The Wayward Mysticism of Alan Watts Review By: Louis Nordstrom and Richard Pilgrim Philosophy East and West, Vol

Home , Alan Watts

The Wayward Mysticism of Alan Watts Review by: Louis Nordstrom and Richard Pilgrim Philosophy East and West, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Jul., 1980), pp. 381-401 Published by: University of Hawai'i Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1399195 . Accessed: 09/11/2013 10:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy East and West.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:43:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FeatureBook Review

Thewayward mysticism ofAlan Watts

INTRODUCTION

In the works of Alan Watts one findsa bewilderingarray of self-ascribed epithetsranging all the way fromguru, shaman, Christiantheologian, and philosopher,to mystic,showman, sensualist, and egotist.The obvious question, therefore,which any serioustaking of the measureof the man and his workmust begin with, is: What's Watts? The followingstatement from the autobiographysuggests a straightforward response: My own work,though it mayseem at timesto be a systemof ideas, is basically an attemptto describemystical experience, not of formalvisions and super- naturalbeings, but of realityas seen and feltdirectly in a silenceof wordsand mindings.' To "attemptto describemystical experience" means, we contend,that Watts' workconsists in theattempt to show thatmystical experience can be described and hence is not ineffable.The implicationswhich derive from this rejection of ineffabilitywill be elaboratedupon in what follows.What concernsus here is the claim thatWatts' mysticismis fundamentallyliterary in nature,in that it is primarilyconcerned with the properway to describemystical experience. Accordingto Watts,the proper way is theway of poetry,a termwhich he em- ploys,in an extendedsense, to referto discoursewhich is paralogicaland hence is capable of renderingwhat prose cannot. He writes:"The task and delightof poetryis to say what cannot be said, to effthe ineffable,and to unscrewthe inscrutable."2 He also says: "Much of mywork is poetrydisguised as prose."3 The significanceof genreis crucial,since poetic description of mysticalexperience provesthe effabilityof such experience,which is ineffableonly fromthe point of view of prose. To describemystical experience through poetry turns out to be an essentiallyperverse undertaking, as Wattsindicates in thefollowing definition,which occurs in thecontext of his accountof his own mysticalway: "per (through)verse (poetry), out-of-the-way and wayward,which is surely towardsthe way...."4 In what followswe shall show whywe do not share Watts' convictionthat his literaryand waywardmysticism is a Way-wardone; we shall arguefor its fundamentallydeviant character. Watts' mysticismis deviant because it seeks perverselyto undo mystical experience.This is done by inferringfrom the factthat mystical experience is not ineffable,that there is no separationbetween the spiritual and thephysical, whicheventually is transformedinto the view that the spiritual and thephysical are virtuallythe same thing,which Watts calls his "spiritualmaterialism." As we shall tryto show, the point of this ideologyis that it both precludesthe possibilityand obviatesthe necessityof mysticalexperience. What is perverse about Watts' mysticism,in a word,is thatit is antimystical.

PhilosophyEast and West30, no. 3, July1980. ? by The UniversityPress of Hawaii. All rightsreserved.

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:43:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 382 Nordstromand Pilgrim

This would not be so perversewere it not forthe fact that Watts considered himselfto be a mystic,as remarkslike "I am a shamelessmystic" and "a mystic in spite of myself"make clear.5 To returnto our originalquestion, in our opinionWatts is a strangeand confusingcombination of a man-of-lettersand a mystic,who used his extraordinaryarticulateness and literaryability to underminemystical experience by rejectingthe sensein whichsuch experience is ineffable.What one is leftwith, unfortunately, is, as Zen masterRinzai once put it, "words and phrases,however excellent." In addition to denyingthat genuinemystical experience must go beyond words and phrases-another way of puttingthe ineffabilitythesis-Watts also deniesthat such experiencemust be intellect-transcending.Indeed, as we shall see, one of the distinguishingcharacteristics of Watts' mysticismis his insistenceon theadequacy of purelyintellectual realization. (He oftenproudly speaks of himselfas beingfirst and foremosta Brahmin.6)All of thismakes his popular associationwith Zen and Easternreligions in generalnothing less than extraordinary. This popular associationbecomes even more extraordinarywhen one realizes that Watts does not believe in the necessityof transcendingego. The evolutionof his mysticismis increasinglyin the directionof an acceptanceor transmutationof ego, another aspect of his spiritualmaterialism.7 Watts' departurefrom the mysticalWay consistsin his unwillingnessto do anything about overcomingego. What is perverseabout such a departureis thatit is not acknowledgedas deviance; the waywardis seen,once again, as being "surely towardsthe way." We do notagree. To departfrom the Way is simplyto depart fromthe Way, a tautologywhich cannot be finessedor evaded. Anotherway of puttingthis would be to say: thereis orthopraxis;it seemsto us thatWatts devotedhis entirelife to a denial of the significanceof rightpractice. In this regard,the titleof his autobiography,In My Own Way,could fittinglyserve both as his epitaphand as the epitomeof our criticalassessment of him; for Wattsdid indeedinsist on doing thingsin his own way,and in so doing,as he himselfadmits, he got in his own way.8

ZEN AND THE CRITIQUE OF EFFORT

Watts' mysticismis nowhererevealed as more waywardand deviantthan in his interpretationof Zen Buddhism.This is not at all surprising,because Zen stands for all of the thingsWatts denies: that mysticalexperience must go beyond words and phrases; must be intellect-transcending;and must be ego-transcending.Despite the factthat his reputationis largelybased on his affiliationwith Zen, we should like to show thatWatts' mysticismis actually incompatiblewith it. Let us beginwith the followingquotation from the autobiography: I was alwaysbeing accused of beinga lazy fellowwho had theabsurd idea that transcendenceof egocentricitycould be achieved (by whom?) withoutlong

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:43:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 383

