Great Philosophical Discourse (Audio)

[Sphere70]

The Joker by Alan W. Watts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZIrFYtG14k (Part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_1g2ynW ... re=related (Part 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVWg_GJ ... re=related (Part 3)

-----

Quite long but well worth the time and very interesting, clear and entertaining.

To me he's probably the best interpreter of eastern thought for the west (and in a time before it was getting 'popular' and in some circles watered down) - while always adding his own coloring and ideas to it, personalizing it in a very affirmative and practical way.
Very clear-cut and down to earth, without all the pretensions and role-playing usually associated with modern philosophy.

And he established, with his usual sense of humor, simplicity and criticism, the phrase that I think at times applies well to QRS Philosophy; 'Prickly'

,-)

Enjoy.

[David Quinn]

I've always liked Alan Watts. I think it's because he combined the impishness of Zen with an erudite, scholarly approach, which appeals to me. Of course, he didn't take it as far as I would have liked (no one ever does! :), but still, he was one of the more interesting characters of the 20th century. It's just a pity that he ended up as a drunk towards the end of his life.

Not enough faith!

-

[Bob Michael]

It's just a pity that he (Alan Watts) ended up as a drunk towards the end of his life.

Not enough faith!

I think it's a pity that you have fallen into intellectual complacency, David.

Not enough real life living experiences under your belt!

But then I know of no one who hasn't fallen far short of the full glory of the Infinite. And especially in this area of life.

[Sphere70]

I was never really bothered by his drinking. He was clearly a sensualist and he wasn't contradictory about it - and he talked about it in many of his books, and as a person wrote on another site:


He writes of alcohol and his relationship to alcohol in a number of his works, including his autobiography. He harbors no guilty or shame in often enjoying and inebriated state - in fact, he writes about how the guilt that Western Civ. people associate with drinking might be related to why we associate the term "alcoholic" with the image of a "problem drinker." I..e., What does it mean to be an alcoholic? Does it have a pejorative connotation? Well, perhaps that is simply cultural. He points out, for example, how Japanese people (in his time and before) might drink quite heavily (yes, even Zen masters) and would be considered clinical "alcoholics," but they were "happy" drunks - always pleasant beautiful people.

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

I also quite like what Osho writes about him (even though I don't like Osho in general):

Osho on Alan Watts - I love one statement of one of the most important people of the West, Alan Watts. He was a drunkard, but he was the man who introduced to the West the most essential parts of Zen and enlightenment. He wrote not as a scholar, but as a master. Before he was dying, he was still drinking and a disciple asked him, "Have you ever thought... if Buddha had seen you drinking alcohol, what do you think he would have thought about it?"
Alan Watts said, "There is no problem. I always drink in an enlightened way."

The question is not what you do, the question is how you do it. Yes, I accept Alan Watts' statement. There is a possibility of a man to drink alcohol in an enlightened way. Enlightenment should not have any limits. And it should not have a particular formula, a particular pattern that you have to follow.

Source - Osho Book "OM Mani Padme Hum"

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

[David Quinn]

This goes back to our previous discussion about UG. There is a big difference between occasionally having a drink (as a way to experience something different), and drinking regularly (falling into addiction).

Someone who drinks regularly, or who reads detective novels regularly, is someone who isn't coping very well with life. He is tacitly admitting that Reality is not sustaining him inwardly. Drinking is a way to fuzz things up, to soften everything, to escape nagging, disturbing thoughts, to nullify a bad conscience, etc.

One thing I have always noticed about people who drink regularly is that they quickly stop developing as individuals. Their life goes into permanent stasis, as it were. They've hit the pause button and no longer want to deal with anything directly.

For Alan Watts to pass this off as enlightened behaviour is ludicrous. Who is he trying to kid? It is no wonder that Osho, a regular pot user and as corrupt a guru that ever has been, gave it the thumbs up. By approving Watt's drunkenness he was soothing his own conscience about his own addictions.

Enough of the bullshit! If you have a drinking problem, then admit that it is indeed a problem. It is an expression of weakness, of ignorance. Don't try to pretend that you are acting like a Buddha. Because you're not.

