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.
I believe Alan was an elitist. He wanted society(the type of society was not important) to remain fairly stable and allow him to "graze" upon the bounty (I.E. lecture circuit and radio shows, rich donors) and then return to his work. In "The House Boat Summit," the only guy he seemed to agree with of Ginsberg, Leary, and Gary Snyder, was Snyder. Gary tried to live a self- sustaining lifestyle. Watts felt his "grazing" was much like Snyder's farming because the source of the bounty is unimportant. What is important, is that men like them work on their ideas:live, think, write, and produce. He was a leader.
Ginsberg may have been too strange for Alan, and Leary brought all thing to a discussion of LSD. Alan saw himself as a man who went his own way (and ultimately as ,"In My Own Way").
I don't get why people criticize Alan Watts for not being a true Buddhist. He's not a Buddhist. He is a philosopher.
I don't understand why his being an active Episcopal priest for five years is overlooked so much, either. Some people think that Episcopalians in general are elitists. I don't, because I know better.
By the way, here's Alan's voice narrating a video commentary on the market economy.
I first learned of Buddhism in some depth from Watts and D.T. Suzuki, and will remain forever grateful.
Watts was never deposed from the priesthood or anything —he just dropped out. And so, technically, he would have remained a priest unless he later denounced Christ or the Church. I do not believe he did that. Anybody know more?
________________________________
Not that I would ever recommend reading anyone involved in the publication of books! No, far from it. The fumes from the ink go to their brains and with such intoxicants, I think reading their ideas may put you on the wrong track. Therefore, avoid reading books. Some people say that it was something in whatever Watts was drinking that kept him from being a bona fide Buddhist, but it was the fumes in the ink, dontcha think?
Alan Watts was a priest in title only. He became a buddhist before he was twenty. He did not believe but only used the position of priest to support his family. He left the priesthood (after nine years) because he enjoyed dallying with women not his wife. His wife at the time had their union annulled on grounds that Alan believed in "free love." His bishop , though he loved Alan, accepted his resignation as the only reasonable solution short of deposing him. (Alan , for his entire "priesthood" was a chaplain at a university and "entertained" many coeds). He did not "drop out" he was forced out. I have a personal correspondence from Alan to Jean Burden(his lover and friend) where he refers to this period in his life as his "crazy past." This is as much of a denouncement as I have found.
Although he had a interest in Zen Buddhism, he was certainly not a Zen "Master".
.
His "interest" began when he was 14 years old. He was put in charge of the Buddhist Lodge in London when he was 21. In his short life ,he wrote 25 books , all of them, to a greater or lesser extent, on Buddhism. In the 1950's and 60's he gave 100 lectures a year, in many venues including the best universities in this country, on this topic. He has hours of videos, all on the subject of Zen Buddhism. He wrote poems and hundreds of articles . His remains are enshrined in a temple (not a Jewish temple) in San Francisco. Yes he was interested.
For the record, I agree with Dazzle. Alan was one of those, like Deepak Chopra, who recycled other people's ideas, to an extent. I suppose we can give him credit for popularizing Buddhism and sparking people's interest in the subject. I read his books back in the 70's, but trying to reread them after that, I couldn't get past the first couple of chapters; has anyone (Dazzle? Thickpaper?) noticed that the text seems to be uncomfortably sexist. The last time I tried to read his books, I found them offensive. Sndymorn says he was a womanizer. That would explain why the tone in his books offends. ...some of us, anyway... His attitudes influenced his writing. (Thanks for the info, Sndymorn.)
What Alan Watts and Eckhart Tolle have in common is that they both say that all religions point towards the same reality ("Being", "God", call it what you will) which is beyond words. Therefore to discuss their ideas in words is a bit like using algebra to analyse poetry. They both say that you simply have to plunge into reality now without any preamble! Despite what I have said about poetry I also think their ideas appeal to the modern scientific temperament (particularly that of physics). They are perfectly minimalist, which is what modern physics aims to be.
Of the two I think Watts is the more minimalist. Tolle sometimes seems tempted to moralise or to be prescriptive about the "good life", though I think he avoids it on the whole. Watts never moralises and never prescribes any course of action. Therefore, for me, he is the purest pointer to this thing which is beyond words. That Watts was an alcoholic, a womaniser, sexist etc (by the standards of 2010) is totally beside the point in a philosophy which holds that the individual ego is an illusion anyway. What we call "Alan Watts" or "me" or "you" is like a whirlpool - an apparently stable structure, but one which never contains the same water from one millisecond to the next. He would have been the first to "admit" that he was a product of his time, just as we all are. We may all be unforgivably "species-ist" by the standards of 2030 - or maybe insufficiently appreciative of girls in miniskirts by the standards of 2080. Who knows? Our free will is an illusion. Our words and actions come out of a void which we cannot fathom.
