Will Sam Harris' "Waking Up" do that for me? Probably not.

When I visit the Amazon page for a forthcoming book by Sam Harris, "Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion," Amazon helpfully reminds me that I pre-ordered way back on March 7. 

Ooh, ooh! Release date is September 9! Just 25 days and I'll be on my way to waking up!

Maybe. But I doubt it.

I admire Harris, because he is a noted atheist critic of religion who also is expert in neuroscience and has a fondness for meditation, Buddhist variety.

So I'm confident that I'm going to resonate with his new book. It should sell well, given Harris' reputation and his extensive marketing strategy -- which includes three lectures in major cities where attendees will get some bonus waking up.

In these public talks, I will discuss a range of psychological insights that have traditionally been considered “spiritual.” Although they tell us nothing about the origins of the cosmos, these experiences confirm some well-established truths about the human mind: Our conventional sense of self is an illusion; positive emotions, such as compassion and serenity, are teachable skills; and the way we think can profoundly influence our lives and the lives of others.

There is no discrete “I” or ego living like a Minotaur in the labyrinth of the brain. And the feeling that there is—the sense of being perched somewhere behind your eyes, looking out at a world that is separate from yourself—can be altered or entirely extinguished. Although such experiences of “self-transcendence” are generally thought about in religious terms, there is nothing, in principle, irrational about them. From both a scientific and a philosophical point of view, they represent a clearer understanding of the way things are.

A rational approach to spirituality seems to be what is missing from secularism—and from the lives of most people I meet. My goal in these talks will be to offer a compelling and useful investigation of the human mind and to show how deepening our understanding of it can transform our experience of the world and our relationships with other human beings.

Sounds good. Difficult to disagree with much, if anything, Harris says. 

Well, unless you're a Christian with a fundamentalist view of your religion. This guy thinks Harris is lying when he puts "spirituality" in his book title, because naturally any conception that differs from the traditional Biblical notion just has to be wrong.

Thus it's a good sign that religious types are criticizing "Waking Up" already. That makes me more confident I'll enjoy it.

Reading a few reviews, though, made me more uncertain. This one, by a member of the Spiritual Naturalist Society, says that Harris is big on Dzogchen meditation. Now I've only read some books about Dzogchen; I've never practiced it.

But my impression is that Dzogchen is just about as filled with unnecessary mumbo-jumbo as other forms of Buddhist meditation.

I could be wrong about this, though. Hopefully Harris is able to show how Dzogchen and modern neuroscience are both pointed at the same secular realization of, as Harris says, no "I" perched behind our eyes.

Another review is quite a bit more scholarly. I didn't feel like reading it closely enough to figure out the reviewer's problem with the book. Harris doesn't agree with Hegel is one complaint. Seems to me this would be a good thing.

On the plus side, it sounds like Harris does his usually great job of making an esoteric subject understandable to a general reader. He did this with "Free Will," a book I liked a lot. Also, of course, in his widely read "The End of Faith." 

If more people understand why the notion of a self or soul makes no sense, Harris will have done the world a service. Whether they really "wake up" after reading his book, that's another question.

Comments

[observer]

Sounds interesting Brian, keep us posted when you've read the book.

You say, "If more people understand why the notion of a self or soul makes no sense, Harris will have done the world a service".

Maybe its the way we have been conditioned to think of our physical human self as being separate from 'spirit' or 'soul' (words we should probably have discarded by now). Maybe thats what meditation does, it enables us to evolve into more of a holistic state of being, no longer feeling separate. Just my thoughts :)

[William]

Brian hi,
So this is weird. Here's me, a decade younger than you, but also an ex-satsangi after a 25-year term, as of 10 years ago. In 2014, I start tutoring a Japanese woman in English here in a Japanese city - learn that she is one of only 10 people in said city who are followers of Thakar Singh. I remember your site, hunt for it, and read around a little. Find that your latest post (this one) is about a book that claims it will 'wake the reader up'. Which reminds me of a name the Japanese woman had mentioned, Tracey Ash, who runs an 'Awakening program' . . .
Life's eerily like The Twilight Zone, don't you think?
On a more down-to-earth note, I read that you are a great fan of Alan Watts. You've written that you agree with much, but not all, of what he has to say. I'm curious where you disagree. And you have written that you love being asked questions ;-)
RS greetings
William

