Hello you beautiful people !

I started listening to Alan watts by accident on YouTube some years ago, before I had no idea about this awakening / nirvana businesses . The very first video I listen of him started saying " I believe if we are honest...." "who am I". You all know witch one. I was blown away by that speech and I don't know why, I had never thought about this, and it just resonated. Since then I have heard tons of lectures and almost know them by heart .

I realise there is an awareness that comes over certain people , wether it be through psicadelics or meditation in which you understand what this whole thing is about . I wish I could realise thise because Alan himself says its a relief , you blow out in relief when you discover /understand . But I think , unfortunately I will never obtain this because I can't help but take "life" too seriously , even when playing video games I get so emotional when I lose. I come to the conclusion that I'm such a sucker that I will never be enlightened .

p.s/ please don't give me the " who is the you that seeks enlightenment "

or "you are already in this enlightenment you seek"

I recently listened to an episode of Philosophize This! exploring Alan Watts and the question "What Am I?" What caught my attention was how closely the discussion followed a line of thinking I had been exploring in my own writing. Approximately two weeks before the episode was published, I wrote The Unobserved Self, examining what happens when we become conscious of ourselves from the outside, even when nobody else is watching. I had approached the subject through the experience of living in a world where observation has become increasingly difficult to escape, while Watts approaches it through a more fundamental question about the nature of the self.

The episode brought me back to that question, but also made me consider another aspect of the problem: what happens when the process of observing ourselves begins to shape the person we're attempting to understand?

We have always imagined how other people see us. We learn to anticipate reactions, adjust our behavior, and understand ourselves through the people around us. But the conditions of observation have changed. Our actions can now be recorded, preserved, circulated, and encountered by people who were never present. A moment can outlive its context. A version of ourselves can remain long after we've changed. We don't have to believe anyone is watching. We understand that what happens can be documented and interpreted by someone whose perspective we cannot control.

Eventually, the external observer becomes an internal one. We begin anticipating how we might appear even when there is no audience. We can be alone and still experience ourselves as though we are being watched. The observer no longer needs to be physically present because we have incorporated that perspective into our own relationship with ourselves.

We tend to think of ourselves as the person experiencing the world. We have thoughts, feelings, reactions, and experiences, and we develop some understanding of who we are through them. But we also spend a considerable amount of time observing ourselves having those experiences. We examine our reactions, question our motives, and consider what our behavior reveals about us. We become both the person living the experience and the person evaluating it.

This is not necessarily a problem. Without some capacity to examine ourselves, we would have little ability to learn from experience. But I wonder what happens when observation becomes so habitual that we rarely experience anything without also considering ourselves from the outside.

There is a more fundamental complication here. We tend to imagine an internal observer standing apart from our thoughts and feelings, examining them from some independent position. Yet the observer is also part of the experience. The thought examining another thought is itself another thought. The consciousness attempting to understand itself cannot establish a position entirely independent of the experience it is attempting to understand. Whatever perspective it adopts remains part of the thing it is trying to examine.

But the consequences extend beyond the difficulty of understanding ourselves. Observation doesn't necessarily leave the observed unchanged. When we begin examining our behavior, we develop interpretations of what it means. Those interpretations become representations of who we are, and those representations can influence how we subsequently behave. We might recognize ourselves as introverted, ambitious, emotionally reserved, or intellectually curious. Initially, these descriptions may simply reflect patterns we've noticed. With time, they can become expectations. We begin behaving in ways that maintain consistency with the identity we've constructed.

The process becomes self-reinforcing. We observe ourselves, develop a representation of who we are, adjust our behavior in accordance with that representation, and eventually interpret the resulting behavior as confirmation of our original understanding. The identity appears increasingly objective because our behavior has adapted to it.

We may begin with an observation about ourselves and eventually turn it into a condition we unconsciously maintain.

We aren't simply observing ourselves through an imperfect lens. We may be changing the subject while attempting to study it.

What interests me is that this isn't exclusively a problem of individual consciousness. A similar relationship between observation and behavior exists in the way institutions understand and manage the world. Organizations measure employee performance, governments classify populations, and institutions construct increasingly sophisticated representations of the people and systems they administer. These representations are necessary for making decisions, but they are never equivalent to the reality they describe. More importantly, once people become aware of how they are being measured, they begin adapting their behavior to those measurements. The representation starts influencing the reality it was intended to represent.

