Letter to a Buddhist Nation: Rebirth, Refuge, & the Limits of Skepticism | Sam Harris Q&A

Welcome to a Clear Mountain interview. Today, we are very happy to have Sam Harris join us for a conversation. Sam, thanks so much for joining us.

>> Oh yeah, great to meet you both.

>> Yeah. Well, I'll just read a quick bio. So, Sam Harris is a neuroscientist and philosopher, author, podcaster whose work explores the intersection of science, morality, religion, and contemplative practice. He holds a degree in philosophy from Stanford University and a PhD in neuroscience from UCLA. He's the author of several New York Times bestsellers, including *The End of Faith*, *The Moral Landscape*, *Free Will*, *Lying*, and *Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion*. Sam hosts the Making Sense podcast and is the creator of the Waking Up app, which offers a secular and scientific approach to meditation and the good life. With more than three decades of meditative practice, including a cumulative two years on silent retreat, he has studied under such teachers as Sidal Upandita, Punji Turku Rimpe, and with his friend Joseph Goldstein.

Uh, I myself have listened to and read much of his work and, uh, his promotion of ethical thinking, effective generosity, meditation, and contemplative science more broadly. Uh, I don't think that the title that one of my monk brothers gave him is, uh, too off the mark. That title being, "His Holiness Sam Harris."

>> So, I don't know if your friend is, but, uh,

>> Well, that, that, that praise will bounce right off, but, uh, thank, thank your, your monk brother.

>> Like, like water from a lotus leaf. Yeah.

>> Um, a number of years ago, you were asked, uh, "Is it okay to divorce the helpful practices of Buddhism from Buddhism itself?" And your response, I liked it a lot. You said, uh, "Yeah, just like you can take the wine and crackers from Catholicism."

>> So, cool answer.

>> Did I say that?

>> Good answer. Yeah.

>> All right. Well, nice dig at Christianity there. Okay.

>> Well, you know, Buddhism, we don't tear a lot of Buddhism. We don't do wine and, yeah. We don't do crack. But, uh, I am curious. I mean, we personally think that Buddhism is the motherlode of good ideas, but I'm curious if you could, you know, find, uh, or talk about some of the, the things which maybe atheists or people who are very much in a secular camp and see, uh, Buddhism is, you know, dismiss it in this blanket, "Okay, that's a religion like any other and it's just full of a bunch of, uh, foolhardy beliefs." Um, what other things, in addition to this? I mean, that center of the bullseye, the centerless center of the bullseye that you just pointed us to is enough, but are there other aspects that you would, uh, precious jewels that you might, and have found in teachings of the Buddha?

>> Yeah. Well, I, I don't think, um, insight into emptiness or or selflessness is tends to be enough for most people most of the time. I mean, I, I remain agnostic as to whether or not it's ultimately enough. Um, I mean, if you, you know, fully stabilize it and you're an arhat or, you know, a Buddha or, what, however you want to conceive of the, the final condition, um, well, then I suppose it's by definition enough. But we just, we've just noticed so many, um, seemingly mature practitioners of meditation. And I mean, even people who were built as enlightened masters, uh, misbehave so terribly in in their conditions of, uh, power. Um, this is especially true, I would say, in the, uh, the Vajrayana, uh, Tibetan Buddhist tradition, um, because I think some of the safeguards around sila are, are more relaxed there. Is, I'm, I'm, I'm not aware of it being as true in the, um, uh, the Theravada tradition, though I'm sure there, there are stories to tell. But, um, it's, it's less true there for a, I think, a variety of reasons. One, I think the emphasis on sila is, is tends to be greater, um, and also the, the role of the teacher is deemphasized. It really is kind of a technique-based teaching. It's not that, that, you know, it's not that a great charismatic teacher isn't a great thing, and it's not that there can't be a lot of devotion for such a teacher, but the, um, devotion as a me, as a primary method, or even as a kind, a necessary component, you know, kind of guru, guru devotion, um, is, is, uh, significantly deemphasized in a way that it's, it's, it's not in, in certainly in, in Vajrayana Buddhism. And Vajrayana Buddhism is, is almost like Hinduism in that regard. Um, and, um, and obviously Zen has its, you know, um, kind of, uh, lionizing role of the teacher, um, and, and a kind of deemphasis on, on sila and compassion, certainly by comparison with, with Theravada. So I think some of this, some of the guardrails have been removed, and, and, um, so it's not really a surprise that there probably more scandals that can come to mind in, you know, among Zen teachers and, and, uh, Vajrayana teachers than among Vipassana teachers. Um, and obviously, you don't get me started on the, the Hindu gurus. Um, there, there's endless scandal there. Um, so this does reveal a kind of paradox, or seeming paradox, which is, you can be very, very advanced in, kind of meditative accomplishment and still be a dangerous jerk of some description. Um, when you're, when you're out there in the wild among other people, um, and there's just, there's this experiment has been run too many times for us to be in doubt about it, right? So, I think more is needed, at least most of the time. And that more that's needed is, I mean, is very much present in Buddhism. I mean, it is the Eightfold Path, after all. Right? So, what you're talking about things like right livelihood, um, you know, and right speech as a, as a necessary component to this. Um, and so I think, you know, having a precept against lying is important, right? Just, just to know that you're not going to lie, really, ever, unless you're in some kind of self-defense situation where, you know, you're choosing between lying and, and physical violence. Um, you know, that's, that's the, that's the exception I would, I would, uh, that's obvious to me. Um, but, um, so, yeah, I do think, you know, there, there are other things to know that are worth knowing in this world that can, um, give you a, a, a stronger set of ethics. And, um, when you, when you actually ask the question of, just what it, you know, what is required for all of us to live together in, you know, a global civilization that is functional and improving, and, you know, wherein we can be confident that the future is going to be better than the past or not worse, uh, and the, the kinds of contributions we can all make to that. Well, then you're by definition talking about politics, and how can we make our politics sane? And there, I think the, the contributions of Buddhism are, are harder to detect. Right? I don't know of a Buddhist society that has produced a politics that we should all envy and want to emulate. Right? I think there's, there's a kind of, um, a quietism, and, uh, you know, I mean, just, it's, there's, there's a bunch of Eastern, um, biases that I think, you know, that are cultural biases that are, that are in some ways not helpful to, in producing a, a sane politics, right? It's, and it's, um, yeah, I just kind of collectivist, uh, herd-like, uh, you know, ant colony, um, aspiration that is, um, doesn't map very well onto the kind of the primacy of individual rights and, and, you know, the freedom that we would locate and enshrine there. Again, that has its own, uh, pathologies. Um, I think, you know, free people can get into their heads to to live, uh, profoundly unwise lives, and, you know, have, and want you, desperately want things that are not worth wanting in the end. Uh, but I do think that that, that that the West has, I mean, just wisdom of all, in all its forms, has not been spread evenly over the surface of the earth. Right? So, I think, you know, the, the contributions of Western science, um, and Western philosophy are important, uh, and in certain areas are, are, are making an asymmetrical contribution to, to human, uh, progress and, and human wisdom. Um, I would say the comparison is equally invidious in the other direction when you're looking at, at, at the contemplative life and, you know, what, what you can do with your attention so as to recognize, um, you know, how to be happy in this world. Um, there, I think, you know, virtually all of the, the really actionable wisdom is Eastern, uh, because, you know, all of the, the Western contemplative traditions have been, uh, explicitly framed within the, the Abrahamic religion, right? So, you're talking about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, um, and those, those religions are so heavy-handed conceptually in their dualism and in their emphasis on, you know, kind of the primacy of of revelation and the, you know, the revealed nature of these specific texts, the, the unalterability of them. I mean, there's just, there's just the texts are so meager in their contemplative wisdom. It's not that you can't find anything worth contemplating there, but, you know, when you compare, you know, if you're just leaping through even the best parts of the, the Bible, um, to say nothing of the Quran, uh, which is even more, um, even a scanter resource there, um, you compare that to just what you could pull at random off a, a Buddhist bookshelf, um, it just doesn't survive comparison, right? Right? It's just not, you know, um, you can, it's not to say that the Buddhist canon isn't also full of miracles and magic and things that many secularists would want to to doubt or, you know, disbelieve or at least bracket with uncertainty. I mean, it is, but vast stretches of it are, you know, perfectly serviceable in a secular context for, you know, the contemplative life, right? Right? I mean, there's just clear teachings about the nature of awareness and, you know, just how to recognize it, um, by looking at directly at the, the nature of your experience, and there's no, there's nothing that has to be believed to get that project started, right? You don't have, I mean, you, yes, you, you can believe in karma and rebirth and, and in the magical powers acquired by, by, uh, advanced yogis and all of, Uh, but you really don't have to to embrace the, the project fully enough so that you can recognize everything we've been talking about in this conversation, right? I mean, you really can untie the knot of self without believing anything and then just notice, then, then ask the question, what is there left to to pay attention to? And this echoes or dubtails on that question a bit. Um, you've been cast as one of the, you know, four horsemen of the new atheism. I don't know if that's a self, self-proclaimed title or just something that's been laid on you.