yearsof effort and discipline.You wouldimmediately feel one with all nature, and withthe universe itself, if you could understand that there is no 'you' as thehard-core thinker of thoughts, feeler of feelings, and senserof sensations, and thatbecause your body is somethingin thephysical world, that world is not'external' to you.Thus when you listen, you do nothear anyone listening. This has nothingto do withmaking an effortor not makingan effort;it is simplya matterof intelligence.9 Someonewho believesthat the transcendence of egocentricity"is simplya matterof intelligence"is not someonewho can understandZen; but,more important,such a viewis an exampleof inauthenticmysticism, because it deniesthe distinction between merely intellectually knowing or understanding, on theone hand, and actually realizing the truth through intellect-transcending experience,on theother. This kind of view obviates the necessity of any sort of mysticalexperience of transcendenceof ego. One is remindedof Watts' remark,"When you get the message, you hang up thephone." 0 Butto getthe messageabout the unreality or illusorinessof ego is notat all thesame thing as actuallyexperiencing egolessness, which is whatZen practiceis all about. For Watts,because mysticism is fundamentally"a matterof intelligence," thereis no needfor effort, technique, method, or discipline.Moreover, an ideal mysticism,according to him,would be whathe calls a "mysticismwithout means."11 We wishto suggestthat genuine mysticism requires some sort of yoga,discipline, or preparation.Mysticism must mean morethan merely adventitious,exotic occurrences loosely labeled "mystical" faute de mieux. Watts'critique of effortis one of themost wayward aspects of his thinking aboutmysticism, because it denies the sense of mysticism as path. His specificrejection of the necessity of zazen (Zen meditation)in The Way ofZen and elsewhereis partof this general critique, whose basic argument is thatany kind of effort is always,both in principleand in fact,in theservice of ego; therefore,striving to attainany kind of realization becomes pragmatically self-contradictory,because the attemptto overcomeego onlymakes ego- attachmentstronger. What is wrongwith this position is simplythat it a priori excludesthe possibility of right effort. For example,he arguesthat doing zazen as a meansto theattainment of enlightenment is wrong effort, but from this he wronglyinfers that there is no wayto do zazenrightly. He evengoes so far as to suggestthat T'ang dynastyZen mastersnever encouraged their students to do zazen,this despite the fact that "Zen" means"meditation." 2 Boththe inferenceand thefactual claim are false. From the fact that Zen masterswarn againstwrong effort, it does not at all followthat they are warningagainst efforttout court. There is righteffort, and it is just somethingone mustpractice. The issueis nottheoretical in nature,as Wattswould have it; it is radically practicalin character. The issue of whether or not to do zazenis a pseudo-issue. Insteadof its being the case, as in Watts,that the fact of original enlighten- mentmakes effort unnecessary, what precisely makes right effort possible is thisfact, for it shiftsthe emphasis from effort in thename of attainment to

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:43:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 384 Nordstromand Pilgrim

effortin the name of realizationof what has in a sense alreadybeen attained. Watts' mistakeis to inferfrom the fact that, strictly speaking, there is nothing to attain,that thereis thereforenothing to realize.The point is thatthe fact thatthere is nothingto attainmust be directlyrealized, not merely intellectually understood.This is whyone does zazen. What Watts does to the conceptof originalenlightenment is to make it an objectof mereintellectual understanding; therebythe point of enlightenmentexperience is completelylost.13 As alwayswith Watts, the questionof mysticalstyle is of paramoutimpor- tance.Watts simply does notlike the arduousness and disciplineof Zen practice. What Wattsprefers to zazen is a self-styled,crypto-neo-Taoist easy way-just lettinggo of ego, going withthe flowof Tao, and dwellingparadically in a childlikeway in the EternalNow. Would thatit wereall so easy! One cannot merelylet go of ego, as if by some magical gestureor fiat; what egolessness requiresis a radical transformationof consciousness.But Wattsis opposed to the necessityof such transformation;he sarcasticallyand cynicallyassociates it withwhat he terms"self-improvement." 14 On a moral level, not only is transformationunnecessary, it is incompatiblewith grace: You can't make it withoutfaking it, forthe real thingis a grace not of your own making,which comes upon some people as involuntarilyas theirlovely eyes or golden hair. It is thusthat by grace or nature(take yourchoice) I am a mysticin spiteof myself,remaining as muchof an irreduciblerascal as I am, as a standingexample of God's continuingcompassion for sinners or, if you will,of Buddha-naturein a dog, or of lightshining in darkness.Come to think of it, in what else could it shine?15 The virtueof mere intellectualunderstanding, in this regard,as opposed to genuinemystical experience is thatthe formerenables one to remaina rascal, whereasthe latterthreatens the possibilityof a deep changein one's style-a dreadfulthought, after all, fora literaryman. Astoundingas it may sound to thosewho associateWatts with Zen, it is our contentionthat he does not reallybelieve in enlightenmentexperience. To make thispoint let us look at thefollowing two quotations: It should be obvious thatwhat we are, most substantiallyand fundamentally, will neverbe a distinctobject of knowledge.Whatever we can know ... will be the relativeaspects of somethingas inconceivableas the color of space. Awakeningis not to knowwhat this reality is.... Awakeningis to knowwhat realityis not.16 Properlyunderstood, the Selfis like light,which has no need to illumineitself because it is alreadyluminous.7 From the premisethat we cannot have a positiveand absolute knowledgeof the natureof reality-where "knowledge"is somethingintellectual, concep- tual, and dualistic-it does not at all followthat awakeningmust be merely negativeand relative,unless, of course, one identifiesintellectual knowledge as the only relevantform awakening could take. Such an illicitidentification is the concealed premiseWatts is smugglingin here.All thatactually follows

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:43:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 385

is that intellectualknowledge grants only a relativeand negativeaccess to reality;nonintellectual realization should not therebybe precluded.Similarly, fromthe premisethat the Self is in essencealready luminous, it by no means followsthat there is no need forit to illumineitself. For thereis no realization thatthe Self is luminousin natureuntil and unlessone experiencesillumination or enlightenment.Such an experienceis most emphaticallynot equivalentto mereintellectual insight. Believingin enlightenmentexperience means believingthat one can awaken to what realityis and that such an awakeningis indistinguishablefrom the experienceof the light of self-realization.One importantconsequence of Watts' disbeliefis that he is, thereby,forced to separate self-realizationfrom the realizationof thenature of reality.This separationbecomes a seriousproblem when Watts argues that self-realizationis not only unnecessary,but actually impossible,because the knowercannot know itself,the mindcannot be used to know the mind,the selfcannot be an object to and foritself, and more.18 (We shall deal withthis problem in more detailin the nextsection.) As faras Zen is concerned,no matterwhat objectionsmight be raised on a theoretical level, self-realizationis simplya fact whichhas been certifiedover centuries by countlessZen masters.What would Watts say to this? He findsthe entire process of certificationof such realizationnothing less than silly!19 But this position,even ifit wereplausible, would not resultin theconclusion that there was nothingto be certifiedin thefirst place. All Watts' argumentproves is that self-realizationis intellectuallyinscrutable; but Zen would agree with this. Indeed, thatis preciselywhat is wrongwith intellectual understanding: it fails to providefor the possibility that what seems conceptually impossible is in fact realizableon the nonintellectuallevel of direct,intuitive experience.

THE SUPREME IDENTITY AND INCARNATIONAL MYSTICISM

Since the self,according to Watts,can neitherknow itself nor ultimatereality, therelationship between them remains obscure. To remedythis, in TheSupreme IdentityWatts argues thatwhat the selfcan do is identifyitself with ultimate reality,as in theVedantic formula, "Thou artThat." But how can theself know thatit is identicalwith ultimate reality, if it can neitherknow ultimatereality nor itselfdirectly? Watts' answerto thisis that,although the termscannot be knowndirectly, the relationshipobtaining between them can. To supporthis claim,he formulateswhat he calls the conceptof "metaphysicalknowledge," or simply"metaphysic."20 What this involvesis the claim that intellectcan and does have the same qualitiesof directness,intuitive immediacy and self- evidence usually associated with intellect-transcendingmystical experience. The influenceof Krishnamurtihere is both evidentand unfortunate.21For in characterizingintellect in termsof directnessand immediacy,Watts, in our opinion,is combiningwhat cannot be combined;conversely, if theycould be combined,there would be no need formystical experience. Actually, the whole

