How Sam Harris views Dzogchen

Sam Harris is a fascinating guy. To me, he pretty much epitomizes the "middle way" that Buddhism espouses. Meaning, he is at home both with science and spirituality, finding both compatible with each other and with reality.

Which I guess isn't too surprising, since Harris has a deep fondness for Buddhism, particularly Dzogchen, a variety of Tibetan Buddhism.

Harris is a leader of the New Atheism movement. He has a Ph.D. in cognitive neuroscience. The personal section of his Wikipedia page contains interesting information about him. (I've taken out the links and footnotes.)

Samuel Benjamin Harris was born in Los Angeles, California, on April 9, 1967. He is the son of actor Berkeley Harris, who appeared mainly in Western films, and TV writer and producer Susan Harris (née Spivak), who created Soap (TV series) and The Golden Girls among other series. His father, born in North Carolina, came from a Quaker background, and his mother is Jewish but not religious. He was raised by his mother following his parents' divorce when he was aged two. Harris has stated that his upbringing was entirely secular and that his parents rarely discussed religion, though he also stated that he was not raised as an atheist.

While his original major was in English, Harris became interested in philosophical questions while at Stanford University after an experience with the empathogen–entactogen MDMA (colloquially known as ecstasy). The experience led him to be interested in the idea that he might be able to achieve spiritual insights without the use of drugs. Leaving Stanford in his second year, a quarter after his psychedelic experience, he visited India and Nepal, where he studied meditation with teachers of Buddhist and Hindu religions, including Dilgo Khyentse. Eleven years later, in 1997, he returned to Stanford, completing a B.A. degree in philosophy in 2000. Harris began writing his first book, The End of Faith, immediately after the September 11 attacks.

He received a Ph.D. in cognitive neuroscience in 2009 from the University of California, Los Angeles, using functional magnetic resonance imaging to conduct research into the neural basis of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty. His thesis was titled The Moral Landscape: How Science Could Determine Human Values. His advisor was Mark S. Cohen. 

Early on in his book, Waking Up, Harris describes his central thesis.

Nothing that a Christian, a Muslim, and a Hindu can experience -- self-transcending love, ecstasy, bliss, inner light -- constitutes evidence in support of their traditional beliefs, because their beliefs are logically incompatible with one another. A deeper principle must be at work.

That principle is the subject of this book. The feeling that we call "I" is an illusion. There is no discrete self 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 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 philosophical point of view, they represent a clearer understanding of the way things are.

Deepening that understanding, and repeatedly cutting through the illusion of the self, is what is meant by "spirituality" in the context of this book.

Given how much Harris dislikes religion and dogmatism, how is it that he has so much fondness for Dzogchen? Here's some excerpts from Waking Up about Dzogchen.

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche lived in a hermitage on the southern slope of Shivapuri Mountain, overlooking the Kathmandu Valley. He spent more than twenty years of his life on formal retreat and was deservedly famous for the clarity with which he gave the "pointing-out instruction" of Dzogchen, a formal initiation in which a teacher seeks to impart the experience of self-transcendence directly to a student.

I received this teaching from several Dzogchen masters, as well as similar instructions from teachers like Poonja-ji in other traditions, but I never met anyone who spoke about the nature of consciousness as precisely as Tulku Urgyen. In the last five years of his life, I made several trips to Nepal to study with him.

The practice of Dzogchen requires that one be able to experience the intrinsic selflessness of awareness in every moment (that is when one is not otherwise distracted by thought) -- which is to say that for a Dzogchen meditator, mindfulness must be synonymous with dispelling the illusion of the self.

Rather than teach a technique of meditation -- such as paying close attention to one's breathing -- a Dzogchen master must precipitate an insight on the basis of which a student can thereafter practice a form of awareness (Tibetan: rigpa) that is unencumbered by subject/object dualism. 

Thus it is often said that, in Dzogchen, one "takes the goal as the path," because the freedom from self that one might otherwise seek is the very thing that one practices. The goal of Dzogchen, if one can call it such, is to grow increasingly familiar with this way of being in the world.

...I came to Tulku Urgyen yearning for the experience of self-transcendence, and in a few minutes he showed me that I had no self to transcend. 

In my view, there is nothing supernatural, or even mysterious, about this transmission of wisdom from master to disciple. Tulku Urgyen's effect on me came purely from the clarity of his teaching. As with any challenging endeavor, the difference between being utterly misled by false information, being nudged in the general direction, and being precisely guided by an expert is difficult to overstate. 

...This instruction was without question the most important thing I have ever been explicitly taught by another human being. It has given me a way to escape the usual tides of psychological suffering -- fear, anger, shame -- in an instant.

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

Punctuating ordinary experience in this way makes all the difference. In fact, when I pay attention, it is impossible for me to feel like a self at all: The implied center of cognition and emotion simply falls away, and it is obvious that consciousness is never truly confined by what it knows.

That which is aware of sadness is not sad. That which is aware of fear is not fearful. The moment I am lost in thought, however, I'm as confused as anyone else.

Given this change in my perception of the world, I understand the attractions of traditional spirituality. I also recognize the needless confusion and harm that inexorably arise from the doctrines of faith-based religion.

I did not have to believe anything irrational about the universe, or about my place in it, to learn the practice of Dzogchen. I didn't have to accept Tibetan Buddhist beliefs about karma and rebirth or imagine that Tulku Urgyen or the other meditation masters I met possessed magic powers. 

And whatever the traditional liabilities of the guru-devotee relationship, I know from direct experience that it is possible to meet a teacher who can deliver the goods.

In his guided meditations on the Waking Up app (I have the iPhone version), Harris offers a simplified version of Dzogchen. I suspect the practices he uses bear a relationship to the direct pointing techniques of "real" Dzogchen.

For example, Harris will say something like this (these are my own words):

With your eyes open, on an in-breath visualize that you are breathing in the world. On an out-breath visualize yourself being projected out into the world. Then, quickly, in an instant as short as a finger snap, look for the place where you feel the breathing-in and breathing-out of the world is happening. 

Note the absence of a self in that place. Again, quickly, in an instant. That absence is what you are looking for. And if what I just said doesn't make sense to you now, it may later.

Comments

[manjit]

Hehe.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/10/being-mr-reasonable

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/15695060/sam-harris-charles-murray-race-iq-forbidden-knowledge-podcast-bell-curve

https://www.wired.com/story/sam-harris-and-the-myth-of-perfectly-rational-thought/

https://youtu.be/_A1cmqbI31M

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/4/2/scientific-racism-militarism-and-the-new-atheists

https://the-orbit.net/progpub/2017/05/04/sam-harris-racist/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-sam-harris-gets-wron_b_11680182

https://medium.com/@tedheistman/does-sam-harris-want-you-to-be-a-nazi-without-realizing-it-84fe17453fbd

https://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2018/06/08/excellent-critique-of-sam-harris/

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/02/the-unwelcome-revival-of-race-science

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/28/alt-right-online-poison-racist-bigot-sam-harris-milo-yiannopoulos-islamophobia

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/03/29/for-someone-who-doesnt-like-to-be-called-a-racist-sam-harris-sure-writes-a-lot-of-racist-stuff/

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/05/02/racists-love-to-cooperate-sam-harris-and-charles-murray/

https://www.alternet.org/2021/05/the-racial-wealth-gap-is-a-civil-liberties-issue/

https://kmalonewrites.medium.com/all-the-meditation-in-the-world-cant-fix-your-racist-opinions-73984645e344

https://www.vice.com/en/article/3k7jx8/too-many-atheists-are-veering-dangerously-toward-the-alt-right

https://bennorton.com/new-atheist-trolls-and-sam-harris-the-islamophobic-racist/

[Manjit]

Well, I just posted about 20 links detailing sam harris' overt racist thought and his right wing pandering, but they got chewed up.

