|
|
Post by Brian davis on May 2, 2012 15:13:12 GMT -5
I'm curious to know what people here think about alan watts? I was listening to his talks recently and was surprised to find how so many spiritual teachers today seem to have been influenced or actually take directly from his ideas. Is he a kind of forefather of contemporary spirituality in the west?
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Hawkins on May 2, 2012 22:41:30 GMT -5
Hello Brian,
I've listened to a lot of Alan Watts, and I read a few of his books when I was in high school (late 70's). I always thought he was interesting, in that he is good at synthesizing commonalities between various spiritual and religious concepts, while using humor to remind everyone not to take themselves too seriously.
On the other hand, he was known as quite the alcohol drinker, which is evident in some of his recorded talks. This suggests that his knowledge of contemplative experience is not based on attainment through practice, but more on his intelligence and way with words. To me, there is always a hint of sadness or disappointment in his voice, as if he had conquered (in his own mind) all that there is to know about spirituality... only to find emptiness, as if to ask, "Is this all there is?" He had a dazzling intellect, but....?
In this sense, he was just par for the course, since the vast majority of teachers do not (I believe, anyway) maintain a rigorous or skillful contemplative practice -- or, if they do practice, they have not arrived at meaningful attainment and are speaking strictly from a borrowed conceptual framework (i.e., they read about it in a book, or heard about it from another "expert" who did not understand or value the ecstatic -- without correlating received concepts with direct experience).
Given the above, it makes sense that Watts is regarded as an authoritative interpreter of Eastern spirituality for a Western audience.
My two cents!
All the best,
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on May 3, 2012 7:58:13 GMT -5
Brian, I would only add to Michale's excellent response that Alan Watts was proud of the fact that he never meditated, and add to that his abuse of alcohol, then I believe we should consider that his high reputation as an interpreter of contemplative arts and philosophy is undeserved.
For determining the value of a contemplative teacher I tend to lean toward the a quote from Jesus, "For each tree is known by its fruit,“ (Luke 6:44). If a teacher does not lead an ethical life, then he or she bares the rotten fruit of the 7 deadly sins/10 hindrances/fetters. Whereas, if a teacher manifests the charisms, then he or she bares the superior fruit of spiritual attainment (maha-phala).
When we consider that most of the western teachers of contemplative arts and philosophies for the last 150 years have born ample rotten fruit, and little superior fruit, then we have to consider that the western contemplative community has been poorly guided for the last 150 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian davis on May 5, 2012 6:38:58 GMT -5
I see. He also seemed to be proud, as he remarks in a few of his lectures, that he 'remained almost completely lucid' during his drug experiences with lsd which he had under 'clinical supervision'. Meaning I guessed that he could hold a lucid conversation. Now with my own experience with Jhana, intellectual lucidity is not an issue, of course you remain lucid, if thats what you want, but the point surely is to go beyond the intellect, and the ability to hold lucid conversations, to a lucidity of awareness, which one could then talk about after the fact. I think that Watts knows that, but there is implied within his remarks that he held his intellectual prowess, and thus the intellect of all great 'thinkers', be be somehow superior to the attainment we are referring to here with Jhana. Would that be correct?
On the other hand, I would also say that a certain degree of awareness that we have innately, which leads people into the particular field in which they may have some talent, is also a non-dual type of awareness matched with a certain physical constitution which allows for the facility of that artistic/scientific ability. I am inclined to believe that artistic talent is supported by some kind of innate non-dual awareness. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on May 5, 2012 7:31:49 GMT -5
Well, I would agree that the intellect is a very hard thing for people to overcome, so the intellectuals would be inclined to hold it above the religious experience. This might be one of the explanations why most mystics have been marginalized.
I am an artist, and I went through art school, so I would disagree that all artistic expression is a non-dual experience for all artists; however, I would agree that it often is a non-dual experience for some artists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Hawkins on May 5, 2012 8:22:50 GMT -5
I can't speak an as artist, other than through writing, which is more of an intellectual pursuit than an artistic on. That said, I believe that the creative act is a largely intuitive one, and in this sense it relates to what happens on the ecstatic meditation cushion. Letting go and allowing a deeper process to unfold, for me, is the key to Union.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian davis on May 6, 2012 15:07:32 GMT -5
Thanks for those replies. I still haven't in some sense reconciled my own spiritual practice with what one does with that, or if my somewhat meager attainment somehow counts for more than someone born with tremendous energy, charisma, talent in some specific field and who has actualized that to a very high level to the benefit of all beings. I almost feel as though I am selfish in that there is nothing I really 'do' with the fruit of my meditation awareness which seeps into my everyday life, but how much that benefits others I don't know. I mean probably I would say most people are simply not interested in hearing that I have attainment in practice, but yeah ok but what does one do with it? People seem to want to see what you do, the good which manifests through what you do, not what you say you 'have'.
