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
thickpaper
Veteran
I once read Alan Watt's most famous book on Zen and didn't really like or "get" it.
Last week was recommended to me again, his talks and lectures rather than his books.
I have been listening to quite a few since, they are stimulating listening.
Any thoughts on him?
Last week was recommended to me again, his talks and lectures rather than his books.
I have been listening to quite a few since, they are stimulating listening.
Any thoughts on him?
0
Comments
I now have two of his books: "The Book" and "The Way of Zen."
Both are excellent books!
Alan Watts, HIGHLY recommended!
.
The late Alan Watts was an English alcoholic hippy 'philospher' in the 1960's. Although he had a interest in Zen Buddhism, he was certainly not a Zen "Master".
I once watched an extremely boring video of his ramblings in which he paraphased and repeated Zen teachings which he had read, as if they were his own thoughts.
No offense intended to anyone, but personally I would certainly not recommend him to newcomers to Buddhism - or indeed to Buddhists !
.
Ad hominem with no proof.
He went through the training to be a Zen monk and studied with various Zen masters, but never became officially ordained because he was unsatisfied with his teacher.
I've never heard of this and I have heard almost all his lectures. This may have been during his Zen years before he became a philosopher inspired by Zen. Also, his lectures after that time period, he certainly acknowledges and explicitly states that he is lecturing about Buddhism, Zen, and it's teachings as to give credit where it's rightfully due.
He's the only reason I became a Buddhist.
One thing he said was that nobody knows the translation of the 5th precept. Anyone else heard this? (hate to change the subject)
Thank's for the post and the renewed recommendation. His philosophies are clearly Buddhist at the core aren't they.
I like the way he speaks of anataaman from a cosmological rather than individual perspective and his take on other ideas as well.
namaste
"Buddha explained right speech as follows: 1. to abstain from false speech, especially not to tell deliberate lies and not to speak deceitfully, 2. to abstain from slanderous speech and not to use words maliciously against others, 3. to abstain from harsh words that offend or hurt others, and 4. to abstain from idle chatter that lacks purpose or depth. "
Excuse me ? :crazy:
Perhaps doubters about his alcoholism would like to read the facts for themselves before making ridiculous accusations when I mention it !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts
http://www.wisdom-books.com/FocusDetail.asp?FocusRef=70
.
Should I have expected him to be perfect?
What do you think of his thoughts?
.
You brought proof, but it's still an ad hominem and a red herring fallacy. "Alan Watts was an alcoholic during his late years, therefore his teachings are false or less credible." Or "Nietzsche became schizophrenic towards the end of his life, therefore his philosophy is false or less credible." That is unsound reasoning. You also twisted things as to seem as if his alcoholism hindered him during the time he was a teacher. The truth is, his alcohol struggle came in his late years before his death.
Why did you even bring up the part about him being alcoholic if not to discredit him?
.
Must we hide the truth about people? Facts are facts . 'Heroes' are often just ordinary imperfect human beings like ourselves.
Don't get so upset.....practice !
.
I agree. "If you put someone up on a pedestal, expect to get kicked in the face."
.
I wasn't accusing you of anything. It is up to you to decide if your comments were against any of the false speech precepts.
It is very hard to be critical without being confrontational here, isn't it!
Happy to talk more but let's do in private message if we do. It is less likley to go sour then.
namaste
It must be a generational thing.
Have you done more than watch 'an extremely boring video' of Alan Watts? Perhaps it would be less prejudiced to say "I do not recommend watching a boring video." It seems obvious you hold judgement of the man. Critical with such little direct knowledge?
Watts has a book I find interesting called Psychotherapy East and West. He reminds me somewhat of Eckhart Tolle, a western spring board for ideas that are more nourishing. I have to say that Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche is even better. His words are both accurate and western, and deals directly with minds that try to cling to Buddhism.
With warmth,
Matt
No. No more than you are a "Contemporary Buddhist." There's no need for such attributions. Alan Watts had some interesting points of view on reality.
