This talk by Alan Watts is marvelous

Thank you, Sam Harris. As of January 1, he's arranged to have about 100 hours of recorded talks by Alan Watts put on his Waking Up app. 

I've read just about of all of Watts' books. Some I've read numerous times, notably The Wisdom of Insecurity, one of my favorite books. 

The recordings are arranged in categories: Tao of Philosophy, Philosophies of Asia, Myth & Religion, Philosophy & Society, Comparative Philosophy, Ways of Liberation, Religion of No Religion, Eastern & Western Zen, Taoism, Zen & Meditation, Comparative Religion, Early Radio Talks, Human Consciousness, Buddhism, Spiritual Alchemy, The Arts, The Future, The Self, The Universe.

I suspect there's considerable overlap between the various recordings, but I'll learn if that's true as I make my way through them. I'm starting with Tao of Philosophy, described as "Explore the limits of language, man and nature, the illusion of control, the myth of the self, and more."

Today I finished listening to a 54 minute talk, Not What Should Be. Here's a summary based on notes I took. Watts is an excellent speaker, who spoke without notes, according to a short introduction by Harris. 

-----------------------

We have a false sense of personal identity, which creates a profound discord between man and nature. Actually, the environment is not something other than ourselves. Yet we make the mistake of viewing intelligence as being inside us, while outside is just a blind mechanism.

People say of a baby, it came into this world. In truth, we come out of this world. Our head is as much a part of the environment as our body.

Education leads us to view reality as made up of discrete lines/facts, linear scanning. Yet in the universe everything happens together all at once. We confuse the world as it is with how the world is described. 

"I" is a symbol of ourselves. The real you is the universe centered on your organism. Your behavior is part of the environment. There's a continual push-pull between organism and environment. 

A sense of cosmic consciousness causes us to say either "I do everything" or "I do nothing." There's just a single process going on, so both points of view are right. 

Our sense of ourself is very limited. If we're asked what our childhood was like, we'll relate a few stories. But that's just a vanishingly small proportion of what actually happened during those years. We know nothing of how our heart beats, what is being secreted by our glands, the operation of our stomach, liver, and other organs.

Thus we have an impoverished image of ourselves. The unconscious is a mystery. We're full of illusions. Our history leaves out most of what happened. All I have is a caricature of myself, a skeleton. It's no wonder we feel so inadequate.

We hope for a divine event that will change our viewpoint. Yet we fail to realize that our "I" is an illusion. Any attempt to change ourselves through effort is bound to fail.

When you will, you grit your teeth. Muscular tension accompanies our effort. Try! We strain with the thought of gaining a psychological benefit. "I" is marked by chronic tension. When an organ is fully functioning, we are unaware of it. It's only when something goes strong that we're aware of our stomach, say.

The big difficulty is that I want to find a method to improve myself. But the self to be improved is that which is doing the improving. Unloving me has to make me into loving me. So I hope God will improve me.

In Zen many feel that it takes hard work to get rid of ego. The biggest ego trip is getting rid of ego. Actually ego is an illusion. Mystical experience is a gift of God. You can't do anything about it because you don't exist.

There is no method. Good news! The main obstacle to mystical realization has collapsed: you. You can't control thoughts and feelings. They are you. 

Do you breathe? Do you see? There are just happenings. You can only preach to ego. I just talk about what it is. And I get paid for doing this.

The hallucination of ego disappears only in recognition of our own futility. You can't control your own mind. Quietness naturally comes over you when there is no controller. The experiencer of experience is just experience. 

In nature there's just knowing. Not "I am feeling." There is feeling there. Just a happening. That space is meditation. 

Don't try to get rid of mind chatter. This just keeps up the illusion of a controller. Eventually there is silence when thoughts and feelings are allowed to be like clouds appearing and disappearing in the sky.

