SBN Editor: So, Linda and Nelly, it's good to see you and I'm looking forward to learning more about your new book on reflective meditation. But before we begin to discuss the book, let me start off by providing a brief introduction of each of you.

Linda Modaro is the founder and lead teacher at Sati Sangha, an online meditation community that offers daily virtual meditation sittings, online retreats and in person retreats throughout the year.

Nelly Kaufer is the founder and lead teacher at Pine Street Sangha, which is based in Portland, Oregon. Nelly was introduced to vipassana or mindfulness meditation in 1978 on retreats taught by Ruth Denison. She is a psychotherapist in private practice integrating Buddhist psychology into her clinical orientation.

Their new book, Reflective Meditation: Cultivating Kindness and Curiosity in the Buddha's Company, is published by Tuwhiri, a publishing imprint that focuses on books on early Buddhism, its retrieval and Buddhism's secular adaptation to 21st century conditions. Linda and Nelly, can you tell us when the book is going to be available?

Linda Modaro: It will be available on Tuwhiri's website as early as next week, which is the end of January 2023 and then will come out on  February 20.

SBN: I'd like to begin the interview by first trying to get a clearer sense of your overall approach to meditation and teaching the dharma. In your book, you describe reflective meditation as being based in part on a feministic perspective, one that emphasizes gentleness, receptivity, relationality, inclusiveness, collaboration, and a recognition of power differences. So, I want to know, why did that become an important part of your approach? And how does this manifest in your meditation practice and teaching?

Nelly Kaufer: I want to  go back to how that word came to us. It didn't actually come from us. It came from a student, somebody who we've trained to be a teacher. And so, she was looking at what we've been doing, she was a few steps aside from it, so she could get a different angle on it. She gave us that word. ‘Do you know that you're teaching a feminist approach?’  We go, ‘Oh, that's interesting.’

LM: Right, and we jumped off it and said, ‘Well, it is feminist.’ But let's  try to get a little bit more fine-tuned and kind of broaden our understanding of why we didn't recognize it initially. Because the obvious reason is for two women teaching in a patriarchal lineage of Buddhism, and patriarchy is really the soup we swim in. So, over the years, we hadn't even been able to see ourselves that our approach is feministic. We've needed our students, we needed outside observations, which allowed us to recognize the more collaborative view of who we are. Don't you think, Nelly?

NK: Yeah, and it also really, I think, is a window into how we learn from one another, that we can pick up different perspectives from one another that we couldn't see ourselves. And that the wisdom is not necessarily or even dominantly from the head teacher or the lead teacher. It's a kind of collaborative way that we can see what's going on within ourselves and within one another.

---

This interview has been edited and condensed. To listen to the audio version, click on the link below.

---

SBN: If we've been involved in traditional Buddhist lineages, the standard way that the dharma is discussed is a teacher sitting on a stage presenting what's called a dharma talk. And so the teacher has gained the wisdom and knowledge of what the dharma is, and is conveying it to people who are observing the talk. So, it sounds like your approach is not like that, that your way of conveying information or conveying a sense of what the dharma is, is different. Can you describe that in very concrete terms? What would that mean if someone was coming to a reflective meditation group? How would they encounter the dharma differently than they would if they went to a more traditional lineage?

LM: Well, maybe the first kind of basic level is that our dharma talks, which are really a way to transmit the dharma teachings, are about 10 minutes, 15 minutes, and most people are used to a longer and what they would consider to be a more substantial talk. And this shorter dharma talk actually gives people a hint of what we know of the dharma teachings, but it's not piling on all this information that they have to now integrate or pick up and conceptually try to match. We are really trying to put a little less out so people can pay more attention to their own experience of what got put out. Nelly, you might say it a little bit differently or add in another area?

