Has Anyone Read 'waking Up - Spirituality Without Religion'?

[Shanmugam]

The book is written by Sam Harris and is very interesting.. I am currently reading chapter 3.. Did anyone else read it? It is very interesting and offers some scientific perspective about spirituality.

Here is a part from the 3rd chapter:

I once spent an afternoon on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee, atop
the mount where Jesus is believed to have preached his most famous sermon. It
was an infernally hot day, and the sanctuary where I sat was crowded with
Christian pilgrims from many continents. Some gathered silently in the shade,
while others staggered about in the sun, taking photographs.

As I gazed at the surrounding hills, a feeling of peace came over me. It soon
grew to a blissful stillness that silenced my thoughts. In an instant, the sense of
being a separate self—an “I” or a “me”—vanished. Everything was as it had
been—the cloudless sky, the brown hills sloping to an inland sea, the pilgrims
clutching their bottles of water—but I no longer felt separate from the scene,
peering out at the world from behind my eyes. Only the world remained.
The experience lasted just a few seconds, but it returned many times as I
looked out over the land where Jesus is believed to have walked, gathered his
apostles, and worked many of his miracles. If I were a Christian, I would
undoubtedly have interpreted this experience in Christian terms. I might believe
that I had glimpsed the oneness of God or been touched by the Holy Spirit. If I
were a Hindu, I might think in terms of Brahman, the eternal Self, of which the
world and all individual minds are thought to be a mere modification. If I were
a Buddhist, I might talk about the “dharmakaya of emptiness,” in which all
apparent things manifest as in a dream.

But I am simply someone who is making his best effort to be a rational
human being. Consequently, I am very slow to draw metaphysical conclusions
from experiences of this sort. And yet, I glimpse what I will call the intrinsic
selflessness of consciousness every day, whether at a traditional holy site, or at
my desk, or while having my teeth cleaned. This is not an accident. I’ve spent
many years practicing meditation, the purpose of which is to cut through the
illusion of the self.

Edited June 30, 2017 by Shanmugam

[Shanmugam]

Another excerpt from the same chapter..

"My consciousness is “mine” only because the particularities of my life are
illuminated as and where they arise. For instance, I currently have an annoying
pain in my neck, the result of a martial arts injury. Why is this “my” pain? Why
am I the only one who is directly aware of it? These questions are a symptom
of confusion. There is no “I” who is aware of the pain. The pain is simply
arising in consciousness in the only place it can arise: at the conjunction of this
brain and this neck. Where else could this particular pain be felt? If I were
cloned through teleportation, an identical pain might be felt in an identical neck
on Mars. But this pain would still be right here in this neck.

Whatever its relation to the physical world, consciousness is the context in
which the objects of experience appear—the sight of this book, the sound of
traffic, the sensation of your back against a chair. There is nowhere else for
them to appear—for their very appearance is consciousness in action. And
anything that is unique to your experience of the world must appear amid the
contents of consciousness. We have every reason to believe that these contents
depend upon the physical structure of your brain. Duplicate your brain, and
you will duplicate “your” contents in another field of consciousness. Divide
your brain, and you will segregate those contents in bizarre ways.

We know, from experiments both real and imagined, that psychological
continuity is divisible—and can, therefore, be inherited by more than one
mind. If my brain were surgically divided by callosotomy tomorrow, this
would create at least two independent conscious minds, both of which would be
psychologically continuous with the person who is now writing this paragraph.
If my linguistic abilities happened to be distributed across both hemispheres,
each of these minds might remember having written this sentence. The question
of whether I would land in the left hemisphere or the right doesn’t make sense
—being based, as it is, on the illusion that there is a self bobbing on the stream
of consciousness like a boat on the water.

But the stream of consciousness can divide and follow both tributaries
simultaneously. Should these tributaries converge again, the final current
would inherit the “memories” of each. If, after years of living apart, my
hemispheres were reunited, their memories of separate existence could, in
principle, appear as the combined memory of a single consciousness. There
would be no cause to ask where my “self” had been while my brain was
divided, because no “I” exists apart from the stream. The moment we see this,
the divisibility of the human mind begins to seem less paradoxical.
Subjectively speaking, the only thing that actually exists is consciousness and
its contents. And the only thing relevant to the question of personal identity is
psychological continuity from one moment to the next."

[Shanmugam]

 

From the same book:

 

 

"Perhaps you can see the same effect in the above illusion. It certainly looks
like there is a white square in the center of the figure, but when we study the
image, it becomes clear that there are only four partial circles. The square has
been imposed by our visual system, whose edge detectors have been fooled.
Can we know that the black shapes are more real than the white square? Yes,
because the square doesn’t survive our efforts to locate it—its edges literally
disappear. A little investigation and we see that its form has been merely
implied. In fact, it is possible to look closely enough at the figure to banish the
illusion altogether. But what could we say to a skeptic who insisted that the
white square is just as real as the three-quarter circles? All we could do is urge
him to look more closely. This is not a matter of debating third-person facts; it
is a matter of looking more closely at experience itself.
In the next chapter, we will see that the illusion of the self can be
investigated—and dispelled—in just this way."

[Shanmugam]

This guy Sam Harris is very honest... Read this (I don't intend to post the whole book, but I can't help sharing some passages with everyone... I like his approach.. He is a 100% skeptic, criticizes the stupid myths of many traditions but fully acknowledges what we are trying to do here... I would recommend his book to everyone here):

Poonja-ji’s influence on me was profound, especially because it came as a
corrective to all the strenuous and unsatisfying efforts I had been making in
meditation up to that point. But the dangers inherent in his approach soon
became obvious. The all-or-nothing quality of Poonja-ji’s teaching obliged
him to acknowledge the full enlightenment of any person who was grandiose
or manic enough to claim it. Thus, I repeatedly witnessed fellow students
declare their complete and undying freedom, all the while appearing quite
ordinary—or worse. In certain cases, these people had clearly had some sort of
breakthrough, but Poonja-ji’s insistence upon the finality of every legitimate
insight led many of them to delude themselves about their spiritual attainments.
Some left India and became gurus. From what I could tell, Poonja-ji gave
everyone his blessing to spread his teachings in this way. He once suggested
that I do it, and yet it was clear to me that I was not qualified to be anyone’s
guru. Nearly twenty years have passed, and I’m still not. Of course, from
Poonja-ji’s point of view, this is an illusion. And yet there simply is a
difference between a person like myself, who is generally distracted by
thought, and one who isn’t and cannot be. I don’t know where to place Poonjaji
on this continuum of wisdom, but he appeared to be a lot farther along than
his students. Whether Poonja-ji was capable of seeing the difference between
himself and other people, I do not know. But his insistence that no difference
existed began to seem either dogmatic or delusional.

 

[Loreena]

@Shanmugam I've read this book. It's a about spirituality and atheism and how one can be spiritual without the need for religion with the help of meditation. However no other method is mentioned which made it very meditation oriented. It's like a begginer' s guide to meditation, so not very comprehensive imo. 

[Leo Gura]

Logic is Sam Harris' religion

[Leo Gura]

@Snick Well of course he doesn't consider it a religion.

[Shanmugam]

@Snick I agree that it is not juicy... But this book can be said as a guide for a seeker in finding a good teaching and teacher rather than a guide for enlightenment itself... Even though he is a hardcore skeptic, he talks about spirituality in unbiased as well as scientific way.. He has covered all problems that a seeker will have in choosing a legitimate authority and also he talks about teachers in very realistic way.. A completely balanced unbiased stance without leaning towards rejecting everything or accepting everything blindly.. He also uses valid examples to make a point.

So, this book is basically like a scientific introduction to spirituality and the path to enlightenment. I also completely agree with the fact that enlightened people have cultural bias as he states. He states an example of Poonjaji who gave an advert for her niece's marriage in the personals column of the newspaper but asked the photographer to lighten her dark  skin photographically. He states this not in an intention of finding faults, but just to show that the enlightened ones are not perfect in every way.

I have seen many people who call themselves skeptics but they are not even ready to accept the benefits of mindfulness meditation in spite of the available scientific evidence. They are not really skeptics, but  believers of total rejection of any value in spirituality. If you have any such friends, you can suggest this book to them.

[Extreme Z7]

In my opinion, the problem with Sam Harris is that he puts in the effort to achieve some spiritual experience then instead of embodying the truth in his daily life or putting in even more effort into going deeper, he thwarts his own efforts through mental masturbation.

[Shanmugam]

@Extreme Z7  no, not at all.. Try reading the book again, from chapter 4 - meditation... He addresses how realizing the truth is more important than experiences.. he also talks about how seeing it as a goal can be a trap... the 2nd and 3rd chapter is mostly about brain and neuroscience.. It offers many interesting perspectives but some people may find it boring... in the 5th chapter, he talks about false gurus.. he also talks about using psychedelics to get a glimpse. The book is a perfect bridge between science and enlightenment..

[electroBeam]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Logic is Sam Harris' religion

you're reading out of context here... the actual quote was “If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?”

Logic isn't his religion. But truth and evidence is. 

Anyway the point of that quote was actually about dogmatism. How will you make someone not dogmatic, if they aren't even going to consider they are wrong? 

That's the point harris was making.

7 hours ago, Snick said:

If truth make you as boring as Sam Harris! I don't want it.. 

Then I prefer the singing, dancing and joking mind of someone deluded!  

Well of course not. Human beings want flashy cars, big houses and shiny jewelry. They don't want the truth. That's too honest.

@Shanmugam I think its a very good book. Very insightful.

Edited July 1, 2017 by electroBeam

[ChimpBrain]

14 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Logic is Sam Harris' religion

Lol that's Ben Stiller! Someone was being a little cheeky when they made this. It IS a real quote by Sam, but the context is important. I think you're oversimplifying/misrepresenting a bit, but I love you anyway.

