[HN Gopher] On knowing who he was
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       On knowing who he was
        
       Author : Towaway69
       Score  : 86 points
       Date   : 2024-01-27 15:38 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (aeon.co)
 (TXT) w3m dump (aeon.co)
        
       | Towaway69 wrote:
       | > Under the cover of lusty and curvaceous chicks (of whom I
       | approve), and of silly bunnies (of whom I disapprove), you have
       | turned Playboy into the most important philosophical periodical
       | in this country ... by comparison, the Journal of the American
       | Philosophical Society is pedantic, boring and irrelevant.
       | 
       | There is something to be said for alternative viewpoints on
       | issues that many take for granted.
        
       | Trasmatta wrote:
       | Tangential, but I recently read The Transmigration of Timothy
       | Archer by Philip K Dick. It was one of his last books (and one of
       | his best) and has a character inspired by Alan Watts. There's an
       | interesting sequence where that character suddenly grasps the
       | conceptual nature of reality at a deep level. He goes home to
       | write it down, but sees two children playing in the street. He
       | tries to explain to their mother that they're in danger, but she
       | doesn't speak English. So he spends the rest of the afternoon
       | watching the kids, and then forgets the epiphany he had.
       | 
       | > What I had acquired, there on that walk, out of my apartment
       | where I had no access to pen and paper, was a comprehension of a
       | world conceptually arranged, a world not arranged in time and
       | space and by causation, but a world as idea conceived in a great
       | mind, the way our own minds store memories. I had caught a
       | glimpse of world not as my own arrangement--by time, space and
       | causation--but as it is in itself arranged; Kant's 'thing-in-
       | itself.'"
        
         | bigmadshoe wrote:
         | Was this after he stopped doing drugs? I've always been curious
         | to read some of his more coherent work, though I love some of
         | the more rambling stuff I've read
        
           | Trasmatta wrote:
           | Yes, he wrote it near the end of his life. It's one of his
           | few non sci-fi books. It actually hits on a lot of the same
           | themes as VALIS (PKD's most bizarre, personal, and "rambling"
           | book), but in a somewhat more "grounded" way? I highly
           | recommend it.
        
         | FrustratedMonky wrote:
         | Same thing with poem "Kubla Khan".
         | 
         | Coleridge was interrupted and couldn't finish the poem.
         | 
         | Mention here since it is often referred to as an enlightened
         | moment that was lost.
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_from_Porlock
        
           | fsckboy wrote:
           | from the link:
           | 
           |  _Elisabeth Schneider suggested that this prologue, as well
           | as the person from Porlock, was fictional and intended as a
           | credible explanation of the poem 's seemingly fragmentary
           | state as published. The poet Stevie Smith also suggested this
           | view in one of her own poems, saying "the truth is I think,
           | he was already stuck"._
        
         | passion__desire wrote:
         | There are two analogies of Alan Watts which I love.
         | 
         | Whirpool analogy : You see, each one of us is like a whirlpool.
         | The water changes but the shape remains.
         | 
         | Sense of Self as a "beacon signal" : In olden days, when the
         | telephone conversation was recorded, it beeped at fixed
         | intervals to remind both parties that this conversation is
         | being recorded. Deep down in our subconscious we have the
         | similar signal to indicate that all these experiences are
         | happening to the same entity across space and time.
        
           | rock8y wrote:
           | Not an analogy but he said in one of his speeches that
           | "Preaching is moral violence", he said that in respect to
           | religion but that that kind of helped me change my attitude
           | whenever I talk to younger kids or cousins.
        
         | ratg13 wrote:
         | I see this book is the final book in a trilogy.
         | 
         | Would you recommend someone to read this book, or do the whole
         | 3?
        
           | Trasmatta wrote:
           | The only connection between the three is thematic. The have
           | no narrative connection. It's odd that they call it a trilogy
           | to be honest. You can read Timothy Archer without reading the
           | others.
        
         | hackernewds wrote:
         | Kant's thing in itself?
        
       | lacrimacida wrote:
       | I also love Terrence McKenna and though I don't take everything
       | he says seriously, he was a fascinating speaker.
        
         | criddell wrote:
         | What are the best sources for recordings of Watts and McKenna?
         | I've found some of Watts, but somebody mixed in new age music
         | and did other edits that I thought made things worse.
        
