing the

breath or just through the silent

sitting practice itself. Um once you

sort of find yourself and you feel it in

your body, a kind of a groundedness, a

kind of a harmony, a balance, a calm,

then you very gently

ask yourself,

but what is this? What's going on? And

allowing yourself to not repeat the

question, but somehow settle into the

silence in which the question is asked.

and to um let yourself just uh listen as

it were to uh whatever responses might

come up, listen to your body, listen to

the world and at a certain point I think

you become rather disinterested in

finding an answer to be honest because

there is no answer in the end. That's

the secret which I shouldn't perhaps

have told you

>> as we don't have to do it now.

[laughter]

Um the point is not to come up with an

answer that the teacher says, "Oh, very

clever. You pass." No, it's actually

about making that quality of inquiry,

questioning, wonder, curiosity more and

more permeate into your consciousness as

a whole. Whether you're meditating,

whether you're working, whether you're

doing whatever you do,

>> I find doubt to be a very healthy and

very difficult emotion to cultivate.

>> Yeah. in my meditation practice, in my

politics,

>> I think people often hear it as

skepticism, which can also be good, but

can also be negative, particularly if

only externally directed, right? You're

>> skeptical that everybody else believes,

but you're quite certain of what of what

you believe.

>> And so, I think I've latched on to this

because I I think the strengthening of a

muscle of internal doubt

>> is an important virtue. Actually

>> doubt has really been

>> structured across your books. It's been

very present for you. What what is I

guess the definition of doubt to you and

what is the use of it?

>> Well, um I mean doubt

even in Zen Buddhism is understood to

have two quite separate meanings.

There's the doubt that actually inhibits

you from doing anything. For example,

you know, I'm not sure if this practice

is really going to work. I'm not sure if

I really believe all this stuff about

Buddhism. So we're not talking about

that kind of doubt, that vacasillation,

that uncertainty which is kind of

inhibiting, but rather a quality of

doubt that somehow

lies at a much deeper place within your

experience. I might call it an

existential doubt. [snorts]

One way in which we might think of it,

it's uh being uncertain about the great

matter of birth and death. So it's a

kind of existential uncertainty. The

capacity to make your life into a

question for yourself rather than

relying upon the certainties or quasi

certainties about well I know who I am.

I'm this person. I've done that. I'm

this important you know Buddhist or

whatever. and to just let that go and

recognize that uh although certainties

can be comforting and uncertainty can be

discomforting

as in think Voltater said at one point

he said uh uncertainty or doubt is

uncomfortable but certainty or not doubt

is stupid. I find that in your books and

and in that answer sometimes there are

two

>> things that feel different to me that

you're describing cultivating

>> one is doubt about as you put it the the

great matter of life and death

>> what is the nature

>> of being here

>> and then there is also the

reminding yourself that you are here

>> sci-fi writer Kim Finley Robinson turned

me onto this idea in sci-fi of cognitive

estrangement that one thing science

fiction does estrange you a little bit

from [snorts]

>> the world as you know it by by shifting

something and I find sometimes this

practice can give me a useful kind of

estrangement oh it's strange that I'm

here

>> but then sometimes what it's doing as

like what is this run through my head

during the day is remembering

>> oh this is my children are playing and

it's a sunny day

>> not this other set of thoughts and

worries

>> and stories running through my head

>> or you [snorts] know this is a moment in

politics that I don't actually

understand where it goes.

>> It's not certain in the way that it can

feel to me as

>> dreadful or promising or whatever my

interpretation might have been.

>> How do you think about that difference

between I don't know maybe it's

existential doubt

>> and then this is a kind of support of a

more tangible almost literal awareness.

>> Um well I think they're not two separate

things. So uncertainty gives you space.

It gives you the time to ponder, to

reflect, to think, to not just believe

in what your mind is telling you. I

think it's helpful perhaps to think of

doubt as operating along a spectrum. Um

maybe with the sort of, you know,

practical doubts that we have all the

time, practical questions, where are my

kids or what is that person up to on

that building, whatever. And that could

be quite necessary and useful to sort of

work with that. But when we get into say

the realm of of say politics or or in a

really difficult emotional situation you

have in a relationship, what you might

notice is that when you confronted with

those sorts of challenges, your

immediate reaction is to come up with

some fixed view, some idea. This is

terrible. These people are awful. Um

it's all my wife's fault. And it's

interesting to notice how automatically

we latch on to these uh convictions. And

that I think actually is an inhibitor

not only in meditation but I think also

in negotiating the social and political

world in which we live. We perhaps would

arrive at more appropriate judgments

if we were able to pause. If we were

able to notice what is rising up in us

is just a reactive habit or what is

rising up in us is something that is

really emerging as a as an authentic

response to the actuality of the

situation at the time to get a bit of

space to get a bit of distance and also

groundedness in your own bodily

sensations what you're really feeling in

your gut.

So very similar in fact to what go you

go through in the process of meditation.

