Sam Harris vs. Deepak Chopra

[ratikala]

namaskaram .....

Sam Harris has spoken a lot about Dzogchen.

dosent mean that he has reached any undrestanding of it or reached a stage of perfection , ....

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram , ...

Buddhism is in the process of adapting to western culture, and has adapted to many different cultures over the last 2,500 years.

instead of expecting Buddhism to addapt to incorporate our ignorance and attatchments , why dont we at least try to meet it half way ???

 

[metis]

I think we should remember that Buddhism is a process and not an end.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram luis ji

People are both allowed to and capable of learning better than their forefathers, Ratikala. I hope you learn that and take that lesson to heart eventually.

it is a great mistake to think that we are any wiser or more capable than our forfathers , ....

I have learnt a far greater lesson from participating in conversations here , ..and the lesson that I have learnt , ...is that this current generation is plagued by a sad lack of respect and humility , .... and for all the knowledge that is available to modern internet man he is remarkably un learned , he is arogant , opinionated and vainglorious , ....and thinks him self to be superior , ...although I canot understand why ? .....exept to say that what he displays is a classic case of attatchment anger and ignorance , ...in short the three poisons !!! .....which blinds and deludes him into a flase faith in his own inteligence , .....

 

[ratikala]

jai jai Metis ji

I think we should remember that Buddhism is a process and not an end.

Buddhism is indeed a process by which one attains an end , ... Buddhi (inteligence and all knowing ness) , ...it is just a shame that the un enlightened think that they have allready arrived at realisation simply by studying and amassing a certain amount of aquired knowledge , ....when in truth realisation comes only from experiential knowledge .

 

[gsa]

I just cited a source that clearly states that Harris' spirituality is inspired by Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. I'm afraid you don't have the luxury of ignoring that fact.

What does Sam Harris actually say about his approach to spirituality, however?

My views on “mystical” or “spiritual” experience are extensively described in The End of Faith, in several articles available on this website, and will soon be spelled out in a book entitled Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion. Nothing I believe in this area is based on faith. There is simply no question that people have transformative experiences as a result of engaging in disciplines like meditation, and these experiences obviously shed some light on the nature of the human mind. (Any experience does, for that matter). The metaphysical claims that people tend to make on the basis of these experiences, however, are highly questionable. I do not make any such claims. Nor do I support the metaphysical claims of others.

Several neuroscience labs are now studying the effects of meditation on the brain. I am not personally engaged in this research, but I know many of the scientists who are. This is a fertile area of inquiry that is deepening our understanding of human well-being.

While I consider Buddhism to be almost unique among the world’s religions as a repository of contemplative wisdom, I do not consider myself a Buddhist. My criticism of Buddhism as a faith has been published, to the consternation of many Buddhists.

Moreover, his article, "Killing the Buddha," demonstrates that he has no interest in Buddhism as a religion.

What the world most needs at this moment is a means of convincing human beings to embrace the whole of the species as their moral community. For this we need to develop an utterly nonsectarian way of talking about the full spectrum of human experience and human aspiration. We need a discourse on ethics and spirituality that is every bit as unconstrained by dogma and cultural prejudice as the discourse of science is. What we need, in fact, is a contemplative science, a modern approach to exploring the furthest reaches of psychological well-being. It should go without saying that we will not develop such a science by attempting to spread “American Buddhism,” or “Western Buddhism,” or “Engaged Buddhism.”

If the methodology of Buddhism (ethical precepts and meditation) uncovers genuine truths about the mind and the phenomenal world—truths like emptiness, selflessness, and impermanence—these truths are not in the least “Buddhist.” No doubt, most serious practitioners of meditation realize this, but most Buddhists do not. Consequently, even if a person is aware of the timeless and noncontingent nature of the meditative insights described in the Buddhist literature, his identity as a Buddhist will tend to confuse the matter for others.

There is a reason that we don’t talk about “Christian physics” or “Muslim algebra,” though the Christians invented physics as we know it, and the Muslims invented algebra. Today, anyone who emphasizes the Christian roots of physics or the Muslim roots of algebra would stand convicted of not understanding these disciplines at all. In the same way, once we develop a scientific account of the contemplative path, it will utterly transcend its religious associations. Once such a conceptual revolution has taken place, speaking of “Buddhist” meditation will be synonymous with a failure to assimilate the changes that have occurred in our understanding of the human mind.

