Printable View
For a little background info.
Naked Reflections: Alan Watts Revealed and Reconsidered
I've listened to some of Alan Watts's talks and they sound great. However, I think the fact that he was an alcoholic detracts from his works. Was it that he was genuine, but didn't have the discipline? Or was he merely being "a philosophical entertainer"?
I say a philosophy stands on it's own merits and not those of the person transmitting it. (did not know Alan Watts but am enjoying the video linked in the article)
Almost all gurus are sort of riding on peoples delusional ideas of them. Having spiritual or philosophical understanding doesn't mean you are perfect.
Jack Kerouac was more of an alchoholic and I like him even more that Watts.
Being an Alchoholic is hypocritcal towards a non-violent philosophy, or any kind of philosophy based on liberation, but despite this I think his work is still good. He wasn't an alchoholic all the time was he, just later in life right?
My conception of someone with spiritual understanding is someone who does not need hedonistic pleasures like alcohol, drugs, sex, partying. If their understanding is so great, then why do they act no different from the common person? I would think that someone with spiritual understanding would be fully-actualized on Malow's hierarchy of needs and not need the base pleasures at the bottom of the pyramid. People I commonly think of as spiritually actualized: Ghandi, MLK Jr., Dalai lama, Mother Teresa.
I understand that criticizing a person and not their argument is useless in regards to science, metaphysics, epistemology. But when it comes to spiritual matters, it's all about the person giving the argument. Spirituality is supposed to makes us happier (not hedonistically), kinder, "better" people. Not alcoholics.
I haven't read much on of J. Kerouac or Watts, I just don't see why an alcoholic should be telling me how to live my life if they don't have theirs together. I guess you could always say "do what I say. Not what I do".
Kerouac was more of a mystic than a guru, I'm not sure with Watts, he was more of an author and than a teacher right? Mystics use drugs to reach ecstatic and altered states of consciousness.
But no one should be telling you how to live your life but you. These people just offer their insights and you can take what you will from them.
I hung out with Alan occasionally for a period of about 2 years. One thing you need to understand, he was an ordinary guy. He was a philosopher, not a Guru. He thought about Buddhism, but he only thought about it. He liked women, he liked alcohol, he liked partying. He liked smoking pot. It was the sixties. He was good at communicating the teachings in a hip way. But he didn't have an extraordinary level of enlightenment going on. He was an ordinary hip Englishman. At least he didn't pretend to be a guru, so we cannot judge him as a hypocrite. He was a nice guy. He was a nice ordinary guy with a gift of communicating Eastern teachings to people in the West who were curious about it. He was an introducer. People who sincerely wanted the real deeper teachings thanked Alan and looked elsewhere. Alan had his issues with cheating on his wife, alcoholism, depression, etc. but so do we all have some problems.
As far as how gurus should behave, that is tricky. Every Guru is different. There are the "Crazy Wisdom" gurus who act in ways you would least expect and there are some Gurus who use "Crazy Wisdom" as an excuse to do whatever they want. But many authentic Crazy Wisdom Gurus have drank lots of alcohol and been in orgies with tons of women and ate meat, but they never got drunk or overcome by lust. It is a high tantric practice to use the things that entangle people to untangle oneself and liberate the energy. One guru would drink alcohol and have sex with a prostitute on the steps of the temple and then burst into the temple naked and yell at the priests. But for the most part you are right about how a Guru should behave. I have been disillusioned about Osho AKA Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and also Chogyam Trumpa, both of them "Crazy Wisdom" Gurus. Although I am still a little puzzled by Osho because it could possibly be that the game he was playing was so big that everybody misunderstands him and is disillusioned by him, and as it should be. That is the prime reason "Crazy Wisdom" act contrary. they WANT you to be disillusioned by them so that you will not rely on them and you will become a light unto yourself. Most crazy wisdom gurus that are authentic gurus pretend to be false gurus or charlatans. Check out Gurdjieff, he was a crazy wisdom Guru, and a very authentic one.
