Sam Harris "Waking Up" app

[Preety_India]

2 minutes ago, Extreme Z7 said:

@Leo Gura 

Would you ever speak with Sam Harris if presented the opportunity?

What would you try to tell him?

Lmao Leo will never talk to him. 100% guaranteed.

It's the most impossible thing in the Universe.

It's how Sam Harris is, which makes such a dialogue impossible..

 

Edited July 17, 2021 by Preety_India

[OneHandClap]

4 minutes ago, spinderella said:

What could be beyond consciousness if it is the substrate of everything?  I always remember Leo's example of clay, if the (magical) clay can make everything, I guess the question I'm trying to figure out is "what is the clay"?  Leo says it's nothing, Sam says "we don't know what it is?". 

Is this the discrepancy?

  

Yes, pretty much, though you might go a step further in your analogy by saying that Sam's assertion is "We don't understand if there is something that is not clay causing the clay to exist." Sam is very on the fence about matters of metaphysics, in that he takes no real stance about whether consciousness is the fundamental property (or substrate) of reality. Sam has certainly taught no-self stuff, and even unconditional love (the two go hand in hand), but he does not dabble in metaphysics. And truth be told, I don't think it is required for most of the path.

The Buddha himself counseled seekers to not waste time wondering about the origins of reality, whether the self is extinguished or eternally present, etc. His only goal was the eradication of suffering. Once suffering is removed, wisdom arises spontaneously. I don't know if you find this helpful, but I think it's good advice. By the time you get into contemplating what reality "is," you have already moved beyond the vast majority of personal suffering. 

[spinderella]

1 minute ago, OneHandClap said:

Yes, pretty much, though you might go a step further in your analogy by saying that Sam's assertion is "We don't understand if there is something that is not clay causing the clay to exist." Sam is very on the fence about matters of metaphysics, in that he takes no real stance about whether consciousness is the fundamental property (or substrate) of reality. Sam has certainly taught no-self stuff, and even unconditional love (the two go hand in hand), but he does not dabble in metaphysics. And truth be told, I don't think it is required for most of the path.

Thank you, I think I understand better.  I'm not totally confident, but sometimes I have to bask in the discomfort of "not knowing" for a minute.  Appreciate your insight.  

[Javfly33]

3 minutes ago, OneHandClap said:

Yes, pretty much, though you might go a step further in your analogy by saying that Sam's assertion is "We don't understand if there is something that is not clay causing the clay to exist." Sam is very on the fence about matters of metaphysics, in that he takes no real stance about whether consciousness is the fundamental property (or substrate) of reality. Sam has certainly taught no-self stuff, and even unconditional love (the two go hand in hand), but he does not dabble in metaphysics. And truth be told, I don't think it is required for most of the path.

The Buddha himself counseled seekers to not waste time wondering about the origins of reality, whether the self is extinguished or eternally present, etc. His only goal was the eradication of suffering. Once suffering is removed, wisdom arises spontaneously. I don't know if you find this helpful, but I think it's good advice. By the time you get into contemplating what reality "is," you have already moved beyond the vast majority of personal suffering. 

And how do you remove suffering ?

[OneHandClap]

1 minute ago, spinderella said:

Thank you, I think I understand better.  I'm not totally confident, but sometimes I have to bask in the discomfort of "not knowing" for a minute.  Appreciate your insight.  

Anytime! It is a long road, so don't worry about missing something. It all comes together naturally. For now, just enjoy your meditation sessions and focus on the pleasant feelings. Cultivate them gradually and hold onto that not-knowing; it's the space in which knowing arises

1 minute ago, Javfly33 said:

And how do you remove suffering ?

Well, if you go by the Buddhist model, you remove the causes of suffering. In other words, the grasping tendencies of the mind. The need to control, to be right, to indulge desires, to stoke hatred. Once you've seen past the desires of the mind and purified it, there is no ground for suffering to arise. Pain, and even displeasure, yes, but not suffering in response to those things. 

[Leo Gura]

42 minutes ago, OneHandClap said:

AFAIK, he said his first experience of unconditional love arrived via MDMA. Nice way to get a foot in the door... now he just has to cultivate it

Kids at parties have that. That is not the same thing as realizing what Love is.

37 minutes ago, Extreme Z7 said:

@Leo Gura 

Would you ever speak with Sam Harris if presented the opportunity?

What would you try to tell him?
Pardon me if this question has already been asked to you.

He would never talk to me, I recon. It's too dangerous for him.

And even if he did, the conversation would go nowhere.

There is no cure for a closed mind.

[OneHandClap]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Kids at parties have that. That is not the same thing as realizing what Love is.

I suppose it's the best a materialist can get in their paradigm. The limiting issue is that unless Sam acknowledges absolute love is a possibility, he will not seek it, let alone discover it. 

[ZzzleepingBear]

There is a 20 min long discussion between Sam Harris and Rupert Spira on youtube that I can recommend. I don't know much or anything about Sam harris really, other than that he is very popular and seem to oppose consciousness as the fundamental reality. But I have watched quite alot of Rupperts teachings through out the years. I found their discussion to be a quite interesting one, since it isn't really a hardheaded debate between the two either, despite their different positions. Oh, and btw that wasn't the full discussion I believe, I think it continue on some other platform. So I didn't watch the full thing, but I might do that

Here it is for anyone interested

 

Edited July 17, 2021 by ZzzleepingBear

[forestfog]

Recently Bernardo Kastrup wrote about the lack of understanding by Sam Harris of consciousness as fundamental (ontological idealism).