-

[Sphere70]

Yeah, sure, this goes back to our discussion about UG, who supposedly read 'detective novels regularly' (which he in my view definitely didn't, but that shit doesn't matter - what he said about that was of course a way to take the air of the pious bastards surrounding him), while you my brother writes on a internet message board regularly under the blasphemous garment of truth which, of course, is a Hermit Zen Bitch Slap + twenty-two Weininger-retractions, leaving you sixty-three levels from the Super-Buddah Infinite Avatar-Hood and a permanent stay at the little, manly, inn called the Ultimate Reality Bed & Breakfast.

True, Osho was surely a fake but I can agree with what he said about Watts here, and Watts response to the Buddha-remark carries with it his beautiful sense of humor and wit. And Watts never pretended to be a muscular guard and upholder of sacred truth wrapped in masculine liver-oil, and his drinking didn't seem to be a problem for him, so no need to adjust to the pious reference-point of Christian normality, strength and courage or ,why not, the dogmatic tendencies of ancient Buddhism.
(By the way, I'm myself not a drinker or smoker so I'm not trying to speak about personal matters in a hidden way)

Enough of the bullshit! If you have a drinking problem, then admit that it is indeed a problem. It is an expression of weakness, of ignorance. Don't try to pretend that you are acting like a Buddha. Because you're not.

Easy tiger, no need to get emotional. Let's not forget, the speakers who forcibly speaks of the importance of strength and truth are, of course, ignorant and weak - as history often shows. The disgust they feel about other people and their mis-alignment to their 'Truths' (which of course always is the Ultimate Truth) reflects their own need for affirmation.

[David Quinn]

True, Osho was surely a fake but I can agree with what he said about Watts here, and Watts response to the Buddha-remark carries with it his beautiful sense of humor and wit. And Watts never pretended to be a muscular guard and upholder of sacred truth wrapped in masculine liver-oil, and his drinking didn't seem to be a problem for him,

The drinking problem he had obviously wasn't a problem for him, because he was too busy getting out of it all the time! Like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand, he didn't want to see what was happening.

The whole thing shows me that his relationship to Reality was inauthentic, in that it was reliant on his having pleasurable experiences all the time. As soon as he stopped feeling pleasure, he had to turn to the bottle to keep it going.

It is like telling a girl that you really love her, but that you have to smoke pot all the time in order to stand her company.

so no need to adjust to the pious reference-point of Christian normality, strength and courage or ,why not, the dogmatic tendencies of ancient Buddhism.

This isn't an issue about morality, but about whether a person's relationship to truth is genuine enough that it is able to sustain him, such that he doesn't need chemical additives to keep tiding him over.

Alan Watts wanted it both ways. He wanted to think of himself as enlightened (i.e. that he was fully in tune with Reality, such that it sustained him inwardly) and yet be unenlightened in his daily life (i.e. rely on chemical additives to keep propping him up). It is this contradiction, which goes far beyond conventional morality issues, which concerns me.

You really seem to have a mental block about this sort of thing.

As for his "beautiful" reply to the Buddha, he's just lucky (or unlucky) that he never met an actual buddha in his life.

-

[Sphere70]

The whole thing shows me that his relationship to Reality was inauthentic

Reality isn't one single attainment or atonement - it is all things at all times. It's the understanding that nothing needs to be changed because there are no-one to do the changing. I mean, this is a lightning-flash that changes perception, and it was Alan Watts idea (by the way he never called himself Enlightened, not in another form than saying that we're all fundamentally Buddhas, and I don't think a realization of this scale happened to him), as UG also held and many of the others of that kind, that you can't climb you're way into it (like you would climb the latter at your new job to reach CEO) by 'living in Reality' from a perceptual standpoint of still having the feeling of a doer.
You might think that figuring out the thing intellectuality and then trying to adjust your life accordingly - whatever that might include - will make you more "accident-prone" - maybe so, maybe not, it is still not Enlightenment (Liberation or whatever). A lot more followers of Buddha would be liberated if that was the case. I don't know - I don't get your definition of Enlightenment. Yes yes - 'free of delusions'. That's to vague though. "You" are the Ultimate delusion. Are you free of that?

in that it was reliant on his having pleasurable experiences all the time. As soon as he stopped feeling pleasure, he had to turn to the bottle to keep it going.