NK: Well, no, I think you said it very well. So, I don't want to do that but another feature of it comes right with the name reflective meditation. We structure in about 10 minutes - about the same length as our talk, actually - for you to look at what happened to you and find words for what happened to you, and maybe write down some of this in a journal. So really, that's what I learned in consciousness raising groups back in the 1970s, which I was very involved in by the way.  We all sat around a circle and just talked about our experience. And we learned from one another. Now reflective meditation is structured somewhat differently. But I think it's got the same basic principle underlying it; that we really can learn from our own experience and from one another's experience, somewhat from the teacher's experience. We're doing the middle path here, the Middle Way. It’s not that there is no learning from the teacher's experience, but we're not sitting up on a stage ever. And in Zoom meetings we're the same size box as everybody else.

LM: And I think what you're saying Nelly is that the underlying idea is that the teacher is not the expert; we are not the experts on the dharma, on another person's experience. What our expertise is in is our own experience. And that's actually what we're totally urging. We're trying to bring people into that flavor and getting more interested in becoming their own expert in their experience.

NK: I think that's actually very radical. As I hear you say it, Linda, it kind of impacts me in a different way. Like, oh, we really trust your experience, we really trust the dharma enough that it will unfold in its own way for you. We don't need to guide that, we can't guide that, we don't know how to guide that for you.

 

SBN: When you refer to the time that you have for a dharma talk versus the time for people to offer their own sense of their experiences, that's an important indicator, right? Because I think in most traditional lineages, it would be 45 minutes to an hour dharma talk, maybe followed by five or 10 minutes for a Q&A, in which the teacher is offering clarifications of what they said or expanding on what they said, rather than a focus on the other people. So, I want to go to a related notion that you have within reflective meditation, which is that you emphasize the importance of developing the capacity for what you describe as receptive learning. You talk about that in the book. Now, I think most people who are listening to this would probably be familiar with what is called active listening, something that's discussed as a way of engaging with people in a more proactive and a more interactional way. So, what do you mean by receptive listening? I'm very curious about that.

LM: Yeah, we coined that I can't remember how many years ago. But it's what we started seeing coming out of the processes we were doing, of reflecting. That when people are able to listen to their own experience while listening to another person's experience, there's not a single pointed focus; it's really listening to more. That they will be able to be more aware of their reactions to what they're hearing, that they'll take themselves more seriously and notice their experience while they're listening to somebody else's experience. And, really, that where people get in trouble is when they don't know their own reactions or the nuances that are coming with what you're hearing.

NK: And when you say that's when people get in trouble, let's just put that into another language. That's when ethical transgressions can happen. That's when unskillful words can happen, unskillful actions, just boom, I'm reacting.  While in receptive listening and in all of reflective meditation, you're listening to your own experience, including your reactions.  We have the view that that makes it less likely to act it out.

 

SBN: That was very helpful. In the book, I found a wonderfully evocative expression, which is that you describe reflective meditation as free-range meditation, and of course, my mind immediately went to having eggs produced in a humane way. But you use the term free range meditation to describe your approach. Now, many of our listeners who meditate regularly will typically do some form of mindfulness meditation, or vipassana or insight meditation, or perhaps do Zazen or some other form of Zen meditation. From reading your book, it's clear that you have a very different approach to meditation, its aim, and what happens in the experience of meditation. So, can you give our listeners a sense of what that actually means and how it's different than meditation practices that they are probably more used to?

NK: Well, I'm gonna start with the fact that this is a tricky question in the sense that I don't know all the people who are practicing Zen or Zazen, and I don't know what's developed in the Insight community. I haven't really been a part of the mainstream mindfulness community in decades, really. So, my information is limited, and I'm experienced-based so I imagine there'll be a lot of overlaps with what we do and what they're doing. But, a big difference is that we really mean it when we say you're free to do whatever happens when you meditate; which means let your thoughts in, let your emotions in. if something just feels really awful that's going on internally, you're free to get up, you're free to take a walk; you really have freedom to let it go where it goes. And also to contain it as you need, which is really, as is becoming more known, trauma-informed.