           | ethanbond wrote:
           | Waking Up (Sam Harris's meditation app) has a huuuuge, high
           | quality catalog of Watts. I am under the vague impression
           | that the catalog was recently released/public domain'd so you
           | may be able to find it elsewhere? But worst case, Waking Up
           | is an excellent resource for this stuff anyway.
        
           | naremu wrote:
           | Unfortunately Terrence McKenna (or fortunately depending on
           | how you look at things) doesn't seem to have retained the
           | same popularity.
           | 
           | He does still have some decent "pithy one liners" but if I
           | remember right, he didn't stay in a philosophical lane and
           | was known to indulge in pop culture conspiracies and his own
           | pet theories (based on excruciatingly little but conjecture
           | and didn't really respond to criticism of it)
           | 
           | I've honestly started to consider it a little bit unbecoming
           | to compare people to McKenna. He's a major contributor to a
           | romantic and oversimplified/inaccurate understanding of
           | things like shamanhood and the roles drugs played in ancient
           | societies, so it's probably a good thing people don't talk
           | about him like they used to.
           | 
           | Almost kind of the antithesis to Watts in my mind, but
           | seemingly from the same side of the fence: McKenna was all
           | about what _he_ thought, and Watts never gave me the
           | impression he even had an agenda for me to believe in, rather
           | wanting to help people explore the world he 'd discovered, he
           | labored to find the words to depict, not to convince.
        
             | lacrimacida wrote:
             | Yeah, they don't compare in that sense. But I still find
             | McKenna very charming to listen to, and am sometimes wowed
             | to what cooky ideas he may have reached in his lectures.
             | The man has a fascinating oratory skill. Despite his wild
             | speculations he has a very interesting depiction of his own
             | ideas and his overarching theme is one of union with the
             | nature which no matter how reached at it's a positive thing
             | IMO.
        
           | jodrellblank wrote:
           | Watts: A Google Drive link found on a Reddit post? https://ol
           | d.reddit.com/r/AlanWatts/comments/tb2k3s/where_to_...
           | 
           | McKenna, possibly a YouTube downloader and a playlist like
           | https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL83BE388A2A15A7E1 -
           | some are short, but many are hour or two long full lectures.
           | and https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyhHqyVEk0F-k42F1n
           | Ah6...
           | 
           | (I didn't realise how many lectures he did; many of those I
           | haven't heard, and many of the ones I have heard aren't
           | mentioned in those playlists).
           | 
           | (For the unwary, "Alan Watt", Scottish conspiracy theorist
           | https://archive.org/details/The_Alan_Watt_Collection is
           | somebody else).
        
           | hyperific wrote:
           | Excerpts from his lectures can also be heard in the game
           | _Everything_. Compared to some of the other sources from
           | commenters here, _Everything 's_ collection is much smaller.
        
       | pizzafeelsright wrote:
       | _The result was a bleak contrast between Watts's high talk of
       | compassion and love and a series of affairs that, combined with
       | his low view of fatherhood - 'mow the lawn, play baseball with
       | the children' - helped to destroy his family_
       | 
       | If you create life you must be responsible for it. Checking out
       | early isn't an option.
        
         | Towaway69 wrote:
         | It's pity that parenthood doesn't come with 30day cooling off
         | period. Becoming a parent is a lot different than many imagine.
         | 
         | I agree with your sentiment but I won't judge anyone for not
         | being able to cope with parenthood.
        
           | coffeebeqn wrote:
           | I do judge them but Watts is not the personification of
           | Buddhism for example, just an effective messenger.
        
             | Towaway69 wrote:
             | We are both looking from the outside in, we can't know what
             | is going through someones minds, what is happening to them
             | in their situation.
             | 
             | To enforce social and moral norms on something we can't
             | fully understand is questionable. Judging others is all
             | about enforcing societal-defined morals onto others.
             | 
             | You choose to enfore those morals, I choose to reserve
             | judgement.
        
               | The_Colonel wrote:
               | You can say the same about a child rapist.
        
               | sbarre wrote:
               | Ok there, slow down..
               | 
               | You're barely a step away from Godwin's Law here..
        
               | The_Colonel wrote:
               | Well, why not. This moral relativism can be applied to
               | anything. Who are we to judge anything?
        
             | rambojohnson wrote:
             | While it's essential to acknowledge the impact of personal
             | actions on family and responsibilities, it's also important
             | to recognize the distinction between an individual's
             | personal life and their professional or philosophical
             | contributions.
             | 
             | Watts indeed had personal shortcomings, as many do --
             | judging his entire body of work based on his personal life
             | can be limiting and narrow-minded.
        