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:43:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 386 Nordstromand Pilgrim

pointof metaphysical knowledge-or what we shallcall intellectualrealization -seems to be to rendermystical experience unnecessary. What Watts is saying is thatwe do notneed enlightenment experience to knowthat self and ultimate realityare one; in somesense we just know or see thisto be true.This seems quitelame and unconvincing. Moreover,the identification inquestion has a curiousfautede mieux quality: shortof being able directlyto knowultimate reality, the self settles for identi- fyingwith it. Butbecause the self cannot know itself directly either, it has no realbasis for the identification. The whole thing seems to be achievedby a sort of quasi-magicalfiat, which creates the illusion of identitybetween self and ultimatereality. The identificationcannot create the requisite identity; such identitymust be preexistent.And how do we knowthat this identity obtains? We areback to Watts'claim that we just know this is thecase. We seemto go roundand roundin circles.Self and ultimatereality continue to be separated. Thenotion of identification makes it appear that the separation has beenover- come. For thereal, as opposedto merelyapparent, identity of selfand ultimate realityWatts eventually turned back to Christianity.In Beholdthe Spirit, "Christ"is seenas theincarnation of thissupreme identity.22 The virtueof thismove, of course,is thatone can no longerask philosophicalquestions aboutthe relationship between self and reality. In addition,one need no longer speakof identification at all, since this is builtinto the very notion of incarnation.What this "incarnational mysticism" does is providean excellentexcuse forthe begging of all relevantepistemological questions. It also enablesWatts to sidestepthe issue of transcendenceof ego; forwithin the context of this sortof mysticism, the ego can legitimatelybe inflatedto thepoint of actually becomingdivine. This permitsWatts cheerfully to asserthis owndivinity- and,charitably, that of others as well.23 But theprincipal purpose of Watts'incarnational mysticism seems to be to arguethat because the Word has beenmade flesh, and becausethis Flesh is theworld as itreally is, there is, once again, no needfor any sort of mystical experience;specifically, there is no need fortranscendence. Moreover, the incarnationof theWord precludes the very possibility of ineffability;one is putin theembarrassing position of having to denythe existence of the world in orderto maintainthe plausibility of the ineffability thesis! For ineffability can onlymean incomplete incarnation, which is, presumably, ridiculous. To paraphraseWilliam Carlos Williams' dictum about objectivistpoetry, onecan saythat the message of Watts' incarnational mysticism is, "No mystical experiencebut in things,"which eventually degenerates, inWatts' spiritual materialism,into a wholesalereduction of the spiritual to thephysical. In our opinion,a mysticismwhich thus precludes the possibility of mystical experience is deviantin theextreme.

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:43:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 387

Because the Incarnationhas realized the truthof ultimatereality for us, thereis nothingto do, nothingto experience,and nothingto attainor realize. All thatis neededis an intellectualunderstanding of the message of the Incarna- tion, fromwhich will immediatelyand effortlesslyfollow a letting-goof ego and a profoundacceptance of God's infinitelove.24 This is magic,not mysticism. What had been spoken of earlieras the confusionof intellectualunder- standingand mysticalexperience becomes in thissystem a virtuerather than a vice.Intellectual understanding becomes equivalent with mystical experience, because theobject of such understanding-thephysical world-has been mag- icallytransformed into something itself mystical in nature.What is wrongwith suchmagic, from a philosophicalpoint of view, is thatit is no longerappropriate or in good tasteto ask how one knowsthat the world is mysticalin nature;for it is so whetheror not one knowsit. Watts' incarnationalmysticism creates a mysticalworld from which mystical experience is systematicallyexcluded.

WATTS AS MYSTIC

Why would someone like Watts,who actuallyhad mysticalexperiences, wish to formulatean antimysticalmysticism? Our answerwill requirean examina- tion of those experiences,as well as of theoreticalstatements, of a normative nature,extrapolated therefrom. The fact of the matteris that Watts' quest for what he later sarcastically refersto as "the Big Realization" was a failure.His mysticalexperiences were quite mediocreand shallow. But insteadof acknowledgingthat the problem lay withthe quality of his experiences,as wellas withthe absence of any ortho- dox methodof spiritualpractice, he chose ratherto impugnthe goal of the quest itself.Watts did indeedwant special mystical experience; he evenwanted the kind of transformationof consciousnessagainst whichhe speaks so elo- quentlylater. But whenhe discoveredthat his experiencesdid not significantly transformhim, nor were theyparticularly lasting in theireffect, he chose to deny that thereis anythingspecial about such experience,and to deny that transformationis eithernecessary or important.The crucialtransition is from a real interestin mysticalexperience, strictly speaking, to the position that intellectualinsight is sufficient. That Watts wanted the Big Realization-and actually convincedhimself fora timethat he had experiencedit-is clearlyshown in thefollowing quota- tion fromthe autobiography: What is THE EXPERIENCE whichthese Oriental masters are talkingabout? The differentideas of it whichI had in mind seemed to be approachingme like littledogs wantingto be petted,and suddenlyI shoutedat all of themto go away. I annihilatedand bawledout everytheory and conceptof what should be my properlyspiritual state of mind,or of what should be meant by ME. And instantlymy weight vanished. I ownednothing. All hang-upsdisappeared. I walked on air. ThereuponI composed a haiku:

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:43:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 388 Nordstromand Pilgrim

All forgottenand set aside- Wind scatteringleaves Over thefields.25

Certainthings strike one immediatelyabout this account. There is no signi- ficantgap or discontinuitybetween the experienceitself and the description of it. We see here,in germ,Watts' predispositiontoward a rejectionof ineffability;that what he had experiencedmight possibly be indescribablenever enteredhis mind.Only upon reflectiondid he realizethat the ease withwhich he characterizedhis experience,in fact,counted against its depthand genuine- ness. Related to thisis the sensein whichan observerremains intact through- out, which is preciselywhat enables him to describe what has happened; despitethe factthat he seemsto associate thisexperience with an actual transcendenceof ego, his eminentlyliterary ego continuesto existin the formof thewatcher. Watts has confusedan ecstaticexperience, in whichhe experiences himselfstanding outside of himself,with satori. Instead of havingtranscended ego, what Watts has experiencedis a temporaryreprieve or vacation from what he calls, with characteristicliterary brilliance, "the quaking mess of self-consciousness."20 In this next account Watts has become more sophisticated,in that he has begun to entertainthe possibilitythat what he considersgenuine mystical experiencemay be nothingmore than intellectual understanding masquerading as such; but stillhe speaks of "a prematuresatori": One evening,when Eleanor and I were walking home froma meditation session,I began to discussthe method of concentrationon theeternal present. Whereuponshe said, 'Why tryto concentrateon it? What else is thereto be aware of? ... The presentis just a constantflow, like the Tao, and there's simplyno way of gettingout of it.' Withthat remark my whole senseof weight vanished.You could have knockedme down witha feather.I realized that when the Hindus said Tat tvamasi, 'You ARE That,' theymeant just what theysaid. For a whole week thereafterI simply floated, remembering Spiegel- berg'stelling me of the Six Preceptsof Tilopa: No thought,no reflection,no analysis, No cultivation,no intention, Let it settleitself. This was doubtlessa prematuresatori, for I was unableto resistthe temptation to write,think, and intellectualizeabout it. Yet whenI am in my rightmind I stillknow that this is thetrue way of life,at least forme.27 Again, this is no satori experience,premature or otherwise;it is another ecstatic experience onto which has been superimposedan inappropriate intellectualcontent. The splitbetween what Watts has experiencedand what he has realized is clear. Here the mistakeWatts makes is to confuseecstasy with genuinemystical union. (Anothermistake he makes is to listento his wifein thefirst place; thismay be a unique examplein the literatureof a hen- pecked mystic!)The experienceof ecstasymay serveas the basis fora direct experienceof the present, but it does not qualifyas thefoundation for the truth

