Speaker 1: So the meditation, we could say, is a refinement of
Speaker 1: the perception of impermits. From that, the whole world of
Speaker 1: dharma opens up. We begin to see that nothing in
Speaker 1: and of itself will be ultimately satisfying because nothing less.
Speaker 2: Hello and welcome to the Psychology Podcast. Today's episode is
Speaker 2: sponsored by Unlikely Collaborators. Their mission is to entangle the
Speaker 2: stories that hold us back as individuals, communities, nations, and
Speaker 2: humanity at large using the Perception Box lens. They do
Speaker 2: this through storytelling, experiences, impact investments, and scientific research. Unlikely
Speaker 2: Collaborators the only way forward is inward. Later on in
Speaker 2: this episode, I'll talk a lot more about the perception
Speaker 2: box and how it relates to this episode, but right now,
Speaker 2: let me tell you about today's guest. Today we welcome
Speaker 2: Joseph Goldstein to the show. Joseph is a co founder
Speaker 2: and the guide being teacher of the Insight Meditation Society,
Speaker 2: along with Jack Cornfield and Sharon Salzberg. He is one
Speaker 2: of the first American Vispasuna teachers and has been teaching
Speaker 2: Buddhist meditation worldwide since nineteen seventy four. A contemporary author
Speaker 2: of numerous popular books on Buddhism, His publications include Mindfulness,
Speaker 2: A Practical Guide to Awakening, One Dharma, Insight, Meditation, and others.
Speaker 2: In this episode, I talked to Joseph Goldstein about Buddhism
Speaker 2: and the impermanence of life. Being too attached to the
Speaker 2: self can bring suffering. However, this doesn't mean that we
Speaker 2: need to forego our identities or self care. Joseph explains
Speaker 2: that enlightenment can be achieved when the mind is free
Speaker 2: from clinging. He talks about the different states that can
Speaker 2: help us realize the insight of impermanence and selflessness. We
Speaker 2: also touch on the topics of mindfulness, compassion, creativity, and wisdom.
Speaker 2: This discussion was really rich and involved a lot of
Speaker 2: mutual areas of interest and a lot of translation going
Speaker 2: back and forth between the kind of phrases and terms
Speaker 2: used in my field of psychology and the terms and
Speaker 2: phrases that are used in Buddhism. So this was a
Speaker 2: really exciting discussion for many reasons. So, without further ado,
Speaker 2: I bring you Joseph Goldstein. Joseph Goldstein's so great to
Speaker 2: have you on the Psychology Podcast. Finally, go ahead to
Speaker 2: be here. We're laughing for our audience because we had
Speaker 2: some technical difficulties, but I tried to throughout the whole process.
Speaker 2: I tried to apply the things I've learned from you
Speaker 2: to not get get caught in the story. You've said
Speaker 2: something really interesting one point about I'm trying to paraphrase it,
Speaker 2: but we are completely lost in the movie, but nothing
Speaker 2: substantial is really happening. That's I think how you described
Speaker 2: our consciousness. And often a lot of the time we
Speaker 2: got so caught up in it. And you know, ten
Speaker 2: minutes from now, you know, is it really going to
Speaker 2: matter that much?
Speaker 1: Exactly? That's a good perspective to keep.
Speaker 2: For sure. For sure. So anyway, we're making this work.
Speaker 2: So you are co founder of the Insight Meditation Society,
Speaker 2: and you founded that many years ago.
Speaker 1: Is that right in the eighties? Was that in the eighties?
Speaker 1: Is that eighty nine, seventy six? Oh my gosh, so
Speaker 1: it's almost fifty years. Wow.
Speaker 2: Well, well congratulations, that's I mean, that's incredible, it's incredible.
Speaker 2: Did to do anything that long? You know, is anything
Speaker 2: anything you know that long?
Speaker 1: Is?
Speaker 2: Is really marriage?
Speaker 1: Business?
Speaker 2: Really anything?
Speaker 1: So?
Speaker 2: How old were you? And I asked that is inappropriateness
Speaker 2: that how old were you in seventy six.
Speaker 1: I was thirty two.
Speaker 2: Okay, so you were thirty two years old. Kid, you
Speaker 2: were a kid, you were I am forty four.
Speaker 1: Forty four, Well, I was no longer a kid.
Speaker 2: I looked like a kid, though I still look still
Speaker 2: look like a kid, especially when I shave. So my
Speaker 2: question is like, how did you get interested in Buddhism?
Speaker 2: You know what, what age did you really start to
Speaker 2: get into what? And what I really want to grasp
Speaker 2: here with you is what really resonated the most with
Speaker 2: your soul back then? You know what was it? What
Speaker 2: was it about it about the principles that that most
Speaker 2: resonated with your soul?
Speaker 1: First, just to say, within the context of Buddhism, soul
Speaker 1: is not really one of the words we use so funny,
Speaker 1: But leaving that inside, we can use it for a convention.
Speaker 2: Fair enough, and well, I mean we can go further.
Speaker 2: We can say when I say what resonated most with you,
Speaker 2: you'd say, well, technically there is no meed I don't know,
Speaker 2: I don't even identify with me. So okay, there's there's
Speaker 2: so many things wrong with my question there. But you know,
Speaker 2: interpreting it however, you will as a layperson, you know,
Speaker 2: as a civilian.
Speaker 1: Now I got the meaning of it. No, it's true.
Speaker 1: It's true. First was introduced to me in the Peace Corps.
Speaker 1: After college, I went into the Piscaus send me to Thailand.
Speaker 1: And I had studied philosophy at college, so my mind
Speaker 1: was kind of interested. Although I didn't really know anything
Speaker 1: about Buddhism at the time. But I started going to
Speaker 1: these discussion groups that some Buddhist monks were holding four
Speaker 1: Westerners in Bangkok, and so I would go to these
Speaker 1: meetings and really interesting to me. But having studied philosophy
Speaker 1: and given the quality of my mind, I was asking
Speaker 1: endless questions just in these small groups. People stopped coming
Speaker 1: to the group because I was going because I was
Speaker 1: being so annoying with all my questions. So one of
Speaker 1: the monks finally said, Joseph, you know, you might want
Speaker 1: to try meditating. And of course I was young at
Speaker 1: that time. I was like twenty one years old. You know,
Speaker 1: I didn't know anything about meditation, so it was all
Speaker 1: very exotic. It was my first time in the Far East,
Speaker 1: so oh that sounds great. Get my paraffinalite to get
Speaker 1: at the sit, I set my alarm clock for five minutes, said,
Speaker 1: want to sit too much. But something really happened in
Speaker 1: that five minutes, and it wasn't that it was any
Speaker 1: great enlightenment experience. Rather just in that five minutes, I
Speaker 1: saw that there was a way to look into my
Speaker 1: mind instead of simply looking out through it. And so
Speaker 1: it was like a turning in place and seeing that
Speaker 1: there was a methodology for looking into the mind. So
Speaker 1: that was incredibly exciting for me. It was just like
Speaker 1: a revelation, you know, that I could systematically watch my
Speaker 1: own mind. I got so excited that I started inviting
Speaker 1: my friends over to watch me medicine. Of course they
Speaker 1: didn't come back. Yeah, so that was that was really
Speaker 1: what captured my interest. And then gradually he started to
Speaker 1: sit for longer than five minutes, and by the end
Speaker 1: of my time in the Peace Corps, I realized that
Speaker 1: I wanted to pursue it, but that I really needed
Speaker 1: a teacher. So I had gone back to the States
Speaker 1: after my peace cost State realized I wanted to teacher,
Speaker 1: and then went back to the East to look for
Speaker 1: meditation teacher, and I ended up in India in Bogaya,
Speaker 1: where that's the place where the Buddha was enlightened and
Speaker 1: I met my first teacher there.
Speaker 2: Now, when did you come across Jack?
Speaker 1: That wasn't many years later when I came back for
Speaker 1: the last time from India. That was in nineteen seventy four,
Speaker 1: and it was just that was the year that Trumpempache
Speaker 1: was setting the Europa Institute up, you know, kind of
Speaker 1: Buddhist Buddhist College university in Boulder. In those years, it
Speaker 1: was just summer sessions. But Jack and I both ended
Speaker 1: up at the Rope in that summer and that's where
Speaker 1: we really became friends and finally collaborators.