>> No, that was, that was, uh, we were dubbed that by somebody.

>> Thought so. And, uh, and yet, um, you know, and certainly though your, one of your social or public identities is, you know, rationalist skeptic. You literally wrote the book called *The End of Faith*. Um, and, you know, we're so careful in Buddhist circles about translating *saddhā*, which, you know, as confidence in the Triple Gem.

>> Mhm.

>> And yet, there does come, um, a point, I find, for most people, where after meeting enough, uh, teachers of real insight, um, or just seeing, like you said, the, the kind of potency of the teachings the Buddha's left for us, and these reaches of the conscious, uh, mind which are so beyond what most would consider normal, where that, that dry, sterile word, word, um, confidence no longer kind of does justice to what happens in the heart. Um, and, and where faith, you know, we don't really have a language for it, but there is an uplift and, and something that you might call, not blind faith, but but a certain faith or deeper resonance emotionally with these teachings and with, you know, speaking of that gem in the glass, the bag of glass, um,

>> You know, with a Triple Gem.

>> And so, what I'm curious is, you know, over these years of meeting, and this feels intimately related to a belief, um, in maybe there being an aspect of the human mind which is truly can be purified to kind of pristine nature. And, so you've had, you know, contact with, uh, Punji, with Joseph Goldstein, with these amazing beings over such a long period of time. Do you find that, um, there is this tension in you at all between the kind of public rational skeptic, and, or is there this, and is there this kind of, uh, faith in a different sense at all in you? Like, what is your relationship to the Triple Gem, Sam? Are you, are you a Buddhist?

>> I doubt, I doubt so. I doubt. But, uh, what's your relationship to the, to the Triple Gem?

>> I think people called you a stalking Buddhist.

>> Stalking Buddhist in the faith.

>> A stalking Buddhist. Yeah.

>> Stalking horse. Stalking horse. Yeah.

>> I mean, the way I say this is that, um, this is the way I said it in this recent lecture is that, that, uh, I, I don't consider myself a Buddhist, but you would know far more about the way I view the world by mistaking me for one than by knowing most other true facts about me.

>> Right? So, I don't think it's true to say that I'm a Buddhist because I, I don't think Buddhism really has a monopoly on on the wisdom that of the Buddha, right? I mean, on some level, the Buddha wasn't teaching Buddhism or wasn't a Buddhist. Um, and anyone who has realized these things in any depth, I mean, just recognized emptiness, say, must recognize that there's this is deeper than this is an insight about the human mind that's deeper than culture, right? It's deeper than, um, any tradition, right? So, it doesn't justify any kind of sectarian claims. Um, any, I mean, you don't even have to be as, as high-falutin' as, as, uh, emptiness or any real insight. It's just the fact that thoughts or experience altogether is impermanent, right? Um, you know, just, just that, just being able to observe impermanence in, in one's life, right? That no experience lasts. You know, this is just, this just ceaseless change in one's sensory engagement with the world and in one's inner life. It's just, you know, you were, you were angry yesterday, but that anger is not here anymore, right? And if it appears again, it, it'll appear and then it'll disappear, and you'll be on to something else, right? That insight into impermanence, that is not a Buddhist insight. That is just the way the mind is, right? It's deeper than culture. It's deeper than tradition. And ultimately, I do think we have to get out of the business of being sectarian, right? So, that ultimately speaking about an insight into emptiness as a Buddhist insight, right? I think that's a little bit like talking about, you know, physics as a Christian insight because the Christians were the first people to really give us physics, right? And Isaac Newton was a, was a Christian, um, a very devout and unpleasant one, apparently. Uh, but, um, so I just think, you know, ju, just as physics is deeper than Christianity or any culture that, that, that would make progress in it. I think spirituality and, and a real, a sane approach to ethics is deeper than any religious tradition, including Buddhism. U, so that's why I, I would tend not to call myself a Buddhist. And also, I, I, I recognize that other traditions, uh, to one or another degree, are, are, uh, mapping the same territory. Right? So, I think, you know, unlike some Buddhists who, who would either be agnostic about this or, um, actually deny this, I think it's just, it's pretty obvious that people like Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj and Punji were talking about this same insight. You know, the fact that they, they would tend to use the language of the kind of the, the, the Vedic language of, of, uh, self, you know, capital S Self, to to positively identify what is left when you're no longer, uh, captivated by your own, uh, ego. Um, that's just a, that's just a semantic difference. I don't think anything really turns on that. And I think there, where everyone's talking about emptiness or non-duality at, at bottom. Um, but some are talking about it more precisely than others, and I think that, I think the precision does matter in the end, right? I think it's, it's possible to spend a lot of time confused by very subtle concepts that are kind of subtly, you know, misleading you or biasing your attention. Um, uh, and, and I do think Buddhism has a, a near monopoly on a lot of the precision here. Um, and again, to, to some degree, to one degree or another, depending on the tradition. I mean, for instance, one of the reasons why I, you know, once, once I could practice non-dual mindfulness well, then you, then I could sort of see it everywhere, right? And I can read Zen teaching with great edification, uh, and feel like, well, okay, the, you know, this Zen teaching is totally on point, but I know that if I had gone through the front door of, of the Zen tradition, I would still be confused, right? I mean, like, like you can spend a lot of time, at least by my lights, not knowing how to meditate in the Zen tradition. Like, you're just, you just can spend years wondering whether you're doing it correctly. I think, um, and honestly, I think it's this, and I've said this before. I said this, um, I'm, I'm not sure I've said this over at Waking Up, but I've said this somewhere. Um, I think I probably had I not met Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche and, and just found myself in the presence of another great Dzogchen master, I might not have recognized how to practice Dzogchen, and I just would have come away wondering whether I was doing it right. Um, I mean, his, he was uniquely precise in how he taught, and many, and I've been with many great Dzogchen masters. Um, I mean, the greatest, you know, of the age, really. I mean, some who Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche would have, would have, you know, if you had asked him, would have said he, you know, was a much greater Dzogchen master than than he was. Someone like Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche, and I've been with them when they were teaching Dzogchen. I mean, that when they were giving mind teachings, um, in a, you know, very formal way, and, you know, I recognized in that context that I would not have gotten the point had I not had Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche's instruction prior to being there, right? And I, I even had the, the great good fortune to spend a lot of time with Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, who, you know, by everyone's estimation was just this amazing Dzogchen master. He, um, he was someone who the Dalai Lama considered a teacher, and,

>> You know, had been with all the great lamas of the time, and,

>> Um, you know, had been with all the great lamas of the time, and, um, he was a contemporary of Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche and, uh, a little younger than Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso. Uh, but I had a lot of access to him. Spent just a lot of, uh, you know, informal time with him. Created, uh, several month-long and two-month-long retreats with him. Two of which were in my house in, in New Mexico at that point. So, I mean, I just could just hang out with him as a, as a teacher. Uh, he didn't speak English, so there was a translation problem, but, um, you know, had a, you know, a translator there all the time, um, and, um, he was, I mean, he was constantly teaching Dzogchen just with his vibe, right? And I, I spent, I had just immense devotion to him as a teacher, um, and a fair amount of pure perception of him as a teacher. I mean, there's the times where I, he would just, he would just look like guru to me. I mean, just, I was in the presence of an enlightened master, clearly. Um, and yet, I don't think I would have been able to practice Dzogchen by be spending all that time with him and, and getting his Dzogchen teachings. I don't think he, he wasn't, he wasn't delivering the goods precisely enough for, for, for me at that, you know, that I just would have, I would have been getting the vibe, I would have had the non-striving vibe, well in hand, but, um, yeah, I mean, the crucial bit for me was the nearness, you know, and the, and the, just how subtle the, non-effort is, right? It is this shift of plane. It is like, you know, you're looking through, you're looking through the window. So again, just imagine what it's like to look through a window and not see your face at all. Right? It's right there, just six inches away. But you, it's not, you don't see it at all because your starting point is, you're looking at this beautiful tree outside on the front lawn, and it's, you know, its branches are waving in the wind, and there's a child at play underneath it, and there are birds, you know, that you can hear singing from the top of it, and you're studying all of that with mindful attention, very one-pointedly, and the teacher saying, "No, no, no. Don't you understand? It's right. It's closer to you than that. Right? Forget about the tree. You can keep looking in that direction. I'm not telling you to move your eyes, but this thing is closer, right? And it takes less time to see than the tree, right? It's like, and there's this shift of plane that reveals your face, right?" Um, without moving your head or your eyes. So again, that, that's the initial condition of just of figuring out how to see this thing that is, that this, this moment of absence, uh, that leaves everything else intact, right? That again, you, you can see and hear and smell and, and sense, and, and even thoughts can arise, right? There's also this initial conditioning is one in which thoughts are apparently the enemy because thoughts are the thing that, that, that, that are distracting you, that are making it impossible to be mindful of anything, much less the, the ocean of emptiness that, that is before you, and that is, that is in fact your condition. Um, so again, yeah, so again, this is the paradox to come back to your question. Um, you know, I'm always long-winded, but with you guys, I, I've achieved a level of long-windedness that I think,

>> That's great. Will, will stand the test of time.