Reality isn't material or spiritual. That's just an idea. You are this universe. Other people's doings are your doings. If you're going to say "I'm God," you must allow it for everybody else too. This was the mistake of Christianity. Only Jesus supposedly was godlike. 

There are endless games of spiritual competition. My guru is better than your guru. My yoga is better than your yoga. You are this universe. The universe is still beginning now.

-----------------------

Lastly, here's an actual transcript of part of Watts' talk dealing with the idea of us being a caricature of ourselves. He starts off talking about the richness of his present-moment experience talking to a large group of people, and how different it is when he's asked to describe what he did that evening. 

-----------------------

Instead of this rich physical experience, which is very rich indeed, I have to attenuate it in memory and description... So, therefore, in thinking of ourselves in this way, what I did yesterday, what I did the day before, in terms of this stringy, mangy account. All I have is a caricature of myself.

...We are, as it were, conceiving of ourselves as a bunch of skeletons. And there's no flesh on them, just a bunch of bones. And no wonder we all feel inadequate. 

We're all looking to the future. To bring us a goodie. We know what we want to have is a golden goodie at the end of the line somewhere. There's a good time coming be it ever so far away, that one far-off divine event toward which creation moves. 

We hope. And therefore we say of something that's no good, it has no future. I would say, it has no present. But everyone says it has no future. No. 

Here we are, as it were, psychically starved. And always therefore looking, looking, seeking, seeking, seeking. And this confused seeking is going on everywhere. We don't know what we want.

Nobody knows what they want. We say what we want in vague terms. Pleasure, money, wealth, love, fulfillment, personal development. But we don't know what we mean by all that. 

Comments

[um]

Another Italian village where people live exceptionally long is Acciaroli, in the municipality of Salerno, 150 kilometers from Naples.

More than 10% of the residents of Acciaroli are 100 years or older and also very healthy, just like in the neighboring village of Pioppi. Twice the national average. The secret?

A healthy living environment,
healthy food and
many social contacts.

Everything that makes Italy so beautiful seems to be gathered in rustic villages like Acciaroli.

Life goes on quietly here and stress doesn't seem to exist.

The residents
do not eat processed food and lots of vegetables, fish and fruit.
And thanks to the Mediterranean climate, the oldies spend a lot of time outdoors. Because the village is so small, everyone knows each other, which makes them much more active and cheerful.

ORrrrrr ... they live a natural life in a natural way and a simple life in a simple way.

ANDDDdddd ....

They do NOT use their minds to read watts or anybody else that tells them storie and tales about what life is all about .... they just live life as it is.
They do not misuse their minds to lose themselves in culture .

[Tendzin]

Why do we continue to put faith in these pseudo-Zen I Deconstruction Projects when it's clear they don't work?

I don't care if you've read Watts for 40 years, you woke up this morning with the same sense of self you've always had.

The same goes for Sam Harris and his ever-refined ideas about deconstructing the self. First it was years with Papaji, then divine conferences with the most esteemed Tibetan Dzochen masters where he says he was given earthshattering insight into the selfless self.

Later we see Harris pulling out his hair because he's obsessed with what anyone says about him on Twitter.

This isn't to pick on Harris or Watts or anyone else. I've been following the selfless project for many years. But these selfless books are little more than solipsistic literary porn.

Ask yourself if the selfless path works, and if you say it does, why are you still looking for answers in Alan Watts, who died 40 years ago of alcoholism?

[Appreciative Reader]

"Reality isn't material or spiritual. That's just an idea. You are this universe."

..........Actually I struggle to understand this kind of thing. There's load of pseudo-spiritual claptrap that I used to take seriously in the past, not as believer but as "agnostic seeker", but that I've now cast aside. This I still remain (somewhat) agnostic about, but still, I have to say, I struggle to understand this POV.

Take this, for instance, where Alan Watts says, "You are this universe." I'm afraid that sounds like nonsense to me. That sounds plain wrong to me.