Speaker 2: And then where did when did Sharon pop up on
Speaker 2: the scene in this movie?
Speaker 1: Well, Sharon I knew from my time in India.
Speaker 2: Oh wow, you did you meet her in India?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Wow, So I met her in nineteen I think
Speaker 1: it was nineteen seventy, In nineteen seventy when she came
Speaker 1: to bud Guy to sit one of the first Goanka courses. Yes,
Speaker 1: so that's when we met.
Speaker 2: You guys were kids.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Do you have any.
Speaker 2: Pictures from that time? Do you have any pictures from
Speaker 2: that time?
Speaker 1: Probably someplace you have some early pictures there. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, Sharon's a dear friend of mine, and.
Speaker 1: Yeah, she said, and she said to say hello, by
Speaker 1: the way, thank you. Cool.
Speaker 2: Cool, And it's just it's so cool to hear this
Speaker 2: origin story. Yeah, you know, of all three of you
Speaker 2: in a way, you know, real pioneers in I know
Speaker 2: modesty is all important everything in Buddhism, but you all
Speaker 2: are pioneers on bringing a lot of these ideas to
Speaker 2: the West. So there's so much to discuss today. It's
Speaker 2: so much I really want to like, so much nuance
Speaker 2: in this.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: One thing is this idea of enlightenment. And depending on
Speaker 2: your school of thought, your philosophy of Buddhism, there's there
Speaker 2: are very different metaphysical systems of what enlightenment means. But
Speaker 2: I read that you you argued, well roughly there, you know,
Speaker 2: there's a thread that seems to run through all of them,
Speaker 2: and that's enlightenment is when the mind is free of clinging.
Speaker 2: Do you still stand by that statement? And then can
Speaker 2: you unpack from a little more what it means to
Speaker 2: be free of clinging to your thoughts?
Speaker 1: So before getting into that, I have a new favorite
Speaker 1: definition of enlightenment.
Speaker 2: Excellent'm glad I asked this.
Speaker 1: Then, yes, it'll be worth elaborating where you just say,
Speaker 1: my new favorite definition is lightening up. That is really
Speaker 1: a process of just lightening up. I really like that,
Speaker 1: and unpacking that a little bit more, which which dovetails
Speaker 1: into the more classical Buddhist definitions of it. It really
Speaker 1: becomes means becoming less and less self centered, you know,
Speaker 1: less self referential. And for most of us in our lives,
Speaker 1: we are the center of our lives. There's this sense
Speaker 1: of self, so that that in a way, self centered
Speaker 1: can have a kind of more superficial psychological meaning. You know,
Speaker 1: we say somebody is really self centered, so we know
Speaker 1: what that means conventionally, but we drill down a little
Speaker 1: deeper self centered that is centered around a self, and
Speaker 1: the whole Buddhist path is really seeing the selfless nature
Speaker 1: of this whole mind body process. So in that sense,
Speaker 1: lightening up means weakening the sense of self center and
Speaker 1: finally uprooting, which is in classical terms, the first stage
Speaker 1: of enlightenment with a view where we're seen beyond the
Speaker 1: view of self, and that that belief that view is
Speaker 1: actually uprooted at that point, and so in classical terms,
Speaker 1: that's what it's called stream entry, entering the stream to enlightenment.
Speaker 2: I love all these visuals as well. They're all very
Speaker 2: like ocean. I love it.
Speaker 1: No, I love it.
Speaker 2: Can you be self focused at times without being selfish?
Speaker 2: I think a lot about this, you know?
Speaker 1: What?
Speaker 2: Is it always bad? Being self referential?
Speaker 1: Is that not?
Speaker 2: Again?
Speaker 1: Bad?
Speaker 2: Is a judgment, a judgment called it's not very Buddhist
Speaker 2: to me either? But but leading to can you still
Speaker 2: be leading to enlightenment and and be self focused?
Speaker 1: Yes? So there are a couple of things here. Even
Speaker 1: though the kind of essence, really the core of the
Speaker 1: Buddhist teachings is understanding and realizing selflessness, still we use
Speaker 1: that word in a conventional way just for purposes of communication,
Speaker 1: you know. So that's fine. I'm not suggesting we give
Speaker 1: up the idea, you know, just using common language. So
Speaker 1: in this sense, and I'll give you an example of it,
Speaker 1: when one is doing the love and kindness practice, you know,
Speaker 1: in Polg's called meta, we direct loving wishes to a
Speaker 1: sequence of categories of beings, starting with oneself, then a
Speaker 1: factor frame, neutral person, difficult person, and then all beings.
Speaker 1: And the idea is to equalize the quality of our
Speaker 1: love and kindness and love and care among all of
Speaker 1: those categories, including what we conventionally call self right, so
Speaker 1: very that's part of the well wishing and the caring
Speaker 1: for all beings. So all beings include ourselves. So there's
Speaker 1: no so taking care in a skillful way, and it
Speaker 1: doesn't have to be in what conventionally we would call
Speaker 1: a selfish mode. It really can come out of a wisdom.
Speaker 1: It's like we take care of our health, you know.
Speaker 1: That's not being selfish, it's being wise. So there's no
Speaker 1: problem with that. But it's to understand that we're using
Speaker 1: the term self there conventionally. It would be very awkward
Speaker 1: to say, oh, I'm going to take care of this
Speaker 1: mind body process constituted with the five aggregates. My self
Speaker 1: is just assured it. Yeah, yeah, So we use it
Speaker 1: conventionally and it's helpful.
Speaker 2: I really appreciate that clarification, you know. I I've been
Speaker 2: obsessed with a certain paradox I noticed in my psychology research,
Speaker 2: and that's that it seems like the most psychologically healthy
Speaker 2: people have the strongest sense of self, you know, And
Speaker 2: so just let that sit there a moment, what I
Speaker 2: just said, because it's very very interesting I'm trying to
Speaker 2: integrate this with with Buddhist philosophy because we find over
Speaker 2: and over again, those who are you can even say
Speaker 2: the inverse, those who have the high levels of anxiety, stress, depression,
Speaker 2: and even what we call vulnerable narcissism, tend to report
Speaker 2: there are actually scales on the extent to which you
Speaker 2: have a sense of self, report feeling like they're constantly
Speaker 2: shape shifting depending on right. They don't feel like they
Speaker 2: know who they are at all, feel any sense of self.
Speaker 2: So is this compatible? Can we can we integrate these
Speaker 2: literatures in a way because on first past they seem incompatible,
Speaker 2: But I bet they're not. I bet they're not at all.
Speaker 1: They're not because again, different systems of understanding often use
Speaker 1: the same word meaning different things. So when you're comparing
Speaker 1: the different systems, thinking that they're referring to the same
Speaker 1: thing because the word they're using, like self or ego
Speaker 1: is the same in psychological in this psychological paradigm and
Speaker 1: the Buddhist paradigm, they are using those terms very differently.
Speaker 1: So my understanding and I'm not a therapist, I'm not
Speaker 1: a trained psychologist, but you know from what I've learned
Speaker 1: over all these.
Speaker 2: Years, we neither by the way, Okay, so I didn't
Speaker 2: say anything.
Speaker 1: Man, When psychologists use the term self or ego, my
Speaker 1: understanding is translating that into Buddhist terms would be a
Speaker 1: healthy balance of mind. Good. I like that when the
Speaker 1: when the term self or ego is used, just in
Speaker 1: the Buddhist sense, that's referring to the idea that there
Speaker 1: is some unchanging entity residing within us. And that was
Speaker 1: what I was referring to at the very beginning of
Speaker 1: our conversation with respect to the word soul, you know,
Speaker 1: as if there's some unchanging core being hiding out, you know.
Speaker 1: So that's what the buddhas said, is not that's a
Speaker 1: mistaken view of what this mind body trucess is all about.
