Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Article Discussion: Psychedelics and Religious Experience by Alan Watts
tmottes
Veteran
Please have read the article before posting any comments, it isn't that long. Also, Since I don't know much about Alan Watts, I have included a link to the wiki article. I make no claims about this article being free from bias or delusions, although it would benefit this discussion to read and accept the article on its own merits.
Article Link: http://deoxy.org/w_psyrel.htm
Wiki Link for the author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts
Article Link: http://deoxy.org/w_psyrel.htm
Wiki Link for the author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts
0
Comments
by Alan Watts
(Originally appeared in the California Law Review, Vol. 56, No. 1, January 1968, pp. 74-85.) Copyright Alan Watts & California Law Review.)
The Psychedelic Experience
-slowing down of time
-awareness of polarity
-awareness of relativity
-awareness of eternal energy
Opposition to Psychedelic Drugs
-danger
-escape from reality
Footnotes
The experiences resulting from the use of psychedelic drugs are often described in religious terms. They are therefore of interest to those like myself who, in the tradition of William James,1 are concerned with the psychology of religion. For more than thirty years I have been studying the causes, the consequences, and the conditions of those peculiar states of consciousness in which the individual discovers himself to be one continuous process with God, with the Universe, with the Ground of Being, or whatever name he may use by cultural conditioning or personal preference for the ultimate and eternal reality. We have no satisfactory and definitive name for experiences of this kind. The terms "religious experience," "mystical experience," and "cosmic consciousness" are all too vague and comprehensive to denote that specific mode of consciousness which, to those who have known it, is as real and overwhelming as falling in love. This article describes such states of consciousness induced by psychedelic drugs, although they are virtually indistinguishable from genuine mystical experience. The article then discusses objections to the use of psychedelic drugs that arise mainly from the opposition between mystical values and the traditional religious and secular values of Western society.
The Psychedelic Experience
The idea of mystical experiences resulting from drug use is not readily accepted in Western societies. Western culture has, historically, a particular fascination with the value and virtue of man as an individual, self-determining, responsible ego, controlling himself and his world by the power of conscious effort and will. Nothing, then, could be more repugnant to this cultural tradition than the notion of spiritual or psychological growth through the use of drugs. A "drugged" person is by definition dimmed in consciousness, fogged in judgment, and deprived of will. But not all psychotropic (consciousness-changing) chemicals are narcotic and soporific, as are alcohol, opiates, and barbiturates. The effects of what are now called psychedelic (mind-manifesting) chemicals differ from those of alcohol as laughter differs from rage, or delight from depression. There is really no analogy between being "high" on LSD and "drunk" on bourbon. True, no one in either state should drive a car, but neither should one drive while reading a book, playing a violin, or making love. Certain creative activities and states of mind demand a concentration and devotion that are simply incompatible with piloting a death-dealing engine along a highway.
...
it is demonized and not understood. also you have random people making it and you don't know if it is a hybrid or some other substance.
you should read the book zig zag zen. it interviews various buddhist monks/abbots/visionaries who have taken lsd and how it has shaped their practice for the better or worse. it also talks a lot about zen and how drugs shaped american zen buddhism.
this isn't a topic that is discussed a lot, nor are people comfortable talking about drugs in such manner. i was fascinated with lsd and how it played with my consciousness. there really isn't anything like it.
i have a lot of friends who abuse lsd, but all it takes is one bad trip and people will respect it. it can take you to heaven and it can take you to hell.
maybe one day people will be in a supportive environment with clean acid. there will be maps and also shaman type people to help you through the journey of dying. i believe when in a process or ritual of taking a drug there can be quite positive benefits.
but thats if everything goes perfect and with drugs there are a shit ton of variables.
be safe and smart.
I have only taken lsd a few times and the effects are interesting, but honestly I don't really like it (however, I can cook really well on it). Mushrooms seem to be less sharp to me, which is strange because most things I have read, lsd is preferred to mushrooms for understanding the state it puts you in.
Is it strange to want that hell experience? I have only done acid three times, mushrooms four times, and DMT once. All experiences have been extremely positive. The only time I had a bad trip was when I did amenita muscaria, and while it was almost torture at the time, it was like it was rubbing my face in the cyclical nature of reality. I gained some insights from that experience. I feel like I am ready to see my ugly reflection... I know that whatever I see/feel/etc is all part of "me" anyway. I use the same realization to help me cope with the horrors of the world.
Anyway, thanks for the comment... I look forward to your reading suggestion.
whether through drugs or through just living life.
reality will test you. =] accept or reject? hehe.
hope you enjoy the book!
and what genetic engineering is to organic farmers.
he is definitely a bodhisattva! i actually just listened to a podcast with him talking about zen.
if you want to get down to it. the buddha himself was like a scientist that discovered gravity. you can credit the buddha for realizing and developing a religion/path towards liberation, but he only described how he himself freed himself from the three poisons and ultimately realize his enlightenment. but this enlightenment was already there as the buddha discovered.
just like gravity exists even if we don't understand or realize it.
in that same way we won't know how things relate to buddhism until we ourselves realize what buddhism is pointing to.
in my opinion the sun shining on my skin to bring warmth and the suns ability to burn my skin is what buddhism is all about. now how many people would make that connection? it only relates to people who have the condition to relate to it. so in the same way we don't know how alan watts relates to buddhism.
but i think it's a positive influence. even though this is my projection =].
now lsd? same thing. impossible to tell.
I really like reading your comments...You are very consistent and to the point..
We have some differences and can't get agree on certain topics but I personally respect your contribution...thanks for sharing ...
i never knew the guy personally so i cannot confirm this.
we can only speculate and interpret his life, thus it is unwise to say that his life is a contradiction.
we must take what we find useful and apply it to our lives. point your fingers and you only see yourself.
You can hear him talking here:
Alan watts: ...
@Dazzle thank you for that post, I enjoyed listening.
Prince Siddartha certainly wasn't a drug using mess of a person before he awakened!
For 100 years the Buddhist community on the West Coast of the U.S. endured horrific racism, discrimination, oppression, and abuse.... including internment camps during WWII...
thanks to a society that wasn't interested in differentiating between precept-keeping Buddhists... and drug trade Tong warlords...
because it thought all Asians looked alike and all non-Christians must be agents of satan.
A generation who had experienced childhood in internment camps struggled to rebuild their lives, earn a living, and raise their children in the community, only to then have to deal with Alan Watts reciting bits and pieces of legitimate Buddhist thought that he had acquired from legitimate Buddhists, in order to merchandize LSD for his own personal gain in the name of Buddhism.
It would have been pretty much the equivalent of someone quoting the Talmud to merchandize LSD for his own personal gain in the name of Judaism in post WWII Europe.
There is a name for someone who corrupts what human beings hold most treasured and sacred and merchandizes it for personal profit on the street in the city, but I ain't sayin' it.
I have no time for the fellow, and take his writings with a pinch of salt.
Until now, that is.
"I am curious about your comments about personal gain. What is the personal gain that he hoped to attain through merchandizing LSD? Is it just the legalization or is there something more?"
He was asking for you to show how Watts had corrupted buddhist teachings. What did Watts say regarding buddhist teachings that was incorrect?
What "backs up" personal experience and opinion? The sum total of everyone's experience... and that is "California history, 1849-" I did.
http://www.buddhistchurchofoakland.org/BCOhistory.htm
http://bcsfweb.org/index.php/aboutbcsf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_Churches_of_America
I have a letter from Timothy Leary to Alan wherein Leary asks Watts to come to Europe to act as a "curandero" at a meeting of Carl Jung students. At the meeting, Leary wanted the students to experience the drug in a controlled setting while Alan oversaw the event. I do not know if Alan accepted, but I do know he did not seek to gain through merchandizing LSD.
Alan was an incredible intellect . Today he might be a radio talk show host as he could talk a blue streak. It is reported that he once drank to where he could barely walk before a talk at a temple, he then delivered an hour lesson brilliantly, and no one at the event commented on his state.... He was a performer, he often said as much , and had no interest in merchandizing.
The thing that comes to mind now when I think of Alan Watts is this:
We can think about the top of the mountain, but it is not the same as being on top of the mountain. We must climb to the top to experience that. (paraphrased from Ayya Khema)
You advocating and killing and Lincoln advocates loophole for the last precept. Seriously....
You mofoz really oughta sort ya basic practices out, before misleading more practitioners.
As for Watts himself, well if I hadn't stumbled accross him on youtube, I would have never started looking at Buddhism or regained my interest in spirituality. I was to scared of it after my psychotic break.
The definition of A Bodhisattva is that a Bodhisattva blesses all sentient beings and brings none to their destruction.
Watts was no Bodhisattva.
The history of the community is that Watt's preachings brought a whole lot of people to addiction and destruction. Some could never hang up the phone. Others managed to hang up the phone but suffered permanent brain damage from which they have never recovered.
The argument has been made "that's their own problem, they never should have picked up the phone to begin with..."
Watts himself died of alcohol addiction.
He himself never put down the phone.
He himself never got the message.
Thanks!
(She has recently written an excellent book entitled "Never In My Wildest Dreams"
My study group just came to the following conclusions:
1. Their consensus is that they thought the movie "28 Days" did a very nice job of presenting this issue and the greater issues that surround it.
link to movie trailer for "28 Days":
2. Their consensus is that the difference between a philosopher and a mystic is:
A philosopher talks the talk
while a mystic walks the walk.
They are a very good group with very good discussions. They are each endeavoring to focus on "walking the walk" with no (bullshit, jive, denial, whining, hypocrisy, etc.)
This site is also a very good group with very good discussions.
Thanks to all for participating. You have made wonderful points that many have identified with, for which I am very grateful.
I was never especially interested in the works of author Philip K. Dick, but I was recently pleased to note his criticism of the inane "drugs = opened doors of perception" rhetoric which was popular at the time. For some very good insight into the hollow, destructive world of 'drug culture', you might want to check out "Through A Scanner Darkly", which is a film adaptation of one of his novels. It is certainly true to my experience - at least in part.
As I've said to you before, I think the value, positive or negative, of "drug use" (in the broadest terms) is defined primarily by social context. We've argued about this in other threads, so I won't go farther, but it does interest me very much that this is a central issue in your study group. I'm curious as to what sort of information you're working with, there. Would you be interested in hearing about people's "positive" experiences? Sounds reasonable. But then, what about guys like Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche? My understanding is that his death was also a result of alcohol addiction. It seems to me that this is indicative of his own failure to internalize something critical about his own teachings. However, do we then go on to conclude that his teachings were basically bankrupt?
I don't have sure answers to the following questions, but they seem pertinent: how many people have been harmed, either subtly or profoundly, by misuse or misapplication of Buddhist ideas or practices? How many people have been harmed by abuse in Buddhist institutions or in the guru-student relationship which is so critical to certain strains of Buddhism? How many people have been harmed by religion in general?
If the answer is anything close to "enough to be worth considering", what do we conclude?
I don't know about Tibetan Buddhism, but no Chinese Patriarchs ever gave loops holes and promoted drugs or alcohol.
Alan Watts's admission he is a "entertainer" should be enough to discredit all his teachings of Buddhism.
Not hippies
Not drug addicts
Not alcoholics
Not Hindus
Not Yogis
Did you ever hear stories of the Buddhas getting wasted and buzzed out?
Did Dalai Lama, Master Hsing Yun, Master Sheng Yen etc ever encouraged anyone to break precepts and indulge in drugs and alcohol?
He was also an immensely intelligent individual whose interest in Buddhism directed his life from his teen years.
He was on the "path."
That his demons overcame him was clear to all , including himself. His autobiography, titled "In My Own Way" (the double meaning was not lost on him nor should it be on us) was written when he knew he was close to the end of his life (at 58) and had no hint of self aggrandizement. He went out with a whimper....
The lesson I take is far from a pro drug / alcohol message . If anything, I learn that more should be done to help people with these problems so that we do not lose such talent to such a scourge.
Give
Sympathize
Control yourself (and do not confuse genetic predisposition for drug abuse with lack of self control)
Watts' "The Joyous Cosmology" and "This Is It" were antithetical to Buddhism and an embarrassment to the longstanding and legitimate Buddhist community in California.
Watts was no victim, but prided himself on living his life according to his own will, beliefs, and intentions, and advised others to do the same.
Watts did not firmly walk the path of Buddhism, but of addiction.
Watts by his own admission was not a Buddhist, but a showman and a philosopher.
Alan was a very kind and joyful man; he was a seeker of the highest sort. That he seems to have failed himself does not subtract from his beautiful effort. His interest in Buddhism , his involvement , surpasses most any person ( especially in the West) you could name. I do not speak for his commitment to the path. Alcoholics are sad creatures with many challenges to face.
I do not know what it must be like to be as astonishingly bright as he was . I imagine it is heady stuff. He could not handle it.
He walked the "path" and wandered off and lost his way...
I know many intellectual Buddhists now dismiss him including his friend, the poet Gary Schneider. Why should it not be so? Alan , the flawed showman, invites such conclusions.
I choose to love the sum of the man, the sparkling personality, the voice, the student and teacher, the writer ( even the heresy -so to speak) . What a great, incandescent spirit . I learned much from my study of his life and his writings. I am a simple person and can easily overlook his missteps even though he landed in the gutter.
Energy, intelligence, passion, wit, humor, ambition, deviltry, open mindedness, charlatanism, focus... He was a seductive
character; and , it appears, you can find nothing to recommend him.
Of course, "showman and philosopher " are two pretty good things to be.
And, misguided loser, lecher, drunk, self centered ego maniac, fornicator, hedonist, are words which also apply.
I think of Walt Whitman statement , "I am enormous, I contain multitudes," might be a quite appropriate way to sum him up.
He is certainly no longer a danger to Buddhism. I rather think the opposite is true.