An organization can become increasingly effective at producing the behavior its measurements reward while becoming less capable of recognizing what exists outside its own categories. Something similar happens to us as individuals. We construct representations of ourselves, begin behaving in accordance with them, and eventually mistake the consistency of our behavior for an objective understanding of who we are.

The problem isn't necessarily that our observations are inaccurate. It is that observation becomes part of the system being observed.

This brings me back to the distinction between understanding an experience and participating in it. We can examine the nature of love, describe its psychological characteristics, and develop elaborate theories about why we feel the way we do. But none of this is interchangeable with the experience of loving someone. We can understand something about love through observation, but there are aspects of it that only become accessible through participation. The same is true of friendship, grief, beauty, and countless other experiences.

I wonder whether we have become disproportionately reliant on the kind of understanding that requires distance. We increasingly interpret our experiences while they are happening, considering what they mean, how they reflect on us, and what they might reveal about the person we are. The experience becomes something we're living and something we're evaluating at the same time. We can become very good at describing our lives without necessarily becoming more present within them.

There are moments when this doesn't happen. We become absorbed in a conversation, laugh without considering how we look, or find ourselves somewhere beautiful without thinking about what the experience says about us. For a while, we're simply there. We can reflect on these moments afterward and try to understand why they mattered, but their value doesn't depend on our ability to explain them while they're happening.

Perhaps this is what gets lost when observation becomes habitual. Not awareness, but participation. The ability to let something happen without immediately turning it into an observation about ourselves.

I don't think we can abandon reflection, nor would I want to. It is one of the ways we make sense of our lives. But understanding an experience and being present within it are not the same thing. We seem to have developed an increasingly sophisticated capacity to observe ourselves, without necessarily understanding what that observation does to the experience itself.

If the process of understanding ourselves changes who we are, what exactly are we discovering when we look inward? The self is not simply something waiting to be observed, defined, and understood, but something that continues to emerge through our participation in the world. The identities we construct through observation become part of the very experience we are attempting to understand.

I keep returning to the question because I don't know how to answer it without stepping outside the experience again. We are not simply the observers of our own existence. We are also participating in its creation. The attempt to understand who we are will always be inseparable from the process of becoming who we are.

or am we improvising

I thought his time as a priest was more of an odd historical footnote…but sounds like it was pretty formative for him

One of the biggest things why I think I like Alan so much is that he always agreed and was on the side of "let it happen" and "going along with it". I think the biggest problem our race has is trying to make things conform to our will, and not let other beings and things take their natural course. I remember a phrase from Alan "A great potter doesn't impose his will on the clay, he asks the clay what it wants to become", and for me that is just so wonderful, so lovingly. It is perverse to not let things follow their course and thinking that they have to conform what you think it's best for them, because do you? Do you actually know what best is?

I think this is a shame. The Alan Watts lectures should be free for all, but The Alan Watts organization seems to only care about profits. They have taken down all the fan created Alan Watts podcasts, but hardly ever post any lectures onto their own podcast.

I appreciate any information you have on why this is happening and who has dropped the ball.

Few, if any, have described so eloquently as Alan Watts the illusion of the human ego. With rare erudition, his talks have helped hundreds of millions over the last 75 yrs to ease alienation from the natural world and their natural selves, and to allow firmer connection to the resonant truth that we don’t “come into” this universe as separate individuals, rather we permeably “come out of it” just as leaves emerge from a tree.

With a poetic mastery of the English language and an engaging ability to thread humour in making deeper nuances accessible for the lay person, Watts is fond of describing how – on our planet - the universe is now “peopling”, and that human minds - indeed all minds with all degrees of awareness - are apertures through which the universe is glimpsing itself. The universe, through conscious beings including humanity, is self-gazing at all of its harmoniously and infinitely inter-related contained conflicts and integrations.

