Book Review: Waking Up by Sam Harris

WakingUpAs an insight meditation teacher, reading Waking Up by Sam Harris was simultaneously joyful and shameful. It is a fine book that points to a weakness in the culture of awakening that is hard to look at directly. In his usual style, he is honest to the point of painful, and sometimes it can be hard to take.

Let me back up.

For those who don’t know Harris, he is a neuroscientist who became most well known for publishing The End of Faith, a book promoting the idea that what we believe influences how we behave, and that faith-based beliefs lead to rather irrational behavior. Like flying planes into buildings. He’s dry, technical, but funny and obviously not afraid of controversy. Apparently people really like that combination, because The End of Faith stayed on the New York Times bestseller list for over 30 weeks. Harris quickly moved from obscure neuroscientist to intellectual sensation, and was lumped in with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett as the leading edge of a revitalized post-9/11 atheist movement described as “new atheism.” Together they were ironically dubbed the “four horsemen.”

But Harris is an odd fit among the horsemen. While Hitchens, Dennett, and Dawkins all rail against the privileged position that eastern spirituality seems to have among western intellectuals, Harris openly disagrees with them, making the case that despite the woo-woo clearly at work in the offerings of Deepak Chopra, The Secret, and similar new age flim-flam, there is something valuable to be found in the spiritual traditions of Asia that is being obscured, rather than revealed, by pop spirituality. He uses his public platform to urge people to dig a little deeper.

It turns out he is speaking from experience. Waking Up is not just an introduction to Buddhist meditation and the liberation that it leads to, it is a spiritual memoir told from the perspective of a consummate rationalist and skeptic. One who stumbles upon enlightenment.

After a few chapters of fleshing out why some spiritual practices are fruitful human endeavors and others are not, and correlating the claims of mystics with modern neuroscience, Harris gets down to the memoir part of his book and dishes on his own experiences. I was thrilled to read that Harris begins his spiritual search in U Pandita’s meditation center, where he practices a rigorous form of insight meditation. Harris is told that he is working through the progress of insight toward “cessation,” and will attain his first taste of awakening upon that strange moment of non-occurrence. For readers of my site, or fans of insight meditation, this should all sound very familiar.

When I read this part of the book I was rooting for Harris, excited to hear what he makes of the shift in consciousness that occurs after cessation. I looked at how many pages were left and anticipated that there would be a detailed account of how he reconciled his own encounter with nibbana with cutting edge brain science. This, I thought, is the book I’ve been waiting for.

So imagine my disappointment, shock really, when on the same page he reports that he couldn’t do it, and gave up.

No cessation. No stream entry. Zilch.

Something, I thought, went horribly wrong.

It is not exactly clear from the book what happened. In retrospect he reasons that moving toward a goal (cessation) did not feel like the right path to enlightenment, and that truth can be glimpsed no matter where one is on the path, and truth is not found in a state, cessation is not necessary and… his explanation started to feel fishy as I read it. Frankly, this sounds like a rationalization after the fact. Indeed, it sounds identical to what he was taught by the teachers and traditions that he encountered after he left Pandita’s center (Advaita and Dzogchen). So what was he really thinking and feeling at the time he threw in the towel?

A hint can be found in his description of the wall he hit during a year-long retreat:

“But cessation never arrived. Given my gradualist views at that point, this became very frustrating. Most of my time on retreat was extremely pleasant but it seemed to me that I’d merely been given the tools by which to contemplate the evidence of my non-enlightenment. My practice had become a vigil. A method of waiting, however patiently, for a future reward.”

Harris is describing an insight practice that has stalled out in one of the stages along the progress of insight. In another passage he points out that his movement through the progress of insight wasn’t very clear and although he had many interesting experiences he did not know if he was making any progress at all. Why didn’t he know?

What concerns me most about this is that Harris does not describe what would have been the best, most natural, and sensible antidote for his struggle: someone simply telling him where he was on the path and what to do to move on.  I wonder what kind of book Waking Up would be if someone had simply taken him aside at that time and said “hey, relax, you are in lower equanimity. It goes on for a while and can sometimes feel uneventful. Here’s what you can do about it…”

Insight meditation, as a culture, is often one of information-restriction rather than transparency. A nascent movement, pragmatic dharma, has emerged largely in reaction to this, but it is still in its infancy and does not have much of a voice in mainstream meditation centers and media outlets (yet). The most traditional approaches still hold the biggest sway, and they are usually hierarchical, with the teacher knowing the details of the insight stages and which one the student is currently developing. The student’s role is to follow the instructions faithfully and not become too wrapped up in where they are on the path and when the cessation will come. There are many reasons why this approach developed, and many of them are very good reasons. But I don’t think these reasons work anymore, and Harris’s case is an example of why we can no longer afford to have an approach to insight meditation modeled on the norms of pre-modern hierarchical culture. It just doesn’t work very well. A few hundred years ago Harris may have stuck it out, not because it was a special time full of special people, but because his options would have been limited. In today’s world, he simply had better choices and felt empowered to pursue them. The important point is that Harris wasn’t failing as a meditator, he was most likely in a state of information-hunger about what was happening in his own mind. He deserved to know more. And as insight meditation grows and establishes itself in the west, we need to keep in mind that we can do a lot better than this.

