Waking Up - A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion

[Vmarco]

 

I received a copy of: Waking Up A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion, by Sam Harris,.heres some quotes:

 

Joseph Smith, a libidinous con man and crackpot, was able to found a new religion on the claim he had unearthed the final revelations of God in the hallowed precincts of Manchester, New York, written in reformed Egyptian on golden plates. He decoded this text with the aid of magical seer stones, which, by magic or not, allowed Smith to produce an English version of Gods Word, that was an embarrassing pastiche of plagiarisms from the Bible and silly lies about Jesus life in America. And yet the resulting edifice of nonsense and taboo survives to this day.

 

Harris also mentions how such fact checking is very unfashionable. He writes:

 

"Making distinctions [about religion] is deeply unfashionable in intellectual circles. In my experience, people do not want to hear that Islam supports violence in a way that Jainism doesn't, or that Buddhism offers a truly sophisticated, empirical approach to understanding the human mind, whereas Christianity presents an almost perfect impediment to such understanding. In many circles, to make invidious comparisons of this kind is to stand convicted of bigotry." Sam Harris.

 

Looks like an interesting read.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Waking-Up-Spirituality-Without-Religion/dp/1451636016

[Boy]

...

Edited December 1, 2014 by Boy

[Marblehead]

I will wait for Y'all to talk more about it as I do not have the book nor do I expect to get it.

 

I do like the thread title though.

[Boy]

...

Edited December 1, 2014 by Boy

[Marblehead]

I read most of it, scanned some of it. I felt no negative thoughts nor contradictions with my own understandings.

 

And I have already stated on this forum that I see no need of religion to be the roots of spirituality. And even that spirituality exists without religion. (I just don't talk about that stuff much because I'm the Materialist here.)

[soaring crane]

Harris also mentions how such fact checking is very unfashionable. He writes:

 

"Making distinctions [about religion] is deeply unfashionable in intellectual circles. In my experience, people do not want to hear that Islam supports violence in a way that Jainism doesn't, or that Buddhism offers a truly sophisticated, empirical approach to understanding the human mind, whereas Christianity presents an almost perfect impediment to such understanding. In many circles, to make invidious comparisons of this kind is to stand convicted of bigotry." Sam Harris.

 

 

Well, of course, they are examples of bigotry. And unless he used the word invidious ironically, he knows it.

 

I feel this is a better example, from that first chapter:

 

Before going any further, I should address the animosity that many readers feel toward the term spiritual. Whenever I use the word, as in referring to meditation as a “spiritual practice,” I hear from fellow skeptics and atheists who think that I have committed a grievous error.

 

The word spirit comes from the Latin spiritus, which is a translation of the Greek pneuma, meaning “breath.” Around the thirteenth century, the term became entangled with beliefs about immaterial souls, supernatural beings, ghosts, and so forth. It acquired other meanings as well: We speak of the spirit of a thing as its most essential principle or of certain volatile substances and liquors as spirits. Nevertheless, many nonbelievers now consider all things “spiritual” to be contaminated by medieval superstition.

 

I like it :-)

[Vmarco]

 

 

Before going any further, I should address the animosity that many readers feel toward the term spiritual. Whenever I use the word, as in referring to meditation as a “spiritual practice,” I hear from fellow skeptics and atheists who think that I have committed a grievous error.

 

The word spirit comes from the Latin spiritus, which is a translation of the Greek pneuma, meaning “breath.” Around the thirteenth century, the term became entangled with beliefs about immaterial souls, supernatural beings, ghosts, and so forth. It acquired other meanings as well: We speak of the spirit of a thing as its most essential principle or of certain volatile substances and liquors as spirits. Nevertheless, many nonbelievers now consider all things “spiritual” to be contaminated by medieval superstition.

 

I like it :-)

 

I'm enjoying the book,...especially the honest dialogues on the nature of religiosity,...and his implications that Buddhism is not a religion. For example, Harris writes, “[buddhism] isn’t primarily a faith-based religion, and its central teachings are entirely empirical.”