What am "I", or "you"? We know what our sense of self is. It is a projection, an artifact, of our body-mind complex. It is chimerical, it arises when we're very small, and it ends when we die.

Yes, people do tend to impute to this sense of self all kinds of wrong narratives, that we need to be aware of. We're simply an emanation, so to say, of our body and mind. So far so good.

But how the hell do we go from here to "You are the universe"? No, "you" are NOT the universe! "You" are simply the marker that your mind has constructed for the body-mind complex. That is what "you" are.

"You" are no more than that. But such as it is, that is what "you" are.

So no, "you" are not nothing. Nor are "you" everything. All you are, is "you".

..........Seriously, Brian, can you talk about this? I ask this not to scoff, but to clarify this ...doubt I have, about this kind of thinking. How on earth are "you" the universe or the world or whatever?

That separate, individuated "you", that is exactly what "you" are. The thing is to understand that that is all you are. But that understanding does not change the nature of what "you" are, does it?

[Brian Hines]

Appreciative Reader, I'll reverse your question and pose it back to you. How are we NOT the universe or the world? What are we made of that is not part of what the universe/world is? What other-universe, other-world ingredient is there in the human body and mind?

A religious person would say "soul" or "spirit." Alan Watts disagrees. He's a naturalist. He sees no distinction between we humans and nature, which he calls the environment in this talk. He says that most people view themselves as separate from the natural world, that we somehow possess some essence which doesn't belong to nature.

Hope this helps you understand what Watts is saying. As with most writers, it is possible to take a sentence or two out of context and focus on a supposed meaning of that passage which doesn't fit with the broader message of the writer. Which is one of Watts' points. The natural world is a whole. It operates all at once, so to speak, in a holistic rather than linear fashion.

But the human mind typically operates sequentially, fitting together thoughts one by one in a linear fashion. Often that leads to impressive accomplishments. There's nothing wrong with linear thinking. But Watts points to a complementary capacity of conscioousness where we have an intuitive appreciation of the whole of some aspect of reality, or even reality itself. For Watts this is the doorway to spiritual/mystical experience, where the boundary between us and the world is much narrowed, or even almost eliminated.

[um]

@ Brian

In your answer to AR you write:
>>But Watts points to a complementary capacity of conscioousness where we have an intuitive appreciation of the whole of some aspect of reality, or even reality itself. For Watts this is the doorway to spiritual/mystical experience, where the boundary between us and the world is much narrowed, or even almost eliminated.<<

We can have ..... intuitive appreciation of reality ... as a doorway?!

In the start where you quote Allan watts, watts says:

That the mystical experience is a GIFT of God?? and not the result of the workings of the ego that does not exist.

Or ... nothing can be done to have an mystic experience. and one has to accept the simple fact that there are some people that receive this gift and the rest does not and the rest can do whatever they want they will never get one. ...but one thing is for sure one can make a living out of talking and writting about the suggestion that it can be done.

[Uchit]

Alan watts has shown much more clarity to answers than the so called God in human form gurinder Singh dhillon of RSSB beas - a self proclaimed guru by contract. Gurinder Q and As are all vetted, there is no freedom of thinking and you definitely can't ask the real questions that puzzle the sangat. Like, what is gurinders own personal journey he can share to inspire us; how did this crook became a billionaire as a guru given he started as a sales man in spain; why can't people meditate, could it be the method, repetition of satanic names, is floored? The clowns answers always leave you more puzzled and confused, and google or Alexa will always have better answers. GSD, your crooked brother in law, and convicted drug trafficker, majithia has gone missing in Punjab. Have they checked his whereabouts at dera beas as it is fast becoming a sanctuary for crooks, ex police, Bollywood stars and politicians.

[Ron E.]

I was reading Alan watts decades ago and rather enjoyed his flamboyant manner of writing and talking. Watts’s books contain a wealth of information indicating that we are more than a limited self with equally limited (and with little understanding) of how identities are formed.