[Brian Hines]

William, you ask a good question. I'd have to look through my many Alan Watts books to answer it. I'm a habitual highlighter. Probably somewhere there is a "?" in a margin where I indicated puzzlement or disagreement about something Watts wrote.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of much that rubbed me the wrong way about Watts. All that comes to mind is that sometimes, maybe in an effort to relate to Christians and other religious people, he will speak of "God" in a way that, as I recall, seems to come close to a belief in a supernatural beings.

Not really, though, I'll admit. It might be that Watts was doing the common thing of using "God" to mean everything in reality, rather than a separate conscious being.

I used the Google search box in the right sidebar of my blog to search my posts for "Alan Watts disagree." Nothing relevant popped up. Just a lot of positive posts about Watts. I do indeed turn to him when I need some churchless inspiration.

[cc]

if more people understand why the notion of a self or soul makes no sense, Harris will have done the world a service.

We think we are persons, spiritual identities, because the mind personifies itself. Until, that is, this personification is seen for what it is. Then, though the sense of self remains, its identity is the measure of its improvisational skill, its shape-shifting ability.

The self is what the mind does, so I think that saying there is no self just feeds the guru-promoted nonsense that one can become selfless. If the mind didn't personify itself, you'd be robotic, without any emotional response to your own or other's behavior.

It makes more sense to say that the self is not what you think it is (an actual being), but the current personification of the mind; a reflection of your emotional, as well as rational, state of mind.

[Brian Hines]

cc, nicely put. This is how I view the "self" also.

It is undeniably real, and necessary for human existence. If I didn't feel that I had a self, why would I care about lots of things that us Homo sapiens care about, including preserving the entity that is doing the caring?

Ordinary self, yes. Soul or enduring unchanging self, no.

This includes notions of the self as a transcendent observer of consciousness, the Captain of Consciousness, so to speak, who issues orders to the mind and body to do this and that.

That self, almost certainly, doesn't exist.

[observer]

"The self is what the mind does".

"It makes more sense to say that the self is not what you think it is (an actual being), but the current personification of the mind".

So, here in this physical creation, embodied in a form we call the self, if the brain as a physical organ uses mind to decipher and make sense of the world. Then what is mind?

When the physical form and the brain dies, where does this mind essence go? If it merges back into some form of energy, what would that be called? Consciousness?

[Brian Hines]

observer says, "When the physical form and the brain dies, where does this mind essence go? If it merges back into some form of energy, what would that be called? Consciousness?"

One of my favorite Rumi poems is about a man who gazes fondly upon a ruined house and says, "If it only had a roof... and all four walls... and a floor, this would be a great house to live in."

A wise person tells him, "My friend, it is impossible to live in IF."

Sure, lots of things would be possible IF... they were true, if there was any evidence for them, if they were more than wishful thinking.

But like Rumi says, we can't live in IF. We have to live in the real world.

[observer]

Brian: "We have to live in the real world."

In this world of duality it is either this or that - the opposites.

IF could be somewhere in between and not wishful thinking, just maybe, because this world is a construct and so I don't think it is real.

[cc]

When the physical form and the brain dies, where does this mind essence go?

The mind is no more an "essence" than software is. Upon brain death - just as with the destruction of a hard-drive - it ceases to exist.

So, here in this physical creation, embodied in a form we call the self, if the brain as a physical organ uses mind to decipher and make sense of the world. Then what is mind?

As I said, it's the mental equivalent of software, content, information and the means to utilize it for problem solving, contemplation, meditation, etc. Wake up!

When the physical form and the brain dies, where does this mind essence go? If it merges back into some form of energy, what would that be called?

I repeat, it's not an "essence". It's just data, information, software. It's ephemeral, perishable, destructible. Boo hoo.

