Having trouble understanding Alan Watts.

[Deleted]

May 7, 2013 14:07:39 GMT -5 topology said:

May 7, 2013 14:03:29 GMT -5 @djimbebum said:

Hmmmm..... perhaps no. Yet can we afford to relinquish the the conceptual mind, to transcend the meme machine? Can we challenge Hawkings assertion that the laws of physics render God unnecessary, and wonder instead if the Law of God renders the laws of physics unnecessary?

I suppose we are doomed to ponder until there are no more ponderings.

ha! At this point, 42 seems as elegant a solution as any to these haunting imponderables.

[Deleted]

May 7, 2013 14:07:39 GMT -5 topology said:

May 7, 2013 14:03:29 GMT -5 @djimbebum said:

Hmmmm..... perhaps no. Yet can we afford to relinquish the the conceptual mind, to transcend the meme machine? Can we challenge Hawkings assertion that the laws of physics render God unnecessary, and wonder instead if the Law of God renders the laws of physics unnecessary?

I suppose we are doomed to ponder until there are no more ponderings.

ha! At this point, 42 seems as elegant a solution as any to these haunting imponderables.

[Deleted]

May 7, 2013 14:07:39 GMT -5 topology said:

May 7, 2013 14:03:29 GMT -5 @djimbebum said:

Hmmmm..... perhaps no. Yet can we afford to relinquish the the conceptual mind, to transcend the meme machine? Can we challenge Hawkings assertion that the laws of physics render God unnecessary, and wonder instead if the Law of God renders the laws of physics unnecessary?

I suppose we are doomed to ponder until there are no more ponderings.

ha! At this point, 42 seems as elegant a solution as any to these haunting imponderables.

[silver]

Since I've started reading 'This is It' just yesterday and enjoying, I searched & found this thread, so...

bump

[silver]

I started reading his other books here and there, never getting into them for one reason or another, and when I settled into reading this particular section / essay, whaddya know, I found it interesting and wanted to share just a couple of paragraphs here.

From essay, 'Beat Zen, Square Zen, Zen':

But the true character of Zen remains almost incomprehensible to those who have not surpassed the immaturity of needing to be justified, whether before the Lord God or before a paternalistic society.

The old Chinese Zen masters were steeped in Taoism.  They saw nature in its total interrelatedness, and saw that every creature and every experience is in accord with the Tao of nature just as it is.  This enabled them to accept themselves as they were, moment by moment, without the least need to justify anything.  They didn't brag about it and set themselves apart as rather special.  On the contrary, their Zen was wu-shih, which means approximately "nothing special" or "no fuss."  But Zen is "fuss" when it is mixed up with Bohemian affectations, and "fuss" when it is imagined that the only proper way to find it is to run off to a monastery in Japan or to do special exercises in the lotus posture for five hours a day.  And I will admit that the very hullabaloo about Zen, even in such an essay as this, is also fuss--but a little less so.

Having said that, I would like to say something for all Zen fussers, beat or square.  Fuss is all right, too.  If you are hung on Zen, there's no need to try to pretend that you are not.  If you really want to spend some years in a Japanese monastery, there is no earthly reason why you shouldn't.  Or if you want to spend your time hopping freight cars and digging Charlie Parker, it's a free country.

In the landscape of Spring there is neither better nor worse;
The flowering branches grow naturally, some long, some sort.

I plan on skipping to the last essay, 'The New Alchemy'. 

[Deleted]

Sept 25, 2014 21:09:57 GMT -5 silver said:

I started reading his other books here and there, never getting into them for one reason or another, and when I settled into reading this particular section / essay, whaddya know, I found it interesting and wanted to share just a couple of paragraphs here.

From essay, 'Beat Zen, Square Zen, Zen':

But the true character of Zen remains almost incomprehensible to those who have not surpassed the immaturity of needing to be justified, whether before the Lord God or before a paternalistic society.

The old Chinese Zen masters were steeped in Taoism.  They saw nature in its total interrelatedness, and saw that every creature and every experience is in accord with the Tao of nature just as it is.  This enabled them to accept themselves as they were, moment by moment, without the least need to justify anything.  They didn't brag about it and set themselves apart as rather special.  On the contrary, their Zen was wu-shih, which means approximately "nothing special" or "no fuss."  But Zen is "fuss" when it is mixed up with Bohemian affectations, and "fuss" when it is imagined that the only proper way to find it is to run off to a monastery in Japan or to do special exercises in the lotus posture for five hours a day.  And I will admit that the very hullabaloo about Zen, even in such an essay as this, is also fuss--but a little less so.

Having said that, I would like to say something for all Zen fussers, beat or square.  Fuss is all right, too.  If you are hung on Zen, there's no need to try to pretend that you are not.  If you really want to spend some years in a Japanese monastery, there is no earthly reason why you shouldn't.  Or if you want to spend your time hopping freight cars and digging Charlie Parker, it's a free country.

I plan on skipping to the last essay, 'The New Alchemy'. 

Have you ever taken LSD?

[silver]

No.......you?

[silver]

When I said I was skipping to the alchemy essay, I didn't realize how short the next one was, so I'm reading that, and then alchemy which is the last one in the book -- then I gotta go read from the beginning...i've been doing that with my books a lot lately. 

[stardustpilgrim]

Sept 26, 2014 11:35:12 GMT -5 silver said:

When I said I was skipping to the alchemy essay, I didn't realize how short the next one was, so I'm reading that, and then alchemy which is the last one in the book -- then I gotta go read from the beginning...i've been doing that with my books a lot lately. 

Alan Watts is pretty cool, very enjoyable to read. There is also a lot of audio taped stuff on You tube of him. I think I've seen only one video of him. He speaks non-duality most excellently. You could almost say he is the forerunner of all the modern non-dual teachers. He reads like zd and E. The book that sticks out in my mind, read it probably 40 years ago, The Wisdom of Insecurity.

sdp