3 ms·

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 c

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/dp/0877735433%3FSubscriptionId%3DAKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q http://www.amazon.com/Crazy-Clouds-Radicals-Rebels-Reformers... 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/0974995835/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1412529417&sr=1-9&keywords=wong+kiew+kit http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Book-Zen-Wong-Kiew/dp/0974995... 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.

omarchowdhury 12y ago
If you are going to lay criticism against Watts' understanding of Zen, you should make specific points.
- dominotw 12y ago
  Yes his criticism just boils down to appeal to authority.
  - smutticus 12y ago
    Exactly. Practitioners of Zen Buddhism believe that enlightenment is transmitted from one who is enlightened to one who is not. With only very rare exceptions, it requires an authority to transmit. People who think they're practicing Zen without a trained instructor are just deluding themselves.
    - omarchowdhury 12y ago
      Who transmitted to Sidhatta Gotama?
      - virtualwhys 12y ago
        Thanks, finally Zen appears. It's turtles all the way down.
      - smutticus 12y ago
        It depends on who you ask. The common historical narrative is that Chan Buddhism developed out of a mixture of Nepalese Buddhism and Chinese Taoism. The idea being that the Buddhist monks visiting China from India were interpreted through a lens of Taoism. This then turned into Chan Buddhism, and was transmitted to Japan where it was then known as Zen Buddhism. If you take this viewpoint, then you might say that Zen and what Siddhartha Gautama achieved were not the same thing. However, most practitioners of Zen refute this and say that what Zen is, and what Siddhartha Gautama achieved are the same thing. This is the view that Wong Kiew Kit states in The Encyclopedia of Zen(referenced above). People like Kit believe that Siddhartha Gautama discovered enlightenment on their own, and that enlightenment is the exact same kind of enlightenment as what modern Zen masters discover. To quote myself now, "With only very rare exceptions, it requires an authority to transmit." It is not unheard of for students of Zen Buddhism to achieve enlightenment on their own. Bankei, a famous 17th century Japanese Zen master, is recorded as having achieved enlightenment while watching a bloodied ball of phlegm slide down a paper wall. The story goes that he was so frustrated with the fake Zen masters in Japan at the time, that he sat on a mountain top until he first achieved tuberculosis and almost achieved starvation. Zen was so debased in Japan at the time that this was the only way for him to achieve it. All the other masters were fakes. Among modern Zen masters it is understood that what Gautama Buddha achieved and what Bankei achieved are the exact same thing. That it was not transmitted to them is irrelevant, but it should be noted that this type of self-realization is extremely rare in Zen history.

omarchowdhury 12y ago

If you are going to lay criticism against Watts' understanding of Zen, you should make specific points.

dominotw 12y ago
Yes his criticism just boils down to appeal to authority.
- smutticus 12y ago
  Exactly. Practitioners of Zen Buddhism believe that enlightenment is transmitted from one who is enlightened to one who is not. With only very rare exceptions, it requires an authority to transmit. People who think they're practicing Zen without a trained instructor are just deluding themselves.
  - omarchowdhury 12y ago
    Who transmitted to Sidhatta Gotama?
    - virtualwhys 12y ago
      Thanks, finally Zen appears. It's turtles all the way down.
    - smutticus 12y ago
      It depends on who you ask. The common historical narrative is that Chan Buddhism developed out of a mixture of Nepalese Buddhism and Chinese Taoism. The idea being that the Buddhist monks visiting China from India were interpreted through a lens of Taoism. This then turned into Chan Buddhism, and was transmitted to Japan where it was then known as Zen Buddhism. If you take this viewpoint, then you might say that Zen and what Siddhartha Gautama achieved were not the same thing. However, most practitioners of Zen refute this and say that what Zen is, and what Siddhartha Gautama achieved are the same thing. This is the view that Wong Kiew Kit states in The Encyclopedia of Zen(referenced above). People like Kit believe that Siddhartha Gautama discovered enlightenment on their own, and that enlightenment is the exact same kind of enlightenment as what modern Zen masters discover. To quote myself now, "With only very rare exceptions, it requires an authority to transmit." It is not unheard of for students of Zen Buddhism to achieve enlightenment on their own. Bankei, a famous 17th century Japanese Zen master, is recorded as having achieved enlightenment while watching a bloodied ball of phlegm slide down a paper wall. The story goes that he was so frustrated with the fake Zen masters in Japan at the time, that he sat on a mountain top until he first achieved tuberculosis and almost achieved starvation. Zen was so debased in Japan at the time that this was the only way for him to achieve it. All the other masters were fakes. Among modern Zen masters it is understood that what Gautama Buddha achieved and what Bankei achieved are the exact same thing. That it was not transmitted to them is irrelevant, but it should be noted that this type of self-realization is extremely rare in Zen history.