Sam “Hardly a Sage” Harris

[This is the Introduction to my forthcoming text (eta 2016) on Sam "Hare-Brained" Harris. "Soapbox" Sam seeks to enlighten us with his Hubris-filled pontifications -- but after people read my book, they will recognize Sam for what he is: Sam "the Sham."]

Many people consider Sam Harris a paragon of rationality and gnosis, an exemplar of enlightened postmodern wisdom who marries science and spirit -- but I don’t. In my "Letter to Sam Harris," I seek to systematically deconstruct Harris’s core philosophical arguments. I seek to “behead him” with my Dharma Sword, exposing him as an overrated thinker and failed mystic.

But I don’t just aim to deconstruct Harris’s principal philosophical arguments, I also provide constructive counter-arguments, in the form of integral solutions, to the “problems” he identifies.

In my Letter, I touch just briefly upon Harris’s anti-Islamic and pro-torture arguments, which I agree with, and instead focus on his arguments that I find most objectionable. These, most notably, include his directives to a Christian Nation, guidance to spirituality without religion, repudiation of free will, and promotion of atheism.
Herewith is a summary of the essential contents of my Letter:

Directives to a Christian Nation

Sam Harris doesn’t have a clue what real, or radical (meaning gone-to-the-root), Christianity is about. This will be evident to anyone with insight into esoteric or mystical Christianity who reads his books.
In his books "Letter to a Christian Nation" and "Waking Up," he seeks to “demolish” (his term) the Christian Right. He fails to do this, however, because he targets just one faction of the Christian Right, while conveniently ignoring members of the Christian Right, such as myself, who have awakened and don’t fit the stereotype he attacks.

What I aim to do in this letter is to turn the tables on Harris and demolish his anti-Christian “new atheists’” arguments, which essentially mirror those of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett. Moreover, I will also make it clear that Harris has no real understanding of what the true political “Right” is about. In other words, I expose Harris as not only a spiritual ignoramus, but a political one as well.

Guidance to Spirituality without Religion

In "Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality without Religion," Harris argues that Aldous Huxley’s and others’ vision of the Perennial Philosophy (the doctrine that a single Truth is the common foundation of the major religions) is essentially chimera, because the Abrahamic religions, such as Christianity, are “incorrigibly dualistic,” and thus cannot be equated with nondualistic Buddhism and Hinduism. I not only say that Harris is wrong, but in my book "Electrical Christianity: A Revolutionary Guide to Jesus’ teachings and Spiritual Enlightenment," I present an esoteric Trinitarian version of the Perennial Philosophy that exceeds Aldous Huxley’s (as well as other Perennialists’) and identifies the highest Buddhist, Hindu, and Christian teachings as essentially one and the same.

If Harris were more than a surface-level spiritual philosopher, he’d realize that the putatively nondual Eastern traditions are only nominally nondual. In fact, unbeknownst to Harris, a clueless, remedial student of Tibetan Dzogchen (a tradition I’m an expert in), the Buddhist Trikaya (Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya, Nirmanakaya) virtually mirrors the Christian Trinity. Moreover, the practice of Dzogchen (which I teach, among other spiritual methods) perfectly mirrors that of the mystical, or esoteric, Eucharist.

Most egregiously, Harris purports to “guide us to spirituality without religion.” This is laughable, because there is nothing about Spirit (Sambhogakaya in Buddhism, Shakti in Hinduism, Ruach Ha-Kodesh in Judaism, Holy Spirit in Christianity) in his book Waking Up. Unbeknownst to the spiritually challenged Harris, there can be no “waking up” without one’s soul (or consciousness) uniting with Spirit (Divine Power, or Light-Energy).

Because Harris is a failed mystic (which is made clear in Waking Up), he can’t comprehend that radical (or gone-to-the-root) Christianity is an esoteric guide to “waking up,” while his version of “spirituality” is no more than an exoteric guide to “waking down.”

Repudiation of Free Will

Innumerable philosophers throughout history, many of them atheists, have rebutted the contra-free will argument. But Harris, a neuroscientist, is seemingly armed with new evidence -- recent laboratory experiments -- that purportedly supports his claim that humans are no more than temporarily animated robots. I’ve scrutinized these experiments, and in no way do they disprove free will. Moreover, various experts in the fields of philosophy and cognitive science – a few whom I cite in my text – likewise reject the contra-free will conclusion that Harris draws from these experiments.

Unbeknownst to Harris, even though thoughts and impulses seem to arise without rhyme or reason from our subconscious, we can, according to our individual degree of free will (or will power), consciously choose whether or not to act upon them. And in reality, what arises from our subconscious is a lawful karmic (cause and effect) reflection of our past conditioning. But because we (to a degree commensurate with our level of consciousness) possess will power (and there can be no "will" that isn't free, because then it wouldn't be "will," but rather a conditioned response), we can consciously choose how to act in response to what arises, and we can initiate new action that will change, or recondition, our conditioning.

Free will is a simple self-evident reality, but to the robotic Harris, lost in the recesses of his convoluted brain, it is a complex impossibility.

Promotion of Atheism

Harris, though hardly a brainiac as a philosopher, is certainly one as a businessman. He doubtless saw the big bucks Dawkins, Hitchens, and Krauss were pulling in by proselytizing for atheism, and shrewdly decided to jump on the bandwagon.

No one can win a debate on the existence of God, which can be neither proven nor disproven. But if you can interject yourself into the forefront of the mainstream argument, as Harris has done, then you can count on making a mint.

Harris reduces the God debate to a circumscribed consideration: the existence of a cosmic, or creator, God. Unbeknownst to the philosophically challenged Harris, Real God, the Divine, or Supreme Being, is acosmic and acausal. This God cannot be known (as a separate Object); hence It cannot be scientifically proven. But It can be realized “Subjectively,” or Yogically, by ontically coinciding with It.

If Harris had real integrity, he would have mentioned the work of Bernard d’Espagnat, a renowned physicist who worked with the legendary de Broglie, Fermi, and Bohr. D’Espagnat won the Templeton Prize for hypothesizing the existence of a hypercosmic god: an impersonal, unknowable God that exists outside time and space. D’Espagnat based his hypothesis on experimental tests of Bell’s theorem, and it would be interesting to see Harris the scientist attempt to deconstruct D’Espagnat’s thesis.

Scientists: The New Priesthood

Sam Harris has joined the New (Secular) Priesthood, and now sits at the pulpit alongside fellow high priests Dawkins and Krauss. But whereas Dawkins and Krauss, to an extent, know their limitations, Harris sees fit to pontificate on a potpourri of subjects outside the purview of his scientific “expertise.” If he knew what he was talking about this wouldn’t be a problem, but he doesn’t. He might fashion himself as Goethe’s universal man, but his foray into spirituality and sociopolitics reveals a contracted rather than expansive mindset.

In my Letter to Sam Harris, I take direct aim at the arrogant Harris (an Aries) perched atop the bully pulpit. It is my sincerest hope that you not only enjoy, but also learn from, my potshots at “Soapbox” Sam.