 

@ShanmugamI've read the book, I think it's great. Several years ago it was one of the keys to helping me go from being a borderline militant atheist to exploring spirituality with an open mind.

[Leo Gura]

7 hours ago, electroBeam said:

Anyway the point of that quote was actually about dogmatism. How will you make someone not dogmatic, if they aren't even going to consider they are wrong? 

That's the point harris was making.

When Sam realizes that he's dogmatic, he will immediately understand why everyone else he argues with is.

The irony is that he commits the very sin he chastises others for.

P.S. That quote was meant to make fun of the absurdity of what he's doing. He is the kind of guy who a Zen master would slap across the face for spouting his logic.

He makes a fine Zen Devil.

The fundamental problem is, he hasn't experienced the blinding radiance of God.

[Socrates]

@Leo Gura How could you "convince" a guy like Sam Harris to at least give the non-rational side a chance. I am asking this question because when i discuss spirituality people often get argumentative and ask for logical and rational reason to meditate etc.

Edited July 1, 2017 by Socrates

[ChimpBrain]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

When Sam realizes that he's dogmatic, he will immediately understand why everyone else he argues with is.

The irony is that he commits the very sin he chastises others for.

P.S. That quote was meant to make fun of the absurdity of what he's doing. He is the kind of guy who a Zen master would slap across the face for spouting his logic.

He makes a fine Zen Devil.

The fundamental problem is, he hasn't experienced the blinding radiance of God.

No one is claiming he is an enlightened master and that we should all bow at his feet. I'm only claiming that the book, and what he's doing in general by promoting meditation, spirituality, and thinking more deeply about your cultural biases, has value. Especially to a certain segment of the population (his core audience) whose very rational, Western, atheist, overconfident, etc.. He's playing a crucial role as a stepping stone to higher levels of consciousness (assuming you're below where he's at), or at least he did for me. He helped lead me to you after all

 

Speaking of his never experiencing God, I've always been discouraged by hearing how much time he spent in India on silent retreat with what should've been very worthwhile teachers, and never attained full enlightenment. I guess his "karma" is what it is for this incarnation though and I shouldn't think his experience applies to me in any way. 

 

 

 

 

[PetarKa]

Wait now just a moment! Is Sam Harris enlightened? I got that kind of impression. Though this thread doesn't give me that impression...

Edited July 3, 2017 by PetarKa

[Telepresent]

Well, given my avatar, I can't avoid responding to this, can I?

I love the book, and I think it's an invaluable tool for helping more skeptical people onto this path.

I also think it states limits that Harris is unwilling to speculate beyond, because he himself has not gone beyond them.  He suggests you can glimpse non-dual consciousness for a second or two, but is unwilling to claim it can last for longer than that, because he hasn't experienced it so can't prove it to himself.  I respect that.

I also wonder if his requirement for physical empirical evidence is a hinderance.  And at this point things become tricky because... well because then we're in the realms of personal experience and consciousness and so on, and it's very easy for people to make an argument that that counts for nothing (from a purely physical-sciences perspective, which is where Harris comes from).  @Socrates asks about this in this thread, and I'm afraid I can't provide an answer, but I want to share something that helped me to further join the dots this week:

In particular it was the way this man spoke of the "world of being" and the "world of becoming/unbecoming" made stuff make sense to me, but in a way I'm not ready to articulate yet.  And that's part of the problem, I think: we want to pull people with us as we travel.  But how?

Edited July 3, 2017 by Telepresent

[Telepresent]

@ChimpBrain

On 01/07/2017 at 10:45 PM, ChimpBrain said:

No one is claiming he is an enlightened master and that we should all bow at his feet. I'm only claiming that the book, and what he's doing in general by promoting meditation, spirituality, and thinking more deeply about your cultural biases, has value. Especially to a certain segment of the population (his core audience) whose very rational, Western, atheist, overconfident, etc.. He's playing a crucial role as a stepping stone to higher levels of consciousness (assuming you're below where he's at), or at least he did for me. He helped lead me to you after all

Aaaaand this is the point.  Every stone every clue every chance.

I remember watching a video of his where he said that his first presentation on why atheists need spirituality was the first where he went onstage to cheers, and came offstage to boos.  Imagine how they'd take Mooji.

We need all sorts

Edited July 3, 2017 by Telepresent

[Shanmugam]

@Socrates He doesn't deny the importance of meditation or the possibility of non-dual experience...He is only against blind beliefs which have no proof so far.

@Telepresent  Actually, he does say in his book that he thinks permanent abiding in non-dual consciousness is a possibility. He only states that he is not yet progressed to be like that all the time, but he definitely doesn't say it is impossible. 

[Shanmugam]

@Telepresent  Here is what he says in that book:

"At my level of practice, this freedom lasts only a few moments. But these moments can be repeated, and they can grow in duration"