I would recommend Harris’s book for a number of reasons. The skeptical approach to awakening, denuded of the dogma and superstition, is wonderful. It’s as if a portal into the future opened up and the reader can see what an approach to awakening will look like when we move beyond religion. The presence of neuroscience in a book about awakening is nothing new, but it is rarely presented so soberly and carefully (although the caution led to a lack of integration with the rest of the book). And finally, it is clear that Harris knows what awakening is from direct experience, and can discuss it as a field of human endeavor every bit as legitimate and practical as any art or science.

The book is a high wire act in a sense, where he balances between the assumptions of secular materialists on one hand and religious ideologues on the other. He invites each to see something in their direct experience that fails to fit into any dogma, and he does so with an understanding of both positions that is refreshing. I’m often frustrated with authors who are so intoxicated by spirituality that they’ve lost their mental footing and have succumbed to a kind of cognitive free fall, but equally odious are authors so rigidly skeptical that they refuse to look at the miracle of their own consciousness. Harris successfully creates an island in the gulf between the two perspectives. Hopefully, it will grow as others follow suit.

About Ron

To learn meditation, no matter where you are in the world, just send an email to:

Posted on November 6, 2014, in buddhism, Dharma, Enlightenment, Meditation, no-self, vipassana and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. Your review is spot on from my view. Set-up for a sequel maybe?

  2. Thanks for your review. I don’t think Sam Harris provides enough detail in Waking Up to conclude he did not attain stream entry with U Pandita. On page 217 of Dan Harris’s book 10% happier Sam Harris implies he did achieve stream entry. Regardless, it is disappointing you did not engage with Sam’s comments about dropping the self via Dzogchen as a potentially more direct way to achieve liberation. As I recall, Ken Folk (22 years) and Dan Ingram (7 years) still had long paths to enlightenment with vipassana despite their talent as meditators.

    • Thanks for that feedback Tom – you just gave me the book to read next – 10% Happier!

      I’ll take a look and see what he says there. I certainly do not want to misrepresent him, and appreciate any corrections. You’re right that I didn’t address his awakening through Dzogchen, primarily because I’m not informed enough about that to do so. I take him at his word that experienced the emptiness of self directly and can now call it up at will. It’s wonderful stuff and I’m glad such a public secular figure has had that experience.

  3. Great article Ron. I just finished the book/interview so this may all be a bit preliminary. For me, another reading of Harris’ experience might be, rather than getting “stuck” in Equanimity, that this was simply the point at which direct pointing or “third gear” practice presented itself to him, so he climbed aboard. This makes intuitive sense to me, and even seems to reflect my own experience of practicing with you – I was able to get to equanimity but at that point it seemed apparent that there was nothing to do and nowhere to go. I happened to encounter the Douglas Harding book, and some other odd versions of Dzogchen at this time and they seemed to make all kinds of sense. Once I had climbed aboard that perspective, noting practice did not seem as obviously useful or even possible at times. Now, whether this is some kind of short circuiting of the path of insight, or on the contrary a very useful short cut – I really don’t know.
    Kind regards, Paul

  4. Thanks Paul – good to hear from you.
    I would add to what you are saying that Dzogchen practices focus heavily (almost exclusively) on the third of the three characteristics, non-self, and that this is what one is beginning to directly experience in equanimity. For this reason a lot of people who enter the insight of equanimity suddenly discover that practices emphasizing emptiness, nonduality, non-doing, mahamudra, the “Self” with a capital “S” and other experiences of the third characteristic suddenly become very alive to them and make sense in a way they never have before. Simultaneously, lower EQ is very uneventful and can go on for a much longer time than other parts of the path. That combo – the sudden beauty of non-self wisdom and the lack of interesting developments – is what I suspect was happening with Harris. So I think we are seeing the situation a similar way. He was drawn to the Dzogchen because non-self was singing out to him in his meditation, but he was in a very bland part of it and may not have known that at the time. I can’t help but speculate about what he didn’t know…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: