Part 2 of the review of Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by Sam Harris

Read Part 1

Science

Another problem which adds to the book’s confusion is the attempt to utilize science, supposedly to improve upon or correct the ancient (and therefore bound to be mistaken) views of the original philosophies (be these Advaita or Buddhism). Harris explains that “Throughout this book, I discuss certain classical spiritual phenomena, concepts, and practices in the context of our modern understanding of the human mind.” Why would one want to do this? It is missing the point completely. The truth cannot be found in the mind; rather the mind is a tool with which we may discover the truth.

I explain in my article ‘Science and Consciousness’ that science can never explain the nature of ‘I’ because I am the subject, doing the investigating. The subject can never objectify himself. It is true that I can investigate both the body and the mind because I am neither of these. But this also means that understanding the human mind is not going to help in an ‘investigation’ of spirituality; it is simply not relevant to ‘who I really am’. Furthermore, if Harris is ‘talking about the nature of experience itself’, he is not talking about ‘I’, since I am the experiencer. Finding out about household electric light circuits and how they work tells me nothing at all about the one who operates the light switch.

In common with most scientists, Harris assumes as axiomatic a) that there is a world; b) that man has evolved; c) that the brain is the seat of consciousness etc. How can anyone with such a blinkered approach investigate ‘spirituality’? He says “If spirituality is to become part of science, however, it must integrate with the rest of what we know about the world.” This is entirely the wrong way round. If we are to have any hope of understanding the nature of reality and of our Self, we have to be prepared to suspend our preconceived notions of what is ‘real’ and be open-minded to concepts which are initially counter-intuitive. “We are such stuff as yeasts are made of”, he says. No ­– our bodies are such stuff; we are not the body… or mind!

Advaita

He devotes many pages of discussion to divided brains and the problems that he sees this phenomenon as posing. In fact, it poses no problems at all to Advaita’s explanation of Consciousness; it actually supports it! Consciousness is one and the same, whether in two sides of a split brain or in different people altogether. ‘Who you are’ is neither side of the brain! Such a presentation should not be possible in a book by an author who claims to understand Advaita. (Actually, he does concede that he does not understand Advaita, but this admission is hidden away in the Notes, where most readers will not find it, There, he says that “Purists will insist on important differences among the various schools of Buddhism and the tradition of Advaita Vedanta developed by Shankara. Although I touch upon some of these differences, I do not make much of them. I consider the differences to be generally a matter of emphasis, semantics, and (irrelevant) metaphysics –and too esoteric to be of interest to the general reader.” This is an incredible admission for someone writing a book such as this, giving the reader to understand that it is a book deserving to be read!) There are significant differences, and Shankara specifically refutes the beliefs of other philosophies in his commentary on Brahmasutras and elsewhere.

Harris refers to ‘Advaita and Buddhism’ in several places, as though they belong to the same class. This is like comparing bananas with vegetables. Fruit and vegetables might perhaps be legitimately compared regarding, for example, average cost of production and distribution, nutritional value etc. But to compare all vegetables with a single fruit is not meaningful. Hinduism comprises various philosophies, just as there are differing beliefs in the several branches of Buddhism. If Harris wishes to make comparisons, he must be much more specific about what, precisely, he is comparing.

He excuses his failure to cover either in any depth at all by claiming that he is looking for the ‘diamond’ amongst the presumed mainly detritus that forms the bulk of most ‘religions’. He says that, rather than ‘arrogance’, this approach is a ‘symptom of impatience’. He wants to “focus on the most promising lines of spiritual enquiry”. However, in order to be able to do this legitimately, one requires an in-depth understanding to begin with. Harris’ statements purporting to present ideas from Advaita, at least, demonstrate that he does not have such in-depth knowledge. Accordingly, any accusation of ‘arrogance’ would indeed be justified.

It is scarcely surprising that he is lacking in understanding of the fundamental concepts of Advaita given that his background is limited to spending time with Sri Poonja and studying some of Ramana Maharshi’s writing/dialogs. Ramana did not belong to a saMpradAya (teacher-disciple lineage) and thus had no formal experience of explaining the scriptural texts. Poonja was a sometime disciple of Ramana and both of them are principally responsible, along with Nisargadatta Maharaj, for propagating the highly unsatisfactory method of ‘satsang’ teaching to the West. Also, Poonja knew very much less about traditional Advaita than Ramana, so the fact that he was “even more uncompromising than his guru” carries little weight! (Harris refers to him as “one of the greatest living exponents of Advaita Vedanta”! This is so far wide of the mark that it very clearly highlights Harris’ ignorance of the subject to anyone who is genuinely familiar with the teaching.) Harris praises Poonja, saying that: “He appeared to simply speak from experience about the nature of experience itself.” It is not at all obvious what this means. What assertion is possible from someone who is ‘uncompromisingly non-dualistic’? (See my book ‘Enlightenment: the Path through the Jungle’ for a criticism of non-traditional methods of teaching Advaita Vedanta.)

As an example, Harris makes sarcastic reference to Hinduism: “If Christians insist that Jesus Christ is the son of God, for instance, Hindus can make him yet another avatar of Vishnu without losing any sleep.” But, had he studied Advaita to any depth, he would know that adhyAropa-apavAda is fundamental to its teaching. Thus, there are many stages to its presentation; teachers utilize those elements which are appropriate to the level of understanding of the student. Concepts such as karma and rebirth are indeed taught in the early stages – but they are rescinded later when the student is ready to accept that who-he-really-is (Consciousness) has never even be born so that the idea of rebirth makes no sense.

Furthermore, he never mentions, and is presumably unaware of, the fundamental distinction between absolute and empirical reality (paramArtha and vyavahAra) in Advaita. Indeed, he says that Advaita is described as ‘non-dualistic’ “because it refuses to validate the point of view from which one would meditate or practice any other spiritual discipline”. This is simply not true. Traditional Advaita specifically advocates a number of practices, including meditation, and states that, without a reasonable level of proficiency in these, one will not be able to take on board the teaching. Certainly the absolute truth is that reality is non-dual but equally it is recognised that all of our experience is to the contrary. He concludes that, “since Consciousness is already free of anything that remotely resembles a self, there is nothing that you can do, as an illusory ego, to realize this”.   This is doubly wrong. Firstly, you are not the ego, you are that Consciousness! Secondly, there is a lot that you (as the jIva) can do. In addition to performing the preliminary practices, as already mentioned, you can listen to a qualified teacher unfolding the proven teaching of the scriptures.

*** Go to Part 3 ***