Here is another old book review, this one from just over 10 years ago. It is for the book Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by Sam Harris.
It is an even longer review than the last, so will require at least 3 parts. Here is Part 1.

The Meaning of the Word ‘Spiritual’

Regardless of how well a book is written, and how interesting its content, if it is non-fiction it seems that its value should be judged upon how successfully it achieves its stated objective. As far as potential readers are concerned, the objective is traditionally determined from a book’s title. And, in this case, it appears that the intended purpose of this book is to teach us about ‘Spirituality’ whilst avoiding any ‘religious’ overtones.

This tells us that the author acknowledges that ‘spirituality’ is usually associated with religion. It suggests that, not only does he believe that it need not be so associated, but also he thinks that he can teach us about spirituality without needing to say anything at all about religion. Before starting to read the book, therefore, it would be useful to know exactly what is meant by the term ‘spirituality’.

Here are a few definitions, direct from dictionaries located on Google:

Cambridge Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus – the quality that involves deep feelings and beliefs of a religious nature, rather than the physical parts of life.

Collins English Dictionary –

1. the state or quality of being dedicated to God, religion, or spiritual things or values, esp as contrasted with material or temporal ones
2. the condition or quality of being spiritual
3. a distinctive approach to religion or prayer   ⇒ the spirituality of the desert Fathers
4. (often plural) Church property or revenue or a Church benefice

Merriam-Webster – the quality or state of being concerned with religion or religious matters: the quality or state of being spiritual.

Longman – the quality of being interested in religion or religious matters.

The title begins to look a little ambitious; somewhat akin to ‘A guide to coffee without coffee beans’! However, it is possible to consider the word ‘spiritual’ in a more general sense: “Relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things” (Oxford Dictionaries). And this brings us down to a more fundamental distinction between ‘matter’ and ‘spirit’. The ‘Oxford Companion to Philosophy’ edited by Ted Honderich (Oxford, 1995, ISBN 0-19-866132-0) states that “The original idea of a spirit is of a disembodied agent, as an immaterial soul or a non-material, intelligent power… When we talk now of the spiritual… we refer typically to the kind of emotion one might have toward God or some other factor beyond one’s material life.”

It is an unfortunate fact that many words in the English language have been devalued in modern times. Meanings have changed (maybe because lots of people who do not know the correct meaning are propagating their misunderstanding via the Internet), just as correct spelling is now seen to be less important in schools (maybe because of abbreviated and codified spelling in SMS texts). If one calls someone a ‘spiritual person’, this may well simply be because they are vegetarian and read books about crystals and angels.

Here is how Sam Harris uses the term:

“Yes, to walk the aisles of any ‘spiritual’ bookstore is to confront the yearning and credulity of our species by the yard, but there is no other term – apart from the even more problematic ‘mystical’ or the more restrictive ‘contemplative’ – with which to discuss the efforts people make, through meditation, psychedelics, or other means to fully bring their minds into the present or to induce nonordinary states of consciousness.”

I suggest that, for a book intending to teach us about spirituality, it is extremely important that the author know precisely what it is. In contrast, another book with this word in the title provides an extremely clear explanation (‘Law of Love and The Mathematics of Spirituality’, Raju Sitaram Chidambaram, AuthorHouse, 2011. ISBN 978-1-4567-9499-6.):

“The terms spirit and matter are widely used in Western Philosophies. The two terms can be best understood by the ‘seer-seen’ distinction central to Vedanta: spirit is concerned with the ‘seer’ whereas matter is everything ‘seen’. The seer itself cannot be seen, asserts Vedanta. The spiritual life of an individual is the something distinct from its worldly life. The worldly life of an individual consists of transactions at the physical level performed with the aid of its sense organs and organs of action, as well as reactions at the mental level, such as thoughts and emotions…

“The spiritual life of a jiva, on the other hand, has the primary goal of knowing the truth about one’s own self, the world, and the Ultimate Reality (Brahman) underlying both the self and the world…

“The happiness in worldly life is obtained through finite actions which can only produce finite results. Therefore worldly happiness is never permanent or complete… In contrast, the peace sought after in spiritual life is obtained through knowledge, and not action, and is both total and permanent.”

It is my underlining in the last sentence, and this is key to my criticisms of the book under review. Harris clearly appreciates the correct meaning because he also states at one point that “Deepening that understanding (of the way things are) and repeatedly cutting through the illusion of the self, is what is meant by ‘spirituality’ in the context of this book.” Unfortunately, there is little evidence that he subsequently follows this guidance. We can never find out the truth about ourselves and the nature of reality through meditation, drugs or any of the other ‘actions’ or ‘experiences’ spoken of by Sam Harris. According to a correct definition of the term spiritual – ‘relating to our true self as opposed to body or mind’ – a more appropriate title for the book might have been: “Improving your body-mind without Spirituality”.

Experience versus Knowledge

The purpose of ‘spiritual’ disciplines, such as meditation, is to prepare the mind to be able to assimilate words of truth provided by others. Our perceptions and thoughts are always going to be dualistic – how could they be otherwise? Therefore, how could any experience give us realization of the non-dual nature of reality?

He says that: “One can… experience the advertised changes in one’s consciousness”, as a result of self-inquiry; and, with regard to the ‘truths of Eastern Spirituality’, “we are merely talking about human consciousness and its possible states”. The fact is that who-we-really-are is nothing to do with changes in consciousness. Indeed, all states of consciousness, including the most sublime ‘nirvanic’ ones are equally mithyA, meaning that they have no reality in themselves but depend upon the non-dual Consciousness (with a capital ‘c’) for their reality. It cannot be emphasized enough (though Harris does not mention it at all) that Advaita has nothing to do with experiences of any kind; it is about knowledge – and not objective knowledge about ‘facts’, but Self-knowledge of the subject ‘I’. It is incredible that Harris can make statements such as “One can traverse the Eastern paths simply by becoming interested in the nature of one’s own mind”. This is nonsense. It must be remembered that ‘I’ have a mind; ‘I’ am not a mind! Becoming interested may prompt one to seek out a teacher, but one is most unlikely to reach any meaningful conclusions on one’s own.

Harris appears rather to believe that the reason that seekers follow spiritual teaching methodologies is “to fully bring their minds into the present or to induce nonordinary states of consciousness”. It is unfortunately true that many of today’s ‘seekers’ may well share this totally distorted and mistaken view. It probably stems from the nineteen sixties when most people in the West first heard about meditation and yoga from the Beatles and the Hippy culture. Since then, the idea that ‘enlightenment’ is about ‘experience’ (of a highly evolved and refined type, of course) has been propagated amongst those who have never wanted to find out the truth of the matter; and it has also polluted the outlook of those who do. When he goes on to talk about gurus, he even implies that they have “to be able to produce such experiences in others”, despite the fact that he also acknowledges that the ‘experiences’ of so-called gurus often leave much to be desired! (That “the signs of accomplishment are not always clear” is why traditional Advaita relies upon sampradAya-s, in which teaching methods, knowledge and ability to interpret the scriptures and read Sanskrit, are rigorously passed down from guru to disciple through the ages.)

The situation has also not been helped by the message of Vivekananda and the neo-Vedantins, who have been particularly influential in the West. They point to intense meditation resulting in the deep trance-like state of samAdhi as being the way to realize the truth. Despite their essential background of Advaita, they have allowed this to be distorted by the views of Yoga philosophy. In fact, samAdhi is no better than deep sleep for giving enlightenment. Both are characterized by ignorance and error, and both are experiences with a beginning and an end. There is no liberation to be found there.

*** Read Part 2 ***