William James: "The most religious man in his most religious moments" ~ William Harryman.

William James: “The most religious man in his most religious moments”

by William Harryman on Jan 10, 2010

Why I Side with William James, and Not Sam Harris.

[Originally posted at Integral Options Cafe]

http://www.ebookstore.tandf.co.uk/tandfbooks/200085EF/200085EFcoverw01c.jpg

In his famous book on The Varieties of Religious Experiences (James, 1902/2002) William James has been quoted as saying:

[T]o study religion from a psychological point of view the best one can do is to study the most religious man in his most religious moments.

I can’t find the actual quote in the text, though it does seem many people have cited it (including Jerome Bruner).

I’m a Buddhist, and one without beliefs, but I recognize that a great many people are religious and that is adds a lot to their lives, so I bristle when Dawkins, Harris, and the rest of the new atheists want to do away with all religion. William James offers a good antidote to that limited thinking.

Let’s start with James’ definition of religious experience:

Religion, therefore, as I now ask you arbitrarily to take it, shall mean for us the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine. Since the relation may be either moral, physical, or ritual, it is evident that out of religion in the sense in which we take it, theologies, philosophies, and ecclesiastical organizations may secondarily grow. In these lectures, however, as I have already said, the immediate personal experiences will amply fill our time, and we shall hardly consider theology or ecclesiasticism at all. (pg. 29-30)

This is crucial. James distinguishes religious experience from the secondary structures (i.e., religions) that are built upon the subjective experience of the ineffable. He is clear that the subject of his interest is the subjective experience of the mystic while s/he is experiencing the divine.

This is not a distinction that people such as Sam Harris (see The God Fraud, 2010), despite his dabbling in meditation, would generally make – and one that Dan Dennet (Consciousness Explained, 1992) would never make in that he rejects the validity of qualia (subjective experiences).

Much later in the book, in his Conclusions, James makes the following statements:

Summing up in the broadest possible way the characteristics of the religious life, as we have found them, it includes the following beliefs: —

1. That the visible world is part of a more spiritual universe from which it draws its chief significance;
2. That union or harmonious relation with that higher universe is our true end;
3. That prayer or inner communion with the spirit thereof — be that spirit “God” or “law” — is a process wherein work is really done, and spiritual energy flows in and produces effects, psychological or material, within the phenomenal world.

Religion includes also the following psychological characteristics:

4. A new zest which adds itself like a gift to life, and takes the form either of lyrical enchantment or of appeal to earnestness and heroism.
5. An assurance of safety and a temper of peace, and, in relation to others, a preponderance of loving affections. (pg. 375)

A short time later he makes the following statements, of which the unverified quote I began with might be seen as a summary:

I reply that I took these extremer examples as yielding the profounder information. To learn the secrets of any science, we go to expert specialists, even though they may be eccentric persons, and not to commonplace pupils. We combine what they tell us with the rest of our wisdom, and form our final judgment independently. Even so with religion. We who have pursued such radical expressions of it may now be sure that we know its secrets as authentically as any one can know them who learns them from another; and we have next to answer, each of us for himself, the practical question: what are the dangers in this element of life? and in what proportion may it need to be restrained by other elements, to give the proper balance?

But this question suggests another one which I will answer immediately and get it out of the way, for it has more than once already vexed us.1 Ought it to be assumed that in all men the mixture of religion with other elements should be identical? Ought it, indeed, to be assumed that the lives of all men should show identical religious elements? In other words, is the existence of so many religious types and sects and creeds regrettable?

To these questions I answer “No” emphatically. (pg. 376)

Item #3 in the list above reads as equivalent to the idea of involution.

In integral thought, involution is the process by which the Divine manifests the cosmos. The process by which the creation rises to higher states and states of consciousness is the evolution. Involution prepares the universe for the Big Bang; evolution continues from that point forward. The term involution comes from the idea that the divine involves itself in creation. After the creation, the Divine (i.e. the Absolute, Brahman, God) is both the One (the Creator) and the Many (that which was created).

This process continues as a part of the evolutionary process through the attainment of religious experience and mystical states. Involution is a purely subjective experience that can never demonstrate objective proof – subjective experience and objective proof are different experiential realms.

In defining the mystical states of experience, however, James gives us something we can begin to look for in the experience of others, the exhibition of which would be objectively indicative of a truly religious experience.

I will do what I did in the case of the word “religion,” and simply propose to you four marks which, when an experience has them, may justify us in calling it mystical for the purpose of the present lectures. In this way we shall save verbal disputation, and the recriminations that generally go therewith.

1. Ineffability. — The handiest of the marks by which I classify a state of mind as mystical is negative. The subject of it immediately says that it defies expression, that no adequate report of its contents can be given in words. It follows from this that its quality must be directly experienced; it cannot be imparted or transferred to others. In this peculiarity mystical states are more like states of feeling than like states of intellect. No one can make clear to another who has never had a certain feeling, in what the quality or worth of it consists. One must have musical ears to know the value of a symphony; one must have been in love one’s self to understand a lover’s state of mind. Lacking the heart or ear, we cannot interpret the musician or the lover justly, and are even likely to consider him weak-minded or absurd. The mystic finds that most of us accord to his experiences an equally incompetent treatment.

2. Noetic quality. — Although so similar to states of feeling, mystical states seem to those who experience them to be also states of knowledge. They are states of insight into depths of truth unplumbed by the discursive intellect. They are illuminations, revelations, full of significance and importance, all inarticulate though they remain; and as a rule they carry with them a curious sense of authority for after-time.

These two characters will entitle any state to be called mystical, in the sense in which I use the word. Two other qualities are less sharply marked, but are usually found. These are: —

3. Transiency. — Mystical states cannot be sustained for long. Except in rare instances, half an hour, or at most an hour or two, seems to be the limit beyond which they fade into the light of common day. Often, when faded, their quality can but imperfectly be reproduced in memory; but when they recur it is recognized; and from one recurrence to another it is susceptible of continuous development in what is felt as inner richness and importance.

4. Passivity. — Although the oncoming of mystical states may be, facilitated by preliminary voluntary operations, as by fixing the attention, or going through certain bodily performances, or in other ways which manuals of mysticism prescribe; yet when the characteristic sort of consciousness once has set in, the mystic feels as if his own will were in abeyance, and indeed sometimes as if he were grasped and held by a superior power. This latter peculiarity connects mystical states with certain definite phenomena of secondary or alternative personality, such as prophetic speech, automatic writing, or the mediumistic trance. When these latter conditions are well pronounced, however, there may be no recollection whatever of the phenomenon, and it may have no significance for the subject’s usual inner life, to which, as it were, it makes a mere interruption. Mystical states, strictly so called, are never merely interruptive. Some memory of their content always remains, and a profound sense of their importance. They modify the inner life of the subject between the times of their recurrence. Sharp divisions in this region are, however, difficult to make, and we find all sorts of gradations and mixtures.

These four characteristics are sufficient to mark out a group of states of consciousness peculiar enough to deserve a special name and to call for careful study. Let it then be called the mystical group. (pg. 294-296)

In looking at mysticism, James is looking at “the most religious man in his most religious moments,” essentially looking at the ways in which religious experience is positive, transformative, and compassionate in nature.

On the other hand, Harris, Dennet, Dawkins, and Hitchens (The Four Horsemen of Atheism) are looking at the most fundamentalist expressions of institutionalized religion, not at the nature of religious experience itself. They are condemning all religious experience and expression by looking at the worst of religion on its worst days.

Is that fair? Many people would say YES! absolutely, because on religion’s worst days, thousands of people may be killed in the name of some form of dogmatism.

However, it might be an equivalent approach to condemn ALL science because some science has been used to create nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, various poisons that kill people and pollute nature, powerful guns that can penetrate any form of armor, and on and on. The history of science might be viewed, if one were so inclined (and I am not, just to be clear), as the endless progression of new and more efficient ways to kill human beings. The examples of horrible things created by science, and the deaths that have resulted, could fill many volumes.

Yet no one (well, almost no one) will want to end all science because of these creations – yet the new atheists want to do away with all religion because of the violent few, or because of their generally harmless magical thinking (harmless, that is, until imposed on others against their will, to which I object as well).

To quote my mother, the new atheists want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Silly.

I’ll stick with my buddy, William James.

Amos Anon says:

January 11, 2010 at 22:04

FYI: I have a PDF of "Varieties." (See Google) The built in search routine reports that the sentence you quoted is not in the book.

William Harryman says:

January 11, 2010 at 22:55

Yeah, I have a PDF as well and could not find that quote – I'm not sure where the authors who cited it found that quote – I suspect it's a paraphrase of a paragraph early in the book which says essentially the same thing, though not as clearly.

Bob Weisenberg says:

January 15, 2010 at 20:34

William,

Thanks for this very interesting article. I've been wanting to learn more about William James and this is a great introduction.