Speaker 1: So just using the terms differently, and I think the
Speaker 1: Buddhists would agree that. And part of the path is
Speaker 1: to have a healthy sense of self in a psychological
Speaker 1: sense is essential, you know. We and a lot of
Speaker 1: the practice is accomplishing that balance of the mind, you know.
Speaker 1: So again they complement one another really well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I am so excited to announce that registrations are
Speaker 2: now open for our self actualization coaching intensive. While the
Speaker 2: coaching industry has taken great strides over the years toward
Speaker 2: integrating more evidence based coaching approaches, there are still a
Speaker 2: lot of work to be done. Many coach training programs
Speaker 2: still lack strong foundations and science and do little to
Speaker 2: incorporate research informed tools, methodologies, or approaches for helping clients thrive.
Speaker 2: For twenty years, I've dedicated my career to rigorously testing
Speaker 2: ways to unlock creativity, intelligence, and our potential as human beings. Now,
Speaker 2: for the first time ever, I've compiled some of my
Speaker 2: greatest insights to bring the new science of self actualization
Speaker 2: to the field of professional coaching. This immersive three day
Speaker 2: learning experience will introduce you to self actualization coaching, an
Speaker 2: approach intended to enhance your coaching practice by offering you
Speaker 2: evidence based tools and insights from my research that will
Speaker 2: equip you to more effectively help your clients unlock their
Speaker 2: unique potential. Don't miss out on this unique opportunity. Join
Speaker 2: us and take your coaching practice to the next level.
Speaker 2: Go to sacoaching dot org. That's sacoaching dot org. I
Speaker 2: look forward to welcoming you into I find the Buddhist
Speaker 2: perspective so beautiful and it has impacted me personally so much.
Speaker 2: As I was writing my book transcend I came across
Speaker 2: some writings from the humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow where he
Speaker 2: put it this way, and I want to see how
Speaker 2: this resonates with you, because it really resonated with my
Speaker 2: not not s word, but my being. Or what he
Speaker 2: said is that the purpose of self actualization is to
Speaker 2: erase itself.
Speaker 1: He said that was so beautiful, Absolutely love it.
Speaker 2: And then he said, I mean he had such a
Speaker 2: way with words, you know, Maslow. And then he also said,
Speaker 2: if done right, self actualization really just allows you to
Speaker 2: walk the bridge to transcendence. And that's that's how I
Speaker 2: view it, you know, when I yeah, yeah, when I
Speaker 2: talk about self actualization, and I really my whole research
Speaker 2: program is about self actualization. I don't mean it as
Speaker 2: as an individualistic pursuit context of the world, but I
Speaker 2: actually do you think that self actualization, though, is a
Speaker 2: really important step on the paths of transcendence. And I
Speaker 2: don't think the Buddhist would ever say that, you know,
Speaker 2: we shouldn't have self actualization. We should only you know,
Speaker 2: I don't know, we should have no sense of self.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's just such a mischaracterization of Boo the
Speaker 2: way the Buddha thought about this, right, Yes.
Speaker 1: Yes, Again, it just points so that they're using the
Speaker 1: word self in two different ways. So in the way
Speaker 1: that Maslow is using it, as I said, it fits
Speaker 1: in perfectly. And I love the quotes you said. Because
Speaker 1: in self actualization, the self disappears and comes the way
Speaker 1: to transcendence. That that could be enough in a Buddhist perspective,
Speaker 1: that could be saying, yeah, when all the factors of
Speaker 1: enlightenment are in balance, it leads to transcendence.
Speaker 2: Yes, But if you do it too quickly, like if
Speaker 2: you just lose some one day you wake up and
Speaker 2: you've lost all sense of self, that's a very jarring
Speaker 2: situation for a human. That's that that'll put you in
Speaker 2: a mental institution, Like that'll that I mean, that's that's
Speaker 2: can be scary, you know, if you devoid from the
Speaker 2: self actualization journey.
Speaker 1: You know. Yeah, but in the way you express that, yes,
Speaker 1: using the term self in the psychological yeah sense, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it doesn't make sense to say somebody who realizes that
Speaker 1: that the non self too early, they go off of business. Yes,
Speaker 1: because using that term in the psychological sense it's like
Speaker 1: saying losing the sense of balance of mind is a
Speaker 1: good thing, because in the way you frame the question,
Speaker 1: it is like, if you lose the sense of self
Speaker 1: too early, that's like saying losing the sense of balance
Speaker 1: too early.
Speaker 2: It can't be good psychologically.
Speaker 1: Exactly, and so it's a false It's like a red herot,
Speaker 1: you know, to say losing the sense of self too early.
Speaker 1: Self in the psychological meaning, yeah, really means just a
Speaker 1: healthy balance of mind. And of course one doesn't want
Speaker 1: to lose lose that healthy balance.
Speaker 2: Yeah, one doesn't want to lose that. Yet that's great,
Speaker 2: that's a great sort of reframing of it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think it's clearer because, as I say, clear
Speaker 1: the word itself because it has different meanings in psychology
Speaker 1: and Buddhism. Unless you're very precise in how you're using
Speaker 1: the term, it gets confusing.
Speaker 2: Definitely, definitely. I mean there's like four hundred different definitions
Speaker 2: of the word self in psychology, we want to ask
Speaker 2: in Buddhism. But it is interesting, like what do we
Speaker 2: even mean by the self? You know, Mark Leary, the
Speaker 2: social psychologist tends to view the self as just the
Speaker 2: apparatus that allows for self representations. It can get so complicated,
Speaker 2: I mean.
Speaker 1: Exactly, really complication, I mean, and that's my way. That's
Speaker 1: why the meditation is so such a powerful force, because
Speaker 1: we begin to let go of a lot of the
Speaker 1: descriptions and which can get really elaborate, and we just
Speaker 1: come into the simplicity of the moment to moment experience
Speaker 1: and it becomes much easier to understand.
Speaker 2: It's funny, my friend Sam Harris, and I believe you
Speaker 2: knew Sam maybe when he was younger. Yeah, he was
Speaker 2: probably very young, you know, and when you first met him,
Speaker 2: but when we became friends, he was quite a bit older.
Speaker 2: But his response to like a lot of arguments, you know,
Speaker 2: especially about free will, you know, his answer is just
Speaker 2: just meditate more, Scott. And you'll see that I'm right,
Speaker 2: just like, like, okay, all arguments and logic and reason
Speaker 2: and science, just Scott, you need to meditate more. I
Speaker 2: believe that's how you responded me on Twitter ones And
Speaker 2: then we obviously have in personal conversations about this all
Speaker 2: the time. But anyway, this is funny. So there's a
Speaker 2: lot of insight that can be gained from this first
Speaker 2: person experience of meditation and mindfulness. Can you just give
Speaker 2: me a little bit of a list of some of
Speaker 2: the potential forms of insight that are available to us
Speaker 2: through a regular mindfulness practice.
Speaker 1: Yes. So there's one insight which is really the doorway
Speaker 1: to all the others, right so, and it's a very
Speaker 1: easy insight to relate to, and that is through the
Speaker 1: meditation we get a very direct, immediate experience of the
Speaker 1: changing nature everything. And in the Buddhist classic phrases, whatever
Speaker 1: has the nature to arise will also pass away. And
Speaker 1: this happens on every timescale. So you can look out
Speaker 1: on a macro level, you know, clusters of galaxies, you know,
Speaker 1: on their own timescale, they come into being and eventually
Speaker 1: they die down to the sub atomic particle level, it's
Speaker 1: in constant movement, constant change, and everything in between. So
Speaker 1: what's interesting to me is that we could go up
Speaker 1: to anybody on the street and ask them to things change,
Speaker 1: and I think everybody would say yes. And yet we
Speaker 1: don't live that understanding, right so we it's not difficult
Speaker 1: to grasp conceptually, but meditation gives us a certain immediacy
Speaker 1: of experience of that and on increasingly refined levels. So
Speaker 1: there's something I call in meditation, I call np ms,
Speaker 1: which are noticings per minute. So when we first begin
Speaker 1: our practice, the npms are not very high, I mean
Speaker 1: maybe ten noticings a minute, but as the practice goes on,
Speaker 1: those npms go way way up. Sorry, just a very
Speaker 1: simple example. People will often begin meditation maybe filling their breath.
