Waking Up Sam Harris

[Jishin]

Waking Up Sam Harris

I once read a book on comparative religion of people's in the world over time from cave man to native american indians to christians etc. Interesting how people tend to come up with a higher power for explanations of what they don't understand.

Gassho, Jishin

[Ryumon]

Babies might not be atheists according to your definition of atheism. But that's the "problem" - people define things differently.

Well, there can't be any such thing as an atheist if there is no concept of a god in society. And being an atheist does require a choice, unlike that of simply being "non-religious." So, when born, a baby has no religion, though some religions impose their religions automatically on children because of their parents' beliefs.

It's all a big waste of time, splitting hairs with these definitions. But, unfortunately, in the world we live, we have to have these discussions, especially when atheists are reviled by many people.

Gassho,

Kirk the a-theist

[Kaishin]

So...

Anyone besides Hans read the book through? Worth checking out?

thanks,
Kaishin

[Jinyo]

So...

Anyone besides Hans read the book through? Worth checking out?

thanks,
Kaishin

Hi Kaishin,

I'd like to read the book sometime but I had a look at the footnotes given in the sample (I think on Amazon or his web site?) and they are very long - more like PhD footnotes ( I think I read that part of the book is a re-hash of a PhD. ) The footnotes seemed to involve huge chunks of philosophy - and though there's nothing wrong with that it's probably not where my head needs to be just now.

Gassho

Willow

[Epictetus]

A few days ago I wrote a short piece based on Sam Harris's new book for a discussion forum that speaks to older Australian men from all walks of society, many of whom experience depression, anxiety and ennui. I intended it to be a review but it didn't quite come out like that.

It may be a naive piece for participants in the Treeleaf forum, but as it's on the topic, and the book is so recent (9 September), I'm posting it as a contribution that reflects the context in which it appeared - among men of all levels of education, many of whom who find life in retirement hard to deal with.

Gassho

Adrian

___________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________

"Nothing is intrinsically boring - indeed, boredom is simply a lack of attention."

(Sam Harris, Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion, Simon & Schuster, NY, 2014)
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...........................................

The quote above actually appears as a mere aside towards the end of Sam Harris's new book on atheist spirituality, but it struck me for the seamless way it flows from the rest of his argument and for its affirmation of my own experience since I began some years ago to renounce transient and material pleasure, the result of which has been not only a personal liberation but a magnification of the simple experience of being alive.

In case the above paragraph may appear self-congratulatory let me add that the mere fact of ageing has made it easier to renounce pleasures one no longer has much energy or appetite for; however, I'm not sure how it accounts for the compensatory joy that one then experiences in merely "settin' and thinkin'", or even better, sitting without thinking (not that the latter is easy to do).

The answer may be in Harris's oft-repeated affirmation of the idea that real and continuing contentment can only be attained if one accepts that there is no "self" to experience either transitory pleasure or enduring contentment. If we look for the "self" as a continuing, permanent entity to which all of our experiences refer and the subject of our consciousness, we can't find it. No one has ever found a "self" either in the geography of the brain or in the stream of consciousness we call thinking.

We know there is something "within" ourselves, or at least something that we think of as our subjective response to the world of our experiences, and this something feels anger, fear, pain, pleasure, hope and love, but it is reliably unstable and impermanent. We are angry at what someone has said or done and our brows darken and thoughts of revenge assail us, but then our infant child runs to us, or the love of our life beckons, and anger and thoughts of revenge sail out the window never to visit us again with such force. Why? Because they have no real force in a balanced mind. They are mere thoughts and feelings that come and go, to be replaced by others.

Our sense of being an enduring and permanent influence upon a universe that is illuminated from within ourselves is a delusion. The sense of selfhood (the Ego) is an illusion that deludes us into thinking that we are each fundamentally unique and separate from all other beings rather than just conscious organisms made up of incredibly intricate, complex and interdependent processes that respond to the different experiences over time that we call our lives. So saith Sam Harris in this book, and so saith Buddhists, Hindu Vedantists, mystics of all religions, and some philosophers and scientists.

The thing that we all do have in common, however, is consciousness, the one thing that cannot be an illusion (because to be conscious of an illusion is still to be conscious) and something that, so far, is not explained by the findings of physical science. That thoughts and sensations can be referred back to the brain's activity can be affirmed empirically, but that one is conscious of thought and feeling at all cannot be. So far it is a mystery even to the most ardent physicalist. The contents of the mind can be explained by emergence from the physical, but not that which enables the mind to be aware of itself.

So, according to Harris, we share consciousness, and consciousness is divisible into you and me. All else, however, is the product of cause and effect and interdependence. We are not separate egos or selves; we are simply differentiated participants in a universal field of consciousness, which, fortunately, when we let it break through the walls of our egos, is benign, overwhelmingly so.