You need to quieten down in order to

hear the question and the question might

be an issue in our political life for

example to be able to hear it rather

than just react to it.

>> You brought up the word reactivity

there.

>> Yeah.

>> And another idea that has threaded

through your books

>> which is building on a famed idea in

Buddhism but is the idea of the four

tasks.

talk me through them.

>> Okay. Well, the four tasks are a way of

understanding the primary logic of the

Buddhist uh teaching or the dharma as we

call it. And it it derives uh from the

Buddha's very first discourse. And these

tasks are first to embrace life, to

embrace suffering. In other words, to

resist the tendency whenever something

disagreeable is happening to sort of

recoil away, but be able to say yes to

life. It's very much an affirmation of

the reality you find yourself in that

given moment. That's the first task. The

second task is to let our reactivity be.

So if you're in a difficult situation

and maybe it causes you a lot of uh

anger that's your initial reaction to

notice the anger to be mindful of the

anger and to watch the anger arise and

also if you leave it alone to let the

anger fade away that's the second task

of letting reactivity be or letting

reactivity go. The third task is when

your mind is beginning to calm down and

not be so reactive that you come to

appreciate a nonreactive

space within you. And the third task is

to dwell in that non-reactive space. And

in the Zen practice I've just been

talking about this means to dwell in

that sense of not knowing of questioning

because questioning itself is a

non-reactive

state of mind at least in the context of

say wonder or whatever to dwell in that

to really get to feel it in your body to

become intimate in a sense with your own

non-reactive

potential and that non-reactivity is

really in classical Buddhist language,

Nirvana itself.

>> What's that like, man? [laughter]

>> Well, it sounds a bit grandiose perhaps,

but uh I think it's something we already

all know. It's odd. I find that um even

if I haven't been meditating or people I

know who never no interest in

meditating, they have had experiences

where all of their models and worrying

thoughts for some reason just die down.

People might find this in doing sport,

for example, running every day or

jogging. They might find it by uh going

for hikes in the countryside or just

working in their gardens. There's all

manner of activities we do have nothing

to do with meditation in a formal sense,

but are moments whereby suddenly we find

ourselves at peace with ourselves. That

to me is the non-reactive space. I think

it's dangerous to present it as

something exotic and spiritual. I feel

nirvana. These moments of stopping and

in that stopping suddenly feeling at

peace with ourselves, at harmony with

our world. It may only last a few

seconds, maybe longer, but that's

non-reactivity. It's not something we

just get from meditation. We already

know that. And when we find ourselves in

those moments and sometimes they come

upon us out of the blue, you know, one

day you're, you know, just leading your

everyday life and you sit down on a park

bench and for some reason that you

cannot explain, you find yourself still

and quiet. The mind's chatter has died

down. And in that moment, and this is

the other side of non-reactivity,

the world reveals itself more

luminously.

The problem with reactivity is not that

it causes you suffering, although it

often does, but it actually inhibits you

from experiencing the uh the wonder of

life itself. So in moments of medit when

you do when you're on a meditation

retreat, I'm sure you've had this

experience. You you you sit for a few

hours during the day and then you go out

into the garden and the colors are

brighter, the sounds are more engaging

and there's something about the sheer

joy in a way and mystery that we're able

to encounter which is a a render the

world is rendered more vivid and bright.

So non-reactivity feels like a sort of

an inner peace if you wish a quietening

down and in the doing of that the world

is subtly transformed in a way that

brings forth its richness and its wonder

but that is not the end of the path that

is actually in my understanding where

the path begins. So the fourth task is

to cultivate a way of life to cultivate

a path and that [clears throat] means

that this non-reactive space is not uh

nirvana in the sense of the

enlightenment or the goal of the path

but it's actually the most appropriate

space for being able to make more more

useful and effective judgments.

In other words, choices, a way of life

that is not driven and inflected by

these instinctive reactive patterns,

these conditioned responses of our

society, but rather to be able to

respond to life in a way that is

according in alignment with my basic

values.

>> [music]

[music]

>> Let me try to go through those in

pieces.

>> Okay. So the the first one you walked

through which you're describing here as

saying yes to life

>> to the extent people have heard it is

something like life is suffering or you

know there will always be suffering

and so what I hear you saying on some

levels accepting

>> life as it is

>> that's correct but not accepting as

resignation

acceptance could be seen as as a sort of

rather passive non-involved

kind of relationship to things. But um I

don't see it that way at all. And

particularly in the framework of these

four tasks, acceptance of life, being

able to say yes, this is the situation

I'm in. That doesn't mean that that

situation is is good or has to be

somehow not responded to at all. It's

just the way the world is. But it's that

capacity to actually own up not only to

the external situation you're in but

also very much to how you habitually

react to those external situations. You

get locked into a certain pattern of and

your mind goes round and round and round

in the same old thoughts. It's very

circular. It's very repetitive. So to

say yes is to establish a basis from

which one can then make a more

appropriate response. And I don't think

this is just to do with Buddhist

practice. Got nothing really to do with

Buddhism. It has to do with how to lead

a fully flourishing life. [snorts]

>> I always want to zoom in on the verbs

here.