Speaker 1: You know, at the beginning they experience are you it's
Speaker 1: the in breath and the out breath. But as the
Speaker 1: mind gets clearer, more concentrated, and steadier, begin to see
Speaker 1: that the ing breath is a flow of innumerable more
Speaker 1: microscopic sensations. It's not one thing within one ingreath. There
Speaker 1: is so much going on in terms of what can
Speaker 1: be felt. So the meditation, we could say, is a
Speaker 1: refinement of the perception of self, of refinement of the
Speaker 1: perception of impermanence. From that, the whole world of dorma
Speaker 1: opens up. Because when we've really seen that not only
Speaker 1: with the breath, but with every aspect of our experience,
Speaker 1: you know, just the momentariness of the flow of sights
Speaker 1: and sounds and smells and sensations of the body and
Speaker 1: thoughts to the emotions, the whole world we begin to
Speaker 1: see that nothing in and of itself will be ultimately
Speaker 1: satisfying because nothing less. So it may be satisfying in
Speaker 1: the moment, that it might be pleasant in the moment
Speaker 1: and happiness inducing in the moment. But because of this
Speaker 1: universal truth of everything continually changing in motion and flow,
Speaker 1: there's nothing which is going to provide lesting satisfaction because
Speaker 1: nothing is lesting, And that just becomes increasingly obvious. And
Speaker 1: a corollaria of that is that if we're attached to
Speaker 1: that which is changing, to that which in its very
Speaker 1: nature is to change, we'll suffer because like somebody used
Speaker 1: the example of it being like rope burned. You know,
Speaker 1: somebody's pulling a rope through our hands and we're holding
Speaker 1: on to it titlely. Yeah, we get roper. Well, that's
Speaker 1: what we're doing in our lives. Very often, we're holding
Speaker 1: on tightly to different aspects, and of course when they change,
Speaker 1: we suffer, you know. And this is where it comes
Speaker 1: back to what you said in the beginning kind of
Speaker 1: one of the essence teachings is that clinging is the
Speaker 1: course of suffering. Yeah, and that freedom is in letting
Speaker 1: go of the grisk So you can see perhaps how
Speaker 1: all of the dorma can unfold from the experience, from
Speaker 1: the refined experience of their permanence.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's beautiful. And the more I practice that, I
Speaker 2: clearly I'm okay with the everyday new ones, every day annoyances,
Speaker 2: but there's something I want to really dive really deep into.
Speaker 2: And in the psychology field, there's great debate and discussion
Speaker 2: around the difference between mindfulness and flow. It seems like
Speaker 2: when you're in the flow state of consciousness at least
Speaker 2: is defined by ME High chicks at ME High, you're
Speaker 2: not constantly checking in and watching your thoughts. You're you're
Speaker 2: you're just in it. And so you know, a liberation
Speaker 2: doesn't always require every moment you're the meda cognition, right,
Speaker 2: the metacognition, the thinking about thinking does it. Because when
Speaker 2: you're in the flow state.
Speaker 1: Well, we'll unpack this a little bit.
Speaker 2: Unpack it.
Speaker 1: I think that's confusing two different mental qualities, mindfulness and concentration.
Speaker 1: So these two have different functions in the mind.
Speaker 2: Okay, So in.
Speaker 1: The flow state. Another another word for concentration is undistractedness.
Speaker 1: So when you're in a flow state, the mind is
Speaker 1: not distracted, right, right, You're just in the flow. So
Speaker 1: that's that really describes a state of concentration rather than
Speaker 1: the quality of mindfulness, because we could be in a
Speaker 1: flow state, a concentrated state without learning anything from it.
Speaker 1: It feels good, I mean, and it's it's a powerful state.
Speaker 1: I don't want to undervalue that aspect because it is
Speaker 1: actually part of the whole path. But it's not mindfulness, right,
Speaker 1: and it's not it's not necessarily connected with wisdom. It
Speaker 1: does have the attributes of effortless, effortless flow, you know,
Speaker 1: with the mind it's not distracted, it's just completely in
Speaker 1: the flow of whatever the activity is, and there's something
Speaker 1: very fulfilling about that. But that's that's different than developing
Speaker 1: insight with developing wisdom. So it's just two different things.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think that's pretty much the consensus, and
Speaker 2: a lot of people do agree on that in the field,
Speaker 2: that there are different constructs.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Today's podcast is sponsored by Unlikely Collaborators. Their mission is
Speaker 2: to untangle the stories that hold us back as individuals, communities, nations,
Speaker 2: and humanity at large using the perception box lens. They
Speaker 2: do this through storytelling, experiences, impact investments, and scientific research.
Speaker 2: Today's Conversation with Joseph really illustrates the importance of expanding
Speaker 2: the walls of our perception box. The perception box is
Speaker 2: the invisible mental box that we all live inside, and
Speaker 2: it can seriously hinder our ability to understand one another
Speaker 2: and to understand ourselves. In this episode, Joseph points out
Speaker 2: that a major insight of Buddhism is that whatever arises
Speaker 2: can pass away. Joseph Astutey notes that we can refine
Speaker 2: our perception of impermanence so that we aren't so attached
Speaker 2: or clinging to the thing which is changing. From a
Speaker 2: perception box perspective, when we are caught in our story tangles,
Speaker 2: we can have difficulty seeing anything but the things we
Speaker 2: should do or become. Using the tools of meditation, self reflection, breathwork,
Speaker 2: somatic experiences, and other modalities helps you get a distance
Speaker 2: from the stories you tell yourselves so that you can
Speaker 2: have more equanimity about how to move forward. What's beautiful
Speaker 2: about impermanence is that no matter how permanent something feels,
Speaker 2: there is an equanimity in perceiving that it too shall pass.
Speaker 2: Even though you will never get out of your perception box,
Speaker 2: you do have agency where its walls are and what
Speaker 2: stories you believe about whatever you are experiencing and the
Speaker 2: impermanence about it. To find out more about unlikely collaborators
Speaker 2: and the perception box, go to Unlikely Collaborators dot com.
Speaker 2: You know, if the flow state is so conducive to
Speaker 2: creativity and to you know, when when jazz improvisers are
Speaker 2: doing their thing, they're you know, they're all they're kind
Speaker 2: of in the post and when you're jamming, when you're
Speaker 2: really jamming, only that can be a path to wisdom, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, do you always have to have metacognition to
Speaker 2: lead to wisdom?
Speaker 1: Well, again, so this this will depend on your definition
Speaker 1: of wisdom. You know, people could use that word in
Speaker 1: a lot of different ways.
Speaker 2: How do you define wisdom?
Speaker 1: Well, if we were going to define it in the
Speaker 1: context of Buddhism, you know, so it's a very specific parameters.
Speaker 1: Wisdom really has to do with insight into what I'll
Speaker 1: called the three characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactories, and selflessness. So
Speaker 1: those are the insights which lead to non grasping. Now,
Speaker 1: it's interesting about concentration. Concentration state is and this is
Speaker 1: true of just medicative concentration as well as kind of
Speaker 1: a flow state. At that time the Buddhist language, the
Speaker 1: hindrances are suppressed. So in the flow state that could
Speaker 1: well be non clinging because we're just in the flow
Speaker 1: of the changing phenomena. Yeah, but without the meta cognition.
Speaker 1: So the non clinging is suppressed during that time, but
Speaker 1: then when we're out of it, it just comes up again,
Speaker 1: right and is reactivated because we haven't really brought our
Speaker 1: investigation to the experience of the flow. So in that
Speaker 1: time the minds the mind is in a very good place,
Speaker 1: but it's not necessarily developing the wisdom that will purify
Speaker 1: the mind. Wow. And that's why in Buddhism, like constant,
Speaker 1: the developm of concentration is an important part of the path.
Speaker 1: So it's really an essential aspect. It's necessary but not sufficient. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So it's that state is very much appreciated from many
Speaker 1: qualities that brings, but there are certain qualities it doesn't bring, right,
Speaker 1: and that's really the the investigation quality of mind.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I hear you, and I can see clearly how
Speaker 2: that fits onto some of the primary creativity frameworks in
Speaker 2: the field of psychology, where you distinguish between the insight phase,
Speaker 2: the incubation phase, the evaluation phase, I mean creativity. The
Speaker 2: whole creative process involves different states of consciousness at different times.
