I have now started to explore the teachings of Alan Watts. He was an incredibly articulate and profound thinker. So naturally I wanted to learn more about this person and his life.

I listened to a discussion with Laura Huxley that gave an insight into his personality that a monologue can not offer. He led and controlled the discussion in a domineering manor. Not really interested in hearing anything that was different to what he already knew. I think this can often be found in intellectuals as they are so convinced in their superiority, knowledge and understanding.

He died at 58 with a heart attack during the night. What surprised me was that he became an alcoholic possibly due to financial and social commitments he struggled to meet.

I will continue to explore his works as I find them fascinating but I am posed with a question.

With his profound understanding how could he end up an alcoholic recluse? Did the world become so intolerable he could no longer live in it? Surely this is counter to his teachings?

I know no person is perfect but I thought he would have gone happy and surrounded by friends.

Just as an aside; I live in Marin County, CA, where Alan Watts used to live. About fifteen years ago I was on a big Alan Watts trip. My girlfriend and I decided to split up, and she ended up living in the house where he died, in Muir Woods.

Also, they used to have an AW birthday party every year down the street from where I lived at a bar called Ted's. I went once. I don't know if they still do it but it was pretty cool!

Which sort of goes back to the convesation we had about gurus a while back - and the danger of following anyone, as we are all only human.

I think you have some preconceptions about the profound understanding. I think his writing is more about what is true than necessarily what promotes healthy living.

Knowing that your friends are all as much part of you as your own skin, for instance doesn't always make a person sociable...it just removes all the need for proximity that people under the illusion of separation have.

I would read a book or two with an open mind, then decide if he's full of crap.

Having a particular point of view about the nature of reality does not exempt one from the physical and psychological aberrations of being human. As I explore the points of view of "gurus" and "spiritual entertainers" alike, I find that their individual human conditioning and cultural/ethnic background colors their interpretation of their experience of enlightenment, irrespective of how profound their understanding/awareness/connection is.

It no longer bothers me to realize that once awake, one remains fully human. I don't think anyone truly sheds their human skin entirely until death. After all, that is what we are. That is our natural state. Understanding this simply makes those that claim supernatural powers and achievements look all the more ludicrous and disingenuous (or misguided).... I simply look at what people have to say, try it on for size, and do with it what I will.

I personally find Watts' work to be priceless. He was a true pioneer and few have been able to capture profound truths in words as articulately and effortlessly as he. I'm currently working my way through his marvelous set of lectures called "Out of Your Mind." Highly recommended!

Thank you everyone for your contributions in particular Xuesheng.

I think you are right when speaking of remaining very human after awakening. It does make mystics seem disingenuous and misguided. 'This is the way, I am the light' in conventional religion has always left a sour taste with me.

I think learning about Alan's death, destroyed my conception of Buddhist teachers. I had a clichéd view identical to Christian priests. with the preacher being 'enlightened' and therefore a superior human being.

But they can't hold their superiority for long, hence the scandals within the Church.

It strikes me as a testament to the man, that I am discovering his teachings long after his death. It is quite eerie watching his films and hearing his voice knowing that he was long dead before I was born!

'Out of your Mind' are good lectures. I have them on my Ipod and listen to it whilst doing house Chores. It makes them much more interesting.

that is limited thinking.
we are not all only human, that sort of mindset just gives you excuses to be inferior and not live up to your true potential. Alan Watts never claimed to be a guru and should not be treated as one. he was an intellectual with great understanding but did not live it. a real guru is a realized being, the key word being realized. there is no danger in following a guru but there is danger in following a fraud. if you follow your heart and use reason that will not happen.

actually, there is no danger in following a fraud either. everything in life is a lesson.

Yes, if you are a good student taking responsibility for your own progress, you can learn what you need from everyone, even if it is a fraud teacher, a dog or your own tv. These things dosent really matter as long as you take responsibility for your self.

Mikaelz - I didn't say that Watts was a guru, only that the original post reminded me of our conversation regarding gurus. Nor do I think acknowledging the fact that we are all human gives us an excuse to be inferior and not live up to our own potential. I think Xuesheng's post expresses my thought better and more clearly than mine.

Alan Watt's writing has been a major influence in my journey. When it was time to really understand something, whether it be Zen, Tao or meditation in general I turned to Watts first.

I've also read some of Keroac's stuff, and it was fun reading about Watts and his group in the Dharma Bums. That must have been a very interesting scene. Personally, I kind of like the fact that he was "flawed" in the tradional sense.

What are we if not human? The "only" maybe should read "miraculously"!

What does it mean to "live it"? Travel around and sermonize like J Krishnamurti and Anthony deMello? Sit at home and whine and be depressed like UG Krishnamurti? Speak as if one is the universe like Nisargadatta Maharaj? Dedicate one's life to the poor like Mother Theresa? Enlighten people, exploit them sexually and have them buy you Rolls Royces and Rolexes like Osho? I say that how one "lives it" depends on their conditioning. One may be fully realized yet not fit a specific definition of what it means to "live it."

The only danger of following a guru is that one can never be fully realized as long as one is following someone else. The reason is that there is truly no one following and no one being followed. The guru tries to help you find that truth but sooner or later you must realize that there is no one to follow or be followed. Following a guru and following a fraud are less different than one might think. I think that the main difference is how long the guru allows himself to be followed and how much he charges for the privilege...

Well, of course.

Dao de Jing - Chapter 71 (Merel interpolation)
Who recognizes his limitations is healthy;
Who ignores his limitations is sick.
The sage recognizes this sickness as a limitation.
And so becomes immune.

Know what you are - not what it might be fascinating to be.

That should be seen one more time....
well said!