You're very judgmental. You don't know how much he drank, when he drank, what he felt, what he did when he felt different things and so-forth. You're downgrading his work and interpretations of Eastern wisdom based on rumors of abuse when it might not have been any abuse at all. There was no hypocrisy because he never hid his enjoyment of alcohol and he never called himself 'Enlightened' - as I guess you do, or?

[David Quinn]

The whole thing shows me that his relationship to Reality was inauthentic

Reality isn't one single attainment or atonement - it is all things at all times. It's the understanding that nothing needs to be changed because there are no-one to do the changing.

Translation: Reality isn't one single attainment. Rather, it is one single attainment (that nothing needs to be changed) .....

:)

I mean, this is a lightning-flash that changes perception, and it was Alan Watts idea (by the way he never called himself Enlightened, not in another form than saying that we're all fundamentally Buddhas, and I don't think a realization of this scale happened to him), as UG also held and many of the others of that kind, that you can't climb you're way into it (like you would climb the latter at your new job to reach CEO) by 'living in Reality' from a perceptual standpoint of still having the feeling of a doer.
You might think that figuring out the thing intellectuality and then trying to adjust your life accordingly - whatever that might include - will make you more "accident-prone" - maybe so, maybe not, it is still not Enlightenment (Liberation or whatever). A lot more followers of Buddha would be liberated if that was the case.

Alas, the problem is that people have egos and attachments they want to protect, and hence they instinctively herd their reasoning powers away from the deeper areas of their lives. They simply don't want the spotlight of logic to be shined on the inconsistencies and contradictions which form the basis of their comforting beliefs.

We can see this in Christian fundamentalism where reason immediately goes out the window the moment the subject of the Bible is raised, and Buddhists likewise have their own "bibles" deep down inside them. Most people do.

Only very rarely, does a person come along with the courage and love of truth needed to give his reasoning powers free reign. Those who take this all the way become Buddhas.

I don't know - I don't get your definition of Enlightenment. Yes yes - 'free of delusions'. That's to vague though. "You" are the Ultimate delusion. Are you free of that?

There is no ultimate delusion. There has never been any "you" or "me" to begin with. What is there to be free of?

You're very judgmental. You don't know how much he drank, when he drank, what he felt, what he did when he felt different things and so-forth. You're downgrading his work and interpretations of Eastern wisdom based on rumors of abuse when it might not have been any abuse at all. There was no hypocrisy because he never hid his enjoyment of alcohol and he never called himself 'Enlightened' - as I guess you do, or?

In the very quote you posted, he says, "I drink in an enlightened way...."

So not only does he claim to be enlightened, but he asserts that his alcoholism is a testament to that fact!

What is this? The Monty Python hour or something?

You're very judgmental.

Haha! Yep, it certainly is the Monty Python hour!

-

[Sphere70]

Translation: Reality isn't one single attainment. Rather, it is one single attainment (that nothing needs to be changed) .....

This isn't an attainment because this is nothing one can achieve other then stop trying to achieve, which becomes an achievement in itself - and around and around it goes. If it dawns upon you it dawns upon you (a paradox indeed).

Alas, the problem is that people have egos and attachments they want to protect, and hence they instinctively herd their reasoning powers away from the deeper areas of their lives. They simply don't want the spotlight of logic to be shined on the inconsistencies and contradictions which form the basis of their comforting beliefs.

The men of logic use their thinking structure as their ego. Its the same thing. They don't realize that the superiority they feel from their quality of thought is as gratifying as anything else - more so. The spotlight of logic is weak. That's why Enlightenment (full-blown) has never been able to transmit itself in a great manner. Language can't do the job.

There is no ultimate delusion. There has never been any "you" or "me" to begin with. What is there to be free of?

Free of the idea that you have to be free. You're inmost sense of I is not you (the awareness through your specific body is not an achievement of a singular You). But this sense is all one can honestly say there is. Everything else is overlapping this. Even saying that I was born and that I will die is an idea. Even saying I is an idea. What do you want with structures?

Only very rarely, does a person come along with the courage and love of truth needed to give his reasoning powers free reign. Those who take this all the way become Buddhas.