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:43:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 389

of Tat tvamasi. The connectionbetween the two is establishedintellectually, but Watts wishesto give the impressionthat this is not the case. In so doing the line betweendirect experience and intellectualinsight is blurred.As we shall see, Watts eventuallyargues that it is the latterwhich is esstentialto mysticism.We do not agree. Moreover,the plain factof the matteris thatwe not onlycan get out of the present,but that we are almost always out of it. For this reason practiceor some sort of yoga is necessary.Intellectually knowing that the presentis in some senseall thereis, is not at all tantamountto actuallybeing in themoment. Watts has the matterbackwards: it is not that we have no need of practice because we are always dwellingin the present(whether, as it were,we are or not); rather,we need some kind of practiceprecisely to enable us to get to thispresent moment. What Watts reallylikes about the doctrineof the Eternal Now is that it entailsthat there is no need to overcomeego; forin themoment ego cannotbe found: My pointwas, and has continuedto be, thatthe Big Realizationfor which all these systemsstrive is not a futureattainment but a presentfact, that this now-momentis eternity,and thatone mustsee it now or never.For rightnow thisproblematic ego cannot be found.28 If the now-momentis indeed eternal,it cannot be invokedin the way Watts wishesto here,for that which is timelessis no moreopposed to thefuture than it is to any othertensed, temporal determination. Watts' argumentworks only ifthe notion of an EternalNow can be interpretedboth in a tensedand tenseless sense: thatis, in termsboth of therelative present and theabsolutely whenever. But such an interpretationhardly seems licit, and so in our opinionthe whole thingturns on an amphiboly.Moreover, even if what Watts is sayingwere true,it would not followthat the notion of a futureattainment is absurd,which is whathe seemsto imply;for it makes perfectly good senseto speak ofrealizing thetruth of the Eternal Now in thefuture. If theEternal Now rulesout anything it rulesout attainmenttout court, which is prima facie absurd.Watts is opposed to the kind of transformationof consciousnessbeing-here-now requires. He seeks to use the rhetoricof the Eternal Now to rendersuch transformation unnecessary.By placingthe now-momentoutside of time,he places it beyond the pale of spiritualpractice and discipline.We findthis both deviant and unacceptable. For thisreason, one can say thatfor Watts the rhetoric-we mighteven say the dogma-of the EternalNow functionsas an ideology,which provides a perfectrationalization for doing nothingabout overcomingego. But once again Wattshas thematter backwards: it is notthat we do notneed to overcome ego because we are in fact dwellingin the now-moment;rather, the fact is thatwe cannot succeed in dwellingtherein because of our attachmentto ego. All the spiritualstriving Watts is so criticalof is preciselydirected toward

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:43:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 390 Nordstromand Pilgrim

helpingus become united withthis now-moment.For if we are not wholly presentto the present,it is not presentto and for us. It is not at all, in this sense,a fact; or it is so only if and when we are presentto the presencingof the present.Simply calling the now-momenta factleads to the wrongheaded inferencethat thereis no point to striving.It is easy to live in the moment in one's head; this,it seemsto us, is whereWatts is dwelling. What we have called Watts' wrongheadedinference, he calls his "basic intuition,"which is: thathere and now,without any artificialstriving and straining,the flow of life in man is inseparablyone withthe Tao, the flowof the universe-call it God, Brahman,the Divine Ground, or what you will.29 Interestinglyenough, he also calls thishis "dream,"30and dreamis reallyall it is. For in factwhat we are aware of is the ratherunbearable separation between"the flowof lifein man" and "the Tao," and to be told thatthey are identical(in what sense is the copula intendedhere anyway?), simply does no good at all. One begins to wonder how seriouslyto take Watts' continual rhetoricabout human alienation.Often it seems just that-talk; a kind of theologizingof alienation. In the last two quotationscited, Watts has turneda verysignificant corner in his thought:he seemsno longerinterested in directexperience as such,but ratherin what mightbe called the doctrinalor dogmaticequivalent of such experience.For example, the doctrineof the Eternal Now and its identity withTao is presentedin effectas truedogma, the importantexistential point beingthat this dogma is truewhether or not anyoneactually realizes its truth. This is particularlyclear in the followingquotation, which appropriately enough is an emendedversion of the second mysticalexperience mentioned earlier:

It struckme withthe fullestclarity that none of thisdepended on my seeing it to be so; thatwas the way thingswere whetherI understoodit or not,and if I did not understand,that was IT too.1

This theologizingof mysticismis antimystical,because it involvesthe rejection of all experientialcontent as, in principle,irrelevant. It is as if Watts were maintainingthe manifestlyabsurd view that therecan be mysticismwithout mysticalexperience. Speakingof ultimatereality Watts writes: It has been obvious to me, foras long as I can remember,that whatever it is, I am that,and whateverI am is also whatstars and galaxies,space and energy are.3

The precisesense of "obvious" hereis, of course,crucial, but Wattstypically does not concernhimself with anything as dull or prosaic as spellingout the various possible senses of self-evidence.Indeed, this seems to be a defining

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:43:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 391

