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.
Alan Watts?
Telly03
Veteran
A question that was asked of us attending the orientation at our local Sangha, was "what influenced our decision to learn about Buddhism and visit the Sangha?" Well I went on to explain how i got caught up in watching Alan Watts utube videos, causing me to dwell in thought on many certain things... I wasn't even aware at first that Alan Watts was even Buddhist, but enjoyed the deep thinking subjects. It appeared to me that my answer was unsettling for the lady providing the orientation, and I left thinking that his views were not entirely in line with this Sangha, but I am still unsure as to why... I mean, I know Alan wrote books on Zen, and this is a Zen Sangha... Is there something not in agreement?
Does anyone know what would be conflicting in his views? I enjoy listening to him lecture and have yet to pick out anything controversial to the Zen teachings I am learning from other venues thus far.
Or perhaps I read her all wrong and there is not an issue with him?
Does anyone know what would be conflicting in his views? I enjoy listening to him lecture and have yet to pick out anything controversial to the Zen teachings I am learning from other venues thus far.
Or perhaps I read her all wrong and there is not an issue with him?
0
Comments
Alan Watts puts some people's teeth on edge because, perhaps, they think he is a featherweight ... lots of talk the talk and not quite so much walk the walk. Anyone can talk Zen or talk Buddhism or, for that matter, talk baseball. But walking, as you probably know from your own experience elsewhere, is a different matter.
But then again, Shunryu Suzuki seemed to have had quite a high opinion of him, even calling him a "bodhisattva", if I remember correctly from Suzuki's biography, "Crooked Cucumber". His influence on Zen in the West was undeniable and brought many people to Buddhism.
Some great animation based off Alan's talks. Some of them have been produce by the team who did South Park.
http://www.freshminds.com/animation/alan_watts_theater.html
The Nature of Conciousness
It would probably be more fruitful to ask this question to the lady. The way you describe "caught up" in videos and having many thoughts, sounds like something that might be a concern to a zen teacher, as it could be a kind of sensory absorbtion. It might not have anything to do with Watts, and it might have been only your discomfort in speaking, leading to projection. Lots of variables! I find most buddhists quite approachable, and her point of view might help settle the issue for you. The rest is really just speculation.
With warmth,
Matt
Are you sure he does, and if so, where?
I remember a mathmatician stating that LSD does not give rise to hallucinations, rather it makes you see reality in a different way, a more profound way. One scientest claimed that the chemical make-up of the drug is vastly similar to some of the chemicals already present in the human brain. They were all highly academic and in ths documentary in their 60s-80s, but they all had nothing bad to say about it, from mathmaticians, to scientist to philosophers.
I have had my days done with acid, and yes it can go wrong. But I do not promote the use of it, it is just something that was given such a bad name when it is probably the most harmless class A drug, maybe even the most harmless clasified drug.
Telly03
I'm basically echoing what was already said
Alan was a "self-proclaimed spiritual entertainer" I've heard this many times and that might come across as low credentials or non-traditional, but I imagine it would probably be his perceived lifestyle that could be frowned upon by some.
He says things like:
"If you know that "I", in the sense of the person, the front, the ego, it really doesn't exist. Then...it won't go to your head too badly, if you wake up and discover that you're God."
"But at any rate, the point is that God is what nobody admits to being, and everybody really is."
"The self, Atman, is the Godhead, Brahman. It has always been so from the very beginning. so that your very trying to realize it is pushing it away, refusing the gift, ignoring the fact"
His philosophy is basically a combination of Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. So some of what he says is Buddhist.
Watts was a scholar, not a self proclaimed enlightened being. He understood the evolution of religious thought , where it came from, and many of the pathways that lead to Buddhism and Zen. I do not think he was anything other than a very bright scholar that brought to modern time the essence of eastern religious thought. For that reason alone, reading his books can be very informative about the evolution of eastern thought. There was a a great migration of eastern thought in the 40's through the 60's into the West/America. T.D. Suzuki expounded the Zen way, that many people do not think is very accurate. But all this is just human experience wondering about why we are alive, our purpose, and what happens after we die....that sort of thing. No body gets it "right". There are thousands of myths about the creation of the universe that come from different cultures throughout history. Personally I prefer the practice of Buddhism to have an open mind and heart. There is no reason to compare other approaches as better or worse with some preset ideas one has.
It is their hang-up as far as I am concerned. Not that I do LSD anymore but when used as a spiritual tool it can do some marvelous things.