I agree completely Dannon. Pretty cool that you hung out with him too. To get some personal insight.
That's pretty much what I gleaned from his talks. Except I thought he was enlightened. Guess not.
But basically I agree, in that, you listen to these people for what they have to say, to further one's practices or whatever you want to do, same with anything you want to find out about.
You don't sit there saying "oh, this guy's a drunk, he must be wrong". Listen to the person always and decide whether their ideas are correct, or something you agree with.
What does it mean for you to be enlightened anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
I like Alan Watts's talk for the nice humor and i'm kind of jealous how he can tell something completely unfunny , laugh charmingly and get giggles from the audience.
It's easy to discredit anyone who has been sainted in the world's eyes, because 100% of martyrs, saints and gurus are also human beings. There comes a point where admiration of the teacher becomes an obstacle to understanding, and sets one up to be disillusioned and set back. If your practice and view cannot withstand contact with reality, it's not reality that needs to change course.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidjordan
That said, Watts was never a spiritual teacher, but a college professor--he did not profess to be a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Jain, but a scholar and student of comparative religion. It can probably be said of Watts (and myself, for that matter) that whatever degree of Buddhism he displayed was not his organizing principle, but merely one example of his explorations as a psychonaut, a connoisseur of consciousness and experience, and that drinking, drugs and carousing were very much in line with his approach to spiritual practice. I can't speak for Watts, but for myself, my spiritual practices are largely recreational, and while I intellectually recognize the error in this approach and the limitations it places upon me, I highly doubt I will ever fully embrace dharma by renouncing intoxication or vice versa within this lifetime.
In conclusion, yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.
Well, realising the ego is an illusion I would say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dthoughts
It's possible to wake up, to see the illusion and then slip back into samsara. This is actually what usually happens. Very few people get it straight right off the bat.
Taosaur, do you really think that you have to renounce intoxication to fully actualize the Dharma? I'm of the opinion that intoxication in moderation is a very good thing for the body and mind. In fact I think that most people who reject this sort of thing are just bullshitting themselves that they are pure or somehow better than others for it. But some people just don't enjoy it and that's understandable.
"life without celebration is like a long journey without an inn" - Democritus [paraphrased by me]
This has been happening to me more and more recently. One of the most profound times was when I was in the kitchen rolling a cigarette and I looked out of the window and saw my dog. I felt like there was no disconnection between me and him. I felt like I was him. That might sound stupid lol But it was awesome (in the true sense of the word). A few other times I've glimpsed this side of seeing things, but I can't seem to hold on to it. In fact I think the holding on to it or focusing on it is what causes it to fade.Quote:
Originally Posted by stonedape
Refraining from intoxication is one of the five most basic precepts of Buddhism, the vows taken even by laity seeking refuge in the Buddha, his teachings, and the community of adherents. Different sanghas interpret the precept differently, the loosest interpretation being that one avoid only an intoxicated state, but consumption of intoxicants in moderation is okay, while others say it applies to some substances and not others (most, if not all, exempt caffeine and tobacco), and still others see it as a vow not to drink, puff, snort or shoot up at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by stonedape
This happens to everyone each time you laugh, each time you sneeze, when you watch a sunset, when you listen to some great music, and many other times...Quote:
Originally Posted by stonedape
We talk a lot about Buddhism on this site, and other religions. But religion is all so ethical and people are expected to be ideals. Religion encourages idealization and idolization. This is not quite natural. Hang out with the Shamans and the Sorcerers who don't think magic is such an unnatural thing, but quite a natural force, and you will find that they will drink, they will smoke, but they can travel through the veil of death and follow you across the Universe to find you. They have such strange ways, like getting bit by rattlesnakes and controlling the weather. I have experienced all kinds of crazy things in ceremony with Shamans. But they don't have that same idea that they do in the Religions. They don't want to be idolized or idealized, but they expect to be respected. They drink, they cheat on their wives, but their wives are in on it, and they never get drunk.