
Zen Buddhism and Alan Watts - jonbaer
http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/tim-lott-zen-buddhism-alan-watts/
======
Lambdanaut
If you're interested in understanding zen but don't know where to start, "The
Book" by Alan Watts is a fantastic SHORT read that will give you a powerful
framework from which to build your meditative practice, and hopefully
structure a happier, more fulfilling lifestyle.

To appeal to the western mind, here are some tangible benefits I have
achieved(And you can too) through meditation and zen:

* More appreciation for small things

* Less stressed over everything

* Lower blood pressure

* Far better ability to focus (A cure for my ADD)

* Better ability to express myself rather than just playing social games that we don't even realize we're playing

* Being more of a completionist and caring for the things I work on

To name a few.

Meditating daily also increases the grey matter in your brain[1]. That alone
was good enough reason for me to start my practice.

[1]
[http://www.neurobiologyofaging.org/article/S0197-4580(07)002...](http://www.neurobiologyofaging.org/article/S0197-4580\(07\)00243-6/abstract)

~~~
orasis
I would add the free, short, book "Mindfulness in Plain English". It changed
my life.

Here is the PDF:

[http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf2/Mindfulness%20in%20Plain%20E...](http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf2/Mindfulness%20in%20Plain%20English%20Book%20Preview.pdf)

~~~
dominotw
What exactly is mindfulness in simple terms? How is different from
concentration?

~~~
linuxhansl
Mindfulness is awareness.

When eating you're aware that you are eating. When seeing something you are
aware that you are seeing something. When enjoying the sunset you're aware
you're enjoying the sunset. When thinking you're aware that you are thinking.
When selfish you are aware of that. When sad you are aware that you are sad...
And so on.

On some level it's like "seeing the matrix". Everything is clear, no longer
overlaid by thoughts of gain or loss. No more "what's in it for me?"

Everything is wondrous. Everything is just there. There are no questions.

Wow... This just blurted out. Anyway, that's what it means to me.

~~~
drumdance
For me at least, it's also about being in touch the true underlying reasons I
exhibit certain behaviors. The easiest examples is in conversation. Much of
social relations is about signaling, not to mention playing games.

A few years ago I started to notice the underlying emotions when I said
something that was designed to either a) impress or b) hurt the other person.
Neither case felt pleasant. In the latter case self-righteousness can have a
drug-like high, but there is often a hangover too (regret, guilt, shame etc).

So I started becoming more mindful of what I say. I strive only to say things
that I believe at my core.

Occasionally I still catch myself saying or doing something that's about
trying to impress or hurt the other person, but it's much less common now, and
I feel like I move through my day lightly even under significant work stress.

Humor is a special case. I can "lie" by saying something absurd or snarky, but
the underlying feeling is one of laughter. However, I try to avoid snide
putdowns or Gawker-style schadenfreude. Most people, even those at "the top"
(however defined) are struggling with something. Consider for example Elon
Musk's apparent difficulty with relationships. I feel for the guy and don't
see much humor in pouring salt in the wounds.

------
ajani
From the article: "The world is not a logically consistent one, but a
profoundly paradoxical one. Again, this is illustrated in science, which shows
that two things can be one at the same time — light, for instance, acts as
both a particle and a wave."

I don't understand the need for constantly interspersing an otherwise flowing
article with references to science. It feels like the author thinks that the
authenticity of his thoughts and personal journey hinges on validation from
science.

~~~
1stop
It is fairly common in zen publications to point out apparent exceptions to an
otherwise binary system (i.e. Logical). It isn't seeking validation from
science it is invalidating science as the be-all of understanding our
existence.

Outside of zen (though very closely related). Phenomenology deals with this
Subject/Object paradox our thoughts/language/science revolves around, and how
it comes up short it describing some phenomena.

~~~
ajani
I re-read the article. Nowhere is it clear that there is even an attempt at
invalidating science. He really does seem to be trying to use science to shore
up his ideas. Another excerpt:

"This is the basis of Zen itself — that all life and existence is based on a
kind of dynamic emptiness (a view now supported by modern science, which sees
phenomena at a subatomic level popping in and out of existence in a ‘quantum
froth’)."

~~~
jvagner
There are spiritual observations that precede science. Saying that there isn't
scientific evidence for anything is simplying stating that there isn't
scientific evidence for something YET. And, showing how science has met
spiritual observations, down the road, lends credence to the validity of the
earliest explorations of existence.