LM: Right. And again, a person has to develop their own sense of their needs of what direction they want to go. We don't know what the best direction for them is. And we're curious about where it goes. So, people will come back and tell us what they're doing. And then we have a conversation about it with them. And this again brings it into this more relational aspect. I think it's likely other traditions hold that value also, but it's built into our practice so you can't really escape it so to speak, although you can a little bit; you don't have to make it front and center. But Nelly, when you were saying that I had this thought that we're really not asking people to lose themselves. It's a kind of misunderstanding of anatta, of not-self, which is that you would be so caught in the instructions for doing it right (attaining anatta) that you lose your own access to your inner world and your inner life and yourself.

NK: And that's an intriguing part that, actually, when you become more aware of yourself, something about the self you thought you had falls off. And that's so interesting.

 

SBN: I think particularly in vipassana or Insight meditation there's a kind of formulaic aspect, with certain guide posts to success, to reaching the ultimate territory, which is full experiential insight into not self, suffering and impermanence. And it really is a kind of externally imposed kind of process, which may be fruitful for some people in certain times and in certain cultures. But it can be, I think, for many people a sort of a straitjacket in terms of trying to explore themselves and become more mindful. So, I think that you really have a kind of interesting approach. And Winton Higgins, the Australian secular Buddhist, has written about the problematic aspects of having a more formulaic approach in meditation. Now, he didn't get into the issue of trauma. But that has come out more in terms of the impact of meditation on certain people in certain contexts. And I think you're raising an important point about that.

NK: So Winton asked us to write the book and he was our editor. Tuwhiri and Winton in particular asked us to write the book. because he understood that we had really integrated into our sangha these teachings based on a non-formulaic approach; and that we were very sangha-based, very community-based.

LM: They were also asking for a more feministic approach that's kind of underlying reflective meditation and they felt that it was refreshing to present an approach that was kind of outside of the normal rules and particular instructions. It is one reason why we don't even guide meditation sittings; we're not really wanting to put all of that on somebody. And that can feel a little different at first, especially because such a big part of Buddhism and mindfulness right now is that you guide people to the right place. You know, it can feel very strange not to be guided in a meditation and become your own guide.

NK: And at first, it can be confusing or discombobulating or however that's perceived. But really, I think that rather than guiding a student, I follow a student, follow them with what's developing. And with the dharma in my mind, so knowing how what's developing really is the dharma.

 

SBN: This leads to another interesting aspect of reflective meditation, which is something that you also write about in the book.  You discuss the relationship between reflective meditation and psychotherapy. And, in reflective meditation, a key part of what a meditation teacher is doing is having a relationship with a meditator and discussing their experiences in meditation, and not just being a kind of an authority figure that says, "This is where you need to go" in terms of a particular meditation practice such as using your breath as an anchor. So, since as teachers you are dealing with the content of what meditators have experienced in their meditation, is there a danger that in that interaction that relationship can drift toward a sort of psychotherapeutic encounter? Where you play a sort of therapy role within that. So, I was just wondering what your thoughts were about that,

NK: Yes, it is a risk. And as a psychotherapist, coming into meditation teaching this way, I felt like I had actually, in some ways, a steeper learning curve, learning not to approach meditation as a psychotherapist because I was conditioned as a psychotherapist. But the way I do it - and I don't think Linda, because she wasn't trained as a psychotherapist, has had the same issue -  I just stay with people's meditation. Of course, your life comes into your meditation; if you let the doors be open, you're going to think about your life. I mean, there it is. It's your experience, but I only talk about what's going on in the meditation. If they start saying, ‘Well, you know, I had an image of my father da, da, da’ and then if they start to go to stories about their relationship with their father, I lead them back to, ‘So what was that like in the meditation? Or how did that develop in the meditation?’ So, that's the safeguard.

LM: I've seen that develop in Nelly and other psychotherapists, and it's been something we've languaged so that people can know this distinction of staying with the meditation practice. And I have also seen us develop with people we've mentored the recognition of the importance of shining a light on the dharma that we see in the meditation experience. Once you allow in the content into the meditation sitting, it is more confusing at times and people don't know how to language the dharma of impermanence or of dukkha. They're talking about it, but they're not even making the association to the dharma teachings. And that's really become a function for us. So that we can see and talk about the dharma and their experience and shine a light on that, water it, help it flourish, and that they then become able to themselves language the dharma and their experience and live from that.