I think that this places your "inspired by" language in its proper context.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

No, this is not true.

I doubt he said the otherwise in his latest book Waking Up. I'll confirm it later. If Harris is indeed an Advaitin (and Chopra too is) then why are they debating?

 

[Gambit]

I doubt he said the otherwise in his latest book Waking Up. I'll confirm it later. If Harris is indeed an Advaitin (and Chopra too is) then why are they debating?

That's a good question. In fact, it's the subject matter of this thread.

 

[Gambit]

What does Sam Harris actually say about his approach to spirituality, however?

My views on “mystical” or “spiritual” experience are extensively described in The End of Faith, in several articles available on this website, and will soon be spelled out in a book entitled Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion. Nothing I believe in this area is based on faith... The metaphysical claims that people tend to make on the basis of these experiences, however, are highly questionable. I do not make any such claims. Nor do I support the metaphysical claims of others.

Harris actually has made a metaphysical claim in "The End of Faith" based on his views on mystical or spiritual experience. For those of us who are philosophically literate, we clearly recognized the following as "idealism" (which is clearly in line with the worldviews of both Buddhism and Advaita).

The claims of mystics are neurologically quite astute. No human being has experienced an objective world, or even a world at all. You are at this moment having a visionary experience. The world you see and hear is nothing more than a modification of your consciousness, the physical status of which remains a mystery...We really are such stuff as dreams are made of. (source: pg. 41, "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris)

What the world most needs at this moment is a means of convincing human beings to embrace the whole of the species as their moral community. For this we need to develop an utterly nonsectarian way of talking about the full spectrum of human experience and human aspiration. We need a discourse on ethics and spirituality that is every bit as unconstrained by dogma and cultural prejudice as the discourse of science is. What we need, in fact, is a contemplative science, a modern approach to exploring the furthest reaches of psychological well-being

And this is exactly the same thing that Deepak Chopra is promoting.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

instead of expecting Buddhism to addapt to incorporate our ignorance and attatchments , why dont we at least try to meet it half way ???

That's what has happened to Buddhism throughout history, there are numerous cultural expressions of Buddhadharma. Can we say that one cultural expression is more authentic than another? Can we point to an essence of Buddhadharma? I'll start a new thread so as not to derail this one.

 

[psychoslice]

Sam Harris is my favourite, I get the feeling that Deepak Chopra is just putting an act on talking about things he doesn't really understand.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram spiny ji

That's what has happened to Buddhism throughout history, there are numerous cultural expressions of Buddhadharma. Can we say that one cultural expression is more authentic than another? Can we point to an essence of Buddhadharma? I'll start a new thread so as not to derail this one.

to me it is not so much about authenticity as it is about realisation , my fear is that the term Buddhism has and can be missrepresented , the conversation here simply touches upon Buddhism when the question is raised about the influences that may or may not make Sam Harris what he is , ....

please by allmeans start another thread , but here the question is about the actual wisdom or levels of realisation behind the words of Sam Harris , prehaps after we have exausted this conversation we could go on to this discussion .

 

[Kirran]

So I shall share some thoughts.

Sam Harris' worldview is centred primarily around scepticism - he demands evidence for things before believing. This leads him to materialism as a default, although he openly acknowledges he doesn't see sufficient proof to know one way or the other on this one. Of course, he is very interested in certain aspects of Dharmic spirituality, and more power to him. Buddhism especially seems to interést him, in the form of a type of Western secularist Buddhism. Buddhism being more a set of processes and guidelines than a worldview, I see this as entirely compatible. He could even be a Hindu if he had the inclination, these are broad umbrellas.

Deepak Chopra's worldview, we barely even know. He seems to think all things are conscious, creative, imaginative. Fairly animistic. He attempts to use Eastern spirituality to make claims about physics and so forth, while using most of the terms incorrectly. I don't think he allows himself to hear any dissent due to the size of his ego.