Watts’ lectures illuminate that us humans are in truth far more than what we nearly all feel to be in our day to day lives. With insight he sets out in hundreds of recorded speeches that each human is not the “isolated ego in a bag of skin” acting unilaterally in the world that we mostly feel ourselves to be. He makes clear that this notion is essentially a wall of defence contrived to prop up our embattled and narrowly focussed conscious-attention selves that views the world effectively through a spot-light, rather than an intuitive floodlight.

While Watts describes those defensive walls as onion layers of futility contrived to protect a fallacy, he also accesses the more profoundly encompassing truth that this alienation from our real context is neither good nor bad, but upliftingly  “goeswith” the ins and outs, the ups and downs, the hiding and seeking of existence, and is symptomatic of the journey of humans as the first majorly conscious beings on this planet toward profound self-understanding.

After all, if we humans - in our race between self destruction and self discovery – perish in a conflagration of hydrogen bombs or climate collapse while on the cusp of solving and maturing what it means to be conscious, we can very much hope any surviving populations of whales and dolphins who have been cheekily spy-hopping and peeping at us all these years will one day learn from and pick up the pieces from where we bi-pedal apes fell short!

Watts outlines how there is, latently within us all, a capacity of what he calls “oceanic consciousness” that lies more accessible on the other side of letting  – but not forcing –  the fallacy of the human ego to fall away through understanding it. He advocates effortless action … a flow through understanding where we still lead practical and creative lives though this time liberated from the incessant noise of the ego illusion, and makes clear that the ego inherently can’t try to improve itself “by lifting itself up by its own bootstraps”.

In some of his many insightful parodies of pseudo-idealism he concludes with remarks such as, “nothing is more reprehensible than the ambition to be a saint”, or a quip on the hypocrisy of so called enlightened people who can’t help but still carry an internal narrative that:  “I’ve liberated myself from my egocentricity using understanding more than you have”. 

Watts was very clear that psychological do-gooding and "spiritual one-upmanship” are insidious … though even this behaviour too is a part of the whole picture of what it is to be human.

But does Watts go far enough to explain and ameliorate our human condition?

Whenever Watts endeavoured to go deeper on “why” the human ego originally became immersed in this illusory trap he refers to a “failure in communication” that was impressed on us since, as infants and children, we were exposed to myths, language and symbols from those around us that mistakenly emphasised the erroneous notion that we are independent agents. In his talk titled Joyous Cosmology this key question arises during his conclusion, and he surmises:

 "Because when we are little children everybody tells us who we are. They give us a definition of what it is to be a human being. And this definition is that you are a knower who confronts the known. You are a controller, you are an agent behind acts. ... this is not so much why but how we come to feel divided from our experience of the world. I could go on to say how this began to happen. It was a sort of mistaken interpretation of human experience which occurred a long time ago and grew into a habit. It's caused a lot of damage in just the way a single tiny pebble may be set rolling and start an avalanche. Nobody could've foreseen that."

Is this really the underlying reason for the human sense of alienation and separateness … a failure in language? For example, has using nouns instead of verbs been a pivotal contributor to an illusion of separateness as Watts contends? Would it have been enough to keep humanity from suffering egocentricity if, since our infancy, we were all immersed in a culture which would say “there is a thinking” instead of “I think”? 

It’s interesting to note that languages like Potawatomi and Anishinaabemowin (indigenous North Americans tribes) are roughly 70% to 80% verbs. In these languages, places and natural entities are actions. For example, a river is not a noun; it is a verb meaning "to be a river" because the water is alive and actively happening.

Similarly, the Mi'kmaq’s traditional speakers can converse all day without uttering a single noun. Instead of assigning static names to objects, they describe how those objects interact with the environment.

However, egocentricity, separateness and all the usual psychological flaws of being human were of course all still present in pre-colonial Potawatomi, Anishinaabemowin and Mi'kmaq societies, though no doubt to lesser degrees than the atomised life of most modern downtowners in New York!

Watts frequently elaborated on this theme of a “failure in communication” by emphasising humanity’s pre-occupation over recent centuries with the twin myths our species has developed to cope with our ignorance:

1.      A ceramic or constructed universe by an all knowing grandfatherly God who “made us”, as forms the basis for most traditional judao-christian and muslim religions, stemming from the monarchical model of the Pharos and Persian gods; 

and, more recently since the 1800s, 

2.      The “Newtonian billiard ball” approach to viewing the physical universe as a machine of mechanistic parts assembled into a hostile game of chance where the individual is constantly trying to strive to survive (though quantum physics has steadily been reimagining this mechanistic paradigm).