As you were then.

[manjit]

Perhaps just this one gives you a flavour of harris' inanites

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/10/being-mr-reasonable

[manjit]

Ps, calling that fluff dzogchen is like calling a tin of dog food a 5 star michellin meal, but never mind accuracy

[Appreciative Reader]

Great post, thanks Brian.

This makes fully clear what I'd been wondering about in the earlier thread, which is Sam Harris's take on spirituality. Clearly he's not into the woo part of it; and at the same time, this does go beyond merely intellectual understanding. Clearly there's that thing about losing the self, via Dzogchen practice. And what's more, the 'why' of it is also clearly discussed.

I've bookmarked this thread, and will check up some more about Dzogchen. All I know of it, really, is the name! Clearly that ignorance needs to be remedied.

-------

Meantime, Brian, what I found curious was the part about how the Dzogchen master/guru/rinpoche ends up giving him the no-self experience in a very short time. What's that about, would you know? Is he talking of some kind of shaktipat here? (Possible, since this is Vajrayana we're talking about after all, tantra and stuff.) If so, that's clearly woo territory: for all that not necessarily not true, but still, definitely woo. Or is it something less extravagant that he's indicating here? Be great if you could throw light on this. (Perfectly fine if you don't know, and don't touch on this. You're not Sam Harris after all, and it would be unfair to expect you to know and to answer for every little bit of what he does and says. In any case that's only a small part of what was discussed here; and, speaking for myself, I found this post of great value, given recent discussions on here.)

[Ron E.]

I bought Harris’s book ‘Waking Up’ some years ago and found it a good account of the whole spiritual undertaking. Many communicators on this subject cover more or less the same ground. Along with modern accounts of psychology and neuroscience I enjoy the writings of those who have been motivated to inquire into the question of spirituality and explore the confusions that surrounds this issue.

It was often exhilarating and fun decades ago popping in and out of the various meetings and retreats to listen to and participate in the assorted messages and practices that flourished back then. Today, the whole issue seems to have ‘grown up' somewhat with the focus of attention on the question of identity – the ‘who am I’ quest.

It is difficult to ‘shake off’ some of the cultural orthodox beliefs and dogmas, not to mention some of the fixed views we have on spirituality, so it is valuable to have the insights of people like Sam Harris, particularly as he and many other recent commentators on this subject have a researcher’s attitude and discipline that is able to link up teachings such as Zen, Chan and Taoism with modern psychological findings on the brain/mind question – that still stubbornly persist.

[um]

@ AR

On Dzogshen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY11h9HOhwg

He was the great master.

There is a video on his life and his son ... that is great fun

[um]

@ Ar

Look for the video "my reincarnation"

[Spence Tepper]

"“to say that ethnicity, gender, age, nationality, dress, traveling companions, behavior in the terminal, and other outward appearances offer no indication of a person’s beliefs or terrorist potential is either quite crazy or totally dishonest.”
Sam Harris

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/10/being-mr-reasonable

We should judge people on outward appearances? Wow. That is advocating judgements based on prejudice, superficial and only partial information. Harris is advocating judgment in ignorance of all the facts. The opposite of Dzogchen.

Why not learn to understand people and all things for who and what they are from a deeper vision of the very basis of these things? That is Dzogchen.

Harris is far from that.
...
"I was describing a case in which a hostile regime that is avowedly suicidal acquires long-range nuclear weaponry (i.e. they can hit distant targets like Paris, London, New York, Los Angeles, etc.). Of course, not every Muslim regime would fit this description."

How generous...

" What would the Israelis do if they could do what they want? They would live in peace with their neighbors, if they had neighbors who would live in peace with them."

A little understanding of the treatment of Palistinians is missing here. To make claims from ignorance is the basis of prejudice and results in harm.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/10/being-mr-reasonable

But most distrupting is Harris' willingness to take a dualistic view that demonizes some and lionizes others, from his conditioning and position, from ignorance and only partial information, a slanted view, when true Dzogchen advocates rising beyond this. Beyond mind.

Dzogchen is completely different. It is not confidence in one's own prejudices without question.

"Namkhai Norbu makes a distinction between Dzogchen "contemplation" proper (trekchö) and "meditation". According to Norbu, contemplation is "abiding in the non-dual state [i.e. rigpa] which, of its own nature, uninterruptedly self-liberates" while meditation is any practice "working with the dualistic, relative mind, in order to enable one to enter the state of contemplation."[46] Norbu adds that all the various meditative practices found in Dzogchen teachings (such as the "six yogas") are simply means to help practitioners access rigpa and are thus "secondary."[47]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen

A text from the Heart Essence of Vimalamitra called the Lamp Summarizing Vidyā (Rig pa bsdus pa’i sgronma) defines vidyā in the following way: "...vidyā is knowing, clear, and unchanging" In Sanskrit, the term vidyā and all its cognates imply consciousness, knowing, knowledge, science, intelligence, and so on. Simply put, vidyā means unconfused knowledge of the basis that is its own state.[9]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen

Meditation is the path to rise beyond dualistic thinking, to true contemplation; to rise above mind and from a place beyond dualistic thinking, see the basis of thought itself generated by mind, Chitra, and see that all thought and sense perception emerges from mind. Contemplation is to observe mind directly, from that place beyond dualism. But that pure contemplation is achieved through practice ; to see even the basis of mind as it is, not from a place of conditioned thinking and reactivity, requires practice under the guidance of a teacher.

"Direct introduction is called the "Empowerment of Awareness" (Wylie: rig pa'i rtsal dbang, pronounced "rigpay sall wahng"), a technical term employed within the Dzogchen lineages for a particular lineage of empowerment propagated by Jigme Lingpa. This empowerment consists of the direct introduction of the student to the intrinsic nature of their own mind-essence, rigpa, by their empowering master.[30]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen

When you can contemplate mind it is seen as its own animal. A creature generating endless images thoughts and abstract patterns and ideas from a pool of infinite information. The creature reforms itself to whatever your attention upon. Contemplation of the Chitta is remaining in a baldness state, a centered state that can observe without attending to any single point, centered beyond all thought.

[Spence Tepper]

Oops typo
"Contemplation of the Chitta is remaining in a pure observer, thoughtless, state: a centered state that can observe without attending to any single point, centered beyond all thought.

That is the reward for decades of dedicated practice under experienced supervision.

[TENDZIN]

Now, Dzogchen. Here we go with another ersatz Sant mat.

