I was surprised, given what a significant part of the “The End of Faith” Contemplative Science makes up (i.e. the rational approach to spirituality - specifically Sam’s Discussion on instructions for ‘mysticism’ and rational meditation - page 218 incl. note 18), that there is no forum for this topic.
I’m also surprised, for the same reasons, that searching for “contemplative science” only yield’s two hits in across the whole Sam Harris forum….or am I searching for the wrong topic? In fact I’m almost shocked Sam isn’t “leading the charge” on this discussion!
Because of the lack of a forum for Contemplative Science I am cross posting to the Science, Philosophy and General forms with a link back to the Science forum where I would like to start this discussion. (Please post replies in this thread to keep the discussion in one place)
Background to my question: Contemplative Science - Who Teaches It?
It was a fortuitous coincidence that I was reading The End of Faith, when I heard an interview with John Kabat Zinn about mindfulness meditation (which is I think at least conceptually aligned with what you describe as “contemplative science”) and his book “Wherever you go there you are”. This allowed me to connect Sam’s ideas on non-dogmatic ‘spirituality’ with something practical.
Now, having started meditating (using Kabat-Zinn’s CDs as a guide), I am very interested in finding a rational (non-religious / contemplative science) meditation coach and / or community…one that is not associated with the dogma of faith.
Sam’s article for the Shambhala Times in June 2006 “Killing the Buddha” has only made me more nervous about approaching one of the (many) Buddist groups in Toronto.
There are a couple of groups in Toronto specifically using Kabat-Zinn’s approach, usually called a “Stress Reduction Clinic” (based on his original work in Boston), and clearly these groups are not associated with a religion.
Does anyone have any advice or guidance…or does what Sam and I are looking for in a contemplative science teacher or community just not yet exist?
Thanks
_____
Update - Nov 3:
In some further digging Sam Harris has written a much more straight forward introduction to the whole idea of a contemplative science which is in the last half of this speech given to the Atheist Alliance conference in Washington D.C. on September 28th, 2007. Scroll down the article until you get to the section which begins: “The last problem with atheism”.
Its actually a really good speach overall…but I was particularly struck with the clarity with which Sam explains what he means by a contemplative science and how this is different from a religeon based on dogma.
Antony, before leaping in to anything, I suggest finding copies of some of Idries Shah’s books and reading them. This goes beyond meditation and this writer is well worth reading. As far as various groups to investigate, the catch is that many groups are either fakes, or while they started out as legitimate groups, have degenerated into mindless repetition. Shah describes this phenomenon in detail. There are many buddhist groups (Tibetian and otherwise), some more valuable than others. You can also look at Gurdjieff groups (many of these have degenerated into repetition, but others have not). If you come across an Arica group, it will provide good work for you, but you might have to bracket some of the apparently religious language used. Doing a web search on any of these terms might highlight some acceptable group in your area. Good Luck.
Thanks for your suggestions…I did a bit of reading…and this has lead me to a comment (for discussion) and three specific questions based on your advice.
The comment first.
Having taken a first glance at Idries Shah, Gurdjieff, Arica I am stuck of the total lack of a peer reviewed Contemplative Science body of knowledge which is free from deism or personal (cult) bias.
I think this is what Sam Harris is suggesting is required in a Contemplative Science in the last portion of the End of Faith…do people agree?
While Sam Harris uses both the words mysticism and spirituality in the End of Faith he does so in a very defined and limited way which are totally aligned with a rational or scientific methodology.
This is not the first time that I’ve been surprised in my own journey at this apparent lack.
What am I missing?
I can think immediately of 3 possibilities…
1. Is Sam Harris right and such a Contemplative Science body of knowledge is indeed possible…but we’ve not yet taken the teachings that have for centuries reliably produced results and removed references to dogma and deism?
I thought I had understood from the End of Faith that original teachings of the Buddha (and his precursors the Upanishads) are largely free of dogma and deism. I would guess that many of the explanations of mechanism in these works would be incorrect since our scientific knowledge has advanced in the last 2500+ years. This means that much of the language in existing straight translations would need to be changed to avoid non-rational spiritualism / mystic interpretation. Perhaps this work is underway but not yet completed?
2. Is Sam Harris right and such a Contemplative Science body of knowledge is indeed possible …but our basic scientific knowledge of the processes of consciousness prevents us from describing the body of knowledge in scientific terms at this time?
I know there are neuroscientists, psychologists and philosophers applying themselves to this topic to bring the evidenced based approach which any science requires and I know they have much work to do.