So what am I trying to say using my vain words? Essentially this - that Watts (and a few others like him) have a worldview which is perfect in its simplicity. That at least must be granted - even if one wants to argue in favour of a less minimalist worldview which is more comforting to ordinary human beings. In the end I think this is what it's all about - the inability of humans to cope with too much reality. It is so much less terrifying to consider the human foibles etc of Watts et al rather than confront the existential black hole into which we feel we may fall if we plunge into the present moment.
What Alan Watts and Eckhart Tolle have in common is that they both say that all religions point towards the same reality ("Being", "God", call it what you will) which is beyond words. Therefore to discuss their ideas in words is a bit like using algebra to analyse poetry. They both say that you simply have to plunge into reality now without any preamble! Despite what I have said about poetry I also think their ideas appeal to the modern scientific temperament (particularly that of physics). They are perfectly minimalist, which is what modern physics aims to be.
Of the two I think Watts is the more minimalist. Tolle sometimes seems tempted to moralise or to be prescriptive about the "good life", though I think he avoids it on the whole. Watts never moralises and never prescribes any course of action. Therefore, for me, he is the purest pointer to this thing which is beyond words. That Watts was an alcoholic, a womaniser, sexist etc (by the standards of 2010) is totally beside the point in a philosophy which holds that the individual ego is an illusion anyway. What we call "Alan Watts" or "me" or "you" is like a whirlpool - an apparently stable structure, but one which never contains the same water from one millisecond to the next. He would have been the first to "admit" that he was a product of his time, just as we all are. We may all be unforgivably "species-ist" by the standards of 2030 - or maybe insufficiently appreciative of girls in miniskirts by the standards of 2080. Who knows? Our free will is an illusion. Our words and actions come out of a void which we cannot fathom.
So what am I trying to say using my vain words? Essentially this - that Watts (and a few others like him) have a worldview which is perfect in its simplicity. That at least must be granted - even if one wants to argue in favour of a less minimalist worldview which is more comforting to ordinary human beings. In the end I think this is what it's all about - the inability of humans to cope with too much reality. It is so much less terrifying to consider the human foibles etc of Watts et al rather than confront the existential black hole into which we feel we may fall if we plunge into the present moment.
You know who wasn't a product of his time in the most significant indicators? Buddha, and pretty much all enlighten beings.
Watts and others like him are amazing and did amazing things, but what they did must be clearly understood.
Watts had an interesting view of seeing the world, one that can allow people who hear it to pause, think, and even perhaps step into the rabbit hole.
Buddha was telling you about the rabbit hole, and teaching you how to find your way in it. And ultimately free yourself.
I love Watts, and just wanted to comment, if it hasnt already been said..
But as far as I know, Alan never claimed to be a "Zen Master" let alone a Buddhist. He described himself influenced by tha Tao, Buddhism, The Vedenta, and certain types of Christianity. He even spent time as a priest in a Christian church. If anything, I think he was really into mysticism.
He's also addressed the whole "Beat Zen" thing on numerous occassions, he even wrote a book on it, appropriately titled "Beat Zen" and something or other. He recognized fully that the hippy-eastern college kid movement of the 60s was b.s.
He was even a character in Kerouacs "Dharma Bums". There was a get togather at a friends cabin, with lots of drinking and debouchery. Kerouac recalls him standing by a fire all night, nicely dressed, discussing spirituality with people. He wasn't running around wasted and having orgys with everybody else.
Lastly, and I believe to me most important, is that Watts aknowledged his attachment to women and wine. He also talks a lot about how a lot of monks and teachers and are way too uptight. While I can see women and drink hindering ones spiritual growth, he seemed to enjoy it and added flavor to his life. I think that's what's important.
I know, I'm new. And going back to read more, I see a lot of this has already been adressed. I love Alan Watts. A lot. Only because he's a great mind, with an interesting perspectibe, and a very entertaining read (for me). He could be a crack addict for all I care and I'd still recieve the same amount of satisfaction from his books and lectures.