>> Okay.

which I think uh a lot of mischief hides

in them for people

>> or confusion for me specifically.

>> You'll hear accept this is the situation

you were in.

>> I often am in a situation.

>> I think time to accept it.

>> Then I think

>> okay accept it

>> and nothing happens.

>> Yeah, that's [laughter] right. No,

that's true.

What is supposed to be happening there?

The the verb accept is doing what for

you? What action is taking place if any?

>> Well, it's a bit like questioning in a

way like what is this? You ask the

question what is this? It can be what in

Zen they call a dead word or it can be a

live word. I mean what is this repeated

as a mantra is a dead word but what is

this asked from your guts is a living

word. So I think we can make the same

distinction between acceptance. Accept

things as they are could be a kind of

encouragement not to do anything and

just to sort of be a passive recipient

of whatever life is throwing at you at

you with no recourse to do anything

else. That would be a dead word accept

or embrace. But what would be the living

version of accept? And that to me would

be an embrace or a willingness to be in

this world despite all of its problems

and difficulties and things you don't

like. to be able to encompass that to

comprehend it in a way that you somehow

acknowledge that this at this moment is

your total experience and this is where

any answer or response to the situation

will have to come.

>> It sometimes feels to me like the

distinction here is between you can be

in a situation you can face up to it or

not.

>> Yes, that's right. There is a famous

meditation that has a structure of I'm

of the nature to grow old. I'm of the

nature to grow sick. I'm of the nature

to lose people I love. I'm of the nature

to die.

>> And I understood that as simply a I mean

I know that's true.

>> But I don't know that's true. [laughter]

>> Or I don't face up to that being true

all that often.

>> That's exactly the point. We all know

we're going to die, you know, in theory,

and we might even worry about it

sometimes, but I don't think we really

know. And another meditation that has

been very very effective in my life,

which I learned from my Tibetan teachers

was the contemplation of death. You

know, death is certain, but the time of

death is uncertain. So once again, you

have this tension, certainty,

uncertainty. The one certain thing is

totally uncertain as to when it's going

to occur.

In other words, when you start thinking

about death in a more contemplative way,

as in that little exercise the Tibetans

have, over time,

your relationship to death becomes much

more paradoxically alive. With each

breath, you are taking one breath less.

So to experience something like death or

old age from that kind of contemplative

perspective gives it a a whole different

meaning really. It forces you to think

well how do I want to live? If I could

die at any moment I'm beginning to

really feel that and I think Buddhist

meditation has helped me sort of learn

to live on that cusp.

It very much inevitably I feel forces me

into a deeper ethical relationship as to

how I want to flourish as a person. What

kind of world what kind of society I

would wish my I don't have children so I

would wish future generations to be able

to enjoy. Meditation at that point

becomes a kind of a bridge to allowing

us to engage in our world in allowing us

to engage in our lives with a greater

sense of depth and less of a sense of

just jumping from one topic to the other

in a superficial way.

>> So the next as I had written it down

when you were speaking was let

reactivity be.

>> Yeah.

>> You'd also used another term in there

which is let go.

>> Yes. Yeah,

>> let go is maybe the the verb structure.

>> There's more complicated grammatical

names for it, I'm sure,

>> that I find the most frustrating across

Buddhist literature. [gasps and snorts]

>> Because I'll have those feelings like

time to let them go, then nothing will

happen.

>> Yeah, [laughter] exactly.

>> But you also said it as let it be.

>> Yeah.

>> I'd like to dwell in that difference a

little bit for a minute between

>> let go feels like one thing and we hear

it all the time. Let go of these things

that are not serving you.

>> Mhm.

>> I don't find that that is a tool in my

toolkit.

>> Letting [snorts] be maybe a bit more so.

>> Yeah. Well, um you have to remember that

traditionally in in 99% of Buddhist

books you read, the word I'm translating

uh is usually translated as abandon.

It's much stronger. It's actually

reject, get rid of, greed, hatred, these

things. Abandon them. Abandon them.

I found that way too aggressive.

>> I think in Western pop Buddhism, they

don't use that as much.

>> No, they don't. But Western pop Buddhism

has tended to pick up on the idea of let

of letting go.

>> Of letting go. Yes.

>> Letting be I find works way way better.