>> Um, the, um, so my relationship to some of the kind of spookier aspects of Buddhism and to take the kind of larger footprint of Buddhism, including, you know, Vajrayana Buddhism, um, it's somewhat paradoxical because, I mean, I've had all these experiences. I mean, I have the experience of real devotion, and I, you know, have even the experience of of seeing my teacher as, as a perfect Buddha, but all the while knowing that he wasn't, or very likely wasn't, or at least I could recognize other qualities in him as just an ordinary person, or, or he certainly more ordinary than being perfect. Which is to say, you know, it's, it's obvious to me that all these great teachers I, I studied with were people who were culturally bound to some degree, even in so far as there, even if only in so far as they were, um, there are many things that they didn't understand about the world, right? Right? I mean, I would not have looked to any of these guys for insight into, you know, quantum physics or any other branch of science, right? I mean, I, you know, I was with some teachers who might well have thought the earth was flat, right? Right. I mean, I've seen some yogis who just had spent decades in caves and, you know, I, I don't know what kind of education they had gotten prior to going into those caves, but I mean, this is just, you know, these are not guys you're going to stick a microphone in front of and, and ask, uh, you know, tell us what our 21st century worldview should be around human health or, or, um, you know, asteroid impacts or anything else. Um, and so there's just a lot to know, and it's pretty clear that that meditation, uh, you know, barring some, you know, magical, um, change, uh, uh, that, uh, I have, have not witnessed, um, you know, omniscience, uh, uh, meditation doesn't deliver those, those insights, right? Um, and I think some of those insights matter. You know, if you, if you don't want your kids to die of unnecessarily from, from viruses, well, it's important to have insights into biology and have a society that can ramify those insights into, you know, medical technology and vaccines, etc. And, and, um, you know, there are wide variety of traditional cultures that have had lots of insights into, into emptiness, but haven't had, you know, material insights into how to build a society that is, that can survive, uh, or, or that can even encourage you basic human health, um, to the degree that we can, uh, now. And so, um, so, yeah, I am, I view the, you know, the, the precious jewel of, of the Dharma in this larger context where there's just more that we, there's more that is, that's worth having in hand, and, and there's more to know and, um, explore to safeguard everything that we care about in this world.

>> Sam, thank you. Um, I'm curious to hear your perspective on the final jewel, the, the jewel of, of the Sangha.

>> Um, you know, you say in your, your article, *Killing the Buddha*, which, to your big credit, you don't actually advocate killing the Buddha.

>> That's good. It's great. Great start.

>> Um, but you, I think in there, you do say that we, as students of the Buddha, should dispense with Buddhism. But from a monastic perspective, Buddhist monastic perspective, like we're wearing the flag of the Buddha, and honestly, just speaking for myself, I feel like it's a beautiful life. I mean, I've been able to live in really healthy and mature communities with,

>> Really, uh, very wise teachers, and to be able to see that centerless center that, that we're, you know, circling around in a way. Um, it can take time, you know, as you said, the mindfulness can be one of these preliminary practices, or bowing, or all the other, you know, uh, non-dro practice of, uh, of Tibetan Buddhism. It takes time. And I'm curious, ious if you could say more. I've never heard you speak about this in public. I mean, you, though you are, you know, a serious skeptic on many things, you have had monastic teachers like, uh,

>> Um, Ningor Rimpushche, and of course, Upand Sid Up, and on your app, you've got Ayan Deodi and, uh, Juma Tenzen Palmo, Jasara, Jatendria,

>> And talking with us. And I'm curious in your essay, in another essay, I think, *The Problem*, Yeah, *The Problem with Atheism*, Um, you elaborate the reason, the logic behind a monastic life. And I would just love to hear you explain that here. Um, for those who are just totally dumbfounded, feel like it's a total waste of a life, to, uh, if you do see that a monastic endeavor in a healthy environment with a wise and a wise teacher could have value. Um, yeah, what, what is that value, and would you ever recommend it to somebody?

>> Yeah. Well, again, this is, um, sort of the realm of paradox. I mean, because it's on some level, um, yeah, I mean, I don't think there's any way of avoiding paradox here, but so on the, the first pass here, it's obviously incredibly valuable to practice and to get access to to people who have practiced more effectively than you have, you know, thus far, right? I.E., great teachers. Um, and, I mean, at every level, I mean, they're, they're inspiring. You know, they, they, they can prove to you just by the way they are that this project is worth engaging in the first place, if you even can't feel it yourself from the beginning. But, um, uh, even once you become self-sufficient in your practice, which is to say, you're confident that the, there is a there there, you know, whatever example a teacher provides. Um, I mean, you know, that, uh, all the pleasures you can seek in the world are by definition impermanent, right? And they can't be the basis of of lasting satisfaction, right? And just repeating your pleasures as rapaciously as you can achieve, uh, you know, just what sort of durable happiness is, can that be? And, you know, you can give that a try for years at a stretch, but at a certain point, you, you might realize, well, there's got to be something deeper here, and, why not focus on that entirely, right? If only for a time, right? Why not give that your full attention? Well, then the, just the logic of that, withdrawing your attention from every other concern and putting it entirely on that, that produces a, a something like a monastic retreat, almost by definition, right? Like, I'm just going to do, I'm going to do nothing but this. Not going to read any other books or any books at all, and I'm not going to talk to anyone about anything, and I'm not going to get married, and I'm not going to have kids, and I'm not going to, uh, you know, find a career, and I'm not going to do any of that. I'm just going to bear down on this existential concern of, you know, what is happiness? You know, what is, what is well-being at the deepest possible level within this realm of changes, right? You know, again, it's not, it can't be just keeping the, you know, a dozen different plates spinning because, you know, they, they stop spinning the moment you, you, uh, let up. And, um, there's a dissatisfaction even in that, those moments of satisfaction, right? You begin to notice that, that, you know, pleasure on some level isn't good enough, right? And so, so it's very easy to just, without without being told that you should be a Buddhist or you should be a monk or you should adopt any tradition, just the logic of your, of your inquiry into the implications of impermanence and the nature of experience and the question, the, you know, the overriding question, is it possible to be free in this context of, of, of impermanence? Um, is it possible to really be happy even though everything changes, and, and, um, everyone ultimately dies? Um, if, if there's a possibility of a yes there, well, why not find that, right? All of a sudden, that begins to look like a monastic life on some level. Um, but the paradox is that once you find its real basis, well, then why should you have to do anything out of the ordinary to just live as that, right? Why, why should you have to withdraw from the world? Why should you have to not have a family, or not be married, or not have a career, or not watch television, or not? I mean, well, you know, you can, you can recognize emptiness while watching a movie and, you know, and eating fistfuls of popcorn too, right? So, why not just do that, right? I mean, if that's what's happening, why not do that?

>> Every time you reference a show, I'm like,

>> Can't watch that.