I haven't heard anything so far that ignore "square" Buddhist principles. What should I be looking out for?
namaste
Read a couple of his books. "Watercourse way" was good. "Supreme identity" was Vedanta not Zen. "Wisdom of Insecurity" was good.
The denial of conventional morality. "Everything is empty man, lets all screw."
The denial of conventional responsibility. "I am unbound by your bullshit Samsaric chains man, the kid is yours, see you in California"
The denial of precepts around intoxicants. "spent all the night on some great acid in the wood, meditating. Saw through the veil of illusion "
In other words.... my aunts and uncles:D
Good grief, people are over-sensitive here. Lighten up and relax a little. What's wrong with me mentioning that he was English? I'm English myself for goodness sake!
As this thread appears to be excessively confrontational towards me because of me having mentioned that Alan Watts was a known alcoholic, I won't be interacting any further. Sorry if I burst the bubble folks !
Have fun.
Kind regards to all.
.
I haven't encountered that attitude so far. Are you sure you are not just pushing the same old establishment propaganda about hippies?
So far he seems more than Cheech and Chong...
(BTW If you are interested have look into the way the hippy movement was infiltrated and turned into sex and drugs when originally it was about freedom, peace and love. Google Hippy+CIA, Laurel Canyon military, Cointel Pro etc)
namaste
With metta
....There was a convenient confluence of notions like "emptiness", conventional appearance being illusion and so forth that fit nicely with some of the less noble impulses unleashed during that period. Like I said... aunts and uncles.
Yes, i am starting to agree. i have listened to a couple more lectures today.
A few observations:
He doesn't say he is right, he is just offering a "myth" of his take on reality - thats his term. So to criticize his way as being "unbuddhist" kinda misses the point.
He mixes some new agey concepts in with his Buddhism that I don't understand, like "vibrations" and "the universe is god" but thats not an issue to me.
Yesterday I saw emptiness in a new way thanks to Watts, when he speaks of it from the cosmological point of view rather than the individual.
I really agree with your point about him making you ask questions too. I would imagine even the Dalai Lama would gain something from him, if he hasn't already.
namaste
so though he may be a drunken fraud or whatever
Same here.
These ideas should not be automatically associated with New Age. It is true that the entire Universe is energy, and energy is vibration. His idea that the Universe is God is a Pantheist idea that New Age borrowed from. This is what makes him a philosopher as opposed to a Buddhist. He is inspired by Buddhism, but he has his own original philosophies as well as inspiration from other areas.
This is a pretty good description of Watts
No, but you do drive on the wrong side of the road...
(kidding!! I'm a huge anglophile!)
Mtns
Wait just a dog-gone minute. You mean *my* idea wasn't original? Somebody else thought of it before I did? I surely didn't read about it from anybody else before it spontaneously popped into my head as a teenager! How cool is that?
Mtns
What he wrote was a broad "alternative philosophy" that incorporated elements of Zen, Taoism and (perhaps most conspicuously) Advaita Vedanta. His musings do not really show evidence of a really penetrating, scholarly understanding of any of these philosophies (like, say, Red Pine on Taoism, or Richard Gombrich on Buddhism, or Swami Nikilananda on Vedanta), but he was a persuasive writer who could articulate eloquently some of the differences between the Eastern and Western philosophical heritages.
I wouldn't recommend him to newcomers as an introduction to Buddhism specifically (there are tons of better books for that: Suzuki Roshi's Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind for instance or Glen Wallis' version of The Dhammapada), but for a quick Cliff's Notes on how to communicate certain Eastern perspectives to Westerners, you could do far worse.
A bit off-topic, but my favorite philosopher is a Brit: William Shakespeare.
Yes, and I think a fair amount of Mumbo and Jumbo! But I haven't found any place where he become inconsistent with Buddhism, at least no more than, say, Tibeten is with Therevadan.
Dharma isn't certainty, it is truth. It is there with or without us, without people who can have beliefs (required for "certainty") and it seems to me that it can withstand any kind of association with things you or I may consider "UnBuddhist," and I think the same for the likes of Watt's and Tolle. They may not be Traditionally Buddhist but they are fully in tune with Dharma, I believe.