This is I think at the core of

mindfulness practice that all of the

mindfulness approaches. It's learning to

you know if you feel a feeling of

jealousy or anxiety arise in your mind,

you just notice it. You don't believe it

and get caught up in its narrative and

you don't try to repress it or deny it

either. You just let it be. Let it be

works really well. And it works well

also because the whole heart of any

mindfulness intervention is to actually

see things for what they are, which are

transient, contingent, and just let them

to follow their own natural course. And

they will slowly, not immediately, but

over time they slowly diminish. And even

if they don't diminish, you become more

and more centered in the non-reactive

quality of mindfulness. As soon as you

are mindful, you're already being

non-reactive. You're noticing rather

than reacting. You're observing. And

that's what frees you from entanglement

in these often very powerful thoughts

and emotions that surge up within us. In

my very unawwakened, amateur-ish

attempts to to work with all this, I

have found it helpful for me to think

about the the thing you're not supposed

to be doing.

>> I sometimes think of it as trying not to

act from it.

>> That's right. Exactly.

>> I had a experience. It's I think it's

useful because it's a small one. the

other night where I'm on a bunch of

group chats and the this particular

group chat had gotten into an argument,

>> including with me at like 11 p.m.

[laughter]

>> And I had already meditated uh that

night and I found myself getting upset

and and feeling like I need to defend

myself and uh you know my chest getting

tight and you know feeling hotter and

>> and thinking well I should let this go.

I should be non-reactive.

>> Yeah.

>> And then nothing

>> happened.

>> Happened. [laughter]

>> The best I was able to do was actually

to not be non-reactive. It was to not

react.

>> Yeah.

>> And in not reacting, I didn't make

things worse.

>> I learned some things.

>> I found the experience of trying to

watch the way my body was reacting at

least somewhat interesting. But it was

unpleasant.

>> And it led me to this inquiry. some ways

it's one of the things that led me to

this conversation

>> about

what it actually meant to be

non-reactive. Was it to have negative

feelings but not feel negatively while

having them because that didn't seem to

be working

>> or was it to just be feeling negatively

and not doing anything like white

knuckling your way through your feelings

>> which I'm able to do. I'm able to white

knuckle my way into not reacting to

certain things

>> or something else like how do you

actually understand the experience of

non-reactivity?

>> Well, I think what you said also is part

of it. I mean at times you know if if

you're you're practicing being

non-reactive then at times it will be a

white knuckling thing. You find you

don't have the inner capacity to just

sort of remain calm and joyful and so on

at all. It overwhelms you. But what I

think meditation allows over time is you

slowly start to cultivate a a more

embedded sense of the feel of

non-reactivity. And this is when we come

to task number three. It's learning to

dwell and to feel and to sense in the

body what non-reactivity feels like. Is

to become somehow intimate with that

quality of your embodied experience. So

it's not non-reactivity as an idea of

something you may or may not do. you

start to begin to feel this non-reactive

quality uh kind of infusing your

>> but let me hold before you get to the

place where you can feel that

>> there are these times when you're not

feeling that

>> and

and I think this is actually an

important place for people right this is

on one level a conversation about

>> meditation and Buddhism and what is this

and then on this is a podcast that

spends its time in politics

>> and I have been thinking about how you

maintain

some clarity and some internal space if

only to think well and make good

decisions

>> at a time that is very overwhelming. Um,

and

I guess one thing I noticed, uh, or I've

noticed across, you know, many years of

meditating, doing these practices,

is that

I'm often reacting to a sensation in my

body. I think I'm reacting to a

situation, but I'm not.

>> I'm reacting to how I'm feeling

>> feeling. Yeah. So, like with that text

message thread that I'm using as my

example here, I was reacting to try to

release pressure in my chest, and it

wasn't going to do that. [laughter]

>> It was going to increase it because

nobody was going to chill out at 11:15

p.m. furiously uh texting each other.

And I feel like this is one of the

interesting

realizations of meditation over long

periods of time just that you know when

you go into it how much of a situation

is just pretty modest sensations

>> like a bit of tightness in the chest a

feeling of buzzing in the extremities

>> and [snorts] you're like that's that's

the whole thing that's driving me right

now. I just feel a little bit weird.

Yeah. [gasps]