>> So, so, um, yeah, so it's, Um, so on some level, it, some level, it doesn't matter, but on, on another level, it matters quite a lot what you do with your attention, right? So, and, and maybe this is just a stage thing, you know, in one stage of life, it really, really matters that you give all your attention to this project, and in another stage, it matters less. Um, and the truth is, I, you know, I, I can't personally say that I know I'm living correctly. I mean, it's totally possible that there's some, it, it would be possible for me to, to get to the end of my life, I imagine, and, you know, you know, retrospectively look back on the last, you know, many decades and say, it would have been much better to have practiced much more, right? Like, I, you know, I wasted a lot of time on some level, like, I, I could, I, I could imagine that that an epiphany like that awaits me. And that's the kind of epiphany that being a monk is, is, um, a very, is a very deliberate strategy, very deliberate hedge against, right? Like, you just, like, when you decide to be a monk, you're deciding, okay, I don't want to be that guy. I don't want to be the guy who gets to the end of his life and thinks, oh, I should have really been practicing rather than doing all these other things I, I got distracted by. Um, and I totally understand that. Um, and yet, and, and another way of, of thinking about this is, when you look at why aren't you a monk, or why, why am I not a monk? And why don't I spend my days doing nothing but practice? Well, mostly that's a story of all the other things that captivate me, right? All the other things I want, all the other things that I haven't seen through the illusion of, on some level. I mean, so it really is a story of samsara, right? To put it in Buddhist terms. I mean, it's, it's like, whoa. Oh. Oh. So, you're, you're telling me you wanted a wife, and you wanted kids, and you wanted a career, and you want all those pleasures that require, uh, more money than you currently have. And so now you, now you're working harder. Oh, is that the story you're telling me? Well, that's sure sounds like samsara, right? That doesn't sound like emptiness. Um, so, yeah, that's true. Um, and yet, I find that I can punctuate all those moments with a recognition of emptiness, right? So, the, the kind, there's kind of an equalization, and this, this happens. I mean, this is a part of the, the power of being able to practice non-dual mindfulness, but it's also a, a liability of it, because, I mean, if you can really just drop your problem, you can drop your predicament, you know, always on demand, in an instant, right? As one can when one can really recognize emptiness, um, then one is, then it's true to say that you're never far away from from your deepest insights, right? You're just, you can always just, you know, you can just be free in the next moment, but whatever you've been doing by tendency in previous moments. But it also can take the urgency out of the whole life plan of being a, a yogi, right? Because then you're, then you can never really wander too far. Your, your life can never really be that dysfunctional, because the emptiness is always just right here, you know, how judgmental can you be of the way you just spent the last hour if you can let go of all of it in this instant, right? How much regret can you really feel if you can really just recognize emptiness? And yet, there can be a lot of moments over the last hour where you were just captivated by just random, that shouldn't have been, that wouldn't have certainly wouldn't have captured the attention of, of Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche or some great master, presumably. Um, and, uh, and, and the fact that it did capture your attention explains why, now speaking personally, the fact that it did capture my attention, it explains why I'm not tending to show up like Khyentse Rinpoche in most moments, you know, of the day. You know, it's like, it's not, um, there's an ordinariness to my life that is pretty easy to explain given how, given the, the many ordinary uses of attention that, you know, that I'm fair still fairly dedicated to on a, on a daily and an hourly basis. Um, and if I, I think if I believed more of what I consider the kind of the metaphysics and the mythology and the superstition of Buddhism, or any other tradition, I might feel more urgency around all of that. Like, for instance, if I thought I, if I was sure that karma and rebirth were real, right? And, you know, everyone I love in this life is going to be lost to me in a few short years, and then I'm going to be plunged into some other circumstance, is going to be just as impermanent and just as unsatisfying, and I've been doing that from beginningless time, and, you know, this precious opportunity to practice as a, you know, in a human birth is, you know, analogous to, you know, a tortoise surfacing once a kalpa into a vast ocean with a, you know, a single life preserver floating randomly on the surface, and, you know, once in a, in a, you know, 50 trillion years, it manages to get, it puts its head through that yoke, and that's, that's the preciousness of a human life, or, you know, you know, all the other analogies. Um, if the circumstance really is that precious and that precarious, and I'm using it to, you know, sometimes practice and sometimes recognize this, you know, this condition, but in many other moments, I'm just looking for something to watch on Netflix, or I'm, you know, shopping for, for, uh, groceries, or whatever it is, um, or reacting to some awful thing that happened in our politics. Um, you know, maybe, maybe simply having the, the traditional religious orientation toward, you know, you know, Buddhist principles could have spared me a lot of that. And I'd be, you know, I'd be, you know, you and I, the three of us would have the same haircut, and, uh, wearing the same clothes.

>> All your clothes are rectangles.

>> Well, my hair is, my hair is also falling out, so I'm going to get there one way or the other. Uh, you know, you know, rope or not. Um, but, uh, yeah, so I just, the truth is, I just don't know. And, and I, uh, but I, but by tendency, I am, I am agnostic on many points about which, you know, you know, traditional Buddhists would want me to be gnostic, and, um, and I also, you know, and fundamentally doubt other things. And, yeah, so I'm just, I'm muddling along, uh, on the, on the shore of emptiness, uh, along with you guys, and doing it differently.

>> Thank you, Sam. And, um, yeah, we're not monastic supremacists in the sense of, uh, demanding you ordain right now. Although,

>> Okay, you're playing the long game.

>> Maybe a few years. But, uh, we do, um, I think it is one of the great gifts you've given our culture is, um, you've managed to bring these teachings, uh, into the cultural consciousness in a way that, that is very valuable and accessible, and we really honor that. Um, I think that's deeply needed at this, this particular moment. Um, speaking of the, uh, kind of more magical elements of Buddhism, we promised Joseph Goldstein two days ago that we would ask you this question.

>> And that's, uh, what is your relationship to the idea of rebirth? And we told him we'd add on, um, what do you think your relationship was with Joseph last lifetime?

>> Uh, well, uh, it was probably master and slave, but I'm not sure in which direction, um, given our, our current, uh, karma.

>> Um, yeah, you know, I, you know, honestly, I just don't, I'm, I'm just agnostic as to how weird this universe might be. I mean, you know, it's, um, however you think about it, it's deeply weird. I mean, I think, I think the traditional picture of, of rebirth is, is obviously weird, but so is the, um, the notion of, not existing prior to one's birth and not existing after one's death. You know, that, that consciousness, it just is created from nothing and vanishes into nothing. That is also weird. Um, yeah, there, there are obviously many theories in good standing in modern physics that are, that are, um, even weirder, and in some ways, uh, strike a tangent to, uh, if, if not a notion of rebirth, kind of a similar picture of, of, um, multiplicity and strangeness. I mean, the, the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that there at this moment are, you know, a functionally infinite number of copies of ourselves having, uh, increasingly dissimilar conversations to this one, you know, in, in adjacent slivers of slices of this, this universe, um, based on, um, uh, things that are happening at the quantum level. Um, you know, how anyone can believe that with a straight face is, is, uh, something that escapes me. Um, and yet, that is, you know, probably the most kosher interpretation of quantum mechanics, at least in the current generation of, of physicists. Um, so I just, I don't, I mean, I think the universe may in fact not, not only be as, you know, J.B.S. Haldane famously said, not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose. Um, that we're just actually not capable of, of, of conceptually representing the circumstance we're in. And so, how that relates to the, the mystery of, of birth and death, I don't know. But, um, I mean, I've certainly had experiences in meditation and on psychedelics that, that intuitively gave me the sense that, that mind is, is much vaster than it tends to seem, right? That you can just, you can be, you can find yourself in a, entangled with a, a kind of a, a vastness of, of mental landscape that is, um, that is just, has, makes no reference to your personhood even, right? And across which it's impossible to remember that you even are a person. Um, and, entry into that space certainly felt a lot like what I imagine dying would feel like. Um, so, uh, you know, if, if upon death, we find ourselves in a circumstance of, of just much more mind without any reference to what was happening here in with our bodies, um, intuitively, that wouldn't surprise me, given certain experiences I've had. And, and again, none of this is to discount the, the plausibility of, you know, mind being entirely a product of what the brain is doing. I mean, that is also, you know, there's a lot of, you're not going to embarrass yourself by thinking that, right? But again, it's still not clear how consciousness is, is integrated with matter on, on any level, even, even by reference to all that we know about, you know, the mind's dependence on the brain through, through 150 years of neuroscience. Um, so I just, really, the truth is, I just really don't know. Um, and I wouldn't, you know, any answer seems surprising, right? There's nothing that, there's nothing that seems intuitively common sensical about any of this. It's somewhat analogous to the, um, the question of, is there more advanced life out there in the universe, or are we alone? Right? That, so-called Fermi Paradox, or the Fermi problem. You know, I find that either answer is completely mind-blowing, right? The idea that we might be alone, that you look out there, you know, at trillions upon trillions of, you know, possibly habitable planets and solar systems that we have every reason to believe exist at this point. And the idea that there's nothing complex that's alive on any of them, right? Um, that we're the only point of view on the universe on this lonely rock, right? That seems insane. But the idea that the universe is teeming with other conscious complex creatures, and, you know, even civilizations, and it basically, it's all, you know, Star Trek or Star Wars out there on some level, that also seems completely insane, right? So, and anything in between seems also arbitrarily weird and insane. So, it's just like, there's no answer that, that you can get comfortable with. And I, I do feel the same about the, uh, the mystery of, of birth and death.

>> Maybe just to draw a slightly finer point on that, and I appreciate that. Newbie. Yeah. Fascinating. If there was, uh, yeah, Klingons and all sorts of things like.

That. But, um, yeah, in his book, uh, Rebirth in Early Buddhism and Current Research, Bonte Analio, do you do you know him? Have you met him?