So then, if we accept that the Dzogchen Vajra Master/ disciple relationship is necessary, possible, and desirable in our culture (as Sam Harris implies here), how exactly are these Buddhist gurus any different from Sant Mat gurus?

God, no doubt. But I'm still waiting to hear why the God concept (even in the GIHF) is necessarily a problem. Or conversely, why apparent "non-God" gurus are any better. I could compile quite a list of Buddhist gurus of "selflessness" who stole money or slept with their students.

[um]

@ Tendzin

We can only digest what we are able to. That is a logic that Chöggyal Namkhai Norbu explains through out this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY11h9HOhwg

It makes no sense to waste your own time and the time of another human being in interacting with each other when you are not interested, capable of understanding and putting it into practice.

Those that do meet all the qualifications for learning say Cello and an high level end automatically in the circle of this or that renowned cello master. Others go to the local music school etc

At each level the teacher teaches music and how to play the cello in a different way ... from very mechanical, to .....

Sometimes people wonder why I can recall so much what this or that teacher had to say. My answer in general is, why wonder about me? You were there too, ask yourself why you can't remember.

Even small children have no problem in singing songs after having heard them only a few times because the find pleasure in tit.

[um]

@AR

here is the link

https://archive.org/details/MyReincarnation2011

[TENDZIN]

@ um

I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me. The point I was making is that S. Harris' Dzogchen guru told him that Dzogchen doesn't work unless you're first initiated by a Dzogchen Master. Sounds like Sant mat.

After initiation, one has to practice Dzogchen to get the full realization. Again, sounds like Sant mat.

What is this full realization? In Dzogchen, it's the insight that the little self isn't the reality. Again, sounds like Sant mat.

One further note: S. Harris' fellow New Atheists scratch their heads at his spiritual seeking. They may have a point. If one is truly an atheist, then why search for spiritual awakening?

[um]

@ Tendzin

After going over your message to which I reacted, I too, could not understand why I reacted as I did.

Sorry

[Roger]

@ TENDZIN

I'm guessing that the initiation, practicing, meditation will result in the human brain having Free will.

Free will: a brain activity that is free of conditioned patterns of thinking, speaking and acting, when subjected to sensory data input. This freedom is the full realization.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Roger and Tendzin
Yes, I think this is what the Anti-theist religion of Atheism is attempting to shape itself into :liberation from parochial thinking.

It believes, like all religions, that is brand of liberation is closer to the Truth than the other brands.

Why would Harris choose to create a religion, label it, falsely, Dzogchen, when he could just as simply labeled it Harrsie or some such inventive name? "Inspired by other ancient practices..." That would be more truthful..

Or just acknowledge that he is still a student, not yet exposed to the mysteries, and keep at it... But that doesn't sell bioks or lectures, nor pay the bills.

[Spence Tepper]

As for Atheism, that is without theism, does in fact acknowledge the mystery and doesn't try to explain, validate, coopt or invalidate others' reports of spiritual experience. To the true, scientific minded Atheist there simply isn't compelling evidence to dismiss the mystery, and the need for inquiry and the excitement of exploration.

But the anti - theists,falsely calling themselves Atheists are not only virulently against any beliefs in God or the supernatural, but in fact anything outside of established scientific facts. Including all those mysteries science is studying now and will in the future. These have no place in the religion of anti - theism simply because any acknowledgement of the unknown would discredit the very foundation of anti - theism, which, as with all religions, is a presumption of complete knowledge it doesn't have, and a rejection of the mysteries and even the science of exploring them.

Acknowledgement of those mysterious is precisely the foundation of a powerful Atheism. But it is the enemy of all religions, including antu-theism (which falsely calls itself Zen, Dzogchen, Atheism, etc).

Any acknowledgement of those mysteries

[Roger]

Spence

I have no problem with embracing Mystery, in general. Someone's personal subjective experience, related to me, is simply raw information, and interesting conversation. For some odd reason, I am not looking for a spiritual truth.

[samharrisishumanlikeallofus]

As with any individual, take what is insightful, discard what isn't, and criticize what is not acceptable.

I think Sam Harris has much to offer, even if we may find various points of variance.

But that is true for all of us. Gurus or no gurus. Intellectuals or not.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, um. Thanks for those links!

By an odd coincidence, both videos are 1 hour 41 minutes long. Must be Karma, or planetary constellations, or some such! :---) So anyway, jokes apart, I watched around half an hour of the first, for now; and so far the Rinpoche guy only touches on general Buddhist principles, but no doubt he'll get down to the specifics of Dzogchen soon. And the second one, the Reincarnation thing, looks like a fun watch! I've only had time to go through around 10 minutes or so of it for now, but I'm looking forward to watching the rest of it later. Have bookmarked both, along with Brian's article,

Also found, and bookmarked, some videos where Sam Harris himself speaks specifically about Dzogchen. I'm not linking to them now because I haven't had time to watch them yet, but after I do, and if they turn out to be as good as I'm hoping they might be, then I'll get back here and link to them.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Roger
You wrote
"I have no problem with embracing Mystery, in general. Someone's personal subjective experience, related to me, is simply raw information, and interesting conversation. For some odd reason, I am not looking for a spiritual truth."

This is true Atheism! Thank you, Roger.

[Appreciative Reader]

"...If one is truly an atheist, then why search for spiritual awakening?"
(Posted by: TENDZIN | February 06, 2022 at 03:21 PM)

..........The one's a question, the other's the answer to the question. No contradiction there.

(Slightly longer version: Searching for spiritual awakening, which would include exploring what it amounts to and whether it really is a thing at all, is a function of one's propensity and predilection and interest. Atheism is one possible answer to that question; and, like all reasonable answers arrived at by reasonable folks, essentially a tentative answer, that does not foreclose further questioning and further seeking. Therefore, there isn't any contradiction between the two, and why, to answer your specific question, the search for spiritual awakening may well coexist with atheism.)

----------

"...As for Atheism, that is without theism, does in fact acknowledge the mystery..."
(Posted by: Spence Tepper | February 06, 2022 at 06:42 PM)

..........No it doesn't, absolutely not. The one has nothing at all to do with the other.

Sure, some individual atheist may acknowledge the "mystery", as you call it, while another may not do that, but neither acknowledging "mysteries" nor rejecting them has anything to do with being, or not being, an atheist.

There's absolutely no reason to imagine that an atheist who acknowledges this mystery thing is any more of a "true atheist" than the atheist who doesn't. Nor, of course, the obverse, which is what Tendzin's POV, that I've responded to earlier in this very comment, implies. Neither of those views --- neither the one you imply, Tendzin, nor the one you state outright, Spence --- is correct.

[um]

@ AR

You are welcome.
If ... If you find time etc to watch, I would suggest to listen to Norbu Rinpoche, in just one sitting and with headphones. Although in simple words, he develops a viewpoint little by little so that you can have a personal inclining on what the state of dzogchen is all about WITHOUT spending much words at it. It is kind of an step by step unfolding.

Otherwise forget about it all.

As he is considered as one of the greatest teachers of this practice.he might serve to give a clear insight as far as that is possible for what for short was a secret teaching and not open to the great public, for reasons he explains.