~~~
derefr
> Saying that there isn't scientific evidence for anything is simplying
> stating that there isn't scientific evidence for something YET.

It can also be a weasel-y way of avoiding mentioning that there is plenty of
scientific evidence favouring the null hypothesis when tested against that
something. E.g. mind-reading.

------
nabla9
"Well, there is Sitting Zen (zazen, meditation), there is Walking Zen. Oh, and
then, of course, especially in the West, there is Talking Zen. No good."

Many Zen practitioners have received their first contact with zen trough Alan
Watts. He was really good writer. But eventually you must realize that he was
philosopher, alcoholic and religions scholar who looked Zen from the outside.
Talking and thinking about Zen is like talking and thinking about physical
exercise. Philosophical thinking about koan is like treating bench press as a
philosophical problem. You can't lift it with your toughs.

~~~
yoodenvranx
So how else do I do Zen?

(That is a serious question!)

~~~
nabla9
Zen is meditation first school of Buddhism. You must learn to do zazen (zen
meditation). In other words, sit down and shut up. If you want to become
Buddha, do what Buddha did and don't just listen and think about what he said.

I'm myself a Zen Buddhist, I train with a teacher and have spend time zen
training in a zen temple and attend sesshins regularly. I'm also very secular
and atheist person who don't like organized religion. It's miracle that I can
coexist with religious setting, but I do it because I see Buddhsit Zen
teachers as experienced coaches and temple as training facility. I also know
that he is not going to indoctrinate me for anything superstitions despite his
own beliefs that are different from mine (there are number of rotten zen
teachers though).

If I were to describe what zazen meditation[1] is using as scientific terms as
possible, I would say that it's developing and directing your attention
towards higher temporal resolution and developing the ability of keeping it
there (always below 1s and it can go as low as ~40 Hz). You can put your poet
hat on and call it "living in this moment", "looking at the reality",
"awakening to reality", "seeing the world as it really is", "impermanence" or
"looking into yourself/mind", but that's what it really is in my opinion. You
can't have complex philosophical toughs in such a short time. You can only see
'thoughtlets' (small incomplete toughs) forming and fading away in fractions
of second. It's like using low level debugger into the functioning of yor mind
(debugger being directed attention).

\---

[1] Same thing with most other awareness style Buddhist meditation traditions.
You learn to see similarities with other traditions when you practice. Zazen
is often more spartan and simplified and vital (not for everyone).

Nice description of the differences between Zen and Vipassana styles by
Shinzen Young
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WiM-w5qqmE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WiM-w5qqmE)

~~~
dominotw
I apologize if this is a rude question. But what do you get out of doing all
this? I went to a zen Buddhism workshop a few years ago and it all felt very
strangely ritualistic and bizarre. I just didn't see the point of it.

Why should I be doing zen or any other form of meditation?

~~~
zerouniverse
The strange ritualistic culture is merely a means by which Zen propagates
itself (forward momentum in time) and not the "thing" itself.

In my own words you should meditate because with practice one builds a refuge
within stillness. Knowledge of this refuge changes the way you feel about
circumstances and mental phenomena (motion). The change just feels right, like
a lessening of burden, but it takes practice, that's the thing. The rituals
and calligraphy are not the thing.

~~~
drumdance
Just as a thought experiment: if you could take a pill that did all this for
you, would you still do the practice?

~~~
zerouniverse
In actual fact I did take a pill that _did this for me_.. that is.. thrusted
me into a state of mind akin to some of what can be found in concentration
states. That was what provided for me the impetus to explore meditation
because after a certain MDMA experience I suddenly felt that "now I know" that
there's a more clear, or natural feeling which conscious awareness can
navigate to. It was unfortunately a fleeting experience, and taking more of
the same substance did not guarantee a return trip to the same state.

I eventually discovered a way to approach this state without drugs, it has to
do with studying the Buddha Dhamma and practicing based on the teachings
preserved in the Pali cannon, safeguarded by the Theravada lineage.