>> I've never met Analia. I know that Joseph holds him in very high regard, and I've read some of his, um, his work on mindfulness, but I, but I've never met him.

>> Yeah, this is a really interesting book. So, Rebirth and Early Buddhism and Current Research. He reviews the literature on near-death experiences, past life regression, children's past life memories, and xenoglossi, which is the ability to speak a language that you've never been taught. Um, and his conclusion is, although these accounts allow for various interpretations and fall short of definite proof, the body of data shifts rebirth from religious creed to a reasonable belief supported by evidence. How do you think secular scientists should engage with this kind of evidence?

>> Yeah. Well, I think I would add a, a few more layers of skepticism to that summary. I mean, so I'm familiar with the, I, I haven't read Analyio's work on this, but it sounds from your description that he was fairly reliant on the work of Ian Stevenson, who was a, like, one of the few scientists who decided, I, this, this is just, I know, I know everyone's treating this like intellectual pornography, but I just have to study this spooky stuff. And so he spent a, you know, his, his life studying, um, rebirth and and xenoglossy, uh, and wrote some very fat books on those topics, which I have read. Um, and what you find, I mean, one is, it, it is fishy, and there's a few exceptions to this, but not many. It is fishy that the testimony around rebirth tends to appear in cultures that have an a background belief in rebirth. Right? Right. I mean, so this is not tending to happen in, um, you know, in Brooklyn, where, you know, you're just, you're just there, just a bunch of Christians and Jews who, um, don't think about, don't think of, uh, prior lives in any, in any way, and, um, they all of a sudden they have a kid who's claiming to have been someone else in a previous existence, and, you know, even using terms that they couldn't possibly know, etc. Um, so if that, it would be more prec, you would, you would expect it to happen, um, in every culture, sort of with equal frequency, if it were just this propensity of the human mind to occasionally remember what happened before birth, if something in fact happened before birth, um, and you wouldn't, you wouldn't expect it to just tend to happen in places like Sri Lanka or India or Burma, etc. Um, you, you know, there's one, like, the, actually the greatest story, like this, the most persuasive piece of evidence, uh, of this kind of testimony I ever saw appeared in a book that had nothing to do with rebirth. And if memory serves, the writer didn't even think about rebirth when reporting this testimony. This was a book on child prodigies. Um, I forget who wrote it. Uh, you, you could, you could easily find it because the title was Nature's Gambit. And there's one, it was, it was all just testimony of parents and and other people who had been caring for young children who were showing, you know, prodigious intellectual gifts, whether, you know, intellectual or artistic. So, you know, you, you know, the, the kid would learn, you know, foreign languages at the age of, you know, two or three, or, um, you know, begin to calculate, or, or, um, uh, uh, play chess, or do something else, some other act of higher cognition, you know, very, very early, and and suddenly at a very, very high level, right? So, just the classic prodigy stories. Uh, but one of these stories entailed a kid that claimed, again, from a very early on, I think the kid was like two or three, was claiming it, just the only, the only way that the, the parents could make sense of it was that the kid had, like, claimed to have been, you know, killed by the Nazis, or, you know, like that, that the, was it just living in fear of something that had happened previously? But if, again, it's been years since I looked at this book, but, uh, so forgive me if I have some of these details wrong, but if memory serves, this was a context in which any student of, you know, Buddhism or, or Eastern spirituality, and, and anyone with a notion of karma and rebirth would have immediately seized upon it as, oh my god, this is, this is testimony about, you know, past lives. But the author and the parents did none of that. They were just, you know, this was just part of the, this, um, kid's prodigious abilities to kind of, to represent, you know, kind of higher-level cultural concepts that, that then should have been available to a 2-year-old or a 3-year-old. And they just were never interpreting this in terms of past life. Um, so, anyway, that's the kind of thing that would be more compelling to me than the, the, um, the Indian couple that shows up on the, you know, the afternoon show, analogous to the Indian version of Oprah, claiming that their, he remembers his past lives and, and, um, because then there's, you know, there are cultural incentives to this. I mean, I know that it's, um, this is somewhat, you know, offset by the fact that, yes, rebirth in a, in a Indian context, you know, whether Buddhist or Hindu, is actually not a happy story, really. It's not that everyone wants to, is hopeful that, that this is the case, in the way that Westerners are, you know, in, in Western years, rebirth tends to be something people want to believe in, right? Like it's good news, right? That you get, you know, you, like, you know, you're going to get, you know, another life after this one. So, death is, death is an illusion. Isn't that great? But that's not, they're not really picturing the wheel of rebirth the way, you know, Buddhists and even Hindus, uh, picture it. Um, so, uh, but anyway, I'm skeptical of some of those stories. I think some of the story, you, the, the, the scope for fraud in many of these stories is pretty obvious, and wishful thinking and confirmation bias. Um, but not perhaps in every case, but I just, I, I do think, you know, this, this just falls under the rubric that, you know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and much of this evidence isn't that extraordinary in my experience.

Thank you, Sam. And I, I appreciate just the measured, uh, tone and the, the, the real holding, I feel in a genuine way, of, of respectful agnosticism for this whole realm, which, you're right, it's kind of strange, whatever way you come down on.

>> Agnosticism.

>> Uh, an agnostic, um, not knowing if rebirth is true or not.

>> And this is, this is true for psychic phenomena, too, like, you know, the powers of so-called siddhis. And, I mean, I'm, I'm very skeptical of some of the more, the more grandiose claims that have been made, >> for, by some, you know, about somebody like Deepama, for instance. Um, and the reason why, the reason why a lot of these claims should, like, I mean, you know, the true believers in some of these stories, I mean, they think, and this is, you know, these stories are are a dime a dozen for Hindu gurus, as well. Like the, the endless claims for magic powers with a teacher like Maharaji, and, you know, Ramdas pulled together, um, two books on, on, on just the miracle stories attributed to, to Maharaji, um, but there, you know, there are Buddhists who have miracle stories attributed to them, even in a contemporary context, like Joseph's teacher, Deepipama, was said to have, I mean, I think she was on an outing with people, and the bus, you know, got stuck on some Indian road, and then she just moved the bus with the power of her mind to some other place, so, so that their, their journey could continue. But you have to ask yourself, I mean, so this sounds, there are many reasons to find this implausible, but one reason which is rarely mentioned is an ethical one, which is, if you have power of this sort, right, think of all the suffering you are not alleviating, you're just, you're just letting happen, uh, though you're, you're willing to, to move a bus with your mind to just keep these, these pilgrims on their, on their schedule. Think of all the lives, Deepipamad didn't save that day, though she could have with her magic powers, right? I mean, so there's a kind of, you know, odious, or at least obnoxious ethical picture, kind of coming into focus when you actually do the, the moral math on, on those decisions, right? If you attribute kind of almost unlimited power to some siddhi, and you, and, and then you, you, you hear the stories about how they use the power to, you know, whatever it is, turn water into wine, or just get people to, you know, to from one place to the, to the other on schedule, um, or just impress their, um, their, their students with magic tricks, um, and they didn't cure the cancers, or, you know, keep the kids from, you know, getting, you know, engulfed in fiery car crashes, or whatever it was they didn't do that day, which they could have done, uh, presumably, um, it begins to look like a very weird belief system.

>> Generally, we're against water to wine, actually. So, that's a save on that. So, Sam, we have you for a little longer, and we actually wanted to go into a lightning round, which might actually last 40 minutes. We'll see. But >> we're going to, we put together some questions. The first of which will be, um, if you had the Buddha on your podcast, what would your first question be for him?

>> First question, um, or a question, I mean, I guess I would, I, you know, if you're actually giving me the Buddha himself, I would, um, I would treat it a lot like, uh, you know, a question for the, the proverbial genie or oracle, you know, I would basically find some way of asking him, what, what, what is the most important question I could ask, and what is its answer? I mean, some, some sort of say, you know, self-referential question that, that, that plows his wisdom into the question itself.

>> Do you have any guess of what his answer might be? What is the most important question?

>> Yeah. Well, I mean, based on the teaching, he was not, um, you know, as you know, he, he, you know, with this sort of handful of leaves, u statement, he, you know, the, the, um, the leaves he had in hand, which he was offering for our contemplation, were, were, you know, stood in relation to the, the, the forest of, of, uh, trees, um, as, you know, the kind of, the, the, important wisdom stands in relation to all possible facts that, that, you know, could be known, and of which he was, you know, competent to discuss, right? So, like, you've taken his claim of something, something like omniscience seriously, um, there's just a handful of things that you really want to know and need to know, and, you know, and he, he was, he declared that he was focusing on those, uh, and then whenever were pressed about some of the, the inscrutable stuff we were talking about, the spookier stuff, rebirth, etc. Um, to my, in my recollection, he tended to, to not want to just connect all those dots. He just basically, uh, said, this is, this is, uh, this is not something you really, you really need to worry about. Um, and perhaps you can remind me what the extent of what he said there. I mean, obviously, there was, um, there's some teachings about rebirth and karma, otherwise, we wouldn't have these, you know, these beliefs within Buddhism, but he really didn't, you know, as far as fully unwinding the, the paradoxes there, he, he basically said, this is, this is not what is best thought about.