3. Is Sam Harris is wrong, and it is indeed impossible to reliably reproduce, without reference to deism etc.?
If so then a lot of us need to do a lot of rethinking.
I’ll ignore #3 since at least Sam Harris thinks this is not the case…and explore my first two questions a little further:
Who has / is working on this task to fulfill the vision of a teachable / practical body of knowledge?
Where is the output from all this work for the everyday person to take and use as Sam Harris suggests?
So far in my limited experience John Kabat Zinn is the only person out-there who appears to be taking the rational approach in practical terms which the everyday person can use…but there appear to be few communities (that I have found so far) pushing themselves to fully exploit the teaching.
And lastly, where is the community debating these vital topic? I would have expected to find it here (or links to it) and I would have expected it to be prominent…it is basis for the vision for humanities future happiness which Sam has put forward. But there seems not even a forum for this discussion.
I just find this odd / disappointing. Am I alone in feeling this? What am I missing?
OK, on to the specific question…
I suggest finding copies of some of Idries Shah’s books and reading them.
First, if I understand correctly you are suggesting Shah will give me some ‘tools’ to be able to better discern a rational / scientific group from those more oriented towards deism, dogma or cults…is that correct?
Next…Shah wrote quite a few books ...do you have a specific one in mind to start with?
Lastly…Shah was, if I understand correctly, a major figure in the Sulfi sect of Islam (not sure my terminology is correct). I am wondering if a person that embedded in deist way of thinking has the ability to provide advice for Contemplative Science(tists)? Clearly you think so…but I wonder if you could give me some sense of why? (this is not an attack but an honest question from the perspective of total ignorance)
Having taken a first glance at Idries Shah, Gurdjieff, Arica I am stuck of the total lack of a peer reviewed Contemplative Science body of knowledge which is free from deism or personal (cult) bias.
I think this is what Sam Harris is suggesting is required in a Contemplative Science in the last portion of the End of Faith…do people agree?
There is no peer reviewed Contemplative Science today, there are only individuals and schools that teach this. Once upon a time there was such a science in the ancient Greek philosophical schools (which taught other things such as gymnastics, mathematics, music, and such as well as philosophical speculation). These schools were finally disbanded in 529 AD by the emperor Justinian because they taught “pagan knowledge.” Much of their teachings went underground in the West (and degenerated into occult magic), and were absorbed into the stream that became sufism in the Middle East. Prior to this, there were strong influences back and forth between the Hellenistic world and Eastern traditions. The upshot of this is that the scientific approach was never strongly developed. Building blocks for the foundations for this sort of science are all about in current scientific literature (cognitive science, neuroscience, social psychology, etc.) but they haven’t yet been put together in a peer reviewed way. Some of the schools ‘ve mentioned have coherent systems of development but they are more interested in the practical rather than in producing intellectually reviewable scientific publications. (The TM people have done some research on the value of meditation.)
Most of these systems will use language that at first glance has theistic or deistic meanings, but that doesn’t invalidate their results (assuming, as always, that they are legitimate schools rather than imitations or fossilized remenants).
While Sam Harris uses both the words mysticism and spirituality in the End of Faith he does so in a very defined and limited way which are totally aligned with a rational or scientific methodology.
This is not the first time that I’ve been surprised in my own journey at this apparent lack.
What am I missing?
Continued: That is correct. Some of the schools that I mentioned operate in a rational way, others do not. The distinction is between those that are based on faith, and those that are based on knowledge. In the West, for the past 1500 years or so, only the faith based approaches have been visible. Knowledge based approaches were not approved by the Church. Faith based approaches include those requiring a guru (which is why I didn’t recommend Rajneesh or any of the other living or dead gurus available—almost in the yellow pages). One catch is that since the subject of knowledge here is oneself, it isn’t possible to avoid language that appears subjective. What matters is the attitude that the work is approached with. The correct attitude is skeptical, in the original meaning of neither affirming nor denying; just doing an exercise (for example) and observing the results.
1. Is Sam Harris right and such a Contemplative Science body of knowledge is indeed possible…but we’ve not yet taken the teachings that have for centuries reliably produced results and removed references to dogma and deism?
I thought I had understood from the End of Faith that original teachings of the Buddha (and his precursors the Upanishads) are largely free of dogma and deism. I would guess that many of the explanations of mechanism in these works would be incorrect since our scientific knowledge has advanced in the last 2500+ years. This means that much of the language in existing straight translations would need to be changed to avoid non-rational spiritualism / mystic interpretation. Perhaps this work is underway but not yet completed?
