Alan Watts - Master Philosopher?

I'm one of those Buddhists

Possibly a good man at heart, but wronger than wrong on his assessment of meditation (exceptionally limited) and his understanding of Eastern thought and the route to realisation. Horses for courses though, I'm sure many have found solace in his words.

I would strongly disagree that he's a master of anything except his own outlook. BUT, watch the videos and make your own judgement.

+rep for good finds.

MelT

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERbvKrH-GC4
YouTube - Music and Life - Alan Watts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXi_ldNRNtM
YouTube - Prickles & Goo: Alan Watts Trey Parker Matt Stone South Park
Here's some Trey Parker and Matt Stone animation.

 

So, let me ask you this. In your estimation, was Alan Watts enlightened?

No, definitely not.

How would one find out?

Realisation has strict criteria, and if an experience doesn't fulfil it, then it's not enlightenment. He had not had such an experience. On simply objective level, nothing I've heard him say or write would lead me to believe that he was enlightened, quite the contrary; the way he acted and his words were counterintuitive to realisation. It's shown strongly in who he portrayed himself as and his desire for image and becoming a celebrity.

He was a philsopher with a dissillusionment of the then modern times, who wrote for others with the same disillusionment. What he spoke of he learned purely intellectually and not through direct experience, and he attempted to align it into a whole it could never be. His work can be an awful ramble at times. I don't if you've read his essay on the nature of consciousness, but he sounds drunk and doesn't actually say very much about anything except to say "it's a nasty world, why don't we all learn to reject and despise it?" It's books for bitter people who are angry at the world and want it all to collapse in a heap because it made them sad.

He certainly seems to have quite a grasp on many core Buddhist and Hindu concepts, although admittedly I am not too familiar with his views on meditation. (Perhaps that is why - because they are so limited! )

While I certainly ultimately recognize and find all truth within myself, and generally do put more stock in the classic ancient teachings of the East over the newer, tightly packaged western presentations, I do feel as if Alan Watts speaks quite well to the inner truth inside me, and he seems to be rather exceptionally knowledgeable on the major Eastern philosophical views and beliefs.

He is well read, but in fact his knowledge of the traditions in terms of practise was minimal. His study concerned mainly the effects of traditions on their art, thinking and history, not meditation. As I say below, he was criticised at the time for misrepresenting Buddhism. If he had actual knowledge of it he did not choose to write about it accurately. His undertstanding of Hinduism is limited in the same way, and his beliefs in all eastern traditions were biased towards Theosophy, which has no factual basis.

Studied under D.T. Suzuki... seems as if he knows his stuff quite well, so to say.

Suzuki and others later went on to publicly criticise him for misrepresenting Buddhism. Watt''s knowledge of the traditions tends to be almost entirely socio-political and historical, not practice.

Some people believe that he was a Zen Buddhist monk, but in fact he left Zen after not getting on with the way of teaching and was never ordained. He tried a couple of other priesthoods in christian and eastern roles, but his desire to be a commercial/professional success meant he couldn't affiliate fully to any one of them. To be honest, he had a cheek ever donning a Hakama and coat of a monk. He is sometimes imagined to be an expert on Zen, but this is far from being the case.

Alan Watts was in the business of selling a philsophy that we in the west wanted to hear. Some of what he said is an accurate representation of the traditions it has come from, but most of it isn't.

So where does the line cross between him and other revered and respected eastern teachers / realized masters ? Or in other words, what makes them closer to "master status" than he? What did he miss? What can give such away?

He missed not putting what he knew into practice (though to be honest he only knew a tiny fraction of what practice entails). He didn't really fully understand what he had learned or how it was meant to be used. He didn't know the goal, so couldn't point the way for himself or anyone else. What gave him away was Alan Watts being Alan Watts.

For example - if in true kensho, there is no constant feeling of bliss, then how do you pick out one who has reached such a state? i feel as if i have reached kensho quite recently,

If you have then we can test it fairly easily with four questions. Try the first two:

What is life and death?
What is their purpose?

but after learning that kensho is not the feeling felt upon first realization, but the negation to hold on to anything at all, including that moment and feeling, i feel as if everything is back to normal, but i am ultimately untouchable and always calm inside, for i know it is all myself in a big dance. so when i see a sad person, i am not ecstatic of blissful. i am sad. i am in total control of my emotions.

