American Philosopher, Neuroscientist, Author and Mindful Skeptic, Co-Founder and CEO of Project Reason
Sam Harris, formally Samuel B. "Sam" Harris
American Philosopher, Neuroscientist, Author and Mindful Skeptic, Co-Founder and CEO of Project Reason
The human nervous system is plastic in a very important way ? which means your experience of the world can be radically transformed. You are tending who you were yesterday by virtue of various habit patterns and physiological homeostasis and other things that are keeping you very recognizable to yourself, but it's possible to have a very different experience... It's possible to do it through a deliberate form of training, like meditation, and I think it's crucial to do ? because we all want to be as happy and as fulfilled and as free of pointless suffering as can possibly be. And all of our suffering, and all of our unhappiness, is a product of how our minds are in every moment. So if there's a way to use the mind itself to improve one's capacity for moment-to-moment wellbeing ? which I'm convinced there is ? then this should be potentially of interest to everybody.
The self that does not survive scrutiny is the subject of experience in each present moment ? the feeling of being a thinker of thoughts inside one?s head, the sense of being an owner or inhabitant of a physical body, which this false self seems to appropriate as a kind of vehicle. Even if you don?t believe such a homunculus exists ? perhaps because you believe, on the basis of science, that you are identical to your body and brain rather than a ghostly resident therein ? you almost certainly feel like an internal self in almost every waking moment. And yet, however one looks for it, this self is nowhere to be found. It cannot be seen amid the particulars of experience, and it cannot be seen when experience itself is viewed as a totality. However, its absence can be found ? and when it is, the feeling of being a self disappears.
The truth is that most people are simply too distracted by their thoughts to have the selflessness of consciousness pointed out directly. And even if they are ready to glimpse it, they are unlikely to understand its significance.
The ultimate wisdom of enlightenment, whatever it is, cannot be a matter of having fleeting experiences. The goal of meditation is to uncover a form of well-being that is inherent to the nature of our minds. It must, therefore, be available in the context of ordinary sights, sounds, sensations, and even thoughts. Peak experiences are fine, but real freedom must be coincident with normal waking life.
This approach[ Burmese spiritual master Sayadaw U Pandita] encourages confusion at the outset regarding the nature of the problem one is trying to solve. It is true, however, that striving toward the distant goal of enlightenment (as well as the nearer goal of cessation) can lead one to practice with an intensity that might otherwise be difficult to achieve. I never made more effort than I did when practicing under U Pandita. But most of this effort arose from the very illusion of bondage to the self that I was seeking to overcome. The model of this practice is that one must climb the mountain so that freedom can be found at the top. But the self is already an illusion, and that truth can be glimpsed directly, at the mountain?s base or anywhere else along the path. One can then return to this insight, again and again, as one?s sole method of meditation ? thereby arriving at the goal in each moment of actual practice.
Those who begin to practice in the spirit of gradualism often assume that the goal of self-transcendence is far away, and they may spend years overlooking the very freedom that they yearn to realize.
We know that the self is a social construct and the dissolution of its illusion, Harris argues, is the most valuable gift of meditation:
Although the insights we can have in meditation tell us nothing about the origins of the universe, they do confirm some well-established truths about the human mind: Our conventional sense of self is an illusion; positive emotions, such as compassion and patience, are teachable skills; and the way we think directly influences our experience of the world.
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. But here lies one of the central paradoxes of spiritual life, because this very feeling of dissatisfaction causes us to overlook the intrinsic freedom of consciousness in the present. As we have seen, there are good reasons to believe that adopting a practice like meditation can lead to positive changes in one?s life. But the deepest goal of spirituality is freedom from the illusion of the self ? and to seek such freedom, as though it were a future state to be attained through effort, is to reinforce the chains of one?s apparent bondage in each moment.
Embracing the contents of consciousness in any moment is a very powerful way of training yourself to respond differently to adversity. However, it is important to distinguish between accepting unpleasant sensations and emotions as a strategy ? while covertly hoping that they will go away ? and truly accepting them as transitory appearances in consciousness. Only the latter gesture opens the door to wisdom and lasting change. The paradox is that we can become wiser and more compassionate and live more fulfilling lives by refusing to be who we have tended to be in the past. But we must also relax, accepting things as they are in the present, as we strive to change ourselves.