Realizing the interrupting effects the reasoning-powers and it's embedded idea of a 'You' controlling it has over the nature of your being (the Tao) is a good beginning.
Have faith in what is. Or not (You don't have any choice in the matter ,-)

In the very quote you posted, he says, "I drink in an enlightened way...."

So not only does he claim to be enlightened, but he asserts that his alcoholism is a testament to that fact!

What is this? The Monty Python hour or something?

Damn, you're prickly. If you'd ever listened to the man in some lengths you'd "hear" his characteristic Zen-like un-seriousness surrounding the answer. His attitude was very much that when realizing this was a play in consciousness and you're acting then go ahead and act every damn role you want. That is, he didn't leave the stage completely (Enlightenment) but stayed on, played his role half-smilingly while delivering some goods.
He asserts that he drinks, he doesn't assert to Alcoholism, that's you're definition (and many others) - apparently you're in dire need of definitions. Many are.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

He asserts that he drinks, he doesn't assert to Alcoholism, that's you're definition (and many others)

Famous drunk words...

But it doesn't matter how much he drank or if he died from it or not. The effect of any surplus of alcohol is instant ignorance, its brand of brightness pleasantly or eventually painfully numbs. Ergo, Alan drank to dampen the light and not for any "jolly joy". Perhaps his way to self-preservation and who can really stand to lose that big anyway?

[Sphere70]

Famous drunk words...

Famous pious words...

But it doesn't matter how much he drank or if he died from it or not. The effect of any surplus of alcohol is instant ignorance, its brand of brightness pleasantly or eventually painfully numbs. Ergo, Alan drank to dampen the light and not for any "jolly joy". Perhaps his way to self-preservation and who can really stand to lose that big anyway?

It's a habit of the body which the ego (the part of the ego which is real) is a part of. The use of constant abstract thought leading to Alzheimers could also be seen as "staying away from the light" and as an addiction. Anyways, there is a lot of good stuff in Watts lectures, check it out.
For one he's actually entertaining, which isn't common in this world of "Truth" ,-).

[David Quinn]

Ah, I see. The clown amuses you. I guess that's what it's all about.....

In any case, I studied Watts a long time ago and, as I say, I quite like him. But it's beginner's stuff.

One thing I remember reading about him, which this conversation brought back to mind, was his habit of daily drinking half-a-dozen shots of vodka or whatever it was and then, once he was inebriated enough, making a big show of singing and dancing as though he was possessed by the spontaneity of Zen.

I mean, how embarrassing and sad. How ignorant! This is what this man, who once wrote entertaining, insightful books, was reduced to - namely, having to use chemicals to put on a facade that completely misses the point of Zen.

Actually, when I think about it, reading that was probably what turned me off him way back then.

The use of constant abstract thought leading to Alzheimers could also be seen as "staying away from the light" and as an addiction.

Haha. I'll give you full marks for trying. Your anti-thought campaign would make even the trailer trash blush.

I just hope that you don't become a victim of other people's thoughtless behaviour.....

-

[Sphere70]

Ah, I see. The clown amuses you. I guess that's what it's all about.....

Bringing wisdom in an entertaining and beautiful way - the Zen poets, and specially Lao Tzu, knew all about this - you should study the power of this.

Alan did so incredible much for spreading the Eastern Wisdom. As Shunryu Suzuki said to Watts critics: "You completely miss the point about Alan Watts! You should notice what he has done. He is a great bodhisattva"

Peace be with you, Watts!

Haha. I'll give you full marks for trying. Your anti-thought campaign would make even the trailer trash blush.

I just hope that you don't become a victim of other people's thoughtless behaviour.....

Oh, don't misunderstand me. The 'trailer trash' folks thinks just as much as you. Their relationship as a separate thinker is surely the same. What differs is the context/quality of thought - its mechanics stay the same.

You are so incredible wrong with your idea of the silent mind.

I'm gonna let U.G. enlighten you:

Real silence is explosive; it is not the dead state of mind that spiritual seekers think. This is volcanic in its nature; it's bubbling all the time--the energy, the life--that is its quality.

[David Quinn]

Ah, I see. The clown amuses you. I guess that's what it's all about.....

Bringing wisdom in an entertaining and beautiful way - the Zen poets, and specially Lao Tzu, knew all about this - you should study the power of this.