>> Yeah. No, that's a great summary. And it was the specifically the Four Noble Truths, like all of the leaves in at hand are basically the teachings of the Four Noble Truths, and practicing those.

>> Suffering and the end of suffering.

>> Suffering and, and on that note, uh, Sam, you seem to know a fair number of Pali Buddhist words, which every time you use one, it totally spikes my dopamine.

>> When you say dukkha, I feel sukha. And >> I'm curious, what word from the Buddhist lexicon do you feel deserves to be more widely known in the West?

>> Um, well, I do think the, the, um, term, uh, mana, which I, I think is, is usually translated as conceit, >> right, >> is interesting in the way that it, um, maps on to this issue of, of, uh, kind of self-transcendence, right? In my, in my understanding, in the, um, in the traditional kind of Vimagga, progress of insight framework, mana isn't uprooted until full enlightenment, right? So, you know, even an anagami would, would have, uh, um, this, this sort of defilement of, of so-called conceit, which is not, is, in my understanding, it's not just, it's not the, like, the coarse conceit of being like, you know, I, being a conceited person, um, it's much more just like, even just having a, a self-concept in reference to others, right? I mean, just, just kind of, even just mapping your, representing yourself to yourself in comparison with others. You know, even, even if, even comparing yourself unfavorably to others would be this kind of conceit. Um, I do think there is a, um, there's something about, so, so the, the insight into selflessness, um, or, or anatta, is, is a, um, you know, you, you don't have an anatta, you don't, on this account, you don't have a self, but, this, this, uh, of conceit is another aspect of self-representation, which is, um, which is interesting to reflect on, and it is, it is some, it is the kind of thing that is absent, at least, you know, in my view, when one is recognizing emptiness, or recognizing, you know, non-dual awareness, it's like, it's like the gesture, like, it's very, it can become very salient, the departure from recognition, uh, by virtue of representing oneself. It's like, as, I mean, to kind of, to put it in neurological terms, like the usual starting point is, we, when you look at, when you think about what our brains are doing, our brains are representing a world, they're also representing our bodies in the world, as part of the world. I mean, distinct from the world, but also just part of the world. Your, when you look down, your body is, is out there. It's in, you know, part of it is, is in your visual field. Um, and you, you sort of sense in, even vision aside, you sort of broadcast this kind of internal map of your body out there in the world that you're representing. Um, in addition to that, there's this third representation of a self, or a subject, interior to the body. And that is the specious self, the ego that we, we, the atman that we, we find absent. And, and that's kind of the, the, you know, the, the jewel of, one of the jewels of Buddhism, certainly, is to recognize that, that the falseness of that point of view. But again, that's kind of a third layer of, of mapping that the, the mind, or brain, is accomplishing. Um, but in addition to, like, just having this sort of, um, fundamental sense of being located as a subject, there are these kind of other layers of the onion of self, which, um, and, and mana is one, where you're just, you're kind of just thinking about yourself. Like, it's, it's not the same thing as feeling like a self, but it is, like, a, um, I, it's, again, it's kind of hard to talk about because the shadings here are subtle, but, like, um, there's, there's a certain way of representing the self, or, or, um, it's interesting to consider, for instance, the, the, the relationship between self, the classic state of mind that we call self-consciousness in English, and the self itself, right? And I, I do think there's, there's a fairly, those, those are pretty coterminous, like, um, so when you say, when you say the phrase self-conscious, like, what you, like, if someone says, I was, I was so self-conscious, right? I was just, I was just getting crushed by my, my self-consciousness in that situation. This kind of a unique experience of, of inwardness, and, and kind of collapse into this feeling of self. Um, and it could, I mean, just imagine, you know, you're, you're suddenly, you're in, in view of a thousand people, and they're all looking at you, and you've just said something stupid, and you're embarrassed, or you're, like, you've been publicly humiliated, or, you know, you're, you're naked on stage, what, whatever the situation, the unnatural situation is, so as to fully, uh, exploit your capacity for following the gaze of others toward this presumed center of experience that is yourself, and collapsing there. Right? Like, this is, this is self-consciousness. Um, in my view, that is, that is taking this, this, um, more basic sense of being located, the sense of being a center, and almost just, like, you know, squeezing it into a fist. It's like, you have a, it's like the difference between having a relaxed hand and have, and, and having a very tight fist, right? So, like, it's like exploiting that same mapping, right? Um, and that is the very thing that we cut through when we have an insight into selflessness, or non-duality. But there's sort of other layers to it, and, and, and mana, or conceit, is one, where you're just kind of, you have an idea of yourself that you can, it's not in this very center of your experience, but it is somehow, uh, an elaboration of, of your identity in your mind. And we're constantly turning this thing over, and entertaining it, and invoking it, and, and being encumbered by it. And it is, it is a kind of a spell that gets broke. I mean, when you, when you, when you cut through to emptiness, you're, that's one of the, that's one of the things you're liberating, too. It's like, that, like, that conceit at that level. So, anyway, that's a very long answer, as is my want, um, to your, your question, but I do think, I think this notion of conceit is, u, is interesting, and is rarely thought about in, in English, and certainly not to mean anything like that.

>> You're singling out manas, or mana, mano, rather. Mana is, uh, so it's interesting, and actually, the Buddha speaking, transitioning from onions to flowers, the Buddha actually, there's a, a brilliant suta which illustrates something I think very similar to what you're talking about, and it's a monk named Venerable Kemaka, who's on his deathbed. >> And, uh, these monks ask, do you identify with any of these five aggregates? You know, form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness. And he says, no. And then they say, are you enlightened? And he says, no. And they say, how is that? If you don't identify, basically, he's given up sakaya-diṭṭhi, the first of the fetters that stream entry that you give up, which is explicit identification with the aggregates, um, of identity. But, um, he says, just as, uh, one couldn't look at a flower and smell the flower, but wouldn't be able to say the scent of that flower comes from the stamen, or the petals, or the stem. Even so, though I don't identify with any of the aggregates, the, uh, aroma of self still remains. And this is, ask me, mana, the final fetter. >> And he became the only monk in all the sutas to become awakened from his own dharma talk. >> So, oh, yeah, that's a great story. >> But, but it speaks to this kind of spacious, like, much more subtle, you know, insight is a very locating thing. You're right. And, and that self-consciousness really crystallizes that. But even when that's gone, something else remains, which is much more subtle and hard to dispel. Um.

>> Yeah. I really, yeah.

>> The next, um, Oh, sorry, Sam. Anything else on that? We have more questions for you as well. Apologies.

>> No, I think, um, uh, vedana is also from a, just a practice point of view, worth, uh, keeping in view. I mean, just, just kind of the, the feeling tone of pleasant and unpleasant, that is, um, being mindful of that can be very, very useful, right? And also, and it's just a very, it's a very short, um, step to equanimity, if you can just decide, okay, for this period, I'm just not going to be pushed around by the pleasantness or unpleasantness of anything. Like, you sort of notice that, that channel in the mind that's just like, like that, that is the thing that is provoking a response in you to experience, pretty much all the time, and you can just sort of, like, at a higher level, almost at a conceptual level, you can just decide, all right, I'm not going to just, I'm not going to let the flipping of that switch matter for this period, and all of a sudden, you can have a, just a very spacious and equanimous kind of mindfulness. Um, and it's, it takes a while. I mean, Joseph often teaches it, but you can, you can sit, in my experience, you can sit on retreats for a while before anyone tells you to, to really specifically be mindful of, of the feeling tone of, of, uh, experience, specifically.

>> That's such a key link between, uh, you know, past karma of, uh, and craving, and the future becoming. Mhm.

>> I think, uh, one of the next questions for us, uh, might be, um, how have you kept your center as you've become famous? How have you kind of kept your sanity, and how's your practice helped with that?

>> Well, I mean, I would say that I'm, you know, I'm famous within a certain, um, kind of orbit, which is fairly specific. Right. Right. So, it's, it's not, um, I mean, there are levels of fame, obviously, that I, that I have not experienced, and, and, uh, would be very disruptive. I can just, you know, I've met some of these people, and it's just incredibly disruptive of normal life, in a way that I just don't experience. I'm like, I've got, I've got the level of fame, which is, which is almost entirely pleasant, in that, like, it just, it's, um, for, for the most part, I can assume anonymity, but then I can just occasionally get recognized, and someone just, and, and virtually a hundred times out of a hundred, all of those recognitions are pleasant. It's only, it's not that the people who hate you and recognize you don't come up and say anything, and the people who love you come up and say, "Oh, you know, I love, I love your work. I love your books. I love your podcast. I love your app." Whatever it is, they're just expressing appreciation for, for your work. And, um, so it sort of, it sort of matters what you're famous for, and it matters just how famous you are, right? And so, like, I'm, I'm not at all, I, I certainly don't want more of it. Like, I know, like, I like my level is, is totally fine. It's, um, I think the perfect kind of fame would be to actually be unrecognizable, but to still have all the doors open when you want them. I mean, there, there are certain writers who, like, I couldn't even pick them out of a lineup, but their names are, are known to almost everyone. I mean, I think of, I think, yeah, John Le Carré is the example I always use, of just the spy novelist, who, like, literally, >> I mean, it was true to say that at any moment, he could have gotten the President of the United States on the, on the phone. You, so beloved were his books to popular audiences, and yet, I think probably he got recognized less than I do, uh, because he's, you know, he just, he was just not out there as a, as a public figure in any way, and, and people aren't paying attention to the, the little photos on the back, on, on, on the back flap of a book very much. Um, so there's just very different types of fame, and there's, there's certainly types of fame that are not worth wanting, in my view, for how disruptive they are, and also how weird they are, in terms of kind of the, the, the illusions, uh, uh, through which people are, kind of, the, the delusional lens through which all the people who are admiring you, or paying attention to you, are, are, are looking at you, right? I get some of that, but, um, there are types of fame where it's just this fantasmagoric, you know, just, Paul of mirrors effect, it's just, it's just illusion upon illusion, and just, it's, it's, there's just nothing but weirdness for it, you know. And then, then there are people who are just famous, just because they're famous, or famous, just because they're beautiful, or, I mean, just, it's just, and it's just a, a very weird kind of life to live. Um, and so, um, but for me, it's just, I mean, it's part of the, um, the importance of, of practice is to just recognize that you don't have, you not only do you not have to identify with any of it, on some level, you, you, you actually can't identify with any of it. I mean, it is just not, it's not self, right? Right. I mean, all, like, like my, my digital self is not me. Like, my digital reputation is not me. It's, and it's all the thoughts about me that are occurring in other people's minds are not me, and I have no control over them, really. Um, as much as I try to, you know, message into an increasingly noisy information landscape, and, and make myself understood, I have no control over whether that really succeeds or not. And, um, so I, I've kind of gradually got, become more acquiescent with all of the consequences of misperception, and, and, you know, lies told about my work, or, or misunderstandings of it. I mean, there's both deliberate and, and, and inadvertent, um, misunderstandings that are spread. Um, and I touch so many controversial topics in my, in my podcast life, and in my life as a writer, that, that it's, um, you know, the misunderstandings can seem very consequential, but all of that, you know, in the end, has just seemed like, you know, more Mara, uh, or Maya, or whichever, you know, analogy you like. Um, and there's just a spell there that, that can be broken. Like, there's fundamentally none of that can matter, right? And, I mean, so now, the, the bright line for me was actually just deleting my Twitter account, which was a huge move. Move. I'm, I'm always embarrassed to acknowledge just what a, an important move it was psychologically, and, and, you know, spiritually, to, um, just decide that, that, you know, increasingly grotesque funhouse mirror was just fundamentally not worth looking into at all. Right? Because it, it, it was, it was continually advertising itself to me as this necessary channel of communication, and something that I just couldn't, uh, deny myself as a writer, or somebody who, who wanted to share ideas with the world. I had, a, you know, at that point, something like 1.5 million people following me on Twitter, and it just, it just was the only social media channel I personally used, and I was in contact with lots of smart people there, and influential people, and, and, you know, and there, it seemed to be the only place to, to respond in real time to consequential differences of opinion, or current events, or, and I, I was, you know, just, to, to forsake all that would be to silence my voice into that, in that space. And it just took, just finally recognized as a, a certain moment that it was just like, I was continually grasping this, you know, burning coal with my hand, and wondering why I was so uncomfortable. And, uh, you know, so that's, that's what I did. I just, I just dropped, dropped it. And, um, it was, you know, immensely useful to have, to have dropped it. Yeah.

Thank you. Um, I'm curious about, um, the moral landscape. Um, so in your book, The Moral Landscape, you imagine, I really, I really enjoyed reading that. Um, you imagine this hypothetical landscape where the peaks on the landscape, uh, correlate with peaks of well-being, and then the valleys are peaks of suffering, and maybe the deepest valley is the worst possible misery for everybody, all the time. And I'm curious, on that, that map, and you say there are many, uh, peaks of well-being, um, where does Nibbana fit in there? Or where would this appreciation, the Zchin appreciation of rigpa? And I think, in it, from a Theravada point of view, I mean, >> rigpa, it just means, you know, it means wisdom, or, or clear seeing, knowledge. >> And so it's not necessarily the same thing in a Theravada view of that clear seeing into that non-dual perception, and the realization of >> of Nibbana. Yeah. Which is the complete ending of greed, anger, and delusion, and no more mental suffering, based on, uh, no more unnecessary mental suffering. How does that fit? How, how does that fit on the, the moral landscape, both of those?

>> Yeah. Well, I think it's, it is somewhat paradoxical. I mean, it's, it's a little bit like absolute and relative truth from a Buddhist perspective. Um, I think I think that the, the analogy of the moral landscape, it only makes sense in the context of relative, you know, conventional truth, where, um, certain experiences really are better than other experiences, right? Like, like there's no, there's no, um, equalizing of those experiences through anything like it's a dualistic picture of, of, you know, the, the various possibilities of experience in this universe. Um, how non-duality and emptiness and wisdom relate to all of that is, um, I mean, it's still an open question for me on some level. I mean, it's, it's, it's pretty clear to me that that, um, virtually all suffering is the result of kind of dualistic fixation, and, and, you know, kind of mental obscurations, and therefore cutting through to, to non-duality, or wisdom, or emptiness, really does relieve that suffering, and, and kind of equalizes those experiences. But whether that's true all the way down, I don't know, right? Like, there's only certain, certain experiences I've had, and, and managed to equalize myself. You know, like, I don't know how much physical pain I could be in, and be equanimous with it by resting in rigpa, right? You know, it's, it's, um, you know, and, and is it a, um, is it really a capacity of the mind to be equanimous with anything, if one is, is truly undistracted from the, the nature of awareness? Um, and not just equanimous with it, but actually that there's just no, there's no difference to be attached to, right? This, like, non-clinging. Does non-clinging really solve all the problems in this universe? Um, all the potential problems in this universe? That's a, that remains an open question to me. I, I, I'm prepared to believe that the answer is yes, but I just, I, I can't say I know that from the inside. Um, I mean, I know, I know what it's like to be profoundly uncomfortable, and then to recognize emptiness, and to have it, have it in that moment of recognition, be totally fine to have been profoundly uncomfortable, and to, and to have the physiology of discomfort still be present, and for, you know, to not, to have to have my freedom not be really contingent upon anything changing, right? So, yeah, I can be, you know, in a lot of physical pain, or profoundly nauseated, or, you, you know, you know, throwing up, or whatever it is, or have a high fever, or, and, um, to be able to kind of stand free of all that as a, you know, in my mindfulness, and so that's, that's wonderful. So, so, so in that sense, wisdom and, and emptiness can be viewed as just one of the greatest tools you could possibly have by which to navigate the, the moral landscape, right? It's, it's might not be the only tool you need. I mean, there's certain places on the landscape, they can only be reached by, by, you know, more knowledge, or more technology, or more, you know, you know, better physiology, or, you know, greater health, or whatever it is, but, um, which is to say, you know, there's certain experiences you can't have unless you have the, the kind of mind that can make those experiences available. But, um, to be, to be able to be free of suffering in the midst of whatever experience you find yourself, you know, that's a kind of superpower. Uh, because suffering is more or less guaranteed to, to arrive. Um, and to not cling to the impermanent thing you were growing attached to when it leaves, is also a kind of superpower, because everything eventually leaves. Um, and so, the kind of, the part of, part of what it means to get to higher spots on the landscape, in relative terms, is to be less clingy, really, you know, I mean, like, you could, I mean, to put this in a very basic way, like, you, if you look at, like, what makes for a good relationship, you know, or a good marriage. Well, being already happy is one of the best things to, you know, to bring to that relationship, right? I mean, to enter into a relationship, uh, imagining that your happiness is dependent upon that relationship being a specific way, is already to freight that relationship with unnecessary burden, and, and an irrational one, and ultimately an unfulfillable one. Um, and it's already to become a less competent partner in that relationship, right? To be a, a less good spouse, say. Um, so, so part of, part of getting to higher spots on the landscape is to, to be taking, you know, the wisdom of the Buddha, you know, more and more on board, almost by definition. But as to whether or not one can ultimately stand free of it all, so as to recognize that there is no landscape, or there is no high spot and low spot, that all of it was just, you know, high spots and low spots in a dream. Um, I mean, I, I certainly have intimations of that from my practice, but I can't say I live from that place most of the time. I, I've had intense experiences where they're so intense that I couldn't have told you whether I was experiencing agony or ecstasy, right? And like, and the difference somehow just didn't even conceptually matter. I mean, there just is, there just intensity, right? And, you know, I was equanimous with that intensity, and they looked at one way as ecstasy, at another way it's agony, and, you know, so, so in that sense, I've had experiences of, of one taste, you know, at an extreme volume. But again, those are, those are transitory experiences, right? Like, what would it be like to live from that place? What would it be like to be the sort of person who could have, you know, awfulness turned up to 11, and have it stay that way for years? And yet, it would be true to say of that person, you know, he's as happy in that condition as in any other, right? That, that, you know, I, you know, I'm, I'm, I'm open to believing that it's possible to have such a mind, and I can kind of authenticate that in a piecemeal way, and a transitory way, for myself. But, you know, what it would be like for that to just be the only kind of mind you, you have, uh, that, that would be, um, that would be an interesting change in my current program.