In my mind, mysticism is about knowing things in an entirely different way to science, and to attempt to fuse them together doesn't make sense, and is highly inadvisable.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram gsa ji

What does Sam Harris actually say about his approach to spirituality, however?

thank you for the excelent information on Sam Harris , ......the above article confirm my observations of Mr Harris , ..it may be unfair to judge him alone on the strength of this one article , but it speaks volumes about his levels of realisation , ...here he stands in defence of his work against his critics , it is so laced with 'I' ..''ME'' and ''MINE'' ...that I any claims to realisation would be completely unfounded whether through Buddhist or Advaitin philosopy , .....

My views on “mystical” or “spiritual” experience are extensively described in The End of Faith, in several articles available on this website, and will soon be spelled out in a book entitled Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion. Nothing I believe in this area is based on faith.

there seems to be a problem here with the use of the word Faith , ....''The End of Faith '' .. this seems to me to be some what of a contradiction, ....''Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion.'' Nothing I believe in this area is based on faith.'' ......if one belives in spirituality in any form this is itself a form of faith , were he to title this up and coming book the end of religion I could more understand his veiw point .

Several neuroscience labs are now studying the effects of meditation on the brain. I am not personally engaged in this research, but I know many of the scientists who are. This is a fertile area of inquiry that is deepening our understanding of human well-being.

they have been studying in this area for many years and I agree that it is indeed a firtile area for inquiry but all the while that we are only looking to observe the effects of meditation on human wellbeing we will miss many other aspects of meditation most importantly the trancendance of the mundane self , ...

While I consider Buddhism to be almost unique among the world’s religions as a repository of contemplative wisdom, I do not consider myself a Buddhist. My criticism of Buddhism as a faith has been published, to the consternation of many Buddhists.

Buddhism and Buddha Dharma can at times be two very distinct doctrines , ...this aside it would also seem that many have a problem with Faith , ...or indeed even with others that have faith in a system that reveals ultimate truths through a religious structure , ...I canot help but feel that there is a latent envy present in some that claim that Science alone can lliberate man by revealing an unbiased truth which is free from religious Dogma , ....when intruth Dogma is present in all systems , in science , in philosophy and in religion , ....

the Scientificaly minded could possibly benifit from a better understanding of Faith , ....rather than standing in opposition to something they do not understand untill the point that it is proven , it may be more fruitfull to accept that there is unexplained phenomena and be brave enough to surrender the ego and give religious systems a chance to reveal their truths , as all the while we stand in opposition we limit the possibility of understanding these truths by any other method than our own , ...this seems to me to be countr productive .

Moreover, his article, "Killing the Buddha," demonstrates that he has no interest in Buddhism as a religion.

it appears that Mr Harris is some what selective in that he wants the truth but not the method by which to atain it , ...or will not give credit to any other system of attaining it other tan his own , ....

What the world most needs at this moment is a means of convincing human beings to embrace the whole of the species as their moral community.

with this I agree entirely , ...

For this we need to develop an utterly nonsectarian way of talking about the full spectrum of human experience and human aspiration. We need a discourse on ethics and spirituality that is every bit as unconstrained by dogma and cultural prejudice as the discourse of science is. What we need, in fact, is a contemplative science, a modern approach to exploring the furthest reaches of psychological well-being. It should go without saying that we will not develop such a science by attempting to spread “American Buddhism,” or “Western Buddhism,” or “Engaged Buddhism.”

sadly I do not agree that Science is any more or less free from Dogma as is religion , ..this is a problem common to humanity , ....and whilst many may cry for a modern approach , any such approach can only be a re writing of the age old aproaches contained within Buddhism , within all true yoga systems and within Advaita , ....more over these approaches are tried tested and verified , ....what is needed is that these sects remain pure and are not taken selectively, as is done all to frequently in the west , ....due to our egos we have a tendancy to think that we can and must rewrite , edit and concoct a new truth from older systems when infact we are no different to our forefathers and that the truth contained in these doctrins is of timeless nature .

f the methodology of Buddhism (ethical precepts and meditation) uncovers genuine truths about the mind and the phenomenal world—truths like emptiness, selflessness, and impermanence—these truths are not in the least “Buddhist.” No doubt, most serious practitioners of meditation realize this, but most Buddhists do not. Consequently, even if a person is aware of the timeless and noncontingent nature of the meditative insights described in the Buddhist literature, his identity as a Buddhist will tend to confuse the matter for others.

yes it is Dukkha , ....no anount of scientific enquiry will change this , science may think that it can temporarily improve the human condition , .but in some respects it can improve one aspect only to bring about another form of suffering , ...the truth of life simply breaks down to a cycle of '' Birth , old age , sickness and Death '', this cycle may be extended and made more comfortable for its duration but nothing changes this process it is an undeniable truth , what religion does that Science canot is answer why this cycle exists , ...science can only confirm that it does .