2. Is Sam Harris right and such a Contemplative Science body of knowledge is indeed possible …but our basic scientific knowledge of the processes of consciousness prevents us from describing the body of knowledge in scientific terms at this time?
I know there are neuroscientists, psychologists and philosophers applying themselves to this topic to bring the evidenced based approach which any science requires and I know they have much work to do.
3. Is Sam Harris is wrong, and it is indeed impossible to reliably reproduce, without reference to deism etc.?
If so then a lot of us need to do a lot of rethinking.
I’ll ignore #3 since at least Sam Harris thinks this is not the case…and explore my first two questions a little further:
Who has / is working on this task to fulfill the vision of a teachable / practical body of knowledge?
Where is the output from all this work for the everyday person to take and use as Sam Harris suggests?
So far in my limited experience John Kabat Zinn is the only person out-there who appears to be taking the rational approach in practical terms which the everyday person can use…but there appear to be few communities (that I have found so far) pushing themselves to fully exploit the teaching.
OK, on to the specific question…
I suggest finding copies of some of Idries Shah’s books and reading them.
First, if I understand correctly you are suggesting Shah will give me some ‘tools’ to be able to better discern a rational / scientific group from those more oriented towards deism, dogma or cults…is that correct?
Next…Shah wrote quite a few books ...do you have a specific one in mind to start with?
Lastly…Shah was, if I understand correctly, a major figure in the Sulfi sect of Islam (not sure my terminology is correct). I am wondering if a person that embedded in deist way of thinking has the ability to provide advice for Contemplative Science(tists)? Clearly you think so…but I wonder if you could give me some sense of why? (this is not an attack but an honest question from the perspective of total ignorance)
Thanks
For your (1) and (2), there is such a body of knowledge, it is used, but it has not been cast into a form that does not refer to deism. It may be that use of this sort of language is necessary at this time in history.
I’m not familiar with Zinn, friends of mine have recommended Stephan Bachelor’s books on Buddhism as being good adaptations for the West.
As for Shah, he was an exponent of sufism, but he focuses more on the relevence of practical knowledge without any mystical or religious baggage. Books that might be most useful: The Sufis, Learning How to Learn, The Commanding Self; Knowing How to Know (in this order). The Nasruddin books, and his books of translations of teaching stories are great reads. Got to run now.
This is the wrong place if you are looking for information on contemplative science. Most of the people who post on this site are very upset with Sam Harris over the material in Chapter 7. The idea of having a clear, focused, disciplined mind has never caught on here.
If you are looking for some material of an intellectual nature try “Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain” by Sharon Begley or “Integral Spirituality” by Ken Wilber. If you are looking for something a bit more specific about meditation then try “The Attention Revolution” by B. Alan Wallace.
Being curious about meditation is a good thing but I will say that reading books about it is only a start, in other words you won’t get more than an intellectual understanding of your mind unless you develop a practice of your own. I will tell you from experience that meditation practice is hard work and can be very frustrating. Also, without doing retreats it is difficult to develop any depth of understanding. If you decide to get serious about meditation I would look for a Vipassana or Insight meditation center, this is the tradition that originated in Burma and Thailand. The retreats are long on practice and short on talk.
This is the wrong place if you are looking for information on contemplative science. Most of the people who post on this site are very upset with Sam Harris over the material in Chapter 7. The idea of having a clear, focused, disciplined mind has never caught on here.
If you are looking for some material of an intellectual nature try “Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain” by Sharon Begley or “Integral Spirituality” by Ken Wilber. If you are looking for something a bit more specific about meditation then try “The Attention Revolution” by B. Alan Wallace.
Being curious about meditation is a good thing but I will say that reading books about it is only a start, in other words you won’t get more than an intellectual understanding of your mind unless you develop a practice of your own. I will tell you from experience that meditation practice is hard work and can be very frustrating. Also, without doing retreats it is difficult to develop any depth of understanding. If you decide to get serious about meditation I would look for a Vipassana or Insight meditation center, this is the tradition that originated in Burma and Thailand. The retreats are long on practice and short on talk.
Glad you brought up Vipassana, I’ve had no experience of it myself, but a couple of friends are into it and have found it very beneficial. And you’re right, long on practice—very long—and very short on talk.
This brings up a division to be aware of between anaphatic and kataphatic methods. Not to worry about the terms, what they mean is meditational systems that focus on emptiness (zen, vipassana) and systems that utilize form (tibetian, most Western systems). In the latter, meditations on forms (yantras, mandalas, etc.) are used (in conjunction with other things like sounds, mudras, etc.) to construct, in a sense, a “ladder to heaven” in the mind.