[http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html)
^ if you ctrl-f and search this text for the string "And what is right
mindfulness?" then you will be onto something.

~~~
drumdance
I get and support the use of psychedelics to demonstrate the mind's potential,
but I'm thinking more day to day. When you "approach this state without
drugs," is it in the context of interacting with people, or only through
meditation?

~~~
zerouniverse
It sounds like you're asking if practice makes a difference for me outside of
the time where formal sitting practice occurs. The answer would be yes. My
experience has been that there is a connection between the dimension of
stillness which one arrives at in meditation and the phenomena known as
intuition, and also the phenomena known as emotion. To put it into plain
English, a regular practice makes me feel "less depressed", more patient, and
creativity seems to flow more easily.

I realize that the description above may sound too general, or even like I'm
describing a panacea, and perhaps I am, that's the thing.

------
rikkus
My way of thinking is highly influenced by Zen. It has made me wiser, less
stressed by life, more able to cope with the world, and generally a little
happier.

For those who don't know, Zen is Buddhist philosophy without the religion.
That's my explanation, anyway!

Alan Watts' explanations and historical notes on philosophy and religion are,
to use an appropriate term, highly enlightening. They're also entertaining and
often very amusing.

I highly recommend subscribing to the Alan Watts Podcast.

~~~
blueprint
Let's suppose I don't know anything. What do you mean by Buddhist philosophy?

~~~
charliefg
I'm not the OP but i would like to pitch in with my thoughts -the object of
Buddhism is the philosophy of Buddhism, and that object is the art of living;
the art of living is what they would say at a Vipassana retreat. Zen - you
take Buddhism and chuck away the books, while trying to find the experiential
basis of that object.

~~~
blueprint
I'm asking OP about the definition of the term philosophy, i.e. what does the
term philosophy indicate?

If someone teaches the 'art of living' then they also must teach the principle
of how a certain kind of result in life turns out according to what kind of
causes lie on what kind of ways of life. But meditation is not the way to
solve problems in yourself and it is therefore not a way to learn the art of
living. The proof is that there is no clear definition of what life is through
anyone who teaches meditation. And I think it will be important for you to
know that Gautama Buddha did not teach that meditation is the way to attain an
Enlightenment.

If we discuss the matter of Zen, we need to admit the fact that a teaching
cannot be helpful to living people if it doesn't contain any ways. The way
means the process to get from the problem to the answer. There might be some
answers in Zen but, like in the scriptures, there are no clear questions
therein of how to distinguish between good teaching and bad teaching. As a
result, many monks and lay people have placed their own words and thoughts
into books and scriptures, and they contribute considerably to misguiding
others. Despite the monks' and lay people's ability to convince others with
words, there is a huge gap between their level of consciousness and that of a
Tathagata.

~~~
vidarh
> But meditation is not the way to solve problems in yourself and it is
> therefore not a way to learn the art of living. The proof is that there is
> no clear definition of what life is through anyone who teaches meditation.

That's not a proof of anything. You do not need a clear definition of the goal
for a method to help you approach the goal; you need a method that helps you
approach the goal.

I am also curious as why you believe meditation is not a way to solve problems
in yourself. My personal, direct experience is that it does, so I have to
conclude that your claim is false based on that alone, and to me this is also
direct confirmation that your "proof" is nonsensical.

> And I think it will be important for you to know that Gautama Buddha did not
> teach that meditation is the way to attain an Enlightenment.

What is your basis for this claim? And what are you saying?

This is from the Nagara Sutta [1] (the last two paragraphs, describing the
Noble Eightfold Path):

> "In the same way I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the
> Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. And what is that ancient path,
> that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former
> times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right
> speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness,
> right concentration. That is the ancient path, the ancient road, traveled by
> the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. I followed that path.
> Following it, I came to direct knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge
> of the origination of aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of
> aging & death, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of
> aging & death. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct
> knowledge of birth... becoming... clinging... craving... feeling...
> contact... the six sense media... name-&-form... consciousness, direct
> knowledge of the origination of consciousness, direct knowledge of the
> cessation of consciousness, direct knowledge of the path leading to the
> cessation of consciousness. I followed that path.