Those reasons are also worth consideration in other, non buddhist, traditions.

The othet movie is interesting as it touches the recognition / reincarnation of Tulku's. What puzzles me why it is something only known in Tibet. If you happen to see it you will understand why it puzzles me.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"Sure, some individual atheist may acknowledge the "mystery", as you call it, while another may not do that, but neither acknowledging "mysteries" nor rejecting them has anything to do with being, or not being, an atheist.

"There's absolutely no reason to imagine that an atheist who acknowledges this mystery thing is any more of a "true atheist" than the atheist who doesn't."

The scientific Atheist bases their choice not to hold a belief on the basis of a lack of compelling evidence
They acknowldge that information isn't there.

A-theism.. Without belief.

They are acknowldging that they don't know, ie, it's a mysteryand don't worm around it pretending they don't know but holding a firm anti - theist belief.

The anti-theist wants to pretend they are equally objective but they hold very conclusive believes without full knowledge.

As I wrote
"the anti - theists,falsely calling themselves Atheists are not only virulently against any beliefs in God or the supernatural, but in fact anything outside of established scientific facts. Including all those mysteries science is studying now and will in the future. These have no place in the religion of anti - theism simply because any acknowledgement of the unknown would discredit the very foundation of anti - theism, which, as with all religions, is a presumption of complete knowledge it doesn't have, and a rejection of the mysteries and even the science of exploring them.

"Acknowledgement of those mysterious is precisely the foundation of a powerful Atheism. But it is the enemy of all religions, including antu-theism (which falsely calls itself Zen, Dzogchen, Atheism, etc)."

So if a person is Anti-theist they should just own their hatred of religion honestly. They certainly have valid reasons for complaint. But they are not the same as those who simply, dispassionately and without judgment, do not hold any belief... A)(Latin for without) Theist (believer in divinity).

[Spence Tepper]

And AR
What makes an Atheist different from an Anti-theist is that s conclusion on scientific grounds can't be made. Science makes no conclusions about things science hasn't rigorously examined and tested.

But an Anti-theist, lacking that information, proceeds to conclude all belief in God is absolutely wrong and harmful, using limited and partial information to bolster their argument rather than acknowldging what they don't know, which actually proves no conclusion at all.

The anti - theist says "I can't see it therefore it doesn't exist!"

The Atheist says, "A dark room may contain many things, but there isn't compelling evidence to draw a conclusion."

One is intellectually dishonest, violating the principles of science to support their prejudice.

The other is intellectually honest, acknowldging all information, and concluding that without rigorous scientific investigation, a conclusion cannot be drawn.

One is a materialist, the other, a scientist. Worlds apart.

[Spence Tepper]

Now, AR

to your other point, I agree you can hold multiple views compatibly...
you can be an Anti - Theist, hating all human constructions about God....

Or an Atheist without any beliefs in God or the supernatural...

And still be a mystic scientist exploring the range of human experience, inner and outer, and the human mind as it attends to different things...

And you can build all sorts of crazy beliefs as beliefs, belifs that are fun and helpful, but be rigorous in your pursuit of Truth And Fact.

And you

[Spence Tepper]

And you can hate organized religion for all its corruption and harm but love God as divine..

One is based on human behavior, selfish and or misunderstood.

The other is based on pure inspiration and its pursuit, following your bliss.

The two are only remotely related.

[Dungeness]

@ Sam Harris aficionados [ I did not have to believe anything irrational about the universe, or about my place in it, to learn the practice of Dzogchen. I didn't have to accept Tibetan Buddhist beliefs about karma and rebirth or imagine that Tulku Urgyen or the other meditation masters I met possessed magic powers. ]

Ah, I wonder if Harris' laundry list offers at least a partial
explanation for anti-theism. Words like 'don't have to believe',
and 'don't have to accept', suggest a natural antipathy for
blind faith. What better than to associate the 'thou shalt'
crowd with theists and take a match to the whole lot...
get a really hot blaze going for favorite straw men.

The irony is that authentic mystics disavow magic powers,
have the utmost humility, see themselves as servants
and ask to be seen only as a friend or advisor. Importantly,
they respect science, reject irrationality as well as blind
belief. All truth must be confirmed within including ideas of
god, karma, etc. They honor other paths to truth too and
only insist the right path to find it is within one's own
consciousness.

[Roger]

Create your own place in this world by stepping into it and engaging with it on your own terms and in accord with your own abilities.

You cannot be, other than what you are. The actuality of causality always provides the opportunity for you to develop, to improve your knowledge, your skills and your abilities if you engage with the world as an on-going learning opportunity. To do that, simply to please others, or seek their approval demeans the opportunity to realize your potential for authenticity.

Think your kindest thoughts. Speak your kindest words. Make your actions kind. When you do this, you will be aware that your conscience is clear and the mind will be at peace with itself, others and the world around it.

[Appreciative Reader]

Those four comments of yours, Spence, addressed to me: I agree with much of what you say, but my point is, why pack in all of that extraneous baggage on to the simple idea of atheism? What you're doing is going out of your way to construct a very detailed example of the "No True Scotsman", aren't you?

I mean, I myself am vegetarian, and bar occasional cheats and/or binges I generally eat healthy and in moderation. So say I go out out and proclaim to the world, that the True Vegetarian is one who eats healthy food and who tries to ensure, where possible, that the food is sourced ethically/organically (where possible, if not always). So then someone objects to my extravagant claim, and points out that vegetarianism per se has nothing to do with healthy eating, those are two separate things. Whereupon I prepare this powerpoint detaiing out the benefits of healthy eating and organic food and so on and so forth, and make the argument that merely eating vegetarian food may not be all that good for health if you go stuffing into your mouth whatever takes your fancy without looking at the content. And the content of my presentation would be correct enough, but none of that would have anything to do with vegetarianism per se. Right? Well, likewise.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR:
The reasons people don't believe in God are varied, and all honorable. But honorable only when each person owns what they are actually saying.

I point to the distinction between Atheism and Ant-Theism and suggest they are not the same at all and people should simply own their beliefs. I don't think it is intellectually honest to hide a virulent Anti-Religion perspective, which is not scientific, and may not be materialist, could be ethnocentric prejudice, behind the legitimate objectivity of Atheism.

And I also don't think it's honest to constantly mix up religion with spirituality. The two are worlds apart.

To your point about vegetarianism and Atheism,when someone says "I'm a vegetarian for health reasons" and lives on a diet of cookies and ice cream, we must say "au contraire". To which that person gets angry, and with cookies dripping from mouth claims "no I AM!!"

[Spence Tepper]

Nor is it honest to conflate spiritual teachers with swindlers, though swindlers may hide themselves as spiritual teachers, scientists, lawyers, Atheists, Presidents, etc...(in all political parties and forms of government and belief..)..

The fact there are photocopies out there in abundance only points to the fact that there are legitimate versions of these things, if we are willing to do the work to connect with them. The work starts within ourselves...and ends there, too.