characteristicof his styleof mysticism:systematically to blur the distinction betweenthe intellectuallyand the experientiallyapodictic. In the verynext sentencehe speaks of thetruth just mentionedas a "feeling,"the presumption beingthat the mereexistence of such a feelingis self-certifyingas to its truth. This should be an open question.It is not. Speakingof thisfeeling Watts says: My whole work in religionand philosophyhas been to convey this feeling to others,and to show thatour apparentseparateness from what thereis and all thatthere is arises,in the main,from our failureto noticespace as a vital reality,which is just as importantas the negativepole in an electriccircuit. Althoughthis feelinghas not protectedme froma vast amount of follyand confusion,just as it would not restoresight to a blindman, it has nevertheless deliveredme frombasic, existentialanxiety. It is simplythat I thinkpeople would be muchhappier and moreat home in theworld if they felt as I do, that I have no otherself than this whole universe.33 What Watts calls feelingis really dogma; one cannot "notice" space as a vital reality,after all. But human alienationcannot be overcomeby dogma. The verynotion that it is merely"apparent" is itselfdogma. The factof the matteris that we experiencesuch separatenessas quite real. Notice here the therapeuticturn his thinkinghas taken about mysticism.The reason human alienationcannot be anythingmore than apparentis that if it were acknow- ledgedto be real,it would be too depressingand anxiety-deepeningto be true. It may verywell be thatone would be happierbelieving that one has no other selfthan thiswhole universe,but thisdoes not make the belieftrue; nor does it have anythingwhatsoever to do withmysticism. Notice also Watts' a priori rejectionof the transformativepower of mysticalexperience; for him, such transformationis as absurdto expectas therestoration of sightto a blindman. But in the absence of such transformation,what is the real spiritualvalue of the feelingin question?We say none. To be "happier" and "more at home in the world" takes on a ratherempty, hollow ring: thissounds more like lobo- tomythan liberation.Still to be subjectto "a vast amount of confusionand folly,"instead of constitutingevidence against the spiritual value of thefeeling Wattsendorses, is interpretedin such a way thatany expectationof transcend- ingthe deluded condition of man is naiveand unrealistic.Cynicism masquerading as mysticismis somethingto bewareof in Watts. No account of Wattsas a mysticwould be completewithout a presentation of his mysticalvision of paradise, which we present,not for its own sake, despiteits obvious eloquence,but by way of underscoringthe pointthat here too Watts' purpose seems to be to create a magical world whose realityis self-certifying,in the sensethat it is independentof anyone'sactual experience of it. Fantasyperforms, in effect,the same functionin thisregard as dogma. I carry over fromchildhood the vague but persistentimpression of being exposed to hintsof an archaic and undergroundculture whose values were lost to the Protestantreligion and the industrialbourgeoisie, indeed to the modernWest in general.This may be nothingbut fantasy,but I seem to have

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:43:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 392 Nordstromand Pilgrim

been in touch withlingering links to a world both magical and mysticalthat was stillunderstood among birds,trees, and flowers.... Or was it just I who carried in my genes or in my 'collectiveunconscious' the apprehensionof whole worlds of experiencewhich official culture repressed or ignored?The disciplinumarcanum of this culture,so easily mistakenin the child for idle reverie,was thatintense contemplative watching of the eternalnow, whichis sometimesrevived by the use of psychedelicdrugs, but which came to me throughflowers, jewels, reflectedlight in glass, and expanses of clear sky. I get it also fromthe music of India whichI loved at firsthearing and which continues,like a lost name on the tip of the tongue,to put me in mind of a long-forgottenafternoon in a sunlitroom wheremagicians were playingon the heartstringsof the universe.34 Abstractingfrom the beautyof the rhetoric,what is crucialhere is the meta- physicalclaim that the world is fundamentallymagical in nature.But ultimately thereis no need for mysticalexperience to confirmthis. Such experienceis merelysymptomatic of the magic itself,in whichone shouldparticipate, like the child, ratherthan seekingto know,like the adult. Althoughthis vision "may be nothingbut fantasy,"this does not matterin the world of magic, wherethe distinction between fantasy and actual mysticalexperience is system- aticallyblurred. Another distinction which is blurredby this vision is that betweenthe bhaktiand jiina components.For example, is it the devotion to the contemplativewatching-what Watts elsewherecalls "the art of contemplation"-or is it thewatching itself which carries the visionary content ? 35 Although"intense contemplative watching of the eternal now" is a finephrase, it is philosophicallyambiguous in thisway. There seemsfinally to be no way of determiningthe cognitivecontent of the vision,and the whole thingpasses over into literature.(It also ultimatelypasses over into a defenseof drug- induced pseudo-mysticismas in The JoyousCosmology, where the deus ex machinaof LSD replacesreal vision and real transformationwith the "magical," that is, illusory,vision and transformationof drug ingestion.Taking a drugis an excellentexample of no effort,after all; it is also an excellentexample of the "unity" of the spiritualand the material.)

SPIRITUAL MATERIALISM

In ThisIs It theidentity of selfand ultimatereality is replacedby a completely unrestrictedidentification of all that is with ultimatereality. The resultof thisis thatthe very notion of ultimate reality, as somethingseparate from mun- dane, physicalreality, breaks down. When the question of the natureof the self's relationshipto ultimatereality no longeroccupies center stage, the need both to appeal to such an idea of ultimacyand to transcendego no longer exists.In turn,when thereis no longeranything specially problematic about the selfor ego, thereis no longeranything special about the spiritualor the mysticaleither. Indeed, the point of this systemis to show that thereare no problemsof any sort. "This Is It" functionsas a sort of banishingmantra, whose principalpurpose is to eliminatethe verypossibility of any kind of

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:43:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 393

philosophicalseriousness. When there is no longer any way of separating various senses of reality,everything collapses into everythingelse, and one is leftwith a highcomedic vision in whichnothing matters at all. (One is reminded of Watts' definitionof religionas "the transformationof anxietyinto laughter." 36) In thepreface to ThisIs It Wattswrites: theessays here gathered together have a commonpoint of focus-the spiritual or mysticalexperience and its relationto ordinarymaterial life. Having said this,I am instantlyaware thatI have used thewrong words; and yetthere are no satisfactoryalternatives. Spiritual and mysticalsuggest something rarefied, otherworldly,and loftilyreligious, opposed to an ordinarymaterial life which is simplypractical and commonplace.The whole point of these essays is to show the fallacyof this opposition,to show that the spiritualis not to be separatedfrom the material,nor the wonderfulfrom the ordinary.We need, above all, to disentangleourselves from habits of speech and thoughtwhich set the two apart,making it impossiblefor us to see thatthis-the immediate, everyday,and presentexperience-is IT, the entireand ultimatepoint for the existenceof a universe.But the recognitionthat the two are one comes to pass in an elusive,though relativelycommon, state of consciousnesswhich has fascinatedme beyondall else since I was seventeenyears old.... I believe that if this state of consciousnessbecame more universal,the pretentious nonsensewhich passes for the serious businessof the world would dissolve in laughter.37 What spiritualmaterialism amounts to, then,is the vulgarizationof mystical experience,in the sense that it is radicallyreduced to the common and the ordinary.At the same timeit is trivialized;it is now nothingmore than "an elusive,though relatively common, state of consciousness."It is worthreit- eratingat this point that what is behindthis vulgarizationand trivialization is thefact that mystical experience no longerhas anyspecial task in thissystem; since there is no longer anythingspecially problematic about self or ego, mysticalexperience may be put out to pasture. Once the statusof ego has been renderedunproblematic, it can be accepted in a radicalway; on themoral level, this takes the form of a startlingtransvalua- tion of selfishness,as is clear fromthe following: contradictoryas it may sound,it seemsto me thatthe deepestspiritual experi- encecan ariseonly in themoments of a selfishnessso completethat it transcends itself,by 'the way down and out,' whichis perhapswhy Jesus found the com- panionshipof publicans and sinnerspreferable to that of the righteousand the respectable.It is a sortof firststep to accept one's own selfishnesswithout thedeception of tryingto go in two directionsat once.... Spiritualawakening is the difficultprocess whereby the increasingrealization that everything is as wrongas it can be flipssuddenly into therealization that everything is as right as it can be. Or better,everything is as It as it can be.38 What the inseparabilityof the spiritualand the materialimplies is that there is no longeranything wrong with ego. Conversely,because thereis no longer anythingwrong with ego, thereis no longerany reasonto separatethe spiritual and the material.So Wattsis freeto transmutethe ego-perspective. This helps