Well, that is I think one of the great

insights that we find in the Buddhist

tradition is the Buddha realized

precisely that that we don't react to,

you know, the external object. We react

to how the external object or person

makes us feel. Feeling tone. It's

sometimes translated as to to pay more

attention to how the environment and

also your your own inner stuff is

actually affecting your underlying

tonality. whether that's pleasant or

unpleasant or neutral or whatever and

that's something that is understood as

simply a given that whether you're the

Buddha or whether you're me. The reality

is if you are threatened let's say by

someone with a knife that that will

trigger a survival reaction which is

entirely necessary and valuable. There's

no problem with that. But there's lots

of other reactive patterns that uh come

up which are not helpful. They're often

loop tapes or fears that you might have

inherited from your family or your past

experience or whatever. And these things

surge into your mind as I'm sure you've

probably noticed. And um you get trapped

in these little loop tapes of worrying

about something or feeling angry about

something. And so it's a question really

of learning how to first of all

recognize these patterns, these

conditions that keep repeating. That's

very important. But also to begin to

open up a space within that

[clears throat] noticing in which you

realize that the mindfulness, let's say

your attention to that reactivity itself

is not reacting. Over time you learn to

somehow strengthen that non-reactive

dimension of attention or mindfulness so

that that becomes more and more a

stabilized point from which you can then

deal with these uh difficulties whether

it's personal whether it's political and

um in that way I feel you open up more

and more a capacity to be with it

and also So as we would say in in

stoicism for example to recognize what

it is about your situation that you

cannot change and what is it about your

situation that you can change. I cannot

change the fact that I feel angry for

example by saying don't be angry. It's

not going to work. But I can notice that

that is a given in my life at that

point. I can let it be. I don't need to

get entangled with it or believe it's

narrative. And it's within that

non-reactive space I think that you can

exercise those judgments. Can I change

this or do I have to accept it for what

it is? That I think is the challenge of

what we call the practice really.

>> You think about the places where

being

what I would call too regulated or

judicious or letting the emotions pass

by and only speaking from a grounded

place

can actually make it harder or more

unlikely to deal with things that are

difficult. Um, I I think about many

relationships in my life and how often

it has been important in them

>> to lose my emotional self-control. Not

in a sense of getting incredibly angry

or, you know, anything

>> in that direction. But

there are things normal me doesn't deal

with.

>> Mhm. and things that people can't see in

me,

>> forms of hurt

>> or

upset or need

>> that the part of me that tries to

meditate 30 or 40 minutes a day, it's

like we're we're keeping things stable

here,

>> right? We're keeping things level.

>> And levelness is good,

>> but there's much that levelness

doesn't

>> address. You know, when people go to

therapy, the therapist is not trying to

keep them

>> incredibly solid. I find that the best

therapists I've had often are in certain

ways trying to push me out of my window

of emotional regulation

>> so that I am reacting to an emotion

>> that I find very unpleasant

>> and that

>> to the extent I let things be, I tend to

let it go away.

>> Yeah.

>> So, I don't have to deal with any of

that. I think it is a a quite valid uh

criticism of Buddhism and meditation in

general that it can be used as a

strategy of avoidance like the business

of of using meditation as a way to in a

way numb yourself to the world and I'm

sure that happens why not you come to

dwell in your own kind of spiritual

bubble and that to me is not an

appropriate response to the situation

the goal of this four task practice

practice is not to re come to rest in

some blissful nanic state at all but

it's actually to be able to respond more

effectively to the world in which we

find ourselves and the suffering and the

confusion and so on that's going on. So

you you you understand from the outset

that this is a practice that is not

giving absolute value to stillness and

emotional equilibrium and so on. It's

getting you into a space where you can

then make the judgment to respond. And

it could be [snorts] that you need

anger. I mean, I don't think anger is

necessarily a bad thing. For example,

you might have a mother with a little

child and the little child keeps running

out into the road and she says, "Come

back, come back, come back." Kid steep

running into the road and then the

mother loses it, we might say, and gets

really angry with the child. But that's

the appropriate thing to do. It's

perfectly good for the welfare of the

child. So I think one has to get out of

this idea that's a kind of

a priority set of good reactions or good

responses that Buddhism approves of or

other religion approves of. I think we

have to find an ethic in which we're

much more situational. that what counts

in an ethical situation is not following

the Buddhist rule book or the Jewish

rulebook or the Christian rulebook, but

actually finding your own voice, finding

your own way of being with that

situation in an authentic uh hopefully

in an effective way uh that is both in

tune with your own deepest values and

also responds as optimally as you can to

the situation at hand. But being

fallible human mortal creatures, we very

often get it wrong because you can spend

all the time you like trying to make the

appropriate judgment as to what to do in

a difficult situation. But we all know

from experience uh no matter what your

motives are, you can end up making the

situation worse. In other words, we

don't know the future. We cannot

actually tell what is in fact the

response that would lead to you know a

resolution or greater happiness all

around for those involved or whatever it

might be. [snorts]

So it's also therefore recognizing that

any kind of judgment or choice you make

in your response is going to be a risk.

I think of this as an ethics of risk and

accepting the fact that it's a risk. But

it's important to learn from the

mistakes you make from the over, you

know, it's naive or whether there, you

know, we make mistakes. We're fallible.

I make mistakes. I'm fallible. Uh I can

get really worked up about things. I've

done all this meditation for years, but

I still get really fed up with some sort

of events in my life, and I'm not

particularly proud of that, but I

recognize that's simply the way I've

been conditioned, as it were. It's my

biological, social, whatever conditions

that have led me that way. So I don't

judge the quality of my meditation or my

Buddhist practice in such a way that

certain things just don't happen

anymore. As a human being evolved in the

way we have greed and hatred and

violence and so forth, these are built

into our makeup. We have to accept these

things for for what they are. uh not to

demonize them, not to think of them as

evil or anything like that, but simply

the way that we have evolved, but we

have the capacity to live with that, to

make better choices, to have disciplines

that can stabilize a part of our

attention, but for the express purpose

of being able to make more appropriate

uh responses, judgments, statements,

acts.