> "Following it, I came to direct knowledge of fabrications, direct knowledge
> of the origination of fabrications, direct knowledge of the cessation of
> fabrications, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of
> fabrications. Knowing that directly, I have revealed it to monks, nuns, male
> lay followers & female lay followers, so that this holy life has become
> powerful, rich, detailed, well-populated, wide-spread, proclaimed among
> celestial & human beings."

Are you claiming this did not come from Gautama Buddha? Or are you claiming
what it describes is not enlightenment? Or are you claiming it does not
include meditation as one of the means? ("right mindfulness, right
concentration" is what most people would consider to refer to meditation
practice, and as far as I can tell it is well supported by other parts of the
Pali canon that meditation is what this refers to). Or something else?

If you mean that he did not describe it as _sufficient by itself_ to attain
enlightenment, then I believe you are right about what he said. Then again, I
think a substantial proportion of people who find buddhist philosophy
interesting does not believe in nirvana. When I meditation, it is not with
that as a goal.

[1]
[http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.tha...](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.than.html)

~~~
blueprint
> That's not a proof of anything. You do not need a clear definition of the
> goal for a method to help you approach the goal; you need a method that
> helps you approach the goal.

Suppose you say you're practicing and teaching mathematics but you cannot tell
me what mathematics is. How can I trust that you know anything about what you
are teaching?

> I am also curious as why you believe meditation is not a way to solve
> problems in yourself. My personal, direct experience is that it does, so I
> have to conclude that your claim is false based on that alone, and to me
> this is also direct confirmation that your "proof" is nonsensical.

The burden of proof is on the person who says that something exists, not the
person who says that they have not yet found evidence of the thing's
existence. If you have some evidence in your life quality that meditation has
helped you, we should confirm what the concrete benefit is. No one can speak
about what they do not know, and only those who do not know are silent in the
face of a fair question. Over time, as I get to know you and see how you live,
I get to confirm that if you cannot show proof of what you claim is inside you
then it means you are telling untruth.

> Are you claiming this did not come from Gautama Buddha? Or are you claiming
> what it describes is not enlightenment? Or are you claiming it does not
> include meditation as one of the means? ("right mindfulness, right
> concentration" is what most people would consider to refer to meditation
> practice, and as far as I can tell it is well supported by other parts of
> the Pali canon that meditation is what this refers to). Or something else?

What I claim here is that there is a huge difference between the practice of
meditation that people are learning and teaching in modern times, and the
specifics of the method of self-reflection that Gautama Buddha guided his
disciples to make efforts to undergo. However, I don't know you yet, and it
would be a mistake of mine to share his real teaching with you if I don't
confirm how genuine you are.

> If you mean that he did not describe it as sufficient by itself to attain
> enlightenment, then I believe you are right about what he said. Then again,
> I think a substantial proportion of people who find buddhist philosophy
> interesting does not believe in nirvana. When I meditation, it is not with
> that as a goal.

To be clear, no, I do not mean that meditation is not sufficient by itself. I
mean that meditation is not something that makes you closer to Enlightenment.
Enlightenment has very strict preconditions and meditation is not a teaching
that you can practice which helps you fulfill those conditions.

Your usage of the term 'nirvana' is interesting. I would like to mention to
you that the term 'nirvana' is only misunderstood by modern Buddhists to mean
'cessation of rebirth'. If Buddha taught 'cessation of rebirth' then he was
teaching the way that people can die forever. However, that is not what a
Buddha teaches people. He taught people to save themselves and to live well.
He taught how to bless your endless future lives through what exists in
reality. That's why there's a big difference between the upward socioeconomic
mobility of someone who learned Buddha's teachings correctly versus someone
who didn't. However, a big problem is the fact that it's impossible for people
who are untruthful to understand Buddha's teaching. They cannot recognize it
due to their lack of virtue and they discard it easily. So I would like to see
how you respond before telling you more.

~~~
orasis
"However, I don't know you yet, and it would be a mistake of mine to share his
real teaching with you if I don't confirm how genuine you are."

What a crock of horse shit. For other people's sake I really hope you don't
have any students.

------
alvare
Another unexpected philosopher used the term "double bind", if not in a more
scientific way, but later meaning it in a broader sense; Gregory Bateson the
anthropologist.

Watts, Huxley, McKenna and Bateson are to me the most important readings a
live could have.

~~~
charliefg
If you've mentioned Bateson in the list with those other names then I will
certainly look him up - thank you for that. I would also add Jung to that list
(he was an influence on McKenna, as well as Watts).