Just being alive in a world without ego, attending to the reality we share, is literally awesome. How can one be bored in such a state?

[Myosha]

Hello,

"How can one be bored in such a state?"

Indeed. Thank you for the moment.


Gassho,
Myosha

[Jinyo]

Hello Adrian,

as I haven't read the book I'll just relate to the context of your thread.

This pesky sense of self does seem to be at the root of all buddhist thought - how do we view it, how do we negotiate it, how do we accept that it's unstable and illusory?

For myself, I'm not too bothered as to what defines 'consciousness' - the drive to explain the mechanism echoes Freud's determination to present his theories as 'science'. At the end of the day - ego, super-ego, the unconscious - is just a topography of the mind.

In many ways - though I'd like to be free of dukkha - it would make for a strange existence to be free 'all' of the time. Where would our humanity be - where would our empathy be - where would creativity be?

Boredom is pretty essential to change - boredom is the flip side to reverie. Sometimes we need to experience ennui.

I don't think we can banish the ego (or the self) - as Jundo often points out - it's pretty necessary to survival in the world.
But we can be in an ongoing dialogue with it. Maybe the ego isn't the bad guy - perhaps it just needs relating to and pointed in the right direction.

Are 'the walls of the mind' wholly composed of the ego - the Heart Sutra seems to imply so - but this facet we call 'ego' - it reminds me of humpty dumpty. The wall comes crashing down and humpty with it - but sooner or later we have to put him together again else we're not living in the real world.

Just some jumbled thoughts,

Gassho

Willow

[Daitetsu]

Hi there,

I like what Willow says above.

Having an ego is part of this game called life.
We should just not take it so damn seriously.

Had to think about that story, where a man had problems and hoped the Buddha could help him with them.
The man explained all his problems to the Buddha, but he just replied:
"I'm sorry, but I can't help you."
The man asked "Why?"
The Buddha replied: "Everyone has 83 problems. When you try to fix one another crops up."
The man: "But your're supposed to be a great teacher! I thought you could help me!"
The Buddha: "Maybe I can help you with your 84th problem."
The man: "84th! What's that?"
The Buddha: "You want not to have any problems."

IMHO it's not about getting rid of the ego and all our problems.
I think the Buddha did not teach the end of problems, but the end of dukkha. That's a decisive difference IMHO.

EDIT:
Of course there is no fixed, permanent self. The Sam Harris quote above puts that well.
I think we need to achieve a balance between realizing that it's just our brain that models a permanent self for us, making us believe there is one, and on the other hand using our modelled ego to get along in everyday life.
If then anger, disappointment, etc. arise in our daily lives, we need to wake up to the moment to see how much storytelling is actually involved. And then take a step back and let it be or find comfort or even have a good laugh (depending on the situation).

Gassho,

Daitetsu

[Yugen]

Waking Up Sam Harris

Remember what Shunryu Suzuki said about the ego? Something to the effect that you need just enough not to be hit by a bus -

People die
People live
We raise families
Bills need to be paid
The sun goes up
The sun goes down
We need to cross the street

The eightfold noble path and the precepts provide a framework within which to make choices about how we live as well as how our ego and selves present in the larger flow of life - and whether we tread lightly or heavily.

Sometimes all the spinning and philosophizing leaves me wondering what our goal is....

I have Harris' book and appreciate his contribution to the debate.

Please also remember the word faith means something very different in Buddhism than it does in other religions and belief systems. Harris' own journey suggests his definition is in a process of development as well.

Deep bows
Yugen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rich]

My ego is fine, when I'm not attached to it 😊.

Thanks Adrian, willow, daitetsu.

Harris has caused me to reevaluate my thinking about religion and faith. I agree with much of what he says in The end of faith, its just that it is not the end of faith but a new beginning of faith without religion. Faith that not knowing is enough.

Kind regards. /\

[Jundo]

The answer may be in Harris's oft-repeated affirmation of the idea that real and continuing contentment can only be attained if one accepts that there is no "self" to experience either transitory pleasure or enduring contentment. If we look for the "self" as a continuing, permanent entity to which all of our experiences refer and the subject of our consciousness, we can't find it. No one has ever found a "self" either in the geography of the brain or in the stream of consciousness we call thinking.

And yet, and yet ... at the same time, there is a self who is sometimes bored, sometimes old, sometimes sick in ways "he" (me) does not want to be. If we did not have this "self" we could not function in the world, not to mention that our life would be a lot emptier to say the least! I like my "self" and want to keep "him" (me).

That being said, we can fully transcend and see right through "him" all at once, such that "self" and "not self" are not two. (We can also become aware of, and moderate, "his" excesses and other bad habits).