I certainly agree with your point of view. It's essential to make a sharp distinction between "spiritual" and "religious". Today, most people mean "organized religion" when they use the word "religious". That's where the confusion occurs. James is using the word 'religious" for what most of us would call "spiritual" today.

I was raised ultra-traditional Catholic and married into a Jewish family. So I have deep experience in that world. Today I'm highly spiritual through Yoga but have no association with organized religion.

It's safe to say that all my writing on Yoga is about the topic of your article above–what does it mean to be spiritual? And I'm deeply interested in the universality of Yoga philosophy–how it's reflected in the Christian mystics, Jewish Kabbalist, Muslim Sufis, the more mystical branches of Buddhism, and various "New Age" philosophers like Chopra, Tolle, and Easwaran. In my eBook I take on the challenge of trying to explain the mystical experience without using any spiritual or religious terminology whatsoever. I even avoid the word "divine" for clarity.

I guess the only thing I disagree with is James' assertion that the mystical state is transient and passive. I don't really think it has to be either.

Thanks again for a great article.

Bob Weisenberg
http://YogaDemystified.com

William Harryman says:

January 15, 2010 at 21:53

Hey Bob – great blog, thanks for the link.

Yeah, what James is getting at is what we would call "spiritual but not religious." I was raised Catholic, too, but found my purpose through Buddhism, in the Bodhisattva vows.

James' views on the mystical state, in his own admission, are based on his personal experience. He acknowledges that it might be different for others. It's a very good book, filled with lots of examples. If you are interested n mysticism, you might also like (if you haven't seen them already):

Varieties of Mystic Experience, by Elmer O'Brien
The Silent Encounter: Reflections on Mysticism, edited by Virginia Hanson
Sacred Paths: Essays on Wisdom, Love, and Mystical Realization, by Georg Feuerstein

I also found Aurobindo's Integral Yoga very interesting.

Thanks for the comments!
Bill

January 15, 2010 at 20:41

Also strongly relevant to your article, please see:

"God" or "Reason"–Is There Really Any Difference" http://wp.me/PlUox-fd

Most people don't realize that these debates on whether or not there is a God have been around for a very long time!

January 16, 2010 at 02:33

Thanks for the book recommendations, Bill.

The problem with the the word "mystical" is that it sounds like something magical and perhaps even irrational, when, in fact the opposite is often true. I like Yoga spirituality because it requires absolutely no faith on my part whatsoever, just keener and keener observation, and deeper and deeper direct experience.

It's true that there are faith-based concepts in Yoga texts, just like in other spiritual texts, like reincarnation, for example. But they are not at the heart of the matter, and can easily be converted into metaphors without detracting from the essential meaning of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita.

(continued below)

As I think I've shown in "Yoga Demystified", one can describe Yoga spirituality quite powerfully without using any specialized language whatsoever. I would argue that Yoga philosophy is simply a far more accurate way of looking at observable facts. Unknowable concepts, like the awesome wonder of the universe, are simply identified as awesome and wondrous, as opposed to being defined beyond our ability to do so.

As I once wrote in a "Albert Einstein as Yoga Sage" ( http://wp.me/PlUox-kB ):

"Yoga is, in many ways, a scientist’s vision of spirituality."

Einstein even refers to himself as a mystic!

YogaforCynics says:

January 16, 2010 at 05:27

Of course, "religion" is, like "God," a word that's been defined in so many ways, and so many of them awful, with so many killed and oppressed, that I prefer to avoid it entirely rather than push for any one definition, even though there are some very nice definitions out there.

Certainly, there's something very intellectually lazy, if not dishonest, in the way Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. try to dismiss all religious belief based on the violence, bigotry, and ridiculous literalism of religion at its worst. Then, its no moreso than the tendency of liberal spiritual types to pretend that all the believers in the world mean the same thing when they say "God"–when to many (a sizeable majority, I suspect) of the world's believers, the particular details of their religions are at least as important as the commonalities, not least among them the notion that their God will severely punish liberal spiritual types along with all the other heathens for failing to worship in the proper way…

January 16, 2010 at 05:51

Good points, all, YogaforCynics.

I agree that religion as it's practiced in general is about specific dogma about a specific God for specific believers. When you say "a sizeable majority" are like this, I'm sure that's an understatement.

My interest is in the tiny minority in each religion who are more universal in their outlook.

Greg says:

January 16, 2010 at 23:52

Nice article, William, and good discussion, Bob.

The version of religion that Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and others critique is the most simplistic and iconic version. Hardly recognizable to one who practices a religion with an eye toward spiritual awareness.

James speaks of religious experience and thus points to first-person consciousness as the key variable. Thus, when we study the subject in depth we discover true understanding will always be incomplete until we truly understand the nature of consciousness.

In a nutshell, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and Harris fail to understand consciousness. With this failure all attempts to understand spirituality and religion will fail miserably.

Dennett, in Consciousness Explained, provides a valuable philosophical thought experiment when he attempts to support a naturalistic approach and fails. Penrose takes a shot and also fails. Dawkins, if I am correct, does not even try but rather simply assumes, along with many others, that materialistic assumptions are correct.(Knowing that they can never be verified or observed.)

In each case, rather than acting on a sound scientific principles that keep all possibilities on the table, they give in to bias and dismiss the dualistic option. All religion or spirituality, on the other hand, is based on the observation of the dualistic (body, mind, spirit) model. Thus, there is an automatic divide based on intellectual bias that torpedoes any common ground or understanding. The basic premises are so different little dialogue is possible.

When one goes to the evidence, however, the dualistic model wins hands down. It is verifiable, observable, and repeatable while the opposite – the idea that consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon of brain chemicals – has never been shown to be accurate and, in Dennett's work, is shown to be unsupportable even as a philosophical argument.

Until we can get Dennett et al to focus clearly on the basic premises and remove bias, we will fail to have a meaningful dialogue.

Good topic. William.

January 17, 2010 at 01:08

Greg, thanks for your very thorough and interesting comments.

The problem starts with the phrase "merely an epiphenomenon of brain chemicals".

"MERELY"? What could be more fantastical, wondrous, awesome, and unfathomable than chemicals being conscious? There's nothing even remotely "merely" about it!

But the same could be said of a rock, as I did say in "Soulmates" :

Science and Yoga
Are soulmates.

Both find
Infinite wonder
Awesome mystery
And unanswerable questions
Even in the simplest things
We see all around us.

How do the
Molecules and atoms
Protons, electrons, and quarks
Of a rock
Know how to be
A rock?

Science and Yoga
Both inflame our awareness
As much by marveling
At what we don’t know
As what we do.

January 17, 2010 at 01:15

In case anyone needs more convincing, I've got Einstein on my side:

“A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness"

and:

“The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead.

To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms – this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

(from "Albert Einstein as Yoga Sage" http://wp.me/PlUox-kB

January 17, 2010 at 06:16

So, Bob, you are saying you do not believe consciousness is a property that exists prior to and separate from matter? Are you saying you agree with the premises of materialism or naturalism?

January 17, 2010 at 14:28

Hi, Greg.

No, I'm saying your question is like a grain of sand on a beach of infinite sand. It's both unanswerable and probably irrelevant to the ultimate reality, which is beyond our ability to comprehend. It's the spiritual equivalent of asking what's beyond the most distant of the tens of millions of observable galaxies.

January 18, 2010 at 06:17

So you are not agreeing with the premises of naturalism — that all that exists is the product of material conditions — but you are positing an inability to become enlightened as to the true essence of the universe and our own essential nature?

So you would agree with most yogic and Buddhist practitioners that enlightenment is possible and instead insist epistemology is a dead end and ontology is unknowable? More or less the "it is a great mystery" position?

Do you feel the quest for knowledge is futile? Or worthwhile but just without end?

January 18, 2010 at 06:48

Hi, Greg. (Thanks for making me think, by the way. I'm enjoying this.)

Yes, "it is a great mystery", exactly what it says in the ancient Yoga texts.

Is the quest for knowledge futile? Definitely not. Otherwise why would I admire the great seekers like Einstein or the ancient Yoga sages, or be a seeker myself?

Is the quest for knowledge worthwhile but without end. Yes, absolutely. Our ability to quest is part of the mystery, as are the inner workings of an atom.

Enlightenment is awakening to the infinite mystery, not achieving understanding.

January 18, 2010 at 07:10

Buddhist support for above, the Dalai Lama's 2005 book:

The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality
http://bit.ly/xPhcn

elaine says:

January 18, 2010 at 15:11

I consider myself to be more of an apatheist, definitely rational materialist, who sees the value in the stories, the mythologies of religions.

Karen Armstrong is also a great source. The following link is a response from Sam Harris to an article Karen Armstrong wrote and her subsequent response.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/12/18/...

January 18, 2010 at 15:15

In "Super Sense" , Bruce Hood talks about his surprise when Dennett reveals he occasionally goes to church because he enjoys the music.