For the record, I agree with Dazzle. Alan was one of those, like Deepak Chopra, who recycled other people's ideas, to an extent. I suppose we can give him credit for popularizing Buddhism and sparking people's interest in the subject. I read his books back in the 70's, but trying to reread them after that, I couldn't get past the first couple of chapters; has anyone (Dazzle? Thickpaper?) noticed that the text seems to be uncomfortably sexist. The last time I tried to read his books, I found them offensive. Sndymorn says he was a womanizer. That would explain why the tone in his books offends. ...some of us, anyway... His attitudes influenced his writing. (Thanks for the info, Sndymorn.)
Alan Watts admitted many times he was a womanizer. I, in fact, knew a woman with whom he had many interactions. She, by the way was a powerful and intelligent person whom would truck no "sexism." She was a great influence on his ideas, especially in the realm of love and relations between the sexes. He loved women to distraction, and women loved him back.
Comments
Ginsberg may have been too strange for Alan, and Leary brought all thing to a discussion of LSD. Alan saw himself as a man who went his own way (and ultimately as ,"In My Own Way").
I don't understand why his being an active Episcopal priest for five years is overlooked so much, either. Some people think that Episcopalians in general are elitists. I don't, because I know better.
By the way, here's Alan's voice narrating a video commentary on the market economy.
I first learned of Buddhism in some depth from Watts and D.T. Suzuki, and will remain forever grateful.
Watts was never deposed from the priesthood or anything —he just dropped out. And so, technically, he would have remained a priest unless he later denounced Christ or the Church. I do not believe he did that. Anybody know more?
________________________________
Not that I would ever recommend reading anyone involved in the publication of books! No, far from it. The fumes from the ink go to their brains and with such intoxicants, I think reading their ideas may put you on the wrong track. Therefore, avoid reading books. Some people say that it was something in whatever Watts was drinking that kept him from being a bona fide Buddhist, but it was the fumes in the ink, dontcha think?
I am sure HE does not mind.
(Insert firestorm of protest -- here --.)
Of the two I think Watts is the more minimalist. Tolle sometimes seems tempted to moralise or to be prescriptive about the "good life", though I think he avoids it on the whole. Watts never moralises and never prescribes any course of action. Therefore, for me, he is the purest pointer to this thing which is beyond words. That Watts was an alcoholic, a womaniser, sexist etc (by the standards of 2010) is totally beside the point in a philosophy which holds that the individual ego is an illusion anyway. What we call "Alan Watts" or "me" or "you" is like a whirlpool - an apparently stable structure, but one which never contains the same water from one millisecond to the next. He would have been the first to "admit" that he was a product of his time, just as we all are. We may all be unforgivably "species-ist" by the standards of 2030 - or maybe insufficiently appreciative of girls in miniskirts by the standards of 2080. Who knows? Our free will is an illusion. Our words and actions come out of a void which we cannot fathom.
So what am I trying to say using my vain words? Essentially this - that Watts (and a few others like him) have a worldview which is perfect in its simplicity. That at least must be granted - even if one wants to argue in favour of a less minimalist worldview which is more comforting to ordinary human beings. In the end I think this is what it's all about - the inability of humans to cope with too much reality. It is so much less terrifying to consider the human foibles etc of Watts et al rather than confront the existential black hole into which we feel we may fall if we plunge into the present moment.
Watts and others like him are amazing and did amazing things, but what they did must be clearly understood.
Watts had an interesting view of seeing the world, one that can allow people who hear it to pause, think, and even perhaps step into the rabbit hole.
Buddha was telling you about the rabbit hole, and teaching you how to find your way in it. And ultimately free yourself.
But as far as I know, Alan never claimed to be a "Zen Master" let alone a Buddhist. He described himself influenced by tha Tao, Buddhism, The Vedenta, and certain types of Christianity. He even spent time as a priest in a Christian church. If anything, I think he was really into mysticism.
He's also addressed the whole "Beat Zen" thing on numerous occassions, he even wrote a book on it, appropriately titled "Beat Zen" and something or other. He recognized fully that the hippy-eastern college kid movement of the 60s was b.s.
He was even a character in Kerouacs "Dharma Bums". There was a get togather at a friends cabin, with lots of drinking and debouchery. Kerouac recalls him standing by a fire all night, nicely dressed, discussing spirituality with people. He wasn't running around wasted and having orgys with everybody else.
Lastly, and I believe to me most important, is that Watts aknowledged his attachment to women and wine. He also talks a lot about how a lot of monks and teachers and are way too uptight. While I can see women and drink hindering ones spiritual growth, he seemed to enjoy it and added flavor to his life. I think that's what's important.