While it is such an important part of my life, it is frustrating and in some ways dis-empowering that I am not able to share that with others in a deeper and more meaningful way...
|
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on May 7, 2012 7:54:05 GMT -5
Thanks for those replies. I still haven't in some sense reconciled my own spiritual practice with what one does with that, or if my somewhat meager attainment somehow counts for more than someone born with tremendous energy, charisma, talent in some specific field and who has actualized that to a very high level to the benefit of all beings. I almost feel as though I am selfish in that there is nothing I really 'do' with the fruit of my meditation awareness which seeps into my everyday life, but how much that benefits others I don't know. I mean probably I would say most people are simply not interested in hearing that I have attainment in practice, but yeah ok but what does one do with it? People seem to want to see what you do, the good which manifests through what you do, not what you say you 'have'. Brian, the best way to teach is to be a living example of the spiritual/contemplative life. Religious people, on the other hand, preach with no attainment, and are often jealous of those with attainment. They pontificate for hours about religious topics, which they have never unpacked to find out that most of what they espouse is based upon centuries of translation error. These devout people are frauds, and they follow frauds, and their religion is a fraud. Whereas, a contemplative with genuine attainment is someone who intuitively leads a righteous life, and gains the fruitful attainment of such a life. Such people are authentic. So, be an authentic, living example of a genuine contemplative life that bears ample fruit. Those who are genuine contemplatives will see the frauds for the frauds they are, and the authentic for the genuine people they are, and the frauds will stick together and the genuine seekers will stick together. While raising my two children I did not pontificate to them, nor did I dump a bunch of erroneous belief systems upon them. In fact they came home one day from elementary school and asked me, "What religion are we?" I said, "We follow no religion. We follow only the genuine mystics, regardless of what religion they came from." I read the children many books. Those books were mostly stories of the mystics of all religions. Before they were born and throughout their childhood I started every day with meditation and ended every day with meditation, and often meditated as soon as I got home from work. When my children were very young they wanted to be with me when I meditated. So, they would crawl to where I sat in meditation and curl up in my lap quietly while I meditated. So, they learned to meditate upon my lap. My son mastered the OOBE by the time he was 5. My daughter has been a yoga teacher for about 10 years. So, I think living as an example of the contemplative life, is far better than being a fraud and pontificating lies. Being a living example is a better teaching tool than being a fraud. While it is such an important part of my life, it is frustrating and in some ways dis-empowering that I am not able to share that with others in a deeper and more meaningful way... Well, the religious frauds of the world are jealous of the authentic mystics, so they marginalize them. This is why I believe strongly in the mystics of the world coming together to form a community of support for each other, which is the Great Western Vehicle, because we are never going to get empowerment from any mainstream religion, because they are all frauds. Being the real deal, we expose the religious frauds of the world as the frauds they are, just by being authentic, and the frauds do not like that. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael Hawkins on May 7, 2012 11:05:40 GMT -5
Jeffrey wrote:
When it all comes down to it, this is the point to which I've arrived, as well.
Proselytizing creates alienation -- especially when the ecstatic has been so thoroughly misrepresented and demonized over time.
Living by example, however, is what makes people curious. Then, if someone asks for instruction, the door is open to more overt "doing" in another person's life. If not... that's okay, too.
I do believe, in fact, that a skillful and attained meditator does more good for the world than all the "relief organizations" combined. Meditating into and through the jhanas is far more powerful than one would realize -- the "ripple effect" is what it's all about.
|
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on May 9, 2012 8:03:30 GMT -5
Jeffrey wrote: I do believe, in fact, that a skillful and attained meditator does more good for the world than all the "relief organizations" combined. Meditating into and through the jhanas is far more powerful than one would realize -- the "ripple effect" is what it's all about. I agree with Michael, if everyone led a contemplative life that produced at least the second stage of the spiritual experience, which is the stilling of the mind, on a regular basis, then the world would be a radically different place, which would be functional, no corruption, and the simple and basic needs of all were met. |
|
