2 ms·

> So either Buddhism doesn't work or Kerouac and Watts sucked at it. That, in turn, means that they are not reliable sources for information about how to do Bud

> So either Buddhism doesn't work or Kerouac and Watts sucked at it. That, in turn, means that they are not reliable sources for information about how to do Buddhism. This is a false dichotomy. An oncologist can write an excellent book about cancer and then die of cancer. Besides, what would make Kerouac and Watts charlatans would be: - If they claimed Zen to be a solution for alcoholism. They didn't. On the contrary, they honestly described their lifestyles. - If they acted like role models to be imitated. They didn't. - If they claimed to be authorities on the topic and/or have received formal training. They didn't.

kragen 5y ago
If all of an oncologist's patients die of cancer, look for a different oncologist. Shakyamuni claimed Buddhism to be a solution for alcoholism, though not always in a single lifetime. The central teaching of Buddhism is that life is suffering; that suffering arises from addiction (and some other things, as I mentioned above); that the ending of addiction (etc.) leads to the end of suffering; and that the path to ending addiction is [insert the rest of Buddhism here]. All modern schools of Buddhism agree on this formulation and that it is fairly central, although it is somewhat less central to Zen and other Mahayana schools than to Theravada schools, and although it seems to have been present and an important teaching since the beginning of Buddhism, it doesn't seem to have acquired its current degree of centrality in Theravada until only about 1500 years ago. So perhaps Kerouac and Watts claimed that Buddhism was not a solution for addiction, or perhaps they were silent on the topic; I don't know. But either of those two alternatives would imply that they rejected the essence of Buddhism, which in Kerouac's case would make him a charlatan.

2 ms·

> So either Buddhism doesn't work or Kerouac and Watts sucked at it. That, in turn, means that they are not reliable sources for information about how to do Bud

by goodpoint 5y ago

kragen 5y ago
If all of an oncologist's patients die of cancer, look for a different oncologist. Shakyamuni claimed Buddhism to be a solution for alcoholism, though not always in a single lifetime. The central teaching of Buddhism is that life is suffering; that suffering arises from addiction (and some other things, as I mentioned above); that the ending of addiction (etc.) leads to the end of suffering; and that the path to ending addiction is [insert the rest of Buddhism here]. All modern schools of Buddhism agree on this formulation and that it is fairly central, although it is somewhat less central to Zen and other Mahayana schools than to Theravada schools, and although it seems to have been present and an important teaching since the beginning of Buddhism, it doesn't seem to have acquired its current degree of centrality in Theravada until only about 1500 years ago. So perhaps Kerouac and Watts claimed that Buddhism was not a solution for addiction, or perhaps they were silent on the topic; I don't know. But either of those two alternatives would imply that they rejected the essence of Buddhism, which in Kerouac's case would make him a charlatan.