In this talk, Alan Watts explains the cultural presuppositions underpinning Taoism, Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, and consequently some of the problems and contradictions often linked to their adoption by Westerners. Essentially, his argument is that these systems are designed to achieve liberation from specific forms of cultural conditioning; for those who do not share those forms of cultural conditioning, they make considerably less sense, especially if not appropriately reinterpreted. It is particularly problematic when Westerners simultaneously attempt to adopt the cultural framework of reference as part of the practice, given that the practice is designed to liberate from that very cultural framework. Watts argues that esoteric forms of these religions were essentially conceived to protect them against social forces that otherwise would have repressed them, and that the esotericism is therefore epiphenomenal. He points out that any effort to supersede the ego which is driven by the ego, which is the case of any allegiance to a given doctrinal path, is doomed to failure. These are important insights.
I would disagree with him on two points: reincarnation is a widespread belief even in the West (surveys show upwards of 20% adherence). It also characterizes, in one form or another, many pre-agricultural societies. In my opinion, it has a phenomenological underpinning. I also don’t understand his claim that the thought of either Jung or Freud was shaped in any significant way by social Darwinism or Hegelianism. Nevertheless, I certainly do agree that there is a risk for those in the West who are attracted to Eastern religions to get caught up in exotic epiphenomena, mistaking these for essential features and essentially trading one set of religious rituals for another.
However, even within their own cultural context, we should be very careful not uncritically to suppose that these practices actually are efficacious. Mostly they are not even meant to be. Any religion has its mystical core simply because mysticism has been constrained to express itself in the language of the dominant surrounding religious culture. This core may inspire us and reward study, but it’s essentially the sedimentary residue of experience in other times and places; it is certainly no substitute for our own direct experience of the divine.