Speaker 1: And yeah, absolutely, valuation.
Speaker 2: Stage is an important part of the creative process, which
Speaker 2: is often separate from the flow state, often separate from
Speaker 2: the idea generation stage.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: And I've been really interested in different forms of meditation
Speaker 2: influencing those different stages of creativity. Researchers I found that
Speaker 2: open monitoring meditation is correlated with divergent thinking, whereas more
Speaker 2: return of the breath meditation is correlated with convergent thinking
Speaker 2: in the creativity framework.
Speaker 1: I know what those terms oka creativity.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so in the in the creativity field, divergent thinking
Speaker 2: is thinking as many possible ideas as possible. You're not
Speaker 2: evalue ating any of them, You're just letting your just
Speaker 2: generating association, generating new ideas. Conversion thinking is you're trying
Speaker 2: to figure out, well, what is what are the best ones?
Speaker 2: You know? What? What what is what is the one
Speaker 2: best answer?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 2: When you take a SAT, the SAT is not about
Speaker 2: generating possibilities, is about giving what was the answer?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: So, so I have found that interesting that different forms
Speaker 2: of meditation, jog or stimulate different stages of the creative process.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, just interesting. So in terms of my
Speaker 1: on playing with creativity in recent years, maybe in the
Speaker 1: last five years or so, I started writing poetry, which
Speaker 1: I did in my twenties but have not really since then.
Speaker 1: So it's kind of a new thing, and it's kind
Speaker 1: of the evolution of it has been really interesting because
Speaker 1: in the first excitement of doing it, I had this
Speaker 1: rather sophomore idea that the first things out of my
Speaker 1: mind on paper were brilliant. Yeah, and that in a
Speaker 1: way that was that was kind of the divergent Yeah,
Speaker 1: whatever comes up, you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But then I was getting some advice from a very
Speaker 1: well established poet friend, and her the best piece of
Speaker 1: advice she gave me in the creative process was that
Speaker 1: it's all about revision, you know, And I just found
Speaker 1: that to be so true because Okay, you know, the
Speaker 1: initial creative you know, you're playing just with different ideas
Speaker 1: and you get something down, but then that's just the
Speaker 1: beginning and the crafting of it is cutting away everything
Speaker 1: that's extra and you know, finding just the right word.
Speaker 1: So it feels like it's connected a little bit to
Speaker 1: what you just said.
Speaker 2: Oh very much, so very much. So yeah, I mean
Speaker 2: show me the person who's happy with their first draft
Speaker 2: of a book. Yeah, no, that's that's right. So but yeah,
Speaker 2: just just recognizing their different states of consciousness. I guess
Speaker 2: it doesn't seem very Buddhist. I'm gonna be critical for
Speaker 2: one moment. I want to see how you respond to this.
Speaker 2: It just doesn't seem very Buddhist part of the philosophy
Speaker 2: to label certain states of consciousness as the liberating states
Speaker 2: and others is not liberating or not leading to enlightenment.
Speaker 2: Kind of making that pre judgment call. I feel like
Speaker 2: the Buddha made that judgment call. So tell me if
Speaker 2: I'm wrong.
Speaker 1: But no, I definitely did he did, right, it's so
Speaker 1: much Okay, this question can lead to kind of an elaborate,
Speaker 1: an elaborate discussion on the first level.
Speaker 2: I like that. I like elaborate discussions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, on the first level of the Buddha was really clear.
Speaker 1: He kind of divided mind states into those which are wholesome, unwholesome,
Speaker 1: and neither. And basically, the wholesome means conducive to different
Speaker 1: kinds of happiness. Unwholesome the causes of suffering. So in
Speaker 1: a very simple way in the Buddhen he laid out
Speaker 1: really clearly the three wholesome men on the wholesome roots
Speaker 1: of all the other mind states. So for example, greed
Speaker 1: and hatred and delusion, they are unwholesome mind states. They
Speaker 1: do not lead to liberation, They lead to suffering, and
Speaker 1: there are many Those are the roots, and then there
Speaker 1: are many other unwholesome states based in those three. The
Speaker 1: three roots of wholesome mind states on non greed or generosity,
Speaker 1: non hate or loving kindness, and non delusion, which is wisdom,
Speaker 1: those are the stakes that do lead to happiness into awakening.
Speaker 1: So on this level, and as we're walking the path,
Speaker 1: that discernment is really important. You know, are we cultivating
Speaker 1: more greed in what we do or more anger, more hatred?
Speaker 1: Are we cultivating more generosity, more love, more understanding? And
Speaker 1: to be able to see you know, true meditation to
Speaker 1: real we get a very clear visual experience of the
Speaker 1: effect of these different mind states. So this is basically
Speaker 1: essential to all the schools of Buddhism. However, or in addition,
Speaker 1: at a certain level of meditative practice, we also see
Speaker 1: that all mind states, you know, in Buddhism that we
Speaker 1: use the word empty emptiness, and it really and that
Speaker 1: can have a lot of different meanings. But some of
Speaker 1: the meanings are insubstantial or no inherent self existence to them,
Speaker 1: and so on another level, for example, the different contents
Speaker 1: of our thoughts. On this level, it doesn't really matter
Speaker 1: whether it's a greedy thought or loving thought if we're
Speaker 1: in that place of seeing the momentary, the momentary insubstantial
Speaker 1: nature of all thought. So then it's then it's just
Speaker 1: authorizing in the mind. The content really doesn't matter because
Speaker 1: we're not identified with it and it's just coming and going.
Speaker 1: And because we're not identified with it or clinging to it,
Speaker 1: the content is less important.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: It's just so there's a There was a Korean sent
Speaker 1: teacher som sn sansanin it started the Providence and Center
Speaker 1: and a lot, you know, it was very popular and
Speaker 1: have lots of French monasteries. He had He had an
Speaker 1: interesting phrase expressing these two levels what I just mentioned.
Speaker 1: He said, there's no right and no wrong right, but
Speaker 1: right is right and wrong is wrong, so we have
Speaker 1: to hold both.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm trying to get at, is it somewhat contradictory.
Speaker 1: It's at all, It's not two different levels. But unfortunately,
Speaker 1: and many great masters have pointed this out, that the
Speaker 1: attachment to the notion of emptiness is much more dangerous
Speaker 1: than the attachment to things, because the attachment to things,
Speaker 1: you can work on it. If you're attached to the
Speaker 1: notion of emptiness at leads to that sense of, oh,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter what I do because everything's empty, which
Speaker 1: is a very dangerous state because for two reasons. One,
Speaker 1: that's really attachment to the idea of emptiness, not to
Speaker 1: the realization of it. If one had fully realized the emptiness,
Speaker 1: then there would be a great freedom in that. But
Speaker 1: until we are fully enlightened, we are living on that
Speaker 1: more relative plane. We are right is right and wrong
Speaker 1: is wrong, and not to acknowledge that level leads to huge,
Speaker 1: huge amount of suffering, you know, And we say with
Speaker 1: a lot of Gooddhist teachers who get into big trouble,
Speaker 1: or teachers of every tradition really, you know, who may
Speaker 1: have had some realization or some understanding and then think
Speaker 1: that whatever they do is the perfect expression of enlightenment.
Speaker 2: I call that spiritual narcissism.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, so it's very dangerous to just take one
Speaker 1: of those two levels and not integrate both of them.
Speaker 2: Wow, you're a very wise man, Joseph Goldstein.
Speaker 1: No, I wouldn't miss that list.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I hope you heard that.
Speaker 1: I hope you heard that.