January 18, 2010 at 17:28

Also love the book The Universe in a Single Atom. Excellent along with the other publications from the Mind & Life Institute.

In Buddhism, however, the view is one-eighty from that which you have expressed. In Buddhism, enlightenment means full knowing or mystery dispelled. In fact mystery is simply an harmonic of ignorance and it is ignorance that gives rise to all fabricated conditions.

In Buddhism, as well as other religions, and I believe you will find this is true of Vedanta, the foundation of yogic practice, the premise is that consciousness precedes all material conditions. The philosophy (also espoused by Plato and Bishop Berkeley) is known as Idealism. It postulates all phenomenal conditions — all physical conditions — are merely thought forms.

Karen Armstrong, though I love her work, particularly her compassion charter, is not a particularly good source for understanding religion at its deeper levels. She tends to be more of a historian and more of a materialist who, by her own estimation, is not much involved in meditation or the mystical tradition or practice.

More later…

January 18, 2010 at 17:57

I couldn't disagree with you more about Yoga philosophy. Here I am very familiar with the source documents in various translations and interpretations.

I know less about Buddhism, but from what I do know it's pretty consistent with Yoga philosophy, just with a different more down-to-earth emphasis. (And of course there are many different schools of Buddhist thought, which have a variety of points of view.)

I'm not familiar with any of your other references.

You haven't tried to explain to me yet how you deal with our vast lack of definitive knowledge about the source and wonder of the universe. It seems like extreme hubris to even pretend we understand this fully. At best it is idle speculation.

I stand by all my previous comments (and Einstein's and the Dalai Lama's)!

January 18, 2010 at 18:36

Greg

My post was in response to the blog posting that argues against throwing the baby out with the bath water. Karen Armstrong makes the same argument.

integralhack says:

January 18, 2010 at 19:26

Bob lured me here by commenting about my tweet regarding Richard Rorty's view of Ironism, which isn't directly related, but Rorty did subscribe to the "pragmatic theory of truth" (which, of course, has origins in William James) which does have some applicability here.

As a "recovering Ironist" I don't have much to offer to this discussion, except perhaps to point out that William, Bob and Greg often seem to be saying the same things, but use different *vocabularies* to make their points. Naturally, there are issues of concision and generality, but not a lot of disagreement that I can parse except via terminology.

Discussing spirituality is always an epistemological quagmire because–as William alluded to in his article–you will have those who insist on the objective "facts" and those that are comfortable with the pragmatic truths which may be unprovable but operative or functional. Then, as Bob points out, you have those that are willing to accept unknowability (at least on the objective level) as wonder or perhaps try to engage that wonder on a subjective (personal) level.

I choose to follow the Buddha who offers a Path or practice (Yoga) and avoids metaphysical speculation and conceptualization in order to engage that wonder. Nonetheless, my samsaric suffering and conceptualization (my Ironist disease) is still something I contend with and will always contend with on a conventional level. It brought me here, after all.

January 18, 2010 at 20:23

integralhack,

I love your response because of its intellectual sophistication, its spirituality, your teaching me about Ironism (which I would have thought was a reference to the Great Lakes ore trade), because you toss out phrases like "epistemological quagmire" and "samsaric suffering" without flinching, and, if not for all those things, for this surprisingly profound sentence alone:

"The Buddha…avoids metaphysical speculation and conceptualization in order to engage that wonder".

Lucky me for luring you into commenting, vile tempter that I am.

Thank you.

January 18, 2010 at 20:28

Oh, and you may be right that we are all converging on the same point. Suppose I said to Greg, OK, I buy your assertion that "consciousness precedes all material conditions." Now please tell me exactly what you mean by consciousness…and we might suddenly be right back on the same track of awesome wonder at the unknowable.

January 18, 2010 at 20:39

Bob, would love to hear what it is in Yoga or Buddhism that you feel contradicts Idealism, the idea that all fabrications are the product of Mind beset by ignorance.

In Buddhism some strings you can pull can be found in Luminous Emptiness, Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, The Transformation of Suffering, Eight Steps to Happiness. Also check on The Yogacara School, Dzogchen, The Cycle of Dependent Origination. The Lotus Sutra, the Diamond Sutra, and others can help expand the concept.

Integralhack (thanks for joining the conversation) makes the point that the Buddha taught a practice and steered clear of metaphysical speculation. Some make the mistake of assuming there thus are no metaphysics but this is not the case, rather he presented a path in which one comes to know directly the subject of metaphysics. In other words, direct observation replaces speculation.

In the Upanishads we read:

The Supreme Self, adored in the scriptures,
Can be realized through the path of yoga.
Subtler than the bunyan seed, subtler
Than the tiniest grain, even subtler
Than the hundred-thousandth part of a hair,
This Self cannot be grasped, cannot be seen.

The supreme Self is neither born nor dies.
He cannot be burned, moved, pierced, cut, nor dried.
Beyond all attributes, the supreme Self
Is the eternal witness, ever pure,
Indivisible, and uncompounded
Far beyond the senses and the ego.
In him conflicts and expectations cease,
He is omnipresent, beyond all thought,
Without action in the external world,
Without action in the internal world.
Detached from the outer and inner,
This supreme Self purifies the impure.

January 18, 2010 at 21:13

You're a tempter, Bob, but not at all "vile."

Greg, I agree, of course, re: Buddhism and metaphysics. Because direct observation is all we have in regard to metaphysics, it seems fruitless to engage the atheist horsemen on the front of "objective truth." In fact, I'm more than happy to let the rational atheists debunk the religious fundamentalists who offer–IMHO–a more disturbing form of intolerance and ignorance.

Ultimately, if the program of Harris, Dennet, Dawkins, and Hitchens is to "end religion," it is doomed to fail. But I agree with a less ambitious program which is to reduce cruelty and suffering in the world via reducing ignorance in all forms, whether it is scientism, religious fundamentalism, nationalism, or some other ego-based program.

January 18, 2010 at 22:12

Greg.

Throughout the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita there is passage after passage that makes it abundantly clear that this "Supreme Self" is none other that the awesome, wondrous, incomprehensible life-force of the universe itself–same as what I'm describing in all my previous comments. So if this is what you mean by "consciousness", I guess we are in synch after all, just like Integralhack said.

You start quoting the Upanishads to support you ideas and I start feeling pretty comfortable!

Greg says:

January 22, 2010 at 01:04

Bob, yes and no.

That would be what I mean by Consciousness – some call it Buddha Consciousness, God Consciousness, Primal Consciousness, Pure Consciousness, Absolute Consciousness. It is Consciousness that is the Idealistic ground of all fabrication.

In Buddhism, depending on the school, there are either six or eight different levels of consciousness. There is often a risk in discussions of confusing the more attached and dependently-arisen consciousness of the skandhas with this more basic Consciousness.

One interesting aspect or property of such basic consciousness is that it is not dependent on an object. It can be consciousness without object. Another way of saying that would be that it is pure being aware of being aware.

When we use the term "life-force" we might error in giving it a materialistic property — as "force" can take on a more abstract, removed property of matter. In other words, we attribute life to that which lacks consciousness through an abstraction.

I suppose another way of looking at it would be the Consciousness that remains after one has totally detached from all material phenomena. The No Thing that Is.

Does that make sense?

Scott says:

January 19, 2010 at 02:47

James' book, The Varieties of Religious Experience is a compilation of his lectures on religion. Of special interest to James was the source of authority of religion and he, like many others attributed this authority to direct spiritual or mystic experiences. He believed that such experiences “have the right to be, absolutely authoritative over the individuals to whom they come.” However, in a philosophical vein that reflects the American value of freedom to choose one’s own beliefs, he added that “No authority emanates from them which should make it a duty for those who stand outside them to accept their revelations uncritically.” (Quotes are from VoRE). So, William James would be one of the first to support both the personal exploration of spirituality and those who would critique the weaknesses found there when translated into dogma and especially authority over others.

William Harryman says:

January 19, 2010 at 21:08

I agree Scott, and he makes that point frequently throughout the book. He is NOT a fan of organized religion, seeing is as a step removed from actual religious experience. He tended, I think, to concretized beliefs as a betrayal of first-person, subjective experience.

January 19, 2010 at 02:50

Like Bob, I find many similarities between science and yoga. The most central element in both of them is process. The results of science are not science itself, nor is yoga butt, yoga. One of the many common experiences scientists have when they get deeply into the process of their work is to discover that the more they explore, the more they uncover to be explored. Yoga is much the same. Even the most experienced yogis continue to learn. When faced with this exponential development of previously unknown paths of exploration, the appreciation of the vastness of what is currently unknown in the universe, and the impossibility of coming to know even a miniscule fraction of it personally, awe is one frequent reaction. Accepting the relative unimportance of one's own place in the vastness of the universe can be difficult, but for those who can accept it, defending one's ego becomes totally absurd. For those who can't accept their own insignificance, it is a common experience to engage in wish fulfillment – creating beliefs that negate their actual direct experience. This is the illusion we seek to see through in Yoga, and one of many distortions of reality that science seeks to remove from our process of discovery.

January 19, 2010 at 02:53

Science and yoga are not finished in their work – both contain flaws, both contain lingering biases. Science at least acknowledges this explicitly. I'm not sure that Yoga does yet, though I know many Yogis who do. Common wish fulfillment elements include, escaping death, having an all powerful, nurturing protector, achieving complete understanding and control over one's life (anyone been selling this to you lately?). Many religions make the illusion central to their belief systems and those that do have no hope of bringing the light of understanding to the world. In fact, their process of defending this basic flaw in the foundation of their logic and reasoning legitimizes all forms of self-serving belief systems. Religion, not direct unflinching experience of the natural world (what some call spiritual experience) is what the current crop of atheist authors attack and I think they are right to do so. It would be far better if the religious were themselves able to accept their weaknesses so that others would not have to continually defend themselves against them.

January 19, 2010 at 04:31

Scott, thanks for your fresh new insights.

Whew, I'm both exhilarated and exhausted by this far-ranging spiritual and intellectual romp. It starts to seem very complicated.

Now you can see why I felt I needed to write http://YogaDemystified.com. I think In reality Yoga is exquisitely simple. To me it's about ecstatic realization, not spiritual or religious struggle. (I've had more than my share of the latter in my life.)

Thank you to everyone who has participated in this marvelous discussion. (Not that it has to be over.)

January 19, 2010 at 04:37

Oh, and what ever happened to Bill Harryman, who started this discussion out with his challenging article? I think I'll go over to his website and ask him to comment..

William Harryman says:

January 19, 2010 at 21:10

Sorry about the absence – my laptop died Friday night, so I spent the weekend buying a new one and getting it set up.

January 19, 2010 at 06:41

Integralhack, so well stated. Reducing ignorance in all its forms. That seems to be the path.

January 19, 2010 at 07:49

Greg, thanks for the compliment. I've been impressed by level of discourse from all the participants here.

Not to get off topic, but Bob, I'm intrigued when you say "To me it's about ecstatic realization, not spiritual or religious struggle. (I've had more than my share of the latter in my life.)"

For myself (and I believe John Pappas recently said something similar in his blog), spiritual crisis and existential angst were formative in my quest for spirituality. Did the spiritual/religious struggle you had in your life lead you to ecstatic realization? Or was it something separate?

I'm not saying struggle or crisis is a "necessary precondition" for the spiritual life or enlightenment, but it is how many start the spiritual quest. I think we learn a great deal from the individual stories and their approaches to spirituality.

-Matt

January 19, 2010 at 16:32

Wow, integralhack, way to ask a question that will generate 30 more comments!

Short answer–this is just where I am personally right now in my life. By the time I took up Yoga I was already reasonably content, so I was looking to go beyond contentment to something more. It would have been useful earlier in my life when I was struggling inside.

Long answer–Yoga enhances and compliments all my other accumulated philosophies and spiritualities–raised ultra-traditional Catholic, married into Jewish family, raised 3 Jewish kids, and all the usual more secular spiritual and life struggles.

That said, I still find this, in general, to be a difference between Yoga and Buddhism, both of which I have the utmost respect and admiration for. Buddhism seems to content itself with contentment, and seems to be preoccupied with suffering. Yoga, to me, in it's original form in the ancient texts, is going for wonder and awe, which buries suffering in its wake. It's the Upanishads vs. the Dhammapada. Both are right and good, but I have a personal preference for the Upanishads. (The Dhammapada is too much like the austere Catholicism of my youth. It could have been the nuns speaking.)

William Harryman says:

January 19, 2010 at 21:26

Matt & Bob -

Tthis is a great extension of the original topic. Many people, in my experience, come to spiritual practice (yoga, Buddhism, or otherwise) when institutional religion fails them. And this usually happens, as it did for me, when there is some form of crisis, as Matt mentioned. For me, and I was raised Catholic, it happened when my father died when I was 13. The religious explanation failed to make sense to me. So I began a search for something meaningful.

I went through a very rationalist, flatland stage, where only objective reality mattered. Later, in college, I started studying world religions, and at the same time became interested in shamanism (which became part of my master's thesis). In studying eastern forms of shamanic practice, I discovered the Bon of Tibet and its influence on Buddhism in that region, which is very different than the austere Theravada tradition of India (source of the Dhammapada).