Sam, I think we have you for about 10 more minutes. And >> you can see that with rapid fire means almost nothing to me. So, >> no, it's great. That was just a way to get you on for another 40 minutes. >> So, fully do I abide in the non-conceptual state that when you say rapid fire, >> the length of my answers barely changes at all. >> Like those underhanded free throws back and forth kind of thing. It's perfect. Um, this one I'm really curious about though, is what are the five, uh, most meaningful Buddhist religious objects you have in your house, whether it be a Buddha image or a picture of a teacher, if any? Um, and if you know any of those are too intimate to talk about, then it's okay. But I'm curious if you have any pictures. I >> have a lot. >> Do you have a shrine, Sam? Well, I mean, I just have, it's, you know, I've got lots of photos of my teachers, and I've got lots of Buddhas and other, you know, statues that that I love. Um, uh, I mean, some are even in this room. This, I just happen to be recording in an office. Um, but, uh, I could show you. Um, let me see if I have. >> Please do, and and tell us some of the photos as well, but we'd love to see. >> Oh, actually, my favorite photo I brought. So, we, we had to move because of the fire, but now I'm recording in, in the office of the house that did not burn, but but nearly burned. Um, for these, these kinds of, uh, uh, uh, direct to camera recordings, I still record here. Um, so I don't have all my stuff here, but, um, no, I have, I have photos of, you know, Yoshi, who I spoke about, and, and Tukan Rinpoche, and, um, other teachers. I have, uh, a couple of great Buddhas that I've had for now, um, close to 40 years. Uh, and, you know, which were given the full, um, ceremonial treatment by Khenchen Rinpoche. You know, Matthew Ricard, the, the French monk, who was, who was working as, um, Khenchen Rinpoche's translator. Um, uh, well, I, you know, we bought a bunch of Buddhas in, in, uh, Kathmandu, and he gave them to Khenchen Rinpoche, and he, you know, stuffed them with incense, and, you know, sacred, sacredness, whatever they stuff Buddhas with over there, um, and, uh, uh, gave them back to us. So, yeah, I've got just lots of Buddhas and that I have, you know, spent a lot of time with. So.

>> Sam, how do you decompress after a three-hour conversation about consciousness? Uh, or is it just?

>> I don't know that that requires much decompression. I've got, I have many other topics that that would get me more riled than than consciousness. Um, I mean, I exercise. I go to the gym. I mean, that's something that that I do. Uh, I try to do every day, and, you know, knowing that I'll drop a day or two a week, but I mean, more or less, that's a, you know, working out in some way is is a daily practice. Um, which I do. I mean, that's just like another example of kind of relative understanding that is not really found within Buddhism, but I just think is important, and it just, just adds a kind of a baseline level of well-being that is, you know, like, like, you know, the perfect retreat center, you know, if you, if you're going to do three-month retreats or live as a monk, would also have a great gym that people would work out at once a, one hour a day. I mean, that would just, that would just make for, in my view, a much better retreat than just letting your body kind of unravel for, for 3 months, right? So, I don't know what you guys do because you're doing this permanently, but, um, >> you know, doing exercise, you know, and, you know, beyond yoga, I think is is a very good idea. So, that's, that's the first thing that comes to mind that I do to, to truly unwind.

Sam, if we got Jordan Peterson to take temporary ordination and become a Buddhist, would you take temporary ordination as well, here?

>> No, I don't think I can sign on the dotted line there because, uh, I mean, depending on what, what state of mind you get Jordan, it could be a pretty easy negotiation. You might get him quite cheaply, or not. Um, >> uh, >> have you ever thought of being, How about that, even briefly? Have you ever thought of being a monk, Sam, even for?

>> I, you know, I never really, there was one retreat with, um, Upaññita Zada, where, um, people were ordaining, um, that was kind of a standard thing on all the retreats with him. You could, you could, you could ordain, just, you know, just to kind of make that retreat more intense, whether you were, whether it was a life plan or not, or you're just going to do it for a couple months. Um, uh, no, I wasn't, I wasn't tempted to do it in that context. I mean, for me, I, it just makes more sense as kind of like a life decision, as, as, uh, people have made, uh, like yourselves. Um, but, um, no, I mean, I just never, I mean, for, for what, for me, would make the most sense is just to, and this is a, a kind of instruction that I heard Tukan give. He never gave this directly to me, but, um, somebody, I think it was Francisco Varela, or somebody who had a very kind of big, engaged life in the world, who was a student, came to him and said, um, just, just kind of expressing this, this tension over the, the dichotomy between being on retreat and being in the world, and being on retreat and being in the world, and just wondering, just how to practice in that way, and, and as you probably know, from the, the Zen point of view, I mean, though they do obviously honor the value of retreat, it's much more, there's much more emphasis on, like, you practicing for short sessions, you know, many times repeated, you know, throughout the day, and kind of equalizing, you know, your daily life with retreat. And I think Tukan's emphasis was, um, just, you know, start with, you know, start, start practicing two hours a day, and then just gradually unwind your worldliness, right? And then, then see the consequences of that, right? All right. It's much more, let it come from the side of, of just wanting less, you know, and, and see what your mind is like when you actually, when the, when you're finding the world less distractible, and, and >> and the, and the, I mean, to take a line from, u, there's a line in the, in the, um, Ashtavakra Gita, which is a classic of, of, um, Advaita teaching, you know, I think the line is, desire nothing but your own awareness. I mean, what would, what would it be like to desire nothing but your own awareness, and, and what are the consequences of falling into that well, um, and that, that, you know, that makes more sense. I mean, given the nature of my life, it would make more sense for me to sort of reverse engineer it, and not change anything outwardly, but just to, just to actually find awareness more and more captivating.

>> That, uh, short-circuited the next, uh, 10 questions I wanted to ask you. Want nothing more than my own awareness, but, um, Sam, thank you so much. And maybe we could have a, a future conversation, because we really do have a lot more questions. But, >> Sure. Yeah. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Great to meet you both. Yeah. Thank you for what you're doing, and, and thank you for the, the inspiration you're giving me and everyone else in, in the, the choices you've made to, to practice the way you're doing. And, um, uh, I love the fact that, uh, um, you guys are doing what you're doing, and you're doing it in this public-facing way, and, and, uh, you know, I've seen some of, some of the interviews you've done, and, and, uh, your YouTube channel, and it's, um, it's great. I, I love the marriage of, uh, of ancient wisdom, and, and in your case, monasticism, and, the modern messaging. It's, uh, it's, it's one of the good things. It's one, it's one of the higher points on the, the information landscape. Um, uh, given all the, given all the low points, we should celebrate some of the high ones.

>> Sam, that, that means a lot. And honestly, we feel like you're approaching that same kind of intersection between, um, the mundane and the spiritual, and kind of that, that key nexus, just from the opposite direction, or, or rather, that's not even the right way to put it, but, um, you're touching that same kind of intersection, and really appreciate the messaging you're putting out in the world, and how accessible you're making it for everyone. So, thank you for taking literally about 3 hours with us to talk, Sam. That was a real gift, and we can do it for >> it's a Buddhist. >> It requires no decompression. So, >> it's been great. Great to meet you both. >> Sam spoke to us for nearly 3 hours, and so we felt it prudent to divide the interview into two parts. The following, uh, part will be found in the description, or here.