Speaker 2: You know, the context in which I was thinking about
Speaker 2: this was that the kind of difference between the mindful
Speaker 2: the neuroscience of mindfulness research literature, and the neuroscience of
Speaker 2: creativity research literature. I've been trying to really integrate those
Speaker 2: literatures because in the mindfulness literature, you know, researchers like
Speaker 2: Judson Brewer. Maybe you've encountered him, Yeah, great, great, great guy,
Speaker 2: he was on my podcast. But his research is so
Speaker 2: focused on the neuroscience of the mindfulness mental state, and
Speaker 2: so therefore, within that context he shows a reduction in
Speaker 2: what's called the default mode brain network. But in the
Speaker 2: creativity literature, the activation of the default mode network is
Speaker 2: considered great. It's almost like in the different literatures, you know,
Speaker 2: the different states of consciousness are kind of championed in
Speaker 2: different ways. Is like Judson Brewer, I feel like he
Speaker 2: gets really excited when he shows a reduction in the
Speaker 2: default bone network. He's like there. It means we're not
Speaker 2: so caught up in our in our self narratives. It
Speaker 2: means we're not so but in the creativity literature, to
Speaker 2: be caught up in the flow state and to be
Speaker 2: fully in line with your default mode network is a beautiful,
Speaker 2: beautiful thing for for creative expression of your being. So anyway,
Speaker 2: I think there's a way to obviously integrate and to
Speaker 2: uh to to to be very contextual and nuanced about
Speaker 2: all of this. But what pains me is when I
Speaker 2: see it as either one or the other. That that's
Speaker 2: what pains me.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: There are two Greek myths which I think illustrates something
Speaker 1: which you can you can see what they illustrate, but
Speaker 1: I use that sometimes as examples. So you know, the
Speaker 1: myth of is, you know, pushing them rock up the
Speaker 1: hill endlessly and falls down. And Stephen Mitchell, he's a poet,
Speaker 1: a writer, translator, He's done a lot of he's done
Speaker 1: a lot of very interesting work. So he wrote a
Speaker 1: poem about myths and he's said, basically, Sissphis is in
Speaker 1: love with his rock, you know, and really all he
Speaker 1: has to do is step aside, let it roll to
Speaker 1: the bottom, and go home. Okay, so just hold that
Speaker 1: for a moment. The other myth is of Icarus, you know,
Speaker 1: who got you don't want her to fly and created
Speaker 1: these wings of wax, and his father says, be careful,
Speaker 1: don't fly too close to the sun.
Speaker 2: M m.
Speaker 1: But he got so excited he flew close to the
Speaker 1: sun the max the wax melted, fell to the earth. Okay.
Speaker 1: So these two myths represent different ways we can apply
Speaker 1: or or misapply spiritual practice. So we're all we're all
Speaker 1: in a cisophine situation of dealing with suffering in our lives.
Speaker 1: Right of all, come, it's the first noble truth of teaching.
Speaker 2: You know, that's good.
Speaker 1: The question is, and it's possible. And we see this often.
Speaker 1: It's people come to meditate in a way, we can
Speaker 1: fall in love with our suffering. We just get so
Speaker 1: messed in our personal story, just entangled in our suffering.
Speaker 2: I see that everywhere these days.
Speaker 1: Yes, so some teaching which would point to the empty
Speaker 1: nature of it all, you know, the selfless nature of
Speaker 1: it all, could help free the mind from that entanglement
Speaker 1: with the suffering. You know, we begin to see the
Speaker 1: freedom in the midst of it. But sometimes people become
Speaker 1: like Icarus, and they hear it teaching about the ultimate
Speaker 1: emptiness of everything. We might call it sometimes it's phrase
Speaker 1: Cispis is building the practice from below, and Icarus is
Speaker 1: swooping from above, you know. So there are a lot
Speaker 1: of teachings which swoop from above, you know, which go
Speaker 1: right to the empty nature of everything. But if they
Speaker 1: do that without having been grounded in working with the
Speaker 1: suffering that's there, that's like Icarus flying too close to
Speaker 1: the sun because they have not genuinely realized that emptiness.
Speaker 1: It's either partial or conceptual, but they're using it. And
Speaker 1: so in both ways, we can get caught to attached
Speaker 1: to us suffering or to attach to emptiness. And so
Speaker 1: our path has to see the value of both and
Speaker 1: apply each of those at the appropriate times. So I
Speaker 1: don't see it as one or the other. It's like,
Speaker 1: these are complementary perspectives that can help to free us
Speaker 1: in different ways, and we have to be very skillful
Speaker 1: in how we're employing the various understandings.
Speaker 2: See, I really like that approach here everyone. I'd like
Speaker 2: to take a moment to talk about one of my
Speaker 2: favorite products that helps support my body and mind as
Speaker 2: I age. On the Psychology Podcast, we frequently talk about
Speaker 2: forms of wisdom and self actualization that are often achieved
Speaker 2: in our thirties and forties or even older. But it
Speaker 2: can be frustrating to finally know what you want out
Speaker 2: of life just as you start to lose the mental
Speaker 2: and physical energy to go get it. A culprit of
Speaker 2: decreasing energy, slower workout, recovery, and general middle aged symptoms
Speaker 2: that start showing up in our thirties is sentient cell accumulation.
Speaker 2: Sentient cells are sometimes called zombie cells because they are old,
Speaker 2: worn out cells, no longer doing their job in our bodies,
Speaker 2: but they linger on in us after we want them gone,
Speaker 2: wasting our energy and nutrition. Qualiosnalytic is an amazing formula
Speaker 2: made by Neurohacker Collective, a company I really trust. I've
Speaker 2: known the folks at Neurohacker Collective for years now, and
Speaker 2: they really are thoughtful about what they put into their products,
Speaker 2: always trying to be as science informed as possible. Qualia
Speaker 2: Synalytic combines nine vegan, non GMO plant arrived ingredients that
Speaker 2: help your body eliminate sentient cells. Personally, it helps me
Speaker 2: operate with the wisdom of a forty something with the
Speaker 2: mental and physical energy of a twenty something. The best
Speaker 2: part is you take qualitias Analytic just two days a month.
Speaker 2: It's so easy and so helpful to the human aging process.
Speaker 2: To try qualias Analytic up to fifty percent backed by
Speaker 2: a one hundred day money back guarantee, go to neurohacker
Speaker 2: dot com and use code Psych podcast fifteen for an
Speaker 2: additional fifteen percent off. That's quality of Synalytic for better
Speaker 2: aging and prime energy Deep into Life at neurohacker dot
Speaker 2: com slash Psych podcast slash Psych fifteen. I would argue
Speaker 2: sometimes it is very valuable and leading to less suffering
Speaker 2: to not you know, when a lion's come and running
Speaker 2: at you, to be able to thinking about your thoughts, well,
Speaker 2: let me enter a mindfulness practice, you know, as this
Speaker 2: lion's that's not going to lead to greater to less suffering.
Speaker 2: And then but I would also argue that the other hand,
Speaker 2: there are times where getting lost in your self narrative
Speaker 2: can be beneficial. And can we either, I mean you can.
Speaker 2: I'm sure we can come up with examples where we
Speaker 2: want to, for instance, compassion. All the research I've seen
Speaker 2: shows that the default mode network is so important for
Speaker 2: perspective taking, because we have difficulty having compassion for another
Speaker 2: human if we don't relate ourselves in some way to
Speaker 2: the suffering we're seeing of someone else. Mary Hell and
Speaker 2: Immerdino Yang has showed that so beautifully in her neuroscience research.
Speaker 2: So we want to make a connection between ourself and
Speaker 2: the world in moments and so anyway, I love that contextual.
Speaker 2: I love what you just said, and I guess it
Speaker 2: does irk me. And I just wanted to say that
Speaker 2: on the record. Sometimes when I see different silos getting
Speaker 2: a little too caught in their own the thing they study,
Speaker 2: do you know what I mean? That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 1: I know you you came across. I mean, this was
Speaker 1: a burning issue for me within the context of different
Speaker 1: Buddhist traditions, which I wrote about in my book One Doma,
Speaker 1: because I was studying with different teatures of different traditions,
Speaker 1: both great masters, seemingly great in landin beings saying opposite things.
Speaker 2: Right, right, what do you do with that?