[cc]

In this world of duality it is either this or that - the opposites.

The world, actuality, isn't dualistic - the mind is dualistic. But without the mind, there is no consciousness and no way to dispute this statement, so the mind either learns how it works and what its limits are, or it pretends it can transcend itself.

[observer]

Ah well, then we are nothing more than programmed organisms who have materialised out of nothing. Good, I'm just going to chill, and embrace nothingness, in my very own individually programmed Taoist way.

[777]

""" When the physical form and the brain dies, where does this mind essence go? If it merges back into some form of energy, what would that be called?
You should read Theodore Sturgeon """

where those miles high sophisticated super boloos make war & things, . . .

thinking they are not the implanted brains ( harvested from humans & the like )

[observer]

Hi 777,

Just downloaded "More Than Human" by Theodore Sturgeon - I read a lot of science fiction, being on age pension I have a lot of time and also a very active imagination. Thanks, hope I enjoy :)

[777]

Yes
I believe that is the one

It starts with a war in Algerie Maroc

Even better than van A E Voght

Ringworlds is also quite good

T m almost 80 and have read many
But nothing even has a glimps
of the splendor of a tiny success in Charans Sant Mat Meditation
These Sounds are terrific and super sweet
and when the moment comes that
the 5 Words, the Master and the Sounds are mixing, . . . really become One, become the SAME
and that YOU are That too
I cannot describe and you see that this will ever grows, it never stops
you can after that even enjoy while in the mall, . . .

And the best thing is that this often detested meditation
you don't really need it after a while
We can have hyper orgasms above our eyes only all the time , everywhere

Good book a great tiny metaphor of our terrific reality >3 to U

If people knew

777

[observer]

777, wish I had some success in meditation, just fall asleep. Not easy being a sensitive, a lot of challenges now. I think there is some kind of electronic interference or some kind of mind control which is difficult to override :(

[777]

After initiation by Charan I thought
: among those 'vows' I can do two of them

No meat because the uric acid closes chakras
and that repetition

I thought 50 years ago : That one I can,
so I did it really 24/7 - day & night
and I still think :
That is the trick

I failed miserably in med except when I had my backbone very very straight
without support
Position made all the difference
and it's the first thing I tell satsangis who don't experience a thing

Are you a Satsangi initiated by a Beas Saint ?
I think, I know for 1000% sure that Love or submission is the key
Love is easier but that is a gift
Any human can do it -

SF wise : Aliens exist
They would already have destroyed this stinking human species
if they had not discovered that we carry in our crown chakra
the way out
and they want that too
>"

777

[observer]

777,

Yes very grateful to be initiated by Charan. I don't blame the path or anyone other than myself for my failings in meditation. Its not that much of a big deal, I just have a very active and inquisitive mind and at least I am still happy to continue.

Just wondering if there is some kind of mind infiltration since I have had telepathic experiences. The interactions sounded and felt very human and I am very intrigued. Maybe a distraction to keep my mind busy wondering about it. Aliens, yep they are around, but thats another story ;)

I stick to the four principles, just lack discipline with the meditation. Will try with being more aware of having the backbone straight. Still in the process of 'waking up' (keeping on topic :)

[777]

I m delighted
Doesn't hear such great new hear every day

Yes the Siddhis come to
and we best stay passive , looking what's happening
People often say : Nothing happens, . . .
but much more people say : Each minute something is happening !

These Sturgeon books are great about what the mind and accumulated minds can do
…… and the mind is a peanut compared with the Real Stuff

Wishing YOU regular Love explosions

777

[Ron Krumpos]

In "Waking up" Sam Harris uses the terms 'spiritual' and 'mystical' interchangeably. Just as he says that you do not have to be religious to be spiritual, so too you do not have to believe in God or be religious to be a mystic.

In my free ebook on comparative mysticism, "The Greatest Achievement in Life," I summarized many similarities, and some differences, among the mystics of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism.

Ironically, the man who personally introduced me to mysticism was an atheist who once wrote "God is man's greatest invention." Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was also a Nobel astrophysicist at the University of Chicago.