Joseph Goldstein has been teaching the dharma and vipassana meditation in many places around the world for the past ten years. Inquiring Mind talked to Joseph during his vacation near Lake Tahoe, California in December, 1983.

Teaching

Inquiring Mind:  Sometimes you describe yourself in your relation to the sangha as a spiritual friend. Could you elaborate on how you see your role as a teacher.

Joseph Goldstein: In the Theravada tradition teach­ers are considered spiritual friends in a way that’s quite different from the con­cept of guru either in the Hindu tradition or in some of the Mahayana traditions. Within the Theravada tradition even the Buddha is spoken of as a spiritual friend in the sense that he only points out the way and that everybody has to do the work of purification themselves. I think that what happens between teacher and student is very complicated and it’s something that I don’t have a full under­standing of at all. Somebody said some­thing to me recently which made a lot of sense and I had not even thought of it until he mentioned it. He said that what he got from me most as a teacher, aside from meditation instructions, was a qual­ity of faith. I wouldn’t have conceptual­ized my function as being someone who inspires faith, but when he said that, it resonated. I do have unshakable faith in the dharma and that must be a source of strength when people are struggling in their own practice.

IM: You also have a very natural, unassuming way in which you present the practice. In spite of your height, you don’t seem to place yourself in any way above the sangha.

Joseph: I think part of that has to do with the feeling of still being very much on the path and without any illusions at all of having come to a place of completion. Every time I watch my mind, as with most people who watch their minds, the saying that self-knowledge is always bad news seems so appropriate. When one is sitting, in addition to the incredible pur­ity of the dharma field in which it’s hap­pening, what one sees so clearly and so explicitly and so without compromise is all the stuff in the mind, all the defilements that are still there.

IM: When you are teaching what ques­tions do you get asked the most?

Joseph: Well, the preface to the question that’s asked most is, “If there is no self, then . . . ” Fill in the blank. The idea of selflessness seems to be the hardest con­cept for people to understand.

IM: Do you think that difficulty is more characteristic of Westerners?

Joseph: It seems to be. In Buddhist cul­tures the concept of selflessness is def­initely part of their cultural conditioning, whereas in the West it’s almost just the opposite. The classic example being Descartes, you know, “I think, therefore I am,” all revolving around positing a sense of self and then trying to figure out what it is. One of ‘the most wonderful things in teaching retreats is to see people begin to open to that understanding of selflessness. It’s tremendously liberat­ing to begin to see that there’s nothing to protect and there’s nothing to solve and that rather than necessarily working out our problems we can stop identifying with them.

IM: Descartes might better have said, “I think, therefore I think I am.” He also somehow got from his idea of a thinking self to a proof for God. Do you ever think about a deity?

Joseph: lt feels like the space containing everything. If you can imagine the space containing everything, then try imagin­ing yet another dimension; somehow in­tuit the absence of space. That’s a real jewel.

Dharma and Social Action

IM: Let’s turn to a more mundane mat­ter: immediate survival. It seems that lately a lot of meditators are getting involved in different forms of social ac­tion, especially around the issue of nuclear war. Do you have any thoughts about people putting their energy into saving the planet from destruction?

Joseph: There are a few considerations that come to my mind. One has to do with the context that people put their ac­tivity into and from the Buddhist per­spective it’s a much bigger picture than this planet earth. When saving the planet is seen as being the end of one’s endeavor it seems very limiting to me. I think that if that activity were done with­in the framework of a larger context, of alleviating suffering, then the cure would be deeper and the energy with which it was done would have a greater level of purity. Look at Gandhi. I think that a lot of his power came because he put the struggle in a much larger context. He wasn’t simply a politician trying to liberate India. There was a dedication to something much higher, a commitment to what was true, and he was always checking everything against that truth. So his politics were really an expression of a very high dharma.

IM: Perhaps the meditators are becom­ing involved in social action from a dharma understanding and a deep feel­ing of compassion.

Joseph: I hope so. Nonetheless, I don’t think there’s any limitation on the man­ifestation of compassionate action and one of the things that comes up a lot for people is evaluating different kinds of actions as being more or less compas­sionate. For example, going out and pro­testing against social injustice is often seen as being a more compassionate act than sitting in a cave in the Himalayas meditating. From my perspective there isn’t one form which is more compas­sionate than another. It depends totally on the level of compassion in the mind. It doesn’t matter whether people sit in a cave or write poetry; they can be selling insurance; they can be doing anything.

IM: Is there any form of social organization that is more compatible with the dharma? Wouldn’t a compassionate society manifest as some variation of so­cialism or communalism?

Joseph: If the people in the society were compassionate I don’t think the form would matter at all.

IM: But look at the current stage of corporate capitalism. Don’t you think that it fosters greed and competition?

Joseph: I see it the other way around, that greed fosters the system. Systems of social organization arise out of levels of consciousness and there’s no system that is going to work as long as there is greed and hatred in people’s minds. So that seems to me the place to do the work.

IM: It always comes down to the Unit­ed States of Consciousness. Perhaps all of society could be taught lovingkind­ness meditation. If we all practiced com­passion then maybe an ideal society would emerge. Aren’t there people who just do the lovingkindness meditation as a primary focus or technique?