[Appreciative Reader]

when someone says "I'm a vegetarian for health reasons" and lives on a diet of cookies and ice cream

..........Exactly my point. When someone says they're an atheist because they've given theism a more than fair shot and haven't experientially found theism validated, then, if they haven't done all of that, they're lying, sure. By all means go all french on them and tell them "au contraire" if you wish. Similarly, an atheist who claims to be teetotal, and yet sneaks in a quick beer when noone's looking, is lying. Again, an atheist who claims to be vegetarian, and yet goes out of town weekends to gorge on that succulent steak they serve at that out-of-the-way diner that none of his friends frequent, is a hypocrite.

None of which speaks to atheism per se.

It's as simple as can be: an atheist is someone who doesn't subscribe to theistic beliefs (at least if you're going by the more recent, modern sense that that word usually connotes). That's all. And an antitheist is someone who believes that, regardless of the truth value of theism, the overall effects of theism are baleful; so that he opposes theism not so much because it isn't true, but because because its effects are bad/harmful. That's all.

And none of this speaks to whether that position is rational or reasonable or whatever. A rational atheist is a rational atheist; an irrational atheist is an irrational atheist; a rational reasonable antitheist is a rational reasonable antitheist; and an irrational unreasonable antitheist is an irrational unreasonable antitheist. But both categories of atheists here are atheists, one no less than the other; and both categories of antitheists are antitheists, one no less than the other.

Sure, if you find someone pointing to the baleful effects of religion, and using that argument to advocate for atheism, then you'll be correct in pointing out to them that what they ought to be advocating, in that case, is not so much atheism as antitheism (because technically at any rate it is possible to be antitheist without subscribing to atheism --- although whether that technicality translates into actuality I don't really know, perhaps not, but whatever). By all means "au contraire" them at that point, and what's you can further explain to succinctly to them exactly why "Au contraire", by adding some Latin to go with the French, and saying, "Argumentum ad consequentiam". But that's only if you find them making specifically an effects-based argument and mistakenly using that to speak to the truth value of theism.

We've been through this already, haven't we, a year or three back?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote:
"And an antitheist is someone who believes that, regardless of the truth value of theism, the overall effects of theism are baleful; so that he opposes theism not so much because it isn't true, but because because its effects are bad/harmful. That's all."

Yes, I agree 100%. The Antitheist has a firm belief there can be no God, because any God within a very broad range of definitions would need to take 100% responsibility for all the shit that happens on "God's" watch.

There is great honor in that belief too. But it's not neutral.

[Dungeness]

@ App.R. [ It's as simple as can be: an atheist is someone who doesn't subscribe to theistic beliefs...]

Agreed but if words are to have a modicum of utility they must
illuminate dark corners rather than cast more shadows. An anti-
theist lurking in the benign, respectable house of atheism must
be identified and either evicted or hold a placard reading "I am
really an Anti-theist." Otherwise he may co-opt the soft atheist's
search for truth as well as confuse the hell out of everyone else.

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all." ― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

[Todd Chambers]

Guru yoga and Guru devotion are central to Dzogchen.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, um. Watched the Chogyal Namkhai Rinpoche video, finally.

I've posted two links to two more talks on Dzogchen, in the current thread, in case you're interested. Just some random talks, that some random google search threw up --- but it was a somewhat focused search, and of the ten odd vids that I selected from there to watch, these two were the more informative ones, the better ones.

As far as I can see, the effects of Dzogchen are not exclusive to that tradition. But its methods seem pruned, focused, to arrive at the no-self realization. That focus is what seems to set it apart. (That's per my very limited understanding so far, and I could be mistaken.)

[um]

# AR

These days AR, i find that I should not try to understand whatever is available that was born in another time, in another space, in another culture so alien to the world I happen to live in.

In the past I was very drawn to all these different traditions, as they are still alive in different indigenous tribes all over the world. Often it has been amazing to say the least as were for example the Documentaries made by the BBC on the spiritual life of the Kogi indians in Columbia.

It is all part of the decision sitting in the restaurants of the world, not to look at what others have on their plates, what others have to say about whatever goes on in the restaurant. What matters these days is just my own egocentric hunger and how to satisfy it in a simple way.

Getting older , not much is needed ... hahaha ... I should have understood this when I was still a teenager. Declutering one's own mind.

That said ..; I do like to listen to characters as there are Norbu rinpoche,. There is something in their body language that is very atractive, Their teaching doesn't interest me but the way he speaks about it does. These are in my opinion human beings that do not dress up with mental or spiritual feathers to show off.

[Roger]

@AR

".................... to arrive at the no-self realization."

-- Did you get the impression this arrival was a non-dualistic realization?? It seems to me, any arrival would be dualistic ...........

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, Roger.

First off, my thoughts on this are not informed by very detailed reading, and certainly not by first-hand experience, so let's both take my "impressions" with a pinch of salt!

Sam Harris's account does not give the impression that it was non-dual. His separate locus seems to have remained. What seems to have changed, at that time, is his identification with it

Mind, I'm not even sure this non-duality is even a thing. I can apprehend it intellectually, but I'm not sure you actually have it IRL. You may, I'm not dismissing the possibility; but again, maybe not. That is, an animalistic, or psychotic, loss of self is certainly likely to be fact; but whether it is a thing, in some higher sense, and something desirable something good something to be deliberately approached, that is something I'm middle-of-the-fence agnostic about.

[Roger]

Thanks AR,

I didn't expect you to understand the details of the reading. I certainly don't. What would be the identification of "no self" that Sam Harris mentions?? The years of dedicated Dzogchen meditation provides what identification of "no self" realization or awareness? Did you, through your readings, pick up on that? I wonder if there is someone, in this thread, that know?

[Appreciative Reader]

Roger, I’m a bit unclear what you’re asking. By “identification”, do you mean how would someone themselves identify that they were having a bona fide self-less moment, or do you mean how someone *else* may identify person X as having a self-less experience?

However, and although I ask you to clarify your question, but in any case I doubt I’ll myself be able to furnish the answer. I’m afraid my familiarity with Dzogchen is limited to these discussions Brian’s set out here, and some dozen or so video-lectures I’ve watched since then, so I really couldn’t say how that works for Dzogchen. I agree, it would be great if someone actually familiar with Dzogchen would weigh in here.

-------

Although I’m not familiar with Dzogchen per se, I’ve come across references to self-less-ness aplenty in other traditions (although nowhere else, other than Dzogchen, to my limited knowledge and understanding, is this the primary focus). The most dramatic instances of such that come to mind at this time are (a) in Paramahansa Yogananda’s accounts, and (b) in the accounts of some neo-Theosophists that I’ve read, and (c) writings and experiences of some Vipassana masters.

Some questions arise (not directly around what you ask, but perhaps not entirely unrelated):

(1) There’s two kinds of loss of self that one comes across in the literature, on one hand the annihilation or loss of a separate self, and on the other an expansion of the sense of self. Are the two equivalent, I wonder? (Obviously assuming that this loss of self is even a thing. There’s always the possibility that it is basically bull, let’s not lose sight of that possibility.)

(2) Is Dzogchen right in positing this as the primary focus of their practice? (Assuming I’m correctly interpreting Sam Harris and others as saying it is. I may be mistaken in parsing him in those terms, after all. Or it could be the case that Sam Harris himself may be mistaken in representing the tradition as such.) Or might it be, and as other traditions indicate, that that is only the starting point to a much larger journey (or a much larger process of realization)?