Much of what he says is pretty obvious, particularly in the light of modern neuro research and also with much of Zen (Chan) teachings now having taking on a particular western flavour. And of course (for many people) years of studying and practicing – together with confirmations from science.

What he says here regarding us having “. . . a false sense of personal identity” and that “. . . we fail to realize that our "I" is an illusion” – is I believe, once this is realized, forms the initial understanding of who/what we are – together of course with a reasonable understanding of how minds produce these constructs in the first place.

[Appreciative Reader]

Thanks for that clarification, Brian.

So then, just to be sure we're on the same page on this: When Alan Watts says "You are this universe", what he's actually wanting to convey is that "You are OF this universe", is that right? And when you ask me, "How are we not the universe or the world", what you, too, actually mean to say is, "How are we not OF the universe or the world", is that right?

If that is what is being conveyed, then sure, that makes sense. Kind of trivial, in that case, I have to say: but sure, makes sense.

--------------

Coming to this part of what you've said: "Watts points to a complementary capacity of conscioousness where we have an intuitive appreciation of the whole of some aspect of reality, or even reality itself." ----------We're clearly treading mystical ground here, right? Which is fine, I love this sort of thing. Kind of why I'm here in the first place.

But while one does not dismiss this claim, rather one tries to explore what he's pointing at as best one can, but still, it's good to keep in mind that this latter claim is a very big one. It's on par with, for instance, RSSB's son et lumiere, and spiritual "planes" --- in the sense that both speak of mystical experiences that are beyond the commonly experienced everyday ...experiences, that we generally know and understand, and point to realizations that need to be experientially apprehended.

Does Alan Watt, to your knowledge, discuss --- elsewhere, I mean --- how exactly one might go about trying to get at this "intuitive appreciation of the whole of some aspect of reality, or even reality itself"? (Or is it, as his words here might be taken to indicate, that this vision, this direct apprehension of reality, it either spontaneously happens to one, or else it doesn't, and that's all there is to it?)

[Tendzin]

@AR

"Does Alan Watt, to your knowledge, discuss --- elsewhere, I mean --- how exactly one might go about trying to get at this "intuitive appreciation of the whole of some aspect of reality, or even reality itself"?"

That's the goal of classical Zen Buddhist practice, or at least that of the Rinzai school: intensive meditation and koan practice to achieve satori, which Dogen characterized as "enlightenment is intimacy with all things." Zen practitioners even in the present day claim that such an experience is achievable -- actor Peter Coyote being a recent one. So in that sense what Brian says about feeling that one is the universe is in line with Zen.

I don't know to what degree Watts actually practiced classical Zen. Also, some actual Zen masters said Watts works were crap. Shunryu Suzuki and perhaps others said they had value. They're certainly written with a Western mystical flair.

I think the question stands as to the value of Watt's writings, and I'll amend what I previously wrote to say they do have a positive value. That said, I still think it's probably more "effective" to simply sit zazen for 10 minutes every day and count one's breaths than to read his stuff.

[Spence Tepper]

It is classic Zen to present contradictory statements as fact, as a means of generating a broader perspective, an intuitive perspective, which practice of the meditation can help develop:

You are an individual point of consciousness
You are the universe
You are nothing and don't exist

Typical Zen.

Watts is so entrenched in this thinking it is natural for him to speak this way.
Experience in Zen practice, Zen focus, Zen awareness helps in interpreting his words.
The words aren't important. What is behind them is, and that you don't get inspecting the words. You gain that experientially.

[Ron E.]

Brian states in his answer to App Reader that: - “A religious person would say "soul" or "spirit." Alan Watts disagrees. He's a naturalist. He sees no distinction between we humans and nature, which he calls the environment in this talk. He says that most people view themselves as separate from the natural world, that we somehow possess some essence which doesn't belong to nature.”

I believe this is the core of the whole issue of what we seem to be searching for. Whether we realize it or not it may simply be a search for our innate naturalness. There is an implication that the ‘spiritual quest’ is to do with marvelous states, that somehow, we could achieve a mystical state of consciousness and be enlightened.

