Collection
Publication
Description
For the millions of Americans who want spirituality without religion, Sam Harris's new book is a guide to meditation as a rational spiritual practice informed by neuroscience and psychology. Waking Up is for the 30 percent of Americans who follow no religion, but who suspect that Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Rumi, and the other saints and sages of history could not have all been epileptics, schizophrenics, or frauds. Throughout the book, Harris argues that there are important truths to be found in the experiences of such contemplatives -- and, therefore, that there is more to understanding reality than science and secular culture generally allow. Waking Up is part seeker's memoir and part exploration of the scientific underpinnings of spirituality.… (more)
User reviews
The book is in part memoir of Harris’ own spiritual journey. He credits early drug experiences with offering him the perspective that there is more joy to be found in life than he had previously understood. He subsequently spent many years with Buddhist teachers in Asia. Harris came away with a Buddhist meditation practice that he regards as among the most important of spiritual tools.
To me, the first chapter on spirituality is a useful encapsulation of the problem of happiness and Buddhist perspectives on it. Harris then attempts to integrate his Buddhist practice and his experiences with his knowledge of Western science, especially neuroscience, and philosophy. I find this part of his thinking less useful. He offers tools for beginning a meditation practice, and a structure for thinking about spirituality without appeal to faith. Overall, he has performed a valuable service.
Perhaps he owes us this much after all the opprobrium he has heaped upon traditional religions!
The book is mostly written in a calm and serious style. There were only a few paragraphs that remained unintelligible gibberish to me; a problem that seems unavoidable when discussing meditation/spirituality. Sometimes the author has strong opinions but not so strong that I would have considered it awkward; others surely will.
I believe that I really learned something from the book. I know of no other text that identifies a unique purpose of meditation/spirituality so clearly.
If you've never heard of Sam Harris, but are curious about the confluence of two seemingly opposite realms, spirituality and atheism, then expect Waking Up to be a mixed bag. The discussion will range from technical descriptions of neurology to philosophical/metaphysical pondering of the self. Some chapters will yield much more appeal than others. Just not all of it, I'm guessing.
I have a hard time
I think his views on ego, and the self, and consciousness is.... a bit .... un-erudite but trying to be erudite? (See what I did there?) He overly poses things scholarly at times with some things that don't have a scholarly background, which I can get his attempts at doing -- trying to make scientific that which never was before. Thats fine and noble... but you need to do a lot more than anecdotal (ie. [not verbatim] this one time I had a bad LSD trip on a boat off shore in Kathmandu, but all of my prior times were perfectly great on it). He does have a very lengthy list of sources and many of them look interesting to look up, but a fair bit of what he speaks of is about his times with this guru or that meditation center, or this learning, or that learning. And while that's all interesting, and fascinating, it doesn't provide the depth to what he's trying to pass off as it should - or maybe as he thinks it should. And I think thats a bit of where Harris's ego comes into play with this, because he's definitely one of the many notable writers with an ego that works into his writings, (see his friend Hitchens), so because of his ego he assumes we should take his views as scientific fact immediately, and due to that ego we (as readers) almost view it in the opposite light (insofar at least I do).
I definitely think I was expecting a little bit (maybe a lot?) more out of this than there was, and it wraps up and ends rather quickly without a huge concrete conclusion. The overall thesis of it is a bit muddled and his thoughts are good... but it does go downhill as the work progresses.
I'm still not sure how to fully think about this or to summarize it even, I am definitely planning on checking out some of his sources, and I really do think there is a lot more to go (scientifically as a community) on our research into the 'ego' and conscious [brain] and consciousness, especially in the mind/self departments.
Now, I should allow that I started reading this in a "mood", and the mood was exacerbated by just finishing Buddhist Boot Camp. I was hoping that Harris could banish that silliness with some intellectual discourse worth considering. Maybe lead me in a good direction on a troubling question of mine: what is the secular equivalence of "spirituality"? Had I not known his particular position with respect to religion, his protestations and assurances that he was not speaking in such terms throughout this book would have appeared to be lip service. This is fuzzy stuff unbecoming a critical thinker. And this is a meandering essay on the "illusion of self" and alleged benefits of mediation and...
Well, let's just say I am annoyed that I read it through, hoping for something redeeming only to have my initial anticipation dashed and my disdain build through the reading.
Apart from my issues with the premise and text, I found some of the writing disturbing...example:“Arranging atoms in certain ways appears to bring about an experience of being that very collection of atoms. This is undoubtedly one of the deepest mysteries given to us to contemplate”.
(Emphasis mine.) "given to us"??? By whom? Typical piss-poor choices of words like that from amateurs open the door for nutcases to distort and undermine intellectual discourse. It's worse when they come from one of Harris's particular pedigree. "Given" implies an outside agency. Maybe that's nitpicking, but even a favorable confirmation bias couldn't get past it.