(3) How sure are we that this loss of self, if at all it is a thing, is something to be desired? It could be that it is something that happens spontaneously in some people, and in others brought about by using psychedelics and/or focused practice; but how sure are we that this isn’t some kind of psychosis?

(4) What exactly is the point of this no-self experience that Sam Harris advocates? (Some answers are actually put forward in the discussions both on here, as well as in the links presented; but a focused discussion around this question might be interesting and illuminating.)

Yeah, just some questions that came to mind, while reading your comment, that I thought to put down here. Should you, or anyone else, like to hazard answers --- either per Dzogchen, or else per some other tradition, or else just generally --- then have at it.

[Roger]

Thanks AR,

The "identification" issue came from your comment,

"Sam Harris's account does not give the impression that it was non-dual. His separate locus seems to have remained. What seems to have changed, at that time, is his identification with it."

I may have misunderstood such.

That said, I would like to communicate through comments, one brain to another brain. Therefore, please remove your "AR" self, and my "Roger" self from any further communications. Removing our self(s), we should begin to experience a freedom, a joy, a splendor ..................... a realization and awakening.

[Appreciative Reader]

Roger!

(Not the name, just the archaic Britishism!) :---))

[Roger]

brain(Roger) no-self to brain(AR)no-self: Confirmation noted .....................

[Tim Rimmer]

Hail AR
Aye that’s as fine an explanation as any for whether it’s loss/expansion - depends on what hemisphere you’re in! Haha - good one.

You raise some cool points in your recent post.
Re loss/expansion of self being the same thing? Certainly seems that way to me. Here’s my take on it - a number of those commenting on this blog quite likely see the self as illusory. Essentially (this ‘self) is just a bunch of thoughts. In ‘seeing’ that this is the case the usual, separate, ‘I’ self is lost so to speak. Looking at it in energetic terms: as identification with this I lessens, the energy involved in holding on to it is freed up and can be experienced as expansiveness. As you may know, this can happen to varying degrees in meditation. Hence, I would say the two things are more or less the same.
Rodney Smith puts it this way: ‘Returning to the thought and the thinker, as the thought is surrendered, the word comes to an end but not the energy contained in the thought. The energy within the thought now becomes available as formless awareness’, (Awakening, p.48).
Likewise In The Recognition Sutras, Wallis talks about how experiences (and the I’s take on them) are ‘digested’: ‘We can choose to be fully present with it, relax into it and even embrace it (without identifying with it and without making a story about it), and in this way we open the door to experiencing it as a form of divine Consciousness’ p.247 - I.e.Awareness/expansiveness.
Two authors with a good handle on this imo.
Is this loss of self thing something to be desired? Well yes and no in my experience - it seemingly wakes one up but then there’s been this hankering that goes on in the background, well for me anyway. However, folk on this blog probably suffer the same ‘affliction’ else they wouldn’t comment/visit.
In regard to how people are affected by such experiences, I’m just finishing a really interesting book by Paul Marshall called Mystical Encounters with the Natural World (that rascal Manjit put me onto it). It’s quite academic but goes into some depth about how what Marshall calls extrovertive mystical experiences, are experienced by and how they affect people. I believe Marshall supports the case for ‘extracerebral consciousness’. In another article (no. 3 pointed out by Spencer recently) he also favours the filter theory/reducing valve take on consciousness/ brain interaction. He says: ‘Filter theory continues to have value today as a philosophical antidote to the lazy assumption that the brain manufactures consciousness. At the very least it is a heuristic device that encourages us to think more deeply about the functioning of the brain. But it could be rather more too’ …..

As to the point of all this? Well in general terms if one adheres to the view that consciousness pre-exists and is inherent in all things then perhaps the point has to do with consciousness experiencing itself in a game of hide and seek? I think this is a useful approach. However on some days I wake up and find it hard to make sense of how crazy the world is atm.
Time for some food.
All the best.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hey, Tim. Thanks for weighing in!

What's the left-hemisphere-right-hemisphere thing again? Not sure I follow. Could you expand on that a bit?

For the rest, your explanation makes sense. Energy, or attention, freed up from identification with the self, then expands to a larger perspective. That makes great sense, and I like that explanation. (But of course, it's only a hypothesis. Just because we like an explanation doesn't make it true! But at this point, and doing what we're doing, I don't suppose we can progress to greater certainty than that; for that we'll need to do actual, organized, systematic science. Given where we are now, I'm with you, and find your explanation entirely plausible.)

-------

Agreed, most of us here probably do hanker after, as you say, something along these lines. Or at least to understand. Which is probably why we're all here, as you rightly point out. But what I was getting at is, while we all think it's cool, do we really know that this isn't simply some kind of hallucination, or some kind of psychosis? (Not saying for a minute that it is. Only raising the possibility. The only way to answer would be through actual science, I guess.)

Which sets me thinking, our science is grievously negligent of these questions. We keep exploring newer and newer frontiers in space and time and with all manner of technology, while somehow, God knows why, turning a blind eye to this wonder that is right within us. (When I say "wonder", I don't mean I'm buying into some extravagant explanation, I only mean that this is something well worth exploring, individually at a personal experiential level, and also factually using the methods of science. I wonder why that latter isn't happening, at least not to any significant and meaningful degree.)

-------

"Well in general terms if one adheres to the view that consciousness pre-exists and is inherent in all things then perhaps the point has to do with consciousness experiencing itself in a game of hide and seek? "

.......Sure, Tim. But that "If" there, though? It kind of puts things in perspective.

If we assume our premise, then all kinds of conclusions follow. If we assume the Christian story, then the Christian solution broadly follows. If we agree with the Sant Mat premise, then the Sant Mat solution broadly makes sense. Likewise, if we agree with the premise that consciousness is pre-existent and inherent, then what the sages who wrote the Mandukya Upanishad have said, so many centuries ago, does make sense, about the universe striving to know itself (or Brahma seeking to know itself, as they put it).

But does the premise actually hold? That's the million dollar question, isn't it? It's a good enough hypothesis, and the ancients have already worked out the kinks and made it (fairly) internally consistent; but it doesn't quite satisfy the test of evidence, does it? That POV may well be true; but I don't see that we have reasonable objective grounds to buy into it, so far.

-------

You mustn't mind me, Tim. We've talked before, and you know my difficulty with swallowing unevidenced explanations. The disagreements notwithstanding, it's a pleasure hearing your ideas and thoughts, always!

[Appreciative Reader]

In fact, Tim, it occurs to me, with the self-less experience you've had yourself, and that you've spoken of here both recently and a few times in the past as well, you can directly weigh in, first-hand, on one of those questions. Not just in general terms, but in ways that might actually go some way to making a difference to how we reasonably see these things.

Can you speak of what difference that experience made to you? In general terms, as well as in specific terms, in fact in whatever context as appears meaningful to you? (Only if, and to the extent, you're comfortable discussing this personal matter, of course!)

Your insights might go some way in clarifying the "why" question (as well as, of course, the more basic "if at all" question) for us. Maybe not necessarily conclusively, but still.

