Mysticism good. Religion bad. So says Sam Harris.

My churchlessness was wonderfully energized by Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" when it came out in 2004 -- the same year I started this blog.

Harris has a philosophy degree from Stanford and is working on a doctorate in neuroscience, so he's got a balanced perspective on soft beliefs and hard facts.

This morning I picked up The End of Faith and reread the almost-final "Experiments in Consciousness" chapter. I'd remembered that he'd said positive things about mysticism after trashing religion, and was curious to revisit his thoughts after five years or so.

My conclusion: right on, Mr. Harris.

At the core of every religion lies an undeniable claim about the human condition: it is possible to have one's experience of the world radically transformed...The problem with religion is that it blends this truth so thoroughly with the venom of unreason.

The challenge for us is to begin talking about this possibility in rational terms....It is difficult to find a word for that human enterprise which aims at happiness directly -- at happiness of a sort that can survive the frustration of all conventional desires.

The term "spirituality" seems unavoidable here -- and I have used it several times in this book already -- but it has many connotations that are, frankly, embarrassing. "Mysticism" has more gravitas, perhaps, but it has unfortunate associations of its own.

Neither word captures the reasonableness and profundity of the possibility that we must now consider: that there is a form of well-being that supersedes all others, indeed, that transcends the vagaries of experience itself.

Harris then launches into praise of "mysticism" that is as strong as his condemnation of religion. And he makes great good sense.

Over on this post we've been having an interesting comment conversation about whether Taoism and Buddhism (Dzogchen variety, particularly) can be considered metaphysical belief systems.

I've been arguing, "no." I'm pretty sure Sam Harris agrees. His description of his bookcase sounds a lot like mine, when he says:

I have selected a passage at random from a shelf of Buddhist literature. The following text was found with closed eyes on the first attempt from among scores of books. I invite the reader to find anything even remotely like this in the Bible or the Koran.

Harris has a lot of evident fondness for Buddhism. Me too, along with Taoism -- writings about which occupy center stage on my own bookcase.

Both philosophies are firmly rooted in the reality of everyday human experience, not some airy-fairy other-worldly metaphysics. The passage Harris found in his Buddhist book talks about manifest awareness and the absence of an observer.

It is psychologically profound. Also, entirely consistent with modern neuroscience.

Similarly, the ancient Taoists grasped the importance of "being in the flow" way before sports announcers started saying excitedly, "Man, Kobe Bryant is out of his mind and in the zone! Forty points at halftime!"

My well-worn copy of Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English's translation of the Tao Te Ching says on the back cover:

The philosophy of Lao Tsu is simple: Accept what is in front of you without wanting the situation to be other than it is. Study the natural order of things and work with it rather than against it, for to try to change what is only sets up resistance.

...If we watch carefully, we will see that work proceeds more quickly and easily if we stop "trying," if we stop putting in so much extra effort, if we stop looking for results. In the clarity of a still and open mind, truth will be reflected.

Likewise, Harris writes:

This is an empirical claim, not a matter of philosophical speculation. Break the spell of thought and the duality of subject and object will vanish -- as will the fundamental difference between conventional states of happiness and suffering. This is a fact about the mind that few Western scholars have ever made it their business to understand.

It is on this front that the practice of meditation reveals itself to be both intellectually serious and indispensable. There is something to realize about the nature of consciousness, and its realization does not entail thinking new thoughts.

A few hours ago I started on my almost-daily dog walk, an event that Serena doesn't let me forget. We have two usual routes: a walk through the woods and around a lake that is a bit over a mile, and a more aerobically challenging two mile walk on a paved road loop.

I felt like going on the lake walk. It was evident that Serena was more in the mood for the road (more interesting smells, I suspect). I flowed with Serena. At first. Because when we came to a path that intersected the road, I headed down it.

Serena happily bounded ahead, off her leash. Heading toward the lake, albeit in a more indirect fashion that I at first intended, I realized that this route would have us avoid a hornet nest that my wife had noticed at dog nose height, near the trail on our property, and had warned me about.

It was the familiar "good news, bad news, who knows?" Taoist story.

I head off in an undesired direction, which ends up leading me to where I wanted to go -- perhaps avoiding a stinging problem that the dog and I could have encountered if I'd stuck with my initial conscious intention.

My unspectacular tale is the sort of everyday experience that Harris finds so interesting. And mysterious.

How does our consciousness guide us through life? How does unchanging awareness relate to the everchanging sensations, thoughts, emotions, desires, and such that continually course through our mind?

If these kinds of questions are termed "mystical," its because the answers are a mystery, not that investigating the nature of human consciousness leads us into some metaphysical realm.

But as Harris noted above, thinking about thoughts won't help in studying how awareness functions thoughtlessly. He adds:

We all know what it is like to read whole paragraphs, and even pages of a book without assimilating a word. Few of us realize that we spend most of our lives in such a state: perceiving the present -- present sights, sounds, tastes, and sensations -- only dimly, through a veil of thought.

We spend our lives telling ourselves the story of past and future, while the reality of the present goes largely unexplored. Now we live in ignorance of the freedom and simplicity of consciousness, prior to the arising of thought.