SBN: I just want to point out, you know, that this issue of the relationship of meditation, the dharma and psychotherapy actually comes up in pretty much any Buddhist tradition. Whether it's Insight meditation or Tibetan Buddhism, we're trying to be mindful of our experiences. And, of course, part of our experiences is the psychological history that we have. And anybody who's been in a group of practitioners or a sangha knows that when there's a group discussion the line between discussion of dharma and meditation experiences and more personal experiences can sometimes be breached. And that's something I think that any group, not just a reflective meditation group, has to deal with.

NK: They're in the same terrain, which is dukkha, the difficulties, the pain, the struggles of the mental emotional process. Both traditions are in that area, addressing these issues.

 

SBN:  I want to talk about something which I find very fascinating in your book, but also from what I know of your actual lives as meditation teachers and working with your sanghas and the joint projects that you do, which is that you have an incredibly close partnership. There are many teachers that do co-teaching with other teachers and work collaboratively on different projects. But the two of you seem to have to have taken that to a sort of deeper level. Even the book itself is unique in that in many books that are co-written, there would be separate chapters written alternately by the two people writing it, or even within a chapter, there would be a clear demarcation in terms of who is saying what. But in your book that is not so evident and you did that purposefully. So I wanted to know how your partnership in this way emerged and why it is important for you.

LM: Can I start here? This is a really lovely question, Mike. Because in one way, we realized it in the writing process. I mean, we started writing the book like we had our conversations - 15 years of conversations every week, that really amounts to something. So, when we started writing the book, Nelly is in Portland, I'm in California, I would start writing a sentence, Nelly would start writing a sentence, and we'd respond to each other because you can do this through Google Docs now. And we'd have a whole conversation that basically came out of that back and forth, and then we edited it. And we saw that with this process we couldn't tell who said what. And this seems to be a kind of another teaching of not self, in ourselves and in our community and in our relationship. And Nelly's an easy friend, it's so easy for me to be friendly with her.

NK: And we're fortunate. I mean, truthfully, I just love spiritual friendships. And I met my match in Linda. And Linda, I think recognized that. We have a similar level of devotion and interest in the dharma and in teaching and a strong work ethic. And I believe the intimacy grew because this approach to meditation is intimate, when you're actually talking about your experience, maybe somewhat edited, but mostly not. And we did this, like Linda said, for 15 years. Something very deep developed and I am so grateful for it.

 

SBN: That's nice. And I think it goes back to what we talked about in the beginning with this sort of feministic perspective, the emphasis on relationality and collaboration, and so forth. And I think for many who have grown up in our patriarchal society and are part of various Buddhist lineages, it's hard to uncouple themselves from the sense that I am the teacher, and yes, maybe I'll have a joint arrangement with other teachers, but it's still it's kept within limits. So, I think it's quite interesting and important in terms of how you've developed this approach.

I'd like to discuss another issue: The Sati Sangha and the Pine Street Sangha are not labeled as, you don't explicitly self-identify, as secular Buddhist sanghas, yet your understanding of your role as teachers and the need to move away from a teacher-centric approach, a top down approach, is very consistent and resonates with the secular Buddhist emphasis on creating democratic sanghas. So, I just wanted to ask you about your sense of your individual and your sanghas' relationship to secular Buddhism which, over the last 15 to 20 years, has become somewhat more prominent in the United States and some other countries. How do you see yourselves in relation to that?

NK: Well, I personally consider myself quite secular, and that's really I think reflected in the Pine Street Sangha and in how we work together, Linda and I. But I don't want to identify the Pine Street Sangha or the work we're doing together as secular because there's people who come who don't consider themselves secular, who have maybe much more mainstream Buddhist views or views about transcendence or what have you. And I just want to hear about them. I don't want to say you don't belong here. I want to invite them in as well. So that's why I hesitate to put that label on.