             | avgcorrection wrote:
             | I don't know to what extent he was a messenger for
             | Buddhism. But in some sects you aren't allowed to teach the
             | Buddhadharma without permission. So in that sense,
             | "personifying" what you teach would be relevant.
        
             | karmakurtisaani wrote:
             | It is fitting that Siddharta left his wife and infant for
             | his own spiritual quest, though.
        
         | fatherzine wrote:
         | sadly, publicly only ever told to men. edit: whoa, given the
         | quick downvotes on your comment, HN doesn't like it publicly
         | said to men either.
        
           | calibas wrote:
           | I know a lot more couples where the man has left, leaving the
           | woman the raise the child, than the other way around.
           | 
           | "If you create life you must be responsible for it"
           | 
           | Maybe women are being told that, and you just haven't heard
           | it said to you because you're not a woman. Or maybe women
           | don't need to be told.
        
             | khzw8yyy wrote:
             | Golly assumptions, Batman!
        
             | fatherzine wrote:
             | the man has left, or the man was pushed away. the man has
             | left, or the man is providing financial support, while
             | being deprived of contact with his children.
             | 
             | when 1 in 3 children are raised in a single parent
             | household, compared to the traditional norm of 1 in 20,
             | everybody could use a reminder to act responsible when it
             | comes to the life they create.
             | 
             | see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_parent#Children
        
       | mightyham wrote:
       | As someone who grew up in a mostly agnostic household, but
       | ultimately converted to Christianity in my adult life, I find
       | sentiments like "There is a caution, here, for strands of the
       | renewed interest in Christianity that seem focused on battling
       | non-Christian or 'woke' forms of thought and ways of living" to
       | somewhat miss the mark in describing why people come to the
       | religion. I don't think people come to Christ so that they can
       | debate liberal atheists, but because they are disenfranchised by
       | the current state of society: modern spirituality feels hollow,
       | and we are plagued with social issues caused by general
       | immorality.
       | 
       | I also find statements like "Watts tried to suggest that a truly
       | all-inclusive God would not be bound by Western logic, with its
       | insistence on mutually exclusive propositions. In Asia, argued
       | Watts, one found not just 'either-or' forms of logic but 'both-
       | and' forms, too." to reflect a shallow view of Christianity. For
       | instance, ancient Jews (not westerners) pioneered the idea of a
       | "a truly all-inclusive" god, while also creating a literary
       | tradition (the old testament) full of contradictions and "either-
       | or" forms of logic. Another example would be that even though the
       | catechism creates definitive "logical" doctrine for the Catholic
       | church, the Eucharist which is practiced every Sunday fully
       | embraces mysticism.
        
         | ajju wrote:
         | I have just recently discovered Watts, but I think he may have
         | agreed.
         | 
         | "Watts left formal Zen training in New York because the method
         | of the teacher did not suit him. He was not ordained as a Zen
         | monk, but he felt a need to find a vocational outlet for his
         | philosophical inclinations. He entered Seabury-Western
         | Theological Seminary, an Episcopal (Anglican) school in
         | Evanston, Illinois, where he studied Christian scriptures,
         | theology, and church history. He attempted to work out a blend
         | of contemporary Christian worship, mystical Christianity, and
         | Asian philosophy. Watts was awarded a master's degree in
         | theology in response to his thesis, which he published as a
         | popular edition under the title Behold the Spirit: A Study in
         | the Necessity of Mystical Religion.
         | 
         | He later published Myth & Ritual in Christianity (1953), an
         | eisegesis of traditional Roman Catholic doctrine and ritual in
         | Buddhist terms. However, the pattern was set, in that Watts did
         | not hide his dislike for religious outlooks that he decided
         | were dour, guilt-ridden, or militantly proselytizing--no matter
         | if they were found within Judaism, Christianity, Islam,
         | Hinduism, or Buddhism."
         | 
         | --- From the Wikipedia page.
        
           | mightyham wrote:
           | Thank you for the added context about his beliefs, as I am
           | not too familiar with his works and was going off of what I
           | read in the article.
           | 
           | I do not share his disdain though for the "dour, guilt-
           | ridden, or militantly proselytizing" aspects of Christianity.
           | This isn't really as much of an argument as it is a personal
           | outlook: those attributes are what makes Christianity
           | compelling to me, and why some eastern or agnostic forms of
           | spiritualism feel hollow.
        