 

A huge problem with that statement, one that Harris repeats over and over, is that Buddhism is empirical,...when in truth, Buddhism is as far removed from empiricism as one can get.

 

Empirical: evidence that encourages incurable neurosis. Nothing wrong with empirical evidence if understood in its proper place, that is, empiricism is based on objects that ultimately do not exist. Empirical evidence is Skandha evidence. The Skandhas are not real. Empirical evidence arises from human sentience,….Buddhism is set of instructions on the liberation from sentience.

Empiricism may lead to the delusion of an enlightened ego,…but is an absolute barrier to real waking up.

 

As for the definition of Spiritual,…Harris is getting close,…but is to empirical to ever understand that Spirit implies in-breath/out-breath,…the Yang/Yin of perceived life. Spirit is ultimately a delusion,…the illusion of duality.

 

Nevertheless,…I’ll continue reading,…especially to get an idea of why people like himself believe the things they do.

[Spotless]

In a fairly recent interview on Batgap.com of an Awakened teacher, she stated that she was an atheist prior to her Awakening.

 

From the interview that Vmarco posted on another post of Sam, I watched it to the very end and was excited to see an atheist with a following expounding the importance of humans reaching a higher state and the problem he only just touches upon of them having nowhere to go but to the "religious" to figure out what has happened. (though Buddhism is generally and rightly not considered a religion in the greater sense of ignorance and superstition)

 

This is a very exciting happening!

 

The atheist group veering into the study of Awakening and Enlightenment - it requires no belief - simply due dilligence (albeit not so simple though no always so difficult).

Edited November 18, 2014 by Spotless

[Vmarco]

 

This is a very exciting happening!

 

The atheist group veering into the study of Awakening and Enlightenment - it requires no belief - simply due dilligence (albeit not so simple though no always so difficult).

Yes,...this is a "very exciting happening!"

 

Most atheists (atheism = a belief in no god) have been like Dr. David Eller, the Colorado director of American Atheists, who said, “I urgently recommend that we stop using the term spiritual. Atheists are not spiritual and do not have spiritual experiences.”

 

Very much so,...IMO,...this Sam Harris book is a game-changer. Atheists would have only listened to one of their own,...they are overall a very closed-minded group,...and as faith based as any religious group,...faith, in their case,...is the faith in objects as being real.

 

Nobel Laureate Charles Townes said, “Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith.”

[Marblehead]

Atheists would have only listened to one of their own,...they are overall a very closed-minded group,...

I will accept that as a compliment.

[Vmarco]

I will accept that as a compliment.

IMO, you are not a typical American atheist,...24k posts on a Taoist forum attests to that. The typical American atheist worship the Priests of Science, and as such, usually denounce all aspects of ontosophy.

[Marblehead]

IMO, you are not a typical American atheist,...24k posts on a Taoist forum attests to that. The typical American atheist worship the Priests of Science, and as such, usually denounce all aspects of ontosophy.

Funny. In a recent discussion of Atheism I denounced science too.

[soaring crane]

As for the definition of Spiritual,…Harris is getting close,…but is to empirical to ever understand that Spirit implies in-breath/out-breath,…the Yang/Yin of perceived life. Spirit is ultimately a delusion,…the illusion of duality.

 

I was just thinking of it as the animating force. Shen.

 

Enthusiasm has a similar root.

 

And the German word "Geist" as in Zeitgeist (spirit of the current time) and Teamgeist (Team spirit) describes the same thing.

[Boy]

...

Edited December 1, 2014 by Boy

[Spotless]

Religion in general is a place for many to be exposed to higher vibrations.

 

As one enters the path one no longer feels a need for religion.

 

Religion itself is not a path, it is part of the sleep but it can help to gather us within and gravitate to The path.

 

As we set upon the path we recognize religion as a lie so to speak, but a forgivable one.

[soaring crane]

 

@soaring crane: That’s hardly bigotry, when you consider a few of its pseudonyms - prejudice, bias, partisanship, sectarianism, discrimination, injustice, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, fanaticism and dogmatism. Bigotry, in my opinion, would be to suggest that Islam does not support violence (under certain conditions according to the Qur’an), that Buddhism has nothing of value to say about the human mind, and that Christianity does not put faith far above empiricism and critical thinking. In other words, the very opposite of what he is saying.