LM: Well, I would say we don't come out so directly and say secular before dharma and Buddhism as often as maybe you would want us to, so to speak, to be secular. I think, however, that we're a resource in secular Buddhism, but we don't get put there because we don't identify as strongly. and this is kind of the conundrum of what is developing and evolving as secular Buddhism; it isn't just one thing. There are such a variety of ways that people are developing secular Buddhism and the distinction of something being metaphysical or secular or traditional or modern. These are all the kind of things that we're exploring and trying to help people come to more understanding of where they land in the arena, rather than being so firm about where we are.

NK: I have to say, I am pretty firm about one thing, but I don't put this on my students or even I don't even say this to my students. But I - and I think Linda, you are, too -  I'm very agnostic on the idea of rebirth. I don't know because I haven't died, at least not that I can recall. I don't know. It's very important to stay in the ‘don't know’ about that; that feels important to me.

SBN: Even in the discussion groups and the meditation groups that have emerged as part of the Secular Buddhist Network, there is a range of views. There are some people who are not totally comfortable themselves with the secular label; they might say, ‘I'm more of a naturalistic Buddhist.’ And there are people within the Secular Buddhist Network who even believe that there might be the possibility of a more transcendent path while, on the other hand, many people do not. One final question with this piece is; What if there is someone in your sangha who is, let's say, very committed to achieving nirvana in a more traditional sense, even if it's within this world by having a kind of realization or an awakening of the ultimate in this world?  How do you respond to that if you yourselves are not oriented in that direction? Does that ever come up?

LM: It does a little bit. I mean, you know, we give talks on how there are no absolutes, that the absolute and relative are really intermixed. I think, in a way, if a person still has that more traditional view and is with us, that like our own views, it's going to be influenced by the people we're with. And it kind of wears away or it builds up. I don't know; there's a sense of letting it kind of go where it's gonna go. And if somebody keeps showing up to our groups and keeps talking about their experience, we just keep going with it.

NK: Sometimes people find our approach is not right for them, and they really want to go elsewhere where they can have that more explicitly developed. And we respect that.

 

SBN: So. I just want to end up with a sense from both of you of how you would like to see reflective meditation develop in the coming years? Do you have any thoughts about that?

NK: Well, that's a mystery, isn't it? Frankly, we don't know how other people's meditations are going to develop; and we really don't know how reflective meditation is going to develop. But I would like it to not die with our deaths, that would be a hope of mine.

LM: I'd like it to, let's say, go through the shifts and changes that it will because it will when different people practice it, but that something still continues.

SBN: Right now, you have a group of people who have become teachers, right, within your approach?  And you're hoping that they will carry it on?

LM: It's a complicated question, isn't it? I mean, legacy for Buddhist traditions and sanghas. We know it's gonna fall apart at some point. Yet, we're still looking for conditions, the right conditions, for something to be carried forward.

SBN: I think the elements of your approach, what's now called reflective meditation, will continue and develop. There's a real value to them.  And I think that they help to influence how the dharma has been received and developed in this country. And I think that's based on the fact that the dharma has encountered particular cultural and social conditions in this country, and it includes things like an understanding of the problems with patriarchy, hierarchy, and absolutism. And so, reflective meditation, along with other groups and trends within the larger dharma community are having an impact.

NK: One more thought is that with this book coming out, we don't know what's going to develop out of that. I mean, I wrote another book back in the 90s and I had ideas about what would develop from that. And that didn't develop in the way I expected. So, I've given up that fantasy that I could know, but something will happen. And we're curious about that.

 

SBN: Well, I certainly think you will find a wider audience of people who will now know more about reflective meditation. Your book does a really excellent job of giving people a sense of what reflective meditation is about. And I wish you the best of luck with that going forward, and I really appreciate you taking the time to talk with me today. Thank you.

NK: And I really appreciate you being interested.

LM: Thank you, Mike.