« Alan Watts on "I" versus "Me" -- a crazy battle | Main | Beyond humanism and absolutism... mystery »

February 06, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"There is not something or someone experiencing experience! You do not feel feelings, think thoughts, or sense sensations any more than you hear hearing, see sight, or smell smelling."

Yes, but the spiritual experience topic is for me the fascinating topic. When one claims to have had an experience of heaven, astral plains and regions, and meeting with the Godman within, and such. Then is this too, "simply" experience? A "simply" experience can only be generated by the human brain? Is simply experience different from a personal subjective experience?

"A "simply" experience can only be generated by the human brain? Is simply experience different from a personal subjective experience?"

Yes, as different as lucid dreaming is from waking consciousness. Since most people don't dream lucidly, a lucid dream is a remarkable experience when it occurs.

One could build a religion on a lucid dream; make lucid dreaming a religion.

Ah yes... eat, drink and be merry.

Alan Watts was a drunk and a womanizer and died of complications due to alcoholism at the age of 58.

So there you go. There's no spirit or soul. No afterlife. All spiritual experiences are simply the brain's imaginings and hallucinations. Only one life and then you are nothing. May as well spend your life in drunken bliss...

"Alan Watts was a drunk and a womanizer and died of complications due to alcoholism at the age of 58."

Can't see past the booze and the broads to the brilliance?

just me, I'm not sure what your point is. Einstein enjoyed the company of women. I seem to recall that he was sort of a "wild thing," engaging in what some would call immoral behavior.

Yet he revealed truths of the cosmos that have stood the test of confirmation. In my opinion, Watts did the same. Modern neuroscience is confirming Watt's thesis that there no is "I" inside our head, just natural body/brain.

Also, I've read many of Watts' books. I don't recall him ever saying that his goal was to teach people how to be chaste and sober. That is, sexually discreet and alcohol moderate. So if that wasn't what Watts set out to teach, how can he be criticized for not knowing how to be chaste and sober?

just me, a P.S. that just came to mind:

My mother was an alcoholic. One of her sisters probably also was. My mother eventually got cirrhosis of the liver, when I was in high school. Her sister died tragically from a fire seemingly caused by a cigarette igniting a chair while she was passed out in it.

Calling heavy drinkers/alcoholics "drunks" may be accurate. But it also has a judgmental tone that bothers me. I know what a wonderful flawed person my mother was. Heck, even that word "flawed" is judgmental. Who I am to say what is a flaw?

Science is coming to know that many mental and physical problems have a genetic basis. Maybe my mother, and Alan Watts, were driven to heavy drinking in part by their genes. You should keep this in mind when you dismiss the value of someone's life because of their behavior.

Yep, I think so too Wait... who is that you say that thinks so too?

I have trouble with the "inside your head" idea. I don't feel that thoughts exist in any "place." It seems to me that mind does not have a location. Not everything has to have a location, you know.

But yes, all we know is what "we" experience. The "we", it seems, is a mental construct too. It's worse than unnecessary, it's a tiresome burden. Those who have experienced it suddenly disappearing are quite clear about this.

The fact that we cannot find a person within is only circumstantial evidence; if I did find someone there, it wouldn't be me since I am doing the searching and finding.

We know there is no "WHO" within us.

Personalization of impersonal thought,
is the grand delusion.

Thought and experience are things, they
can never be a WHO.

Alan Watts drank wine, not hard liquor.

There are many false rumors about such people.

The big question after realizing there
is no WHO that can live on after death is,
is there any way to survive death at least
as an experiencer ?

Is there an unknown factor .............
Something Else we have not considered.

Something Else which can make real ...
what was unreal before ?

Every entity leaves a trace.

Can it be our vibration rate somehow
continues ? Like DNA passes down through
the generations always improving itself ?

As in opening the hand of tought..Kosho Uchiyama:

Jiko..is the small and also great Jiko 'I'__----------Self or not self..:)

What eventually is'nt there even ,just experience..awareness..conciousness.

Same...(?) I think so..eventually.

Thanks cc,

Is Lucid dreaming not a personal subjective experience? Clarify that for me. Same for waking consciousness? Surely, all human experiences are personal subjective experiences. I'm just trying to clarify, if a spiritual experience lies outside a personal subjective experience. Thanks for your response.

A "spiritual experience" is totally personal and subjective because it has more to do with the meaning attributed to the event than to the alleged event itself. For instance, people who are convinced they can leave their bodies are convinced they will not die, and that's the whole point of the exercise. Or take gurus, for example. If Alan Watts facilitates your emerging understanding and self-knowledge, that's a good guru. But if Baba Gunuj would have you believe something that can be neither proven or disproven, that's a bad guru.

The experience and the experienced go together, like when you have a nice refreshing beverage, it would not be nice or refreshing without the you factor in that experience.

Pick up a pychology textbook and look up the section on "personality"

Hope that helps.

"Ever-changing experience. No experiencer. Just experience. To paraphrase Zen masters, deal with it, dude. Show me your Buddha-mind, your Buddha-nature! Ha, you can't! You are your mind, your nature! Gotcha!"

First you have to explain me, If there is only "ever-changing experience", what is in here that (when I took a drug pill to maximize my brain memory) what is in here that knows that I am experiencing it, and experiences it? Experience passes, I remain, what is that? What is that that knows my old memories NOT CHANGING, something in here not changing knows about it. It is not an experience AT ALL, experience comea and goes, like cause and effect.
What is that? I must say, IT IS THE EXPERIENCER.

The mistake here in Alan s and your reasoning
is that you think you are a coat or coating
This is false
It snot impossible to realise°° that you are a vibration
actually a very unpure resultante of many quantum vibrations
but you can "consult" your original state ( a Sound )
above your eyes
by means of Love
Then you will know but unable to tell anybody because nobody
would believe you
After consulting , you will BE that vibration

°°Realisation can only be done if the person practises some Love without agenda ,
is compassionated
but you are still a vegetarian - without agenda : so no problem


True, all that exists is the ever changing experience, but who is aware of the experience? Rather, who is aware of the experiences that have been experienced and the experience going on now?
Who is that which can think about/reflect over any experience that has already been stored in the memory? If experience is the only thing that is, to who does it happen?

There is surely some difference in the non-living things and living things. Non-living things are also undergoing experiences - like, sunlight falling on a wooden table is gradually destroying it, but there is no one which is reacting to that experience. There surely is some difference in non-living things and living beings. Our bodies, made up of atoms, just like non-living things consistently undergo chemical reactions when it interacts with anything in the world. But, in a human body, there is someone who knows whatever has been experienced. There is no one in a non-living thing who is knowing.

You need someone who, at will, decides to either experience or reflect on a past experience or not experience at all. Who is that which is navigating through the memory? Even if that is happening on its own, there is surely someone through who the choice of experiencing is being made.. That, without which no experience exists.. :) It is that because of which the entire experience exists.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.