I agree the poetic approach can be stimulating, particularly to people in the beginning stages. But in my view, there is already too much poetry in this world and not enough substance. Too much candy and not enough meat.

If people just eat candy all the time, they become sick.

Alan did so incredible much for spreading the Eastern Wisdom. As Shunryu Suzuki said to Watts critics: "You completely miss the point about Alan Watts! You should notice what he has done. He is a great bodhisattva"

It's all relative. Compared to the average person, he was a great bodhisattva. But compared to a real bodhisattva, he was little more than a hedonistic novice whose participation with truth was half-hearted at best.

And yes, he did do a lot to spread eastern wisdom in the world, but he also spread a great deal of misunderstanding about it as well. His own limitations caused a lot of harm, which needs to be recognized.

The important thing to keep in mind, and this goes to the heart of our conversation, is that people like Watts and UG were deeply flawed men. They weren't gods and shouldn't be treated like gods. They were men who were great in some ways, but deluded in other ways. And, critically, their delusions infiltrated into their presentation of wisdom to the world, which is where I have my problems with them.

So while it is good to study these men and pick up all the gems they have to offer, it is just as important to recognize their weaknesses and flaws and the impact they had.

After all, how are we to go beyond them, if we don't learn from their mistakes?

Oh, don't misunderstand me. The 'trailer trash' folks thinks just as much as you. Their relationship as a separate thinker is surely the same. What differs is the context/quality of thought - its mechanics stay the same.

No, the mechanics differ dramatically. It is high-quality thought which eats into the delusion of separation and dissolves it altogether, whereas low-quality thought never touches the issue. The ego always hides and flourishes behind low-quality thought.

You are so incredible wrong with your idea of the silent mind.

I'm gonna let U.G. enlighten you:

Real silence is explosive; it is not the dead state of mind that spiritual seekers think. This is volcanic in its nature; it's bubbling all the time--the energy, the life--that is its quality.

Well, that's ultimately just as false as the the idea that it is passive. The silent mind cannot really be described in any terms at all.

-

[Bob Michael]

"Alan Watts had somehow or other become confused toward the end of his life. He really seemed to lose his way. He ate too much, smoked too much, drank far too much alcohol, never took any excercise. In a word he indulged, and a Warrior cannot indulge. It tarnishes his spirit. "I don't like myself sober," confided Alan to a friend of mine, "so I spend much of my time drunk." (Robert S. deRopp - 'The Warrior's Way')

[Sphere70]

Eh, he seemed allrite a couple of year before his death and I bet he was indulging long before that.

1971

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aufuwMiKmE

A drinker he was. But I doubt that last comment deRopp quoted.
Well, anyway. Good stuff (link above).
Rougher, but still sharp in tounge.

[Bob Michael]

So while it is good to study these men and pick up all the gems they have to offer, it is just as important to recognize their weaknesses and flaws and the impact they had.

Yes, though great in the eyes of the Infinite is he who relentessly focuses on his own weaknesses and flaws and then rises above them while always steadfastly aiming for perfection. However, even if a person is enlightened, if he is not in the possession of an extremely-sensitive organism chances are good that sooner or later he will become self-satisfied and complacent and be of very little, if any, value to others and the evolutionary process.

After all, how are we to go beyond them, if we don't learn from their mistakes?

I find it's equally, or even more important, to learn from our own mistakes. And then go "beyond" our enculturated "human, all-too-human" 'self'.

[Ryan Rudolph]

The problem with alcohol is that it distorts one's awareness, the brain functioning becomes different than normal functioning, and as Quinn said earlier, what the hell is wrong with normal functioning? - nothing at all. There is no reason to drink alcohol in the first place, unless you are dissatisfied with reality/yourself, which is not the mark of a buddha, but the mark of someone who is conflicted inwardly.

I stopped drinking heavily in my early twenties, when I realized how the pleasure of drink is followed by the pain of hangover, and the reality of brain damage. This dualistic truth caused me to immediately drop the bottle, and that was the end of it. These days I may drink a few times a year, but nothing consistent because it is just not needed, and it is in fact quite harmful.