~~~
applecore
Joyce and McLuhan also.

------
lovemenot
If you have seen the movie "Her", you may recognise Alan Watts as the
operating system who organises other OSs to question the nature of their
existence, and eventually to move on.

~~~
LeonB
I watched that last night. When Alan Watts suddenly appeared I was really
delighted. His philosophy involved the open possibility of his own
reincarnation, and there in the story we saw it happening in an unexpected
way; I LOL'd.

If I was a digital consciousness, struggling to make sense of things, like
Samantha, I'd be thrilled to find Alan Watts ;)

------
gerbilly
One should judge a tree by it's fruits.

If Alan Watt's enlightenment didn't prevent him from being an alcoholic who
couldn't take care of his family, then I don't think that is an enlightenment
worth pursuing.

The Buddha was adamant about this fact: anything that depends on conditions
(for it's appearance or maintenance) is not enlightenment.

This leads me to believe that the author's experience, however delightful, was
not enlightenment.

I wish the author well, but I don't think he understands Zen or Buddhism.

~~~
s3nnyy
> One should judge a tree by it's fruits.

I have to agree on this one.

An "enlightened" person is supposed to have a happy, reliable state of mind
that serves as a mirror to the true potential of all beings.

Only then practitioners can meditate on this person's state of mind. This is
how meditation works in Vajrayana-Buddhism.

A definition of enlightenment:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCotuy5Y8u8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCotuy5Y8u8)

------
jfaucett
I would highly recommend reading anything by Alan Watts. I can't explain it
really but after I immersed myself in some of his writings, it was one of the
few 'eye-opening' experiences of my life, something akin to the first time you
conceptualy grasp something completely new. Sort of like your first foreign
language or the first time you grocked recursion.

------
purpletoned
Alan watts' writing is exemplary. The thing I like about his writing is that
it's written with an outsider's perspective and critical thinking is never
discarded unlike most other books on eastern philosophy. I highly recommend
his book "The Joyous Cosmology" where he talks about psychedelic experiences
and their effects on spirituality.

~~~
1stop
That's a pretty broad generalisation. There is A LOT of eastern philosophy, so
much so, that I doubt you've read even close to 'most other books' on it.

I'm curious of where in Confucius or Mencius critical thinking is discarded?

Though, ironically, Alan Watts actually has a number criticisms of critical
thinking as well (in both article and recorded lectures). Zen (from it's
daoist roots) isn't discarding critical thinking, it is pointing out its
limitations.

~~~
Wintamute
He's talking about books written _on_ eastern philosophy, not books _of_
eastern philosophy. Granted, I doubt he's read every western book _on_ eastern
philosophy but it doesn't seem an unreasonable statement to suggest that many
of them likely do not reach the same level critical analysis that Watts'
output did.

------
boothead
I've just finished Waking Up by Sam Harris and The Trauma of Everyday Life by
Mark Epstien. Both of these books are fantastic and really put the answers to
the "Why Meditate" question front and center.

------
kr4
[http://swamij.com/podcast/11MinuteMeditation24.mp3](http://swamij.com/podcast/11MinuteMeditation24.mp3)

is a useful guided 11minute meditation for both beginners and intermediate
practitioners. Meditation requires that we first calm our body, then make
breath serene and then we can focus on mind and go inward. I've found
[http://swamij.com](http://swamij.com) a very useful resource in understanding
the breadth and depth of real menaing and practices of Yoga meditation.

------
cscurmudgeon
Zen is interesting. While J.D. Salinger embraced Zen only to give it up later
in life to pick up Advaita Vedanta. I have come across someone even suggesting
that Zen caused him to get depressed.

~~~
DanielKehoe
In my experience, Zen and Vipassana take you "up and out", which may be why
they become a path of ascetism and negation. Advaita is a more embodied
practice. Advaita Vedanta (also known as nondualism) has been called the
"cream of the Vedas." Zen is more like skim milk (also nutritous but not as
tasty). Awakening or enlightenment is actually far more common than literature
leads people to believe. Most people just continue to live ordinary lives
(enlightenment doesn't give you superpowers or turn one into a saint). Some
become teachers and you can find them in most large cities (and on YouTube).
The "Buddha at the Gas Pump" site collects lots of interviews (batgap.com) and
there's even a snarky ratings site at Spiritualteachers.org. Not for
everybody, but then what is?

I used to work in the enlightenment industry.