I appreciate Watts’s take on the simplicity or naturalness of our situation and like Zen and Chan see the whole issue as not about achieving unusual states but more to do with understanding the mind, the self. As Dogen said “To study the Buddha way is to study the self . . .” And that is what much of Watts and Zen is about. Just to understand the mental machinery that causes so much anguish for us – or suffering as Buddhism puts it.

But such a seemingly dull undertaking of studying the mind does not hold the excitement and undoubted exhilaration that the spiritual search offers with its groups and encounters and expectations of meeting ‘the master’ who can lead us to what we think we’re searching for.

For Watts, there is something to discover – and that is simply ourselves, our natural selves that lay hidden beneath layers of mind created constructs with their distortions (or out of kilter being one translation of suffering) of reality.

[Dungeness]

@ Ron E: [But such a seemingly dull undertaking of studying the mind does not hold the excitement and undoubted exhilaration that the spiritual search offers with its groups and encounters and expectations of meeting ‘the master’ who can lead us to what we think we’re searching for.]

Mystics confirm the "dullness" of studying the mind. Also the
reliance -on scholarly recitation of Buddhist scripture, hopeful
encounter groups bandying about words of masters, or even
rediscovery of the thrilling icons of yesteryear like Watts- is
only the start, they say. They repeat endlessly that only an
experiential inward path of mindfulness and devotion can
cure the dullness of mere words: their own by the way as
well as those of others.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Dungeness:
You wrote:
"Also the
reliance -on scholarly recitation of Buddhist scripture, hopeful
encounter groups bandying about words of masters, or even
rediscovery of the thrilling icons of yesteryear like Watts- is
only the start, they say."

I agree 100%. Inspiring words are wonderful.
Everyone is on a path of discovery. They are in charge of and responsible for their own progress.
And just as everything in the universe is in motion, so are we. We can learn to see that.

[spence tepper]

Hi Brian Ji:
You wrote:
"A religious person would say "soul" or "spirit." Alan Watts disagrees. He's a naturalist. He sees no distinction between we humans and nature, which he calls the environment in this talk. He says that most people view themselves as separate from the natural world, that we somehow possess some essence which doesn't belong to nature."

I think the notion of Soul and Spirit changes as we develop our own awareness. We see it as the foundation, void of all qualities, for everything else, and intimately connected and connecting all things.

Buddha said it well, when he said that the empty hub of the wheel is the center of all the wheel's activity, and the vacant space in the vase is the whole purpose of the vase, and yet in both cases there is nothing there. That empty space around which all creation moves, is soul and spirit.

[Appreciative Reader]

Tendzin, thanks for weighing in there.

Clearly, then, Zen --- or at least, the Rinzai school of Zen --- is not merely about being in the present, nor is it merely about realizing that the self is chimerical and, ultimately, empty. Clearly it is also about (an alleged / claimed) mystical realization in the form of an enlarged perspective.

Which is common to many very diverse spiritual traditions. The accounts that come to mind offhand are Paramhansa Yogananda's, and Paul Brunton's, and Carlos Castaneda's (as well as present-day ayahuasca users posting online), as well as some Tantric schools. No doubt there are others as well that go in for this.

That kind of mystical claim is hugely interesting, and hugely inspirational. But it does open up a whole can of worms:

(1) Is this enlarged perspective merely a by-product, or is this expressly sought out?

(2) What is the point of it, in their view? Why bother cultivating this enlarged perspective?

(3) Has this enlarged perspective thing ever been scientifically examined? After all it could simply be some sort of psychosis. Why do they assume it is necessarily more than the normal perspective, as opposed to less/diseased? After all it may well be the latter.

Any answers you may have to these ---- as far as the general Zen perspective, or at least the Rinzai perspective that you're familiar with ---- will be much appreciated.