(Invidious probably means unpleasant in this context.)

"people do not want to hear that Islam supports violence in a way that Jainism doesn't, or that Buddhism offers a truly sophisticated, empirical approach to understanding the human mind, whereas Christianity presents an almost perfect impediment to such understanding."

Translated:

Islam supports violence. Period.

Buddhism is sophisticated and empirical. Period; Christianity is an impediment to both. Period.

Without broader context, those are the thoughts of a bigot.

My original reason for responding to the OP this way was to point out that there seem to be passages in the book that more accurately represent the geist of the work. It seemed to me that VMarco had chosen a paragraph with potentially incendiary language.

And then I quoted a passage that I liked very much

[BaguaKicksAss]

I will accept that as a compliment.

 

Hold on a sec, aren't you the member who PMed me several versions of the TTC, as well as commentary on it?

[Boy]

...

Edited December 1, 2014 by Boy

[Marblehead]

Hold on a sec, aren't you the member who PMed me several versions of the TTC, as well as commentary on it?

You obviously have me confused with someone who cares.

[soaring crane]

@soaring crane: There is of course a broader context for those interested and I find your translation as well as your conclusion excruciatingly crude. I also happen to think, although it matters little, that Harris is right. Simply put, I don't agree with you at all. Incendiary language doesn't faze me (as I'm sure you know ), but in that matter you are probably more correct than I could possibly imagine. Peace.

 

 

I'm not sure what could possibly be crude, excruciatingly or not, about a short, logical reply to a very short excerpt from a book. I don't know anything about the man or the book and my comments were/are based very narrowly on the short passage provided and nothing more.

 

Looking back, I don't see where I erred in my understanding. Perhaps you can explain the linguistics better? What am I missing in that short statement that Vmarco quoted? (without the context of the entire book, mind)

[Boy]

...

Edited December 1, 2014 by Boy

[Spotless]

Harris certainly did not appear to be a bigot.

 

I think he did make some very clear and decisive comments though nothing in his presentation would have me believe he is not completely open to clarifying and supporting what he sees as obvious and is basically quite obvious to anyone viewing as one

un-identified with what he spoke about.

 

If anything, I think he is less identified with his observations than the vast majority of humans that are fully automated by them and would be happy to reject any formulations and patterns that he could be shown to be faulty.

 

his comments about Islam, Buddhists and Christians was Apt - and fearless - un-couched in soft teacup terms - it does and did exactly what he intended - actual speaking in public about what any clear mind can easily assess if it simply had the lack of respect for stupidity and tradition that it normally mechanistically filters through.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Spotless

[soaring crane]

 

5. I can explain why you erred, but that would probably get me suspended again, so.. No thanks.

 

To that I would suggest, if you can't come up with arguments that don't get you suspended, you should consider weighing your desire to participate in the forums against your ability to do it civilly.

 

To the other, I'll just point out again that my comment was directed very narrowly at the paragraph which was quoted, with no further context provided, whereas you're bringing the context of the entire book and your knowledge of the author into it. I've already allowed that the man has a lot more to say than is revealed in the quote Vmarco posted. Btw, when you say first and second paragraphs, are referring to the bit about Joseph Smith? They seem to be from different passages in the book. That's how they were presented, anyway.

 

The descriptions in the quote are, in my view and taken prima facie, "sweeping generalizations", a hallmark of bigotry. It's very simple. But it is my view in the end and I'm done defending it. You haven't convinced me, but then maybe I'm just dense.

 

Now, moving on, it may well be that he continues in the book to expand on the statements and makes a strong, detailed case for his conclusions. But I don't have that information yet. The book does look interesting and I am considering buying it.

 

Have to get to work ...

[Boy]

...

Edited December 1, 2014 by Boy

[soaring crane]

yes

no

 

It wasn't a judgement call. It was a cold, grammatical assessment of the materials as presented.

 

Your welcome.