Would anyone care to discuss Alan watts work? I would preferably like to exclude those who are verbose just for the sake of it.
Has anyone read his complete works?
Did it register as just another great read, or was life a little different afterwards?
First book of his you read?
>>7419942
Overrated second-rate wannabe scholar-guru. His "work" on Zen and Buddhism in general is considered mostly nonsense by modern scholarship.
There is a joke about how you can tell a fake western "buddhist" from a person legitimately interested in Buddhist scholarship and practice by whether they take Watts seriously or not.
>>7420119
spoken like a man who has never taken any serious amount of psychedelics in his life.
even such tools cant help you if you're already a tool
>>7420119
I think that's pretty unfair. Alan Watts was my segue into genuine Buddhism. Alan never professed to be a "buddhist scholar." He was admittedly an entertainer. All he was striving to do was take concepts and ideas from eastern culture (not just buddhism) and try to package them to a western audience that had little familiarity with eastern thought. He was helping to give dissatisfied Americans a new perspective, one that might potentially lead to a healthier and happier understanding of their lives. I agree he is not a good authority on in-depth buddhist doctrine and thought, but that was never his purpose. He was, for me and for many others, a buddhist ambassador for those who had no familiarity with it. Without him I would likely have never discovered buddhism since I had grown up in a deep south protestant family. I don't find his work very profound anymore, but at the time I was searching for a new philosophy Alan Watts discourses were everything to me.
Psychedelic "gurus" are surface level pith. Watts, RAW, McKenna, etc. have nothing new to say and only exist to reinforce the superiority complex of pretentious druggies.
I have tripped on a variety of psychedelic drugs in my time, and it's clear to me that this new age bullshit is pseudointellectual thought-cancer. There has been good writing on drugs and on "trippy" concepts but none was created by these cult leaders.
>>7420518
Have you listened to Watts' lectures, he almost never talks about psychedelics. He tried them and thought they were useful to a degree (Watts notoriously said about drugs "If you get the message, hang up the phone). He didn't worship them like McKenna did. I used to love Alan Watts and watch all his lectures, and only about 5% of his lectures ever talked about drugs.
>>7420518
What's some good psychonaut /lit/? Huxley?
>>7420555
First half of "the doors of perception" is really good in that Huxley describes his first experience on mescaline. The second half though is speculative theories about how psychedelics work and mindless ramblings about art.
>>7420555
>psychonaut
Awful term to be honest
Burroughs is good.
He utterly failed as a popularizer and entertainer because nobody (including /lit/ elitists) actually grasps his ideas; they just think they do. Aside from that, he's a superb and lifechanging read.
When I was younger it was interesting listening to his lectures and reading his books on Zen, but if you're seriously interested in Zen or Eastern thought I would suggest actually reading modern scholarship on Eastern thought.
>>7420697
>I would suggest actually reading modern scholarship on Eastern thought.
any recommendations?
>>7420713
I started reading this one. It can be a bit dense though. Not the most eloquent read.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/index.html
I've read Way of Zen, and on the whole found it enjoyable. He's much more philosophical in his books than in his lectures, but it's been awhile since I read it so I don't recall if the philosophy was good or bad.
>>7420713
I suggest you read translations from Buddhist scholars, if you're interested in Japanese Zen Buddhism I would suggest Dogen Shogenzo, I think it's translated by Masao Abe (Kyoto School philosopher and Religious studies scholar)