And then we learn from the consequences

of what we've said and done. And we may

find that that shows us something in you

know that we haven't done particularly

well or you know it shows a certain

weakness in ourselves or whatever. Uh so

it's an ongoing practice. this um idea

of enlightenment that Buddhists have I

think is not it's often not very helpful

because it gives you this idea that if

you do this enough you'll get to some

point and suddenly all your problems

will be over and you'll be it doesn't

work like that. Uh I think what the

Buddha describes is a process [music] of

waking up and that's something that will

go on until our last breath.

>> [music]

[music]

>> So I want to turn a bit more directly

into politics here because if the fourth

task is to live out your values is

politics is one of the places where

people try to do that and it's not I

will say for me it's not exactly a zone

of blissful non-reactivity so you talk

in your new book Buddha Socrates and us

you call our political culture highly

opinionated and you say that being

opinionated is a reactive state what do

you mean by that

>> well I think it's helpful to think that

um the opinions and views we hold are

not uh isolated raified belief beliefs,

but they are points within a spectrum

from certainty to uncertainty in which I

live the whole of my life. I I'm a

writer. I'm a thinker and I I'm very

concerned about holding a view, a

position that is makes sense to me in

terms of my values. It's rationally

defensible in terms of my overall

philosophy of life. [snorts] But at the

same time, I'm also aware that over the

years and maybe even from year to year,

those opinions can become more nuanced,

more more refined, and I might even let

go of some of them all together. So I

see our journey through life is really

about learning to negotiate and learning

to continuously put into question some

of the views and opinions that we hold

in such a way that they we don't let

them become things in which we get

trapped.

And opinions can very often just keep us

completely blocked and and we get we

feel this feeling of stuckness. I find

when we talk of reactivity, we normally

speak of either wanting something or

craving something or being averse and

hating something. But Buddhism also

includes this other thing called

confusion which is very difficult to

really understand what that means.

What I understand that now to mean is

one of the principal forms of reactivity

that we experience as human beings is in

fact our uh our opinions and our views.

And so when for example we're having a

conversation let's say someone who

doesn't share our political perspective

or so very quickly once the

conversation's gone past the polite

stage we find ourselves uh reacting

incredibly not because of something that

is desirable or undesirable but simply

because we are so convinced of the

rightness of our own opinions and views.

And so opinionatedness

to me is on an equal stance with uh

hatred and with uh greed. It's a a space

in which we cling quite desperately at

times to the rightness of our political

views, our religious views. And so

reactivity is not just a personal thing.

I think there is a collective reactivity

which is let's say the culture to which

we belong that holds certain values and

so if we are with Buddhists for example

they'll collectively you know react

against say killing animals let's say so

in other words we in internalize also

the reactive uh behaviors of our

ancestors of those we are educators and

so forth and so on. Now that doesn't

mean that we shouldn't think or we

shouldn't have views about anything.

Obviously not. But we should perhaps

learn to live more lightly with our

convictions and to notice when the

conviction turns into a kind of

sclerotic

uh you know hold on things that we just

take to be normative. But so this I

think is such an interesting tension

speaking as an opinion journalist

[laughter]

and [snorts] it's one I struggle with

all the time

>> which is

too many of us who are politically

engaged, ethically engaged,

you have this question of well is that

my opinion or is that my ethical

perspective?

Is there even a difference

>> that it seems

feels

>> that acting ethically often requires

acting from a point of view.

>> Mhm.

>> They are doing this. This is bad. It

will hurt people. I am trying to stop

>> them from doing that.

>> On the other hand, there is a tension

between that and uncertainty and and

doubt. a tension between believing you

have come to the right moral answer

>> and being

open and non-reactive

>> to people having answers that are

different than the one you came to

>> and you're trying to balance this in the

book and you're balancing it in in in

Buddhist ways and and in ways that

reflect the

>> Socratic approach.

>> That's right.

>> But talk to me a bit about that tension.

Well, there are times when those

opinions uh when they when the rubber

hits the road, when I meet someone,

let's say with a opinion that conflicts

with my own, I notice in myself a kind

of withdrawing from the engagement, a

kind of a in a sense sort of barricading

myself into my own particular view. And

that's where it becomes problematic.

Often I form judgments about people on

the basis of just one or two things they

say. And that's an extremely I think uh

disrespectful way to deal with another

person to treat them simply as the

incarnation of their own opinions and

views and their political stance or

their religious beliefs. I think as soon

as you make that sort of fixed

separation, you've basically abandoned

any genuine dialogue or conversation or

inquiry. And I found that uh this

capacity to be alert to my own tendency

to freeze and hold on a fixed opinion

and feel somehow angry immediately if

someone contradicts it. By opening up

that space, it also opens up a kind of

humility in which I recognize I need to

know more about what this person

believes. You create a very interesting

distinction in the book between justice,

which you say treasures certainty,

>> and care, which treasures uncertainty.