[Appreciative Reader]

From the main article, Brian, where quote Sam Harris:

"I came to Tulku Urgyen yearning for the experience of self-transcendence, and in a few minutes he showed me that I had no self to transcend. "

..........Was re-reading you post, Brian. And this, what I've quoted, I think is the key part to this entire discussion, spanning more than one thread. Absolutely, it was great to get know about how Sam Harris views self, and the whole Dzogchen thing, all that. I don't know if he's ever spoken or written about this at all --- a very quick Google search didn't unearth anything --- but if the exact mechanism of how exactly it happened that "in a few minutes (the Tulku) showed (Harris) that (he) had no self to experience", then that would clarify the whole issue.

Was it simply a discussion, where the Tulku basically convinces Harris with argument? Kind of like Osho Robbins was trying to do? If that is the case, then what exactly was the content of that discussion?

On the other hand, Sam Harris does speak of a literal experience out there in the desert around Jerusalem, where his experience of self literally drops away. The experience itself, not just the intellectual apprehension. So there's a chance that he might have been saying something like that had happened to him as a result of what the Tulku did or said to him, just maybe. Again, the exact details of what happened, and the mechanism of what happened, would be good to know in that case.

-------

I don't know if Sam Harris has ever clearly written or spoken about this. If ever he has, and if you know about it, Brian --- or anyone else who's read Sam Harris in detail ---- then it would be great to know about it. Even, I don't know, if you happen to actually know the guy, then actually asking him might be an idea. Because, as I see it, this is the central core of this whole discussion, the one single input that would be more clarifying as to Sam Harris's message, than the reams and reams of other stuff he's written and said. By saying which I'm not disparaging those "reams", I personally have found them very interesting --- inspirational even, like I've commented elsewhere --- but this focused piece of information would be more useful than the heaps of more general talk, and the whole mass of discussion by us that we then put up around such general talk.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
Please excuse my commenting on your question to Brian Ji with my own thoughts...

"Was it simply a discussion, where the Tulku basically convinces Harris with argument? Kind of like Osho Robbins was trying to do? If that is the case, then what exactly was the content of that discussion?

" On the other hand, Sam Harris does speak of a literal experience out there in the desert around Jerusalem, where his experience of self literally drops away."

There is the conceptual understanding that we are all bags of chemicals, vulnerable and of limited duration, and the experience of seeing this from another external perspective...

And witnessing another view of spirit and people who exist in altogether different forms from a separate perspective.

There is our psychology. There is our physiology, and our beliefs about these, and our different experiences.

What does it mean? Which is real and which is illusion?

Mystic experiences are also there, in that mix.

There are several ways to get to the same conclusion. But each, based on different experiences, will have a different flavor.

The only problem I have with Harris is trying to coopt what others have experienced and explain it differently than they did.

He is trying, as we all do, to understand the concept of no - self within the context of his own experience. But those concepts can come from a much broader range of experiences and that means that they will also lead to different levels of depth and wisdom on the subject.

Trying to constrain other's experience to the tiny span of our own, because this is where we sit, is fine and natural.

But it isn't Dzogchen. Dzogchen is going beyond thought to pure and direct perception and understanding. I've provided direct links to classic Dzogchen teachings earlier which support this. That is of course viewing things from a completely different place than conventional conceptual thinking. Dualistic thinking.

Thinking about... Is what Harris has gotten so far in his own interpretation and experience, at this point in time.

I believe the greatest Master shares freely what they have, but they live as a model student.

We don't need to learn how to see and think as a Teacher does. We need to learn how to grow as students seeing better what we see, expanding that, raising that. So I think the best teachers don't try to tell you what someone else meant or experienced.

They tell you what they experienced, and provide the method for your practice, and any guidance you will need to see for yourself and interpret for yourself what you have not seen before.

Just exactly what you are asking about, if I understood correctly.... Which of course I haven't because . [add comments here ;)]

What you consider Woo is just the daily experience in other's lives, in part as a result of their practice.

One woman's Woo is another woman's reality.

In fact anything that isn't in one's daily experience can be seen as Woo, until it becomes their daily experience. Is no - self a hallucination? Could be. It would be much more tangible and interesting as a hallucination you could consciously explore, rather than just a mental concept, an Dualistic argument, an abstraction from other accepted assumptions and notions. The end of a long verbal proof of an idea... Which is still entirely dependent upon accepted premeses. And leads to no actual new experience, more valid, deeper experience of reality than the controlled hallucination we live in. Actual libertarian from that controlled hallucination.

Of course it might still be Woo. But it is a Woo you can investigate and test for yourself.

Woo might be pretty cool, experienced up close.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hi, Spence. No no, absolutely, your views are most welcome.

One qualification, though. What you say is what you think and say. What I was asking for there, is basically what Sam Harris might have to say on that question --- basis others' views, naturally, since we're not speaking with Harris directly, or if we're lucky then basis Harris's direct quotes on that question, but Harris's view nevertheless. But, that said, and that qualification clearly spelt out, absolutely, and like I said, your views --- to be engaged with on their own terms, and engaged with separately from the above question --- are most welcome, as always.

-----

"...witnessing another view of spirit and people who exist in altogether different forms from a separate perspective..."

Was that a reference to your own mystical experiences? Could you flesh that out some? What kinds of people, what kinds of forms?

-----

"The only problem I have with Harris is trying to coopt what others have experienced and explain it differently than they did."

..........But that's a separate discussion, right? And has nothing to do with what I asked? The part I'd wanted to focus on was about what Sam Harris had to say about what was fully wholly entirely his own experience. (This is not to dismiss your observation for that reason, not in the least, but only to make sure I understand you correctly. If this bears on what I'd said, then I'm afraid I didn't quite follow, and perhaps you could expand on that a bit?)

..........

"Woo might be pretty cool, experienced up close."

.......You know I endorse that view fully. With some qualifications, though, in as much as it *is* woo:

(1) My own personal experience of such, and not just hearsay. (I know, that carries a price. I'm willing to pay that price, within reason. I do already, as you know.)

(2) But that still isn't enough. If I did have, myself, the kind of experiences you have, sure that would shake me up, but I don't think I'd abandon a rational worldview as a result. I'd try my best to see how those experiences might be explained. I'd take the RSSB explanation as a possible hypothesis, but given how extravagant that worldview is, I'd first need to rule out more commonplace explanations, like, I don't know, random neural activity, psychosis, self-induced hallucination, u.s.w. (But of course, I'm sitting here saying this *now*. As you'd remarked to um in a comment recently, it is difficult to say with certainty what effect such an experience might have on one and on one's thinking, until such time as such actually happens!)

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
In pursuit of Woo, you can take a rational approach.
It's all about meditation practice. You know that a variety of methods have been proven clinically to produce healthy outcomes, so it is generally safe.

This is based upon a simple theory, that as conventional thinking is put aside, a higher experience takes place. Experience of what? Could be a whole range of things. Could be higher thinking. Or, even beyond that, light and sound. Scenes, people, stars, outer space. Maybe even the earth from space! What matters is getting to the lab within you.