One more comment: I think Sam is partially wrong in believing that a completely rational/empirical method can be found with no deistic aspect. The reason is that this sort of work is internal work of construction of ones consciousness and that requires an attitude of reverence, best established with deistic or spiritual language.
..... this sort of work is internal work of construction of ones consciousness and that requires an attitude of reverence, best established with deistic or spiritual language.
?????I thought it was deconstruction.
And why would it require this attitude? It has for me, but I’m assuming that someone else could carry on without a spiritual frame of reference. I’m also assuming it might be possible to transcend the objective/subjective divide, leading to a truly nondual form of language. I see my own framework, including God, as an aspect of duality.
..... this sort of work is internal work of construction of ones consciousness and that requires an attitude of reverence, best established with deistic or spiritual language.
?????I thought it was deconstruction.
And why would it require this attitude? It has for me, but I’m assuming that someone else could carry on without a spiritual frame of reference. I’m also assuming it might be possible to transcend the objective/subjective divide, leading to a truly nondual form of language. I see my own framework, including God, as an aspect of duality.
Well, there has to be something constructed to replace the deconstruction, otherwise how to operate in the world?
It isn’t necessary for a religious frame of reference, but for one that provides an attitude of reverence. Since we have been raised in a religious culture, religious language fits easily although that is changing.
I disagree, most forms of Buddhist meditation start with form (breath, body, mantra) and progress to Emptiness (What is the nature of mind?). Also, I don’t see meditation as construction or deconstruction, it is more a matter of investigation, discovery and refinement (No reverence required).
Well, there has to be something constructed to replace the deconstruction, otherwise how to operate in the world?
I also emailed Sam Harris directly my original question…
Below (with his permission) is the short dialog we had…and I am hoping he will join this discussion directly…
Antony
_________________
First Sam’s response to my original question at the Top of this Thread
————————————————————————————————————————
From: Sam Harris [mailto:sam@samharris.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:50 PM
To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Subject: Re: Contemplative Science - Who Teaches It?
Unfortunately, it doesn’t really exist in a way that can be readily accessed.
I fully support what Kabat-Zinn is doing, and if you wanted to sit a retreat, I would recommend the practice of “vipassana” which is what Kabat-Zinn is teaching.
The best place to sit such a retreat is IMS ( www.dharma.org ). The practice doesn’t require any metaphysical assumptions and you can just ignore the Buddhist mumbo jumbo.
Best,
Sam
_________________
Next my reply to Sam…and my invitation for him to join this Discussion
On Oct 24, 2007, at 3:33 PM, Upward, Antony (Home) wrote:
Sam,
Many thanks for this….your reference does look interesting.
I’m trying to start a conversation (with some success) around my question to you on the forum. See http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/8717/ Would you mind if I posted your reply to my question on this forum?
I was surprised after reading The End of Faith not to find a Contemplative Science section to the forum where there is an active discussion going on about how to create what you suggested is required in your vision for the future happiness of humanity. Indeed . Any idea why this didn’t happen?
Further, having seen you speak on a few occasions on TV (most recently when PBS broadcast Jonathan Millers excellent series on Atheism), I am surprised not to see you leading the charge.
So, in the forum thread I started I’ve suggested various possibilities as to why there is no clear answer to my question (with which your answer concurred) and several others have added there thoughts and suggestions.
Perhaps you would care to comment on mine and others peoples’ thoughts?
Hope to see you wading in to further explain your vision for a Contemplative Science and to update us on what you have learned since you wrote that part of the End of Faith, and indeed how the discipline is progressing in your mind.
If Contemplative Science is really in a very early stage of development perhaps an appropriate inter-disciplinary conference would be appropriate to bring together the people working in the various fields to attempt to at least put some structure to a Body of Knowledge for the field (even if we can’t necessarily complete it…or even if we don’t know what we don’t know) to guide future research.
Or does this type of thing already happen?
Thanks again for replying…I hope you choose to do so again…and agree to move this conversation to the forum.
I disagree, most forms of Buddhist meditation start with form (breath, body, mantra) and progress to Emptiness (What is the nature of mind?). Also, I don’t see meditation as construction or deconstruction, it is more a matter of investigation, discovery and refinement (No reverence required).
Well, there has to be something constructed to replace the deconstruction, otherwise how to operate in the world?