So it turns out this is a mix of meditation nonsense and things I already knew about the brain. I'm (I assume obviously) not a neuroscientist, but I've read a bit on some of the research refuting Sperry with respect to his so-called "split brain" conclusions. Harris perpetuates them.
And meditation? What the hell is this supposed to mean? We wouldn’t attempt to meditate, or engage in any other contemplative practice, if we didn’t feel that something about our experience needed to be improved.
Really? I can't "contemplate" because I want to think about something? Almost set it aside again after that. But I persisted.
Harris also seems to have some strange love affair with philosophers. This jars my sensibilities, as my confirmation bias on that front is in complete opposition. I consider the career choice of thinking about thinking or some "meaning of life" an abrogation of intellect.
Now, his notes were good. I like well sourced writings with actual, direct references. Too many lazy authors don't source, or don't footnote, preferring instead to provide none or only as detached endnotes. So...one good point to recommend. And it keeps this from getting just one star.
I couldn't help wondering if maybe I had the wrong Sam Harris, but he references the writings of the Sam Harris I thought I was reading. Advocating not thinking? Jeez. I've read enough Buddhist BS on that nonsense to drive anyone with a brain nuts. Thinking is a moral imperative. Not thinking is an affront to the intellect. Reading Harris push it? Yeah...no.
I'm glad this is not the first Harris book I've read. Were it so, there would be no more. As it is, I have to keep looking for someone smarter on the subject of spiritual equivalency with religion. And I have docked him credibility points. A lot.
Don't mistake my generous two stars. This is not a book anyone should read.
Convoluted, confusing, incoherent. Using false dilemmas to make points. Using outliers as examples why non-outliers need to be seen different. Wordy and unconvincing. All in all, very disappointing, discouraging.
I still really need to sit down with somebody who practices these things and ask all my questions.
I guess first
And if you can alter your consciousness and see that the self is an illusion, if this is a way to mitigate anxiety and bad feelings, doesn't it get rid of the good feelings too? Why would you want to live that way?
It's sold as a way to get off the hedonic treadmill. We are constantly chasing pleasure, avoiding pain, bounced around among our emotions, seeking something that can never be permanent. Yup. That's called the HUMAN CONDITION. The pursuit of happiness... it's what life is ABOUT. I don't get why you'd want to spend the effort fighting human nature, eliminating the joy that comes from achieving goals and looking forward to the future and looking back at happy times, in exchange for some steady state of emotion-free selflessness.
I know I'm not getting it entirely. That's why I need to sit down with somebody.
I really do appreciate Harris' efforts here. He is against every form of faith-based religion and claims nothing that is not empirically testable. My readings here and elsewhere about meditation and psychedelic use have 'opened my mind' a bit - to the extent I actually can read about Buddhism and meditation without running away screaming (much).
One exercise I did enjoy much was about "having no head." You can't see your head. Try pretending you don't have one. Just pretend for a moment, don't dwell on it. Look around. How does the world look? Douglas Harding: "This hole where a head should have been, was no ordinary vacancy, no mere nothing... It was a vast emptiness vastly filled, a nothing that found room for everything: room for grass, trees, shadowy distant hills..." Trippy.
The last chapter was out of step with the rest of the book and I drew very little from it.
Harris discussed many topics
As a scientist the author evaluated a variety of practices while attempting to explore consciousness. For him people didn’t have to be religious to reap these benefits. But Harris’s own approach to meditation had to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. That is why as an atheist he didn’t think much about the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam that based many of their beliefs on faith.
Harris’s book will shake up what believers think about their religion. And although the writer found benefits in meditation, still he exposes some of the Far Eastern gurus that were nothing more than charlatans. So Waking Up isn’t a book that is promoting any religious belief, but its contents are geared to those who wish to reap the benefits of meditation without a religion. So this guide to spirituality without religion should be read by believers and non-believers alike, who wish to tap into consciousness by submerging “I” in their thinking, and showing compassion towards others.
In general I take issue with movement atheists and therefore did not get on with Harris for the first chapter or so. I feel that secularism conceals a lot of hidden biases and falls into the trap of assuming
I did enjoy his discussions of neuroscience and philosophy and was really excited for the rest of the book. However, once we got to the meat of his argument about meditation, I was literally frustrated to tears. His insistence on the illusion of the self only filled me with a kind of existential anxiety. I feel certain he is onto something, but I was simply unable to grok his explanation or figure out how I could possibly come to this conclusion on my own via meditation.
Undoubtedly this would be a great book for the right reader, but I need something about meditation and mindfulness that's more guided and less didactic and will allow me to develop my own vocabulary and best practices for understanding and regulating my mind.