It's very much a western idea that Kensho and Satori are about peace, calm and bliss. These things may result from those states, but only as a by-product, they aren't it in itself. Your ensuing mental state, your morality and calm, or lack of it, have no bearing on what to be enlightened means. Buddha was known to become angry and frustrated - enlightenment isn't a form of spiritual evolution where you turn into a perfect human being and remain in a state of calm or in control. Enlightenment is not touched by any negative or positive mental state, so you could sing, dance, curse or kill and still remain enlightened.


however, externally, i don't appear too different. don't act too different. i just see all is a fleeting image. so one part of me has been on a search since that state of feeling kensho recently that i mentioned, and the other part of me knows that i haven't gone anywhere. so have i gone anywhere?

If you were enlightened then you wouldn't look any different than anyone else.

There is no 'feeling' of Kensho. Here in the West we think of it as reaching a state of calm and peace, when there are any number of states that can give you long-lasting experiences of those things that are not enlightenment. It's confusing the effects with the cause. Walking around being peaceful is nice, but it has no bearing on reaching Kensho or Satori.

"If you want true kensho, you must make your opinion, your condition, and your situation disappear. Then the correct opinion, correct condition, and correct situation will appear. The name for this is kensho. The name for this is our True Self. The name for this is Great Love, Great Compassion, and the Great Bodhisattva Way. Not special. When you are hungry, eat. When you are tired, rest. When you see a hungry person, give him food. When you see someone sad, you are also sad. Only this. Moment to moment, you must keep your correct situation. All your actions are for other people. Put down I, my, me."


In one sense the above is true, but it's also desperately misleading - and even a barrier to realisation - when taken as a stand alone idea. Whole groups of people around the world are still trying to become moral, self-less and without ego, to hold onto calm and concentration so that they can try and reach enlightenment. Without doubt these things help on the path, but the exhortations above aren't complete, and almost useless unless you know why you're doing them.

This is one of Watt's downfalls. He can say (to those outside the traditions) the right words and quote Masters, but he gives such a narrow part of the full message that's meant to be conveyed that what he writes is almost meaningless - but, it IS what we in the West want to hear. He holds up the image that he knows we would like to reach, and portrayed himself in the image that we would most admire in someone who had reached realisation, but he missed the point the second he put on the clothes of a meditator. He too confused the results with the cause.


MelT

 

Life and Death are an illusion (delusion.)
Their (perceived) purpose is motivation.

How wrong am I?

What are the next two questions?

Even if he told you, it wouldn't make you enlightened.

 

Im saving these vidz for when i get some weed

 

I'd liked the part about where the "Center" of yourself is. "The rest of you dangles from this point of reference" Interesting ideas

 

Good, thoughtful tries. The first one is correct, the second isn't. Think about the first again. I can only ask you the next two if you get the first two right.

MelT

 

Again, right on the first, wrong on the second.

MelT

 

I wanna play!

1. Illusory
2. Illusion

 

Your number 2: the meaning of life is illusion? Could you explain further?


MelT

 

So, the second answer should be relative to the first answer? Is the second answer the same whether relative to the first or asked alone?

It is definitely a purpose as compared to a reason? If reason is interchangeable with purpose, I'll go with...

Because Infinity cannot be experienced... there is no beginning or end to Infinity, but the egoic mind needs to think it began and will end. This allows for the different levels of awareness... awakening, enlightenment.

Also... Kill or be Killed comes to mind. We are the eternal transformation. No expression (individual) will last forever.

Hotter or Colder?

Atanyrate, thanks for helping me think way harder than most.

 

Well, if life is an illusion, and death is an illusion, then any perceived 'meaning' to life would be an illusion. So, there would be 'no' meaning to life, and in turn any meaning would be accurate.

Or, the meaning of life is 'what'.

What is the purpose of life and death? Yes.

 

Well, the world is obviously not like how we see it in it's most pure form.(as in our sense interpet and distort whats out "there") But life is the realest thing we know, so why not consider it to be real?

 

What is illusion? Do you mean that we aren't here, or that we are here? Why do you use the word illusion?

MelT

 

A good reply.

What is 'real'? What is greater and more important? Life or reality itself?


MelT

 

^
I should have said the world we know is the realest thing we know. You can accualy change the world you know, hopefully moving toward an absolute truth each time. I think the pursuit of whats accualy real is important, but since humans have a subjective view point attaining the truth is difficult sometimes.