Then there is some Golden Joy which is present even when "he" is sad (both at once), some Contentment that is present both when bored stiff or thrilled to one's hearts content (both at once), some Timelessness beyond and right through young or old (both at once).

I have no problem keeping my self even as (both at once) I drop the self ... I have no problem living a life that is sometimes boring and sometimes exciting (even terrifying), sometimes rain and sometimes sun.

Now GO SIT SHIKANTAZA! Sometimes Sitting is really Boring too ... and that's OK!

Gassho, J

[Anshu Bryson]

And yet, and yet ... at the same time, there is a self who is sometimes bored, sometimes old, sometimes sick in ways "he" (me) does not want to be. If we did not have this "self" we could not function in the world, not to mention that our life would be a lot emptier to say the least! I like my "self" and want to keep "him" (me).

That being said, we can fully transcend and see right through "him" all at once, such that "self" and "not self" are not two. (We can also become aware of, and moderate, "his" excesses and other bad habits).

Then there is some Golden Joy which is present even when "he" is sad (both at once), some Contentment that is present both when bored stiff or thrilled to one's hearts content (both at once), some Timelessness beyond and right through young or old (both at once).

I have no problem keeping my self even as (both at once) I drop the self ... I have no problem living a life that is sometimes boring and sometimes exciting (even terrifying), sometimes rain and sometimes sun.

Now GO SIT SHIKANTAZA! Sometimes Sitting is really Boring too ... and that's OK!

Gassho, J

In the 'real' sense, surely all we have is self? I can understand letting go of self, and, by that means, coming to a state, or at least some sort of understanding of non-self. But I find it difficult to grasp the non-self as a 'thing' (which is surely fair enough, given that it is a 'non-thing', right...?!! Haha!). Peter Harvey, in his 'The Selfless Mind' (Curzon Press, 1995) opines that the concept of non-self is simply a mechanism for 'letting go' and that there is no reason to "prove that there is no self" or to "give some philosophical denial of self". He says further that "it is not so much a thing to be thought about as (it is) to be done, applied to actual experience...". That has always been a definition that I could grasp. And hopefully (one day!) achieve. Time to go sit?

Gassho,

Bryson

[Jundo]

In the 'real' sense, surely all we have is self? I can understand letting go of self, and, by that means, coming to a state, or at least some sort of understanding of non-self. But I find it difficult to grasp the non-self as a 'thing' (which is surely fair enough, given that it is a 'non-thing', right...?!! Haha!). Peter Harvey, in his 'The Selfless Mind' (Curzon Press, 1995) opines that the concept of non-self is simply a mechanism for 'letting go' and that there is no reason to "prove that there is no self" or to "give some philosophical denial of self". He says further that "it is not so much a thing to be thought about as (it is) to be done, applied to actual experience...". That has always been a definition that I could grasp. And hopefully (one day!) achieve. Time to go sit?

Gassho,

Bryson

Thing ... not thing ... or shwiiiing ... Just Sit.

Do ... not do ... or not do not not not do MU! ... Just Sit.

Don't debate ... Just Realize ... Just Sit.

Gassho, J

PS - My "shwiiiing" is not to be confused with the Wayne's World "schwiiing" ... But that is probably also more about the experiencing than the philosophizing!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWPKKH6OCaE

[Jinyo]

Hi - not wanting to interrupt the 'just go sit' imperative of this thread but a Sam Harris video came up on my Secular Buddhist facebook link.

He does seem to be making a case for abandoning buddhism or the language/ narrative of buddhism in favour of a purely secular methodology. I think I read somewhere that this approach is termed as a 'first-person science'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwac6Uk-zyk

This doesn't seem to quite resonate with the teaching here?

I do tend to err on the side of throwing the baby out with the bath water but wouldn't want to see it disappear all together?

Gassho

Willow

[Anshu Bryson]

Harris' view resonates very deeply with me. We have to remember, the Buddha wasn't 'a Buddhist'... What is labeled as 'Buddhism', as a 'religion', is actually just the Dharma, along with a bunch of cultural baggage from each of the cultures through which Buddhism has been filtered. But it is the essential teachings that are important, not the label, and not the cultural accretions. That is no different to what Harris is saying. Even though Harris' experience has been with Vipassana, the essence of what he is talking about is the same (same path, different vehicle). IMHO, Zen has gone a long way to strip much of the cultural 'religious' baggage from Buddhism and distill it into the practice of Shikantaza. Each successive change in cultural context has brought with it a different view. Chinese Buddhism was different to Indian Buddhism. Japanese Buddhism different to Chinese, etc. It is only proper that, as Zen is further assimilated into Western culture, that it be adapted accordingly. I feel that the Zen that is likely to come out of secular Western culture is likely to look much more like Harris' model than it is like Indian Buddhism, for example.

Gassho,

Bryson