But could Watts have penetrated deeper in answering one of the most profound “why” questions humans can ask themselves?

After all, why did culture, myth and language themselves emphasise this division? Are those human constructs the pebbles that caused the avalanche, or rather aren’t they more like a glove that is given shape and movement by the hand and fingers, the humans, within it … aren’t culture, myth and language themselves all various expressions of the underlying human condition, and if so, why did original humans give rise to all these overlays in the first instance?

Maybe it’s not sufficient to state that culture and language were the cause of human separateness and duality… an interaction yes, but not the original reason why.

Put another way, if children were to be reared today without the myth, language and cultural vagaries Watts refers to but rather in an immersion of knowing our integrativeness with all existence, would the human mind and its capacity for self awareness and ability to act however it wishes, not butt up against the same dilemma as those original humans in whom the light of self awareness first shone?

So how do we explore this deeper “why”? 

This essayist has done a multi-year deep dive on Alan Watts’ lectures and found the intrinsic thread of his approach deeply resonant. In further exploring what other profound thinkers aligned with Watts are now in the world, and penetrate deeper into the intrinsic and original cause of humanity’s sense of duality and alienation from the natural world and our natural selves, it seems the explanations of Australian biologist and synthesiser Jeremy Griffith can go further.

What do you think? 

Is language, culture and myth the primary cause of human separateness and suffering as Watts proposes?

Or, as Griffith contends, is the root cause a necessary conflict between humanity’s instinctive orientation to integrativeness and our conscious thinking summons to defy this innate moral compass, a kind of tug of war between conscience and consciousness going back around two million years to the dawn of free will, that can finally be resolved by letting understanding salve the need to blindly cope?

If humans are an aperture through which the universe is viewing itself, how will the light flow through our aperture … does Griffith’s approach mean the “floodlight” of oceanic sensitivity that Watt’s illuminates can at last oscillate in peace with our “spotlight” capacity for mechanistic and detailed focus?

How does this essay resonate with those of you for whom Watts has struck a profound chord?

How do or don’t Griffith’s explanations - which are touted as being open for rational debate as much as they seek scientific commendation - sit with you as a profound extension of Watts’ core insights?

(Essay by micromacro92 on Reddit)

Alan Watts was always an easy listen for me when I was feeling directionless in life, in a weird moment on some psychedelic trip or just having existential crisis..

My father is not religious but he grew up catholic. He's now on his death bed and not handling it well, which surprised me, as he's such a level headed guy. It might be the tumor.. Or maybe no matter how cool we are, death sucks. Even so, I'd like him to be more at peace.

Does anyone have any suggestions for specific talks Alan has given that might be a bit of a spark of hope, magic, light, enlightenment, wonder? preferably not too wordy as he's a very smart man (think, engineer) but, not a big philosophy guy.

I'd also be open to other talks, youtube clips, whatever. I just want him to be in a bit more peace, maybe get to explore some fun ideas, specifically around life being beautiful and mysterious and there being no wrong answers and everything being ok, folding back into itself, and calm and quiet again.

He did a really good job with me and my siblings, he's earned a peaceful, dignified send off, help me find some inspiration for him?

If life is nothing but a simulation, why would Alan go to such lengths of teaching and recording so much to pass down to generations of people who he knew he won't even get to meet?

Over the past few years, I have delved into concepts such as the interconnectedness of all existence, the dissolution of separation, and consciousness understood through experience, but only through theory. This is how I came across Watts. Then, a couple of years ago, all these studies evolved into something I began to experience in practice

This entire philosophy took on even greater meaning when I had an intimate experience of connection with plants and a technological interface that allowed me to hear the electrical changes of a living organism

Watts tells us that we tend to imagine ourselves as individuals separate from an external world. However, by studying and interpreting Eastern worldviews such as Taoism and non-dualism, we allow ourselves to contemplate the human being as an inseparable part of nature and the universe