Happiness and suffering, however extreme, are mental events. The mind depends upon the body, and the body upon the world, but everything good or bad that happens in your life must appear in consciousness to matter. This fact offers ample opportunity to make the best of bad situations ? changing your perception of the world is often as good as changing the world ? but it also allows a person to be miserable even when all the material and social conditions for happiness have been met. During the normal course of events, your mind will determine the quality of your life.
He cautions against treating meditation as another to-do item:
It is very difficult to imagine someone?s not being able to see her reflection in a window even after years of looking ? but that is what happens when a person begins most forms of spiritual practice. Most techniques of meditation are, in essence, elaborate ways for looking through the window in the hope that if one only sees the world in greater detail, an image of one?s true face will eventually appear. Imagine a teaching like this: If you just focus on the trees swaying outside the window without distraction, you will see your true face. Undoubtedly, such an instruction would be an obstacle to seeing what could otherwise be seen directly. Almost everything that has been said or written about spiritual practice, even most of the teachings one finds in Buddhism, directs a person?s gaze to the world beyond the glass, thereby confusing matters from the very beginning.
Reflecting on his training with the Burmese spiritual master Sayadaw U Pandita, who teaches meditation as an "explicitly goal-oriented" practice ? mindfulness is approached not as freedom from the self illusion in the present moment but as a means of attaining the "cessation" of that illusion in the future ? Harris writes:
Such abolition may seem unnerving in the context of personal identity, something to which we are invariably attached, but as soon as we begin to understand just how mutable that identity is, dissolving the self illusion becomes not a punishing negation of free will but a promise of freedom. Harris writes:
The conventional sense of self is an illusion [and] spirituality largely consists in realizing this, moment to moment. There are logical and scientific reasons to accept this claim, but recognizing it to be true is not a matter of understanding these reasons. Like many illusions, the sense of self disappears when closely examined, and this is done through the practice of meditation.
The feeling that we call ?I? seems to define our point of view in every moment, and it also provides an anchor for popular beliefs about souls and freedom of will. And yet this feeling, however imperturbable it may appear at present, can be altered, interrupted, or entirely abolished.
You can do what you decide to do?but you cannot decide what you will decide to do.
You can learn something about a person by the company she keeps.
You can't take credit for your talents, but it matters that you use them. You can't really be blamed for your weaknesses, but it matters that you correct them. So pride and shame don't make a lot of sense, in the final analysis, but they weren't much fun anyway.
You don't get anything worth getting by pretending to know things you don?t know.
Your frequent claim that we must understand religious belief as a social construct, produced by societal causes, dependent upon social and cultural institutions, admitting of sociological questions, and the like, while it will warm the hearts of most anthropologists, is either trivially true or obscurantist. It is part and parcel of the double standard that so worries me?the demolition of which is the explicit aim of The Reason Project. Epidemiology is also a social construct with societal causes, etc.?but this doesn?t mean that the germ theory of disease isn?t true or that any rival construct?like one suggesting that child rape will cure AIDS?isn?t a dangerous, deplorable, and unnecessary eruption of primeval stupidity. We either have good reasons or bad reasons for what we believe; we can be open to evidence and argument, or we can be closed; we can tolerate (and even seek) criticism of our most cherished views, or we can hide behind authority, sanctity, and dogma. The main reason why children are still raised to think that the universe is 6,000 years old is not because religion as a social institution hasn?t been appropriately coddled and cajoled, but because polite people (and scientists terrified of losing their funding) haven?t laughed this belief off the face of the earth.
Your life doesn't get any better than your mind is: You might have wonderful friends, perfect health, a great career, and everything else you want, and you can still be miserable. The converse is also true: There are people who basically have nothing?who live in circumstances that you and I would do more or less anything to avoid?who are happier than we tend to be because of the character of their minds. Unfortunately, one glimpse of this truth is never enough. We have to be continually reminded of it.
Your mind is all you truly have.
Within a religious framework, a belief in free will supports the notion of sin?which seems to justify not only harsh punishment in this life but eternal punishment in the next.