Critiques of Watts’s approach often begin with his way of presenting Asian traditions. He is said to blend elements of Advaita Vedānta, Mahāyāna Buddhism, Taoism, and Western thought into a smooth, accessible narrative that can oversimplify or blur real doctrinal differences. Scholars point to his selective, largely ahistorical treatment of “Eastern wisdom,” where complex traditions appear as a timeless metaphysical core rather than as living lineages with internal debates, ritual structures, and social dimensions. This has led to concerns about romanticizing “the East” as a unified, mystical corrective to a fragmented “West,” reinforcing familiar East–West stereotypes rather than offering a balanced comparative account.

From the standpoint of theology and traditional religious frameworks, his synthesis is frequently judged as too syncretic and relativistic. The move toward a “you are the universe” or “God as Self” vision is seen by many theistic critics as dissolving a personal God, sin, and salvation into a monistic psychology that sits uneasily with classical doctrines. Some argue that by treating the individual ego as a kind of social fiction and emphasizing ultimate nonduality, his account risks blurring the line between good and evil and weakening conventional grounds for moral responsibility. Traditionalists also object that he detaches insights from specific lineages, scriptures, and disciplined practice, thereby stripping them of the safeguards and ethical frameworks that originally shaped them.

Another cluster of criticisms focuses on method and practical impact. His prose can give a powerful sense of conceptual clarity, yet critics worry that this may encourage what has been called “instant enlightenment,” where intellectual understanding is mistaken for genuine realization. The relative lack of emphasis on sustained contemplative discipline, ethical training, or community can foster spiritual bypassing, with nondual ideas used to sidestep psychological work or personal responsibility. Psychologists and practitioners alike have noted that describing the ego as mere illusion or social construct can be misread as an attack on healthy ego-function and boundaries, especially in contexts where those are still being formed.

Finally, there are broader cultural and academic concerns. His work is often described as popularization rather than rigorous comparative philosophy, given the sparse citation of primary sources and the free mixing of concepts across traditions. This has raised questions about cultural appropriation and commodification, as Asian spiritual ideas are repackaged for Western consumption in a way that may disconnect them from the communities and ethical obligations in which they arose. Some critics also note that his focus on individual awakening and the world as a kind of cosmic play leaves relatively little space for grappling with suffering that is rooted in social, political, or economic structures. Together, these concerns suggest a tension between the brilliance of his synthesis and the depth, fidelity, and responsibility that many feel such teachings require.