Not true, remember “Deeds but no doer thereof.”
Breath, body, mantra are directed toward the recognition of emptiness though. You’re right about the investigation, discovery, and refinement. I was thinking of things like Tibetian Highest Yoga Tantra, or Western Magical systems. That’s what I meant by construction and deconstructon: the ordinary ego structures are deconstructed (a better word might be disolved), and a new set of structures is constructed internally. So the distinction I was looking for was between systems that go directly toward emptiness and those that rely on form all the way. Of course, the ending is, to paraphrase Wittgenstein, once one has climbed up the ladder one pulls it up and leaves it behind. Mu
Focusing on the body, breath, mantra, etc. is used to build concentration and stabilize the attention, these forms of meditation are not going to lead you to insight into emptiness.
and a new set of structures is constructed internally.
Where are you getting this idea? The self is seen as an illusion, it is not replaced with some kind of better or higher self.
Anthony, here in the West science views the mind/consciousness as ‘not really existing’ or an epiphenomenon. This is a direct result of the bias which science holds towards things (mental phenomena) that are not detectable with the senses or any of the instruments which augment the senses. It is a materialistic prejudice pure and simple. It is only recently that science has begun to seriously investigate consciousness. Since it takes decades of study to develop any expertise in Contemplative Science there are presently very few knowledgeable people in the field with any real experience (James Austin and Jon Kabat-Zinn are the only ones who come to mind). Ironically enough it is in religion where Contemplative Science has developed. Thus if you want to study Contemplative Science you will have to do so in a religious environment and sift out the meaningful material. However I will warn you that you will have to discard the hidden materialist bias that comes built into the idea of ‘science’ or you won’t get very far.
Focusing on the body, breath, mantra, etc. is used to build concentration and stabilize the attention, these forms of meditation are not going to lead you to insight into emptiness.
and a new set of structures is constructed internally.
Where are you getting this idea? The self is seen as an illusion, it is not replaced with some kind of better or higher self.
But you still need to have a “self” for operating in the everyday world. John Lennon knew that. Seeing the self as an illusion doesn’t mean that the illusion can be eliminated. When a Tibetean monk meditates on a complex mandala what is going on is that the monk has, through many hours of practice, embodied states of consciousness that are symbolized by the various ornaments, tools, entities, and so on in the mandala. The mandala itself provides a visual synthesis of these in combination, leading (of the meditation is successful) to a new state of consciousness. That’s what I mean by an internal construction. Once the state is established, the monk can return to it at will, or remain in it as required. At the same time, if it is not the ultimate state (clarity upon emptiness, light upon silence, love and compassion upon wisdom) then the monk is still in a process of realization and his meditation is only another step on the way. The anaphatic forms of meditation (Zen is the purest example) want to go directly to emptiness.
JustThis - 25 October 2007 06:53 PM
Anthony, here in the West science views the mind/consciousness as ‘not really existing’ or an epiphenomenon. This is a direct result of the bias which science holds towards things (mental phenomena) that are not detectable with the senses or any of the instruments which augment the senses. It is a materialistic prejudice pure and simple. It is only recently that science has begun to seriously investigate consciousness. Since it takes decades of study to develop any expertise in Contemplative Science there are presently very few knowledgeable people in the field with any real experience (James Austin and Jon Kabat-Zinn are the only ones who come to mind). Ironically enough it is in religion where Contemplative Science has developed. Thus if you want to study Contemplative Science you will have to do so in a religious environment and sift out the meaningful material. However I will warn you that you will have to discard the hidden materialist bias that comes built into the idea of ‘science’ or you won’t get very far.
I would add Idris Shah to the list in terms of writers who speak from experience. Robert Ornstein has some books that are worthwhile as well. Both of these writers are acting in the sufi tradition of providing practical information, but since Shah’s death there is, to my knowledge, no longer an acknowledged sufi teacher in this line of transmission. The most complete and scientifically testible theory for contemplative science is Oscar Ichazo’s, used as the basis for the teaching methods of the Arica school. Unfortunately, it is not available in a standard presentation and participants in Arica training programs are asked to sign confidentiality agreements so it is likely to be a while for it to get out in a coherent form (some of the leaked material has degenerated into the “enneagram personality” literature, which is way off base). The hidden materialist bias in science is not all that hidden (just ask Salt Creek ) That is why I’ve been campaigning for new methods to be developed for dealing with first person experiences.
...do you have a specific one in mind to start with?
) That is why I’ve been campaigning for new methods to be developed for dealing with first person experiences.