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:43:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 394 Nordstromand Pilgrim

untiea real knotin Watts' thought:for if thereis somethingwrong with ego, then somethingmust be done about it; but Watts consistentlyresists any method,technique, or disciplinedirected toward doing somethingabout it. Previouslyhis argumentshad been that thereis reallynothing to be done, because ego is illusoryanyway, or that doing somethingabout overcoming ego is actuallyego-reinforcing. What thevision of spiritualmaterialism enables him to say is that thereis simplynothing wrong with ego at all. The reason thereis nothingwrong is thatthere is no longerany notionof ultimatereality beyondthe ego-perspective.It is only when one attributessome kind of separate, special realityto spiritualitythat one findsego to be an obstacle or problem.The idea that ego is the source of human alienation is no longer tenable,precisely because thereis no higherreality from which ego can alienate us. So the problemof humanalienation dissolves as well. Watts' ambivalence towardthe spiritualand the mysticalis of a piece withhis ambivalenceabout the statusof ego. His spiritualmaterialism provides a rationalizationfor the eliminationof such ambivalence.In turn,it freeshim fromhis ambivalence about the statusof effort.Having begunwith the sensethat there is something wrongwith ego, and thatat leastprima facie thereis a need to overcomethe ego-perspective,Watts ends by affirmingrather that there is somethingwrong with spiritualityand mysticism-the assumption that there is something wrongwith ego. The tables have indeed been turned;the validityof the ego- perspectivehas been reaffirmedin the sense that the onusprobandi rests now withthe spiritualor mysticalperspective to justifyits sense of seriousnessand self-importance. In the followingquotation Watts spells out furtherwhat is meant by the commonnessof mysticalexperience: The mostimpressive fact in man's spiritual,intellectual, and poeticexperience has alwaysbeen, for me, the universal prevalence of those astonishing moments of insightwhich Richard Bucke called 'cosmic consciousness.'There is really no satisfactoryname forthis type of experience.To call it mysticalis to confuse it withvisions of anotherworld, or of gods and angels. To call it spiritualor metaphysicalis to suggestthat it is not also extremelyconcrete and physical, whilethe term 'cosmic consciousness' itself has theunpoetic flavor of occultist jargon. But fromall historicaltimes and cultureswe have reportsof thissame unmistakablesensation emerging, as a rule,quite suddenlyand unexpectedly and fromno clearlyunderstood cause.39 The crucialexpressions here are "extremelyconcrete and physical"and "this same unmistakablesensation." In termsof the evolutionof Watts' mysticism, it is clear thatmystical experience is now associatedwith the body. This physi- calist reductionismeventually becomes what Watts calls "eroticspirituility." Mysticalexperience-notice Watts' continuingassumption that such experience is everywherethe same-has degeneratedinto Watts' mother'sdefinition of it as "feelingjazzy inside."40 We findthis reductionism unacceptable simply

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:43:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 395

because mysticalexperience has neverbeen merelya matterof havinga certain unmistakablephysical sensation-it is not the same as orgasm, after all. Separated fromany sense of path, discipline,or spiritualtradition, mystical experienceceases to have any sigrificancewhatsoever. That this is precisely Watts' intentiontestifies to the radical devianceof his mysticism. Whatfollows from the fact that it is now thebody that is thelocus ofmystical experienceis thatmystical union (if indeed thisexpression can be retainedin such a reductionistcontext) is no longerbetween self and ultimatereality, or Atman and Brahman,but ratherbetween my body and the world's body. Speakingof theperson who has thisunmistakable sensation known as mystical experience,Watts writes: it is usual forthe individualto feelthat the whole worldhas become his own body,and thatwhatever he is has not onlybecome, but has alwaysbeen, what everythingelse is.41

This mysticism-a-la-Rabelaisreplaces ecstasy as the principal categoryin Watts' mysticalthought. Ecstasy is now, withinthe framework of his spiritual materialism,of decidelysecondary importance. This Watts makes clear in the following:

The centralcore of the experienceseems to be the conviction,or insight,that theimmediate now, whatever its nature, is thegoal and fulfillmentof all living. Surroundingand flowingfrom this insight is an emotionalecstasy, a sense of intenserelief, freedom, and lightness,and oftenof almostunbearable love for the world,which is, however,secondary. Often, the pleasureof the experience is confusedwith the experienceand the insightis lost in the ecstasy,so thatin tryingto retainthe secondaryeffects of the experiencethe individualmisses the point-that the immediatenow is completeeven when it is not ecstatic. For ecstasyis a necessarilyimpermanent contrast in the constantfluctuation of our feelings.But insight,when clear enough,persists: having once understood a particularskill, the facilitytends to remain.42

What Wattsis tryingto do is persuasivelyredefine "ecstasy" in such a way that it is merelyan emotionor feeling,devoid of ontologicalcontent. But the fact of the matteris thatthere is no place forecstasy-in the ontologicalsense of the self standingoutside of itself-in Watts' new vision, for ecstasywould commitone preciselyto the kind of separationof perspectivesand realities (the spiritualversus the physicalor material)that Watts' spiritualmaterialism rejects.Because thisvision is designedto precludethe possibilityof any trace of transcendenceor otherness,ecstasy is ontologicallyinappropriate. To eliminateall trace of transcendence,Watts must reduce mysticalexperience to physicalsensation, and in theprocess must eliminate any feelingor emotion which carrieswithin it a sense of such transcendence.Because we consider some minimalsense of transcendenceessential to genuinemysticism, we find thisdemotion of ecstasya deviantmove on the part of Watts.It is also a mis-

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:43:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 396 Nordstromand Pilgrim

leadingmove, since what he reallyhas againstecstasy is not its emotionality butits built-in, ontological sense of otherness. What is reallynew in thispassage is thecharacterization of mysticalexperience as "a particularskill" or "facility."What thischaracterization actually does is to eliminateall experientialcontent from mystical experience; for such experienceis no longera matterof what happens to one, but ratherof somethingone knows how to do. One disastrousconsequence of this is that all epistemologicalquestions are begged; forit no longermakes sense to ask for evidence.Using Gilbert Ryle's distinction,mysticism becomes a matter not of knowingthat but of knowinghow. This view completesWatts' deviantattempt to formulatean antimystical mysticism.For, accordingto thisview, mystical experience, strictly speaking, has no contentwhatsoever. To be precise,it is not the experienceitself which has content,it is the interpretationof it. Wattseventually came to argue that it is not what one experiences,but what is doctrinallyor dogmaticallytrue of such experience,that counts. But how can the interpretationhave any cognitivecontent if the experienceitself, on which such interpretationis presumablybased, is devoid of content?This seems a straightforwardcon- tradiction.If thisis so, we mustconclude that Watts theologizing of mysticism -the substitutionof doctrinalor dogmaticcontent for experiential content- is logicallyuntenable. More important,it just seemsantithetical to the nature and spiritof mysticism.The pointof theformula "This Is It" is thatof provid- ing a metaphysicalexcuse forthe exclusionof mysticalexperience from mysticism.We see thisin thefollowing remark: These experiences,reinforced by othersthat have followed,have been the enliveningforce of all my work in writingand in philosophysince thattime, thoughI have come to realizethat how I feel,whether the actual sensationof freedomand clarityis presentor not,is not thepoint-for, again,to feelheavy or restrictedis also IT.43

