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.
Zen Master Lou Nordstrom: Alan Watts Didn't Understand Zen or Buddhism.
DaltheJigsaw
Mountain View Veteran
INTRODUCTION
In the works of Alan Watts one finds a bewildering array of self-ascribed epithets ranging all the way from guru, shaman, Christian theologian, and philosopher, to mystic, showman, sensualist, and egotist. The obvious question, therefore, which any serious taking: of the measure of the man and his work must begin with, is. What's Watts?
The following statement from the autobiography suggests a straightforward response :
My own work, though it may seem at times to be a system of ideas, is basically an attempt to describe mystical experience, not of formal visions and super-natural beings, but of reality as seen and felt directly in a silence of words and mindings.[1]
To "attempt to describe mystical experience" means, we contend, that Watts work consists in the attempt to show that mystical experience can be described and hence is not ineffable. The implications which derive from this rejection of ineffability will be elaborated upon in what follows. What concerns us here is the claim that Watts' mysticism is fundamentally literary in nature, in that it is primarily concerned with the proper way to describe mystical experience. According to Watts, the proper way is the way of poetry, a term which he employs, in an extended sense, to refer to discourse which is paralogical and hence is capable of rendering what prose cannot. He writes: "The task and delight of poetry is to say what cannot be said, to eff the ineffable, and to unscrew the inscrutable."[2] He also says: "Much of my work is poetry disguised as prose."[3] The significance of genre is crucial, since poetic description of mystical experience proves the effability of such experience, which is ineffable only from the point of view of prose. To describe mystical experience through poetry turns out to be an essentially perverse undertaking, as Watts indicates in the following definition, which occurs in the context of his account of his own mystical way. "per (through) verse (poetry), out-of-the-way and wayward, which is surely towards the way...."[4] In what follows we shall show why we do not share Watts' conviction that his literary and wayward mysticism is a Way-ward one, we shall argue for its fundamentally deviant character.
Watts' mysticism is deviant because it seeks perversely to undo mystical experience. This is done by inferring from the fact that mystical experience is not ineffable, that there is no separation between the spiritual and the physical, which eventually is transformed into the view that the spiritual and the physical are virtually the same thing, which Watts calls his "spiritual materialism." As we shall try to show, the point of this ideology is that it both precludes the possibility and obviates the necessity of mystical experience. What is perverse about Watts' mysticism, in a word, is that it is antimystical.
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew26759.htm
In the works of Alan Watts one finds a bewildering array of self-ascribed epithets ranging all the way from guru, shaman, Christian theologian, and philosopher, to mystic, showman, sensualist, and egotist. The obvious question, therefore, which any serious taking: of the measure of the man and his work must begin with, is. What's Watts?
The following statement from the autobiography suggests a straightforward response :
My own work, though it may seem at times to be a system of ideas, is basically an attempt to describe mystical experience, not of formal visions and super-natural beings, but of reality as seen and felt directly in a silence of words and mindings.[1]
To "attempt to describe mystical experience" means, we contend, that Watts work consists in the attempt to show that mystical experience can be described and hence is not ineffable. The implications which derive from this rejection of ineffability will be elaborated upon in what follows. What concerns us here is the claim that Watts' mysticism is fundamentally literary in nature, in that it is primarily concerned with the proper way to describe mystical experience. According to Watts, the proper way is the way of poetry, a term which he employs, in an extended sense, to refer to discourse which is paralogical and hence is capable of rendering what prose cannot. He writes: "The task and delight of poetry is to say what cannot be said, to eff the ineffable, and to unscrew the inscrutable."[2] He also says: "Much of my work is poetry disguised as prose."[3] The significance of genre is crucial, since poetic description of mystical experience proves the effability of such experience, which is ineffable only from the point of view of prose. To describe mystical experience through poetry turns out to be an essentially perverse undertaking, as Watts indicates in the following definition, which occurs in the context of his account of his own mystical way. "per (through) verse (poetry), out-of-the-way and wayward, which is surely towards the way...."[4] In what follows we shall show why we do not share Watts' conviction that his literary and wayward mysticism is a Way-ward one, we shall argue for its fundamentally deviant character.
Watts' mysticism is deviant because it seeks perversely to undo mystical experience. This is done by inferring from the fact that mystical experience is not ineffable, that there is no separation between the spiritual and the physical, which eventually is transformed into the view that the spiritual and the physical are virtually the same thing, which Watts calls his "spiritual materialism." As we shall try to show, the point of this ideology is that it both precludes the possibility and obviates the necessity of mystical experience. What is perverse about Watts' mysticism, in a word, is that it is antimystical.
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew26759.htm
0
Comments
Can't get into a marriage without commiting adultery
Can't get over alcohol addiction.
Yet thinks he can teach people about spiritual liberation....
For instance, at the beginning they claim Watts believed Zen to be nothing but a "purely intellectual realization" and that the Western pioneer was trying to undo or reject the mystical experience. The rest of the article goes on to complain that this is perverse and not Zen at all. The problem is, Watts himself in his writing and own words would have agreed that this imaginary stance would be a perversion of the Zen message.
What Watts tried to do, openly and by his own admission in his books with only some success, was demystify Zen and insisted that, while words and intellect were imperfect tools, they nevertheless had a useful role to play in describing the mystical. He himself admitted that the closest he could come was in poetry, not rational discouse.
He ran up against an anti-intellectual mindset in other people that completely rejected any attempt at rational thought applied to the Suchness of the world as perverse and considered any attempt to describe Zen in words as a sin. This article nicely illustrates the combat going on.
I actually wondered what happened to old Roshi Nordstrom. I did a google and discovered he made a lot of waves of his own about five years ago when he hung up his robe, entered psychotherapy, and started criticizing Zen "no-self" as being just a way to hide from past abuse and issues from early childhood instead of dealing with them. I have definite criticisms of psychotherapy so won't say more about that.
So what do we make of all this? We can point out that even Zen Masters have definite biases and blind spots. For one thing, if Nordstrom understood Right Speech, he would at least have given Watts credit for bringing Zen to the attention of the West. Without Watts, Nordstrom himself would have probably never heard of Zen. Also, being a Zen Master for twenty years that is so unhappy that he quits to go into therapy shows Zen is not a cure for emotional issues and scars left from past abuse. He was using it to hide from his Self, not penetrate and understand his Self as inherently empty.
The biggest lesson we can take away is the danger of putting Buddhist Masters on a pedestal and worshipping them as perfect Enlightened beings. Sure, the good ones say, "I'm nothing special." but we just nod our heads and agree those are wise words but of course he really is special and that just shows he doesn't have an ego unlike the rest of us and we bow and continue worshipping the person, anyway.
And apparently the four cups of coffee I drank this morning were really kicking in and I better switch to decaff. Sorry about the lecture. Time to go to work. May you all have a great day!
Maybe he was on to something, maybe he was misunderstood, I won't ever know that information. At least he was exploring his reality (just like the Buddha), that is more than many people ever do in their lifetime.
To put aside the robe in order to openly seek help shows an amazing amount of courage. I give him high marks and if I were asked at the time, I would have told him to continue teaching and use what he learns about himself to be an even more effective Zen Master.