He never claimed to be a monk or master and did not live the life of a monk. We do owe a debt of gratitude to him. His books were some of my own early introduction to Buddhism, expecially Zen.
Some people don't think Alan has it because he speaks of God and aims his dialogue at the audience he wishes to reach. If he is talking about the nameless Tao or the eternal Brahman, the absolute "I" or the delusion of a seperate "I", he is speaking of the same thing but relaying it in the context best for the chosen audience. This is how I see it anyways.
So why is this not Zen? Let us be reminded that Zen did not appear as a seperate form of Buddhism until a bond was made with Taoism and as somebody else has already mentioned, Buddha talked of Brahman.
In his poem, Call Me By My True Names, TNH reveals the only concept of "God" I believe in and I would doubt that Alan Watts saw it much differently.
Call me by my true names
Do not say that I'll depart tomorrow
because even today I still arrive.
Look deeply: I arrive in every second
to be a bud on a spring branch,
to be a tiny bird, with wings still fragile,
learning to sing in my new nest,
to ne a caterpillar in the heart of a flower,
to be a jewel hiding itself in a stone.
I still arrive, in order to laugh and to cry,
in order to fear and to hope,
the rhythm of my heart is the birth and
death of all that are alive.
I am the mayfly metamorphosing
on the surface of the river,
and I am the bird which, when spring comes,
arrives in time to eat the mayfly.
I am the frog swimming happily
in the clear water of a pond,
and I am also the grass-snake who,
approaching in silence,
feeds itself on the frog.
I am the child in Uganda, all skin and bones,
my legs as thin as bamboo sticks,
and I am the arms merchant,
selling deadly weapons to Uganda.
I am the twelve year old girl,
refugee on a small boat,
who throws herself into the ocean
after being raped by a sea pirate,
and I am the pirate, my heart not yet capable
of seeing and loving.
I am a member of the politburo,
with plenty of power in my hands,
and I am the man who has to pay his
"debt of blood" to my people,
dying slowly in a forced labor camp.
My joy is like spring, so warm
it makes flowers bloom in all walks of life.
My pain is like a river of tears, so full
it fills up the four oceans.
Please call me by my true names,
so I can hear all my cries and my laughs at once,
so I can see that my joy and pain are one.
Please call me by my true names,
so I can wake up,
and so the door of my heart can be left open,
the door of compassion.
Thich Nhat Hanh
Interesting stuff.
Perhaps it's valid to separate the person from the person's writings.
From what I've read just in this thread, I would have virtually no respect for the man.
But, if his ideas are valid, then I could respect the ideas.
It's much like the question that comes up sometimes -- what if Buddha (or what if Christ) didn't actually exist? My answer is, it would make no ultimate difference, because the teachings would stand on their own.
Watts was his own path. His insights to western and eastern thought gave us good objective insights. That he was not perfect Zen, or Buddhist, or western monk matters not. He was perfect Watts. That is the point.
We cannot be perfect other than in ourselves. There is no way to be something else. Our paths take unique directions, deflected by our experience, modulated by our thoughts, reflected in our memories. But when we are still and in the moment, that is who we are.
Watts was good for me when I was within my illusion of wanting enlightenment. I eventually saw the folly that such desire was. Watts introduced me to thoughts and methods I could better understand my experience objectively and without other imposed ontological descriptions. I fell in love with Taoism, Buddhism and Zen, having already been forced as a child into western ways of religious thought that I knew was not myself. Buddhism did however seem to encompass my overall self, but I was not a Buddhist per say. Zen and Taoism especially reflected my own quiet mind, and the recognition of the eternal moment I saw glimpses of in my early "mountain climbing". While those "glimpses" were important to my navigation, the dangers of such cannot be overstated. But I did not get stuck in those moments, or fall for the dangerous methods. I survived and went on, my compass calibrated for my own path. Chop wood, carry water, was the only path after meeting the center. I found that searching for enlightenment was another way of avoiding the eternal moment, because in that moment, clarity is absolute. It did not matter how I got there. That I was there was everything. I was there when I let go of all methods and thoughts. Many find this moment too, and there is nothing special about that. It just happens.
Watts was part of my navigational information. I found him relevant to my path. I would never say he was relevant to others necessarily, but I see potential for those seeking information that is objective. I read everyone's ideas from East to West. What resonated was me. Watts a part of that.
I believe, ultimately his failing (if I can use that word) was that he was profoundly alcoholic. Caught in such a desease , he lost his way, and his later life was lived in a stupor.