But ifWatts excludes how he feelsfrom the account of his mysticalexperiences, theysimply cease being experiences.Mysticism becomes mere metaphysics. Moreover,there is a real problemas faras the rejectionof ineffabilityis concerned.It is one thingto arguethat mystical experience has a contentwhich can be expressed;it is quite anotherthing to argue that such experiencehas no content,but what can be expressedis thedoctrinal or dogmaticcontent coming out of an interpretationof mysticalexperience. What Watts' rejectionof ineffabilityseems finallyto amount to is the substitutionof interpretation forexperience, which actually, in our opinion,begs the question of theineffabi- lityof mysticalexperience. Another way in which Watts begs this question is by transformingthe notionof ineffabilityinto its metaphysical, antiexperiential equivalent. Having said thatthe sphereof the mysticis thatof the unspeakable,Watts proceeds to make thestartling claim that the unspeakable "need mean no morethan....

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:43:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 397

thesphere of physical nature."44 In thisway, ineffability no longerhas anything to do witheither mystical experience or, forthat matter, with experience tout court.It becomes the characteristicof a metaphysicalrealm, that of physical nature.So the sphereof the mysticis not that of the unspeakableat all; it is thesphere of physicalnature, which is just anotherway of assertingthe reduction of the spiritualto the material.In termsof this reduction,ineffability is both impossibleand meaningless.Thus Watts,by closingthe question,begs it. The resultof this identificationof ineffabilitywith physical nature is that any trace of transcendenceassociated with ineffabilityis eliminated.The mysticalmessage is no longermerely in things(as in his incarnationalmysticism), but is identicalwith the thingsthemselves; and so we are leftwith the unacceptablereduction of mysticalexperience to mute,dumb nature!

CONCLUSION

Our critique of Watts' mysticismmay well strikeeven the unsympathetic readerof his workas excessivelyharsh and perhapseven unbalanced.We are well aware of the factthat we have been severewith Watts in thisreview. At the same time,however, we are aware of the enormouscontribution he has made in awakeningpeople all overthe world to thespiritual path, particularly in thearea of Easternphilosophy and religion.We knowas wellthat for many Wattsis a holyman, who has been all butcanonized in certainspiritual circles. It is preciselybecause of Watts' influencethat we have been harsh. We feel our critiquemust stand firmin its essentialcontention that, no matterwhat the influenceor charismaof Watts the man and his work, his mysticismis fundamentallywayward and deviant. One could, of course, say that such waywardnessis justifiableas skillfulmeans, in the sense that the deviancein questionmade it easierfor people to relateto mysticismthan would otherwise have been possible. But in the area of mysticismand spiritualityone simply does not want deviance-or fakes of any kind, even a "genuine fake," an expressionWatts was fondof applyingto himselfin his lateryears. Spirituality is seriousbusiness-and we do not mean in a mercenarysense. If our account seemshumorless, it is not because we do not see thehumor in Wattsor appre- ciate his irony;it is ratherthat we feeltoo muchis at stakefor us to allow our- selvesto be takenin byhis considerable charm and incomparablearticulateness. The spiritualclimate in America has already significantlychanged in a directionaway fromWatts' waywardway. So thereis a sense that we have beatena dead horsehere. All over the countrypeople are beginningto realize that spiritualityis fundamentallya matterof practice,discipline, and effort. Watts' critiqueof effortwould now fall on ratherdeaf ears, we suspect.It is dated,to say theleast. Most people no longerwant a waywardway; theywant a clear and orthodoxpath to follow.And thereis the crucial willingnessto make sacrificesfor such a path. No longeris the easy way desirableor even fashionable.45In this sense,the styleof Watts' messageis anachronistic;the

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:43:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 398 Nordstromand Pilgrim

timeof goingwith the flowof Tao and dwellingblissfully in the EternalNow has mostly-and mercifully-come and gone. There has been a massive returnto orthopraxisin spirituality,a change we applaud. The virtueof Watts' waywardnessis thatit humanizesthe path, makes it seem accessibleand vital. But about the nextstep, the actual practiceof the path, whateverit may be, Watts has verylittle that is helpfulor usefulto say. He takes one just so far and no further.As a compellinglyhuman introductionto spiritualityand mysticism,there is probablynone finerthan that of Watts' work; but mere introductionit remains.For those who wish actuallyto accomplishthe Way, Watts mustbe leftbehind-with fondmemories, to be sure,but nonetheless witha certainresidue of bewildermentas well.

Louis NORDSTROMAND RICHARD PILGRIM SyracuseUniversity

NOTES

1. In My Own Way,p. 5. 2. Ibid.,p. x. 3. Ibid.,p. 5. 4. Ibid.,p. ix. 5. Ibid.,pp. 72, 258. 6. Ibid.,p. 303. 7. It is interestingto notethat the Tibetan Buddhist master Chogyam Trungpa, Rinpoche uses the same expression,"spiritual materialism," to referto thetendency on the partof ego to co-opt and appropriatethe process of spiritualliberation. We findthis true of Watts' mysticism.It is ironicthat Watts should use thisexpression. See CuttingThrough Spiritual Materialism (Berkeley, California:Shambhala Publications,1973). 8. In My Own Way,p. ix. 9. Ibid., p. 290. 10. Ibid., p. 278. 11. Beholdthe Spirit, pp. 93-104. 12. The Way of Zen, pp. 109-111. 13. In the prefaceto The Way of Zen Wattsindicates that the point of view adopted is neither Zen nor anythingWestern, but a thirdpoint of view,his own. Why not a Zen interpretationof Zen, ratherthan one a la Watts?The answeris thatWatts wishes to reconstructZen in such a way that certaincrucial aspects unacceptableto him are eliminated.What he does to the conceptof enlightenmentexperience is an exampleof such a reconstruction.See the prefacein its entirety. 14. See, forexample, The Wisdomof Insecurity,pp. 99, 114, 127-132. 15. In My Own Way,p. 258. 16. The Wayof Zen, p. 171. 17. The SupremeIdentity, p. 48. 18. This kind of claim can be found throughoutWatts' works. See, for example, The Book, p. 125; Nature,Man and Woman,p. 96; and The SupremeIdentity in its entirety. 19. The Wayof Zen, p. 160. 20. The SupremeIdentity, pp. 43, 46-73. 21. In My Own Way,pp. 276-78, 289. 22. Beholdthe Spirit, pp. 131-147.