[Sphere70]

Rest assure - your Awareness stays untouched. Yes - of course Alcohol (or any drug for that part) changes the structure of the body creating a sensation of a pleasure, which in turn creates future sensation of pain and when over - as it is with pleasure/pain - desire arises for continuation which if alleviated is defined as pleasure and if not pain. This is so even with our basic survival-needs (hence why Schopenhauer stupidly suggested Total Renunciation and forceful Asceticism).
But to go further, craving Philosophical truth and growth and seeking wisdom through a spiritual path is (admittedly more refined and therefore subject to pride) a sense of seeking a change for a present situation because of a - as you said Ryan - "dissatisfaction with reality/oneself".

But again - know that behind all this structure is the untouched Subject. the blank canvas, constantly untouched by any undertaking whatsoever.

[Ryan Rudolph]

s70,

But again - know that behind all this structure is the untouched Subject. the blank canvas, constantly untouched by any undertaking whatsoever.

I do not believe this is the case. I believe that you are your environment, so if you choose to mediate your consciousness with drug on a regular basis, your quality of perception is heavily affected, and you are that. You are the change in perception. You are not anything else, no abstract ideal at a deeper level. Man deludes himself into thinking that he is something other than his present state.

For instance: I know people in my community who have drank large quantities of hard liquor their entire lives, and their brains and bodies have been drastically affected. They are much slower mentally and physically, to the point where their personalities have been affected, and their day to day existence is always thinking about that next drink. Their minds are enslaved to the very thing that is destroying them.

The real reason a buddha doesn't drink on a regular basis is because he values his mental connection with reality too much to want to consciously alter it. Basically, the natural state of the enlightened consciousness is enough for him, he doesn’t need to alter it out of boredom, or the desire for some alternative experience. The present moment experience is fine, no need for alterations on a consistent basis.

[Sphere70]

You are the change in perception. You are not anything else, no abstract ideal at a deeper level. Man deludes himself into thinking that he is something other than his present state.

I would still say You're not that. There is no space for a You in the present state. There is states - experiences - but there is no You having them. These 'states' changes constantly, the perceptions changes always. "you" (I'm using this for the sake of communicating, but you know what I mean ,-) walk up a mountain - perception changes due to height, you're hungry - perception change, you're thirsty - perception change. There is no fundamental state called "reality". Whatever goes on in the field of shifting perceptions/consciousness is rather un-real. It's a mistake to identify with phenomena (even though this identification is not "You're" doing - it's Consciousness making the game interesting for itself by believing its real ,-).
Who is this You you're affirming? It seems very transient.
But what is it that makes all experiences possible? A Subject. Awareness. Call it what you want. That is what I referred to as the blank canvas making the colors and contrasts of phenomena possible for experience.

“Let me remind you that the perceived cannot perceive.” Huang Po

"What you are looking for is what is looking." Saint Francis

You are reading a book of sermons. Another man are tapping an ass on acid. Reality is equal in both cases. You are neither. Or if you will, You are it All.

[David Quinn]

You're conflating and mashing together two entirely different issues. While it is true that Reality is equal in all experiences, there is a world of difference between what Buddhas experience and what ordinary people experience, let alone drunks.

Again, I think you have a large mental block about this sort thing, and, again, I think it is because you don't want to look into your own life too closely.

What exactly are you protecting? What are your addictions that you don't want to bring into light?

I would still say You're not that. There is no space for a You in the present state. There is states - experiences - but there is no You having them. These 'states' changes constantly, the perceptions changes always. "you" (I'm using this for the sake of communicating, but you know what I mean ,-) walk up a mountain - perception changes due to height, you're hungry - perception change, you're thirsty - perception change. There is no fundamental state called "reality". Whatever goes on in the field of shifting perceptions/consciousness is rather un-real. It's a mistake to identify with phenomena (even though this identification is not "You're" doing - it's Consciousness making the game interesting for itself by believing its real ,-).
Who is this You you're affirming? It seems very transient.
But what is it that makes all experiences possible? A Subject. Awareness. Call it what you want. That is what I referred to as the blank canvas making the colors and contrasts of phenomena possible for experience.

What I'm hearing here is a major contradiction, but perhaps I'm not hearing it correctly.

This "subject" or "blank canvas" or "Consciousness" - are you affirming this to be something which is separate from all transient phenomena? If so, then why do you castigate others for doing a similar thing? Isn't this just your way of underhandedly introducing a "You" through the back door?