Speaker 1: Well? That was my co on for a couple of months,
Speaker 1: and it was burning, I mean, because it felt like
Speaker 1: the whole direction of my life depended on figuring out
Speaker 1: who was right. And as I was burning with that question,
Speaker 1: I was on a two months retreat, it got resolved
Speaker 1: in a really interesting way, and I framed it kind
Speaker 1: of in a phrase metaphysics as skillful means rather than
Speaker 1: as statements of truth, because if we take metaphysical statements
Speaker 1: as being statements of truth, then if people are saying
Speaker 1: opposite things, one will be right and one will be wrong.
Speaker 1: If we take them as skillful means, and then we
Speaker 1: could there skillful means for what. Well, in the Buddhist context,
Speaker 1: it could be skillful means for not clinging. Then it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter whether they're staying opposite things. If that metaphysical
Speaker 1: statement helps free people from clinging, great, If the other
Speaker 1: one helps people free themselves from thing great, And different
Speaker 1: systems will attract or appeal to different people. But it's again,
Speaker 1: if the important point is seeing them as skillful means,
Speaker 1: then we can really embrace lots of different methods, lots
Speaker 1: of different metaphysics if we understand why they're leading or
Speaker 1: what the practice of them accomplishes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's really good. It seems like so much of
Speaker 2: Buddhist principles are actually in line with the flow state
Speaker 2: of being, of being itself. You know, the idea that
Speaker 2: when you live your life with inner beauty, and I
Speaker 2: love that whole concept of inter beauty, and I think
Speaker 2: we need to value that a lot more in our
Speaker 2: society today. And you live with the life of where
Speaker 2: you're you're you're happy to look at yourself in the mirror.
Speaker 2: You know, you're proud of yourself, you know, not you know,
Speaker 2: as pride as a non virtue, but healthy pride for
Speaker 2: for being moral, you know, for for making the right decisions.
Speaker 2: There's less of a friction, you know, there's a that's
Speaker 2: That's what I'm saying by flow of being, there's you know,
Speaker 2: you're not so unhindered by this, you know your guilt,
Speaker 2: and your guilt guilt can really get in the way
Speaker 2: of being in the flow state you know, of being itself.
Speaker 2: So it just feels like a lot of what the
Speaker 2: Buddha is saying is not only in line with a
Speaker 2: mindfulness state of consciousness where you're always witnessing your you know,
Speaker 2: your thought, but also just a way of being that's
Speaker 2: very flow like.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but again, what I do wrong? Well, I was close,
Speaker 1: I was close. I almost got it.
Speaker 2: I almost got it.
Speaker 1: I maybe misinterpreted like you said, but when I was hearing,
Speaker 1: it's almost like you were comparing the two states in
Speaker 1: a way instead of seeing that really were cultivating both simultaneously.
Speaker 1: They work together. Mindfulness and concentration can be there together,
Speaker 1: so that there's both the flow and the awareness or
Speaker 1: you could say met the cognition or whatever however you
Speaker 1: want to describe being aware of what's happening as well
Speaker 1: as being in what's happening.
Speaker 2: Well, that's a great insight.
Speaker 1: And you know, within the Buddhist framework, they talk about
Speaker 1: the qualities of mind. They talk about the factors of enlightenment.
Speaker 1: Basically there are different lists, but the shorter of the
Speaker 1: two lists are the seven factors of mind, which have
Speaker 1: to be cultivated and in balanced. So this is a
Speaker 1: whole combination of qualities that are integrated in I think
Speaker 1: you called it the inner beauty or.
Speaker 2: The inner beauty. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So it's not that it's not either we're in
Speaker 1: the flow or we're mindful or with this, or that
Speaker 1: it's all of it together.
Speaker 2: But is that always the case? I mean, can't you
Speaker 2: know not necessarily you can be in like if you
Speaker 2: are if you are just a moral human and that
Speaker 2: is like, you don't need to like make an effort
Speaker 2: to be moral, like you really you're you. You've gotten
Speaker 2: to a point in your life where you automatically start
Speaker 2: to make decisions in line with your deeper principles and values.
Speaker 1: You're not.
Speaker 2: It's not like every moment you're stopping and thinking yourself, oh,
Speaker 2: let me be mindful? Am I being more? I feel
Speaker 2: like there are moments where we can get into grooves
Speaker 2: or positive habits, positive habits right.
Speaker 1: Yes, But so in the Buddhish psychology they talk about
Speaker 1: prompted and unprompted consciousness two different too different way. He's
Speaker 1: a moment of consciousness emerges. So when we're first practicing something,
Speaker 1: it's prompted, you know, and it's like, okay, we have
Speaker 1: to keep coming back and reminding ourselves. But at a
Speaker 1: certain point of development, it becomes untrumped. Yes, where it's
Speaker 1: happening spontaneously.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: Yes, Yes, but that doesn't mean that that quality is
Speaker 1: not there. It just means it doesn't mean that the
Speaker 1: mindfulness is not there. It means that the mindfulness then
Speaker 1: is untrumpted. It's just part of how we're living.
Speaker 2: Oh, I see, I see, Okay, you know good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it becomes I mean, when something is untrumpted.
Speaker 1: I'll give you an example, a really simple example. So
Speaker 1: you know, in our meditation practice, we do both sitting
Speaker 1: and walking as the primary So people often give to
Speaker 1: think that the sitting is the real stuff and the
Speaker 1: walking is just like a recess between incidents. That is
Speaker 1: to really miss. I love the walking practice. So many
Speaker 1: insights have come and walking and it's the way of
Speaker 1: really integrating mindfulness into one's daily life because we move
Speaker 1: a lot. So in the beginning it really was prompted,
Speaker 1: you know, they had to do the formal walking meditation exercises,
Speaker 1: slowing down and really intentionally being mindful of each step.
Speaker 1: But at a certain point of development, it really becomes unfraumpted. So,
Speaker 1: for example, now after all these years of practice, when
Speaker 1: I walk, that's the default. It's just automatically the movements
Speaker 1: are being known, aware of them, and it doesn't take
Speaker 1: any prompting. It's just there. So that becomes in the
Speaker 1: flow state.
Speaker 2: Yeah, is an ease of being exactly exactly which I love.
Speaker 2: I love that I love be having an ease of being.
Speaker 2: Now I'm not it's not the same thing, not to
Speaker 2: be confused as laziness. Though Let's be let's be clear
Speaker 2: that's that wasn't That wasn't an euphemism for I love
Speaker 2: it when I don't have to do anything hard. You
Speaker 2: get it, You get it. Joseph Goldstein, let me end
Speaker 2: this interview talking about a word that I am obsessed with. Equanimity.
Speaker 2: It's a concept that I you know, there's a lot
Speaker 2: of talk about grit, and in my book Transcend, I argued,
Speaker 2: I really like the flavor of equanimity better than grit,
Speaker 2: sometimes the way, the way, at least the grit, the
Speaker 2: way it's it's applied. You know, grit has this kind
Speaker 2: of connotation that you just no matter the consequences on others,
Speaker 2: you're kind of just churning out and persevering, and you're
Speaker 2: climbing to the top of the mountain. And even if
Speaker 2: you climbed on top of other people on the way there,
Speaker 2: you still score high on grit. But equanimity correct me
Speaker 2: if I'm wrong, But what I what I My understanding
Speaker 2: of the concept of equanimity is it is very much
Speaker 2: tied to having resiliency and being able to withstand life's challenges.
Speaker 2: But there's a sort of way of being baked into
Speaker 2: it of warmth and love, and my readings is there
Speaker 2: is some warmth there to a certain degree, and a
Speaker 2: sort of awareness of the impact of your being on others,
Speaker 2: even as your surmounting the obstacles. So is any of
Speaker 2: that true what I just said?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think I think it is.
Speaker 2: There's a large grain of truth.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm just trying to let's let's just try this out.
Speaker 1: And I don't know whether this will reflect at least
Speaker 1: some aspect of what you just said.
Speaker 2: But let's try.
Speaker 1: I think it might, think it might. So it's highlighting
Speaker 1: the difference between reactivity and responsibles. So in a situation
Speaker 1: where just in different life situations and normally people are
Speaker 1: just reactive based on their own personalities and conditioning, and
Speaker 1: in that reactive state, it can very often be born
Speaker 1: out of unwholesome mind states. You know, we're reacting either
Speaker 1: with anger or with fear, or with greed or whatever.