>> That's right.

>> Talk me through that.

>> Well, that's an idea that I picked up

very much from the feminist uh ethicist

Carol Gilligan, and it's sometimes

called a feminist ethics of care. And

she draws that distinction in a way that

I found to be very helpful. Justice and

care seem to be again poles

of a spectrum rather than two totally

separate things. And Gilligan recognizes

that the an ethics of justice tends to

be what she talks of as a a male. you

know, you have a system of law, you have

rules, and uh you make your ethical

judgments in terms of whether that's in

accordance with the law, whether it's in

accordance with the rules of your

religious society or so on. And so

you're more concerned with a kind of

abstract model of what is right and

wrong that you seek to then use to guide

you to make real world decisions.

Now we often find that uh justice alone

can be cruel. I mean you may believe for

example that abortion is wrong under all

circumstances without paying any

particular attention to the plight of

that particular woman and her unborn

child. It's just wrong by definition.

It's never to be allowed. On the other

hand of the ethical spectrum, you have

an ethics of care which we could also

call a situational ethics. In other

words, what drives my response, my

ethical response to a particular

instance of human suffering is to

understand as best I can the uniqueness

of the moral dilemma, let's say for the

woman who has a pregnancy and wishes to

terminate it or may risk dying or

whatever it might be. And so to try to

respond not by trying to find out what

is the right thing to do but to respond

to that situation in a way that is the

most loving thing to do uh the most

caring thing to do. How can I respond to

this situation that can minimize the

suffering of this person? optimize their

capacity to uh find a resolution to live

a better life. But it may not fit neatly

into some categories of of of justice of

right, wrong, good, fair, unfair, but it

is responding to the actual deep

experience of that suffering person at

that moment. and I seek to respond to

that as caringly and as lovingly, which

might include, for example, recognizing

that in her case to proceed with an

abortion would be the appropriate thing

to do in that situation.

>> This, I think, loops back to the

conversation we're having about doubt.

>> Yeah. One way I've come to think about

doubt as a political emotion, not

speaking here primarily of it as a

spiritual uh orientation,

>> is that it's like an inch of light or

space

>> between

you and your certainty in your own

views. And it's like that inch of space

into which

>> other people in their views

>> can come in because

one just reality of the age to me like

speaking from

>> where I have to sit

>> is as we you know as politics becomes

more high stakes the parties become more

different as people become more

>> in conflict with each other it's easier

to feel quite sure. Yeah.

>> And I think that that sense of certainty

>> is really the enemy of curiosity.

>> Yeah.

>> And curiosity

is a very essential democratic emotion.

>> And doubt of oneself, right? A little

bit of doubt just sitting at the base of

your own.

>> Am I sure what what is this really?

Right? Am I sure of how this will all

turn out? Am I sure I understand this

position, this moment, this situation

is

just enough to maintain a conversation.

But if you have certainty, then there's

no reason for a conversation.

>> That's right.

>> And I think that's become for me a very

important

>> branching path in in politics. It's a

reason I found myself doing these what

is this meditations right now. that

>> the the work of maintaining

>> enough selfdoubt

>> to maintain a little bit of curiosity

about others

>> so you can maintain a like it just

>> and I'm not saying I do it well or do it

all the time but it feels very

>> important

>> and maybe it gets to the other side of

your book which is about Socrates.

>> Yes. who's much more of an explicit

political actor

>> and talking about highstakes political

topics with people in his time

>> but always from this place of probing.

>> Yeah. Exactly.

>> Why in your, you know, however many

books you've now written, why turn to

Socrates? Why turn to to that kind of

more philosophical

>> almost gleefully

undogmatic approach to questions? As

you're suggesting, what Socrates uh is

famous for is this relentless probing of

the interlocutor's mind and

understanding and also the relentless

probing of his own mind, his own

understanding of what the virtues are.

And uh his uh analysis of the virtues

very often ends up in what he calls an

aporeia, which is a sort of a suspension

of opinion and views. So Socrates will

often say actually I don't know what ver

what justice is for example I don't know

what wisdom is but on the other hand I

never will cease inquiring about them

and this I found very very helpful just

the a clear definition of justice may

always elude us but that doesn't mean

that we cannot benefit by constantly

asking ourselves what justice is and I

think what Socrates in a way comes to in

the end is recognizing izing that

justice for example or or wisdom are not

things that you can define abstractly

but they are qualities of human life

that are enacted in real world

situations. So when we see a person in a

situation acting justly we intuitively

know that that was a just or a wise or a

courageous thing to do. But that doesn't

require us to have some a priori

definition of what that virtue is. And

that's very similar to when the Buddha

describes the what he calls um sadi

which could be translated as the right

view. It often is the right or the

complete or the you know authentic view

perhaps. An authentic view is one in

which you do not reduce your

understanding to a definition about

which you then claim certainty. That is

what it is. pinned it down, but rather a

an a constant ongoing quest

into the, you know, what the virtues

are, what it is to be good, for example,

with an understanding that you're

probably always going to be asking that

question as long as you are a living

ethical being. After all of the reading

I did of of Plato and and Senapon and

others, I really arrived at this sense

that what united the Buddha and Socrates

is that they both embodied an ethics of

uncertainty. An ethics that is not

founded on some metaphysical certainty.

