artist versus the art
Q: Hello, Robert You once said in an answer to me that the idea that "the messenger is not the message" is bullshit. If a teacher or guide, you said, isn't living what they preach then they should shut up. Or words to that effect.
So you quote Alan Watts a lot, and I love his words. Who couldn't? Yet the man died most likely of alcohol and tobacco-related heart failure, young, and, according to his son, apparently depressed at the time, not so much about his diseases, but about some event he'd attended (perennial disappointment by the stupidity of people, the war, all the stuff that depress us all).
He cheated on various wives. He tried to stop alcohol, apparently signing up for an LSD method of stopping drinking, but couldn’t. Anyway, here we have a perfect example of what I'm trying to ask:
Beautiful art has been made by people whose lives were a mess and now I learn that beautiful words were spoken by another guy who, according to those close to him, was quite a mess.
The world depressed him. It depresses me too. But he didn't write that way. His writing is so clear, "like a diamond" as you say. So it seems the messenger and the message weren't entirely congruent. I'd love your feedback on this, please.
OK. This is a great question that must occur sooner or later to anyone who thinks about these matters.
A perfect example of the “artist versus the art” issue is the case of Richard Wagner, whose musical compositions many consider among the best of his era, but who coined the expressions "Jewish problem" and "final solution,” by which he meant the disappearance of Jews and Judaism, and whose work itself—for example, the ultra-nationalistic character of his opera, "The Ring"--provided a substrate for Nazi ideology.
So, is one able to listen to the music itself without thinking about Wagner’s anti-Semitism? I am no big fan of Wagner anyway, so for me that question is moot. But, suppose the answer is no, then what about Chopin? He was a rabid anti-Semite too. I would not spend half a minute listening to the words of a bigot, but I love Chopin’s music, and listen to it often. Although I have heard them many times, if I am in the mood to cry, his Nocturnes can still move me to tears.
I have no problem watching a Woody Allen movie either or looking at a Picasso, but both of them, according to reports, had serious sexual abuse habits. Woody is alleged to have abused his adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow. As for Picasso, according to his granddaughter, Marina Picasso, ''submitted [women] to his animal sexuality, tamed them, bewitched them, ingested them and crushed them onto his canvas. After he had spent many nights extracting their essence, once they were bled dry, he would dispose of them.''
As for Alan Watts, yes, he was an unhappy man. People tried to make a paragon and guru out of him, but he knew his weaknesses, and was having none of it:
“I want to make one thing absolutely clear. I am not a Zen Buddhist, I am not advocating Zen Buddhism, I am not trying to convert anyone to it. I have nothing to sell. I'm an entertainer. That is to say, in the same sense, that when you go to a concert and you listen to someone play Mozart, he has nothing to sell except the sound of the music. He doesn’t want to convert you to anything. He doesn’t want you to join an organization in favor of Mozart's music as opposed to, say, Beethoven's. And I approach you in the same spirit as a musician with his piano or a violinist with his violin. I just want you to enjoy a point of view that I enjoy.”
So, just as I am not a teacher or a guide advising people on how to live, or how to “awaken,” Watts was not either. If I quote Alan, it is for his easy way of illuminating certain philosophical principles, not because he had it all figured out.
Now, you might ask, if I can separate Chopin’s music from his bigotry, or Watts’ understanding of Eastern thought from his alcoholism, why doesn’t Bentinho Massaro (I use him as an example only because he came up yesterday—many others are working the same hackneyed old schtick) get the same treatment?
Very simple. When I listen to Chopin, I am not hearing any hate speech. Alan’s elucidation of Eastern wisdom did not claim that Alan was enlightened, only that he found value in non-Western ideas. But Massaro, as well as most of these self-described “teachers,” are claiming precisely that: “I am enlightened, and I can teach you how to be enlightened too.” Massaro goes a lot further than that. He claims not just to be enlightened, but, that he has attained a level far beyond any previous enlightened being—totally infallible.
As Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” so if you claim to be enlightened, walk the walk. Show me the enlightenment. And that you will never do—not by my lights anyway--by abusing and demeaning the people around you, by telling them that you came from another galaxy to save humanity, and, least of all, by devising ways of sucking as much money as you can out of them.
I love to be around people who would never claim to be “enlightened,” but who are awake to their humanity and mortality, and know it. In those folks, you see humility, generosity, and benevolence towards others. You can trust someone like that. As far as most of these internet gurus go, I advise keeping your wallet in a deep pocket.
Lots of people were quoting Matt Kahn on my FB wall so I checked out his stuff and he totally creeped me out! I went to his website and he was charging $400 for a 30min session with him!?? WTF?
Great reply Robert 🙏🏻☀️.
To this point the Questioner made, "So it seems the messenger and the message weren't entirely congruent."
This is such a fascinating topic because it really reveals a lot of ideas we have about "what is" that are not necessarily true.
For example, say you are walking down the street in New York City and you are lost. The only person on the street with you is obviously drunk neo-Nazi skinhead. Lucky for you, for whatever reason you are not afraid of him, though your politics and probably everyone of your ideas conflicts with his. You ask him how to get to MOMA because you are heading there to see some art. He answers, and moments later you are on your way and 10 minutes later you are at your destination and his directions proved to be perfect.
This is a good example of separating knowledge from whatever judgments we have about the beliefs, lifestyle, or anything else about a person. The knowledge the skinhead delivered was flawless. Buddha or Gandhi could not have improved upon it.
So, was the message congruent with the messenger? Who's to say? From the skinheads perspective the answer is yes, and from yours let's say because you were a palled by everything else about him, the answer might be no. The fact is this is entirely Subjective and has absolutely no bearing on knowledge.
The really interesting part of this is that if/when we focus on our judgments about an individual, there is no possible way for our own biases not to come into play. This is especially poignant when we judge spiritual teachers based on their actions rather than their knowledge. We have pre-concluded that knowledge and action are the same, but it isn't true at all.
I'm not remotely saying that assessing our impressions about an individual is not a good way to determine whether (especially) a "spiritual" teacher is right for us or is, according to us, practicing what they preach. Rather, I'm highlighting the fact that if we want to learn something (anything), and we suspect or want to find out if another possesses that knowledge, allowing our pre-existing biases to determine how we take in the information they are presenting to us will make it impossible to actually hear them.
This applies especially in the so-called "spiritual" arena where we already come ignorant by definition, assuming we consider ourselves to be a seeker.
The other problem is that Knowledge is conflated with Sainthood, even though those two have nothing to do with each other. That bias however makes people gravitate towards teachers and gurus who have the schtick down pat - soft talking, sweet demeanor, beaming smile, "appropriate" robes or clothing, a beatific look in the eyes, etc. that's all an act and has not a damned thing to do with knowledge. Not saying that someone can't be that way, but that if they are acting that way then they are acting.
Alan Watts is a perfect example because he clearly knew knowledge from ignorance. In fact, look at how well he was able to separate the two. So much so that he could not even apply it to himself. Maybe that just means the knowledge he had was incomplete, or maybe there was some other reason why he was unable to find deep ease and contentment with himself exactly as he is. But, if we are looking for someone ELSE to be walking the walk before taking on board the knowledge that they are disseminating, then maybe we should be looking in the mirror first and asking how exactly it is that we are judging them?