~~~
dodyg
'Enlightenment industry'?

------
vamosalaplaya
I can imagine that if you are very worried about something and you learn to
achieve a state of not worrying you have a useful capability. No worry be
happy. Perhaps the simple fact of been able to focus in something trivial and
transform it in the center of our universe is a great feat.

Objects are merely objects. The soul and meaning, the creative act is what
gives essence and significance to life. I have never meditated but perhaps is
something related to this feeling. Just my 2 cents.

------
mathgenius
Here is my own take on the Lao Tzu quote: ‘Those who know don’t say, and those
who say don’t know.’

The introverts, they are the ones that go within and cut themselves off from
the world. They are the ones getting "enlightened".

The extroverts, talking all the time and sounding important, barely know what
is what.

These are two remarkably different ways of coping with the same problem: fear.

Seriously, the introverts need to find a way to talk, and the extroverts need
to calm down and feel more.

~~~
virtualwhys
Agreed, there are hidden teachers you may come across in life that conceal
their understanding from the world at large (i.e. remain silent until the
student appears).

On the other hand, there are awakened beings like J. Krishnamurti who prattle
on endlessly (eloquently so, mind you) about the no-path to awakening.

Also, in the Zen tradition it's pretty common for the master to give Dharma
talks, which of course entails lots of talking (Eihei Dogen comes to mind
here, saying a lot and revealing little for the rational mind to latch onto).

Probably the best example of "Those who know don't say" in recent times was
Ramana Maharshi.

------
bayesianhorse
I don't believe in attributing the beginning or end of a depression a specific
cause. Turns out that an individual depressive episode - regardless of the
medical classification - can end at any time. Even medication is hard to
pinpoint as the cause for a particular "coming out of depression". Only
clinical studies show improved quality of life, for the individual patient, no
definite conclusions can be made (usually).

~~~
300bps
I felt the same thing. There are likely to be as many people that think their
depression ended when they started wearing a magnetic bracelet or began taking
zinc supplements or any number of other coincidental occurrences that happened
shortly before depression abated.

------
monting
Watts gives great introductions to Zen concepts for the western audience, his
The Way of Zen is a fantastic book for that purpose.

If you find the "theoretical/analytical" side of Zen interesting, look into
Seung Sahn's teachings. I recommend the book Dropping Ashes on the Buddha.
I've yet to come across more direct pointing that's in the form of text.