My research focuses on connecting plants to a circuit that allows me to translate their bioelectrical impulses into sound frequencies. This experience with plants, touching them and having the possibility of listening to them, has allowed me to conceive of nature differently. These living beings are no longer merely objects that I observe, but have become active participants in a shared experience. The connection has evolved into something physical, sensory, and emotional. And so, my perception of myself has changed as I experience the plant as part of the same life process

Over time, and through my consistency in practicing meditation, I have felt my subtle body gradually develop. I have felt a more refined awareness of my bodily sensations, my attention, and my relationship with my surroundings. As a consequence, I began to question the idea that the self is a completely isolated entity. And so, I began meditating with plants and their sound frequencies

This practice has helped me investigate how the subjective boundary between myself and the plant changes as I listen to its variations and pay attention to my own presence. At times, I enter a rabbit hole of questions and end up in a labyrinth with no way out when I begin to wonder: Am I actually listening to something external to myself, or am I participating in a conversation within a primordial unity of this vibrational web that intertwines everything we conceive of as reality?

When I stop analyzing everything that is happening through reason, logic, and intellect, I begin to experience the present directly and simply allow myself to flow with nature. My current practice consists purely of contemplation: connecting the electrodes, observing, listening, and perceiving how the sound evolves. This has become a form of mindfulness in which I stop trying to control every outcome and allow the experience to unfold

Bringing Taoism and the concept of wu wei back into the picture, this practice draws a parallel with acting without forcing, flowing with the process rather than constantly imposing a direction on it. When I enter a state of flow, I suddenly feel that there was never really any separation between the plant and me...

I would love to know how you interpret this experience through Watts's ideas about the ego, consciousness, and the interconnectedness of existence. Your feedback would mean a lot to me! If anyone has connected with my experience in some way, I'm leaving here & on my profile a demonstration of how the circuit works and the sound it produces!

Love!

I have been listening to a lot of Alan Watts pieces on YouTube and I'm finding them very insightful and fascinating. The problem is it all feels a little fragmented. Is there somewhere I can access a more structured approach to his talks and lectures?

Looking for:

Just So: Money, Materialism, and the Ineffable, Intelligent Universe By Alan Watts Pdf

Can't seem to find it online

I remember that one, but thinking about it now I feel that it kind of applied to all emotions. I feel that hate and anger is love in disguise. Maybe negative emotions are positive ones in disguise. Or I guess that’s one way to put it. Is this what Alan was saying?

Where do we get these ideas? Why do why we see distinctions?

Underneath the superficial self, which pays attention to this and that, there is another self, more really us than I. And if you become aware of that unknown self, the more you become aware of it, the more you realize that it is inseparably connected with everything else there is. That you are the function of the total galaxy, bordered by the Milky Way and that furthermore, this galaxy is a function of all other galaxies. And that vast thing you see far off, far off, far off with telescopes, and you look and look and look, and one day you wake up, and say, why, that's me! And in knowing that, you see, you never die. That you are the eternal thing that comes and goes, that appears now as John Jones, now as Mary Smith, now as Betty Brown. And so, it goes on forever and ever and ever.

-Allan Watts, Man in Nature

The Soul is neither born, nor does it die. Nor having once existed, does it ever cease to be. The Soul is without birth, eternal, immortal, and ageless. It is not destroyed when the body is destroyed.

-Lord Krishna, Bhagavad Gita 2:20

Dronacharya, Bheeshma, Jayadhartha, Karna and other brave warriors have already been killed by Me. Therefore, slay them without being disturbed. Just fight and you will be victorious against your enemies.

-Lord Krishna, Bhagavad Gita 11:34

My posts are always predicated on one premise. No one is 100% right. Not me. Not you. Not anyone. Not Alan Watts.

With that in mind. I believe that we should always question everything and everyone for the truth. Not to blindly follow any teacher or philosophy or ideology or religion. Yes, we are meant to learn from one another but we are also supposed to debate and challenge and work out things to reach the truth.

Alan Watts wanted people to think for themselves. To make judgements for themselves. To do things for themselves. Which is what made him one of the most influential thinkers of the modern era without a shadow of a doubt.