the belief in God or the belief in the

law of karma for example, but is very

much about responding appropriately to

the particular situations in life we

have in a way that is acknowledging the

centrality in our life of certain values

or virtues and yet values and virtues

which we cannot actually define. Is

there comfort in all this or only

discomfort? And and and what I mean by

that is that

something we so want and seek is

certainty.

>> Yeah.

>> From religion,

>> from spirituality, like tell me there is

life after this. Tell me there is

meaning to all this.

>> From politics,

>> tell me I have the right answers. Tell

me this person will do the right thing.

that this sort of radical

ethic spirituality of of uncertainty

that that you're offering here that you

offer throughout your books,

>> there's a beauty to it, I think, but

also uh where does it leave you

standing?

>> What is this? [laughter]

Um well I have found um and I continue

to find that this sort of understanding

life as a work in progress as an as an

open-ended journey to some final goal

which we do not perhaps even know to put

it bluntly really this approach makes me

feel more fully alive. It enliven me. It

keeps me on my toes. And I feel in our

world today which is so caught up in

these binary conflicts that seem

sometimes overwhelming

politically, religiously that there must

be another way. And I think Socrates is

a very very good guide to help us

perhaps let go of some of our

certainties or at least release our grip

on them to allow the openness that there

may be other ways of seeing these things

that we may not agree with but are all

they have their validity. They have

their their role uh in this world too.

and really to try to establish some kind

of culture in which there's far greater

tolerance of difference uh amongst

different communities amongst different

individuals different religious groups

political groups and I think we are

witnessing in our world extreme

polarization at the moment and um this

may be one approach to perhaps overcome

that polarization or at least to lessen

its power over

But in the end, I don't know. I mean, in

the end, all I can do is trust what I

believe. I have a view obviously and to

somehow try to live that. Then how is

our final question? What are three books

you'd recommend to the audience?

One book I'd recommend is a book called

Children of a Modest Star, subtitled

Planetary Thinking for an Age of Crisis

by Jonathan Blake and Neils Gilman,

which is a wonderful reflection on how

we need to imagine a form of governance

that has executive authority beyond the

nation state itself. and they're

struggling to find a way effectively

where different nations can come

together to address issues like climate

change and these issues that really are

not the unique you know cannot be

managed by national governments alone.

They're not promoting a world government

but they are suggesting a form of

subsidiarity which is a sort of

political concept where different areas

of responsibility are nested in larger

and larger ones. So I found that book

extremely uh inspiring. Another book uh

and this is a Buddhist one uh called

work like a monk uh how to connect lead

and grow in a noisy world by my friend

Shok Matsumoto who is a purand priest in

Japan who I've got to know recently and

it's it's simple it's down to earth and

it's basically based around a

hypothetical conversation between a

business person living in the world and

a priest living in a temple in Japan

it's really good and finally

a book called The Second Body by an

English uh woman novelist called Daisy

Hildyard. It's not a piece of fiction.

It's an essay on what she calls the

second body which is a highly

imaginative way of understanding that

our physical body which is sitting on

this chair right here is actually only a

relatively small part of my wider body

which extends across the world in let's

say the waste that I produce the plastic

bottles and so on that end up in the

stomachs of whales or the working

conditions of a garment factory worker

in Bangladesh.

This is an extension of my own body and

this is a short essay and I found it was

really really brilliant. I I read it a

couple of times. It's not making an

argument so much as presenting a picture

of our world uh in which we begin to

feel that our own flesh and blood body

is not all the body we have but it is

actually far more extended and by ex

recognizing the impact of our own

particular physical life on this earth

we can perhaps have a a a greater

empathy for the the worldwide

uh suffering that uh both economically,

climactically

and so forth and so on. So they would be

my three books.

>> Steven Bachelor, thank you very much.

>> Ezra, thank you very much indeed. It was

a wonderful conversation.

[music]

[music]

This episode of the Israel Clan Show is

produced by Kristen Lynn, factchecking

by Michelle Harris. Our senior audio

engineer is Jeff [music] Gild. Our

executive producer is Claire Gordon. The

show's production team also includes

Annie Galvin, [music] Marie Cassion,

Roland Hu, Marina King, Jack McCordic,

Emma Kellbeck, [music]

and Yan Cobalt. Original music by Dan

Powell and Pat McCusker. Audience

strategy by Christina Samooski and

[music] Shannon Busta. The director of

New York Times pinning audio is Annie

Rose Ster.

[music]