The Book

In his pursuit of science man emphasizes the difference between things: this is not that. This approach has created the technological world in which we live, but the very same mind set has created a culture in which man feels cut off from the world, isolated in the eternal 'I', lonely and at odds with those around us. "You are not me", we say. But in this book Watts wants to teach us a different way of looking at the problem. Things do not exist in separate categories of, for example, 'right' and wrong. Rather the world is a set of continuums and polarities which are basic to our understanding. Right and wrong are interdependent and we can't understand one without knowledge of the other. Also, we are not divided off from the world, but intimately linked to the environment. In a witty scenario Watts explores the inter-relationship between an ant in a hole in the ground and you, via your own kitchen. You and I share certain qualities, though of course we may have different degrees of them. This book is, at its heart, Watts' take on the philosophy of Indian, Verdic (Hindu) literature. As usual it is very accessible reading and is filled with witty descriptions and arguments that lead you to think more deeply about life. I read the book several months ago and am still taking on board some of his apparently simple arguments. I found, however, that I agreed with Watts through his long chains of arguments only to balk at his final conclusion. This happened repeatedly. Specifically I cannot agree that man is a total microcosm of the macrocosm, that we are a unique, yet complete, expression of Brahma, God, Absolute Meaning, or whatever you choose to describe the ultimate 'It' as. This is just too much metaphysics and theology for me. It must be remembered that Watts is an ex-Anglican minister and I think his background shows here. I also wished that Watts had spent much more time defining modern man's current predicament as I feel that this is where he is at his very best. For example I loved the first half of his earlier book The Wisdom of Insecurity for that very reason. Of course your understanding of the world may be very different to mine, so you may like the book better than I did. I certainly didn't dislike it, but I do not feel that it is his best.

Being a "wannabe" Hippie, I kew that eventually I would have to read this book because this book was once considered a very subversive text. Nowadays, books by Wayne Dyer, Marrianne Williamson, and Deepak Chopra are writing books left and right with the same kind of stuff that Alan Watts wrote about in the late 50s, early 60s. And even though I appreciate the works of Dyer, Williamson, and Chopra, their words don't seem to carry as much as a "punch" as the words of Watts. I don't know why that is. Maybe it's just my own interpretation of the material. Maybe it's because I used to listen to him late at night on the far left-end of the dial on a publically sponsored radio station listening and reading everything that I knew my dad would "hate" and "dissaprove" of. The ironic thing is, is that he read and listened to Watts long before I did but like a lot of us, he got caught up in Life and put some things aside and focused on changing diapers instead of minds, rasing a family rather than raising consciousness, and yet he still held onto a few "jewels" of Truth that he wanted to impart with me, and me, being an idiot as well as a teenager (aren't they synonomous) thought and felt that somehow he was trying to be the boss of me. When I read these essays now, I am comforted by Watts' brilliant way of making the abstract, a little more "user friendly". The essay, 'How To Be A Genuine Fake' was most helpful as I was studying to become a spiritual counselor (a practitioner)for my church. It seemed as though everyone was holding themselves in some glorious light of what they were doing. It became a new game that they were playing with themselves. "Oh, when I get this practitioner license I will be this and I will be that..." And yeah, I fell for it, too, but after reading this essay a few billion times I remembered that with or without a "practitioner license" I will still be spiritual. Taking a class doesn't make you spiritual. Reading a book, going to a lecture, listening to audio programs don't make one "spiritual". Even meditation and prayer don't make us Spiritual. What makes us spiritual is knowing that we already are spiritual and here's the tricky part, EVERYONE IS. Not just some, but all. Even "Charlie" the smelly drunk that likes to go to my Monday night class. I have a feeling he is an undercover angel so even though people complain about him, I let him stay. My copy is underlined and reunderlined, it is stained with coffee and food stains, it has notes in the margins and little doodles. It is being held together by a rubber band and maybe one day I will give it to my kid or one of my nephews or nieces so they can say, "Eh, what does Uncle Johnny know about life, anyway?" Not much...not very much... Know that the seen and the unseen are One; that black dissolves into white and white dissolves into black, that your soul is part of the same soul of everyone you meet; that you are no worse than or better than anyone else. Afterall, it's one th

I first read The Book almost 30 years ago as a teenager. After reading it I felt like I was just beginning to wake from a lifelong sleepwalk. I realized that distinctions I assumed were real--especially the distinction between me and not-me--are arbitrary. This Vedanta-inspired book echoes the insights of Taoism as found in the Tao Teh Ching. It explains how concepts can exist only in contrast to their opposites. "All can know good as good only becaue there is evil," as Lao Tzu says in the Tao Teh Ching. Watts talks about the process of transcending opposites by playing and dancing through life. Re-reading The Book this evening, I find it just as awe-inspiring and enlightening as I did 30 years ago.