Religiosity can't exist without thoughts, concepts, dogmas, beliefs, imaginings.

Mysticism (or "spirituality," if you prefer that term) can. Non-religious Buddhists and Taoists are totally happy just being. No need to give a name to this, though "suchness" is used in Buddhism and the "way" in Taoism.

Science and religion have something in common: they both are focused on what exists within existence, on what consciousness is conscious of, on what knowing is knowledgeable about.

Mysticism is centered on bridging, or even dissolving, these dualities. Harris says:

Indeed, many suggest that it is our search for happiness -- our craving for knowledge and new experience, our desire for recognition, our efforts to find the right romantic partner, even our yearning for spiritual experience itself -- that causes us to overlook a form of well-being that is intrinsic to consciousness at every present moment.

...The experience of countless contemplatives suggests that consciousness -- being merely the condition in which thought, emotion, and even the sense of self arises -- is never actually changed by what it knows. That which is aware of joy does not become joyful; that which is aware of sadness does not become sad.

...The roiling mystery of the world can be analyzed with concepts (this is science), or it can be experienced free of concepts (this is mysticism). Religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time.

Comments

[tucson]

George said: "there is a very definite agenda at play here amongst the 3 highpriests."

--Well, there aren't many others regularly participating on this blog so naturally we have a disproportionate presence. However, this doesn't mean that we are in collusion in some "agenda". Just what is this agenda?

Maybe you think that since we happen to agree on the non-metaphysicalness of Taoism and have philosophical similarities that this means we like to team up and browbeat those (you) who choose not to see things the same way. Maybe this makes you a bit defensive and thus deliberately contrary?

We're not out to get you George.

If this were a political forum, for example, I think you would find that us "highpriests" would rapidly diverge in different directions in such a way that no one would think for a minute that we had a mutual agenda to get together and browbeat people. We just happen to agree in the current subject area.

[Jen]

George,

Thank you for your honesty. I hope you don’t leave, you’ve brought a breath of fresh air with your (imo) balanced approach.

You’re a true questioner and persistent in your courage in deconstruction, which I thought, was what this site is all about. I think you clearly see all sides of the situation and deal with others with a sense of humour (I have a British background and I love the Poms).

One thing you seem to be seeking here… you ask: “Where is the consistency?”

I like what Brian said: “… but in the end the cosmos is a mystery -- even science agrees about this -- so each of us has to choose how we deal with mystery”. He also posted this: "The practice of Chinese philosophy can lead you to self-realization. But then, an hour later, you'll want to find yourself again."

Sometimes we go with the flow… not forgetting there is the ebb as well… :)

[rakesh bhasin]

In the entire discussion, the existing literature is being quoted in favor of understanding of Taoism in some way or the other. If the same literature can co-exist elsewhere, it can also exist in this blog as well without letting one or the other down.

It all depends upon the owner of the blog.

I feel, “I AM O.K. YOU ARE O.K." may slightly do better.

I take this blog as a source of vast information on all topics minus mudslinging on one another.

I am sorry if my words hurt somebody.

[[email protected]]

"George, Thank you for your honesty. I hope you don’t leave, you’ve brought a breath of fresh air with your (imo) balanced approach."

-- Huh? About as much "honesty" and "fresh air" as a constipated rhinocerous with his horn stuck up his ass. Btw Jen, did you happen to lose a few marbles over the weekend?

"You’re a true questioner and persistent in your courage in deconstruction"

-- Questioner my ass. And about as much true "deconstruction" as one can with the horns of a hare.

"which I thought, was what this site is all about."

-- Still looking for those marbles eh? Go look in: "About this site--start here" in the welcome menu.

"I think you clearly see all sides of the situation..."

-- You mean all sides of of his own narrow-minded opinion?

"...and deal with others with a sense of humour"

-- Oh you must mean like the humour of his ridicule and designation of anything outside the confines of traditional christian religious dogma and the dogma of Santmat theology and mysticism as being "flakey"? ...such as: buddhism, ch'an, taoism, dzogchen, advaita vedanta, shaiva siddhanta, raja yoga, jainism, sufism, and other more or less ancient esoteric non-dogmatic traditions?

"Sometimes we go with the flow"

-- But he doesn't think there is any "flow".

[Jen]

I haven't found George's comments to be too extreme and he seems to see all sides of the picture. I realize he does challenge but is usually fair and polite and I enjoy reading his comments.

[George]

Very nice you Jen, are you australian?

But it is their site afterall, and clearly there is going to be more mudslinging, which i do not want it to descend into, its not that important in any case, but i thank you, elephant and robert for your balanced sentiment.

Go well
George.

[Jen]

Hi George,

My ancestors were from England, my parents from Kent and I grew up in Africa and now live in Australia. I still have a quite a strong attachment for the ‘old country’. I agree, this is Brian’s site, although I also think he enjoyed your questions. I certainly do, good to hear all sorts of viewpoints on different subjects.

[Bruce Le]

This is so Un-Bruce Lee