That practice involves quieting the mind, quitting thoughts. Different practices use different approaches. Focusing on something benign is one way to withdraw attention from conventional thinking.

Withdrawing from the world, into a place inside you. There is some discipline involved.

The key is to have a foothold, so that as you attempt to use that practice you become aware of changes. A sense of peace and calm, a sense that you are present in a place that is immense in size, pleasant. And thoughts becoming less intense, less emotional, until, like morning dew, they evaporate. And you are now somewhere else.

Keep a journal.
"Experiments in Woo."

[Appreciative Reader]

That's a great suggestion, Spence. Wise even.

And the title? Absolutely epic!

If I do --- and absolutely, there's no good reason why I shouldn't, and every reason why I should, and I'd have no cause but inertia and/or lethargy if I didn't --- then, if I one day ended up doing a Paul Brunton with those notes, or if like that neo-Theosophist whose name I forget other people ended up doing it for me one day, then I'll make sure it's attributed! :---)

----------

Circling back to the people and forms, would you like to go into specifics? It's fine if for whatever reason you don't. Just, it might be interesting if you did.

What I'm wondering is how we can be sure that the content of visions of this nature are externally based. After all dreams can be pretty vivid too, and pretty much far out; so do we have any compelling reason to conclude that these are a whole different category of visions? (Or are you, personally, agnostic about that?)

[um]

@AR

The conveyor belt technique.
Search for scientific explanations of discoveries made by people at a conveyor belt and how these people given an other job to do never had these experiences again.

It will explain the practice of concentration in meditation by setting a part of the awareness aside for an simple repetitive activity so that the rest can be free.

All techniques I know of are based upon it.

It also does happen spontaneous in daily driving routine in the car ... realizing that you forgot time etc.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello there, um.

Sure, what you say above; but what I was wondering is, what is the *source* of those visions? The *content* of them, where exactly do they spring from? If it is merely the subconscious, then that's basically like dreams, that is, the mind doing its thing. Or might it be something else? What reasons have to conclude the latter, those among us that do conclude the latter?

Of course, we could view them as perhaps emanating from a depth within the subconscious that is not otherwise accessible in general. That's one way to go. Of course, we'd need that evidenced; but, that apart, even if that were true, that's still the mind doing its thing, isn't it? What good reason might we have of thinking of these visions as having any connection with anything outside of us, other than in the sense that the mind might be playing with impressions already received, again as in dreams?

Hearing about the specifics of the forms and people Spence spoke of might help address that, at least in his specific case. And, that apart, simply hearing about those forms and people might be interesting reading, in itself and independent of any deeper analysis around them.

[um]

@ AR
Sure, what you say above; but what I was wondering is, what is the *source* of those visions?<<

Who cares I would say.
There are people that doubt if the world we live in does exist apart from our consciousness. That debate has been there for long and not resolved as far as I know.
Whether there or in our brain etc, we happen to live in that world.

As far as I came to understand, those that have these experiences attribute the cause of the experience into the experience themselves and in all cases beyond themselves.

Remember what I wrote several times about the content of the experiences of Abraham and others. I have the feeling people think it is about the content but that was and is not the reason I wrote about it. What I wanted to put on the table is the fact that these experiences are always personal and unique and .... mostly related to external situation in terms of solutions. What I wanted to stress is the fact that these claims based upon these experiences, important and very far reaching claims, are never repeated or worse given notice of to others in the world that have to bear the consequences as well.

And ...AR, ... just think a moment what would be the outcome of these inner experiences and the claims based upon them ... WITHOUT .... the believers

Or more mundane ... what would Trump be without his claque??

Just think.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You asked
"What I'm wondering is how we can be sure that the content of visions of this nature are externally based. After all dreams can be pretty vivid too, and pretty much far out; so do we have any compelling reason to conclude that these are a whole different category of visions? (Or are you, personally, agnostic about that?)"

The problem with this question has to do with the relationship between the you that experiences, and the mind that tries to draw conclusions.

I do like what Um wrote above, when he said" who cares? "

A dream is problematic because you normally can't stop to have a discussion with the people in that dream. You can't explore and develop that relationship once the dream ends.

If there are people in the dream you know who are alive your can certainly verify with them that they never said or did the things you dreamed they did.

But you can't have that conversation with the characters in your dream directly.

But in advanced meditation you can.

Then that becomes its own exploration.

Anything people experienced, even NDEs, is meaningless if you can't go back there and into that experience when you like. Even if it was "real" it's meaningless, because it isn't persistent.

But how much better and more interesting if you can. Then you are dealing with something real, an internal reality you can explore, test and enjoy at your will and discretion.

For that, you must master the skill of withdrawing from the senses, which occupy so much conscious awareness, so that you have a space in your consciousness, an empty space of peace and contentment, which will automatically be filled with new experience. At some point you may realize the great utility and assistance in that endeavor of a beloved Teacher.

Learn to come in and go out at will.

"I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture."
John 10:9

[manjit]

Hi samharrisishumanlikeallofus,

You appear to be channeling your inner David Lane! Tis okay, that's a fairly common symptom of online RS commenters. :)

Of course, both your username and post contain such obvious statements that they're somewhat redundant or superfluous. If anyone isn't already aware of these common sense notions, one really must wonder how they managed to get online and post a comment without rendering themselves unconscious from all the mental effort?

To get down to specifics, what exactly is does Sam Harris have to offer which is of "value"? Is it his entirely derivative, entirely unoriginal and entirely outdated views on free-will? Perhaps it is his made up, simplistic pseudo-meditations which he ridiculously and absurdly, and entirely non-sequitur-ly, labels "Dzogchen"? There is literally completely ignorant posters on this site (presumably including the blog owner), who knowing less than nothing about actual Dzogchen have mistakenly taken Sam Harris' bizarre claims about his "meditation" being somehow related to Dzogchen, believe it ACTUALLY is. This would be highly amusing if it wasn't so profoundly delusional and misleading. Treckcho, Thodgal, Thigle, Kati Channel.....THIS IS DZOGCHEN, not that made up fluff and nonsense Sam Harris is manipulatively and factually erroneously attempting to associate with Dzogchen. It is so wrong that "lies" isn't the correct word, but "absurd" and "nonsensical" are.

Or perhaps it is something else of "value" in his ceaseless & smug self-promotion? You see, I question there is anything of value in his words......CERTAINLY, and I do mean CERTAINLY, there is nothing original or non-hacked from far greater and original thinkers in his thoughts.....all derivative and unoriginal. Furthermore, what value in his "insights" and made up and falsely mislabeled "meditations" when he has no comprehension of his own mental flaws, fears, biases, prejudices etc? Lots and lots of talk from the man, but what substance beyond his ability to promote himself and his made-up meditations to gullible and ignorant listeners?

In this thread above, Brian has dug out my original post with 20 odd links to examples of Sam Harris' prejudicial, ignorant, factually incorrect, racist, right wing ideology.

Y'all may find something of worth in this hack's words. Me? I go with the words of Rumi, which can be applied to a few more people around here than just Sam Harris.....but I am very much an each to their own ignorance sort of person ;)

"When setting out on a journey, do not seek advice from those who have never left home."
Rumi