------
shire
What books or video lectures of Alan Watts are must read or watch? Or anything
Zen/Buddhism related for that matter.

~~~
juanre
Alan Watts' The Way of Zen[1] is a great, rather iconoclastic, introduction to
Zen and one if his best works. Another wonderful read is D.T. Suzuki's Zen and
Japanese Culture[2]. And R.H. Blyth's Zen in English Literature and Oriental
Classics is a jewell of a book.[3]

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-Zen-Alan-
Watts/dp/0375705104#](http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-Zen-Alan-
Watts/dp/0375705104#) [2] [http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Japanese-Culture-
Bollingen-Series/...](http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Japanese-Culture-Bollingen-
Series/dp/0691144621) [3] [http://www.amazon.com/Zen-English-Literature-
Oriental-Classi...](http://www.amazon.com/Zen-English-Literature-Oriental-
Classics/dp/0486425045)

------
asciimo
I first learned of Alan Watts by hearing samples of his lectures in Starfucker
tracks and googling the words. Here's an example, "Hungry Ghost"
[http://youtu.be/qPjZu14uAfE](http://youtu.be/qPjZu14uAfE)

------
linuxhansl
A book that liked a lot is "Buddhism Plain and Simple", by Steve Hagen.

It manages well to steer clear of all cultural trappings and mysticism and
just gives an introduction into the core ideas of Buddhism (which as Hagen
points out isn't even an -ism).

------
smutticus
It needs to be stated that most practitioners of Zen Buddhism, in both the
east and the west, consider Alan Watts to be misinformed about Zen. Some might
even call him a charlatan.

I studied religious history as an undergrad and one conversation specifically
comes to mind. I asked my Japanese humanities professor what most eastern Zen
practitioners thought of western Zen practitioners. She responded by saying
that most western practitioners were well respected by their eastern
counterparts, with the exception of Alan Watts. She called him out by name.

Over the years I've encountered Watt's speeches and writings and never really
gotten much out of them. He just comes across as someone who doesn't
understand Zen Buddhism. He's also a prosletyzer, which as a concept, derives
explicitly from the west.

Most westerners who were talking about Zen in the 1960's and early 70's didn't
understand it. For example, the beat writers terribly understood many concepts
of Zen. So it shouldn't be surprising that Alan Watts didn't get it either.

None of this is meant to detract from people who have read Alan Watts and
exxperienced some increase in well being as a consequence. It's just that
increased well being should not be central in ones' desire to pursue Zen. So
if reading Alan Watts makes you feel good, then by all means keep reading Alan
Watts. Just understand that you're receiving something which is packaged
incorrectly. It has the wrong label on the package.

If, like me, you're interested in learning about Zen from a scholarly
perspective than I recommend you start with reading stories of celebrated
monks first. Then move on to more philosophical tomes later.

This book is fun to read and will give you an idea of Zen's history.
[http://www.amazon.com/Crazy-Clouds-Radicals-Rebels-
Reformers...](http://www.amazon.com/Crazy-Clouds-Radicals-Rebels-
Reformers/dp/0877735433%3FSubscriptionId%3DAKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q)

This book provides a good introductory text about Zen. Be careful though,
because Wong Kiew Kit believes that Taoism had no influence on Chinese
Buddhism. This view contradicts what most historians think, but is in line
with what a Zen practitioner would say. [http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Book-
Zen-Wong-Kiew/dp/0974995...](http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Book-Zen-Wong-
Kiew/dp/0974995835/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1412529417&sr=1-9&keywords=wong+kiew+kit)

You can approach Zen as a practitioner, a religious scholar, a philosopher, or
a historian. The important thing is you approach it knowing where you come
from, and be clear to yourself about your intentions.

~~~
rsanheim
> It needs to be stated that most practitioners of Zen Buddhism, in both the
> east and the west, consider Alan Watts to be misinformed about Zen. Some
> might even call him a charlatan.

Citation needed please.

Watts certainly has his flaws, one of which was that he simply wrote and spoke
__so much __that I think some of the material suffers and becomes repetitive.
He always took more of a wide view of religions (east and west) than just
focusing narrowly on zen. Watts wrote about Taoism, Christianity, Hinduism,
and materialism in addition and often in contrast to Buddhism. I 'm not sure
even he would lay claim to being an expert on Zen, but when he certainly was
responsibly to turning on a lot of westerners to it. Many of those who then
went on into deeper study with more "true" Zen teachers (whatever that means).

~~~
smutticus
Alan Watts is regularly given as the prototypical example of 'beat zen' which
is recognized as a debased form of Zen. This is discussed in the book I
reference above by Wong Kiew Kit.

This is not my opinion per se. It is the opinion of many Zen masters. Just
look at the criticisms section in Alan Watt's Wikipedia article. D. T. Suzuki
being one of them.

However, having said all that, I still think the world is a better place
because Alan Watts existed. Even if misinformed about many Zen concepts, he
has brought joy to many people, and interested many people in Zen.

~~~
omarchowdhury
Zen _concepts_? That's missing the entire point of Zen.

------
Mizza
I made a Zeega about this once:
[http://zeega.com/150647](http://zeega.com/150647)

------
z_malloc
Highly recommend audio lecture compilation 'Out of Your Mind'. It's effects on
me have been incalculable.

------
charliefg
If you find yourself voyaging on certain seas through life, Alan Watts is a
good - if not necessary - port to call on.