             | mech422 wrote:
             | The "dour, guilt-ridden, or militantly proselytizing" are
             | what make Christianity compelling for you? The first 2 I
             | could see as personal choice but isn't "militantly"
             | anything sorta anti-christian? (I'm an agnostic, so what do
             | I know...)
             | 
             | Just seems to be an odd thing to find compelling?
        
             | subpixel wrote:
             | I would appreciate you expounding on how those traits
             | generate interest on your part. I think many people might
             | find those rather off-putting - whether in an institution,
             | a group, or a person.
        
         | losvedir wrote:
         | > For instance, ancient Jews (not westerners) pioneered the
         | idea of a "a truly all-inclusive" god
         | 
         | I don't know about. I've read that in ancient Judaism, Yahweh
         | began as one god among many and he was theirs ("I'm your God /
         | have no gods before me"). He evolved into the monotheistic
         | entity of today, but even today my perception is that Judaism
         | doesn't focus on proselytization and considers him theirs more
         | or less. I'd chalk the more universal, inclusive God up to
         | early Christians, though I suppose you could call them Jews,
         | and they weren't "western" anyway.
         | 
         | Edit: and "universal" and "inclusive" could also mean at the
         | point of a sword for most of the Church's history.
        
           | edgyquant wrote:
           | This is pushed by some scholars but outright rejected by most
           | and we do not have a good understanding of where YHWH worship
           | came from. The scholars that do push this rely on
           | etymological arguments that mix up some of the many, many
           | names Canaanites/Hebrews/semites used for gods.
        
           | echelon_musk wrote:
           | Indeed. For example the word Elohim used to convey the
           | meaning of 'Gods' to Jews in antiquity but evolved to mean
           | 'God', referring to YHWH alone.
           | 
           | My understanding of the book of Isaiah is that it is about
           | how the people of Israel came to abandon worship of lesser
           | gods such as Ba'al and came to see YHWH as their God and
           | saviour who delivered them from Babylonian captivity.
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahwism
        
           | mightyham wrote:
           | I'm not a biblical scholar, so I'm lacking the details and
           | sources I should have, but there are parts of the torah with
           | clear indications of universalist ideas about God and morals.
           | What is important to remember is that the Hebrew bible and
           | the religious ideas of ancient Judaism were not monolithic.
           | Their beliefs and scriptures were the product of many people,
           | sometimes in different geographic regions, developed, edited,
           | and transcribed repeatedly over the course of more than a
           | thousand years.
        
         | arrosenberg wrote:
         | > For instance, ancient Jews (not westerners) pioneered the
         | idea of a "a truly all-inclusive" god, while also creating a
         | literary tradition (the old testament) full of contradictions
         | and "either-or" forms of logic.
         | 
         | Ehhhh, that's not quite how it happened. In the Bronze Age
         | everyone was doing pantheons. This was a good idea because
         | tribes who started gaining power in this period were exploring
         | empire-building and pantheons allow for a high degree of
         | syncretism - you absorb the conquered gods into your own
         | structure, most of the peasants don't even notice a change.
         | 
         | The ancient Israelites (Jews and Samaritans) acknowledged those
         | pantheons, but chose to only worship the god who was viewed as
         | being at the top of the Canaanite pantheon - El (Israel
         | literally meaning "struggles with El"). Through the various
         | captivities and exiles and the Bronze Age collapse, the lower
         | gods on the pantheon faded to history and it became more of the
         | modern idea of an all-encompassing god.
         | 
         | There is definitely also some Christianizing of European Jews
         | that happened for obvious reasons, so it's hard to separate out
         | how much of modern Jewish thought is a reflection of this.
         | Especially with the Ashkenazim who had a lot of "Great
         | Awakening" style religious activity around the same time it was
         | happening in colonial and post-Revolutionary America.
        