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:43:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 399

23. In MyOwn Way, p. 54. 24. Beholdthe Spirit, pp. 153-184. 25. In MyOwn Way, p. 97. 26. Ibid.,p. 201. 27. Ibid.,pp. 152-153. 28. Ibid.,p. 172. 29. Ibid.,p. 166. 30. Ibid. 31. ThisIs It,p. 30. 32. In MyOwn Way, p. 224. 33. Ibid., p. 224. 34. Ibid.,p. 37. 35. Theuse of the term "art" here is very important for an understandingofWatts' interpretation ofmeditation and spiritualpractice. From a philosophicalpoint of view, the force of the term is designedto excludequestions of cognitive content. See TheArt of Contemplation. 36. In My Own Way,p. 69. 37. ThisIs It, p. 11. 38. Ibid., p. 13. 39. Ibid.,p. 17. 40. In My Own Way,p. 83. 41. ThisIs It, p. 18. 42. Ibid., pp. 18-19. 43. Ibid.,p. 31. 44. Ibid.,p. 34. 45. It is noteasy to succinctly support this generalization about spiritual trends in contemporary Americanculture. A convincingexample of whatis meanthere can be takenfrom the kind of Buddhismpopular in thiscountry: all threeforms of Buddhismin America(Zen, Tibetan, and Theravada)are based on meditationpractice. Thetendency seems to be away from religion as dogma andtoward religion as experience.See JacobNeedleman, The New Religions (New York: Double- day,1974).

ALAN W. WATTS: A BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS (Original editions) 1932 An Outlineof Zen Buddhism.London: Golden Vista Press. 1936 SevenSymbols of Life. London: BuddhistSociety. 1936 The Spiritof Zen: A Way of Life, Workand Art in the Far East. London: JohnMurry Ltd. (2d. ed., 1955; 3d. ed., 1958) 1937 The Legacy of Asia and WesternMan. A Studyof theMiddle Way. London: JohnMurry, Ltd. 1939 The Psychologyof Acceptance.New York: AnalyticalPsychology Club. 1940 The Meaningof Happiness. The Questfor Freedom of theSpirit in ModernPsy- chologyand the Wisdomof theEast. New York: Harper and Row. (2d ed., Stanford:Delkin Press, 1953). 1944 The TheologiaMistica of St. Dionysius.West Park, N.Y.: Holy Cross Press. 1946 The Meaningof thePriesthood. Boston: AdventPapers. 1947 Zen Buddhism.London: The BuddhistSociety. 1947 Beholdthe Spirit: A Studyin theNecessity of MysticalReligion. New York: PantheonBooks.

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:43:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 400 Nordstromand Pilgrim

1948 Zen. Stanford:Delkin Press(enlarged edition of Zen Buddhism.1947). 1950 Easter: Its Storyand Meaning.New York: SchumanPublishing Co. 1950 The SupremeIdentity: An Essay on OrientalMetaphysic and the Christian Religion.New York: PantheonBooks. (2d ed., 1972) 1951 The Wisdomof Insecurity. New York: PantheonBooks. 1953 Mythand Ritualin Christianity.New York: VanguardPublishing Co. 1955 The Wayof Liberationin Zen Buddhism.San Francisco: AmericanAcademy of Asian Studies. 1957 The Wayof Zen. New York: PantheonBooks. 1958 Nature,Man, and Woman.New York: PantheonBooks. 1958 Thisis IT. New York: PantheonBooks. 1959 Beat Zen, Square Zen, and Zen. San Francisco: CityLights Books. 1961 PsychotherapyEast and West.New York: PantheonBooks. 1962 The JoyousCosmology: Adventures in the Chemistryof Consciousness.New York: PantheonBooks. 1963 The Two Hands of Gods: The Mythsof Polarity.New York: George Braziller PublishingCo. 1964 BeyondTheology: The Artof Godmanship.New York: PantheonBooks. 1965 The 'Deep-In' View: A ConversationWith Alan Watts.El Cerrito,Calif.: Dust Magazine. 1966 TheBook: On theTaboo AgainstKnowing Who You Are.New York: Pantheon Books. 1967 Nonsense.San Francisco: StolenPapers Editions. 1970 Does It Matter? Essayson Man's Relationto Materiality.New York: Pantheon Books. 1971 EroticSpirituality: The Visionof Konarak (withEliot Elisofon).New York: Macmillan Co. 1972 The Artof Contemplation.New York: PantheonBooks. 1972 In My Own Way: An Autobiography1915-1965. New York: PantheonBooks. 1973 Cloud-Hidden,Whereabouts Unknown: A Mountain Journal.New York: PantheonBooks.

SELECTED ARTICLES

1939 "The RustySwords of Japan,"Asia, May. 1939 "How BuddhismCame to Life." Asia, October. 1941 "The Problemof Faith and Worksin Buddhism."Review of Religion.5:4. 1951 "The NegativeWay." Vedantaand the West,14:4. (conferin C. Isherwood, ed., Vedantafor ModernMan, [New York: Harperand Row, 1951]). 1953 "Asian Psychologyand Modem Psychiatry."American Journal of Psycho- analysis,13: 1. (conferin Reed et al., eds., Psychotherapy[Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress, 1958].) 1953 "The Language of MetaphysicalExperience." Journal of ReligiousThought, 10:2. 1955 "Oriental'Omnipotence'." Tomorrow,4:1. 1956 "Convention,Conflict, and Liberation."American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 16:63.

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:43:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 401

1958 "Beat Zen, Square Zen, and Zen." ChicagoReview, 12:2. 1958 "Zen and the Problemof Control." Contact,1:1. 1958 "Prevalenceof Zen." Nation,187: November. 1961 "Applied Buddhism."Saturday Review 44:19. 1964 "Gods Go West." New Republic,151: November. 1965 "MysticMore Freudianthan Freud." New Republic,152:May. 1968 "On theTantra." Mademoiselle,67:July. 1970 "The Futureof Religion." C. S. Wallia, ed., TowardCentury 21. New York: Basic Books. 1970 "WesternMythology: Its Dissolutionand Transformation."J. Campbell, ed., Myths,Dreams and Religion.New York: E.P. Dutton Co. 1971 "Psychedelicsand Religious Experience."B. S. Aaronson and H. Osmond, eds., Psychedelics.The Uses and Implicationsof HallucinogenicDrugs. Lon- don: HogarthPress. 1972 "Drugs: For and Against." In H. H. Horowitz,ed., Drugs. For and Against. New York: Hart PublishingCo.

SELECTED MISCELLANEOUS AND POSTHUMOUS WORKS

Books

1975 The Essenceof Alan Watts.Millbrae, Calif.: CelestialArts. 1975 Tao.' The WatercourseWay (with Al Chung-Liang Huang). New York: PantheonBooks. 1978 UncarvedBlock, UnbleachedSilk (with JeffBerner). New York: A & W Publishers. CassetteSeries

"Essential LecturesI and II." Mill City, California: Essential Recordings; 1973. "LectureCourses." Mill City,California: Electronic University; n.d. "VideocassetteSeminars." Mill City,California: Essential Recordings; n.d. Films(16mm, no dates)

From HartleyProductions; Cos Cob, Connecticut: "The Art of Meditation" "Buddhism,Man and Nature" "Flow of Zen" "Flowing withthe Tao" "Mood of Zen" "Zen and Now" From EssentialRecordings; Mill City,California: "Man in Nature" "Work as Play"

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:43:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions