Rock guitar lessons

Alan Watts – Not What Should Be But What Is

Man and Nature environment free will ourselves I a stranger and afraid in a world I never made intelligence love skin mechanical process zen individual blind force biological image man method gospel good news transform yourself mystical vision obstacle you

24 Responses to Alan Watts – Not What Should Be But What Is
  1. badblueman
    March 11, 2012 | 9:06 am

    …and as a man, Watts chose to spend his time talking and presenting truths as he saw them. And again, to be human is to be separate, to be as is experienced in this universe, to be dualistic. That’s what reality is. That doesn’t stop you? to talking about it, just like nothing was stopping Hitler from writing an essay about the immorality of genocide. I’ve heard him answer your type of question a lot, talking about his ego etc. To lose the ego isn’t the goal, it’s to understand.

  2. longfootbuddy
    March 11, 2012 | 6:57 pm

    dont get me wrong, i like alan watts, and agree with almost everything he says.. i tend to pick at what i dont agree with.. im not trying to debunk him, just trying to understand the small things i dont agree with.. besides, ive listened to enough of him to hear some contradictions, and also to hear him admit his own lack of understanding and contradiction, if i may put it? in those terms.. neither i or he thought he was a diety! unless you look at it from a deeper meaning anyway

  3. longfootbuddy
    March 11, 2012 | 6:59 pm

    i think alot of his, hmmm.. students, do look at him as a kind of diety though.. but thats just human nature really.. people tend to make gods of men that they admire.. but alan understood it as well as jesus did, and both tried to tell people not to see? them in that way, even if it was true for us all in a much deeper and abstract way

  4. badblueman
    March 12, 2012 | 4:10 am

    I know you don’t think he was a deity. I have a tendency of going of? on a rant, by providing myself with questions to answer. And that’s how I saw the nature of your question: “if he’s all holy and monistic, why all the talking of dualism” and I answered “that’s the only way to exist”…I must say I’ve never really heard something I’d say I thought was contradictory and i’ve listened to him a lot. Not because I’m such a blindly following acolyte, I really can’t think of anything.

  5. longfootbuddy
    March 12, 2012 | 5:38 am

    that wasnt what? i said

  6. badblueman
    March 12, 2012 | 7:33 am

    Sorry, but I don’t see the difference between:
    “i? have trouble understanding how…alan can say…that the aim is to not see things in a duality that most of us do…but then he talks about men’s errors, and points out where they are? wrong.. it seems that a person that believed that the universe is all the same, both good and bad, wouldnt spend time distinguishing good from bad.”
    …and “if he holds monistic philosophy, why all the talking of dualism?”

  7. verifymyageful
    March 15, 2012 | 6:05 pm

    Upgraded? or just cleaned up some of the trash?

  8. maxwellpassion
    March 15, 2012 | 6:17 pm

    I’m? so bored 🙁

  9. maxwellpassion
    March 15, 2012 | 6:28 pm

    Allan Watts himself being himself proves that AI will never ever ever become smarter than the human,? in the way of making sense 🙂 SENSE… lol get it? SENSE! 😀

  10. EmptyMindFull
    March 16, 2012 | 8:21 pm

    You seem to have a good idea of absence as negation. That is related to form and emptiness and it is a good insight. However, if you really want more understanding of polar opposites, then you may want to look into Taoism. Watts was very learned in Chinese philosophy and quite adept at relating Western ideology, Indian spiritualism and philosophy and Taoism and Confucianism. That’s an invitation to do the same and see why a negation is not? necessarily a yin-yang relationship.

  11. EmptyMindFull
    March 16, 2012 | 8:23 pm

    Is that? air you are breathing? Upgrades are the bomb.

  12. EmptyMindFull
    March 16, 2012 | 8:27 pm

    You bet. He blew my mind way back in the eddies of the past that echo from now to substantiate the present in memory. I can see no reason to deify, (as some have suggested) the Venerable Watts. We can, however, honor his expression of just how thought can flower and become a useful, dualistic tool for understanding the non-dual. He also shows us our potential when we see deeply into the constrictions of culture and conditioning. ? We all could and would be thinking with this depth.

  13. EmptyMindFull
    March 16, 2012 | 8:33 pm

    Watts might be best considered with a term we rarely use these days. He could be most accurately called venerable. When one honors another for bringing insight, deep thought and reflection, that teacher is honored. Watts himself dealt most effectively with the dualism of deity and its corresponding, created subjects as? a conceptual, even political hierarchy where God is proves to be the big CEO of Heaven Inc. We see that played out in our current paradigm.

  14. EmptyMindFull
    March 16, 2012 | 8:41 pm

    Watts was a master of dealing with logical levels. He could zoom in and out in orders of magnitude and see and express the relationships between them all. Much of that was acquired from an amalgam of thinking, curiosity, freedom, philosophy, comparison? of East and West and meditation When you carefully and consistently consider context and content in a yin-yang way, you can come to a Taoist relationship and express the natural self. It is only our own expression of your nature.

  15. EmptyMindFull
    March 16, 2012 | 8:48 pm

    That’s an insight. Why would they want to blow the game? they are playing? They are often well invested in what they have committed themselves to. Nature and being flexible are another matter. Yet, working semi-altruistically within the Status Quo has its benefits and delusions.

  16. EmptyMindFull
    March 16, 2012 | 8:52 pm

    I am overjoyed to see people in these times recognizing the depth and insight of the venerable Watts. His example was never one of superiority, even when we recognize the intricacy of thought and insight that he demonstrated publicly and via writing. He is as fresh as dew on morning grass, even today. His intent, to me, was to inspire you to find your hidden potential to think well as an art, despite how education and? culture wanted you to be poor in that way. Spread the word!

  17. EmptyMindFull
    March 16, 2012 | 9:19 pm

    Good point. The? idea of sin rests upon the meaning of the word itself. Original, sin is not an irrational idea, it simply means to err or miss the mark. The load of emotional guilt and breaking of “laws” is manipulation, that when relieved, brings the idea back to a simple and even rational form ofl acceptance. In that sense, you can flow with the Tao, or not, (sin) and it becomes a matter of experience and context, which is simple and easy to incorporate into understanding.

  18. buddha15235
    March 26, 2012 | 5:32 pm

    this man is? hope in a human body

  19. gabrielederose
    March 31, 2012 | 4:52 pm

    Sorry for my english, im italian but i really want to make a comment on? Alan Watts:

    He is the only philosopher that really makes a point about how we have missinterpreted the hole values system, we have to really try to make a difference by sharing this kind of argument of how we understand life and his meanings, im glad a find Alan Watts, it has been a true change in me, every single time a close my self alone and listen to this lectures.

  20. DanielCalzada84
    April 2, 2012 | 12:30 am

    Besides disabled? and infant people: Do some people listen to Alan Watts and not understand what he is saying? He makes perfect sense and it’s easy for me to understand him.

  21. human753
    April 7, 2012 | 1:13 pm

    Is there a? way to download these speeches?

  22. nitemagyk
    April 16, 2012 | 1:24 am

    If you wonder about the? “I” that speaks, who then are “you” that declares me a hallucination?

  23. thegreenlionV
    April 16, 2012 | 7:38 pm

    that’s why you’re walking around with? tar in one hand and feathers in the other

  24. nitemagyk
    April 17, 2012 | 10:45 am

    My, my, did I offend you by asking? But ad hominems aside, you didn’t answer my question about A.W.’s Truth? Claim.

Leave a Reply

Wanting to leave an <em>phasis on your comment?

Trackback URL