         | prox wrote:
         | Going for broad strokes here, but Western philosophy and
         | religions are mostly searching for an "objective" God, as it
         | were, as something that must be proven. And while the early
         | Christian cult had gnosticism and other strands, those mostly
         | got snuffed out as it became more of an established religion
         | and part of the power balance.
         | 
         | The current day image and majority of the history of
         | Christianity has always been problematic to me, as in "believe
         | or be guilty", with little grey or choice. When I went to a
         | service a few years ago to a fairly mainstream easygoing church
         | here, this guilt was still pretty much core of the teaching.
         | That to me pretty much qualifies as "either-or" and all but
         | inclusive.
         | 
         | Instead in some Eastern philosophies (the yoga school and
         | Daoism, probably others) focus on the subjective experience. In
         | the yoga school for instance it allows us to connect to mind,
         | our purusha (soul like quality) and find other teachings and
         | qualities within ourselves. Something that Alan Watts also
         | emphasized in his book "Wisdom of Insecurity"
         | 
         | Current day spirituality is broad and commercialized and has
         | its own problems due to poor teachers who start with barely
         | 200h of study, which is not conducive or effective on the
         | whole.
        
         | roughly wrote:
         | There's depth in the Christian community (as there's always
         | been, of course). I think you're right that a fundamental
         | driver of conversion is people looking for a home, but a
         | running problem for the church today, and especially for many
         | of the more evangelical varieties, is the tail wagging the dog,
         | so to speak - the parishioners pushing the priests, as opposed
         | to the priest guiding the parish. There are churches who
         | provide welcome homes for people and who build their
         | communities towards love and support of their fellow people,
         | but there are also plenty churches who see themselves as the
         | armies of the culture war, and whose members indeed joined
         | because that appealed to them.
         | 
         | Incidentally, re: "modern spirituality feels hollow" - there
         | was a good article in the Atlantic* recently arguing that the
         | fundamental problem for the modern church isn't that it asks
         | too much of its members, but that it asks too little - that by
         | not requiring its members to actually demonstrate their
         | beliefs, it robs those beliefs of any tangibility and makes the
         | whole exercise hollow.
         | 
         | I'm not a Christian, but I do think there was something lost in
         | the country when we discarded the church as a common moral
         | frame - the only other shared philosophical framework we have
         | is the market, and whatever the limits of the church, the
         | morals of the market seem to be making for a much colder
         | society.
         | 
         | *
         | https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/christian-...
        
           | maroonblazer wrote:
           | > I do think there was something lost in the country when we
           | discarded the church as a common moral frame
           | 
           | My hope, disguised as a hypothesis, is that we're gradually
           | shedding the superstitions of our past, and in so doing, are
           | descending, albeit temporarily, into a local minimum.
           | Eventually, we'll find our way up to a higher peak where
           | compassion and collaboration are the order of the day without
           | attachment to unfounded beliefs.
        
         | keiferski wrote:
         | Inclusivity and universalism is largely a legacy of Greek
         | thought, and it's relevance or non-relevance to the new
         | movement of Christianity was an important topic in the first
         | few centuries after Christ.
        
         | arp242 wrote:
         | That citation continues with "'Cultural Christianity' of this
         | kind [..]", and it seems to me that in context, it's
         | sufficiently qualified that I don't consider it to be
         | problematic. It's pretty clear it's criticizing a very specific
         | section of 'Cultural Christians', and not all 'Cultural
         | Christians', much less all Christians.
         | 
         | One of the reasons I hesitate to call myself a 'Cultural
         | Christian' is exactly due to the association with these kind of
         | people, whom I find to be rather unpleasant.
        
       | hello_computer wrote:
       | Just another front-man for the mystery schools. In this case, the
       | Esalen branch. Same as Steiner or Blavatsky, but for a different
       | generation. "Astral projection" through meditation and spiritual
       | discipline did not fit the 20th century mindset, so we get people
       | like Watts and McKenna and Leary selling hyperspace in a pill. Of
       | course there was a contradiction between his private life and
       | "his" teachings, because he was a deceiver, just like the rest of
       | them.
        
         | echelon_musk wrote:
         | There was an interview between Ram Dass and Terence McKenna in
         | Prague Gnosis.
         | 
         | Ram Dass states that he intends his life to be his message.
         | 
         | McKenna squirms a little and he says emphatically that he
         | wishes for his message to be his message!
        
         | hbchbc556556 wrote:
         | I don't entirely understand. What truth are you suggesting that
         | Watts and McKenna are hiding?
        