I now follow an integral form of Buddhism, which includes the state of awe (a vision of nonduality similar to what Advaita expresses).

Anyway, I think too many people wait for the crisis to seek a more personal experience, similar to what James was interested in, rather than seeking that out as a part of a whole and meaningful life.

January 19, 2010 at 21:51

Thanks for the interesting perspectives, Bill.

I hope you saw the rather thorough discussion we had about Yoga and Buddhism in the unlikely location:

Bad Day–Here's a Reminder Not to Take Yourself Too Seriously
http://www.elephantjournal.com/2009/12/bad-day-he...

This is still third on the list of "most commented" Elephant articles.

January 20, 2010 at 05:43

William, Bob,

Thanks for sharing.

I suppose I'm a little like William in that I adopted a flatland rationalism with a Wittgensteinian "what we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence" stance regarding spirituality and the unknown. The Rortian Ironism came as an extension of that–a form of skepticism whose only delight is redescription and perhaps is only redeemed through liberal humanist values.

But yeah, it's still Flatland.

Then I crashed when I found myself living in a house that owned me and a career I no longer wanted. I quit my job, sold my two air conditioned nightmare homes and moved. I returned to reading Buddhism and Eastern philosophy again, this time less as a rationalist literary critic and more as a person looking for answers. I returned to meditating and practicing yoga, but this time as someone that wanted more than to "look good" or to "reduce stress." I wanted to assuage my suffering, but I also wanted to engage that wonder and awe that Bob talks about.

For me, it took a crash to get to this place, but I feel lucky. I think many people–most people, in fact–live and die in Flatland.

Again, thanks for sharing.

January 22, 2010 at 01:18

Bob, re the Dalai Lama's book The Universe in a Single Atom. He, too, nods to the Idealistic nature of reality but it may not be entirely clear. Here's a passage…

"On one extreme are the Buddhist 'realists,; who believe that the material world is composed of indivisible particles which have an objective reality independent of the mind. On the other extreme are the 'idealists,' the so-called Mind-only school, who reject any degree of objective reality in the external world. They perceive the external material world to be, in the final analysis, an extension of the observing mind. There is, however, a third sandpoint, which is the position of the Prasangika school, a perspective held by the highest esteem by the Tibetan tradition. In this view, although the reality of the external world is not denied, it is understood to be relative. … The notion of a pre-given, observer-independent reality is untenable. As in the new physics, matter cannot be objectively perceived or described apart from the observer — matter and mind are co-dependent."

The Prasangika view, to which the Dalai Lama subscribes, ends up ultimately being the same as the mind-only or Idealist school with the addition of more description or contemplation regarding the mind and objects created by mind.

January 22, 2010 at 02:25

Hi, Greg. This is in answer to your reply to my Upanishads comment at the top of this page. I prefer to write it in a new comment so it doesn't get hidden under "replies".

Thanks for your interesting clarifications. You ask if it makes sense? I can only go back to my original point which is that the ultimate reality of the universe is infinitely unknowable, not just a little bit unknowable, but INFINITELY unknowable.

I've seen four basic responses to this challenge:

1) The Buddha's way was to avoid all metaphysical speculation as a waste of time and just focus on what it takes to live a good life. The majority of Buddhism that has come since pretty much ignores the Buddha's advice. ( I'm pretty sure we're grossly violating it with this very discussion!)

2) The "let's figure it all out and explain it in greater and greater detail" school. This includes much of post-Buddha Buddhism and most systems of metaphysical philosophy. This is what I think many of the sources you quote are trying to do. Interesting enough, it does not include science, which tries to figure things out but rigorously admits the limitations of its knowledge.

3) The religion approach, which believes that some blessed one among us has seen the ultimate reality directly and has conveyed it to the rest of us, be it Jesus or Mohammed or Moses, etc. These systems have no need for logic or proof because they are considered direct revelations from the ultimate reality itself. Many forms of Buddhism have adopted this model in effect, with the Buddha as the blessed one.

4) The ancient Yoga approach, mirrored somewhat by small mystical minorities in each religion and philosophy, which accepts the utter unknowability of ultimate reality and builds a spirituality around the wonder and awe of what we don't know, and also embraces the ideals for good living like those espoused by the Buddha.

These are all valid approaches to the ultimate reality of the universe. It's just a matter of personal preference, I guess.

Thanks again for this most interesting discussion.