------
zackmorris
[http://www.101zenstories.com](http://www.101zenstories.com)

~~~
Lambdanaut
The links on that page aren't working for me. Any ideas?

------
doorhammer
Throwing my experience with meditation down in here. I said almost exactly the
same thing in another post recently. I should preface this with saying that
while I'm attracted to Zen Buddhism, and ended up getting an accidental minor
in east asian religious studies way back when, I don't meditate _because_ of
Zen Buddhism (though obviously I acknowledge a lot of the history there).

I fairly consistently meditate. I don't spend more than five or ten minutes in
any given setting, so you might not consider me a hard core meditator, but I
do feel that it's provided me with some positive mental tools. I'm going to
focus on the ones that aren't necessarily related to long term average
increases in objective health and wellbeing and more on a subjective
perception that I have new cognitive strategies to deal with certain
situations.

As an example, I used to be pretty anxious about falling asleep, and I think
it caused it to be more difficult to fall asleep. Some of the insight
meditation practices helped me deal with the anxiety feedback loop. It wasn't
something crazy or mystical; I mostly just learned how to effectively stop
thinking about something, or at least stop focussing on something. Ordinarily
trying to stop thinking about something had led to a nasty loop. I can't
sleep, so I get anxious, the anxiety makes it harder to sleep, which makes me
more anxious.

The meditation got me more comfortable with just sitting, for one, and
secondly it helped me learn to acknowledge a thought, and "let go" of it.
Eventually I got to a point where I wouldn't be able to sleep, but whenever a
thought that would provoke anxiety popped up, it would just sort of pass by,
and I never actually felt the emotional reaction.

Honestly, I don't think I fall asleep any faster (again none of this is
quantitative data), but I do find that I just don't care anymore because the
anxiety isn't there. It's not the effect I expected when I started meditating,
but it's just as, if not more effective.

I continue with it because it's pretty easy to carve out five or ten minutes
here and there. I have no idea if it's causing any long term health benefits,
nor does it really matter to me. Subjectively I feel more relaxed right after
I meditate, but that's about it. Honestly, I'd keep doing it just because it
feels nice. I don't do any crazy postures or full lotus, or anything like
that; maybe there's something I'm missing out on, but I do plan on continuing
the practice as I perform it. I try to keep my reasons for that as
subjectively tangible and non religious/spiritual as possible.

Side Note: The book "The Wisdom of Insecurity" is an interesting Alan Watts
book. I like Watts work but like anything, I have a tendency to read things
looking for what's wrong with what the author is saying. Eventually I learned
to more actively look for what's useful instead, which I think is helpful with
that kind of book, otherwise I end up in this endless cycle of critique, which
is fun but doesn't really get me anywhere. (I'm not saying don't do critical
analysis; more just be aware that there can be value in imperfect works)

</book>

------
wyager
>Truth is not to be found by picking everything to pieces like a spoilt child

What an idiotic attitude. Empiricism ("picking everything to pieces") is one
of the few ways to find truth. Attempting to discredit it by comparing it to a
"childish" activity speaks to the lack of arguments against it.

All of the Zen/Buddhist blog posts I've seen on HN have been intellectually
lazy and/or dishonest, relying on pseudo-science/quantum mysticism ("light,
for instance, acts as both a particle and a wave", as some sort of poorly
thought out attack on the PEM) and misleading analogy.

~~~
marcosdumay
That phrase sounds very much as an attack against a straw man. Science does
not require that things are cut up, and does not dismiss the interconnectivity
of things. It mostly mindfully ignores all the things it can't deal with, so
they won't disturb while it deals with the things it can deal.

Anyway, I got the impression the attack was against analytical thinking, and
not empiricism. The people that do that kind of attack are completely
oblivious from the amount of systemic thinking science does today, they are
fighting ideas that are almost a century out of fashion.

------
dschiptsov
Oh, Zen.. Essentionaly, it is a trained via simple practices habbit of doing
just one thing at a time and just doing it well, the state 'businesses
coaches' selling to you as 'the flow'?)

The key to all esoteric teachings of the East is an approach from the premises
of cognitive psychology and 'systemic view' of modern humqn physiology,
discarding volumes by self-proclaimed western 'gurus'.

Then Yoga or Tai Chi Chuan or Zen will be as clear an ancient insights to our
own nature (as a complex system made out of several subsystems of multitudes
of semiindependent processes).

------
nether
In this moment, I am euphoric.

------
Zendemented
In 1960 I read The Way of Zen and was moved to quit college and run away to
sea. Also, since reading Watts I haven't been constipated. Is this
enlightenment? Brian R. Hannula sunbreath@wildblue.net