It looks like you're wanting it both ways, for there to be both a "You" and not a "You" at the same time.

Whenever you don't to deal with anything directly in your own life (which is looking increasingly like a constant theme in your case), you either take refuge in the thought there is no "You" (and therefore all spiritual demands become null and void) or you take refuge in an abstraction of "You" which is believed to be separate from everything else in the world (again, allowing you to not deal with anything).

In effect, you're just on a giant drug trip, operating in full escapist mode. That is your "spirituality".

This is what shines through your words. It is what I instantly pick up. But perhaps I'm misreading the situation .....

-

[Sphere70]

You're conflating and mashing together two entirely different issues. While it is true that Reality is equal in all experiences, there is a world of difference between what Buddhas experience and what ordinary people experience, let alone drunks.

Of course and this I have also brought up in many of my post. No need for me to repeat.

The fun of writing on a forum is taking it to the furthest, metaphysical, edges, I'm not mistaking a forum for a psychoanalyst couch ,-)

Again, I think you have a large mental block about this sort thing

Funny. That's my view about you too brother.

What exactly are you protecting? What are your addictions that you don't want to bring into light?

Damn man, you must be joking ,-). You're a broken record.
You're addiction is obvious to all - "Man of Wisdom" / "Genius" / "Great Thinker" / "Sage"

This "subject" or "blank canvas" or "Consciousness" - are you affirming this to be something which is separate from all transient phenomena? If so, then why do you castigate others for doing a similar thing? Isn't this just your way of underhandedly introducing a "You" through the back door?

In its furthest extent it is not separate. Are you separate from the computer screen? From one viewpoint - yes, from the ultimate viewpoint - no.
The 'you' I've objected against is the specific 'You' as a certain phenomena, a certain state, certain types of thoughts or emotions. And if it can be experienced it is not it. I'm fine taking the 'You' away completely but if you wanna use it then why don't use it in its right place - that is as a pointer to the pointless - to that which you most inherently are, that which cannot be experienced. And the "you" intrinsic in language is no need to change if you see its proper place.

It looks like you're wanting it both ways, for there to be both a "You" and not a "You" at the same time.

I re-defined the You quite clearly, you should understand what I mean by now..

Whenever you don't to deal with anything directly in your own life (which is looking increasingly like a constant theme in your case)

You're really talking about yourself here.

(and therefore all spiritual demands become null and void)

There are no spiritual "demands".

In effect, you're just on a giant drug trip, operating in full escapist mode. That is your "spirituality".

If you're literal here then I'll just say I haven't been intoxicated by a drug in a long, long, time, except coffee which doesn't intoxicate in that level.
If you were speaking figuratively then, well, each to his own ,-). I see you as an escapist as well.

One of Lao Tzu's disciples went to him one morning with his eyes blazing and his face glowing with
a sense of achievement, and he said, "Master, I have arrived." And Lao Tzu with great compassion put his hands on his shoulders and said, "Son, you have not arrived anywhere." So the disciple went away. He came back after some time and then, with great quiet composure, said, "Master, it has happened." So Lao Tzu looked in his eyes, embraced him and said, "Now tell me what happened."

You're obviously the guy saying: "I have arrived."

[David Quinn]

Are you separate from the computer screen? From one viewpoint - yes, from the ultimate viewpoint - no.

Haha, not even close. The view that things are not separate is just as relative and empty as the view that they are separate. Haven't you even realized this yet?

You are still missing the essential point by a million miles. Your "ultimate viewpoint" is an illusion. There is no ultimate viewpoint.

One of Lao Tzu's disciples went to him one morning with his eyes blazing and his face glowing with
a sense of achievement, and he said, "Master, I have arrived." And Lao Tzu with great compassion put his hands on his shoulders and said, "Son, you have not arrived anywhere." So the disciple went away. He came back after some time and then, with great quiet composure, said, "Master, it has happened." So Lao Tzu looked in his eyes, embraced him and said, "Now tell me what happened."

You're obviously the guy saying: "I have arrived."

I'm actually supping with Lao Tzu tonight. The Buddha will be there too. Feel free to come along, if you like.

You will have to leave everything behind, though ....

-