There is a reason that we don’t talk about “Christian physics” or “Muslim algebra,” though the Christians invented physics as we know it, and the Muslims invented algebra. Today, anyone who emphasizes the Christian roots of physics or the Muslim roots of algebra would stand convicted of not understanding these disciplines at all. In the same way, once we develop a scientific account of the contemplative path, it will utterly transcend its religious associations. Once such a conceptual revolution has taken place, speaking of “Buddhist” meditation will be synonymous with a failure to assimilate the changes that have occurred in our understanding of the human mind.

prehaps the reason could be that an understanding of physics was well known to many ancient cultures predating the greeks and the Christians as were many Sciences we atribute to our selves , .....it is only when we stop trying to prove things an focus more upon realisation that the world may shift its ''consciousness'' sufficiently to make a substantial difference , ...when this happens there will be no need to negate any religious association as the realised soul will revere religious paths and respect any method by which another gains realisation of the ultimate truth .

I think that this places your "inspired by" language in its proper context.

if we are inspirerd we remain greatfull , ....if Harris were truely inspierd his gratitude and respect for Buddha Dahrma would show , .....

instead what shows is his envy , ...what he is trying to do is to take truths revealed by the Buddha or by the Buddhist system and claim them as his own , .....We none of us own Truth , ..it is some thing we realise and rejoice in . therefore those that truely realise it are not frightened of faith in others or of Religion .

 

[Acintya_Ash]

If the methodology of Buddhism (ethical precepts and meditation) uncovers genuine truths about the mind and the phenomenal world—truths like emptiness, selflessness, and impermanence—these truths are not in the least “Buddhist.” No doubt, most serious practitioners of meditation realize this, but most Buddhists do not. Consequently, even if a person is aware of the timeless and noncontingent nature of the meditative insights described in the Buddhist literature, his identity as a Buddhist will tend to confuse the matter for others.

There is a reason that we don’t talk about “Christian physics” or “Muslim algebra,” though the Christians invented physics as we know it, and the Muslims invented algebra. Today, anyone who emphasizes the Christian roots of physics or the Muslim roots of algebra would stand convicted of not understanding these disciplines at all. In the same way, once we develop a scientific account of the contemplative path, it will utterly transcend its religious associations. Once such a conceptual revolution has taken place, speaking of “Buddhist” meditation will be synonymous with a failure to assimilate the changes that have occurred in our understanding of the human mind.

This is where the Diversity of Hinduism takes over. There's just everything in Hinduism. It can't be accused as sectarianism, because Sanatan Dharma is Universal and allows freedom to the practitioner to choose his beliefs.

 

[Gambit]

Sam Harris' worldview is centred primarily around scepticism - he demands evidence for things before believing. This leads him to materialism as a default, although he openly acknowledges he doesn't see sufficient proof to know one way or the other on this one.

This is not rue. Harris considers materialism to be based on faith, not on scientific evidence (I have already documented this in a previous post). And since you have already argued that he demands evidence for things before believing, then he cannot qualify as a materialist.

 

[Gambit]

In my mind, mysticism is about knowing things in an entirely different way to science, and to attempt to fuse them together doesn't make sense, and is highly inadvisable.

I don't see any reason why they cannot be complementary approaches to our knowledge.

 

[Kirran]

This is not rue. Harris considers materialism to be based on faith, not on scientific evidence (I have already documented this in a previous post). And since you have already argued that he demands evidence for things before believing, then he cannot qualify as a materialist.

OK, I stand corrected.

 

[Kirran]

I don't see any reason why they cannot be complementary approaches to our knowledge.

Complementary, yes. But not addressing the same subjects.

 

[Gambit]

Complementary, yes. But not addressing the same subjects.

Agreed. Consciousness is inherently subjective. As such, it is not amenable to the objective methodology of the physical sciences. That's why we require a complementary approach. And as I see it. this is the kind of approach both Harris and Chopra are promoting.