Speaker 1: There's a situation and there's that reactivity. So that's not equimic.
Speaker 1: We could almost say reactivity is the opposite of equanimity.
Speaker 1: So equanimity in for the purpose of this little discussion,
Speaker 1: I think responsiveness captures it more because responsiveness, in my experience,
Speaker 1: the feeling of responsiveness comes when we're not being reactive
Speaker 1: and there's just an kind of an immediate in two.
Speaker 1: You might call it warmth or connectedness. You see somebody
Speaker 1: who's hungry, you feed them. You you're just different situations
Speaker 1: and you're responsive to the situation, but not based on
Speaker 1: your reactive conditioning, but based on equanimity really means impartiality.
Speaker 1: You know, we're we're, we're. So it's often likened to space,
Speaker 1: but a responsive space, you know, it's a space that
Speaker 1: can hold everything, and so it sees all the sides
Speaker 1: of everything. Yeah, and I've just I've just really appreciated
Speaker 1: for myself the retranslation of compassion to to responsiveness. But
Speaker 1: that compassion doesn't necessary zero. They have to be a
Speaker 1: particular feeling. It's like tech handset. Compassion is the verb, right,
Speaker 1: because it's that movement to help or to respond, you know,
Speaker 1: in the best way possible. So that does have that
Speaker 1: quality of warmth to it, and it really comes out
Speaker 1: of the ground of equanimity rather than the ground of reactivity.
Speaker 1: It's the reactivity really hinders that, but.
Speaker 2: It can still lead to resilience and being able to
Speaker 2: requity equanimity.
Speaker 1: Oh absolutely, it is completely resilient because it's like empty
Speaker 1: space that just is responding to whatever is horizon. So
Speaker 1: I think it's the essence of resiliency.
Speaker 2: I do, true, I do true, But it just in
Speaker 2: a way that is aware, aware of your surroundings.
Speaker 1: Yes, I like about it, Yes, yes, yes.
Speaker 2: You've made a point in one of your interviews about
Speaker 2: the kind of wisdom that the society needs right now
Speaker 2: because we live in such a polarized country right now,
Speaker 2: put in so many different ways, and you argued we
Speaker 2: equanimity and compassion were the two biggies. So I was
Speaker 2: trying to get us there, you know, to end this interview.
Speaker 2: But I love that. Do you want to expound it
Speaker 2: all on what a deep integration of those two look
Speaker 2: like and how it can help us listen more to
Speaker 2: each other's pain because I do feel like there's so
Speaker 2: much kind of siloed victimhood so to speak, right now,
Speaker 2: that we're not listening to other people's pains.
Speaker 1: Oh so, kind of to simplify it, within the Buddhist teachings.
Speaker 1: It said that compassion arises when we're willing to come
Speaker 1: close to suffering, whether it's our own or somebody else's.
Speaker 1: And this is not a given because a very habituated
Speaker 1: response is we see suffering and we don't like it,
Speaker 1: you know, it's unpleasant. We want to get rid of it.
Speaker 1: We don't want to come close to it, right, But
Speaker 1: that closes off the wellspring of compassion. So compassion requires
Speaker 1: coming close to it or letting it in. That's made
Speaker 1: possible by equanimity, by non reactivity. When the mind is
Speaker 1: in balance and open and spacious and space like, then
Speaker 1: we're not in a reactive, aversive or denial role with
Speaker 1: respect to suffering. We're just there and we are letting
Speaker 1: it in, coming close to it. And that's wee ically
Speaker 1: what gives your eyes to compassionate response, you know, So
Speaker 1: the two really work together. I'll just give you kind
Speaker 1: of a personal example of this. This goes back many years,
Speaker 1: my days in India when I was practicing, and anybody
Speaker 1: who's been there, in those they're just a lot of
Speaker 1: wild dogs, im pitiable conditions, just starving and mange and
Speaker 1: just terrible, terrible conditions. So I'd be. I was there
Speaker 1: practicing and then in between retreats and go into the town,
Speaker 1: you know, and sitting a little chai shop, t shop
Speaker 1: and tease and sweet, just relaxing, and often it would
Speaker 1: be these wild, mangy, suffering dogs coming up. And I
Speaker 1: saw two very different responses in my mind. Sometimes I
Speaker 1: just don't want to deal with it. I just want
Speaker 1: to have my team sweets. Yeah, And I could feel
Speaker 1: myself just trying to close it, close it off, you know,
Speaker 1: or shut it out. And so I got just into
Speaker 1: my contracted space, thinking that that's what would make me
Speaker 1: have it. I just want to enjoy my enjoy my team.
Speaker 1: And other times i'd be sitting there, i'd just be
Speaker 1: in a different space and really let it in so
Speaker 1: I see the dogs and really take it in. And
Speaker 1: the response then was so I would just you know,
Speaker 1: to us with a little scalp of food. I would
Speaker 1: be responding to the suffering. It's not that it's solved
Speaker 1: the problem of you know, all these wild dogs in India,
Speaker 1: but in the moment, it was a compassionate response. And
Speaker 1: it all happened because I let the suffering in as
Speaker 1: opposed to keeping it out. That's good you know, and
Speaker 1: so I think it's really interesting. You know, what do
Speaker 1: we do when we pass homeless people the street, or
Speaker 1: differences there are may be in different situations, suffering that
Speaker 1: we may not part of our minds, may not want
Speaker 1: to open. It's too much. I don't want to deal
Speaker 1: with this. Just let me, let me live my life.
Speaker 1: But that is a very contracted space, and when we're
Speaker 1: open to it, then there's a responsiveness whatever it may be,
Speaker 1: you know, and I mean it could be something really
Speaker 1: small and very little. Maybe he's making eye contact with
Speaker 1: the homeless something. You know. It doesn't have to be
Speaker 1: solved with the whole problem, but there's a connection I love,
Speaker 1: and that connection is coming out of some sense of compassion.
Speaker 1: We'd let this suffering in and there's a responsiveness to it.
Speaker 1: So that's why equanimitating compassion really serve each other and
Speaker 1: support each other.
Speaker 2: That makes a lot of sense. At the very beginning
Speaker 2: of this interview, you defined you revised your revised definition
Speaker 2: of enlightenment as lightening up. I've noticed, just a personal observation.
Speaker 2: I've noticed that profound narcissists very rarely laugh at themselves exactly.
Speaker 2: They're so serious. I mean, I mean they're they're very
Speaker 2: They might joke at the expense of someone else, but
Speaker 2: you very rarely see them lighten up their self.
Speaker 1: Yes, exactly.
Speaker 2: So look, I'm just bringing this whole interview full circle
Speaker 2: to end here. You know, I think that if everyone
Speaker 2: wiightened up a little bit in our society today, you know,
Speaker 2: we we could lower our ego and and let in
Speaker 2: the suffering of others and put that within our circle,
Speaker 2: you know, of what's valuable and what's in our attention
Speaker 2: that we want to pay attention to and to help,
Speaker 2: and the world would probably be a better place. So absolutely,
Speaker 2: just to integrate everything that they're there to we talked
Speaker 2: about at the end of it, Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: You are so full wisdom, and I can say that
Speaker 2: I know you would never say that to me, but
Speaker 2: you know, you're so humble, but I really do think
Speaker 2: you are so full wisdom, and I consider it an
Speaker 2: absoute honor to be able to talk to you today.
Speaker 2: So thank you.
Speaker 1: Oh it's a pleasure.
Speaker 2: Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. Thanks for
Speaker 2: listening to this episode of the Psychology Podcast. If you'd
Speaker 2: like to react in some way to something you heard,
Speaker 2: I encourage you to join in the discussion at thus
Speaker 2: psychology podcast dot com or on our YouTube page, The
Speaker 2: Psychology Podcast. We also put up some videos of some
Speaker 2: episodes on our YouTube page as well, so you'll want
Speaker 2: to check that out. Thanks for being such a great
Speaker 2: supporter of the show, and tune in next time for
Speaker 2: more on the mind, brain, behavior, and creativity.