"Indeed, idealism is one of the foundational topics in both Eastern and Western philosophy. A basic understanding of idealist claims—the claims of Berkeley, Swedenborg, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and arguably even Plato, Parmenides and Empedocles—is part of the 'ABC' of philosophy. That someone who "received a degree in philosophy from Stanford University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA" (quote from Harris's website) can fail so resoundingly at such a foundational level is, well, quite amazing. Harris conflates very basic concepts. For instance, he conflates personal consciousness with consciousness as ontic category, something no self-respecting philosophy freshman would do (it's like conflating a wooden table with wood). Parts of his 'argument against idealism' also imply a direct conflation of idealism with solipsism, two entirely different metaphysics that, again, no self-respecting freshman in philosophy would conflate. How is that possible?" https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2021/06/is-ad-hominem-always-fallacy.html

Edited July 17, 2021 by forestfog

[ZzzleepingBear]

23 minutes ago, forestfog said:

 it's like conflating a wooden table with wood

This sentence alone stood out to me and makes so much sense now, as I think back on the debate between Harris and Spira.

This is a perfect example of when someone like Harris wants or feel the need to deny the fundamental reality as conciousness in any discussion/debate. An egoic emergancy break.

Conflating overlapping thoughts inorder to collapse an undenial seeing of what is.

[RickyFitts]

I'm struggling to make sense of a line from that Bernarndo Kastrup quote forestfog mentioned:

Quote

He conflates personal consciousness with consciousness as ontic category, something no self-respecting philosophy freshman would do (it's like conflating a wooden table with wood).

Admittedly I'm a bit of a noob, but could someone elaborate please?

[AtheisticNonduality]

11 minutes ago, RickyFitts said:

I'm struggling to make sense of a line from that Bernarndo Kastrup quote forestfog mentioned:

Admittedly I'm a bit of a noob, but could someone elaborate please?

So basically, the position of idealism is that consciousness is the only thing that exists. Not your consciousness specifically or a specific phenomenon in consciousness. But consciousness as a substance.

[RickyFitts]

5 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

So basically, the position of idealism is that consciousness is the only thing that exists. Not your consciousness specifically or a specific phenomenon in consciousness. But consciousness as a substance.

I get that, but I'm still confused - is he basically saying that Harris is making the assumption that there's such a thing as separative, individuated consciousness, and that this is ultimately an illusion?

[AtheisticNonduality]

1 hour ago, RickyFitts said:

I get that, but I'm still confused - is he basically saying that Harris is making the assumption that there's such a thing as separative, individuated consciousness, and that this is ultimately an illusion?

Sam is saying that idealism is wrong because he rejects the idea that a single individuated consciousness being the only thing that exists makes sense.

[Mason Riggle]

Why can't it be the case that Harris is only concerened with the relative, and not so much the absolute? 

And why does nobody here have a problem talking about Harris in the relative, as if he is a material person, with a material brain that is close minded, without jumping to, Sam Harris is me/God. Doesn't anyone here realize God? 

Such close mindedness from everyone here, stuck in this materialist paradigm. Don't you realize Harris' words are your words? You wrote everyhting Harris has ever published, the same way you recorded Leo's videos??

Leo has a whole video about why brains don't exist.. but has no problem talking about Harris as if Sam Harris's brain exists. 

Either all there is is Consciousness, and Harris is that, or Harris is correct.. 

If Harris insisted that 'Brains are made of neurons', this is no different than Leo saying, 'Harris is a materialist'. 

 

If Leo can disect Harris at the relative level,  what's so bad about Harris dissecting consciousness at the relative level.  

Is Leo 'stuck in a materialist paradigm' too? 

Well.. Leo doesn't exist. 

 

Edited July 17, 2021 by Mason Riggle

[Mason Riggle]

"When illusions are all you have, the fact that it's an illusion makes little difference to your mind." Leo Gura

[Mason Riggle]

2 hours ago, RickyFitts said:

I get that, but I'm still confused - is he basically saying that Harris is making the assumption that there's such a thing as separative, individuated consciousness, and that this is ultimately an illusion?

Is 'Harris' a 'separate, individuals consciousness' or no? Who's assuming what here?

[Someone here]

@Mason Riggle oh this again 

[RickyFitts]

2 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Sam is saying that idealism is wrong because he rejects the idea that a single individuated consciousness being the only thing that exists makes sense.

Okay, thanks.

[spinderella]

You guys are all amazing, thanks for such a thoughtful discussion.  

7 hours ago, ZzzleepingBear said:

There is a 20 min long discussion between Sam Harris and Rupert Spira on youtube that I can recommend.

I will definitely watch this immediately.  Thank you. 

2 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Sam is saying that idealism is wrong because he rejects the idea that a single individuated consciousness being the only thing that exists makes sense.

I'm also a bit confused about the "conflating the wooden table with wood" comment, but I think this is kind of helping me understand.  I can grasp (well, as much as is possible) that consciousness is the only thing that exists.  I guess I don't really understand the basis on which Harris says that idealism is wrong?  I think he's saying that "we can't know if consciousness is the only thing that exists", and idealism is saying "yes we do know that consciousness is the only thing that exists."

But yeah I still don't understand the wooden table / wood comment.  Is it that to "conflate" means to combine two things into one, implying that there ARE two things?  So in order to conflate, you have to see them as separate in the first place?

Edited July 17, 2021 by spinderella