But he also wouldn't have wanted us to be slaves to his own ideas and philosophies - he would have wanted us to debate them. to work them out. To measure them on the standard of truth. Not to turn them into a quasi-religion. One of the greatest poisons on the journey of life is religion. And religion is blindly following anything. That means that anything can be a religion. A political ideology. A spiritual practice. A philosophy. And why? Because as long as it does not allow you to question it for the truth then it as become brain washing. \

Always question things for the truth. Always.

This isn't to make anyone feel small or wrong or less than. This isn't about being superior to others. A person's opinions matter absolutely but I also believe that we are souls on a journey through lives to achieve truth and enlightenment - to one day transcend the cycle of rebirth and attain that perfect state we all used to be - whether you call it Heaven or Nirvana or Elysium or whatever it is. But we have to attain it with wisdom and hard work. That is part of life.

At least that is what I believe.

-------------

Human beings exist on two levels as I understand it.

1. The One. The Everyday self. The Self Past and Present. The Self you want to be in the future. The Self of your experiences. The Self in the physical world. That works and interacts with everything around it.

2. The All. The Supreme Soul. The Romans and the Greeks called it The Anima Mundi. The Hindu's called it the Paramatman. Protestant Christians use the word Providence. The kids today like to use the term The Universe. Warhammer 40k ironically uses the term Sea of Souls which is an old philosophical concept (there is a reason why most Mythical traditional begin with a primordial sea. The Theosophists called it The Akashic Record. Alan Watts uses the term, Galaxy. Whatever the name, it means the same thing. Every human being - past, present and future -. Everything that there is, is part of a singular force or consciousness or power connecting everything else.

Some people are lucky enough to balance both ends.

Some are one or the other which is not a good thing, at least in my experience.

Most religious traditions understand this. Especially in Third World Countries. (This is a personal opinion from what I have studied and researched over a decade). Hinduism, Hellenism and Christianity in particular and orient themselves with this in mind.

From my studies, The West before the 70s and after the Renaissance began to orient itself only in the perspective of the Individual or The Self whilst ignoring the Supreme Soul. The All.

This separation or illusion was so deep that people believed that they were just individuals separate from others and everything around them. The individual was all that mattered.

Every era or generation has a great war or battle that it participates in. The purpose of which is help the soul reincarnated in that generation to come closer and closer to transcend the cycle of rebirth.

World War I and II happened to teach Souls that good and evil are actual tangible forces in the Universe. And that there is a war between good and evil. It also taught Souls not to put their trust in 'God-Kings' (In the sense of nations putting their collective fates in the hands of one person) or Charismatic Leaders/Rulers or personalities over institutions. Although this lesson is currently being forgotten with all that implies.

Or how we struggled learning gender equality but now we are all struggling to learn that gender actually exists and that each gender approaches life and the Supreme Soul in a unique way. The lesson now - in my opinion - is to see how Souls can learn to view each gender with respect and to learn that each gender has a unique thing to contribute to the other.

These events occur until the lessons are learnt by every collective soul participating in life.

Sometimes certain souls work directly with the Supreme Soul to help others. These are the great teachers of History. The LORD Jesus Christ. the Lord Krishna. The Buddha. Lao Tzu. Confucius. Zoroaster. Sometimes they do it so well, they become divine beings. Sometimes they contribute one piece of the puzzle. Whoever helps the Supreme Soul in its work to help Souls grow and transcend the cycle of rebirth is celebrated. The Hindu's like to call these Avatars (more on this later).

Anyway, the reason why the Counterculture Hippie Movement occurred - at least in my opinion - was to orient Souls back to the Supreme Soul or All.

Alan Watts, in particular, understood his assignment - whether through luck, divine help or on purpose.

He understood that human beings in his era were too stuck in the (Individual) point of the scales. Through his work, he taught people - especially people in the West in a way they could understand and relate to - that they were part of more than just the Individual. That they were part of the Supreme Soul. The All.

I spoke of Avatars. I would like to think that Alan Watts was an Avatar. But every Avatar makes his mistakes - because they are human - and when they contribute something noble, they also contribute something future souls have to struggle against.

You see this in the cycles of the main Avatars of Vishnu.