Joseph: There are. However, generally that meditation by itself will not lead to liberation because it’s working on the level of relative truth in the sense of wishing all beings to be happy and to be free of suffering. The very concept of all beings is a relative concept, so that’s the level which that particular meditation plugs into and it’s wonderful because we live in that relative plane a lot, and that meditation makes the mind very spa­cious and accepting and loving. However, there’s another kind of love that’s a prod­uct of deep insight, and that is the kind of love you might feel for your hand. It’s not articulated and you don’t go around saying, “I love you, hand.” It’s simply a part of you and so you relate to it in a very loving way.

IM: It’s the Gaia hypothesis, the one­ness of the new physics, the Hindu say­ing, “Thou art That.”

Joseph: Right. When we identify with being a small part of the whole we create this very limited sense of self and we im­prison ourselves in that identification. When we let go of that identification we become nothing and being nothing we become everything.

IM: And thereafter love everything as ourselves. It sounds ecstatic.

Joseph: I have a sense that it’s very ordi­nary in the same way we relate to our hand is ordinary; it’s not ecstatic. Even appreciation of something is already an articulation. This state I’m talking about is a way of being that doesn’t need any particular articulation.

Dharma and History

IM: Are there any unique historical or cultural conditions that lead to dharma practice or the spread of Buddhism? Why do you think it has taken hold in the West at this time?

Joseph: My sense is that a powerful source for dharma practice is some level of discomfort in society, but it’s not nec­essarily any one particular kind of dis­comfort or suffering. For example, I think one of the reasons that the dharma is flourishing in America is because we’ve experienced so much, and we have so much, and we are still dissatis­fied. That, in combination with a culture that’s very open to new ideas, has been a tremendously fertile ground for dharma. Another example which people might not be aware of: Soen Sa Nim, the Kore­an Zen master, has been going to Poland for the last few years and he says that there is such intense interest in practice that when he gives a talk thousands of people come. There’s another kind of suffering there. And that’s what the Bud­dha taught; suffering and the end of suf­fering. So whenever people become con­scious of the suffering that’s there it becomes a fertile ground.

The Center in Barre and the Future

IM: The center in Barre is such a won­derful place for dharma practice and it seems to run so smoothly. What has been the formula for its success?

Joseph: One of the things that’s worked really well for us at the center is the fact that financial decisions are made by a board of directors so there’s a separation of teaching function and financial admin­istration. In addition the staff is rep­resented on the board, so there’s this bal­ance of board, staff and teachers. It seems to have prevented the structure from becoming excessively hierarchical or authoritarian. In fact, of all the spirit­ual scenes I think we’re the most Jef­fersonian. That has tremendous advan­tages, but it also has some weaknesses. The hardest part is to separate out what decisions should be made by consensus of the whole community and what deci­sions are inappropriately made by consensus. Another thing that’s worked well for us has been team teaching and a group of teachers working together. That’s a very balancing factor in terms of checking possible excesses. Also, we really do give each other both a lot of feedback and a lot of support.

IM: So what’s next for the Vipassana­ Sangha? A center on the West Coast? A forest monastery? Where do you see it evolving?

Joseph: I see two possible ways things evolve. One is when there’s a strong vis­ion and everything you do feeds into the vision, and the other way is when you just let things unfold. I think to date we’ve done it the latter way and it seems to have evolved very well. Now we’re looking to see if it would be helpful to try to formulate a clearer sense of direction.

IM: Do you think that establishing a monastery is an important element in the development of the sangha in this coun­try?

Joseph: It’s one way that the dharma will manifest and it’s important as a place for people who don’t want to lead a worldly or household life. Right now there are very few situations where people can choose to live that lifestyle and it’s served the dharma so well over the cen­turies in different cultures that it would be nice to create that form and opportu­nity here as well. One of the things we’ve been thinking about is how to bring a monastic lifestyle to this country without necessarily bringing over the Asian cultural forms that have grown up around it. It’s a difficult question be­cause on the one hand we’d like to pre­serve the tradition in which the teachings have been held and on the other hand, many of the cultural overlays don’t feel particularly appropriate to America, to the West.

IM: Any thoughts about what you would keep and what you would leave behind?

Joseph: Some of the monastic rules hav­ing to do with the relationship of men and women in the monastic setting don’t offer a situation of equality and that’s an important issue for people in the West. That’s one example. There are other rules about what kind of clothing you can wear and so on. There are different ways of approaching these issues. One is to alter some of the rules. Another possibil­ity is to have a lay monastery where peo­ple would practice without being bound by the rules for fully ordained monks or nuns. A lay monastery would allow for more adaptability to this culture, instead of changing the traditions.

Conclusion

IM: Joseph, you seem so lighthearted and quick to laugh. Considering your un­derstanding of dukkha; what’s so funny?

Joseph: I think that it’s a question of changing dimensions, that mostly we’re circling around on a plane and that some­how we have to lift ourselves out of the two or three dimensional world we live in into another whole dimension of un­derstanding. The joke is that the new understanding leaves everything just as it is. Nothing’s any different except the way of understanding it and that’s what’s so funny.

IM: That sounds like a good summary and a place to end.

Joseph: First let me ask you a question. What are you doing with your life?

IM: I have decided to become like Ananda and try to get all this down for posterity . . . and hopefully start a religion based on your teachings after you’re gone and make a lot of money.

Joseph: What are you planning to call it?

IM: Well, there’s Taoism and Maoism. Maybe we’ll call it Joeism.

Joseph: Very noble endeavor. I com­mend you. (Laughter …. )

From the Spring 1984 issue of Inquiring Mind (Vol. 1, No. 1)

Text & photographs © 1984–2023 by Wes Nisker

Click here to read “Finding Gold,” a poem for Joseph Goldstein, by Eric Kolvig.