I find, even in my limited exposure to him, that he is very insightful and very unscholarly.
I wonder, were there Buddhist Scholar's in the Buddha's time?
That guy was amazing, I hear he even wrote plays!:p
namaste
The Suttas demonstrate a willingness on the part of the Buddha's monks to delve into the more nitty-gritty aspects of the doctrine, much like scholars do today. The teachings of the Buddha are sometimes confounding and there are many potential hangups ("wrong views") that can cause confusion, so this is not surprising.
The role of scholarship in Buddhism today is see Buddhism for what it is. This may mean very little in terms of actual day-to-day practice or in the general sense of coming to terms with truth (neither of which, as you noted, we need put under the category of Buddhism), but in the sense that "Buddhism" refers to a religion that originated in Northeastern India around 500 B.C.E., I think it's a necessary part of putting this all in context.
He also wrote some insanely perverse poetry.
Yes, I would think I agree. The Buddha's teachings on his discoveries are a pretty complete and comprehensive system.
I guess my point in the last post was that there is no agreement on the "nitty gritty" in Buddhism.
I don't really understand clearly what "buddhism" is, to be matter of fact.
I respect that view, it isn't that close to mine...
namaste
I may be wrong but im fairly sure that Tolle addresses these or at least point toward these... somewhere in the vast collection of his books and videos
Still, a lot of it did seem to make it through into China and eventually Southeast Asia and Japan, among them an emphasis on ethics and renunciation. This is something I don't particularly see much of in Watts or Tolle.
I do, yes. Dharma isn't taught, it is seen by all of the strands of practice. The practice is taught, or learned, or fumbled through in so many different ways but, there is nothing that can lead to Dharma that isn't part of Dharma. If all things are connected then this must be true.
If something reduces Dukka, and can be seen to connect with The Four Noble Truths and be structured with dependent origination then I would say it is Dharma, whatever practice leads to these realisations.
This is a pretty new thing for me to get to grips with:)
namaste!
(I'd rather not discuss the specifics of the history of Buddhism, it always ends up in the doldrums as its so much speculation.)
I think I agree with your main thrust, from what I know of Watts. He offers a watered down version of Dharma, but I guess you could argue in teaching about oneness, interconnectivity, emptiness, impermanence and "negative vibes, man."
Perhaps he is offering up the essence of Dharma in a way suited to his cultural norm, in the way the buddha did with his?
namaste
As for Watts, Watts is Watts. He didn't align himself to a specific school and to my knowledge didn't identify himself as a Buddhist or Advaitist or Taoist and I think it's best to respect that. A lot of what he said may have been in line with Dharma, but then again, so is a lot of Greek Stoic literature, secular philosophy and modern-day physics.
Yes agree. But as a Buddhist, if you see Dharma as total truth like I do, then shouldn't we expect it to crop up in other schools of thought or disciplines. One just needs to look at the Corporate state to see Dharma in action:)
namaste
He did a good work promoting eastern teachings in the west; but I believe that addictions don't lie when it come to evaluate your own life.
I believe if he brings anyone to Buddhism, then great!
But then one should move on to better things and not focus on what Watt was teaching as he clearly got something wrong.
"I am not a Zen Buddhist and I am not trying to sell you anything. I'm an entertainer, and I'd like to share a perspective with that I enjoy." - Alan Watts (paraphrase)
.
I like Alan Watts, but I just can't agree that we can;t destroy Evil, and by Evil I mean things like people killing each other, not some moral bullshit about sex or whatever.
Didn't Bill Shakespeare say something like, "There is no good or bad. Only thinking makes it so."
That sounds very Buddhist to me.
Has anyone a link to an Allan Watts talk they like?
This letter implies what was known: Alan and Jano were co-dependent. Alan was a heavy drinker for at least twenty years and brought this into the marriage (his third) with Jano.
He was an interesting man-perhaps a genius.
He titled his autobiography , "In My Own Way" fully aware of the ambiguity.