BG: Yes. Our role is just one piece of the whole picture, and that's all we can do. There's a story of a bodhisattva who finds an empty well and sees a mountain covered with snow and climbs up the mountain with a spoon and gets a spoonful of snow, comes down, puts it in the well, and then goes back up the mountain. He keeps doing that, not with any sense that he's actually going to fill the well with water, but simply because that's what's needed. I preach activism. What I try to encourage folks to do is to do whatever they can with whatever they have at the moment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AC: Because?

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

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

BG: I think they're the same state. But it's not a passive state; it's very active. And that active state is bearing witness. That's, for me, the way to approach it. Instead of waiting for something else to happen, say, "Right now, I, to the best of my ability, will approach this situation from the state of not knowing." I think that gives you the best shot at doing something. It gives people permission to do something from their state of enlightenment. And it means bear witness to the suffering; don't run away from it. Bearing witness is really important. To bear witness is to sit with it—and by "sitting," I don't necessarily mean physically sitting—but to sit with it, and try to simultaneously keep coming from that place of not knowing. Stay with it and bear witness to it—then you can do something.

Now, each one of us has got whatever attachments we have, and that's why I say that the degree of our enlightenment is the degree of passion that we will have for the whole world. That passion will arise. Stay with it. Bear witness to what's coming up. Out of that, action has to happen.

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

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

AC: Concept.

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

AC: Because?