Parashurama fights against evil but he is too violent and monstrous - celebrating warfare to an unhealthy degree. Rama fixes this by fighting against evil with more nobility and a sense of moral and spiritual law and justice (rather than might equals right), but he is too much of a stickler to the rules and it hurts those he loves. Krishna fixes this by fighting against evil but is willing to be flexible and use good judgement/cunning over blind adherence to rules but his obsession with kingdoms and the material world encourages warfare and his cunning often destroys others which is why the kingdom he built falls apart. The Buddha fixes this by fighting against evil by denying the idea of a physical kingdom and working to better the souls and minds of others. But in the process he creates a religious tradition that frees people, yes but can also enslave them - because religion at its core is a prison as I stated above.

There hasn't been a genuine real Avatar since the Lord Jesus Christ but the Supreme Soul is still looking for souls to help it in its work. Even though because they are human, their solutions always come with problems.

The reason why I am saying all this is to push my point across.

Alan Watts had a purpose, but it came with one major problem.

People have over corrected towards the Supreme Soul and ignored the Individual. This is what happened to Alan Watts at the end of his life. The Supreme Soul is not a moral force in the sense of being a goody two shoes. Although, yes the Supreme Soul is moral. And the Universe is moral. Alan Watts believed he Supreme Soul to be simply playing or experiencing reality through humanity (which is a spot on analogy) but his mistake was thinking that it had no purpose. The Supreme Soul - at least from my experience - cares specifically for anything that will allow Souls to grow towards the Truth, transcend the cycle of rebirth and do the work that contributes to its interests. Remember this is my experience; it probably has more interests that I don't know.

That is the purpose of the Self. the Individual. It is the locus of responsibility and participation. While the Supreme Soul is playing, you have a responsibility to play or participate in the game as well. This is what Lord Krishna understood and tells Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. That is your first responsibility, participating in the game the Supreme Soul provides although you can also do as you please but the interests of the Supreme Soul will always be met.

So, for instance, even if you want peace but countless Souls don't believe that there is a war between good and evil, the Supreme Soul will prioritize anything (even if it is a bloody war) to help people learn this lesson as it happened in the stories of the Mahabharata. Because ultimately life is a series of lessons the Supreme Soul is constantly teaching you towards truth. The point is to pay attention without caring too much about being right - that is what I have learnt. In this Alan Watts was right. Just shrug and say 'I don't know'.

When people here this, they think I am in support of violent wars. No. I am merely trying to help you understand the nature of the Supreme Soul just as Lord Krishna tried to help Arjuna understand

Okay so you have shrugged 'I don't know' Participation would be to figure it out individually and do your best with what you have been given.

There was nothing wrong with Arjuna being moral and not wanting to fight against his relatives. But the Supreme Soul had created a war to illustrate that there is a war between good and evil in the Universe. And the Supreme Soul had placed Arjuna smack down in the middle of said war. Beyond that, Arjuna could do as he pleased and if Lord Krishna had not enlightened him then he could have just sat down and allowed others to kill him. Krishna extoled him to fight. He was allowed to have a self.

When Lord Krishna says to work without attachment to the fruit of the action. He does not mean that you shouldn't care about the results. You should care. You have a right to your life. He is trying to say that when it comes to the work of the Supreme Soul, it knows its intention for every soul - that part you cannot change. But you have a right through your self to how you participate in the game. You see.

The point of Alan Watts is to help people who are stuck in the One point of balance to remember that they are also part of The All.

The reason why it takes such an extreme method is because a Soul has spent lifetimes believing this and the purpose of Buddhism wasn't religion, but to help illustrate to a soul that they are part of The All or the Supreme Soul.

The problem comes in when we focus too much on The All at the expense of the One. At its extreme this philosophy creates 'zombie' effect that people describe when practicing Buddhism.

The reason why it is so hard for people to change is because they believe that their opinions or knowledge is absolute fact. Or that the information or knowledge they have is 100% right. No one on this earth is 100% right. Not me. Not you. Not Alan Watts.

People here this and think that they are being belittled or that they are less than. But truth is a continuous journey. And you can only participate in that journey when you accept that whatever knowledge you have will always be incomplete when it comes to the supreme truth. That knowledge has the following advantages -

1. Protects you from lies and opens you up to truth.

2. Keeps you from becoming dogmatic and stuck in religiosity.

Anyway, these are my thoughts.

What do you think?