           | hello_computer wrote:
           | To hide a truth would imply having one to hide in the first
           | place. Watts and McKenna were just hangers-on--people who saw
           | an opportunity (spinning yarns for money and attention) and
           | latched-on to it. L. Ron was of a similar sort, but was far
           | better at it.
           | 
           | The motive force, the spark, was Esalen. 60s counterculture
           | gurus are all _one degree of separation_ from it. Esalen
           | (Huxley) being one of the later institutions of the syncretic
           | religion project--which has a clear genealogy through the
           | Traditionalist School (Guenon), Anthroposophy (Steiner),
           | Theosophy (Blavatsky), Masonry (founded shortly after Rome
           | shut down the Templars), Knights Templar, early Church
           | Gnosticism, Neoplatonism... probably going back to pre-
           | history. There are many organizations I 'm leaving out here,
           | but these are the ones that occupy the most real estate in
           | Western minds.
           | 
           | The Masons already had the Greco-Roman and Egyptian content.
           | Theosophy (Blavatsky was just the front-woman, the handlers
           | were Leadbeater and Olcott) was to retcon the newly
           | discovered (to Westerners) Vedic and Buddhist content into
           | the project. Steiner did much the same with the Zoroastrian
           | and scientific content. Then Guenon, being a mathematician
           | and a better thinker, chooses to operate in the opposite
           | direction. That is, rather than try to justify the hypothesis
           | (all religions as corrupted expressions of the same
           | primordial truth) with a number of creative writing projects,
           | Guenon suggested that "going deep" into one's own traditions
           | --regardless of which--was a faster route to the destination.
           | 
           | What was Esalen's contribution to the syncretic religion
           | project? A syncretic religion isn't very syncretic if it's
           | leaving material on the table. What was left on the table?
           | Shamanism and entheogens. Where would a brilliant Englishman
           | go to research this? The Americas, of course.
        
             | hbchbc556556 wrote:
             | To be clear, are you suggesting that these were successive
             | generations of opportunistic grifters, working with the
             | material left behind from the previous generation, or a
             | deliberate project to develop a maximally syncretic
             | religion?
             | 
             | My confusion is that I detect a conspiratorial tone that
             | I'm nonplussed by.
        
               | hello_computer wrote:
               | No. I'm saying that Watts and McKenna ( _specifically
               | Watts and McKenna_ ) are bullshitters, floating along a
               | much deeper and powerful current.
               | 
               | As for the actual currents (as partially enumerated),
               | some were true believers, some weren't. Until proven
               | otherwise, I think Guenon was legit--that his ideas were
               | his own, he took both the credit and the blame for them,
               | and gave credit where it was due--as opposed to someone
               | like Blavatsky who was a mascot, or someone like Huxley
               | who was really more of an engineer, but delivering his
               | blueprints in a wrapper of plausible deniability. Whereas
               | the characters and schisms within Masonry are so broad
               | that a hundred books could be written, and we still
               | wouldn't have scratched the surface.
               | 
               | Conspiracy or not, I have outlined a genealogy which is
               | easy enough to verify--at the touch of your fingertips.
        
       | cypherpunks01 wrote:
       | A lot of criticism is leveled at Alan Watts, by people who point
       | out how he conveyed many oversimplifications of religious
       | teachings, or ideas that seem to be misunderstandings of
       | teachings from an academic point of view.
       | 
       | I think what those people are either missing or ignoring is that
       | his main motivation was to be a spiritual entertainer, as he
       | described it, and I believe he's best interpreted and understood
       | that way as well.
       | 
       | If people want to learn a rigorous deep understanding of certain
       | philosophies and spiritual beliefs, there are innumerable other
       | ways to dive into this, and better people to listen to. To me,
       | his conveyance of ideas is better suited to impart interesting
       | and different ways of looking at the world in a general manner
       | and to pique one's imagination, not to learn spiritual concepts
       | in a rigorous way.
       | 
       | I always felt he succeeded in that way, simply by attracting more
       | people towards an interest in a spirituality and philosophy, and
       | giving a starting point from which they can pursue serious ideas
       | if their interest is sustained.
        
       | keiferski wrote:
       | For anyone that is interested in Buddhism but otherwise put off
       | by Watts, I recommend reading anything by D.T. Suzuki. Very
       | accessible but much more academically rigorous and accurate.
        
       | zafka wrote:
       | I have already spent way too much time at my desk so I am going
       | to read this article later. I must say though, that I really
       | enjoyed "Tau, the watercourse way" when I read it many years ago,
       | as I was working my way across various writings about eastern
       | thought. Quite a while after reading some of Watt's writings I
       | discovered that his behavior was not always so "spiritual" I
       | found value in the message I read, I do not think I want to
       | emulate the way he lived.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-01-27 23:01 UTC)