Recently I listened to my first episode of “Decoding the Gurus”.

The hosts of this podcast, a psychologist (Matt Browne) and an anthropologist (Chris Kavanagh), explore the integrity of public intellectuals. In other words, how sincere, humble, transparent, and grounded in truth they are.

The subject of this episode was Sam Harris.

They had a respectful and mostly neutral take on Sam – who ranked in the bottom half of their “gurometer” scale. (A higher score means more reason to be skeptical). The hosts seem like reasonable guys, and poke as much fun at themselves as the people they review.

One clip caught my attention.

Here, Matt reveals his distaste for anything seemingly spiritual. Additionally, both hosts see Sam Harris’s version of Buddhism as biased. They mention how all religions can be cherry picked to seem good or bad. Sam Harris famously bags on Islam as being essentially bad, yet emphasizes Buddhism as being essentially good. They point out there are peaceful aspects of Islam, and some violent associations with Buddhism, so it seems a little biased.

Play the audio here:

Observations

1. The problem with claims like this is they’re unresolvable. Sam Harris’s implicit suggestion, that Buddhism is mostly good, vs their claim, that it depends on how you read it, is impossible to settle. Both can be somewhat true and not fully negate the other.

2. Matt’s aversion to “spirituality” is strong, he seems unwilling to stomach even parts of Buddhism that Sam likes to emphasize. One example might be “no self”. I am split, because I relate to spiritual aversion, but I find “no self” to be empirically true even without the Buddhist context. I also find Buddhism to be mostly benevolent, although, the hosts would claim this stems from my westernized understanding – which I can’t deny.

3. Both hosts suggest Sam has nothing special to offer about the “fundamental nature of reality” – that, it’s just an “abstracted philosophical view” – and him not recognizing it as such feels egocentric.

By questioning Sam Harris’s grasp of the “fundamental nature of reality”, they indirectly question principles of the Waking Up platform and what it purports to teach.

For any Waking Up follower, this is worth considering.

I will share a quick story to make a point.

My Waking Up App Story

Waking Up is Sam Harris’s meditation app. I downloaded it without any “spiritual” intentions and almost totally naive to Buddhism. I simply wanted to see how meditation changed my perception. Frankly I was curious why people compared meditation and psychedelics – as I had never tried psychedelics nor took meditation seriously. Yet both kept making research headlines.

Although the waking up app contains all sorts of lectures (both Buddhist and non-Buddhist topics, e.g. stoicism, happiness, psychology), I avoided all that and stuck to the daily meditation. Typically 20 minute sessions, 4-5 times per week.

This was covid era – a great time to start rituals.

While meditating, I’d write thoughts on a pad before letting them go. After 10 minutes or so, the thoughts would slow down, and I’d have nothing left to write. Then I’d just sit.

After weeks I started seeing patterns in my notes. Like why TF am I worrying about X so much? Or why am I NEVER thinking about Y, which is more important? It sounds stupid but I never had such a clear window into my mind, and it led me to change my habits.

Equally as significant, was the silence. I was habituating to it. Once my thoughts died down… everything was totally fine. Who was I in these moments? The “me” that I was accustomed to feeling had subsided, yet “I” was still there. What was the difference between these states? This fluidity was fascinating.

Contentedness began to permeate my life. I was generally relaxed and slightly less attached to whatever happened. This wasn’t an “effort”, but a reflex.

One night, December 21, 2021, I had the most peculiar epiphany of my life: I don’t need anything special to be happy. I am as happy now as I’ll ever be. I will not belabor this I’ll simply state that it happened, I’ll never forget it, and it permanently altered my worldview. Other insights of similar gravity appeared over the following year.

WTF Just Happened?

At this point I STILL knew nothing about Buddhism. Nor did I care about the deeper meaning of “waking up”. Nor was I steeped an any “abstract philosophical view”.

Yet insights were happening.

I had the OPPOSITE problem as a traditional “seeker”.

I accidentally had an epiphany and was seeking to understand it. I later realized, most people are seeking an epiphany.

Several years later, after much exploring, conversation, and careful reconciliation, I can say much of what I experienced, and some conclusions I reached without any special teaching or indoctrination, resemble what Buddhists and “spiritual” people talk about.

DTG Misses the Point…

In summary, I think the DTG guys are missing Sam Harris’s core claim about reality.

I understand it as this: Our mind is confusing and we aren’t exactly in control. If we pay a little attention, we can clear this up.

That’s it. Simple, yet potentially radical.

Sam often distills it further: You are not your thoughts. He once said if he could transmit only one sentence to humanity, this would be it.

This, to me, is a fair claim about the nature of reality. It’s a hint to look for ourselves, not some convoluted abstract philosophical view.

It seems like the DTG guys miss this nugget, because they’re fixated on the Buddhism and spirituality parts of Sam, which admittedly can be strong. But what they don’t mention (or might not know), is Sam wants to “Kill the Buddha“, in the long run.

One host, Matt, really wants nothing to do with anything spiritual. Can’t blame him. The other host, Chris, studied Buddhism extensively, and can’t stomach Sam’s choice of emphasis. These positions aren’t wrong. Yet, they don’t negate the core claim.

My story suggests how spirituality-free investigation can unfold into something that eventually resembles it. But it doesn’t rely upon it.

Self-Investigation

I see great value in talking about this inner journey non-spiritual terms.

This avoids flaring anyone’s spiritual allergy.

The term “Self-Investigation” is meant to capture this: the fundamental confusion inherent in our mind, and exploring it.

This website, Self-Investigation.org (SI), is a home for this definition, and a public community who maintains and discusses it.

This doesn’t replace or compete with anything. It merely offers a means to speak about certain things without getting lost in spirituality land.

This DTG episode happens to be a great example of where this lends itself.

Giving Credit

Buddhism and “spiritual” traditions tilled the soil that contemplative science is reaping from today. It’s amazing how many intuitions from these traditions track with what modern research shows about the brain and mind. Even if we separate spiritual talk, the dotted lines will remain, as an origin story. Where did meditation come from, for instance?

The DTG guys deserve respect for a solid episode and their mission to expose intellectual charlatans. They’re bound to misfire occasionally – I’m simply speaking up where I see that here. Otherwise I appreciate what they’re up to. Sam Harris, like anyone, has his blind spots, and they seem fair in exploring them. And the internet is full of charlatans.

Final Thoughts

Sam Harris understands the controversy and allergy around “spirituality”. He chooses to reference it anyway, in his conversations and the Waking Up platform. There are pros and cons to this.

This podcast is a great example of where it creates confusion.

For those of us who don’t sneeze at spirituality, but at the same time, aren’t keen to associate with it, the core practice still speaks for itself, and “Self-Investigation” offers a way to frame it.

Discussion

This article has been posted to reddit for voting and discussion.

Decoding Sam Harris
byu/self-investigation inSelfInvestigation

Related

Why the Word “Spirituality” Kinda Sucks
Why the Word “Enlightenment” Kinda Sucks
What is Self-Investigation?